Carbon Capture Costs: FEED & pre-FEED Cost Reports

This report summarizes Trimeric’s Phase II work under the SSEB ECO2S project in Kemper County, Mississippi, focused on Task 7 – Infrastructure Development. Trimeric evaluated CO₂ compression and dehydration costs, compared pumping versus compression for dense phase CO₂, and developed pipeline transport cost estimates. Using experience from past projects, screening-level designs and cost estimates were prepared for a nominal 1 MTPY case and scaled to site-specific conditions. Results showed that increasing discharge pressure modestly raises costs, with pumping offering slight savings and operational flexibility but added complexity. Pipeline costs were estimated using NPC benchmarks, while compression and dehydration costs were scaled for Plant Daniel, Plant Miller, and Kemper. Overall, capital costs were roughly three times equipment costs, with electricity for compression as the dominant operating expense. The costs are associated with Six-stage compression to 1,500 psig, followed by pumping to 2,050 psig

Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 is conducting a FEED study to add a post-combustion CO₂ capture system using Fluor’s Econamine FG Plus™ technology to its lignite-fueled power plant in North Dakota. The design targets 3.6 million tonnes of CO₂ captured annually—twice the scale of the largest existing facility—while integrating advanced heat recovery, aerosol and solvent degradation controls, and cold-climate optimization to achieve the lowest levelized cost of capture at world scale. The study will deliver detailed design, cost, and performance data for financing, permitting, and final project scheduling.

This report summarizes Trimeric’s Phase II work under the SSEB ECO2S project in Kemper County, Mississippi, focused on Task 7 – Infrastructure Development. Trimeric evaluated CO₂ compression and dehydration costs, compared pumping versus compression for dense phase CO₂, and developed pipeline transport cost estimates. Using experience from past projects, screening-level designs and cost estimates were prepared for a nominal 1 MTPY case and scaled to site-specific conditions. Results showed that increasing discharge pressure modestly raises costs, with pumping offering slight savings and operational flexibility but added complexity. Pipeline costs were estimated using NPC benchmarks, while compression and dehydration costs were scaled for Plant Daniel, Plant Miller, and Kemper. Overall, capital costs were roughly three times equipment costs, with electricity for compression as the dominant operating expense. The costs are associated with Six-stage compression to 1,500 psig, followed by pumping to 2,050 psig