Tools

Carbon Capture Costs: FEED & pre-FEED Cost Reports

Carbon capture costs from pre-FEED and FEED studies across power, cement, steel, natural gas, hydrogen and other industrial sectors. Browse capital (capex) and operating (opex) cost estimates from publicly available engineering reports, drill down into cost buckets and line items, and compare up to three projects side-by-side.

3 of 3 selectedClear selection46 reports
Comparing 3 reports — tab selection applies to every column.

Southern Company / Plant Barry

Compression and Dehydration· Trimeric· 2020-02-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
4,200,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
Utilization
95.0%
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
99.0%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringTrimeric
Point source approachCompression and Dehydration
CO₂ concentration99.0% vol%
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate45 MW
Compression stages6
Compression inlet30 psia
Compression discharge2,065 psia
Description
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 directly to 2,050 psig

Linde / Port Arthur Facility

Hydrogenpre-FEED· Linde· 2023-12-04Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
1,435,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
92.0%
Utilization
90.0%
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
16.2%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringKiewit (EPC costs for Svante’s equipment, steam generators, and OSBL construction), Linde (EPC costs for CO₂ purification/compression and EP costs for OSBL utilities)
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration16.2% mol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge
Description
Linde Inc., with Linde Engineering Americas, Linde Engineering Dresden, and Svante Inc., is completing an initial engineering design for a commercial-scale CO₂ capture plant at its steam methane reforming hydrogen facility in Port Arthur, Texas. Using Svante’s VeloxoTherm™ solid adsorbent technology, the system will capture about 1 million tonnes of CO₂ annually at ≥90% efficiency while producing 99.97% pure “blue” hydrogen. The design will include ISBL units for flue gas conditioning and CO₂ purification, OSBL components, and a techno-economic analysis of capture costs and hydrogen production economics.

Southern Company / Plant Barry

Compression and Dehydration· Trimeric· 2020-02-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
4,200,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
Utilization
95.0%
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
99.0%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringTrimeric
Point source approachCompression and Dehydration
CO₂ concentration99.0% vol%
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate43.3 MW
Compression stages8
Compression inlet30 psia
Compression discharge1,515 psia
Description
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 8-stage compression to 1,500 psig