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.

CLECO / Brame Energy Center Madison 3 Unit

CoalFEED· Cleco Power· 2025-03-25
CO₂ captured
4,280,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
80.0%
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
14.1%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringSargent & Lundy
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration14.1% vol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge2,015 psia
Description
Cleco Power (Cleco) performed a three-phase front-end engineering and design (FEED) study evaluating installation of a carbon dioxide (CO2) Capture System at Madison Unit 3 (MU3), Project Diamond Vault (DV) The work was performed under a Department of Energy (DOE) grant DE-FE0032165. The FEED study included three phases: (1) a feasibility phase which sought to define the scope of the project, (2) a pre-FEED phase which sought to develop a detailed cost estimate, and (3) a final FEED phase which sought to develop the project to be ready to move into execution. The FEED study was completed by Cleco, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America (MHIA), and Sargent & Lundy, LLC (S&L) with oversight provided by the Louisiana Economic Development (LED). The feasibility phase was completed in February 2023, which was followed by the pre-FEED phase which concluded in January 2024. The project subsequently entered the final FEED phase, during this phase Cleco made the decision to stop work on the FEED study due to market conditions which resulted in a project that was not economically viable at the time.

CRC / Elk Hills Power Plant

Natural GasFEED· Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)· 2020-09-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
1,460,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
95.0%
Parasitic load
35MW
CO₂ concentration
4.3%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringFluor
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration4.3% mol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages7
Compression inlet
Compression discharge2,315 psia
Description
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with Fluor Corporation and California Resources Corporation (CRC), conducted a FEED study to assess the feasibility of retrofitting Fluor’s solvent for post-combustion CO₂ capture at the 550 MW Elk Hills NGCC power plant. The system aims to capture approximately 4,000 tonnes of CO₂ per day (75% of total emissions, or 90% of an 83% slipstream), with the captured CO₂ intended for enhanced oil recovery. Deliverables include the full engineering design package—such as process flow diagrams, equipment datasheets, and capital cost estimates—optimized for site-specific performance, operations, and construction practices.

Mustang Station Power Plant

Natural GasFEED· University of Texas at Austin· 2022-01-07Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
853,644t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
52.0%
Parasitic load
46MW
CO₂ concentration
3.8%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringAECOM
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration3.8% vol%
Flue gas pressure14 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages3
Compression inlet75 psia
Compression discharge2,015 psia
Description
The University of Texas at Austin, with AECOM Technical Services and Trimeric Corporation, is conducting a FEED study for the Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS) CO₂ capture process at Golden Spread Electric Cooperative’s Mustang Station in Denver City, Texas. Designed for two GE gas turbines with HRSGs and a steam turbine totaling 464 MWe, the PZAS process uses 30 wt% piperazine for higher efficiency, solvent stability, smaller absorber size, and cost savings compared to conventional amine systems. The project will deliver a 30–60% complete design package and a capital cost estimate with ±15% accuracy.