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.
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.
Nutrien Redwater Nitrogen Operations
CO₂ captured
747,155t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
—
Parasitic load
—MW
CO₂ concentration
7.0%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringHatch
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration7.0% mol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate—
Compression stages—
Compression inlet—
Compression discharge2,614 psia
Description
CO₂ capture from the SMR flue gas stacks located in Plant 01 and Plant 09 of the facility. Combined flue gases from each of the two sources would be collected and transported by ducts to the carbon capture facility. The design of the capture facility is 2,100 – 2,200 tpd of CO₂, including the CO₂ captured from the SMRs and additional flue gas generated from the steam boiler supplying the CCS unit. The CCS unit is to be designed for a minimum 30% plant turndown, this is to ensure the operation of CCS unit when flue gas from Plant 01 is the only feed to the CCS unit. For the purposes of the study the carbon capture facility design, including flue gas pretreatment and downstream CO₂ compression and dehydration, is provided by licensor. Hatch designed the flue gas transportation from the stacks to the Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) unit battery limit, flue gas pressure boosting and Balance of Plant (BOP) which includes all the utility and offsite systems
Phillips 66 / Rodeo Refinery
CO₂ captured
190,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
94.5%
Parasitic load
—MW
CO₂ concentration
18.0%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringWorley
Point source approachPre-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration18.0% vol%
Flue gas pressure20 psia
Compressor nameplate—
Compression stages5
Compression inlet25 psia
Compression discharge2,250 psia
Description
Phillips 66, with Worley Group Inc., is developing the initial design for a commercial-scale CCS system at the Rodeo Refinery hydrogen plant, targeting over 90% capture efficiency and storage of about 190,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually. The project will evaluate three capture configurations—flue gas plus PSA tail gas, syngas plus flue gas, and flue gas only—selecting the most cost-effective option through a techno-economic analysis. The chosen design will be advanced to a level suitable for the next engineering phase, concluding with a final TEA for the selected CCS configuration.