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.

Scottish Power / Longannet Power Station

Natural GasFEED· ScottishPower· 2011-04-01Project page ↗
CO₂ captured
2,000,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
Facility scope
EngineeringAker Carbon Capture
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages5
Compression inlet
Compression discharge473 psia
Description
In March 2010, the Scottish CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage) Consortium began an extensive Front End, Engineering and Design (FEED) study to assess what exactly would be required from an engineering, commercial and regulatory, perspective in order to progress the CCS demonstration project at Longannet Power station in Scotland (Goldeneye) through to construction. The study has yielded invaluable knowledge in areas such as cost, design, end-to-end CCS chain operation, health and safety, environment, consent and permitting, risk management, and lessons learnt.

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.

Southern Company / Plant Barry

Compression and Dehydration· Trimeric· 2020-02-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
2,400,000t/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 nameplate25.7 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