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.

Nutrien Redwater Nitrogen Operations

AmmoniaFEED· Nutrien· 2024-11-01Project page ↗
CO₂ captured
683,645t/yr
Capture efficiency
99.0%
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
Scope starts with the receipt of natural gas and fuel gas mixture from the existing Plant 01 and Plant 09 source and terminates with hydrogen (H₂) at the required specification and conditions to be used as fuel in the existing SMR unit. High concentration CO₂ from the ATR is captured and H₂ production from the proposed facility will replace the fuel gas feed to the primary reformer for heating. The facility capacity is based on the heating duty required to replace the current fuel source. The scope for the study involves the new ATR unit and associated downstream shift, CO₂ capture, and syngas purification unit. The project scope also includes an ASU to supply oxygen to the ATR unit.

Linde Hydrogen Plant

Hydrogenpre-FEED· Praxair· 2022-11-03Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
1,360,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
18.3%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringLinde Engineering
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration18.3% mol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge
Description
Linde Inc., with Linde Engineering Americas and BASF, is conducting an initial engineering design for a 3,500 tonnes/day CO₂ capture plant using Linde-BASF’s advanced aqueous amine technology at a Linde-owned steam methane reforming facility. The project will define integration options, establish project requirements, optimize process design, and develop engineering, cost, and schedule packages. BASF will provide the technology design, LEA will deliver detailed engineering and constructability assessments, and Linde will lead techno-economic, environmental, and safety analyses in coordination with the SMR plant operators.

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.