Carbon Capture Costs: FEED & pre-FEED Cost Reports

The CEMEX Balcones Carbon Capture project is a DOE-supported Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) study evaluating commercial-scale deployment of RTI International’s non-aqueous solvent (NAS) technology at the Balcones cement plant in New Braunfels, Texas. The study assessed capture of approximately 2.4 million tonnes of CO₂ per year at roughly 95% capture efficiency from cement kiln flue gas and an associated natural gas–fired boiler, developing an AACE Class 3 cost estimate and detailed engineering design to support future investment decisions. Led by RTI International with KBR as EPC engineering contractor and SLB Capturi as owner’s engineer and technology licensor, the project evaluated integration challenges such as limited cooling water availability, resulting in a hybrid air- and water-cooling configuration. The FEED estimated total project capital costs of about $849 million and annual operating costs of approximately $109 million, providing a techno-economic basis for large-scale cement decarbonization and future project execution planning.

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is leading a FEED study for a commercial-scale CO₂ capture system at Holcim’s Ste. Genevieve cement plant in Missouri, targeting 95% capture efficiency. Using Air Liquide’s Cryocap™ technology, which combines PSA pre-concentration with cryogenic purification, the system will produce high-purity CO₂ for storage near the Prairie State Generating Company in Illinois. UIUC will manage the project and perform economic and impact analyses, while Air Liquide, Kiewit, Visage Energy, and Holcim will contribute to design, safety, environmental, and site integration efforts.

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