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.
CEMEX / Balcones Cement Plant
CO₂ captured
2,400,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
74.0%
Parasitic load
—MW
CO₂ concentration
12.8%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringSargent and Lundy
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration12.8% mol%
Flue gas pressure14 psia
Compressor nameplate46 MW
Compression stages5
Compression inlet—
Compression discharge2,215 psia
Description
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.
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
Southern Company / Plant Barry
CO₂ captured
1,000,000t/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 nameplate8.7 MW
Compression stages8
Compression inlet30 psia
Compression discharge1,514 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 8-stage compression to 1,500 psig.