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.

Gerald Gentleman Station

CoalFEED· ION Clean Energy· 2023-03-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
4,316,020t/yr
Capture efficiency
89.8%
Utilization
85.0%
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
Facility scope
EngineeringSargent & Lundy
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages6
Compression inlet
Compression discharge2,115 psia
Description
ION Clean Energy, with Nebraska Public Power District, is conducting a FEED study to retrofit a CO₂ capture system on Unit 2 of the 700 MWe Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska. Using ION’s low-aqueous ICE-21 solvent, proven in prior DOE-funded projects to reduce energy use, solvent degradation, and emissions, the design will feature two parallel 350 MWe capture units. The project aims to decarbonize most of Unit 2 while maintaining maximum operational flexibility for the plant.

Southern Company / Plant Barry

Compression and Dehydration· Trimeric· 2020-02-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
4,200,000t/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 nameplate45 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

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.