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.

Milton R. Young Power Plant

CoalFEED· Minnkota Power Cooperative· 2023-02-20Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
4,297,145t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
85.0%
Parasitic load
83.3MW
CO₂ concentration
8.6%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringFluor
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration8.6% vol%
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate44.4 MW
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge1,690 psia
Description
Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 is conducting a FEED study to add a post-combustion CO₂ capture system using Fluor’s Econamine FG Plus™ technology to its lignite-fueled power plant in North Dakota. The design targets 3.6 million tonnes of CO₂ captured annually—twice the scale of the largest existing facility—while integrating advanced heat recovery, aerosol and solvent degradation controls, and cold-climate optimization to achieve the lowest levelized cost of capture at world scale. The study will deliver detailed design, cost, and performance data for financing, permitting, and final project scheduling.

Nutrien Redwater Nitrogen Operations

AmmoniaFEED· Nutrien· 2024-11-01Project page ↗
CO₂ captured
1,778,645t/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
Studied the replacement of the SMR units with auto-thermal reforming (ATR) technology. ATRs produce a high concentration CO₂ stream, instead of low concentration combustion flue gases, that is more efficient to capture for sequestration. H₂ production from the unit may also be oversized to provide H₂ as a fuel source for the ATR if target overall CO₂ recovery of the facility is not achieved with the replacement of the SMR alone. The facility capacity is based on the total H₂ production requirements of the existing Plant 01 and Plant 09 ammonia synthesis units. 3 | P a g e Public – Approved for external distribution The scope for the study involves the SMR unit replacement with an integrated ATR and downstream syngas purification including CO₂ capture. The project scope also includes an Air Separation Unit (ASU) to supply oxygen to the ATR unit.

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.