Carbon Capture Costs: FEED & pre-FEED Cost Reports

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.

Tampa Electric Company, with ION Clean Energy, Sargent & Lundy, Koch Specialty Plant Services, and Siemens Energy, completed a FEED study to retrofit post-combustion CO2 capture onto Unit 2 of the Polk Power Station, a 1,190 MWe (1,168 MWe net) 4x4x1 natural gas combined cycle plant in Mulberry, Florida. Using ION Clean Energy's ICE-31 advanced solvent across two parallel capture trains, the design targets at least 95% capture, nearly 3.7 million tonnes of CO2 per year, with downstream Siemens compression and dehydration and integrated pipeline transport to dedicated Class VI geologic storage. Each train includes a direct contact cooler, absorber, stripper, and compression, with the absorber columns sized to support 1x1 operation at 75% combustion turbine load to preserve dispatch flexibility. The study was funded under DOE Award DE-FE0032224 and produced an AACE Class 3 (-20%/+30%) capital cost and cost-of-capture estimate.

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