Displaying items by tag: CO2

The Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) has announced its aim to reduce CO₂ emissions by clinker producers by 20 - 25% by 2030. It made the announcement as part of a new action plan launched on 8 December 2015 at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21).

Most of the plan follows the CSI's existing aims announced to chime with the on-going COP21 negotiations. The plan depends on a long-term agreement being brokered successfully in Paris at COP21 as a whole. It then recommends policy in each of its key areas to achieve its goals. All of this sits beneath a general policy statement to, '...encourage policies for predictable, objective, level-playing and stable CO₂ constraints and incentives as well as energy frameworks on an international level.'

The Cement Action Plan is part of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development Low Carbon Technology Partnerships initiative (LCTPi). It puts together a series of measures to aspire to reduce CO₂ emissions by 1Gt by 2030 compared to business as usual. However this reduction is dependent on the entire cement industry getting involved, not just the existing 26 CSI members. Together these 26 members represent just a quarter of world cement production.

The drop in emissions is based on the so-called 'best-in-class' CSI company 2020 targets. To reach this the CSI is suggesting actions including focusing on recording Chinese cement industry emissions and energy usage, improving energy efficiency, promoting co-processing of alternative fuels, further lowering the clinker factor of cements, developing new low-energy and low-carbon cements, looking at the entire build chain to reduce emissions and considering other options such as carbon capture and storage. The plan had the support of the CEOs of 16 cement companies at its launch, with CNBM CEO Song Zhiping adding his assent at the event also.

The most prominent step is the clear focus on China for data capture using existing CSI tools such as the CO₂ and Energy Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, the Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) and the Cement Technology Roadmaps. As the CSI puts it, "What gets measured gets managed."

Given that China produces around 60% of the world's cement, according to United States Geological Survey data, the focus on China is essential. Currently the CSI has six Chinese members: CNBM, Sinoma, China Resources, Tianrui Group, West China Cement and Yati Group. Notable exceptions to CSI membership from the world's biggest cement producers include the Chinese producers Anhui Conch and Taiwan Cement, as well as Russia's Eurocement and India's Aditya Birla Group.

So, the CSI has set out its stall ahead of a hoped-for global agreement on climate change at the Paris conference. If some sort of legal agreement is reached then the CSI has its recommendations ready in the wings to hand to policymakers everywhere to promote its aims. If no agreement is reached then the plan loses momentum although pushing forwards makes sense where possible, starting with better CO₂ data reported especially in China.

Problems lie ahead for the CSI whatever happens in Paris given that the LCTPi Cement Action Plan is a series of policy suggestions from only 16 cement producers aiming for a non-binding target. For example, without some sort of world legal agreement there are clear commercial advantages for non-CSI members to burn cheap fossil fuels in their kilns and undercut their more environmentally pious rivals. The sustaining low cost of oil, dipping below US$40/barrel this week, can only aggravate this situation and distract the strategies of fuel buyers away from co-processing upgrades.

One highlight from the cement industry news over the last month was Skyonic's announcement that it has opened a commercial-scale carbon capture unit at the Capitol Aggregates cement plant in Texas, US. Details were light, but the press release promised that the unit was expected to generate US$48m/yr in revenue for an outlay of US$125m. Potentially, the implications for the process are profound, so it is worth considering some of the issues here.

Firstly, it is unclear from the public information released whether the process will actually make a profit. The revenue figures for the Skyonic unit are predictions and are dependent on the markets that the products (sodium biocarbonate, hydrogen and chlorine) will be sold into. Skyonic CEO and founder, Joe Jones, has said in interview that the sodium-based product market by itself could only support 200 - 250 plants worldwide using this process. Worldwide there are over 2000 integrated cement plants. Since Jones is selling his technology his market prediction might well be optimistic. It is also uncertain how existing sodium biocarbonate producers will react to this new source of competition.

Secondly, Skyonic is hoping to push the cost of carbon capture down to US$20/t. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and transportation varies between industries depending on the purity and concentration of the by-product. For example, in 2011 the US Energy Information Administration estimated the cost for CO₂ capture to range from US$36.10/t for coal and biomass-to-liquids conversion up to US$81.08/t for cement plants. The difference being that capturing CO₂ from cement plant flue gas emissions requires more cleaning or scrubbing of other unwanted chemicals such as mercury.

With these limitations in mind, Skyonic is placing itself in competition with the existing flue gas scrubbing market rather than the carbon capture market, since the level of CO₂ removal can be scaled to local legislation. Plus, SO_x, NO₂, mercury and other heavy metals can be removed in the process.

Back on carbon capture, Skyonic is securing finance for a process it calls Skycycle, which will produce calcium-based products from CO₂, with a pilot plant planned at Capitol Aggregates for late 2015. This puts Skyonic back amongst several other pilot projects that are running around the world.

Taiwan Cement and the Industrial Technology Research Institute inaugurated their calcium looping project pilot in mid-2013. It was last reported to have a CO₂ capture rate of 1t/hr.

The Norcem cement plant in Brevik, Norway started in early 2014 to test and compare four different types of post-combustion carbon capture technologies at its pilot unit. These are Aker Solutions Amine Technology, RTI Solid Sorbent Technology, DNV GL/ NTNU/ Yodfat Engineers Membrane Technology and Alstom Power Regenerative Calcium Cycle. The project in conjunction with HeidelbergCement and the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA) is scheduled to run until 2017.

St Marys Cement in St Marys, Canada started its bioreactor pilot project in July 2014. This process uses flue gas to grow algae that can then be used for bio-oil, food, fertiliser and sewage treatment.

If Skyonic is correct then its sodium biocarbonate process in Texas is a strong step towards cutting CO₂ emissions in the cement industry. Unfortunately, it looks like it can only be a step since the market won't support large-scale adoption of this technology. Other pilots are in progress but they are unlikely to gather momentum until legislation forces cement producers to adopt these technologies or someone devises a method that pays for the capture cost.

An update on the algae bioreactor project at Votorantim's St Marys cement plant in Canada this week provides a good opportunity to review this particular aspect of carbon sequestration. The project, run with Pond Biofuels, went live in 2009. It has now reached its third generation bioreactor at the site.

Little or no performance data has been released generally so we have no way at present of knowing how viable the process is commercially. Cement backers, Brazilian firm Votorantim, are certainly excited by the project even if only for the sustainability kudos it gives them. Director Edvaldo Araújo Rabello presented the project as one of the company's highlights at a keynote presentation at the 6°CBC Congresso do Cimento held in São Paulo, Brazil in May 2014.

One hurdle for the St Marys pilot is the relative lack of light, a required input for algae photosynthesis, even in Canada's most southerly state. Pond Biofuels have reportedly dodged this by using continuously flashing LEDs to simulate artificially short days that encourage growth. On paper or powerpoint a process that could potentially cut even a proportion of CO₂ emissions from a cement plant sounds enticing. Yet if it creates more CO₂ than it saves, through electricity requirements for example, than it isn't worth using.

This is probably what shelved Lafarge's Carbon Capture and Transformation project. It ran a pilot project at its Val d'Azergues plant in France in 2009 with Salata GmbH. The pilot worked but the researchers decided that new advances in processes and biotechnology were required to make the economic and environmental results better. Other companies have also had problems. Holcim started its Aurantia – GreenFuel project in late 2007 at its Jerez cement plant in Spain, backing it with an investment US$92m. This project stalled when GreenFuel shut in 2009 citing lack of funding as the recession hit.

ACC in India also reportedly started its own algae project in 2007, mentioning it in its sustainability report, but nothing more has been reported since. Since this burst of interest InterCement has invested US$2.5m towards algae research in 2013 working with the Federal University of São Carlos, the Federal University of Santa Maria and Algae Biotecnologia.

Algae-based carbon projects for cement plants may remain stuck in the research stage but the market for biofuels continues to grow. For example, this week we report that Ohorongo Cement in Namibia plans to increase its use of blackthorn as a biofuel to use as an alternative fuel in co-processing. The prospects of turning waste CO₂ into a valuable commodity remains uncertain, but the rewards are great. Let's wait and see what St Marys can do.

In late November 2013 Guangdong province in China announced that it will be launching its carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) in December 2013. Together with six other pilot projects in China the scheme will be the second largest carbon market in the world after the European Union (EU) when fully operational. Yet with the EU ETS floundering from excess carbon permits, with a resulting low price of permits and large cement producers such as a Lafarge reported as stockpiling permits, what are the Chinese schemes planning to do differently to avoid these pitfalls?

Overall, China has announced that it intends to cut its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by up to 45% by 2020 compared to 2005. In Guangdong, emissions from 202 companies will be capped at 350Mt for 2013, according to the local Development and Reform Commission. As shown in an article in the December 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine, Guangdong province has a cement production capacity of 132.7Mt/yr, the second highest in the country after Anhui province.

From the perspective of the cement industry, Chunfang Wang from Huaxin Cement spoke about the importance of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) at an International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) workshop that took place in Guangzhou, Guangdong in early 2013. From Wang's perspective, emission assessment standards were at a 'developmental' stage in China and 'smooth' carbon trading would depend on consistent standards being adopted everywhere. Although at the time the particulars of the Guangdong scheme were unknown, participants at the IETA event advised cooperation with scheme planners to ensure emission producers and purchasers remained part of the decision process. Sliding carbon prices in the EU ETS may have been beneficial for permit buyers but once the government planners become involved to revive the market they might lose out.

As the Economist pointed out the summer of 2013, an ETS is a cap-and-trade scheme. Since China appears to have no definite cap to carbon emissions, how can the trading work? The Chinese schemes cap carbon per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Yet since GDP is dependent on production, any ETS run in this way would have to include adjustments at the end of trading. This would give central planners of the scheme plenty of wiggle room to rig the scheme. Worse yet, analysts Thomson Reuters Point Carbon have pointed out that the Chinese schemes face over-allocation of permits, the same issue that sank EU carbon prices. Additionally, one of the criticisms of the Guangdong Emissions Trading Scheme (GETS) pilot scheme was that the carbon prices may have been higher than expected due to market collusion.

The Chinese ETS projects face issues over their openness. If traders don't know accurately how much carbon dioxide is being produced by industry, such as cement production, then the scheme may be undermined. Similarly, over-allocating carbon permits may make it easier for producers to meet targets but it will cause problems in the trading price of carbon. However, given that a carbon emissions cap is an artificial mechanism to encourage markets to cut emissions, should any of these concerns really matter? The main question for Chinese citizens is whether or not China can cut its overall emissions and clear the air in its smog filled mega-cities.

Specifically for cement producers, it seems likely that large producers will be able to cope with the scheme best, from having more carbon permits to sell, to rolling out unified emissions assessment protocols, to liaising better with scheme planners. In Europe smaller cement producers, like Ecocem, have criticised the EU ETS for slowing a transition to a low carbon economy by subsidising the larger producers' emissions through over-allocation. In China, with its self-declared intention to consolidate an over-producing cement industry, whatever else happens it seems likely that smaller cement producers may become lost in the haze.

Cement production took an unnecessarily harsh rap from the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The cause? Misleading wording.

In its summary for policymakers from Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5), every time CO₂ emissions were mentioned, cement was also mentioned. Typically this was along the lines of: "annual CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production". Energy supply or transport industries were not mentioned. Only cement was. Subsequently in some general press reports covering the IPCC report, cement was duly parroted as the major industrial source of CO₂ emissions.

Digging into the data revealed that this particular wording derived from one of the data sources that the IPCC used that examined global CO₂ emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture and gas flaring from 1751 - 2008 from the US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Here cement production was grouped along with different type of fossil fuels, such as gas, liquids and solids, and gas flaring. Deeper into the IPCC draft report it was revealed (using this research) that total cumulative emissions between 1750 and 2011 amounted to 365 ± 30 PgC (1 PgC = 10¹⁵ grams of carbon), of which only 8 PgC (2%) came from the production of cement.

Undoubtedly the cement industry's carbon emissions are huge but ambiguous wording in a release targeted for policymakers is not helpful.

Thankfully at about the same time as the IPCC made headlines last week European Cement Association, Cembureau, followed the UK's Mineral Products Association (MPA) in releasing its own lobbying document for the industry. This consisted of five parallel routes to lowering emissions related to cement production. Unfortunately Cembureau's press release didn't receive the global media coverage that the IPCC did.

The bottom line is this: cement is essential for modern industrial societies.

With or without climate change caused by human behaviour, we will all need somewhere to live and work. For the moment such structures will be built from cement and concrete. Organisations like Cembureau offer a way forward. Global policymakers should pay attention.

New Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) data for 2011 shows that the global cement industry has reduced its specific net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious product by 17% since 1990. This represents a serious amount of carbon prevented from entering the atmosphere. Using United States Geological Survey (USGS) world production data, if cement producers in 2011 were still emitting C0₂ at 1990 levels 456Bt of additional CO₂ would have been released between 1990 and 2011.

Unfortunately there are a couple of problems.

Firstly, submitting data for the project is voluntary. As the CSI points out in its press release the data set comprises 55% of cement production outside of China. A rough calculation based on global cement production capacity suggests that this could only account for about one third of cement made. So how much carbon does the other two-thirds of cement made emit?

Secondly, although CO₂ emissions per tonne of cement have gone down by a sixth since 1990, global cement production more than tripled (!) in the same time period. USGS data placed world production at 1.40Bt in 1990. It estimated 3.59Bt in 2011. In terms of net CO₂ released into the atmosphere, in 1990 this was 1058Bt. In 2011 it was 2260Bt.

The big cement producers compare as follows to the CSI data, which reports emissions of 629kg/t. Lafarge reported 592kg/t cementitious in 2011 and 585kg/t in 2012. Holcim reported 584kg/t in 2011 and 579kg/t in 2012. HeidelbergCement reported 621kg/t in 2011. Cemex reported 612kg/t in 2011 and 2012. No data on specific net CO₂ emissions were available for the major Chinese cement producers.

The CSI data shows that the cement industry has made an effort to reduce CO₂ emissions since 1990. Yet this has been counteracted by a rise in cement production. To compensate for the rise in production between 1990 and 2011 the specific net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious product would have had to have fallen to below 300kg/t, a drop of 60%.

Environmentally sensitive readers shouldn't despair yet though as the CSI has demonstrated that emissions and production are gradually separating in the cement industry. From 2010 to 2011 specific net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious product fell from 638kg/t to 629kg/t. If this trend continues - and if it is representative for the cement producers the CSI doesn't cover – then the industry may be getting a handle on its emissions. We may be about to hit peak emissions for the cement industry sooner rather than later.

The Mineral Products Association (MPA), which looks after the interests of the cement industry (and other allied industries) in the UK, has said that it welcomes a temporary tax-freeze relating to climate change announced in the UK Budget of 20 March 2013. The MPA singled out the decision to freeze the indexation of the Aggregates Levy until April 2014 and the decision to introduce the Climate Change Levy mineralogical and metallurgical exemption for energy-intensive industries such as cement and lime.

Both of these moves by UK Chancellor George Osborne have been welcomed because they bring some relief to the UK cement industry and wider construction activities. MPA members make money from such activites and any potential cost that can be eliminated or delayed, even for a short time, is welcome amid the current slump that is the UK economy. This is especially true as the UK weathers the one of the longest and most severe winters for 50 years. So far, so much sense.

However, how does this reaction to the Climate Change Levy exemption tie in with the MPA's February 2013 announcement that it thinks that the UK cement industry's total CO₂ emissions should be reduced by 81% by 2050? What should UK cement producers make of this?

The MPA's cement industry CO₂ reduction targets are certainly bold. On the face of it, they look achievable given the progress that has been made to date by the UK cement industry, although much is left to the imagination as to which areas could and should contribute most to the reduction target. The 81% reduction target includes the successful future commercial development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. It also relies on an increased proportion of renewable sources for the electricity that the cement industry will receive in 2050, something else that is totally out of the industry's control.

However, much hard work has already been done by cement companies in the UK. As in other EU countries and developed nations, total dust and toxic emissions have fallen dramatically in the UK cement industry since 1990. The country's alternative fuel substitution rate has now hit ~40%. Yet, as the MPA highlights in its document detailing the targets for 2050, much of the low-hanging fruit has already been taken. Further reduction in overall CO₂ emissions will be significantly affected by both regulations and cement company progress. 

Cement companies can increase their consumption of 'wastes' and fit waste-heat recovery systems. Through such measures they can achieve further reductions in emissions. Some kilns have hit alternative fuel substitution rates of 100% for limited periods and examples from the near continent show that 80% alternative fuels can be the norm. However, unlike these 'bottom-up' approaches, which can be introduced at a plant in a period of months, regulations take years to evolve and come into force, often involving slow and lengthly debate by politicians, associations and consumers.

To discourage the government from seeking to impose stricter environmental regulations for the cement industry by welcoming the exemption, is the MPA undercutting its own calls to reduce CO2 emissions in the UK cement industry? From a cement producer's perspective, it looks like the MPA could hold two contradictory opinions on the same subject: that you can welcome reductions in climate regulation while also calling for stricter emissions regulations. This phenomenon was famously termed 'double think' by George Orwell in his classic novel '1984,' but the MPA's situation is far more subtle. Often the regulators and those being regulated can agree on the same target but not on how that target should be reached. The next 37 years will show whether or not this target is even possible.

As 2012 draws to a close the challenges posed by the Australian carbon tax to the Australian cement industry are starting to show. First, Holcim Australia announced it was to lay off 150 staff. Then Boral released the news that it was planning to cut 90 jobs at its Waurn Ponds cement plant.

Following years of debate the Gillard government introduced the Clean Energy Act in July 2012. Heavy polluters were initially charged US$23/t of CO₂ emitted, more than twice the cost of similar schemes in Europe where it is US$10/t. A key criticism of the scheme was that it would damage the Australian domestic cement industry with cheap imports. However the Australian government cushioned the move with compensation packages for major polluters, including cement producers, currently set to last five years.

Although the Australian cement industry hasn't totally collapsed, with the loss of 1800 jobs as the Australian Federal Opposition warned of in 2011, imports have been favoured in recent months. Boral's suspension of clinker production at Waurn Ponds will increase imports. The change will result in 25-30% of Boral's clinker being imported. It's worth noting that Boral pointed out in its press release that this was 'in-line' with the Australian industry.

Adelaide Brighton, the country's third biggest producer after Holcim and Boral, may not have laid anybody off but it has secured a 10-year supply of foreign clinker. On 5 December 2012 the building materials producer announced that it was going to a buy a 30% stake in Malaysian white clinker and white cement producer, Aalborg Portland Malaysia. In the accompanying press statement the company's chief financial officer explicitly blamed the carbon tax as one of the reasons for the acquisition.

Whether the job losses at Boral and Holcim can be totally blamed on the carbon tax remains to be seen. Boral's second-half profit for the year ending 30 June 2012 suffered a fall of 59% to US$35.7m. Holcim noted weaker demand outside of mining regions for the third quarter of 2012. By contrast, Adelaide Brighton reported steady gains in its half-year report for 2012 although cement sales only increased 'marginally'. Elsewhere in its report Adelaide Brighton stated that it would cope with the impact of the carbon tax by reducing reliance on domestic manufacturing. These can hardly be comforting words for the Australian cement industry.

According to government advisors cement producers pay more in the UK than other nations for their electricity and it's getting worse.

A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) report published on Friday 13 July 2012 has shown that firms in the UK will be forced to pay an extra Euro36 in green taxes on top of the market price they pay for every megawatt hour of electricity by 2020 due to climate policies. This compares with Euro22 in Germany, Euro20 in Denmark, Euro19.3 in France and Euro12.7 in China.

As the Mineral Products Association (MPA) put it, "...cement is an internationally traded commodity and, if it costs more to make it here than to import it, then we are threatening a strategic indigenous manufacturing industry for no environmental gain." Or to put it more bluntly, if the cost of importing cement from France to the UK is less than the energy saving then say 'goodbye' to the UK cement industry. The issue raises one of the core problem of any carbon tax in a global economy. If your neighbours don't have the same tax as you then they can undercut you. Similar arguments rage in Australia and the US.

The UK will be the first country with legally binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020, with a pledge to introduce a carbon floor price of Euro19.98/t in 2013. As Edwin Trout explained in his recent article in Global Cement Magazine on the British Cement Industry in 2011 and 2012 the government took steps to address this in November 2011 with a Euro318m package for energy-intensive industries. Unfortunately as the MPA has now pointed out, the cement industry is ineligible for the first Euro140m of this package because the EU has ruled against such support for the sector in relation to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

Unsurprisingly alternative fuels trials are thriving in the UK, such as that at Lafarge UK's Aberthaw plant, which celebrates 100 years of operation this weekend.