Displaying items by tag: CO2

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.