![](/templates/proglobalmedia-main/images/globe-blue-whitebg.gif)
Displaying items by tag: Government
China to cap clinker production capacity
12 June 2024The National Development and Reform Commission and other government bodies in China released plans this week to cap clinker production capacity at 1.8Bnt/yr by the end of 2025. Energy efficiency of existing capacity will be used as the driver to determine which production lines can remain open. 30% of capacity will be required to be above the benchmark energy efficiency level. Plants below this line will be obliged to upgrade or face elimination.
Points of interest from the longer release include detail on how the authorities intend to promote energy efficiency. Installing improved production line equipment is as might be expected. However, there is also a drive towards low-carbon fuel substitution such as an increased thermal substitution rate (TSR) through the use of alternative fuels (AF), promotion of renewable energy sources and, interestingly, no new cement plants will be able to add captive coal power plants. The government is targeting a TSR of 10% by the end of 2025 with 30% of lines using AF in some form or another. A plan to reduce the clinker factor in cement is also being pushed through for the increased use of blast furnace slag, fly ash, carbide slag, manganese slag and other supplementary cementitious materials. This last point might have big implications for the ferrous slag export market but that’s a story for another day.
Working out how much these new measures will affect the cement sector in China in the short term is not straightforward since it’s unclear what the country’s actual production capacity is and how much of it is actually active. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China showed that cement output was 2.02Bnt in 2023. The China Cement Association (CCA) estimated that the capacity utilisation rate was 59% in 2023. So, if the sector were using all of its integrated cement plants flat out, then one might crudely suppose that the national production capacity might be around 3.5Bnt/yr. This guess does not take into account the prevalence of blended cements and a whole host of other factors so should be treated with caution. Given that cement output fell by 5% year-on-year in 2023, output could be just over 1.8Bnt in 2025 if the rate of decline holds. Research by Reuters in April 2024, suggested that the capacity utilisation rate hit 50% in that month, suggesting that the sector could meet the target in 2024 if it’s a particularly bad year. So, provided the production cap is enacted along the same lines of peak-shifting, where plants are temporarily shut for periods, then the target looks well within reach.
As reported in April 2024, the Chinese cement sector has faced rationalisation in recent years as the real estate market collapsed. Output peaked in 2020 and then fell subsequently. Most of the big producers endured falling sales volumes, revenue and profit in 2022, although some managed to resist the continuing decline in 2023. One coping mechanism has been to focus on overseas markets as proposed by the government’s Belt and Road initiative. Huaxin Cement has been a particular proponent of this strategy. The CCA says that China-based companies have invested in and built 43 clinker production lines in 21 countries with a cement production capacity of 81Mt/yr. Another 43Mt/yr of capacity is currently being built outside of China with yet another 25Mt/yr of capacity proposed for construction.
It is interesting, then, to note that the CCA issued an official warning this week to its members to invest ‘cautiously’ in Uzbekistan. The association said in a statement that at the end of April 2024 the country had 46 integrated production lines with a cement production capacity of 38Mt/yr. This is double the country’s demand for cement. Half of this production capacity is managed by China-based companies. It added that the utilisation rate was currently 50%, that the price had dropped by about 40% since 2020 and that competition was ‘fierce.’ Incredibly, another 7Mt/yr of capacity is expected to be added in 2024. The CCA has advised Chinese companies to consider the state of the Uzbek cement market before making any more investments.
The two news stories we have explored this week cover two sides of the same issue: Chinese cement overcapacity. The local market is finally slowing down after a period of phenomenal growth and the big question is what is the actual market demand now that all the big stuff has already been built. The government gives every impression it is using the decline to meet its sustainability goals. Like institutions in many other places it has set itself targets that it seems likely to meet. The flipside of overcapacity at home is investment overseas. China-based plant equipment manufacturers have certainly done well out of this situation. Yet in Uzbekistan, at least, it looks like the cement sector in China has also managed to export its overcapacity. This has created the absurd situation where the CCA has implored its members and others to exercise the same self-discipline abroad that the government extols at home. Another way to put this might be that Chinese cement companies are increasingly unable to make money at home… or in Uzbekistan. This then leaves a query over where else enthusiastic Chinese cement investors may be causing market imbalances. One solution might be for the Chinese government to impose a cap on clinker production by its companies outside the mainland. Whatever happens next though, the introduction of a capacity cap in mainland China marks a decisive change to the local cement sector.
Kenya: The government has decided to sell its entire 25% stake in East African Portland Cement Company, as part of a strategic reform of its investments, guided by the International Monetary Fund. The Star newspaper has reported that the government expects to earn US$134m from the sale. It reportedly sold 30% of shares in the producer for US$117m in 2023.
Of East African Portland Cement Company’s multiple minority shareholders, the largest is Lafarge South Africa, with 42% of shares, followed by the Kenyan National Social Security Fund, with 27%.
US: Representatives of the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and its members are meeting politicians at Congress to discuss cement sector decarbonisation on 12 and 13 June 2024. The PCA says that meetings will address permitting processes and new emission standards affecting the industry.
PCA president and CEO Mike Ireland said "There's a lot happening in Washington this year that directly impacts America's cement manufacturers, which is likely why we have a record turnout of cement company leadership in town for this fly-in. Our industry's top objective is to reach carbon neutrality. While our companies appreciate recent funding from the Department of Energy to assist in decarbonisation efforts, it's still challenging for them to make significant advancements due to a cumbersome permitting system and unrealistic Environmental Protection Agency regulations that could lead to eventual cuts in plant operations and staffing. As the infrastructure law is hitting its stride, the country needs more cement and concrete, not less. We're here to ask Congress to work with us to arrive at reasonable policies and standards that will allow manufacturers to continue to provide the resilient, sustainable building materials our country has come to expect."
Resident Cement and Sinoma Nigeria Company to invest US$500m in upcoming 10Mt/yr Bauchi cement plant
11 June 2024Nigeria: The government of Bauchi State has signed a deal with Resident Cement and Sinoma Nigeria Company for the construction of their upcoming 10Mt/yr cement plant in the state. The deal stipulates total investments by the companies of US$500m to build the plant, situated in Gwana District.
Governor Bala Abdulkadir Mohammed said "We are reassured in our commitment to maximise the available resources to exploit the natural resources Bauchi State possesses for the economic development of the state.”
The Gambia: The Gambian government has released over 300 truckloads of imported cement held at the Senegal border at Farafenni. The Ministry of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration and Employment described the move as a one-time measure intended to alleviate the backlog caused by a rise in import duties, by a factor of six, to US$2.66/bag. The Cement Importers and Traders Association (CITA) welcomed the release of the cement, citing concerns over a possible shortage.
China: The National Development and Reform Commission, along with other government departments, has launched the Special Action Plan for Energy Conservation and CO2 Reduction in the Cement Industry. The plan aims to cap clinker capacity at 1.8Bnt/yr by 2026, with 30% of it above the national energy efficiency benchmark level. This will reduce energy consumption per tonne by 3.7% from 2020 levels. The plan will eliminate 13Mt of CO2 emissions and 5Mt of coal consumption in 2024 – 2025.
India: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has declined to stay insolvency proceedings against Jaiprakash Associates, following a challenge by its board. The board has been suspended since the NCLAT admitted an insolvency plea against the company on 3 June 2024. Press Trust of India News has reported that ICICI Bank first initiated proceedings over outstanding debts in September 2018.
The board of Jaiprakash Associates submitted that it will remain ‘asset-rich,’ even after it sells cement plants to repay loans. It attributed its present ‘liquidity crunch’ to delayed government approvals, ‘prolonged’ litigation and policy changes. The NCLAT stated that it must admit insolvency pleas in cases of defaulted debt repayment, saying that a judicial resolution will prevent further depletion of Jaiprakash Associates’ assets.
India: Residents of Kamrup, Assam, have petitioned the district government to block Taj Cement’s plans to build a new 1Mt/yr grinding plant at Chamata Pathar. The residents’ petition cites groundwater and ecological concerns over the plan. The Sentinel newspaper has reported that the plant will be the third cement facility in the immediate area. The area adjoins the Amchang and Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuaries.
The Greater Dimoria Citizens’ Protection Committee said “The current cement factories have already taken a toll on our environment and health. The proposed Taj Cement plant will only make matters worse, putting our lives and the nearby wildlife sanctuaries at risk.”
Canadian government sets out priorities for decarbonising the global cement and concrete sectors
07 June 2024Global: Ministers from Canada and the UAE have established priority actions to decarbonise the global sector. The announcement follows the initiative's launch at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in December 2023.
The plan outlines sector-specific actions across themes such as education, innovation and environmental coordination. These efforts aim to make ‘near-carbon neutral’ cement production the preferred option globally by 2030.
In addition, the government of Canada and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) have announced a new partnership aimed at accelerating decarbonisation in Thailand’s cement and concrete sectors. The collaboration was unveiled in conjunction with the CEO Gathering and Leaders Conference in Bangkok, hosted by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA). The partnership will provide technical assistance and investment support to develop policies, a regulatory framework and a national net-zero roadmap.
Ban ‘green’ cement!
05 June 2024The Indonesian government emphasised its intention this week to use ‘green’ cement in the construction of its new capital city Nusantara in Borneo. However, this begs the question: what exactly is ‘green’ cement?
In this case, Mohammad Zainal Fatah, the secretary general of the Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing, told state media that his department was “seeking to encourage the supply of domestic-industry-based material resources and construction equipment, which can support sustainable infrastructure development principles." The ministry is working with state-owned cement producers such as Semen Indonesia (SIG) to ensure the provision of sustainable cement and related products. SIG was selected as a supplier for the project in late 2022 and, as of February 2024, has reportedly provided 400,000t of cement from its plants at Balikpapan and Samarinda.
This is admirable stuff. However, the timing of the announcement is curious given that both the head and deputy head of the Nusantara Capital City Authority resigned this week forcing the government to reassure investors that the project was still on. Cue some swift discussion about ‘green’ cement! Previously it was hoped that the first phase of the US$34bn project could be inaugurated on the country’s independence day in August 2024 with civil servants scheduled to start relocating to the site in the autumn.
SIG sells a number of ‘green’ blended cement products and some of these have received Green Label Cement certification from the Green Product Council Indonesia. The group says that these products have contributed up to a 38% drop in CO2 emissions compared to Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). This compares to the group’s clinker factor reduction rate of 69% and its Scope 1 emissions intensity reduction of 17% to 585kg/CO2/t of cement in 2023 compared to 2010 levels.
Along similar lines, the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement & Concrete (ALCCC) in Belgium also announced this week that it had released a new policy roadmap aimed at achieving net zero emissions by 2040. Amongst its recommendations were a focus on the standards for cement and concrete to promote low-carbon products and encouragement to create lead markets to develop demand for them.
Crucially, the ALCCC uses low-carbon cement in place of ‘green’ cement and this makes its definition clearer. ‘Green’ cement is a marketing term intended to associate cement with environmentalism. Yet there is no accepted definition describing how these products are more sustainable than, say, OPC. For example, a so-called ‘green’ cement could use 100% clinker manufactured with no CO2 emissions-abatement, but it might be sustainable in other ways such as saving water. For the purposes of this article we’ll assume that ‘green’ cement means a low-carbon one. To further add to the confusion, ‘green’ concrete can be made using OPC in various ways but that’s beyond the scope of this piece. Clearly the world could do with some universal definitions.
US-based research and consulting company Global Efficiency Intelligence came to the same conclusion when it published its ‘What are Green Cement and Concrete?’ report in December 2023. It decided that - despite there being plenty of standards, protocols, and initiatives - there is no general agreement on the definition of ‘green’ cement or concrete. Its emissions intensity for cement summary table can be viewed below. It demonstrates the massive range of emissions intensity between the various standards. It is worth noting here that the description the Indonesian government may have been using for ‘green’ cement could already meet SIG’s Scope 1 emissions intensity reduction for its cement in 2023 depending on the standard being used.
Standard / Initiative / Policy Name | Emissions intensity target (t/CO2 per tonne cement) |
Climate Bonds Initiative | 0.437 & 0.58 |
IEA and IDDI | 0.04 – 0.125 |
First Movers Coalition | 0.184 |
U.S. General Services Administration IRA Requirement | 0.751 |
New York (USA) Buy Clean | 0.411 |
Table 1: Emissions intensity definition for cement as stated by standards, protocols, initiatives, and policies with stated numerical quantity targets. Source: Global Efficiency Intelligence.
Part of the problem here is that there is a language gap between the simple definition of a cement that is less CO2 emissions-intensive than OPC and the technical definitions used in the specifications and standards. Simply describing a cement product as ‘green’ can potentially cover anything that is slightly better than OPC down to a bona-fide net-zero product. Added to this is pressure from the manufacturers of new and existing cement products that use less or no OPC for regulators to move to performance-based standards to replace existing prescriptive standards, because it makes it easier for their products to be used. For more on this issue see Global Cement Weekly #606. Cement associations such as Cembureau and the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) have also called in their respective net zero roadmaps for changes to the standards system to promote low-carbon cement and concrete products.
The answer to what is ‘green’ cement is whatever the promoters want it to be. So, it might be helpful if the use of the word ‘green’ were banned in connection to any marketing activity related to cement products. Everyone could then adopt some kind of universal grading system using simpler language. One approach might be to copy the colour-coding scheme used by hydrogen to describe how it is made. One could use yellow for limestone blends, silver for slag, orange for clay, black for OPC made with carbon capture and so on… but not green! Another route might be to mandate the use of the carbon labels that some cement producers have used for at least a decade. Or something like the alphabet energy rating system used in the UK and EU for electrical appliances could be used. It’s too much to hope for a global system but simpler systems in the main markets would make it much easier to determine what exactly is ‘green’ cement.