Global Cement (GC): What is the 5C approach?
Koen Coppenholle (KC): The 5C approach looks at the cement sector’s carbon footprint down the value chain, at what we can do with respect to: Clinker, Cement, Concrete, Construction and built environment and (re)Carbonation. It builds on Cembureau’s 2013 roadmap.
Now with 5C, we see concrete as part of the whole construction agenda. This approach looks at our footprint through the lifecycle of our activities. This considers not the lifecycle of each product stage-by-stage, but the lifecycle of the end product, the built environment itself.
GC: Why was concrete finally included and what caused that change?
KC: We initiated The Concrete Initiative, which is a project that we set up with our colleagues in the aggregates business and the precast and ready-mixed concrete industry. In the end, the cement sector ultimately makes concrete. It is concrete that competes with steel, wood and other materials, not cement.
Of course, we are aware that the cement manufacturing process is energy- and CO2 -intensive. We will not try to argue against that. However, when concrete is used it offers benefits in terms of thermal mass, durability, fire safety, energy efficiency and recarbonation.
These were previously completely left out of the picture. The fact that cement comprises a relatively small proportion of the finished product is important. We saw that the whole ‘concrete story’ needed to be told.
GC: When you promote the 5C approach, who are you trying to persuade?
KC: As a lobbying organisation, policymakers are our main target audience. We try to convince them that, when they develop policies, they need to consider the full supply chain, especially when it comes to energy-efficiency and climate change. We also want to reach out to universities, architects, engineers and specifiers as partners in the 5C approach.
GC: What about the general public?
KC: We do not generally focus on influencing the general public. However, our social media presence does end up spreading far and wide, both in the cement sector and beyond.
GC: Does concrete really offer value for money compared to substitute materials?
KC: I think it does in the sense that, first of all, you have to look at the durability of concrete. The fact is that concrete structures are built to last for 70 - 100 years. Certainly in Europe, more and more buildings are being refurbished several times to give them new leases of life. However, the concrete structure generally remains, which represents a significant cost and CO2 saving compared to ripping the building down and starting again.
We need to advocate the need for life-cycle thinking along the built environment value chain and rebuff allegations made by some stakeholders, including public authorities, that timber is a low-CO2 alternative to concrete. This approach is really short sighted in terms of lifecycle analysis. It is important to consider the full picture if you want to enable the low carbon transition. Another important point is that concrete is critical to the kinds of structures that enable us to generate low-CO2 energy, for example in wind turbines and hydroelectric dams.
GC: At some point, if the CO2 permit price hits Euro50/t, could it be argued that cement and concrete still offer value for money compared to other materials?
KC: So far, the cement producer has always swallowed the CO2 cost at its manufacturing sites. It has been very difficult to pass it downstream. The rising CO2 cost impacts disproportionately on our business. It’s not like the electricity sector, which has been able to pass on its rising costs to the cement producer. A value chain approach, applied to all materials, is a possible way forward.
GC: Wouldn’t it be fair to say that having to pay for CO2 emissions permits, as in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), is quite a good way of charging for those emissions?
KC: This approach only considers the CO2 emissions of the cement manufacturing process. The cement producers don’t gain back any credits for the CO2 that their product saves in the latter parts of the supply chain and the building lifecycle. I’ve already mentioned many benefits of using concrete for the building structure. To this we can add things like the fact that concrete buildings demand lower levels of heating or air conditioning than ones made from steel or wood. This saves on ongoing CO2 emissions.
GC: Are there some applications in which cement and concrete can’t really be substituted by other materials?
KC: Foundations are the best example of this. Even timber-framed houses will have concrete foundations. Another example is large infrastructure projects like bridges. Many would be impossible to make in anything other than concrete. How could we build the Øresund Bridge or the Channel Tunnel with just wood?
GC: Let’s talk about the 5th C: (Re)Carbonation. How much CO2 can be taken up by concrete?
KC: Depending on the methodology, it’s up to 25% of the process emissions over the lifetime of a building and end-of-life. It’s significant. Think of cities reabsorbing quite a lot of CO2 and becoming effective carbon-sinks.
Wider discussions
GC: If researchers are successful in their quest to develop alternative cement chemistries, can you see the European cement makers switching over?
KC: The European cement sector is a major mover in this research and is continuously focused on reducing the clinker content in cement and on delevoping new low-CO2 binders. This remains the most obvious route to low-CO2 cements. Of course, there needs to be further activity in this area due to climate-change. However, we need to also ensure that the durability and strength are maintained as the clinker factor falls.
GC: As the Global Cement & Concrete Association (GCCA) is only open to clinker producers and Cembureau is suggesting to lower the clinker factor, does that put the two at cross-purposes?
KC: I think that we’ll always need to have clinker in the mixture, so we need to keep clinker producers in Europe. The clinker factor in the EU is around 75 - 76%. We want to hit 70% by 2050.
GC: Do you agree with the administration of the EU ETS?
KC: Our position is one of mixed feelings. As I mentioned the ETS only considers cement production. The benchmark is also very stringent, based on the average of the best-performing 10%. The positive thing, which Cembureau lobbied for, is that the EC accepts there should be carbon leakage protection for energy-intensive industries. Compared to other countries, the EU is at a disadvantage. This is compounded by the higher power costs here. That puts us on an uneven playing field.
GC: Do you ‘believe’ in climate change?
KC: Yes. It is clear that this is happening and we have to respond. The response will require action from all parties, including the general public. It has historically been easy to attack industry as a way of passing the buck. However, at the end of the day, everyone has to pay the costs of mitigating the associated CO2 emissions, which come not only from industry but from transport, households and agriculture.
GC: Thank you for your time today.
KC: You are very welcome!