Analysis

The 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.

The 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.

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.

Peter Edwards, Editor of Global Cement Magazine, discusses ‘sustainable’ cement in The Last Word in the June 2023 issue

Cemex announced last week that it will stop producing clinker at its Lloseta plant in Mallorca. Grinding activity at the site will continue, along with the shipment of bagged and bulk cement products. The company has framed the closure as part of its decarbonisation plans. The dismantling of the two preheater towers at the plant is scheduled to take place by the end of 2030. Cemex said that it will take this long to allow the cement plant to continue operating, as well as a neighbouring hydrogen unit and other nearby industrial units. The status of the Lloseta plant has been in question before. It was closed in early 2019 due to reduced cement demand and mounting European CO₂ emissions regulations. However, it reopened in 2021.

Readers may recall that Cemex España participated in the Power to Green Hydrogen Mallorca project. Land by the Lloseta cement plant was used to hold solar panels and a solar-powered hydrogen unit. Other partners in the project included energy suppliers Enagás and Redexis and renewable power and infrastructure company Acciona, among others. When the unit was commissioned in early 2022, it said it was the first solar power-to-green hydrogen plant in Spain. The link between Cemex and hydrogen is noteworthy given the cement company’s adoption of hydrogen injection as part of its alternative fuels strategy. Interestingly, Acciona planned to use a blockchain method to certify that hydrogen produced at the site was made using renewable energy sources. Heidelberg Materials also plans to use the same process to verify its evoZero brand of net-zero cement products in 2025. Another recent sustainability sector news story in Spain is the commissioning by Çimsa of a 7.2MW solar plant supporting its Buñol white cement plant in Valencia. The new installation is expected to supply about 18% of the plant’s energy needs.

On the corporate side of things, FCC revealed in mid-May 2024 that it was preparing to spin-off its cement and real estate subsidiaries into a new company called Inmocemento. The cement part of this is Spain-based Cementos Portland Valderrivas. The move is intended to bolster the values of the different parts of the business. The proposal will be put to FCC’s shareholders in late June 2024, with any resulting action taking place by the end of the year. The decision to separate FCC’s cement assets is reminiscent of the financial engineering Holcim has proposed with its US business. However, in this case the driver does not appear to be the disparity between the European and US stock markets.

Graph 1: Domestic consumption and exports of cement in Spain, 2013 - 2023. Source: Oficemen.

Market data was also out this week from Oficemen, the Spanish cement association. Domestic cement consumption grew year-on-year in April 2024 but the year so far is looking weaker with consumption from January to April 2024 down by 4.5% year-on-year to 4.65Mt. This is below Oficemen’s forecast for 2024 where it expected a stagnant situation. However, there are eight more months to go. In 2023 cement consumption fell by 3% to 14.5Mt and exports declined by 7.5% to 5.2Mt. The association blamed continued underinvestment in both the public and private sectors due to economic instability since the Covid-19 pandemic. Graph 1 above shows the wider situation in the Spanish cement market over the last decade. The share of exports has declined and local consumption rebounded after 2020 but has declined since then.

These news stories provide a snapshot of what’s been happening in Spain recently in the cement sector. Oficemen’s prediction for 2024 is gloomy but local consumption has risen over the past 10 years. Exports have fallen but the cement association has started to spin the country’s decarbonsiation drive as a potential positive for the industry’s competitiveness generally. It’s hard to discern right now but there might be an advantage for an export-focused country that conforms to European standards in the future if it can hold onto its capacity. Admittedly, that’s a big if. This thinking along sustainability lines could be seen earlier in May 2024 when Cementos Molins Group rebranded itself as Molins. It described the rebranding as a bid to represent the wider range of construction products it manufactures and sells beyond cement. Oficemen has also pointed out that the local market has room for development given the relatively low cement consumption per capita in Spain compared to its peers. So, whatever happens next, there is likely to be room for improvement in the cement market.

Delegates at the Global CemCCUS Conference last week applauded when Anders Petersen, the Senior Project Manager Brevik CCS, Heidelberg Materials said that the Brevik cement plant will be capturing CO₂ and permanently storing it within the year. Rightly so. This moment will mark a historic milestone for the sector when it arrives. Net zero cement production is coming.

Last week’s event in Oslo delivered an overview of the current state of carbon capture in the cement and lime industries. It explored the practical challenges these industries face in capturing CO₂ emissions and - crucially – then working out what to do with them afterwards. Incredibly, delegates were able to view the construction site of Heidelberg Materials’ forthcoming full-scale carbon capture unit at its Brevik plant in Norway. On the same day as the tour, Holcim broke ground on the Go4Zero carbon capture project at its Obourg plant in Belgium.

The key takeaway at the conference was that a (dusty) bulk solids sector is starting to work with handling (clean) gases in a way it hasn’t before. This recurred repeatedly throughout the conference. Petersen summarised it well when he described Brevik as a meeting pointing between the cement industry and the petrochemical one. It looks likely at present that there will not be a single predominant carbon capture technology that the majority of cement plants will deploy in the future. Similarly, CO₂ storage infrastructure and sequestration sites differ. Utilisation plans are less developed but also offer various options. Yet, if carbon capture becomes common at cement and lime plants, then these companies will need to learn how to filter and handle gases regardless of the capture method and destination for the CO₂. So presentations on filtration and compressors were a revelation at CemCCUS.

The key obstacle remains how to pay for it all. By necessity, most of the big early projects have received external funding, mostly from governments. Although, to be fair, the private companies involved are often investing considerable amounts of their own money and taking risks in the process too. In the European Union (EU) CO₂ is being priced via the Emissions Trading Scheme and investments are being made via the EU Innovation Fund and other schemes. In the US the approach lies in tax breaks, on-shoring and investment in new sustainable technologies.

However, other countries have different priorities. Or as a South Asian contact told Global Cement Weekly at a different conference, “How can our government think about sustainability when it can’t feed everyone?” The world’s biggest cement producing countries are China and India, and then the EU and the US follow. Brazil, Türkiye and Vietnam are at similar levels or not far behind. The EU and the US represent about 9% of global cement production based on Cembureau figures for 2022. China and India cover 61% of production. Neither of these countries has announced a plan to encourage the widespread construction of carbon capture units. Once China ‘gets’ cement carbon capture though, it seems plausible that it will dominate it as it has in many other sectors such as solar panel production. Exporters such as Türkiye and Vietnam will have to adapt to the rules of their target markets.

The march by the cement and lime sectors towards carbon capture has been long, difficult and expensive. It also has a long, long way to go. Yet, the next decade promises to be exciting as new technologies are developed and tested, full-scale projects are commissioned and CO₂ pipelines, sequestration sites and usage hubs come online. The next key milestones to look out for include the first full-scale installations using other capture methods (such as oxy-fuel kilns), the first CO₂ pipeline network that hooks up to a cement plant, the first land-based sequestration site, the first industrial hub that uses CO₂ at scale to manufacture a product, new government policies in China and India, and the first large unit that is funded entirely from private finance. To end on a positive note, a Cembureau representative at the Global CemCCUS Conference reckoned that Europe will be able to capture 12Mt/yr of CO₂ by 2030. If it happens, this will be a major achievement and a serious statement of intent towards net zero for the sector.

This short recap of the event barely touches the surface of what happened so be sure to read the full review of the 1st Global CemCCUS Conference.

The 2nd Global CemCCUS Conference will take place in Hamburg in May 2025

Before Russia invaded mainland Ukraine on 24 February 2023, many predicted that full-scale conflict would be averted. When the attack began, Russian President Vladimir Putin himself expected a 10-day war, according to think tank RUSI. 15 May 2024 marks two years, two months and three weeks of fighting, with no end in sight.

Ukrcement, the Ukrainian cement association, recently published its cement market data for 2023, the first full year of the war. The data showed domestic cement consumption of 5.4Mt, up by 17% year-on-year from 4.6Mt in 2022, but down by 49% from pre-war levels of 10.6Mt in 2021. In 2023, Ukraine’s 14.8Mt/yr production capacity was 2.7 times greater than its consumption, compared to 1.4 times in 2021. Of Ukraine’s nine cement plants, one (the 1.8Mt/yr Amwrossijiwka plant in Donetsk Oblast) now lies behind Russian lines. Four others sit within 300km of the front line in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Among these, the 4.4Mt/yr Balakliia plant in Kharkiv Oblast, the largest in the country, first fell to the Russians, but was subsequently liberated in September 2022.

Before the war, Ukrcement’s members held a 95% share in the local cement market. Their only competitors were Turkish cement exporters across the Black Sea, after the Ukrainian Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade successfully implemented anti-dumping duties against cement from Moldova and now-sanctioned Belarus and Russia in 2019. Since then, Turkish cement has also become subject to tariffs of 33 – 51% upon entry into Ukraine, until September 2026. The relative shortfall in consumption has led Ukraine’s cement producers to lean on their own export markets. They increased their exports by 33% year-on-year to 1.24Mt in 2023, 330,000t (27%) of it to neighbouring Poland.

Russia’s invasion has made 3.5m Ukrainians homeless and put the homes of 2.4m more in need of repair. In a report published in Ukrainian, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) set out its three-year rebuilding plan for the country. USAID projects an investment cost of €451bn, with the ‘main task’ besides homebuilding being to increase the share of industrial production in the economy. Ukraine is 90% equipped to produce all building materials required under the plan. Their production, in turn, will create or maintain 100,000 jobs and US$6.5bn in tax revenues. Reconstruction will also involve the Ukrainian cement industry returning to close to full capacity utilisation, producing 15 – 16Mt/yr of cement.

CRH, an established local player of 25 years, looks best set to claim a share of the proceeds. Stepping down an order of magnitude from billions to millions, Global Cement recently reported CRH’s total investments in Ukraine to date as €465m. Since war broke out, the company has more than tripled its rate of investment, to €74.5m. The Ireland-based group is in the protracted administrative process of acquiring the Ukrainian business of Italy-based Buzzi. If successful, the deal will raise its Ukrainian capacity by 56%, to 8.4Mt/yr – 57% of national capacity. This unusual clumping of ownership may be made possible by the participation of European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in partly acquiring the assets, as per a mandate letter signed with CRH in 2023.

Leading Ukrainian cement buyer Kovalska Industrial-Construction Group bemoaned the anticipated increase in market concentration. On the one hand, this sounds like a classic tiff between cement producers and users with shallow pockets. On the other hand, an antebellum allegation of cement industry cartelisation should give us pause for thought. Non-governmental organisation The Antitrust League previously reported Ukraine’s four cement producers to the government’s Anti-Monopoly Committee for alleged anticompetitive behavior. This was in September 2021, when Ukraine was barely out of lockdown, let alone up in arms. With all that has happened since, it may seem almost ancient history, yet the players are the same, CRH and Buzzi among them.

Ukrcement and its members have secured favourable protections from the Trade Commission, and, for whatever reasons, evaded the inconvenience of investigation by the Anti-Monopoly Committee – a state of affairs over which the Antitrust League called the committee ‘very weak.’ The league says that producers previously raised prices by 35 – 50% in the three years up to 2021. In planning a fair and equitable reconstruction, Ukrainians might reasonably seek assurance that this will not happen again.

All these discussions are subject to a time-based uncertainty: the end of the war in Ukraine. A second question is where the finances might come from. The EU approved funding for €17bn in grants and €33bn in loans for Ukraine on 14 May 2024. Meanwhile, countries including the UK have enacted legislation to ensure Russia settles the cost of the conflict at war’s end. If Ukraine achieves its military aims, then the finances may flow from the same direction as did the armaments that demolished Ukrainian infrastructure in the first place.

The first piece of Ukraine annexed by Russia was Crimea in February 2014, making the invasion over a decade old. Against such a weight of tragedy, the country cannot lose sight of the coming restoration work, and of the need to ensure that it best serve Ukrainians.