Analysis

Cement and concrete products with sustainability credentials have increased in recent years as societies start to demand decarbonisation. In spite of the recent drop in the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) price, there has been a trend in recent years in the construction industry towards offerings with better environmental credentials. Indeed, this week’s position paper from Cembureau on a carbon border mechanism concerns directly the growth of these kinds of products within Europe. Typically, the higher profile projects have been slag cement or concrete implementations such as Hanson’s use of its Regen cement substitute in a London sewer project or David Ball Group’s Cemfree concrete in a road project also in the UK. In this short review we’ll take a selective look at a few of the so-called low carbon cement and concrete products currently available.

Table 1: Some examples of methods to reduce embodied CO₂ in cement and concrete. Note - the product examples are selective. In some cases many other products are available.

Looking at cement first, the easiest way for many producers to bring a lower carbon product to market has been to promote cements made using secondary cementitious materials (SCM) such as granulated blast furnace slag or fly ash. These types of cements have a long history, typically in specialist applications and/or in relation to ease of supply. For example, cement producers in eastern India often manufacture slag cements owing to the number of local steel plants. However, cement producers have more recently started to publicise their environmental credentials as they reduce the clinker factor of the final product. Alongside this though, in Europe especially, a number of so-called low carbon cement producers have appeared on the scene such as EcoCem and Hoffman Green Technologies. These newer producers tend to offer SCM cement products or other low carbon ones built around a grinding model. It is likely that their businesses have benefitted from tightening EU environmental legislation. How far cement producers can pivot to SCM cement products is contentious given that slag and fly ash are finite byproducts of other industries that are also under pressure to decarbonise. Although it should be noted that other SCMs such as pozzolans exist.

As will be seen below a few of the methods to reduce embodied CO₂ in cement and concrete can be used in both materials. SCMs are no exception and hold a long history in concrete usage. As mentioned above David Ball Group sells Cemfree a concrete product that contains no cement. Harsco Environmental, a minerals management company, invested US$3m into Carbicrete, a technology start-up working on a cement-free concrete, in late 2019.

Limestone calcined clay cements are the next set of products that are starting to make an appearance through the work of the Swiss-government backed LC3 project, more commercial offerings like FutureCem from Cementir and H-EVA from Hoffman Green Technologies and today’s announcement about ThyssenKrupp’s plans to fit the Kribi cement plant in Cameroon with its Polysius activated clay system. They too, like SCM cements, reduce the clinker factor of the cement. The downside is that, as in the name, the clay element needs to be calcined requiring capital investment, although LC3 make a strong case in their literature about how fast these costs can be recouped in a variety of scenarios.

Calcium silicate cements offer reduced process emissions by decreasing the lime content of the clinker lowering the amount of CO₂ released and bringing down the temperature required in the kiln to make the clinker. Solidia offers its calcium silicate cement as part of a two-part system with a CO₂ cured concrete. In the US LafargeHolcim used Solidia’s product in a commercial project in mid-2019 at a New Jersey paver and block plant. Solidia’s second core technology is using CO₂ to cure concrete and reducing water usage. They are not alone here as Canada’s CarbonCure Technologies uses CO₂ in a similar way with their technology. In their case they focus more on CO₂ mineralisation. In Germany, Schwenk Zement backed the Celitement project, which developed a hydraulic calcium hydro silicate based product that does not use CO₂ curing. Celitement has since become part of Schwenk Zement.

Solidia isn’t the only company looking at two complementary technologies along the cement-concrete production chain. A number of companies are looking at recycling concrete and demolition waste. Generally this splits into coarse waste that is used as an aggregate substitute in concrete and fine waste that is used to make cement. LafargeHolcim has Evopact for the coarse waste and Susteno for the fine. HeidelbergCement has EcoCrete for the coarse and is researching the use of fines. Closing the loop for heavy building material producers definitely seems like the way to go at the moment and this view is reinforced by the involvement of the two largest multinational producers.

Of the rest of the other low carbon cement methods detailed in table 1 these cover other non-Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) such as geopolymer and calcium sulphoaluminate cements. The former are a type of alkali activated binder and generally lack common standards. The latter are similar to slag cements in that they are established specialist products with lower CO₂ emissions than OPC.

With concrete when trying to make a low carbon product the first choice is whether to choose a low-carbon cement as the binder or even not to use cement at all in the case of Regen or Cemfree. From here the next step is to simply use less cement in a concrete mixture. There are a number of ways to do this from optimising aggregate gradation, following performance specifications more closely, using strength tests like maturity methods and generally adhering to quality control protocols better to deliver more consistency. Read the Mineral Production Association (MPA) publication Specifying Sustainable Concrete for more detail on this. Using concrete admixtures can also help make concrete more sustainable by improving quality and performance at construction sites through the use of plasticisers and accelerators, by decreasing embodied carbon through the use of water reducers and by improving the whole life performance of concretes. The use of locally-sourced aggregates is also worth noting here since it can reduce associated transport CO₂ emissions.

More novel methods of reducing embodied CO₂ emissions in concrete include the use of geopolymer concrete in the case of Zeobond Group’s E-Crete or adding graphene as Concrene does. Like geopolymer cements, geopolymer concretes are relatively new and lack common standards. Products like Concrene, meanwhile, remain currently at the startup level. Finally, if all else fails, offsetting the CO₂ released by a cement or concrete product is always an option. This is what Cemex has done with its Vertua Ultra Zero product. The first 70% reduction in embodied CO₂ is gained through the use of geopolymer cement. Then the remaining 30% reduction is achieved through a carbon offsetting scheme via a carbon neutral certification verified by the Carbon Trust.

As can be seen, a variety of methods exist for cement and concrete producers to reduce the embodied CO₂ of their products and call them ‘low-carbon.’ For the moment most remain in the ‘novelty section’ but as legislators promote and specifiers look for sustainable construction they continue to become more mainstream. What has been interesting to note from this short study is that some companies are looking at multiple solutions along the production and supply chain whilst others are concentrating on single ones. The companies looking at multiple methods range from the biggest building material producers like LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement to smaller newer ones like Solidia and Hoffman Green Technologies. Also of note is that many of these products have existed already in various forms for a long time like SCM cements and concretes or the many ways concretes can be made more sustainable through much simpler ways such as changing aggregate sourcing or working more efficiently. In many cases once markets receive sufficient stimulus it seems likely that low carbon cement and concrete products will proliferate.

Global Cement is researching a market report on low carbon cement and concrete. If readers have any comments to make please contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Cement producers and suppliers are now reacting to the coronavirus pandemic at scale. The biggest obvious development has been the lockdown in India that began on 24 March 2020. The implications for the cement industry are profound given the country’s population (1.3Bn) and massive cement consumption under normal conditions. It is the country with the world’s second largest cement production capacity.

UltraTech Cement, the biggest producer, said that it was suspending production at ‘various’ locations although it added that the situation was ‘dynamic’ and that it was monitoring it from time to time. Ambuja Cement and JK Lakshmi Cement have done likewise. The latter has suspended cement production at an integrated plant in Rajasthan and three grinding plants in Gujarat. Some Indian states have moved faster than others towards shutting down movement of people so JK Lakshmi’s decision may merely be based on legal necessity. However, a difference may arise in producer strategies between keeping integrated and grinding plants open. Building up inventory is one strategy seen in poor market conditions previously around the world. Alternatively, moving to more of a grinding model might make sense in some territories if, as is happening, countries implement lockdowns at different periods. However, some Indian states have moved faster than others towards shutting down movement of people and JK Lakshmi Cement’s closure pattern may simply reflect this.

At the international scale HeidelbergCement gave an idea to Reuters of the challenge facing the multinationals. Chief executive officer (CEO) Dominik von Achten described the start of 2020 as being strong but that construction projects were being delayed in the US and that activity in France and Spain was starting to weaken. Unsurprisingly, the company has shut down three of its plants in Lombardy at the centre of the Italian epidemic. He added that the group was holding a daily crisis call to assess the effect of the virus upon staff. He also said that the group was stockpiling cement amid the disruption. The clear warning sign was of an existential threat like that faced by the airlines whereby sales could simply stop for a three or four week period… or longer.

On the supplier side, Denmark’s FLSmidth has issued a robust plan on how it is aiming to maintain service and support for its customers. Past all the now-usual stuff such as remote working it included detail on how to support clients on site where absolutely necessary on a case-by-case basis. With regards to its supply chain it pointed out that it was confident, “that any local interruptions to our suppliers can be minimised, even when the agility of some suppliers is put to the test. We have redundancy built into the system.” To this end it emphasised the global nature of its business to ensure that it could deliver parts and equipment to its customers. It claimed that it coped with coronavirus in China due to its ‘very flexible’ supply chain but did admit to some supply chain impacts. Yet it says that production is back to approaching full capacity with workshops in Qingdao and Shanghai above 90% as they work their way through accumulated backlogs. Finally, it is also offering advice on how the company can support its customers on reducing or shutting down operations.

Other supplier comments on the situation have mainly been about protecting staff, working remotely and supporting customers through continued supply of equipment and services. Back in India, Sameer Nagpal, the CEO of refractory manufacturer Dalmia-OCL told Business Standard that the company was coping so far with the crisis with little major impact seen so far. Its raw material supply chain was dependent on China but after some minor disruption it was secure. Most of its customers are domestic, where it hadn’t reported problems so far, although this may change with the Indian lockdown. Exports were a different story as it sends around 10% of its production abroad and it has a plant in Germany. In Europe it was seeing a challenge due to supply chain disruption.

The experiences above are a snapshot of some of what is happening in parts of the industry as coronavirus disruption hits home. China’s restrictions are easing, most of Europe is in lockdown, India has started its quarantine and the US has restricted movement in about a third of its states. The current restrictions in the UK, for example, allow for construction work to continue but local media is debating the associated risks for workers. Other territories have different rules. All of this is affecting demand for cement and concrete. This in turn feeds through to producers and their suppliers. Global Cement continues to monitor the situation and wishes readers a safe passage through the pandemic.

With events moving fast in Europe with regard to the on-going health crisis, here are a few threads to consider from the cement industry news this week.

Firstly, there have been two solar power stories over the last week in North America. Grupo Argos said that it had installed a 10.6MW solar power plant at Cementos Argos’ Piedras Azules cement plant in Comayagua. Then US-based Alamo Cement Company was reported to have signed a contract with Renergetica to build a solar power plant at its integrated plant in San Antonio, Texas. Global Cement has looked at this topic on and off over the years from the steady addition of photovoltaic (PV) solar plants around the world to supply electricity to cement plants to more ambitious plans such as research into using concentrated solar power to start powering creating clinker directly. These two latest PV stories follow projects in El Salvador and Cyprus so far this year. We’re not going to comment now on the overall progress the cement industry is making towards moving away from fossil fuels but the general trend is encouraging.

Next, there are on-going investments and upgrade projects being announced. Germany’s KHD revealed on 17 March 2020 that is building a new raw mill and pyroprocessing line for an ACC plant in India. FCT combustion recently announced that it has won a deal to supply Titan Cement in the US with an upgrade to a kiln line to natural gas. Buzzi Unicem’s SLK Cement in Russia has agreed to co-process solid municipal waste at its Sukholozhskcement plant. South Africa’s PPC has invested in a pneumatic offloading facility and a silo for its George Depot cement terminal in the Western Cape. These will have likely been agreed before the global coronavirus outbreak but they are reminders that some level of capital expenditure by cement companies is happening.

In China the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) said this week that the domestic cement sector’s net profit grew by 20% year-on-year to US$26.6bn in 2019. With this in mind the first quarter results for 2020 from cement producers in China will make essential reading for producers from elsewhere around the world wondering what to expect. However, a recent interview with the president of Huaxin Cement, a company based in Hubei province at the epicentre of the outbreak, revealed that despite the short term economic disruption from the quarantine the company was expecting a rapid economic rebound after April 2020 provided that there is a suitable government stewardship. He also mentioned the key role the company was playing in disposing of clinical waste. As such it was hoping for tax breaks to support continuing incineration and the advancement of co-processing in general.

Finally, also on the health crisis, many cement industry events have been cancelled or postponed as work practices change including those organised by Global Cement. We’re taking our events online in the short term as virtual conferences with opportunities for information exchange and networking. We encourage as many of you as possible to register.

Announcements from two very different countries serve to highlight the global cement sector’s on-going and seemingly intractable overcapacity issues this week.

First up, India, the world’s largest democracy and second-largest cement market, will reportedly struggle to exceed 70% capacity utilisation in the forthcoming 2020-2021 fiscal year, according to the credit ratings agencies ICRA, India Ratings and Crisil. In the same week, however, we have heard that UltraTech Cement will launch a 3.5Mt/yr capacity expansion at its Bhogasamudam plant in Andhra Pradesh, while ACC committed to launching a 2.5Mt/yr plant in Chandrapur, Maharashtra early last week. In February 2020 Deccan Cements firmed up plans to expand its Mahankaligudem plant in Telengana and JSW wants to turn its Bilakalagudur plant into a 6Mt/yr beast. Back in January 2020. Shree Cement launched ambitious plans to spend US$1.3bn on upgrades in the period to 2023. With Indian capacity estimated to hit 500Mt/yr by the close of 2020, what do all of these producers know that ICRA et al don’t?

Second on the list is centrally-planned Vietnam, the world’s third-largest producer, having produced 96.5Mt of cement in 2019. Here, long-standing excessive capacity is looking increasingly ridiculous following a massive collapse in export sales in January and February 2020 due to the coronavirus outbreak. This, of course, continues to affect cement producers and users alike.

Just today, Nguyen Quang Cung, chairman of the Vietnam Cement Association (VNCA) said that demand is expected to remain high throughout 2020 as a whole. The Ministry of Construction (MoC) currently stands by its autumn 2019 forecast that Vietnam will produce a whopping 103Mt of cement this year. It expects domestic consumption to be around 70Mt, with exports of 33Mt. A 2.5Mt/yr plant in Tân Thắng Commune in the central province of Nghệ, and a 4.6Mt/yr plant in Bỉm Sơn Commune, Thanh Hóa, will come online in 2020, further adding to the country’s capacity. Exports were touted as the saviour of the sector back in January 2020. This assertion may now have to be revisited.

The drivers behind the overcapacity are different in each country. Indian producers have a long history of capacity addition in order to maintain or improve their market share. Standing still is tantamount to walking (or even running) backwards, so the biggest producers (and those that want to become big producers) tend to go ‘over the top’ with their expansion aims. Market forces eventually catch up with the smaller players, which find themselves bought up or shut down. This has the seemingly inevitable effect of maintaining low capacity utilisation rates.

In Vietnam, the overcapacity is due to central targets, which, as noted previously, are an entirely alien concept for cement producers across much of the rest of the world. As Vietnam’s obsession with high cement production has developed, it has become hooked on exports, entering a void recently vacated by Chinese exports. It often sells at scarcely-believable prices and now, with the introduction of the coronavirus into the mix, even these seem to be too high. After all, Vietnam’s cement association cannot ‘set targets’ for cement demand in other countries.

So… how to reduce capacity? There are two examples, again from different types of market. China has, of course, reduced its overcapacity massively to eliminate outdated capacity and improve the country’s environmental performance. This has been possible due to orders from the top of government. The other example can be found in Europe, where the EU Emissions Trading Scheme has finally found its teeth, with the oldest and least efficient plants now feeling the financial bite of their CO₂ emissions.

It remains to be seen whether the collapse of the export market will force the Vietnamese cement sector to rationalise its inventory. From a market-based mindset it is clear that it should follow China’s lead. India, meanwhile, has a massive overcapacity that market forces seem slow (or indeed unable) to clear. The EU route may be more applicable here, but one might expect resistance from cement producers. Also, the development and demographic differences between India and Europe are stark, indicating that there may be a need, at some point in the future, for 500Mt/yr of capacity. The Indian majors are counting on this and laying the groundwork for a step-change in the future. Indeed, in a few years, 500Mt/yr may look vanishingly small if demand increases rapidly. What are the chances of that?

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) took on direct implications for the international cement industry this week when an Italian vendor infected with the virus visited Lafarge Africa in Ogun state, Nigeria. The cement producer said that it had ‘immediately’ started contact tracing and started isolation, quarantine and disinfection protocols. This included initiating medical protocols at its Ewekoro integrated plant, although local press reported the unit’s production lines were still open. Around 100 people were thought to have had contact with the man.

Global Cement has been covering the epidemic since early February 2020 when the virus’ effect on the construction industry in China started to become evident. First, an industry event CementTech was postponed, financial analysts started forecasting negative financial consequences for producers and plants started going into coronavirus-related maintenance or suspension cycles. Then at least one plant started to dispose of clinical waste and now China National Building Material Group (CNBM) is considering how to restart operations at scale. Also, this week Hong Kong construction companies reportedly laid off 50,00 builders due to a lack of cement due to the on-going production suspension in China.

The major cement companies have identified that their first business risk from coronavirus comes from simply not having the staff to make building materials. LafargeHolcim’s chief executive officer Jan Jenisch summed up the group’s action in its annual financial results for 2020 this week when he said, “We are taking all necessary measures to protect the health of our employees and their families.” Other major cement producers that Global Cement has contacted have placed travel restrictions for staff and reduced access to production facilities.

The next risk for cement companies comes from a drop in economic activity. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) forecasts a global 0.5% year-on-year fall in real gross domestic product (GDP) growth to 2.4%, with China and India suffering the worst declines in GDP growth at around 1%. The global figure is the worst since the -0.1% rate reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2009. The OECD blamed the disease control measures in China, as well as the direct disruption to global supply chains, weaker final demand for imported goods and services and regional declines in international tourism and business travel. This forecast is contingent on the epidemic peaking in China in the first quarter of 2020 and new cases of the virus in other countries being sporadic and contained. So far the latter does not seem to have happened and the OECD’s ‘domino’ scenario predicts a GDP reduction of 1.5%. All of this is likely to drag on construction activity and demand for cement and concrete for some time to come.

Moving to cement markets and production, demand is likely to be slowed as countries implement various levels of isolation and quarantine leading to reduced residential demand for buildings directly and as workforces are restricted. Business and infrastructure projects may follow as economies slow and governments refocus spending respectively.

The UK government, for example, is basing its coronavirus action plan on an outbreak lasting four to six months. This could potentially happen in many countries throughout 2020. This has the potential to create a rolling effect of disruption as different nations are hit. Assuming China has passed the peak of its local epidemic then its producers are likely to report reduced income in the first quarter of 2020. The effect may even be reduced somewhat due to the existing winter peak shifting measures, whereby production is shut down to reduce pollution. Elsewhere, cement companies in the northern hemisphere may see their busy summer months affected if the virus spreads. The effect on balance sheets may be visible with indebted companies and/or those with more exposure to affected areas disproportionately affected. The wildcard here is whether coronavirus transmits as easily in warmer weather as it does in the cooler winter months. In this case there may be a difference, generally speaking, between the global north and south. Exceptions to watch could be cooler southern places such as New Zealand, Argentina and Chile. Shortages, as mentioned above in Taiwan, potentially should be short term, owing to global overcapacity of cement production, as end users find supplies from elsewhere.

The cement industry is also likely to encounter disruption to its supply chains. Major construction projects in South Asia are already reporting delays as Chinese workers have failed to return following quarantine restrictions after the Chinese New Year celebrations. As other countries suffer uncontrolled outbreaks then similar travel restrictions may follow. Global Cement has yet to see any examples of materials in the cement industry supply chain being affected. On the production side, raw mineral supply tends to be local but fuels, like coal, often travel further. Fuel markets may prove erratic as larger consumers cut back and suppliers like the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) react by restricting production.

On the maintenance side cement plants need a wide array of parts such as refractories, motors, lubricants, gears, wear parts for mills, ball bearings and so forth. Some of these may have more complicated supply chain routes than they used to have 30 years ago. On the supplier side any new or upgrade plant project is vulnerable if necessary parts are delayed by a production halt, logistics delayed and/or staff are prevented from visiting work sites. Chinese suppliers’ reliance on using their own workers, for example, might well be a hindrance here until (or if) international quarantine rules are normalised. Other suppliers’ weak points in their supply chains may become exposed in turn. This would benefit suppliers with sufficiently robust chains.

Chinese reductions in NO₂ emissions in relation to the coronavirus industrial shutdown have been noted in the press. A wider global effect could well be seen too. This could potentially pose problems to CO₂ emissions trading schemes around the world as CO₂ prices fall and carbon credits abound. This might also have deleterious effects on carbon capture and storage (CCS) development if it becomes redundant due to low CO₂ pricing. In the longer-term this might undesirable, as by the time the CO₂ prices pick up again we will be that much nearer to the 2050 sustainability deadlines.

COVID-19 is a new pandemic in all but name with major secondary outbreaks in South Korea, Iran and Italy growing fast and cases being reported in many other countries. The bad news though is that individual countries and international bodies have to decide how to balance the economic damage disease control will cause, versus the effects of letting the disease run unchecked. Yet as more information emerges on how to tackle coronavirus, the good news is that most people will experience flu-like symptoms and nothing more. Chinese action shows that it can be controlled through public health measures while a vaccine is being developed.

Until then, frequent handwashing is a ‘given’ and many people and organisations are running risk calculations on aspects of what they do. It may seem flippant but even basic human interaction such as the handshake needs to be reconsidered for the time being.