Analysis
Search Cement News
Update on heat batteries for cement production, February 2024
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
21 February 2024
Valentine’s Day last week included some ‘hot’ news for the cement sector with the announcement that Electrified Thermal Solutions is preparing to build the first commercial-scale pilot of its Joule Hive thermal battery (JHTB) in San Antonio, Texas. The company is working with the Southwest Research Institute on the project along with Buzzi Unicem USA, 3M and Amy’s Kitchen as industrial partners. Advisors include Imerys. The project update follows the award of a US$5m grant from the US Department of Energy (DOE) in late January 2024.
The funding description from the DOE’s Industrial Efficiency & Decarbonization Office reports that the end goal is to “turn intermittent renewable electricity into constant industrial grade heat” that can replace fossil fuel usage. Electrified Thermal Solutions aims to test its JHTB thermal energy storage system, which uses electrically conductive refractory bricks, to convert and store electricity as heat at temperatures higher than 1700°C. The JHTB power ranges between 1 - 200MW of thermal output, with duration up to tens of hours, enabling ‘very affordable’ high temperature energy storage and on-demand heat. Notably, it can charge and discharge simultaneously, allowing a continuous heat supply.
Electrified Thermal Solutions is not alone in targeting the cement sector. As Global Cement Weekly has covered previously energy storage is a growing topic of interest with a few large-scale electrical battery units running at cement plants in Pakistan and Taiwan. The other big name in thermal batteries for cement production is Rondo Energy. Both Electrified Thermal Solutions and Rondo Energy are using modular three-dimensional arrays of refractory bricks to store thermal energy and then release it, although they are likely to have key proprietary differences. However, Rondo Energy appears to be further along the industrial adoption process so far. Titan Cement and Siam Cement Group (SCG) invested in Rondo Energy in 2022. Then in July 2023 SCG and Rondo Energy said that they were planning to expand the production capacity of a heat battery storage unit at an SCG plant from 2.4 GWh/yr in mid-2023 to 90GWh/yr. For more information on Rondo Energy read the feature by CEO John O’Donnell in the January 2023 issue of Global Cement Magazine.
The reason that this matters, as partly explained above, is that fossil fuels contribute about one third of the CO2 emissions created by heating up the kiln in cement production to make clinker. This is dropping globally due to the uptake of alternative fuels, but burning alternative fuels emits gross CO2, however you account for the emissions. Mass adoption of thermal batteries by the sector could potentially cut out this double-accounting and reduce that third down to the carbon footprint of the refractory bricks used. This would then create knock-on issues concerning what to do with the waste streams instead but that is not a problem for the cement sector. These are worries for another day, as we first need to see how thermal batteries work at scale at a cement plant.
A recent feature in the Economist considered whether the mass adoption of electrical power from renewable sources might be an increasingly viable path to decarbonising industry. Geopolitics, faster-than-expected growth in renewables and new technology are all doing their bit to make this possible. As with so much of the carbon agenda it may alter the very concept of the traditional cement production line or at least the speed of change. Just imagine how a future cement plant might look, decked out with a electrical micro-grid, a heat battery, an oxy-fuel kiln, a carbon capture unit and either a chemical plant or gas pipeline junction. Will it happen? Who knows… but it is an exciting time for the cement sector.
Update on Chile, February 2024
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
14 February 2024
A few news stories from Chile give us the opportunity to take at look at the local cement market this week. Firstly, Freehill Mining was keen to promote a new order it has obtained from Cementos Melón. The Australia-based company operates magnetite mineral concessions at Yerbas Buenas, about 500km north of Santiago. The US$180,000 deal starts in March 2024 but the raw material supplier says it is currently negotiating a longer-term supply contract with Melón for larger volumes in the future.
A large order for raw materials is not unusual, although the public nature of the Freehill Mining one suggests that the mining company is promoting itself. The story also highlights the importance of the mining sector in Chile. However, a wider view of the Chilean cement sector could be glimpsed recently from the latest cement despatch data from La Cámara Chilena de la Construcción (CCHC). Despatches fell by 11% year-on-year to 5.2Mt in 2023 from 5.9Mt in 2022. As can be seen in Graph 1, despatches recovered in 2021 following the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic but they have declined since then.
Graph 1: Cement despatches in Chile, 2018 – 2023. Source: La Cámara Chilena de la Construcción.
Two of the three larger cement producers have reacted to these market conditions in the last couple of years by cutting costs. Cementos Melón started a restructuring process in late 2022 whereupon it closed down a concrete plant at Penalolen near Santiago and embarked on a spending review. Its income fell by 4% year-on-year to US$182m in the first nine months of 2023, from US$189m in the same period in 2022. Cemento Polpaico followed suit in November 2023 by closing two concrete plants in the Santiago Metropolitan Region and temporarily suspending operations at its Quilicura cement grinding plant with work shifted to the integrated Cerro Blanco plant instead. In June 2023 it reported that its income had risen slightly year-on-year for the first half of 2023, but it noted a loss compared to a profit previously. Cbb (formerly Cementos Bío Bío) managed to avoid the fate of its peers mainly through the performance of its lime division. Its cement and concrete shipments fell by 9% and 15% year-on-year to 775,000t and 750,000m3 respectively in the first nine months of 2023. It blamed the falling sales volumes on a decline in economic activity that dragged upon investment in infrastructure and housing. However, lime shipments grew by 2% following tough trading conditions in 2022 due to high fuel costs, amongst other reasons. Altogether this meant that the company’s earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) rose by 54% to US$44.3m from US$28.8m.
Finally, a third news story this week illustrated one reaction to the poor construction market in Chile, when Unacem Chile announced that it was buying two concrete plants, at San Antonio and Talca. Once the US$1m deal completes, the subsidiary of Peru-based Unión Andina de Cementos (UNACEM) will hold 12 concrete plants in the country. This follows its entry into the market in 2018 when it acquired Hormigones Independencia from Cementos Polpaico. In December 2023 Grupo Gloria subsidiary Cal y Cementos Sur (Calcesur) said that it was preparing to strengthen its presence supplying lime to the mining sector both at home in Peru and in neighbouring countries including Chile. While this isn’t a cement story, Grupo Gloria does operate the integrated Yura plant near Arequipa in southern Peru and this resonates with both the mining and lime sectors.
Chile’s cement market is suffering as the general construction market contracts. Yet as the stories from Freehill Mining and Calcesur show, the mining sector remains a key part of the national economy and this links to the cement industry. Another related story, for example, is a US$39m deal that Denmark-based FLSmidth signed in mid-2023 to supply equipment for a copper mine. Chile’s northern neighbour Peru has a cement sector that is nearly twice as large based on production capacity and some of its producers look internationally for expansion opportunities, as in the example of Unacem Chile. The CHHC didn’t hold back in mid-January 2024 when it said that it forecast that 2024 would be the worst year for investment and construction spending since the late 2010s. Yet it also expects the decline in the construction sector to slow as gains from government infrastructure spending continue to almost counteract falls in the private sector. Until the situation improves, it continues to lobby for economic reforms.
For more information on cement markets in South America read the feature in the February 2024 issue of Global Cement Magazine
How much could Holcim be worth?
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
07 February 2024
We return this week to look at Holcim’s decision to separate and list its business in North America. This is big news because the region delivered nearly a third of the group's earnings in 2022 and a quarter of its net sales. The building materials market in North America has shown considerable potential for Holcim and other companies in recent years. The question then is why would Holcim want to divest this wealth generating potential from the rest of the business? The answer lies in how much Holcim US could be worth in the future.
The group announced at the end of January 2024 that it is working towards a full capital market separation and US listing of its North American business. The transaction will be run as a spin-off with the intention of benefiting all of the company’s present shareholders. The intention is to create the “leading pure-play North American building solutions company,” with the US listing expected to complete in the first half of 2025. The new company will be run separately and independently to the rump of ‘non-US Holcim’ with its own management structure and directors. Crucially, non-US Holcim itself does not intend to have any cross-shareholding in the new company. Holcim’s current chief executive officer Jan Jenisch will focus on his role as chair from May 2024 with the appointment of Miljan Gutovic. Jenisch will then lead the work on spinning-off the US business before later, possibly, taking a senior position at one of the resulting companies, according to his comments at an investors and analysts’ conference.
Holcim says it is doing this to maximise the return to its shareholders. This dodges the question, given that public companies partly exist to do this anyway, so the decision may be more about generating value for shareholders in the short term rather than, say, increasing value for both shareholders and stakeholders by building a bigger business empire. Jenisch explained the decision as a natural evolution of the company’s strategy and he repeatedly described himself as “the first servant of the shareholders.” The divestment should make both companies more valuable through corporate reorganisation rather than buying new companies or making new products. The other thing to consider is that Holcim's shareholders have not been shy in making their requirements known going back to the arguments over the share split when Lafarge and Holcim merged in 2015 and the subsequent battle for the direction of the group.
A spin-off is a form of corporate divestment where a parent company creates a subsidiary as a separate entity with its own management structure and it distributes the shares in the new company between its existing shareholders. Typically it is seen as a good option for the shareholders of the original company compared to other types of divestment such as a split-off, an equity carve out or a straight sale. The benefits include generating proceeds from the divestment, simplifying the corporate structure, increasing the value of both companies and there are tax advantages too. The risk of going for a spin-off though is that the new company may start with operational or financial issues as it starts going solo. It may also have difficulty dealing with market preconceptions about what the new organisation is like based on the parent.
Jenisch said that the group had considered going for an initial public offering for the North American business but had decided that this was riskier. Holcim expects and hopes that the value of the two companies will be higher separately than as they are at present as part of one company. Hence, its investor presentation describing the spin-off was full of plenty of arguments positioning how strong the US business is and could be. Chief financial officer Steffen Kindler also pointed out during the investor conference that one of the reasons the company opted for a full separation was to better secure Standard and Poor's (S&P) listing criteria, another sign that the plan is targeted towards securing as much value as possible. The company is targeting net sales of over US$20bn/yr by 2030 for its North American business.
The strength of the US market in recent years has been evident from the actions of other companies in the building materials sector. Ireland-based CRH moved its primary listing to the US in 2023 due to its high proportion of earnings from the country and the potential in the future from “continued economic expansion, a growing population and significant construction needs.” Another big recent transaction in the sector was the merger of the US operations of Summit Materials and Cementos Argos that completed in early 2024. The diverging prospects of the US economy versus Europe have been driving this trend. Listing on a US exchange can also give companies potentially higher valuations along with access to a larger market and easier connections to private equity to help fund expansion.
With this in mind Holcim’s decision to do something with its North America operations makes sense as it helps the company to increase the return to its shareholders, grow the business and remain competitive. The dominance of the US market on Holcim’s balance sheet is increasingly making the company a US one but without the advantages of being locally based. A spin-off suits the Milton Freedman dictum that companies only exist to maximise shareholder return but there is always a debate to be had about how to actually do this. Splitting Holcim’s growth-based US business from the more sustainability-minded European one ties into this for example, as differences in corporate social responsibilities grow between the regions.
Finally, on an emotional level giving up a key business area feels like a wrench to the status quo. Holcim will no longer be the largest cement producer outside of China once the separation completes. We await further details on how the two companies will be connected following the split… but change is coming.
FLSmidth considers the future
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
31 January 2024
There have been two major announcements in the cement sector this week. The first was that Holcim is preparing to divest its business in the US via a spin-off and full capital market separation. The second was that FLSmidth is thinking about selling its cement equipment business. Both stories are huge so we will cover them both. This week we will focus on FLSmidth and Holcim will follow next time.
Both news stories came as something of a shock. Yet FLSmidth’s plans were not surprising given the divestment of MAAG gears and drives business earlier in January 2024 and several years of tough trading conditions in the sector generally. Yet, as one commentator on the Global Cement LinkedIn Group put it, it feels like “the end of an era.”
First a little history. FLSmidth has been in business for over 140 years and has been indelibly linked to the cement market throughout this time. Its first big cement order was in 1887, it built its own plant in Aalborg in 1889 and it started selling rotary kilns in 1899. By 1957, at the time of its 75th anniversary, it was estimated that 40% of the world’s cement was manufactured in equipment supplied by FLSmidth. Many other advancements and milestones followed but signs of the modern business’ focus on mining can be detected in the acquisition of US-based Fuller Company in 1990, the sale of Aalborg Portland in 2002 and the purchase of ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions’ mining business in 2021.
FLSmidth described its reasoning for a potential divestment of its cement business and focusing on mining as follows: “our industries, and in turn, the appropriate operating models which best serve them, have diverged. Consequently, combining our two organisations under one ownership is now forcing more operational friction than benefit.” It took pains to state that it hopes to sell its cement business in one piece whereupon it can continue to grow under new ownership and “maximise its full potential.”
FLSmidth’s strategy for selling its cement equipment business appears to have taken the form of separating out the cement business, making it look as strong as possible and then publicly announcing that it is “exploring divestment options.” This is different from many other corporate divestments that only become public once a deal with a prospective buyer has been secured. FLSmidth has been preparing for a potential divestment of the division internally through its ‘pure play’ strategies and focusing more recently on product, services and technology rather than project risks. It said that the MAAG sale had shown it that there was interest in buying the cement business. However, no potential buyers have been disclosed at this time. In a conference call the company said that it was hoping for five to 10 interested parties and it would expect these to be either industrial buyers or financial entities.
One of the callers homed in on the attempts by ThyssenKrupp to sell the cement division of its subsidiary ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions (TKIS) in 2020 following a restructuring drive. It changed its mind in 2021 and ended up selling its mining division to FLSmidth instead. In response to any comparison, FLSmidth asserted that it was preparing to sell a significantly different asset to TKIS, not least due to its careful steering away from project-based risk.
The wider business backdrop to this decision has been the rise of the Chinese cement sector since the late 1990s, persistent global production overcapacity, the setting of net zero CO2 emission targets globally and, more recently, logistic and economic shocks arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and geopolitical events. New cement production line projects are now frequently managed by China-based equipment suppliers in many territories, with the exception of North America. It is worth noting here that some of the largest China-based cement equipment suppliers are subsidiaries of the government. The Chinese government has also supported the construction of new plants outside its borders through its Belt and Road initiative. Protectionist investment policies implemented by western governments to support industry transitioning to net zero is in part a response to this in the general economy. Cement equipment suppliers from outside of China can and do build lines on a regular basis but they tend to concentrate on parts of plants, such as mills, or specific technologies and services. FLSmidth is a good example of this transition with its renewed focus on the green transition.
The decision by FLSmidth to consider selling its cement business marks another sign that the cement industry is changing. The transition to net zero puts Europe-based suppliers in a good position given that the region is currently leading with carbon capture projects. A retrofit boom for cement plants (and customers) being made to pay for CO2 emissions could change the dynamic for the cement equipment sector as the focus shifts from building kilns to capturing CO2. And companies like FLSmidth are well placed to benefit from this. Then again it may just end up being business as usual. Either way, any eventual change in the ownership of FLSmidth’s cement division does indeed mark the end of an era.
Next week: Holcim’s plans in the US
Carbon capture for the US cement sector, January 2024
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
24 January 2024
It has been a busy week for carbon capture in the cement sector with Global Cement covering five stories. However, increasingly, the topic has become a regular feature in the press as the industry bends to the demands of the carbon agenda. This week’s selection is notable because three of the stories cover North America.
Holcim US announced that it is working with Ohio State University and GTI Energy to design, build and test engineering-scale membrane carbon capture technology at the Holly Hill cement plant in South Carolina. The information builds on an earlier release from the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) in late December 2023 about the project. It has a total budget of US$9m, with US$7m supplied by the DOE. It plans to build a 3t/day CO2 capture unit that uses a method intended to retain 95 - 99% of CO2 from cement kiln gas with a purity exceeding 95%. The new information at this stage is that GTI Energy is involved. Specifically, it will support the development of the pilot skid for site deployment.
The other two stories from North America are worth noting because they both concern commercial equipment or technology suppliers joining up to work together. First, 10 companies - Biomason, Blue Planet Systems, Brimstone, CarbonBuilt, Chement, Fortera, Minus Materials, Queens Carbon, Sublime Systems, and Terra CO2 - announced they were launching the Decarbonized Cement and Concrete Alliance (DC2). The group’s principal aim is to lobby the US government toward using new low-carbon cement and concrete products in public infrastructure. It also intends to look at advocacy and public sector engagement including expanded tax credits, development of standards for novel cements, consistent ecolabeling and accounting, and customer demand support. DC2 was formally launched in January 2024 but it follows previous work by the companies in the area. The other related story was a memorandum of understanding that Aker Carbon Capture and MAN Energy Solutions have also signed this week to jointly pursue opportunities related to carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) and CO2 compression in the North American market. These two companies have worked on the full-scale CCUS unit at Norcem’s Brevik cement plant, which is due to be commissioned later in 2024. They are likely intending to capitalise on the publicity that is likely to be generated once it officially starts up.
Back in North America the DC2 Alliance noted in its press release the DOE’s release of its Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Low-Carbon Cement report in September 2023. Although it is similar to many other varied sector roadmaps, including the Portland Cement Association’s Road to Net Zero that was released in 2021, this document is well worth reading due to its details and local market context. The headline figure, for example, is that following a set of pathways to fully decarbonise the US cement industry would cost US$60 - 120bn by 2050. Doing so would involve reducing the clinker factor, improving energy efficiency, increased use of alternative fuels, using CCUS, using alternative feedstocks and adopting alternatives to traditional cement production methods.
Graph 1: US active cement kilns by capacity and age. Source: PCA survey data used in Department of Energy Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Low-Carbon Cement report.
One other interesting tidbit to consider from the report is an analysis of the age of the US cement sector’s kilns versus their production capacity as shown in Graph 1 above. The largest 10 kilns in the country account for 22% of the country’s total capacity and these were all built after 2000. Then, the next 44% of the national capacity comes from 38 kilns out of a total of 120 kilns at 98 cement plants. The report itself does not make this assertion but the implication is that retrofitting CCUS units at one third of the country’s clinker lines would capture the CO2 being emitted from two-thirds of the sector’s production capacity. This is not to say that this could actually work technically, logistically or economically. Yet seeing the scale of the challenge presented in this way is fascinating and one starts to have thoughts about how a retrofit roll-out of CCUS units might actually be approached.
Whether the cement sector adopts CCUS at scale remains to be seen but demonstration projects are definitely coming in both Europe and North America. The DOE report from September 2023 suggests that decarbonisation will cost a lot of money. No surprises there and, as ever, there is rather less detail on who will actually pay for this. One thing that might help here, that the DOE report mentions frequently, is the 45Q carbon capture tax credit scheme, which was introduced by the Trump administration in 2020. Regardless of the potential bill for consumers of cement though, the suppliers are clearly taking note of the investment potential as evidenced by all the non-cement plant CCUS news stories this week.
- carbon capture, utilisation & storage
- US
- Canada
- Holcim US
- Holcim
- Plant
- South Carolina
- Ohio State
- GTI Energy
- Department of Energy
- Government
- Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management
- CO2
- Biomason
- Blue Planet Systems
- Brimstone
- CarbonBuilt
- Chement
- Fortera
- Minus Materials
- Queens Carbon
- Sublime Systems
- Terra CO2
- Decarbonized Cement and Concrete Alliance
- Aker Solutions
- MAN Energy
- Portland Cement Association
- GCW643