Displaying items by tag: CO2

Norway: The government has proposed continuing funding for Norcem’s CO₂ capture and storage project at its Brevik cement plant. The announcement follows an assessment by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy of local carbon capture, transport and storage (CCS) projects. The government has proposed to fund FEED studies (Front End Engineering and Design studies) with around Euro8m in 2018. The total funding for the demonstration project in 2018 amounts to Euro29m, including funds transferred from 2017. The proposed funds for 2018 will cover FEED studies of CO₂ transport, storage and up to two capture facilities.

“Of the three CO₂ capture projects evaluated, Norcem has the best conditions for a successful implementation. Norcem has demonstrated project execution abilities and relatively low cost per tonne CO₂ captured compared to the other two capture projects. The cement industry is also a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions,” said the government in a statement Norcem, HeidelbergCement local subsidiary, which sbeat other projects by Yara and Fortum Oslo Varme to the funding.

UK: A report by the CDP looking at some of the largest multinational cement producers says that they need to double their emissions reductions in order to meet the 2°C global warming target outlined in the Paris Agreement. The report, entitled ‘Building Pressure,’ analysed 13 large cement companies including LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex from data in a questionnaire. However, two major Chinese cement producers, Anhui Conch and China National Building Materials, and other producers including Siam Cement and Dangote Cement did not respond.

The report argues that regulation is the key driver to helping the cement industry reduce its emissions, through tightening building regulation and a rise in low carbon cities. However, it concedes that the sector faces a technology barrier, as ‘significant innovation’ is still required. “With potential pressure coming from multiple sources, including down the value chain in the form of building and city regulation, cement companies need to invest and innovate in order to avoid impending risks to their operations and the wider world. This may see m challenging at first, but every year it is delayed, the cost becomes greater, so management teams, regulators and investors need to think long term. There is a solution - cement companies just need to invest properly in finding it,” said Paul Simpson, the chief executive officer of CDP. The CDP report assessed companies across four key areas aligned with the recommendations from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Indian companies toped its league table in part due to better access to alternative materials from other carbon-intensive sectors. They also benefited from

newer cement plants driven by high market growth in the region compared to older plants in Europe. Dalmia Bharat, Ambuja Cement and Cementos Argos were the best performing companies on climate-related metrics and Taiheiyo Cement, Cementir Holding and Asia Cement Corporation ranked lowest.

France/Switzerland: A technology roadmap by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) sets out a combination of technology and policy solutions that could reduce CO₂ emission from the cement industry by 24% by 2050. The Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry report updates the first global sectoral roadmap produced in 2009. It aims to identify and develop international collaborative efforts and provide evidence for public and private sector decision-makers to move towards a more sustainable cement sector that can contribute to long-term climate goals.

“The first exercise carried out in 2009 had demonstrated its added value to help the sector identify solutions and enablers to reduce its CO₂ emissions and it was essential to adjust this projection with the latest robust emissions data from the CSI’s Getting The Numbers right (GNR) database and the potential of latest technologies developed by the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA),” said Philippe Fonta, managing director, CSI of World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WBCSD).The report aims to present a way to help the cement industry play its part it meeting the IEA’s 2°C Scenario (2DS) by 2050, which seeks to limit average global temperature increases to 2°C. The report forecasts that global cement production is set to increase between 12 - 23% by 2050 due to rising global population and urbanisation. Despite increasing efficiencies, direct carbon emissions from the cement industry are expected to rise by 4% globally by 2050 under the IEA Reference Technology Scenario (RTS), a base case scenario that takes into account existing energy and climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. The CSI and IEA argue that the low-carbon transition of the cement industry can only be reached with a supportive regulatory framework as well as effective and sustained investments. They say that meeting the RSI requires more investment, with a

potential doubling to meeting the 2DS. Governments, in collaboration with industry, can play a determinant role in developing policy and regulatory mechanisms that unlock the private finance necessary for such a boost in investment.The roadmap uses a bottom-up approach to explore a possible transition pathway based on least-cost technology analysis for the cement industry to reduce its direct CO₂ emissions in line with the IEA’s 2DS. Reaching this goal, the CSI and IEA say, would require a combination of technology solutions, supportive policy, public-private collaboration, financing mechanisms and social acceptance.

Improving energy efficiency and switching to alternative fuels, in combination with reducing the clinker content in cement and deploying emerging and innovative technologies like carbon capture and the use of alternative binding materials are the main carbon-mitigation methods available in cement manufacturing. Further emissions savings can be achieved by taking into account the overall life cycle of cement, concrete and the built environment. The roadmap outlines policy priorities and regulatory recommendations, discusses investment stimulating mechanisms and describes technical challenges with regard to research, development and demonstration.

China: Anhui Conch has spent over US$7.9m on a 50,000t CO₂ capture and purification pilot project at its Baimashan cement plant in Anhui province. The unit is scheduled to start operation in the first half of 2018. The group has started the project in order to participate in the government’s ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’ CO₂ emission reduction initiative.

China: Anhui Conch’s sales revenue grew by 35% year-on-year to US$11.9bn in 2017 from US$8.85bn in 2016. Its net profit nearly doubled to US$2.51bn from US$1.36bn. The cement producer said that it had, ‘seized the favourable opportunities arising from the state’s further deepening of supply-side structural reform and the promotion of off-peak season production.’

During the year Anhui Conch opened eight cement grinding plants including Quanjiao Conch Cement, Anhui Xuancheng Conch Cement and Nantong Conch Cement. Outside of China the company completed phase two of its Merak grinding plant in Indonesia and started cement production and completed construction of the North Sulawesi Conch plant in Indonesia and the Battambang Conch plant in Cambodia. The units in Indonesia and Cambodia are due to start production in 2018. A new plant, Luang Prabang Conch, is being built in Laos and preliminary work on projects at Volga Conch in Russia, Vientiane in Laos and Mandalay in Myanmar is underway. At the end of 2017 Anhui Conch says it has a clinker and cement production capacity of 246t/yr and 335Mt/yr respectively.

The cement producer also announced that its Baimashan Cement plant was intending to start operating a CO₂ collection and purification pilot project in the first half of 2018. The initiative is part of the group’s moves to implement the government’s low-carbon development strategy.

US: CarbonCure has demonstrated an integrated CO₂ capture and utilisation (CCU) process from cement for concrete production in January 2018 at Cementos Argos’ Roberta plant in Calera, Alabama. The consortium - comprising Carbon Cure, Sustainable Energy Solutions (SES), Praxair, Cementos Argos and Kline Consulting - says it is the world’s first project to collect cement kiln CO₂ for subsequent utilisation downstream in concrete production and construction.

CO₂ emissions from the Roberta cement plant were captured by SES’ Cryogenic CO₂ Capture technology, transported by Praxair and reused in Cementos Argos' Glenwood, Atlanta concrete operations equipped with CarbonCure's CO₂ utilisation technology. The concrete manufactured with the waste CO₂ from the Roberta cement plant was then used in a local construction project in the greater Atlanta area. Design partners and fellow members of CarbonCure’s Carbon XPRIZE team such as LS3P Architects, Uzun + Case Structural Engineering, and Walter P Moore Structural Engineers completed the end to end integrated solution by creating demand for CarbonCure concrete products in the marketplace. Kline Consulting oversaw the commissioning and reporting of the industrial demonstration.

The project was an extension of Team CarbonCure's participation in the US$20m NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE Challenge, which incentivises and accelerates the development of integrated CCU technologies and new markets that convert CO₂ emissions from coal and natural gas power generation into valuable products.

The Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) has announced its aim to reduce CO₂ emissions by clinker producers by 20 - 25% by 2030. It made the announcement as part of a new action plan launched on 8 December 2015 at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21).

Most of the plan follows the CSI's existing aims announced to chime with the on-going COP21 negotiations. The plan depends on a long-term agreement being brokered successfully in Paris at COP21 as a whole. It then recommends policy in each of its key areas to achieve its goals. All of this sits beneath a general policy statement to, '...encourage policies for predictable, objective, level-playing and stable CO₂ constraints and incentives as well as energy frameworks on an international level.'

The Cement Action Plan is part of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development Low Carbon Technology Partnerships initiative (LCTPi). It puts together a series of measures to aspire to reduce CO₂ emissions by 1Gt by 2030 compared to business as usual. However this reduction is dependent on the entire cement industry getting involved, not just the existing 26 CSI members. Together these 26 members represent just a quarter of world cement production.

The drop in emissions is based on the so-called 'best-in-class' CSI company 2020 targets. To reach this the CSI is suggesting actions including focusing on recording Chinese cement industry emissions and energy usage, improving energy efficiency, promoting co-processing of alternative fuels, further lowering the clinker factor of cements, developing new low-energy and low-carbon cements, looking at the entire build chain to reduce emissions and considering other options such as carbon capture and storage. The plan had the support of the CEOs of 16 cement companies at its launch, with CNBM CEO Song Zhiping adding his assent at the event also.

The most prominent step is the clear focus on China for data capture using existing CSI tools such as the CO₂ and Energy Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, the Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) and the Cement Technology Roadmaps. As the CSI puts it, "What gets measured gets managed."

Given that China produces around 60% of the world's cement, according to United States Geological Survey data, the focus on China is essential. Currently the CSI has six Chinese members: CNBM, Sinoma, China Resources, Tianrui Group, West China Cement and Yati Group. Notable exceptions to CSI membership from the world's biggest cement producers include the Chinese producers Anhui Conch and Taiwan Cement, as well as Russia's Eurocement and India's Aditya Birla Group.

So, the CSI has set out its stall ahead of a hoped-for global agreement on climate change at the Paris conference. If some sort of legal agreement is reached then the CSI has its recommendations ready in the wings to hand to policymakers everywhere to promote its aims. If no agreement is reached then the plan loses momentum although pushing forwards makes sense where possible, starting with better CO₂ data reported especially in China.

Problems lie ahead for the CSI whatever happens in Paris given that the LCTPi Cement Action Plan is a series of policy suggestions from only 16 cement producers aiming for a non-binding target. For example, without some sort of world legal agreement there are clear commercial advantages for non-CSI members to burn cheap fossil fuels in their kilns and undercut their more environmentally pious rivals. The sustaining low cost of oil, dipping below US$40/barrel this week, can only aggravate this situation and distract the strategies of fuel buyers away from co-processing upgrades.

One highlight from the cement industry news over the last month was Skyonic's announcement that it has opened a commercial-scale carbon capture unit at the Capitol Aggregates cement plant in Texas, US. Details were light, but the press release promised that the unit was expected to generate US$48m/yr in revenue for an outlay of US$125m. Potentially, the implications for the process are profound, so it is worth considering some of the issues here.

Firstly, it is unclear from the public information released whether the process will actually make a profit. The revenue figures for the Skyonic unit are predictions and are dependent on the markets that the products (sodium biocarbonate, hydrogen and chlorine) will be sold into. Skyonic CEO and founder, Joe Jones, has said in interview that the sodium-based product market by itself could only support 200 - 250 plants worldwide using this process. Worldwide there are over 2000 integrated cement plants. Since Jones is selling his technology his market prediction might well be optimistic. It is also uncertain how existing sodium biocarbonate producers will react to this new source of competition.

Secondly, Skyonic is hoping to push the cost of carbon capture down to US$20/t. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and transportation varies between industries depending on the purity and concentration of the by-product. For example, in 2011 the US Energy Information Administration estimated the cost for CO₂ capture to range from US$36.10/t for coal and biomass-to-liquids conversion up to US$81.08/t for cement plants. The difference being that capturing CO₂ from cement plant flue gas emissions requires more cleaning or scrubbing of other unwanted chemicals such as mercury.

With these limitations in mind, Skyonic is placing itself in competition with the existing flue gas scrubbing market rather than the carbon capture market, since the level of CO₂ removal can be scaled to local legislation. Plus, SO_x, NO₂, mercury and other heavy metals can be removed in the process.

Back on carbon capture, Skyonic is securing finance for a process it calls Skycycle, which will produce calcium-based products from CO₂, with a pilot plant planned at Capitol Aggregates for late 2015. This puts Skyonic back amongst several other pilot projects that are running around the world.

Taiwan Cement and the Industrial Technology Research Institute inaugurated their calcium looping project pilot in mid-2013. It was last reported to have a CO₂ capture rate of 1t/hr.

The Norcem cement plant in Brevik, Norway started in early 2014 to test and compare four different types of post-combustion carbon capture technologies at its pilot unit. These are Aker Solutions Amine Technology, RTI Solid Sorbent Technology, DNV GL/ NTNU/ Yodfat Engineers Membrane Technology and Alstom Power Regenerative Calcium Cycle. The project in conjunction with HeidelbergCement and the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA) is scheduled to run until 2017.

St Marys Cement in St Marys, Canada started its bioreactor pilot project in July 2014. This process uses flue gas to grow algae that can then be used for bio-oil, food, fertiliser and sewage treatment.

If Skyonic is correct then its sodium biocarbonate process in Texas is a strong step towards cutting CO₂ emissions in the cement industry. Unfortunately, it looks like it can only be a step since the market won't support large-scale adoption of this technology. Other pilots are in progress but they are unlikely to gather momentum until legislation forces cement producers to adopt these technologies or someone devises a method that pays for the capture cost.

An update on the algae bioreactor project at Votorantim's St Marys cement plant in Canada this week provides a good opportunity to review this particular aspect of carbon sequestration. The project, run with Pond Biofuels, went live in 2009. It has now reached its third generation bioreactor at the site.

Little or no performance data has been released generally so we have no way at present of knowing how viable the process is commercially. Cement backers, Brazilian firm Votorantim, are certainly excited by the project even if only for the sustainability kudos it gives them. Director Edvaldo Araújo Rabello presented the project as one of the company's highlights at a keynote presentation at the 6°CBC Congresso do Cimento held in São Paulo, Brazil in May 2014.

One hurdle for the St Marys pilot is the relative lack of light, a required input for algae photosynthesis, even in Canada's most southerly state. Pond Biofuels have reportedly dodged this by using continuously flashing LEDs to simulate artificially short days that encourage growth. On paper or powerpoint a process that could potentially cut even a proportion of CO₂ emissions from a cement plant sounds enticing. Yet if it creates more CO₂ than it saves, through electricity requirements for example, than it isn't worth using.

This is probably what shelved Lafarge's Carbon Capture and Transformation project. It ran a pilot project at its Val d'Azergues plant in France in 2009 with Salata GmbH. The pilot worked but the researchers decided that new advances in processes and biotechnology were required to make the economic and environmental results better. Other companies have also had problems. Holcim started its Aurantia – GreenFuel project in late 2007 at its Jerez cement plant in Spain, backing it with an investment US$92m. This project stalled when GreenFuel shut in 2009 citing lack of funding as the recession hit.

ACC in India also reportedly started its own algae project in 2007, mentioning it in its sustainability report, but nothing more has been reported since. Since this burst of interest InterCement has invested US$2.5m towards algae research in 2013 working with the Federal University of São Carlos, the Federal University of Santa Maria and Algae Biotecnologia.

Algae-based carbon projects for cement plants may remain stuck in the research stage but the market for biofuels continues to grow. For example, this week we report that Ohorongo Cement in Namibia plans to increase its use of blackthorn as a biofuel to use as an alternative fuel in co-processing. The prospects of turning waste CO₂ into a valuable commodity remains uncertain, but the rewards are great. Let's wait and see what St Marys can do.

In late November 2013 Guangdong province in China announced that it will be launching its carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) in December 2013. Together with six other pilot projects in China the scheme will be the second largest carbon market in the world after the European Union (EU) when fully operational. Yet with the EU ETS floundering from excess carbon permits, with a resulting low price of permits and large cement producers such as a Lafarge reported as stockpiling permits, what are the Chinese schemes planning to do differently to avoid these pitfalls?

Overall, China has announced that it intends to cut its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by up to 45% by 2020 compared to 2005. In Guangdong, emissions from 202 companies will be capped at 350Mt for 2013, according to the local Development and Reform Commission. As shown in an article in the December 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine, Guangdong province has a cement production capacity of 132.7Mt/yr, the second highest in the country after Anhui province.

From the perspective of the cement industry, Chunfang Wang from Huaxin Cement spoke about the importance of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) at an International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) workshop that took place in Guangzhou, Guangdong in early 2013. From Wang's perspective, emission assessment standards were at a 'developmental' stage in China and 'smooth' carbon trading would depend on consistent standards being adopted everywhere. Although at the time the particulars of the Guangdong scheme were unknown, participants at the IETA event advised cooperation with scheme planners to ensure emission producers and purchasers remained part of the decision process. Sliding carbon prices in the EU ETS may have been beneficial for permit buyers but once the government planners become involved to revive the market they might lose out.

As the Economist pointed out the summer of 2013, an ETS is a cap-and-trade scheme. Since China appears to have no definite cap to carbon emissions, how can the trading work? The Chinese schemes cap carbon per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Yet since GDP is dependent on production, any ETS run in this way would have to include adjustments at the end of trading. This would give central planners of the scheme plenty of wiggle room to rig the scheme. Worse yet, analysts Thomson Reuters Point Carbon have pointed out that the Chinese schemes face over-allocation of permits, the same issue that sank EU carbon prices. Additionally, one of the criticisms of the Guangdong Emissions Trading Scheme (GETS) pilot scheme was that the carbon prices may have been higher than expected due to market collusion.

The Chinese ETS projects face issues over their openness. If traders don't know accurately how much carbon dioxide is being produced by industry, such as cement production, then the scheme may be undermined. Similarly, over-allocating carbon permits may make it easier for producers to meet targets but it will cause problems in the trading price of carbon. However, given that a carbon emissions cap is an artificial mechanism to encourage markets to cut emissions, should any of these concerns really matter? The main question for Chinese citizens is whether or not China can cut its overall emissions and clear the air in its smog filled mega-cities.

Specifically for cement producers, it seems likely that large producers will be able to cope with the scheme best, from having more carbon permits to sell, to rolling out unified emissions assessment protocols, to liaising better with scheme planners. In Europe smaller cement producers, like Ecocem, have criticised the EU ETS for slowing a transition to a low carbon economy by subsidising the larger producers' emissions through over-allocation. In China, with its self-declared intention to consolidate an over-producing cement industry, whatever else happens it seems likely that smaller cement producers may become lost in the haze.