Displaying items by tag: Cembureau

From 2027, the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) will begin to charge third country-based cement exporters for the CO₂ emissions of their products sold inside the bloc. The new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a lynchpin in the strategy to realise a 55% reduction in EU industries' CO₂ emissions between 1990 and 2030. Starving foreign cement industries of a source of income may also help to make them change their ways. A regional solution leveraged through an unfair head start, however, might cause progress to falter where it is most needed in the global fight against climate change.

Carbon leakage has hung over the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) since its inception in 2005. Cembureau, the European cement association, has reported a 300% five-year increase in third-country cement imports up to 2021, with spikes matching those in ETS credit prices. Companies from Turkey to Australia have produced and transported their cement into the EU, at great CO₂ cost, while benefitting from a competitive edge over domestic producers, it would seem. Lawmakers rectified the situation by maintaining free allocations of ETS credits to EU industries, including cement, which received US$92m-worth in 2021.¹ In the wake of the Paris Agreement, an emissions pricing mechanism on cement imports first came before a vote of the member states in February 2017.

In what would become a recurring theme, opposition from all sides of the issue defeated the proposal. Most interesting was the international response: Brazil, China, India and South Africa voiced ‘grave concern’ over the proposed CBAM. A Russian representative at the Department of European Cooperation lamented the possible necessity of ‘response measures,’ while US Climate Envoy John Kerry coolly urged the EU to wait until after the COP26 climate change conference in November 2021. The outbursts were surprising given that the mechanism clearly conformed to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules: free allocations were always expected to phase out in a mirror image of the CBAM phase-in. The proposal eventually adopted on 22 June 2022 set the end date for both as 2032.

In 2020, the EU imported US$383m-worth of cement and concrete across its external borders, down by 17% year-on-year from US$463m in 2019.² Imports had previously more than doubled decade-on-decade from US$204min 2009. China accounted for US$167m-worth (43%) of cement and concrete exports to the EU in 2020, followed by Vietnam with US$34m (9%) and the UK with US$30m (7.9%). Other significant sources include Belarus (US$28m - 7.4%), Russia (US$13.8m - 3.6%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (US$13.5m - 3.5%), Serbia (US$13.1 million - 3.4%), Israel (US$13m - 3.4%), Turkey (US$12.6m - 3.3%) and the US (US$10.3m - 2.7%).

China

China’s first emissions trading scheme will be one year old on 16 July 2021. The scheme, covering more than twice the CO₂ emissions accounted for under the EU ETS, may lend an apparent synergy to EU energy policy and that of the bloc’s main trade partner.³ On the contrary, Chinese carbon credits cost 8.5% the price of EU ETS credits on 29 June 2022, with a growth rate of just 10% year-on-year compared to 53% in EU ETS credit prices. Unlike their European equivalent, they are also restricted to the energy sector. Chinese cement exporters are unready to meet the CBAM on its own terms. The inclusion of indirect emissions further disadvantages plants operating in China’s 57% coal-powered economy. Premier Li Keqiang has warned countries to be on their guard against a ‘new green trade barrier.’

These concerns ought to be considered in light of the scale and diversified nature of the China-EU trade partnership. The eventual inclusion of polymers, hydrogen and ammonia under the CBAM still does not extend its scope beyond 3% of Chinese imports to the EU by value, enabling China to retain the leverage it has previously proved willing to exercise against those who threaten the perceived interests of global trade.

China plans to reach net zero CO₂ emissions by 2060 through an energy transition in which it invested US$266m in 2021, more than the next six ranked countries combined.⁴ In the medium-term future, the CBAM may become a green bridge, connecting with Chinese emissions reduction policies in a single carbon border measure to raise money for developing countries’ sustainable transitions, as suggested by former governor of the People’s Bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan. Until then, China seems well positioned to ensure that a fair share of the costs arising from the CBAM pass to importers and the consumer.

Turkey

Turkey provided 3.3% of the EU’s cement and concrete imports in 2020, but the volume corresponded to 13% of Turkey’s total exports of the same. Thus, the country has a high exposure to any adverse effects of the CBAM – quantified at an estimated US$789m/yr by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.⁵ Turkey’s ratification of the Paris Agreement in late 2021 is among the positive outcomes of the CBAM. The country now plans to align with the CBAM. In this, the Turkish cement industry will rely on a share of a US$3.2bn loan from the World Bank, France and Germany.

The UN has yet to receive an updated climate action plan from the Turkish government in line with its pledges. Should Turkey fail to transition within the short timeframe provided by the CBAM, its cement sector might increase its existing focus on the West African market, where it holds 55% and 46% market shares for cement and clinker imports to Ghana and Ivory Coast respectively. The beleaguered industry has one greater refuge still: the US market, which consumed 18% of Turkish cement exports in 2020.

North America

Discussions of the CBAM’s impacts in Canada and the US are tied to those countries’ on-going deliberations over possible adjustment mechanisms of their own. At present, individual provinces and states are responsible for implementing carbon pricing. An international emissions trading scheme, called the Western Climate Initiative, already exists between the US state of California and the Canadian province of Quebec. The Canadian government is conducting a consultation on federal Border Carbon Adjustment (BCA) credits in the context of economy-wide pricing.⁶ Carbon border adjustment was previously an item on the US Trade Policy Agenda in 2021, but disappeared in 2022. President Biden pledged to impose 'carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations' during his candidateship in the 2020 US presidential election. On 7 June 2022, two weeks before the EU adopted CBAM, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a carbon border adjustment bill to the US Senate, which it referred to its Committee on Finance.⁷

North American legislators will need to follow the European Parliament in building a broad centrist majority in order to pass their CBAMs. If they succeed, the world will gain a low-carbon axis of cement markets, bringing their trade partners behind them.

Other European countries

The UK cement industry expects to pay an extra US$30.1m/yr on account of the CBAM.⁹

A November 2021 report by the Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment) concluded that Ukraine's 'largest and most technological' cement producers will experience no critical influence from the CBAM when exporting to the EU.⁸ At that time, the Ukrainian strategy consisted of an alignment with any future CBAM. On 31 May 2022, The European Business Association calculated Ukrainian cement producers' total CBAM tax bill as US$3.36m/yr.¹⁰

Montenegro introduced its own emissions trading system, modelled on the EU ETS, in February 2021, a move which Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia have both announced their intent to follow.¹¹

Norway has called for international acceptance of the CBAM, but questioned the practicality of including indirect carbon pricing.

An example of the possible adverse effects of the CBAM comes from the EU's ban on Russian cement imports in April 2022. The loss of the EU market was one likely contributor to a rollback of climate regulation there.¹²

Developing countries

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Oxfam has criticised the CBAM's failure to include an exemption for the least developed countries. The EU's solution is an indirect one: it will put CBAM revenues towards its budget, from which international climate finance funding will be raised to an equivalent level. As Paris Agreement signatories, EU member states already expect to contribute to the achievement of US$100bn/yr in climate finance funds for poorer countries in 2023.

Oxfam has recommended that the EU do more to take account of its disproportionate contribution to cumulative global CO₂ emissions. This would include directly paying CBAM revenues into international climate finance and accelerating the phase-out of free ETS allocations.

Conclusion

On 22 June 2022, the most sustainable cement market in the world successfully harnessed market forces to its emissions reduction ambitions. The European cement industry will be able to celebrate the end of carbon leakage. Cement companies outside of the EU, however, now face increased costs and lower prices for their product. The legislation addresses some of the harm that it causes to less developed countries; those – like China, Turkey and Vietnam – in the middle will have to face it head-on.

So far, we have cited governments and lobby groups, but the real question of readiness for the CBAM lies with producers. Global cement companies, including those based in the EU, have implemented their sustainable cement technologies across all continents, and are beginning to reap the rewards of a new world where paying for pollution is unavoidable.

Sources

1. Sandbag, E3G and Energy Foundation, A Storm in a Teacup, Impacts and Geopolitical Risks of the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, August 2021, https://9tj4025ol53byww26jdkao0x-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/E3G-Sandbag-CBAM-Paper-Eng.pdf

2. Trend Economy, ‘Imports: European Union: 6810,’ 14 November 2021, https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/EuropeanUnion/6810

3. Energy Monitor, ‘Carbon trading the Chinese way,’ 5 January 2022, https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/carbon-markets/carbon-trading-the-chinese-way

4. China Power, ‘How Is China’s Energy Footprint Changing?’ https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/

5. Politico, ‘EU’s looming carbon tax nudged Turkey toward Paris climate accord, envoy says,’ 6 November 2021, https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-turkey-paris-accord-climate-change/

6. Canadian Climate Institute/L'Instut Climatique du Canada, 'Border Carbon Adjustments,' 27 January 2022, https://climateinstitute.ca/publications/border-carbon-adjustments/

7. Congress, 'S.4355 - Clean Competition Act,' 7 June 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4355?s=1&r=6

8.Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment), ' The Impact of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on the EU - Ukraine trade,' November 2021, https://www.rac.org.ua/uploads/content/624/files/impactcarbonmechanismcbamukrainesummaryen.pdf

9. Burke et al, 'What does an EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism mean for the UK?' April 2021, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/What-does-an-EU-Carbon-Border-Adjustment-Mechanism-mean-for-the-UK_FULL-REPORT.pdf

10. European Business Association, 'Ukrainian exporters to pay more than € 1 billion in carbon tax to the EU under the CBAM,' 31 May 2022, https://eba.com.ua/en/ponad-1-mlrd-yevro-podatku-na-vuglets-shhoroku-splachuvatymut-ukrayinski-eksportery-v-yes-v-ramkah-svam/

11. Balkan Green Energy News, 'Which Western Balkan countries intend to introduce carbon tax?' 18 May 2022, https://balkangreenenergynews.com/which-western-balkan-countries-intend-to-introduce-carbon-tax/

12. Climate Home News, 'Russian climate action and research is collateral damage in Putin’s war on Ukraine,' 26 May 2022, https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/05/26/russian-climate-action-and-research-is-collateral-damage-in-putins-war-on-ukraine/

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association has welcomed the adoption of the European Parliament reports on the European Union (EU) Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

Koen Coppenholle, the chief executive officer of Cembureau, said “Our sector needs a coherent and predictable regulatory framework to deliver on its carbon neutrality ambitions. The texts adopted today offer significant improvements on key issues – such as the reinforcement of CBAM, the inclusion of indirect emissions, the need for a strong export solution for CBAM sectors, the inclusion of waste incineration in the EU ETS and the support for key breakthrough technologies - which we welcome.” He added that the association regretted the compromise reached suggesting delaying the implementation of the CBAM by one year as cement imports into the EU were growing “exponentially”.

Eurostat data cited by Cembureau shows that EU cement imports have increased by 300% in the past five years from 2016 to 2021, with specific spikes when the EU carbon price was at its highest level. The association is lobbying for what it calls a ‘watertight’ CBAM and a ‘realistic’ with the phase-out of free allocation of carbon credits to cement producers.

Europe: The European cement association Cembureau has expressed its disappointment in the outcome of European Parliament votes on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The parliament voted against an amended proposal to introduce a carbon border tax and to phase out ETS allowances from 2028 to 2034, against a previous proposal of 2025 – 2030. Groups including The Greens – European Free Alliance voted against the proposed legislation as they believed it did not go far enough.

Cembureau chief executive officer Koen Coppenholle said “The EU cement industry needs a strong CBAM to support our decarbonisation efforts and fight carbon leakage. Both draft European Parliament texts on ETS and CBAM contain significant improvements on some key issues – such as CBAM’s watertightness or industrial innovation – which are essential to support our transition to carbon neutrality.” Coppenholle continued “We encourage MEPs to resume negotiations as soon as possible and reach a reasonable compromise on the remaining divisive issues, thereby providing a predictable regulatory framework for the industry.”

Europe: The European cement industry association Cembureau has published its 2030 Biodiversity Roadmap. The roadmap sets out the association’s strategy for becoming nature positive by 2030. This consists of four focus areas, namely participation in the European Union (EU) Pollinators Initiative, control of invasive species, support for protected species and ecosystem rehabilitation efforts.

Chief executive officer Koen Coppenholle said “The European cement industry is committed to achieving the goals set in the EU Green Deal. In addition to climate change, one of the key priorities of our industry is to protect and preserve the rich ecosystems thriving in and around our quarries and to make a strong contribution to biodiversity across the EU.”

Austria: The Austrian Cement Industry Association (VÖZ) has launched a roadmap for carbon neutrality by 2050. The initiative follows the 5C approach of Clinker, Cement, Concrete, Construction and Carbonation as prompted by the European Cement Association, Cembureau. Selected targets from the document include reducing the sector’s average clinker factor to 52% by 2040 from 70% in 2020, using carbon-neutral electricity from 2030 and meeting a recycling rate for concrete and demolition waste of 25% in 2050 from 10% in 2022. Sebastian Spaun, the managing director of VÖZ, highlighted the ‘Carbon2ProductAustria’ (C₂PAT) initiative as a key project where capture CO₂ from Lafarge Zementwerke’s Mannersdorf cement plant will be used with hydrogen to produce synthetic fuels, plastics or other chemicals.

From the Nordics to the Mediterranean, European countries lead the field in reduced-clinker cement production using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). While consumers, faced with ever-greater choice, continue to opt for sustainability, projects to improve existing SCMs and develop new ones have won government backing and have become a matter of serious investment for other heavy industries beside cement. European cement producers’ decisions are steering the course to a world beyond CEM I. Yet, even in Europe, great untapped potential remains.

Companies generated a good deal of marketing buzz around their latest reduced-CO₂ cement ranges in 2021 and the first quarter of 2022: Buzzi Unicem’s CGreen in Germany and Italy, Holcim’s EcoPlanet in six markets from Romania to Spain, Cementir Holding’s Futurecem in Denmark and Benelux, and Cemex’s Vertua in Spain and several other countries. All boast reduced clinker factors through the use of alternative raw materials. This, however, is really a rebranding of a long-established norm in Europe.

Since 2010, cements other than CEM I have constituted over 75% of average annual cement deliveries across Cembureau member countries (all cement-producing EU member states, plus Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and Ukraine). This statistic breaks down differently from country to country. CEM II is the norm in Austria, Finland, Portugal and Switzerland, with deliveries in the region of 90%. Portland limestone cement (PLC) makes up a majority of deliveries in all four. It has been central to Switzerland’s transition to 89% (3.72Mt) of CEM II deliveries out of a total 4.18Mt of cement despatched in 2021. There, the main types of cement were CEM II/B-M (T-LL) Portland composite cement, with 1.38Mt (33%), and two different classifications of PLC: CEM II/A-LL PLC, with 1.28Mt (31%), and CEM II/B-LL PLC, with 888,000t (21%).

A second approach is that of the Netherlands, where CEM III blast furnace slag cement with a clinker factor below 65% predominates, favoured for its sulphate resistance and the protection it offers against chloride-initiated corrosion of steel reinforcement in marine settings. By contrast, the UK has traditionally maintained a higher reliance on CEM I cement. This can be partly explained by the preference of builders there for adding fly ash or ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) at the mixing stage. Nonetheless, CEM II Portland fly ash cement held a 14% (1.43Mt) market share in the UK’s 10.2Mt of cement consumption in 2021.

The UK Mineral Products Association (MPA) has identified limestone as an underutilised resource in the country’s cement production. Together with HeidelbergCement subsidiary Hanson Cement, it has applied for a change to National Application standards to allow the production of Portland composite cement from fly ash and limestone or GGBFS and limestone. The association has forecast that Portland composite cement could easily rise to 30 – 40% of UK cement consumption, and that this has the potential to eliminate 8% of the sector’s 7.8Mt/yr-worth of CO₂ emissions.

Metallurgical waste streams have long flowed into European cement production, primarily as GGBFS, but also as bauxite residue. In 2021, alumina production in the EU alone generated 7Mt of bauxite residue, of which the bloc recycled just 100,000t (1.4%) that year. Two projects – the Holcim Innovation Center-led ReActiv project and Titan Cement and others’ REDMUD project – aim to produce new alternative cementitious materials from bauxite residue.

By collaborating with other industries, cement producers’ investments can most effectively reduce the overall cost of using these materials in cement production. In Germany, HeidelbergCement and ThyssenKrupp’s Save CO₂ project aims to develop new improved latent hydraulic binders or alternative pozzolan from GGBFS by producing slag from directly reduced iron (DRI). The Save CO₂ team believes that GGBFS substitution for clinker has the capacity to eliminite 200Mt/yr of CO₂ emissions from global cement production.

Meanwhile in the world of mining, ThyssenKrupp and others’ NEMO project is investigating the recovery of a useable mineral fraction for cement production from the extractive waste of the Luikonlahti and Sotkamo mines in Finland and the Tara mine in Ireland, through bioleaching and cleaned mineral residue upcycling. This may give cement producers full access to Europe’s 28Bnt stockpiles of sulphidic mining waste, of which mines generate an additional 600Mt each year.

Denmark-based CemGreen, which produces the calcined clay supplementary cementitious material CemShale, is developing a shale granule heat-treating technology called CemTower. This consists of three pieces of equipment vertically integrated into cement plants’ preheaters, kilns and coolers, and brings the processing of waste materials – here oil shale – to the cement plant.

Lastly, cement producers are exploring the possible uses of waste made of cement itself. In Wallonia, HeidelbergCement subsidiary CBR’s CosmoCem project is investigating the production of alternative cement additives from large available flows of local demolition, soil remediation and industrial waste. Similarly, the Greece-based C2inCO₂ project seeks to mineralise fines from concrete recycling for HeidelbergCement to use in the production of novel cements in its Greek operations.

In Switzerland, ZND Portland composite cement (produced using fine mixed granulate from building demolitions) is the third largest cement type, with 178,000t (4.3%) of total deliveries – narrowly behind CEM I with 239,000t (5.7%).Holcim Schweiz developed its Susteno 4 ZND Portland composite cement with Switzerland’s lack of any ash or slag supply in mind, demonstrating the potential flexibility of a circular economic approach to cement production.

On 21 March 2022, the University of Trier reported that it is in the process of mapping mineral resources, waste deposits and usable residues ‘on a cross-border scale,’ in an effort to produce new materials for use in cement production. Industry participants include France-based Vicat, CBR, Buzzi Unicem subsidiary Cimalux and CRH subsidiary Eqiom. Vicat is preparing a kiln at its 1Mt/yr Xeuilley cement plant in Meurthe-et-Moselle to use in testing new alternative raw materials developed under the project.

For Cembureau and its members, work continues, with the goal of Net Zero by 2050 constantly in sight. This goal includes a reduction in members’ clinker-to-cement ratios to well below 65%. In this, the association and its members are working towards a world not just beyond CEM I, but beyond CEM II, too. What exactly this will mean remains to be seen.

Sources

CemSuisse, ‘Lieferstatistik,’ 11 January 2022, https://www.cemsuisse.ch/app/uploads/2022/01/Lieferstatistik-4.-Quartal-2021.pdf

WSA, ‘December 2021 crude steel production and 2021 global crude steel production totals,’ 25 January 2022, https://worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2022/december-2021-crude-steel-production-and-2021-global-totals/

MPA, ‘Low carbon multi-component cements for UK concrete applications,’ July 2018, https://prod-drupal-files.storage.googleapis.com/documents/resource/public/Low%20carbon%20multi-component%20cements%20for%20UK%20concrete%20applications%20PDF.pdf

European Commission, ‘European Training Network for Zero-waste Valorisation of Bauxite Residue (Red Mud),’ 16 July 2020, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/636876

European Commission, ‘Industrial Residue Activation for sustainable cement production,’ 16 February 2022, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/958208

Recycling Portal, Zement der Zukunft – Forschungsprojekt „SAVE CO₂“ gestartet, 28 May 2021, https://recyclingportal.eu/Archive/65677

h2020-NEMO, ‘Project,’ https://h2020-nemo.eu/project-2/

European Commission, ‘Green cement of the future: CemShale + CemTower,’ 14 April 2021, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101009382

CosmoCem, ‘Communiqué de Presse,’ https://cosmocem.org/

CO₂ Win, ‘C²inCO₂: Calcium Carbonation for industrial use of CO₂,’ https://co2-utilization.net/en/projects/co2-mineralization/c2inco2/

Les Echos, ‘Rendre le ciment moins gourmand en CO₂,’ 21 March 2022, https://www.lesechos.fr/pme-regions/innovateurs/des-substituts-au-clinker-rendent-le-ciment-moins-gourmand-en-co2-1395002

Argos USA announced this week that its integrated Roberta plant in Alabama is set to produce 100% Portland Limestone Cement (PLC) by June 2022. As part of the transition three of its terminals in North Carolina will also switch over at the same time. The company also expects that all of its plants will convert to PLC in 2023. Cement sites including Newberry in Florida, Harleyville in South Carolina and Martinsburg in West Virginia are already producing PLC.

The change by Argos marks the latest example in an ongoing trend of US-based cement companies moving entire plants to PLC production. In September 2021 LafargeHolcim US said that its integrated Midlothian plant in Texas was preparing to convert to full PLC production and that it would be the first plant in the US to do so. It later confirmed that the plant had done so by the end of 2021. In October 2021 GCC said that its Trident Plant in Montana would fully move to PLC in early 2022. Then in November 2021 Titan America said that its Pennsuco cement plant in Florida would make the change possibly by 2023. Moving into 2022 brought the news that LafargeHolcim US’ Ste. Genevieve plant in Missouri and its Alpena plant in Michigan had each transitioned to PLC production. Lehigh Hanson then rounded up the bunch earlier this month, at the start of February 2022, when it announced that a PLC was the primary product now coming out of its Mason City plant in Iowa. It even invited a US Member of Congress to celebrate!

The current expansionist phase of PLC usage in the US dates back to late 2020 when the Portland Cement Association (PCA) launched a dedicated website to promote the use of the blended cement by discussing its applications and benefits. It then released a new environmental product declaration in March 2021 and PLC received a mention in the PCA’s Roadmap to Carbon Neutrality when it was released a year later in October 2021. Lots of work went into PLC prior to 2020 though, both by the PCA and others. The first commercial production of PLC in the US started in 2005 and PLC gained its own blended cement specification in 2012. Notably, the PCA has been tracking the state acceptance of PLC by the Department of Transportation and it grew markedly during the 2010s.

The US is playing catch-up with PLC. In Europe its usage dates back to the 1960s. Cembureau, the European Cement Association, reported usage of around 30% in 2004. More recently in 2020, the VDZ, the German Cement Association, reported a similar figure domestically with the proportion of blended cement shipments including limestone, shale and multiple additives at 31.6%. In the US it is hard to gauge the scale of the current move towards PLC by producers, due to limited publicly available data. A PCA survey reported PLC production of 0.89Mt in 2016. If all the plants mentioned above convert fully to PLC and maintain their rated production capacity that would be something like 14Mt/yr of PLC in 2023 or 11% of the US’s total cement capacity. For comparison, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) reported total shipments of all blended cements at 3.3Mt in 2020 and a total of 5.4Mt for the first 11 months of 2021. Plus, remember that PLC is just one blended cement among others, like those that use slag or fly ash.

Recent developments show that a large change is coming towards the US cement market in the update of blended cements. It’s been a long time coming but the last six months have seen brisk increases in PLC production at scale. The exact data is not available but one might expect something around triple the current number of production plants making PLC if the US market heads towards European levels. This rough estimate doesn’t take into account existing partial PLC production levels. At the same time the US cement sector should see a fall in its emissions due to PLC’s 10% reduction in CO₂ emissions compared to Ordinary Portland Cement

Two stories tie into larger trends this week as Global Cement Weekly says goodbye to 2021. Firstly, the state government of Odisha dropped a bombshell this week with its approval for an 18.75Mt/yr cement plant. Keen readers of the Global Cement Directory should note that, if built, this would be around the 10th largest plant worldwide and possibly the biggest outside of China. Credit to Odisha and India though for showing us how to end the year!

Odisha has been encouraging steel production in recent years. In March 2021 local press reported that Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (AMNS) had signed a memorandum of understanding with the state government for a US$6.6bn steel plant in the same district. Notably, a more binding agreement was intended to be signed once land and mining leases had been secured. This week the state said that its High Level Clearance Authority had approved an enlarged plan with AMNS worth US$13.5bn. This includes a 24Mt/yr steel plant and a 18.75Mt/yr cement plant. Both are to be built in phases over seven years. No further word on those land and mining leases though. How this fits into India’s overall plans for net zero CO₂ emissions by 2070 is anyone’s guess. Yet this is another cement project linked to steel production. Readers may recall that steel producer Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional (CSN) Cimentos picked up Holcim’s Brazilian cement plants in September 2021.

The other story of note this week was Cembureau’s calculation that if the European Union (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) CO₂ price reached Euro90/t then this could represent up to 15% of a cement plant’s production costs. The European cement association made the calculation using data from Ecorys, WIFO, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research for the EU Commission and Agora Energiewende. It wants the EU to bolster carbon leakage measures as soon as possible to fight rising import rates from outside the region. It is pushing for a delay to phasing out the free allocation in the ETS, bringing forward the proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and for legislators to tackle rising carbon and energy costs generally. It should be noted that the EU ETS price reached Euro88/t on 8 December 2021 but it has stayed below that level since then.

As mentioned at the start, both of the stories above connect to larger trends, principally the cement sector’s adjustments to meet its sustainability goals. A new cement plant with a readily available supply of ground granulated blast furnace slag, such as a potential AMNS unit might have, can reduce its clinker factor more easily than its competitors. One major story in Europe over the last two years has been the steep increase in the ETS price, and Cembureau is highlighting the problems this has caused its members. Global Cement Magazine has run a number of annual round-ups in the last two issues that cover these issues and others. Dr Robert McCaffrey’s news and trends list for 2021 from the Global Cement LIVE broadcast on 21 December 2021 pulls together many of these ideas and more and is well worth watching.

We’ll finish with a list of the top 10 news stories on the Global Cement website in 2021. This reflects what readers all over the world are interested in at a particular time and the list is also biased towards stories that were published in the first half of the year as they have had more time to gather views. Yet, note, new plants in Africa and South Asia, a cement shortage story, Holcim’s decision to change its name and the problems a European producer, Cementa, has had with its quarrying. All of these touch upon larger themes.

Top 10 news stories on Global Cement website in 2021

1. Dzata Cement bagging plant to open in mid-2021
2. UK faces short-term cement shortage
3. LafargeHolcim shareholders agree to change group name to Holcim
4. SRM Concrete acquires 24 concrete plants in Dallas from Cementos Argos
5. Bestway Cement to build new cement plant in Mianwali
6. ThyssenKrupp abandons sale of ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions cement section
7. Holcim launches new corporate brand identity
8. Swedish supreme court rejects application by Cementa to renew mining permit for Slite cement plant
9. Larsen & Toubro wins new 3.5Mt/yr cement plant contract in Rajasthan
10. ACC breaks ground on 2.7Mt/yr Ametha cement plant project

Enjoy the Christmas and New Year break if you have one.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 5 January 2022

Europe: Cembureau has announced the launch of its Map of Innovation Projects interactive map. The feature maps past and current sustainability-enhancing projects at European cement plants. It currently displays a total of 53 different projects. It is available here.

Cementa’s prospects for continued mining limestone in Sweden beyond the end of October 2021 have been looking dubious recently. The subsidiary of Germany-based HeidelbergCement wants to carry on mining limestone at its quarries near its integrated Slite plant in Gotland after 31 October 2021 when its current permits expire. However, the Supreme Land and Environmental Court rejected its renewal application in July 2021 on the grounds that the impact of the quarries on groundwater had not been sufficiently investigated. Then the Supreme Court ruled that it had no basis for appeal at the end of August 2021. This leaves the cement producer hanging on for proposed government plans to make legislative changes to keep limestone mining ongoing for another eight months until mid-2022 and then for whatever scheme the legislators cook up next.

In July 2021 construction multinational Skanska publicly said that it was taking the situation ‘seriously’ because its concrete suppliers had warned it of the impending risk that they would potentially be unable to meet demand in the third quarter of 2022. At the same time the Swedish Construction Federation and related bodies noted that up to 175,000 jobs in construction could be adversely affected with a loss of investment of nearly Euro2bn/month due to the predicted cement shortage. In their view, increasing imports in the short term was unrealistic due to capacity constraints at ports and import terminals. Understandably, the Swedish government has been scrambling to keep the quarries open to protect cement supply and has been accused by both the local press and environmental bodies of circumventing legal norms in the process.

This is not a good situation to be in for either Cementa or anyone who might want to use cement locally in the near future. The cement producer operates both of Sweden’s integrated plants, at Slite and Skövde respectively, with Slite holding around 80% of the company’s production capacity. On its own, the Slite plant alone supplies 75% of the country’s cement, with about another 10 – 15% provided by importer Schwenk Zement. As a whole Cembureau data shows that the country’s market was just under 3Mt/yr in 2020 and stable despite the coronavirus pandemic. A small decline in the residential segment was reported, coupled with a ‘flat’ infrastructure segment, although increased demand from wind farm construction was noted. Cementa stopped production at a third local integrated plant, Degerhamn, in mid-2019 due to low profitability at the site and tightening environmental regulations.

Cementa and HeidelbergCement are putting up a fight by publishing lots of information on Cementa’s website about the permit application process and working towards both solutions in the short and longer term. In early September 2021 Nordkalk signed a deal with Cementa to supply it with limestone. However, as Thomas Lind, the head of cement for HeidelbergCement Northern Europe, pointed out in August 2021, the agreement won’t cover the entire shortfall, nor would it be ideal from logistical or environmental angles. On the opposing side, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation has joined with the Supreme Land and Environmental Court in opposing the quarry permit renewal along with other environmental groups. Plus the government decision to force through a permit reprieve has also given ammunition to its political rivals.

The argument over Slite’s quarry sums up some of the challenges facing society over continued cement production in a world with ever-tougher environmental legislation. Cement plants are likely to face mounting opposition on environmental grounds but most governments will panic when facing the potential consequences of societies running out of essential building materials. There are many ways to avoid this scenario, such as far greater community and political involvement on the part of cement companies, recognition by governments of the importance of building materials, supporting the development and uptake of concrete made with less Ordinary Portland Cement or switching to higher ratios of other building materials and so on. Yet, without preparation, legislators elsewhere will also find themselves in similar positions to the one the Swedish government is in now.

Slite’s problems have arisen in part over a perceived direct threat to local drinking water, although Cementa says that this is absolutely not the case. Typically, cement plants in similar battles find themselves in opposition to local communities due to the immediate impacts of quarrying or production on water, or due to noise or dust. Yet the hidden consequence of clinker production is significant process CO₂ emissions with resulting global climate change. The particular tragedy in Gotland is that HeidelbergCement is one of the more sustainable-minded cement companies, with investment to match. In June 2021 it announced ambitions to upgrade the Slite plant to become the world’s first carbon-neutral cement plant through bio-based fuel substitution and a carbon capture and storage unit by 2030. This may be eight years away but it is one of very few full scale cement plant carbon capture upgrades that have been promised worldwide.