Displaying items by tag: Cembureau

The European Union (EU) is set to launch its Green Deal Industrial Plan, today, on 26 February 2025. It is the latest plan to help industry in the region reach net zero whilst remaining competitive. Key parts of the scheme that have been seen by the media include support for industries facing high energy prices, tax breaks for decarbonisation projects, simplifying the cross border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), linking funding for industrial CO₂ cutting more directly to revenue gathered from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and revamping procurement rules.

Cembureau, the European cement association, presented its comments on the impending announcement earlier this week. On CBAM it said that more work was required on exports, “such as export adjustment or continued free allowances for exported goods through the application of the destination principle which merits more in-depth analysis and discussion as to its WTO compatibility.” On financing it called for 75% of ETS taxation on the cement sector to be funnelled straight back again in the form of a cement decarbonisation fund. On infrastructure it called for competitive access to low-carbon energy sources such as thermal biowaste and electricity. It also lobbied for the rapid-development of CO₂ pipelines and storage sites. Finally, on lead markets it asked that concrete carbonation and CO₂ use in construction materials be recognised as a carbon sink and that carbon capture and utilisation using CO₂ from industrial sectors be acknowledged through a review of the CO₂ accounting rules in the ETS.

Lobbyists from the other side of the argument, also ahead of the official unveiling of the Green Deal Industrial Plan, took a dim view of the ETS. A report published by Carbon Market Watch and WWF called for greater scrutiny to be placed on the scheme. Its argument is that the “current architecture of the EU ETS continues to reward heavy polluters by granting them free allowances instead of incentivising emissions reductions.” Holcim, Heidelberg Materials and Cemex were each singled out as having received more free allowances under the ETS than the actual emissions they were responsible for in 2023. The report also reflected the growing environmental backlash against carbon capture and utilisation and/or storage (CCUS). In its view the money from the ETS going into the Innovation Fund should be directed at schemes that directly reduce emissions, not at CCUS projects, although it did concede that the cement and lime industries were some of the few sectors that should be allowed funding towards CCUS. This may be a point for the cement sector to watch for in the future if there ends up being a wider backlash against CCUS in general.

The Carbon Market Watch-WWF case is that the cement sector (and others) have received far too many free allowances in the ETS for far too long. The authors admit that the allowances are set to fall fast, to 2034, as the CBAM comes in but they don’t think that anywhere near enough has been done. This has not been helped over the years by news stories occasionally emerging of idled cement plants appearing to make money from emissions allowances. These occurrences date back to the drop in production following the financial crash in 2008 but there have been more recent examples.

Graph 1: Allowances for and emissions from clinker production from the emissions trading scheme in the European Union, 2017 - 2023. Source: EU Transaction Log (EUTL).

As Graph 1 above shows the environmentalists may be overstating their point on the ETS given that emissions were higher than the free allocation in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022. Roughly speaking, both the allowances and emissions by the cement sector from clinker production have been dropping since 2017 and further back to the mid-2000s. The system is intended to squeeze emissions but it doesn't take into account short-term variations in market conditions. Cembureau data shows that production rose in 2021. Sure enough, emissions jumped above the allocation. Although the cement production data is yet to be released for 2023, it is looking fairly likely that it will have decreased. Hence, emissions have fallen below the allocation level.

Few are likely to be happy with the EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan. For producers, it is unlikely to add sufficient support against the additional ‘green’ cost burden. For environmentalists, it doesn't go far enough. The usual equilibrium for EU sustainability legislation is aiming at the target of net-zero without killing industry. The current US administration has further tipped this balancing act with its threats to fight against CBAM and the like with trade tariffs. Tom Lord, Redshaw Advisors described the EU ETS as a political construct at the Global FutureCem Conference that took place in February 2025 in Istanbul. This also applies to the EU’s green legislation (like any laws). Subsequently, certainty is a word that crops up frequently in discussions about EU green policies. Can EU industry be certain that these political constraints remain should circumstances change? With the ETS allowances dropping, CBAM coming and industry facing higher energy prices than its competitors, we’re about to find out how committed the EU is on net-zero and who the winners and losers will be.

The mountainous eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea and its hinterlands in Europe’s Balkan Peninsula have one of the world’s highest densities of countries: six, across a broad equilateral triangle of 212,000km². All six states – Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia – are historically characterised by political non-alignment, carrying over from the Cold War period, and all the more notable for the presence of the EU to the north (Croatia, Hungary and Romania) and east (Bulgaria and Greece).

A nine-plant, 9Mt/yr local cement sector serves the 16.8m-strong population of the unconsolidated ‘bloc.’ Albania has 2.8Mt/yr (31%), Serbia 2.7Mt/yr (30%), Bosnia & Herzegovina 1.6Mt/yr (18%), North Macedonia 1.4Mt/yr (15%) and Kosovo 500,000t/yr (6%), while Montenegro has no cement capacity – for now. Altogether, this gives this quarter of South East Europe a capacity per capita of 539kg/yr. The industry consists entirely of companies based outside of the region. Albania’s two plants are Lebanese and Greek-owned (by Seament Holding and Titan Cement Group respectively). Titan Cement Group also controls single-plant Kosovo and North Macedonia, and competes in the Serbian cement industry alongside larger and smaller plants belonging to Switzerland-based Holcim and Ireland-based CRH, respectively. Lastly, Bosnia & Herzegovina’s capacity is shared evenly between Germany-based Heidelberg Materials and Hungary-based Talentis International Construction, with one plant each.

Lafarge Srbija, Holcim's subsidiary in Serbia, announced plans for its second plant in the country, at Ratari in Belgrade, last week. No capacity has yet emerged, but the plant will cost €110m, making something in the region of the country’s existing 0.6 – 1.2Mt/yr plants seem likely. This would give Serbia over a third of total capacity in the Central Balkans and twice the number of plants of any other country there, expanding its per-capita capacity by 22 – 44%, from a regionally low 408kg/yr to 500 – 590kg/yr.

In announcing the upcoming Ratari cement plant, Lafarge Srbija laid emphasis on its sustainability. The plant will use 1Mt/yr of ash from the adjacent Nikola Tesla B thermal power plant as a raw material in its cement production. In this way, it will help to clear the Nikola Tesla B plant’s 1600 hectare ash dumps, from which only 180,000t of ash was harvested in 2023. Circularity has been front and centre of Holcim’s discussions of its growth in Serbia for some time. When Lafarge Srbija acquired aggregates producer Teko Mining Serbia in 2022, the group indicated that the business would play a part in its development of construction and demolition materials (CDM)-based cement and concrete.

Holcim’s Strategy 2025 growth plan entails bolt-on acquisitions in ‘mature markets,’ backed by strategic divestments elsewhere. Other companies have been more explicit about a realignment towards metropolitan markets, above all in North America, at a time when they are also diversifying away from cement and into other materials. Just why a leading producer should look to build cement capacity in Serbia warrants investigation.

Serbia is the only Central Balkan member of Cembureau, the European cement association. In a European market report for 2022, the association attributed to it the continent’s fastest declining cement consumption (jointly with Slovakia), down by 11% year-on-year. Like the rest of Europe, Serbia is also gradually shrinking, its population dwindling by 0.7% year-on-year to 6.62m in 2023, which limits hopes for a longer-term recovery. Serbia remains the largest country in the Central Balkans, with 39% of the total regional population.

Several factors have compounded Serbia’s difficulties as a cement-producing country. Firstly, like the Nikola Tesla B thermal power plant, its kilns run on coal. 50% of this coal originated in Russia and Ukraine in 2021, causing the entire operation to become ‘imperilled’ after the former’s brutal invasion of the latter in February 2022, according to the Serbian Cement Industry Association. In planning terms, this was a case of putting half one’s eggs in two baskets – and dropping them both.

Secondly, Serbia’s choice of export markets is mainly confined to either the EU or global markets via the River Danube, Black Sea and Mediterranean. Either way, it is in competition with a cement exporting giant: Türkiye. Serbia sold €19.7m-worth of cement in the EU in 2023, up by 63% over the three-year period since 2020 – 31% behind Türkiye’s €28.8m (more than double its 2020 figure).¹ One other Central Balkan country had a greater reliance on the EU market: Bosnia & Herzegovina. It exported €48.4m-worth of cement there, quadruple its 2020 figure and behind only China (€133m) and the UK (€54.7) in cement exports to the bloc by value.

Bosnia & Herzegovina’s cement industry underwent a different permutation at the start of 2024: an acquisition, replacing one EU-based player with another. Lukavac Cement, which operates the 800,000t/yr Lukavac cement plant in Tuzla, changed hands from Austria-based building materials producer Asamer Baustoffe to Hungary-based property developer Talentis International Construction. Talentis International Construction belongs to one of Hungary’s major family-owned conglomerates, Mészáros Csoport.

Besides Central Europe, Balkan countries have found a ready source of investments in the past decade in China. In construction alone, Chinese investments total €13.2bn in Serbia, €2.4bn in Bosnia & Herzegovina, €915m in Montenegro and €650m in North Macedonia.² This can be a booster shot to all-important domestic cement markets, but has some risks. Montenegro previously faced bankruptcy after Export-Import Bank of China began to call in an €847m loan for construction of the still upcoming A1 motorway in the country’s Northern Region. This did not put off the Montenegrin government from signing a new memorandum of understanding (MoU) with China-based Shandong Foreign Economic and Technical Cooperation and Shandong Luqiao Group for construction of a new €54m coast road in the Coastal Region in mid-2023.

In Montenegro, UK-based private equity firm Chayton Capital is currently funding a feasibility study for a partly state-owned cement plant and building materials complex at the Pljevlja energy hub in the Northern Region. Along with an upgrade to the existing Pljevlja coal-fired power plant, the project will cost €700m.

In 2026, EU member states will begin to partly tax third-country imports of cement and other products against their specific CO₂ emissions, progressing to the implementation of a 100% Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) by 2034. Montenegro led the Central Balkans’ preparations for the EU’s CBAM roll-out with the introduction of its own emissions trading system in early 2021. Bosnia & Herzegovina will follow its example by 2026, but other countries in the region have struggled to conceive of the arrangement except as part of future EU accession agreements.

Based on the average specific CO₂ emissions of cement produced in the EU, the World Bank has forecast that exporters to the bloc will be disadvantaged if their own specific emissions exceed 5.52kg CO₂eq/€.³ By contrast, any figure below this ought to offer an increased competitive edge. Albanian cement has average emissions of 4.71kg CO₂eq/€, 15% below ‘biting point’ and 13% below Türkiye’s 5.39CO₂eq/€. Albania’s government consolidated its anticipated gains by quintupling the coal tax for 2024 to €0.15/kg. The figure is based on the International Monetary Fund’s recommended minimum CO₂ emissions tax of €55.80/t, 21% shy of the current EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) credit price of €70.49/t.⁴

The Central Balkans is a region of apparently slow markets and industry growth regardless – to 11 cement plants, following the completion of current and upcoming projects. A recurrent theme of capital expenditure investments and the way investors talk about them may help to explain this: sustainability. Looking at the mix of technologies in the current nine plants, these include wet kilns and fuels lines built for conventional fossil fuels. This is not to presume that any given plant might not be happy with its existing equipment as is. Nonetheless, the overall picture is of a set of veteran plants with scope to benefit from the kind of investments which all four global cement producers active in the region are already carrying out elsewhere in Europe. Such plans may already be in motion. In late 2023, Titan Cement Group’s North Macedonian subsidiary Cementarnica Usje secured shareholder approval to take two new loans of up to €27m combined.

As the latest news from Serbia showed, taking care of existing plants does not preclude also building new ones. The cement industry of the Central Balkans is finding its position in the new reduced-CO₂ global cement trade – one in which old and new work together.

References

1. Trend Economy, ‘European Union – Imports and Exports – Articles of cement,’ 28 January 2024, https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/EuropeanUnion/6810#

2. American Enterprise Institute, 'China Global Investment Tracker,' 3 February 2024 https://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/

3. World Bank Group, ‘Relative CBAM Exposure Index,’ 15 June 2023, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2023/06/15/relative-cbam-exposure-index

4. Ember, 'Carbon Price Tracker,' 26 August 2024, https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer/

Europe: A joint statement by Cefic, Cembureau, Eurofer, Eurometaux and WindEurope has called for accelerated wind deployment as part of a new industrial deal to further support the Green Deal in the European Union (EU).

The organisations say that Europe's energy-intensive industries, like cement and steel, are vital for the wind energy supply chain. However, they assert that current policies lack frameworks that effectively support these industries, which have faced production curtailments due to the energy crisis. Addressing these challenges is fundamental to a new Industrial Deal for Europe, aimed at boosting renewable energy deployment to reduce energy costs. According to the International Energy Agency, the growth in solar photovolatics and wind capacity from 2021 to 2023 helped keep electricity prices lower than they would have been otherwise. Coupling the EU Green Deal with an industrial deal is seen as a strategy to provide regulatory stability, encourage investments in decarbonisation, and enhance competitiveness.

Koen Coppenholle, CEO of Cembureau, said "Cement is a critical component in the construction of wind turbine foundations and their recycling, while the growth of renewable energy is indispensable to achieve the cement sector’s net zero ambition. We look forward to a good cooperation with the wind energy sector to support a strong EU industrial policy and help building the business case for decarbonisation investments," said Coppenholle.

The Indonesian government emphasised its intention this week to use ‘green’ cement in the construction of its new capital city Nusantara in Borneo. However, this begs the question: what exactly is ‘green’ cement?

In this case, Mohammad Zainal Fatah, the secretary general of the Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing, told state media that his department was “seeking to encourage the supply of domestic-industry-based material resources and construction equipment, which can support sustainable infrastructure development principles." The ministry is working with state-owned cement producers such as Semen Indonesia (SIG) to ensure the provision of sustainable cement and related products. SIG was selected as a supplier for the project in late 2022 and, as of February 2024, has reportedly provided 400,000t of cement from its plants at Balikpapan and Samarinda.

This is admirable stuff. However, the timing of the announcement is curious given that both the head and deputy head of the Nusantara Capital City Authority resigned this week forcing the government to reassure investors that the project was still on. Cue some swift discussion about ‘green’ cement! Previously it was hoped that the first phase of the US$34bn project could be inaugurated on the country’s independence day in August 2024 with civil servants scheduled to start relocating to the site in the autumn.

SIG sells a number of ‘green’ blended cement products and some of these have received Green Label Cement certification from the Green Product Council Indonesia. The group says that these products have contributed up to a 38% drop in CO₂ emissions compared to Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). This compares to the group’s clinker factor reduction rate of 69% and its Scope 1 emissions intensity reduction of 17% to 585kg/CO₂/t of cement in 2023 compared to 2010 levels.

Along similar lines, the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement & Concrete (ALCCC) in Belgium also announced this week that it had released a new policy roadmap aimed at achieving net zero emissions by 2040. Amongst its recommendations were a focus on the standards for cement and concrete to promote low-carbon products and encouragement to create lead markets to develop demand for them.

Crucially, the ALCCC uses low-carbon cement in place of ‘green’ cement and this makes its definition clearer. ‘Green’ cement is a marketing term intended to associate cement with environmentalism. Yet there is no accepted definition describing how these products are more sustainable than, say, OPC. For example, a so-called ‘green’ cement could use 100% clinker manufactured with no CO₂ emissions-abatement, but it might be sustainable in other ways such as saving water. For the purposes of this article we’ll assume that ‘green’ cement means a low-carbon one. To further add to the confusion, ‘green’ concrete can be made using OPC in various ways but that’s beyond the scope of this piece. Clearly the world could do with some universal definitions.

US-based research and consulting company Global Efficiency Intelligence came to the same conclusion when it published its ‘What are Green Cement and Concrete?’ report in December 2023. It decided that - despite there being plenty of standards, protocols, and initiatives - there is no general agreement on the definition of ‘green’ cement or concrete. Its emissions intensity for cement summary table can be viewed below. It demonstrates the massive range of emissions intensity between the various standards. It is worth noting here that the description the Indonesian government may have been using for ‘green’ cement could already meet SIG’s Scope 1 emissions intensity reduction for its cement in 2023 depending on the standard being used.

Table 1: Emissions intensity definition for cement as stated by standards, protocols, initiatives, and policies with stated numerical quantity targets. Source: Global Efficiency Intelligence.

Part of the problem here is that there is a language gap between the simple definition of a cement that is less CO₂ emissions-intensive than OPC and the technical definitions used in the specifications and standards. Simply describing a cement product as ‘green’ can potentially cover anything that is slightly better than OPC down to a bona-fide net-zero product. Added to this is pressure from the manufacturers of new and existing cement products that use less or no OPC for regulators to move to performance-based standards to replace existing prescriptive standards, because it makes it easier for their products to be used. For more on this issue see Global Cement Weekly #606. Cement associations such as Cembureau and the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) have also called in their respective net zero roadmaps for changes to the standards system to promote low-carbon cement and concrete products.

The answer to what is ‘green’ cement is whatever the promoters want it to be. So, it might be helpful if the use of the word ‘green’ were banned in connection to any marketing activity related to cement products. Everyone could then adopt some kind of universal grading system using simpler language. One approach might be to copy the colour-coding scheme used by hydrogen to describe how it is made. One could use yellow for limestone blends, silver for slag, orange for clay, black for OPC made with carbon capture and so on… but not green! Another route might be to mandate the use of the carbon labels that some cement producers have used for at least a decade. Or something like the alphabet energy rating system used in the UK and EU for electrical appliances could be used. It’s too much to hope for a global system but simpler systems in the main markets would make it much easier to determine what exactly is ‘green’ cement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe: Cembureau has released an update to its net zero roadmap. The roadmap now aims for a 37% reduction in CO₂ emissions related to cement production by 2030, 78% by 2040 and net zero cement production by 2050, with potential to become carbon negative.

The roadmap also states the key policy measures needed to meet these updated goals, including: The implementation of a watertight carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), the increase in funding for decarbonisation initiatives, the need for guaranteed access to affordable decarbonised energy, infrastructure and raw materials, as well as the creation of lead markets for low carbon, circular products.

President of Cembureau, Ken McKnight said "In the past four years, the European cement sector has clearly moved from ambition to deployment. We have the potential to scale up our climate ambition, but we need policymakers to match this ambition through decisive policies."

EU: The European Commission has introduced a Draft Guidance document regarding the Free Allocation Regulation (FAR), now expanded to include ‘alternative hydraulic binders’ within the cement clinker benchmark. To qualify for allocation under this benchmark, these binders must meet three specific criteria: they must be used in cement production, not be included in any other benchmark under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and must not be by-products of waste or other production processes.

The European Cement Association (CEMBUREAU) has expressed concerns regarding these criteria. Namely, that the proposed changes suggest a shift from a clinker to a cement-based benchmark approach, making current methodologies and regulations inconsistent and impractical, especially as cement production often occurs outside ETS-covered sites. CEMBUREAU also states that some materials like pozzolana and calcined clay, requiring activation by lime or grey cement clinker, do not fit the hydraulic binder definition. Lastly, the association suggests that only materials covered by the standard EN 197-1 should be considered as alternative hydraulic binders, implying that the current definition in the FAR is overly broad and potentially problematic.

EU: Cembureau has published its manifesto for industrial transformation for the European Parliament’s 2024-2029 legislative term. The manifesto calls for an ambitious EU agenda focused on the implementation of the European Green Deal along five key lines: 1 - turbo-charging EU and national funding and developing national industrial decarbonisation plans; 2 – Rolling out the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to create a level playing field for EU industries; 3 – Building a pan-European CO₂ capture network and moving towards circular carbon feedstocks; 4 – Placing circular economy at the heart of industrial decarbonisation; 5 – Enhancing the EU buildings’ agenda to significantly cut emissions.

Cembureau said “The European cement industry was one of the first sectors to present a 2050 Carbon Neutrality Roadmap following the publication of the European Green Deal. The past five years were marked by the development of a comprehensive EU legislative framework and the launch of significant decarbonisation investments in our industry. Now, with the deployment of carbon-neutral cements within our grasp, we need to implement transformative measures on innovation, infrastructure, public acceptance, digitalisation and skills development.”

Belgium: The European cement association, Cembureau, has asked the Europen Union (EU) to provide a regulatory framework to support the work of the European cement industry in co-processing waste composite materials as alternative raw materials. The materials in question consist of glass, carbon or other fibres and polymer matrices. The association called on the EU to recognise co-processing as ‘recycling’ under the EU Waste Framework Directive, to establish waste composite materials collection schemes and phase out landfilling, and to introduce dedicated waste codes for the materials. Cembureau said that the last of these proposals would help to increase visibility and attract investments.

Cembureau set out its proposals in a joint statement with resins associations Cefic UP/VE and Cefic Epoxy Europe, boating association EBI, composite materials association EuCIA, glass fibre association Glass Fibre Europe and wind energy association WindEurope.

Cemex highlighted its Clyngas project at its Alicante cement plant in Spain this week. The project will produce synthesis gas (syngas) from different types of waste for direct injection into the burner at the plant during the combustion process. It is being run in conjunction with Waste to Energy Advanced Solutions (WTEnergy), a company that Cemex invested in at the end of 2022. It is also receiving Euro4.4m in funding from the European Commission (EC) as part of its innovation fund for small scale projects. The initiative estimates that it will save over 400,000t of equivalent CO₂ during the first 10 years of the project's life by replacing petroleum coke with syngas.

Clyngas is another example of Cemex’s innovation with alternative fuels for cement and lime. It follows on from the group’s work with hydrogen injection into cement kilns. As presented at the 15th Global CemFuels Conference 2022 it has been using hydrogen in low volumes as a combustion enhancer in more than 20 plants worldwide. However, it was also looking into using hydrogen more directly as a fuel and as a feedstock for other alternative fuels. WTEnergy’s gasification process could potentially link up to this as it converts waste streams such as wood chips, agricultural waste, refuse derived fuel (RDF), solid recovered fuel (SRF), dry sewage sludge, meat and bone meal, poultry litter and plastics into syngas. WTEnergy then proposes that its gasification process and/or the syngas can be used for power generation and thermal applications. In the case of the Clyngas project it will be the latter, as the gasification process will be used to boost the burnability characteristics of RDF with a high biomass content. One part of this to note is that the syngas can potentially be used to manufacture hydrogen. This would be a useful capability for a cement company, for example, that was already using alternative fuels and was now considering further decarbonisation by switching to using hydrogen.

A few other cement companies have been looking at synthetic fuels too, but this has generally been as a by-product of carbon capture and utilisation. This week Lafarge France, for example, said it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Axens, EDF and IFP Energies Nouvelles for a synthetic fuel production trial. Its plan is to build a unit that will produce synthetic kerosene using captured CO₂ from a carbon capture installation at Lafarge France's Saint-Pierre-La-Cour cement plant. The kerosene will then be sold to airlines. Other examples of cement companies looking at using captured CO₂ to manufacture synthetic fuels include Finnsementti’s pre-engineering study with Aker Carbon Capture to consider producing methanol as a fuel for transport, Holcim’s and TotalEnergies’ various plans of what to do with the CO₂ captured from the-to-be upgraded Obourg cement plant and Cemex Deutschland’s ambitions for its Rüdersdorf plant.

As can be seen above there are different types of synthetic fuels and cement companies are at the research and pilot stages. Although there isn’t a commonly accepted definition of what a synthetic fuel is, the general meaning is that of a fuel made from feedstock using a chemical reaction as opposed to, say, a refining process. The wide variety of potential synthetic fuels puts the confusion over the different types of hydrogen into perspective. However, this may be a problem for a later date if usage by cement companies becomes more serious.

What is a problem, though, has been the EC’s planned legislation to phase out the use of industrial CO₂ in synthetic fuels by 2041. Cembureau, the European cement industry association, warned in late 2022 of the issues this would pose for industries trying to find a way to utilise their CO₂ emissions where storage was too difficult or expensive. Its view was that while synthetic fuels using industrial CO₂ are not fully net-zero, as the captured CO₂ is later released into the atmosphere, it is a necessary short to medium term step for sectors trying to make the transition. Companies trying to build industrial-scale chemical plants for synthetic fuels need running periods of 20 to 30 years to achieve payback. As of March 2023 Cembureau was still concerned about the implication of proposed regulations, specifically with regards to the proposed criteria for which synthetic fuels could be used, based on their greenhouse gas emissions savings (at least 70% compared to the regular fuels being replaced). It directly linked this to synthetic fuels projects being launched by the cement sector that might be adversely affected by the new rules. The EC published the legislation in late June 2023 and it is set to become legal in mid-July 2023.

Using synthetic fuels either as a fuel or a by-product from cement production is an area of interest currently with the projects detailed above and others in progress. One vision for their use in Europe, at least, is that they might offer a route for carbon capture for cement plants without access to the logistic networks necessary for sequestration. Whether they find a place in cement manufacture either on a transitional basis or over a longer term should become clearer over the coming decade. Yet the EC’s new rules are likely to slow this process down as at least some of the planned pilots may become unviable in Europe. Other jurisdictions around the world take note.