Displaying items by tag: Cement Sustainability Initiative

UK: The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) has appointed Claude Loréa as Cement Director. She will take up the role in early November 2018 and will be based at the association’s offices in London. Loréa joins the GCCA from European cement industry body, Cembureau where she is Deputy Chief Executive and Industrial Affairs Director. Loréa will report to incoming GCCA chief executive, Benjamin Sporton and will be a member of the executive team.

Loréa will lead all aspects of GCCA work related to cement, calling for a practical understanding of its chemistry, production, co-processing, data collection, standards as well as international climate policy, regulatory requirements and trends. With sustainability a key priority of the GCCA, she will also oversee the smooth transition of the activities of the Cement Sustainability Initiative to the GCCA.

Over her career Loréa has built up knowledge of the cement industry including the sector’s sustainability agenda where, among other achievements, she has led the development of the European Cement Industry Low Carbon Economy Roadmap. A Belgian national, she holds a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Brussels and has worked as an environmental consultant and auditor. She gained her first hands-on experience of the cement industry as an environmental engineer with Cimenteries CBR in Belgium, in time moving to Cembureau where she was appointed technical director and subsequently deputy chief executive.

The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) announced this week that it intends to take over the work done by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). This marks a change in how the cement industry as a whole approaches sustainability and in the wider context how the sector manages itself on the world stage.

The CSI was set up in 1999 with the aim of advancing a sustainability agenda for the cement industry. It has done this by laying out strategy for the industry to follow in the form of technology roadmaps and publishing its ‘Getting the Numbers Right’ (GNR) data on CO₂ and energy performance information. By 2018 it had 24 cement company members composed of nine core members, 14 participating members and one affiliate member. It represents around 2.4Bnt/yr of global cement production capacity or over half of the world production, according to Global Cement Directory 2018 data.

The idea behind the membership was that the core members are all members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and that the members would contribute ‘modest’ funds to run the organisation. That last point about WBCSD membership is worth noting because members need to stick to conditions such as publishing an annual sustainability report and agree to have the sustainability report reviewed and benchmarked by the WBCSD.

Figure 1: Outline of selected current global cement organisations with a sustainability remit. Source: Association websites, Global Cement Directory 2018.

The GCCA, which formed in early 2018, says it had formed a ‘strategic’ partnership with the WBCSD and that it will take over the work previously done by the CSI from the start of 2019. Although there’s no mention so far whether GCCA members have to actually become WBCSD members with all that this entails. At present the GCCA consists of nine major international cement producers, including over half of the world’s top 10 producers by production capacity, with a production base in every inhabited continent except Antarctica. Roughly speaking it represents just under 2Bnt/yr of global cement production capacity or about half of the world’s total.

Now where this starts to get confusing is that other cement associations exist with their own established advocacy roles and sustainability agendas. The established players include the various regional associations such as the Portland Cement Association in the US, Cembureau in Europe and so forth. The multinational ones also often represent national bodies.

Then there is the World Cement Association (WCA), which formed in 2016. This independent body is a private company run out of an office in London, UK with non-profit aims. It has 45 members but only three quarters are actual cement producers. Of these most are single-country cement manufacturers. The glaring standout is China National Building Material (CNBM) and its subsidiaries, representing over half of the association’s member’s cement production capacity. The production capacity of the WCA’s members is around 1Bnt/yr or a quarter of the global total. More than half of this comes from CNBM and its subsidiaries. Unsurprisingly then that Song Zhi Ping, the head of CNBM, is the president of the WCA. It too supports a sustainability agenda, saying that it, “seeks to co-operate with the WBCSD, CSI and regional and national Cement Associations.” What is noteworthy is how few of the current members of the WCA joined the CSI previously.

There is definitely a need for a global organisation advocating sustainability issues for the cement industry and by taking over the work of the CSI and the GCCA has cornered this part of what a global cement association might do. However, the GCCA represents less cement production capacity than the CSI did. The main omissions are the Indian producers, led by UltraTech Cement, as well as others. It seems likely that they will join the GCCA following the end of the CSI but there is no guarantee.

The other point arises when looking at these various cement associations is: who does what exactly? The CSI’s focus on sustainability gave it a purpose that it did well with a genuine appearance of independence. Its narrow focus also gave it a complimentary role to the existing national and regional associations. Global bodies like the GCCA and the WCA are clearly more into advocacy territory for their members. Also, a more general association approach like the GCCA and the WCA may clash with regional bodies like the PCA and Cembureau. Regional bodies seem better suited to the way governance works globally with regional groups such as the European Union (EU) or government departments in continental sized countries such as the US, China and India. However, a truly global cement body could respond better to coordinated environmental lobbying and fill in the gaps around the world in places with looser regional representation.

Sustainability is the immediate link between the CSI, the GCCA and the WCA. Indeed the WCA recently held a ‘Global Climate Change’ forum in Paris to discuss its own climate action plan. Yet, with the GCCA taking over the work the CSI does and the WCA saying it wants to cooperate with the CSI, the obvious outcome is that the GCCA will become the world’s apex cement association. It will represent the companies with the most cement production capacity, have a presence in every inhabited continent and take the lead on WBCSD issues. Beyond this though it will be interesting to see what, if anything else, the GCCA chooses to do.

UK: The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) has formed a strategic partnership with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) to facilitate sustainable development of the cement and concrete sectors. As part of the new agreement, the work carried out by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) will transfer from WBCSD to the GCCA on 1 January 2019 with activities managed out of the GCCA’s London offices. The new partnership will also create synergies between work programmes to benefit both the GCCA and WBCSD and their respective member companies.

“Transferring the activities of the CSI to the GCCA is a logical step and further underlines the cement and concrete sector’s commitment to advance sustainable development across the construction cycle. As the authoritative worldwide voice of the cement and concrete sector, the GCCA is ideally placed to take this work to the next level, building on the strong foundations established by WBCSD,” said Albert Manifold, chief executive officer (CEO) of CRH and GCCA President.

The CSI, which was established in 1999 and currently operates under the auspices of WBCSD, is a global effort by 24 major cement producers to advance sustainable development. Over its 19-year history, the CSI has focused on understanding, measuring, managing and minimising the impacts of cement production and use by addressing a range of issues including: climate change, fuel use, employee health and safety, airborne emissions, concrete recycling and quarry management.

Switzerland: 2016 data published by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) from its Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) report shows no change in CO₂ emissions in recent years. Gross specific CO₂ emissions from cementitious products rose slightly from 2014 and net specific emissions have remained the same. However, the data shows considerable improvement since a baseline in 1990 with both metrics falling by over 15%.

Other notable figures from the latest report include an 11% year-on-year drop in clinker volumes to 606Mt in 2016 from 680Mt in 2015 and a 12% fall in cementitious volumes to 818Mt from 916Mt. Kiln fuel use, specific electricity use and the percentage of clinker in cement all rose slightly. However, the percentage of alternative fuels used increased to 16.7% from 15.9%.

The GNR report presents information on energy efficiency and CO₂ emissions from the worldwide cement industry. Participants use the CSI CO₂ and Energy Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry to provide information and 80% of the data provided is independently assured. The report uses information from 849 cement manufacturing plants around the world, both integrated and cement grinding units, representing 19% of global cement production.

Two reports out this week have looked at the carbon footprint of the cement industry. The first, a technology roadmap by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), laid out a technology pathway for the sector to reduce its direct CO₂ by 24% from current levels by 2050 to meet the IEA’s 2°C scenario (2DS). The second, a report by the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) on the progress of 13 major cement producers to reduce their emissions, was a progress report on the business readiness for a low carbon economy transition.

Graph 1: European Union industry emissions by sector, 2013 - 2017. Source: Sandbag, European Commission.

The scene was set last week when the environmental campaign group Sandbag picked up on the latest emission data from the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Industrial emissions as a whole rose by 2% year-on-year to 743Mt in 2017. The cement and lime industry reported a rise of 3% to 148Mt in 2017 from 144Mt in 2016. As Sandbag reported, industrial emissions have remained ‘stubbornly high’ for the duration of the ETS. It then went on to say that, “the EU urgently needs a new industrial strategy to bring about radical industrial process changes and/or carbon capture and storage, especially for the high-emitting steel and cement sectors.”

The CDP’s report provided a global scorecard on the readiness of the cement industry to adapt to a low-carbon future. Unfortunately, the report used data from self-reporting questionnaires and it lacked data from the two largest Chinese cement producers, Anhui Conch and China National Building Materials (CNBM), although it did try to compensate for this. The CDP assessed companies across four key areas aligned with the recommendations from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

Graph 2: Opportunity vs. risk for low-carbon transition. Source: Building Pressure report, CDP.

Surprisingly, the study, even with its limitations, found regional variation. As can be seen in Graph 2, the Indian cement producers came out on top from the criteria used: transition risks, physical risks, transition opportunities and climate governance and strategy. CDP pinned this on better access to alternative materials such as fly ash and slag coming from other carbon intensive sectors, such as thermal power generation and steel production. Reported process emissions measured by the clinker ratio for the Indian companies was 69% versus 78% for the other companies. They also benefited from newer cement plants driven by high market growth in the region compared to older plants in Europe.

The technology roadmap from the CSI and the IEA set out key actions for the industry to take by 2030 to have at least a 50% chance of achieving the 2°C 2DS scenario followed by a possible transition pathway that could be achieved through technology, legislation and investment. The key actions are protecting carbon pricing mechanisms from carbon leakage, putting new technology into action and supporting it by legislation, and greater government support for products with a lower clinker factor.

The CSI’s and IEA’s targets for 2030 included reaching a clinker to cement ratio of 0.64 in 2030 from 0.65 in 2014, a thermal energy intensity of clinker of 3.3GJ/t from 3.5GJ/t, an electricity intensity of cement of 87kWh/t from 91kWh/t and a alternative fuel co-processing rate of 17.5% from 5.6%. Perhaps the most optimistic is a CO₂ capture and storage amount of 14MtCO₂/yr in 2030 from nothing at the moment. This last target seems unlikely to be achieved given the lack of projects outside of the pilot stage, but it’s not impossible.

This column barely touches on the detail within either report or even the latest data from the EU ETS. Both reports offer ways forward to meet the 2°C global warming target outlined in the Paris Agreement. It’s easy to be pessimistic given the on-going clash between environmental optimism and business logic but both reports offer a way forward. The CDP report sets out a baseline with a look to the future, whilst the CSI/IEA roadmap offers what it says is a realistic route to reach that 2DS target. Lastly, if the CDP’s assessment is correct about the Indian producers then it’s possible that other developing cement industries may inherently be cleaner due to their use of newer plants and equipment. If worldwide government support can be provided for use of alternative fuels and materials on a much larger scale, as well as all the other recommendations, then meeting the Paris agreement may be easier than expected as new markets build new production capacity.

Two examples of carbon capture utilisation and sequestration projects will be covered in the May 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine

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.

Switzerland: Eric Olsen, chief executive officer of LafargeHolcim, has been elected as the new chairman of the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) in 2017. The appointment was confirmed at the CSI’s annual CEO Meeting in Madrid.

“It is an honour for me to be chairing this important industry organization in the coming year. Sustainability in the construction sector is not the preserve of one organisation. I will focus on ensuring that the CSI continues to play an important role in building collaboration within our industry and encouraging joint action across the entire value chain. As one of the largest global sustainability programs ever undertaken by a single industrial sector, we have a real opportunity to drive change. Our plans are ambitious and we are conscious that we will only achieve them by working together”, said Olsen.

LafargeHolcim is one of the founding members of the CSI which is part of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and was launched in 1999 with the aim of supporting the progress of the global cement sector toward sustainable development. The CSI unites 23 major cement producers with operations in more than 100 countries. Collectively these companies account for around 30% of the world’s cement production and range in size from multinationals to local producers.

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.

New Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) data for 2011 shows that the global cement industry has reduced its specific net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious product by 17% since 1990. This represents a serious amount of carbon prevented from entering the atmosphere. Using United States Geological Survey (USGS) world production data, if cement producers in 2011 were still emitting C0₂ at 1990 levels 456Bt of additional CO₂ would have been released between 1990 and 2011.

Unfortunately there are a couple of problems.

Firstly, submitting data for the project is voluntary. As the CSI points out in its press release the data set comprises 55% of cement production outside of China. A rough calculation based on global cement production capacity suggests that this could only account for about one third of cement made. So how much carbon does the other two-thirds of cement made emit?

Secondly, although CO₂ emissions per tonne of cement have gone down by a sixth since 1990, global cement production more than tripled (!) in the same time period. USGS data placed world production at 1.40Bt in 1990. It estimated 3.59Bt in 2011. In terms of net CO₂ released into the atmosphere, in 1990 this was 1058Bt. In 2011 it was 2260Bt.

The big cement producers compare as follows to the CSI data, which reports emissions of 629kg/t. Lafarge reported 592kg/t cementitious in 2011 and 585kg/t in 2012. Holcim reported 584kg/t in 2011 and 579kg/t in 2012. HeidelbergCement reported 621kg/t in 2011. Cemex reported 612kg/t in 2011 and 2012. No data on specific net CO₂ emissions were available for the major Chinese cement producers.

The CSI data shows that the cement industry has made an effort to reduce CO₂ emissions since 1990. Yet this has been counteracted by a rise in cement production. To compensate for the rise in production between 1990 and 2011 the specific net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious product would have had to have fallen to below 300kg/t, a drop of 60%.

Environmentally sensitive readers shouldn't despair yet though as the CSI has demonstrated that emissions and production are gradually separating in the cement industry. From 2010 to 2011 specific net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious product fell from 638kg/t to 629kg/t. If this trend continues - and if it is representative for the cement producers the CSI doesn't cover – then the industry may be getting a handle on its emissions. We may be about to hit peak emissions for the cement industry sooner rather than later.