Displaying items by tag: Coprocessing

China: China Resources Cement’s profit was US$993m in 2021, down by 13% year-on-year from 2020 levels. Its cost of sales grew by 22% to US$3.81bn from US$3.12bn. The group noted that the average cost of coal increased by 54% in 2021. It also pointed out that infrastructure investment growth slowed down in 2021. The company increased its turnover for the year by 9.7% to US$5.62bn. Sales volumes of cement and clinker fell by 7% to 81.3Mt and 7% to 3.3Mt respectively. Concrete sales volumes grew by 11% to 14.8Mm³.

During 2021 the group started construction of a second clinker production line and two cement grinding lines at its plant in Wuxuan, Guangxi. Once the upgrades are completed the plant will have a total cement and clinker capacities of 2.4Mt/yr and 1.4Mt/yr respectively. The group also acquired a 51% stake in Hunan Liangtian Cement in January 2022 to enter into the market in Chenzhou, Hunan. This company has cement and clinker production capacities of 1.6Mt/yr and 2Mt/yr respectively. An ongoing upgrade will increase the cement production capacity of 2.1Mt/yr. In March 2022 it sold its 72% stake in Shanxi China Resources Fulong Cement to Tangshan Jidong Cement to enable it to leave the northern market.

China Resources Cement has also been growing its co-processing capabilities in 2021. At the end of the year it reported 10 co-processing projects with a total capacity of 1.7Mt/yr. The projects, mostly based in Guangxi and Yunnan provinces, process municipal solid waste, urban sludge and industrial waste.

China: China Resources Cement’s turnover rose by 3% year-on-year to US$5.16bn in 2020 from US$5.02bn in 2019. Its profit attributable to shareholders was US$1.15bn, up by 4% year-on-year. Sales volumes of cement grew by 6% to 87.3Mt from 82.5Mt. Volumes increased in Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan and Guizhou but decreased in Fujian, Hainan and Shanxi.

In February 2020 the cement producer completed the construction of one 1.4Mt/yr clinker production line and two cement grinding lines with a combined cement production capacity of 2Mt/yr in Anshun City, Guizhou. Also in 2020 the group commissioned one new concrete batching plant and shut down two others.

During the reporting year the Group co-processed 183,100t of municipal solid waste, 52,800t of urban sludge with an 80% moisture content and 6100t of hazardous industrial waste. It operates seven co-processing projects with four more either under trial operation or under construction. It also said that it had been following policies for carbon emissions with trial activities conducted in preparation for a future unification of national carbon market. Eight company plants in Guangdong and five in Fujian were reported as having settled their carbon credit quota for 2019.

Other operations of note include the start of Phase 1 of the group’s intelligent manufacturing pilot project at a unit in Tianyang in conjunction with Siemens. The group has also commenced trial operation of its in-house developed intelligent manufacturing system at a cement plant in Pingnan, Guangxi. The project interacts with system quality management systems and advanced kiln controls. The next step will be to use the quality management system at cement plants in Shangsi and Guigang, Guangxi. A so-called ‘lighthouse plant’ is also planned to work with environment, health and safety, operation, production, equipment, quality, mines and logistics at a cement plant in Fengkai County, Guangdong. The group’s platform for sharing auxiliary materials and spare parts was launched in Fujian in April 2020 and has since been rolled out to sites in Guangdong, Guangxi and Hainan. Finally, the company’s ‘Smart Card’ logistics system has put into operation at cement plants in Fengkai, Huizhou, Luoding and Dongguan, Guangdong and has been operating at 25 cement production plants by the end of 2020.

Switzerland: LafargeHolcim has signed the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Business Ambition for 1.5°C pledge, which commits it to net-zero carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by 2050. Additionally, the company has committed itself to a 20% reduction in its CO₂ intensity between 2018 and 2030.

The company says that over the period it will: “accelerate the use of low-carbon and carbon-neutral products such as ECOPact and Susteno, recycle 100Mt of waste and by-products for energy and raw materials, scale up the use of calcined clay and develop novel cements with new binders, double waste-derived fuels in production to reach 37%, reach net CO₂ emissions 475kg/t of cementitious material and open and operate its first net-zero CO₂ cement plant.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jan Jenisch said, “I believe in building a world that works for people and the planet. That’s why we are reinventing how the world builds today to make it greener with low-carbon and circular solutions. I am very excited to be working with SBTi, taking a rigorous science-based approach to shape our net zero roadmap and accelerating our efforts to substantially lower our CO₂ footprint. I will not stop pushing the boundaries to lead the way in green construction.”

China: Huaxin Cement has announced that it burned 2.7t of seized opiates in its fuel mix at its Diwei cement plant in Chongqing. Representatives of the Chongqing Anti-Drug Committee, Public Service Bureau, Eco-Environmental Bureau and Procuratorate were in attendance. Huaxin Cement reports that the dangerous substances have been “safely disposed of.” The producer said that this is the largest single volume of drugs to have been combusted in a cement kiln. The plant previously burnt 1.22Mt of illicit substances in 2018.

With events moving fast in Europe with regard to the on-going health crisis, here are a few threads to consider from the cement industry news this week.

Firstly, there have been two solar power stories over the last week in North America. Grupo Argos said that it had installed a 10.6MW solar power plant at Cementos Argos’ Piedras Azules cement plant in Comayagua. Then US-based Alamo Cement Company was reported to have signed a contract with Renergetica to build a solar power plant at its integrated plant in San Antonio, Texas. Global Cement has looked at this topic on and off over the years from the steady addition of photovoltaic (PV) solar plants around the world to supply electricity to cement plants to more ambitious plans such as research into using concentrated solar power to start powering creating clinker directly. These two latest PV stories follow projects in El Salvador and Cyprus so far this year. We’re not going to comment now on the overall progress the cement industry is making towards moving away from fossil fuels but the general trend is encouraging.

Next, there are on-going investments and upgrade projects being announced. Germany’s KHD revealed on 17 March 2020 that is building a new raw mill and pyroprocessing line for an ACC plant in India. FCT combustion recently announced that it has won a deal to supply Titan Cement in the US with an upgrade to a kiln line to natural gas. Buzzi Unicem’s SLK Cement in Russia has agreed to co-process solid municipal waste at its Sukholozhskcement plant. South Africa’s PPC has invested in a pneumatic offloading facility and a silo for its George Depot cement terminal in the Western Cape. These will have likely been agreed before the global coronavirus outbreak but they are reminders that some level of capital expenditure by cement companies is happening.

In China the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) said this week that the domestic cement sector’s net profit grew by 20% year-on-year to US$26.6bn in 2019. With this in mind the first quarter results for 2020 from cement producers in China will make essential reading for producers from elsewhere around the world wondering what to expect. However, a recent interview with the president of Huaxin Cement, a company based in Hubei province at the epicentre of the outbreak, revealed that despite the short term economic disruption from the quarantine the company was expecting a rapid economic rebound after April 2020 provided that there is a suitable government stewardship. He also mentioned the key role the company was playing in disposing of clinical waste. As such it was hoping for tax breaks to support continuing incineration and the advancement of co-processing in general.

Finally, also on the health crisis, many cement industry events have been cancelled or postponed as work practices change including those organised by Global Cement. We’re taking our events online in the short term as virtual conferences with opportunities for information exchange and networking. We encourage as many of you as possible to register.

One graph the United Nations’ (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Global Warming of 1.5°C didn’t include this week was what happens if the world just doesn’t bother. It’s probably just as well since warming of 1.5°C is likely to happen between 2030 and 2052 at the current rate of climate mitigation efforts. If they had included such as diagram, it likely would have had a ominous red line hurtling skywards like a rollercoaster track just before the screams start.

The giant paper study is really about comparing and contrasting the different impacts and responses to a 1.5°C and a 2°C rise. One taste of what the higher rise threatens is, “limiting global warming to 1.5°C instead of 2°C could result in around 420 million fewer people being frequently exposed to extreme heatwaves, and about 65 million fewer people being exposed to exceptional heatwaves."

The cement industry gets a look-in with an acknowledgment that the sector contributes a ‘small’ amount (5%) of total industrial CO₂ emissions. It then breaks the entire industrial sector’s mitigation strategies down to (a) reductions in the demand, (b) energy efficiency, (c) increased electrification of energy demand, (d) reducing the carbon content of non-electric fuels and (e) deploying innovative processes and application of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Speaking generally, phasing out coal, electrification and saving energy in mechanisms like waste heat recovery is predicted to get industry only so far. Yet from here even skirting over 1.5°C but below 2°C is ‘difficult to achieve’ without the, “major deployment of new sustainability-oriented low-carbon industrial processes.” Such new process include full oxy-fuelling kilns for clinker production, which have not been tested at the industrial scale yet. Likewise, CCS is seen as a major part of keeping warming below 2°C with a target of 3 Gt CO₂/yr by 2050. Some reality is present though when the report says that the development of such projects has been slow, since only two large-scale industrial CCS projects outside of oil and gas processing are in operation and that cost is high. It even posits a value of up to US$188t/CO₂ (!) for the cost of CO₂ avoided from a Global CCS Institute report.

None of this is new to cement producers. The real debate is how to get there without wiping out the industry. In his address to the recent VDZ conference, Christian Knell, the president of the German Cement Works Association (VDZ), highlighted that meeting climate change goals was leading to ‘considerable’ costs for the cement industry. He then called for policy-related support to on-going research projects into CO₂ mitigation technology.

The bit that the IPCC doesn’t go into is how much those five steps to the industrial sector will cost cement producers and, vitally, who will pay for it. For example, taking a cement plant’s co-processing rate to 70% and building a waste-heat recovery system, might cost around US$30m. The Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) Consortium’s Calix’s direct CO₂ separation process pilot at the Lixhe cement plant in Belgium has funding of about Euro20m. Rolling all three of these measures out to the world’s 2300 cement plants would cost over US$100bn and it would take more than a decade. Beware, the financial figures here are rough estimates and may be way out. The point remains that the implementation costs will not be trivial.

Industry advocates have started in recent years to push back against the climate lobby by highlighting the essential nature of concrete to the modern world. The IPCC barely mentioned this aspect of cement’s contribution to society suggesting recycling, using more renewable materials, like wood, and resorting to the mitigation strategies detailed above. Building new cities out of wood is not inconceivable but CCS seems more likely to solve the climate problem at this stage. Manufacturing the cement that becomes concrete may create CO₂ emissions but it has also built the modern world and raised living standards universally. No cement means no civilisation. There is, at present, no alternative.

Instead of leaving this discussion at an impasse, it is worth reflecting on the last week in the industry’s news. An Indian cement company is importing fly ash, several companies are opening or preparing cement grinding plants, a coal ash extraction pilot project is running, a waste heat recovery unit has opened at a plant in Turkey and a producer is getting ready to co-process tyres as a fuel in Oman. All of these stories are proof that change is happening. The trick for policymakers is to keep prodding the cement sector in this direction without disrupting the good things the industry does for people’s lives through sustainable housing and infrastructure.

The November 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine will include an exclusive article by Mahendra Singhi, the CEO of Dalmia Cement, about his company’s CO₂ mitigation efforts.

The 2nd FutureCem Conference on CO₂ reduction strategies for the cement industry will take place in May 2019 in London, UK.

China: Huaxin Cement’s sales rose by 27% year-on-year to US$1.75bn in the first half of 2018 from US$1.38bn in the same period in 2017. Its net profit nearly tripled to US$304m from US$107m. Its cement and clinker sales volumes grew by 1.13% to 32.2Mt.

The cement producer said that it had been challenged by raw materials and fuel price rises and kiln suspensions due to government-mandated peak shifting production during the reporting period. However, measures such as higher alternative fuels co-processing rates and efficiency gains helped to bolster its financial performance. Its kiln waste processing volumes increased by 18.4% to 0.68Mt.

The company added that its Tibet Shannan 3rd Phase 3000t/day clinker production line was ‘proceeding smoothly’ and was scheduled to start operation by the end of August 2018. Its 4000t/day Yunnan Luquan clinker line and 2.85Mt/yr Huangshi clinker replacement line projects have started construction. In Nepal a 2800t/day clinker line is scheduled to start construction by the end of the year. It is also working on municipal solid waste (MSW) projects in Wuhan Changshankou and Lijiang.

CRH announced changes to its structure this week. The changes to its divisions follow the rapid growth of the company and may also anticipate the new cement assets it is about to take on-board once its acquisition of Ash Grove Cement completes in the US. Buried in one its regulatory filings covering the news were two graphs of changes in cement demand in the US and Europe through various financial depressions since the 1930s.

Graph 1: Changes in cement demand in US and Europe during financial depressions. Source: CRH with data from US Geological Survey, PCA, United Nations, Morgan Stanley etc.

The graphs serve their purpose for a public company as they show both markets in the current downturn starting to rise again. In other words it looks like the perfect time to invest in a building materials company! However, thinking more broadly the graphs give a timely reminder of how bad the last decade has been for the cement market, particularly in Europe. The period only really compares to the 1930s in decline and duration if the figures are accurate. It must be considered though that while the West has suffered, markets in the East, notably led by China and India, have boomed.

The financial crash in 2008 was precipitated by the US subprime mortgage market. Other potential market killers lie ahead no doubt. One such might be the so-called ‘Carbon Bubble.’ This idea has gained media traction this week with the publication of a paper in the Nature Climate Change journal examining the economic impact of decarbonisation, if or when it happens.

It’s not a new argument but it makes the assertion that as new technologies that replace fossil fuels start to influence the markets, traditional fuel producers like oil companies may face being stuck with ‘stranded’ assets as legislation toughens up and technology mounts. This in turn could cause a financial crash and it’s this aspect that the paper has looked at.

The ace in the hole from the Nature Climate Change paper is that the modelling here suggests a way out of the usual prisoner’s dilemma approach to climate change action. Once sufficiently-low carbon technologies hit a certain level of adoption, then any country holding out and using fossil fuels instead of taking of action may start to suffer economically. Or in other words cheating won’t pay.

The carbon bubble theory is pretty convenient for the climate change lobby as it gives it a financial reason to fight its enemies by targeting investors. One counter argument is realistically how fast and deep would the decarbonisation technologies actually have to be to cause significant financial disruption. Surely the oil producers would get out of risky assets before it was too late. Then again, maybe not.

The cement industry is in exactly the same situation as the oil producers as it too depends on carbon rich assets, in this case limestone, for its business to operate. If limestone assets become ‘stranded’ due to toughened legislation then how can production continue? In addition though, volatility in the fuels and secondary cementitious materials (SCM) markets already being observed from the cement industry may make one wonder about the existence of the carbon bubble. Markets for waste-derived fuels and granulated blast furnace slag are currently changing in the wake of the tightening of Chinese legislation both in and out of the country. In theory this could mean cheaper inputs for cement production but the market is hard to predict. The other classic recent example is how the US natural gas boom from fracking has reduced global oil prices with further effects on the coal and gas that cement producers use. This in turn has placed pressure on various countries that are reliant on their petrodollars and caused pain to their local cement industries, like Saudi Arabia for example. The price of Brent Crude may be rising at the moment but once it hits a certain threshold, the hydraulic fracking of gas wells in the US will resume pumping. Of course both waste inputs and fracking could just be attributable respectively to market distortions by a large country changing policy and a new technology finding its feet.

If the carbon bubble theory carries any weight then CRH’s cement demand graph during recessions may carry a warning to producers about what might happen if decarbonisation leaves the fossil fuel producers behind. With good timing for this theme South Korea’s Ssangyong Cement announced this week that it is close to completing a waste heat recovery (WHR) unit at its Donghae plant, one of the biggest in the world with seven production lines. The interesting detail here is that the WHR unit will work in conjunction with an energy storage system to form a microgrid. This kind of setup is well suited to using energy from renewables as well as from conventional sources like a national electricity grid. In other words, this is exactly the kind of development at a cement plant that might in a small way lessen its reliance on fossil fuels in the face of any potential supply issues.

The 2nd Future Cement Conference and Exhibition looking at how the cement industry can operate in a low- or zero-carbon world will take place in Belgium in May 2019

Belgium: Cembureau, the European cement association, has published a position paper outlining its stance European Commission’s plastics strategy. The association wants policymakers to ensure any plastic waste that has a calorific value that can be recovered as a fuel source is not landfilled. At present there are differences in waste management policies across the member states of the European Union.

Other points that Cemburea wants to highlight include: a ban on landfill of recoverable and recyclable waste; recognition that cement plants can treat different waste streams such as plastics and simultaneously recycle them as material in the manufacturing process of cement and recover them as energy; the specific relevance that co-processing offers the unique opportunity of a simultaneous energy and material recovery; and the potential to minimise investment costs in dedicated facilities.

In January 2018, the European Commission published a dedicated Plastics Strategy as part of the Circular Economy package. The strategy indicates that there is currently a low rate of recycling or reuse of plastics with most of it going to landfill or used in incinerators.

Lots of fascinating information has been emerging in recent weeks about changes in the Chinese cement industry as the larger producers have published their annual financial results. One example is the focus on using alternative fuels to fire up kilns. As explained below, the spotlight on co-processing is state-mandated and this is why the producers are now keen to promote their adherence. Even so, as ever with China, the scale of the change is staggering.

For example, Anhui Conch reported that it had completed 15 waste treatment projects and one sludge treatment project in 2016. In addition it had three projects still undergoing construction at the year-end. The group said that it co-processed 600,000t of domestic waste in its cement kilns in 2016. All of this was achieved by a company that says it only started co-processing municipal waste from its first project in 2010. China Resources Cement’s (CRC) progress was slower but it managed to start a co-processing project at its plant in Binyang County, Guangxi in December 2015 and a sludge project in Nanning City, Guangxi in July 2016. New projects at Tianyang County, Guangxi and Midu County, Yunnan are being built at present, with completion expected by the end of 2017.

Long held rumours about production overcapacity in China came to head in 2015 with the National Bureau of Statistics in China (NBSC) reporting that sales dropped in 2015 following a decade of steady growth. Then the results of most of major producers followed this by falling in 2015. CRC presented a good history of what happened next in the Chinese cement industry in its results report [LINK]. In brief, in 2016 the Chinese government implemented supply-side structural reforms focusing on production efficiency, reiterating attempts to stop new production capacity being built and pushing environmental reforms. Throughout the year various government offices released guidelines to encourage market consolidation, cut obsolete production capacity, increase co-processing rates and decrease the energy needed to produce each tonne of clinker.

Graph 1: Cement sales in China, 2012 – 2016. Source: National Bureau of Statistics in China.

Whether or not any of this has helped the Chinese cement industry to overcome the problems it faced in 2015 is unclear. As Graph 1 shows, Chinese cement sales started to rise again slightly to 2.35Bnt in 2016 from 2.31Bnt in 2015. Sales revenue from some of the major cement producers presents a more varied picture as can be seen in Graph 2. Anhui Conch’s revenue rose by 9.7% year-on-year to US$8.12bn in 2016, China National Building Material Company’s (CNBM) revenue rose by 1% to US$14.8bn and CRC’s revenue fell by 4.2% to US$3.3bn. CRC may have suffered here from its relative business concentration in southeast China. Both Anhui Conch’s and CNBM’s results seemed to look patchy in mid-2016 when they released their half-year reports, but both sales and profits seemed to pick up sharply in the second half of the year.

Graph 2: Sales revenue from selected major Chinese cement producers. Source: Company annual reports.

As the current set of structural reforms kick in within the Chinese cement industry it will be interesting to see what happens next. From plans to cut 10% of local clinker production capacity by 2020 to ambitious environmental aims the sector barely has time to catch its breath. The question is whether the major producers balance sheets are being helped more by a recovering local market or by the reforms. Either way the uptake of alternative fuels is encouraging.