Displaying items by tag: Emissions Trading Scheme

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.

Two news stories to note this week concerning climate legislation in eastern Asia. First, the Indonesian government announced plans to create a mandatory carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) for key industries including cement. Second, an initiative to set up a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) in Taiwan emerged.

The proposal in Indonesia has been expected by the local cement sector and the wider market. Back in November 2024 at the ASEAN Federation of Cement Manufacturers (AFCM) event, an Indonesian Cement Association (ASI) speaker said that a preparation period for carbon trading by industrial sectors was expected from 2025 to 2027 followed by an easing-in period and then full implementation from 2031 onwards. This latest announcement appears to confirm the planned roll-out of the country’s cap-and-trade system. So far the government has set up a carbon tax, a voluntary carbon trading scheme (IDX Carbon) and a mandatory carbon trading scheme for part of the power sector. Notably, the local carbon price for that last one is low compared to other schemes elsewhere around the world. In 2024 the World Bank reported a price of US$0.61/t of CO₂. Since it only started in 2023 it is still early days yet though.

The new information confirms that the cement, fertiliser, steel and paper industries will be added to the mandatory emissions trading scheme. As per other cap-and-trade schemes, low emitters should be able to sell spare credits. However, comments made by Apit Pria Nugraha, Head of the Center for Green Industry, Ministry of Industry, at a recent trade event in Jakarta suggested that companies that emit more than their allowance would have to pay a 5% levy on the excess and buy credits for the rest. This seems to be different from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, where companies are fined only if they go above their allowance and they do not buy sufficient credits to cover themselves. However, we’ll have to wait to confirm this and other details.

Meanwhile in Taiwan, Peng Chi-ming, the Minister of Environment, announced that a bill establishing a local CBAM could be prepared in the second half of 2025. What is telling though is how the local press coverage of this story framed the trade policy aspects of such a scheme. Peng questioned how the EU CBAM might fare in response to the protectionist and pro-tariff administration in the US. He also noted that importers of cement and steel didn’t have to disclose their carbon emissions compared to local producers. Vietnam, unsurprisingly, was singled out as a likely target of a CBAM given that one third of Taiwan’s imports of cement come from there. Lastly, Peng also said that Taiwan would have to apply to the World Trade Organization for approval if or when it did set up its own CBAM.

Taiwan introduced a carbon tax at the start of 2025 with a standard price of US$9.16/t of CO₂ and lower prices for companies using approved reduction plans or meeting technology benchmarks. Research by Reccessary indicated that Taiwan Cement might face a carbon tax bill of US$41m and Asia Cement could be looking at US$28m based on 2023 data. These additional costs will increase operating costs and reduce profits.

All of this may sound familiar because it has already happened in Europe. Some form of carbon trading or taxation is introduced and then the debate moves on to carbon leakage via imports. The cement industries in Indonesia and Taiwan are unlikely to be aggravated directly by the EU CBAM but the wider economies of both countries are reacting to secure access to export markets. This, in turn, has implications for a heavy CO₂-emitting sector like cement. For example, if a CBAM isn’t already being considered in Indonesia, local heavy industry is likely to start lobbying for one, if the new ETS starts affecting import rates.

The Minister of Environment in Taiwan and others before him have identified that climate policies can be protectionist. As more countries regulate local carbon emissions, more trade disputes look likely. The big one right now might be the growing argument between the US Trump administration and the EU. Yet, every time a country sets up a new carbon scheme, a potential new argument over trade is brewing. And cement producers in Indonesia, Taiwan and everywhere else are stuck in the middle of all of this.

Typical! We published a cement sector news review for 2024 in the December 2024 issue of Global Cement Magazine and a load of big important events happened afterwards. So, here is a roundup of some of the major stories that have taken place in the last two months of the year.

The TL:DR (too long; didn't read) version of ‘Global Cement News in 2024’ was: focus on the US market by the multinationals; cement joining the emissions trading scheme in China as the world’s largest market stagnates; continued rivalry between UltraTech Cement and Adani Group in India as that sector grows; markets in the Middle East and North Africa adjusting to higher exports; the drawn out divestment of InterCement in Brazil; lots of new plants in Sub-Saharan Africa reflecting demographic trends; and an emphasis on construction and demolition materials in Europe but one on aggregates in North America.

However, from November 2024 onwards… Donald Trump was re-elected as President in the US, Quikrete put in an US$11.5bn deal to buy Summit Materials, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Azerbaijan ended in acrimony, Gautam Adani was accused of fraud by a US court and Huaxin Cement said it was buying Holcim’s majority stake in Lafarge Africa for US$1bn. These have all been covered in previous editions of Global Cement Weekly. Check them out for more information. One can tell it’s been a busy tail-end to the year though when a US$600m agreement by Heidelberg Materials North America to buy Giant Cement Holding did not make the top five, admittedly selective, noteworthy news stories of the last two months of 2024. These stories also, roughly, followed the trends highlighted in the ‘Global Cement News in 2024’ article.

To reflect on the Adani story a few weeks later, nothing much seems to have occurred. Yet. The share price of various Adani Group companies fell when the US authorities made the announcement in late November 2024 but they have mostly regained much of their value since then. The consensus by Reuters, this week, was that the US prosecutors have a strong case backed up by documentation but extradition seems unlikely. Adani himself has made public appearances in India since the allegations surfaced. One minor consequence has been that Gautam Adani exited the US$100bn Bloomberg Billionaires Index in 2024. This is likely to have been caused, in part at least, by the allegations from Hindenburg Research in 2023 and the current legal problems from the US bringing down share prices. On the cement side of Adani Group it appears to have been business as usual so far. A large-scale investment in Rajasthan was announced in December 2024 and, this week, plans to merge subsidiaries Sanghi Industries and Penna Cement with Ambuja Cements were disclosed.

Another general trend that we haven’t covered much online have been changes in the Australian market. Last week, Cement Australia, a joint venture between Heidelberg Materials Australia and Holcim Australia, said it was acquiring the cementitious division of the Buckeridge Group of Companies (BGC) for US$800m. This follows CRH’s purchase of a majority stake in AdBri that was approved by the latter’s shareholders over the summer. Around the same time, Seven Group Holdings completed its acquisition of the remaining 28% stake in Boral that it did not already own. For more on the situation in Australia and New Zealand read the article in the January 2025 issue of Global Cement Magazine.

That’s it for 2024. Unless another massive news story in the cement sector gets announced in the next week-and-a-half.

Global Cement Weekly will return on Wednesday 8 January 2025

China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment announced plans last week to add the cement sector to the country’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) by the end of 2024. The ministry has started the consultation process to also add steel and aluminium production to the system. 2024 will be used as a control year for the new industries entering the scheme, an implementation phase will run in 2025 and 2026 and then the quota allocated to companies will start to be reduced from 2027 onwards. Plants that emit 26,000t/yr of CO₂ or higher will be included in the ETS.

Clearly this is a big deal for the cement industry worldwide, as China produces around half of the world’s cement. As Ian Riley the CEO of the World Cement Association commented, "The inclusion of cement in the Chinese ETS is a critical and long-awaited step. As we have seen in Europe, a well-implemented carbon ETS can be beneficial by not only curbing emissions but also catalysing industry restructuring that favours the most efficient and lowest-emitting producers. This move signals China’s intent to prioritise sustainability in high-emission sectors…” In 2023, for example, China produced 2.02Bnt of cement compared to a global output of 4.10Bnt. This compares to the 176Mt of cement produced in the European Union (EU) in 2022. The EU, of course, is the home of the world’s second largest ETS.

China’s National ETS originally started in 2021 focusing on the power generation sector. It followed several pilot markets in eight regions, which continue to operate in parallel with the national system. At present the National ETS covers more than 2000 companies with emissions exceeding that 26,000t/yr of CO₂ figure mentioned above. These are mostly generation businesses, but it does also cover captive power plants. Overall, the scheme is estimated to cover around 5Bnt/yr of CO₂ and accounts for over 40% of the countryʼs CO₂ emissions. The current targets are an 18% reduction in carbon emissions per unit of GDP compared to 2020 levels by 2025, peak CO₂ emissions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2060. Following the addition of the cement, steel and aluminium sectors, however, the ETS is estimated to grow to 8Bnt/yr of CO₂ and it should account for 60% of the country’s CO₂ output.

In April 2024 the average spot price of emissions traded on the Shanghai Environment and Energy Exchange reached €12.7/t of CO₂. This was a notable milestone because in the local currency it exceeded the ‘psychological’ 100 Chinese Yuan threshold. Meanwhile, the EU ETS CO₂ price started to increase in 2021 finally making it just past Euro100/t of CO₂ in early 2023. Since then, it has declined somewhat but remains at €50-75, well above the levels of the 2010s.

In practical terms the real significance of China’s National ETS for the cement sector should begin to be felt once the government starts to tighten up the allocated quotas from 2027 onwards. It is at this point that it will become apparent how the system is being used to drive the pace of decarbonisation. The other part of this to watch is if or when domestic talk turns to setting up a version of the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to stop imports. It is at this point that one might be able to tell if the ETS has ‘bite.’

The government has not been shy in regulating industry and one of its starkest tools so far in tackling overcapacity has been mandating cement plants to simply stop production for some months of the year through so-called peak shifting. The National ETS gives it another tool to drive policy changes. Yet it is more complicated and with wider implications to other industries than simply telling plants to take a break. How it fits in globally, where there is a significant difference between the ETS price in China and the EU, remains to be seen. Yet, any additional CO₂-based burden upon the cement sector in the world’s largest cement producing country is a major step towards decarbonisation.

One surprise at the end of August 2024 was that Türkiye-based Çimsa has agreed to buy a majority stake in Ireland-based Mannok. The subsidiary of Sabancı Holding signed a deal to acquire just under a 95% stake in Mannok Holdings based on an enterprise value of Euro330m for 100% of the shares. The final purchase price will be determined later in the process, as will a potential completion date subject to the usual regulatory approvals.

Çimsa has described the deal as its “third major global initiative in the past three years” following expansions in the US and Spain. Çimsa started production at its 0.3Mt/yr white cement grinding plant in Houston, Texas in 2019. It is currently planning to set-up a 0.6Mt/yr grey cement grinding plant, also in Houston, with operation expected to start by the end of 2024. Its Spain-based business received a boost in mid-2021 when it purchased the Buñol white cement plant in Valencia from Cemex. Outside of Türkiye the company also operates a few terminals in Germany and Italy. Of interest to this article it established a subsidiary for sales in the UK in mid-2023.

Mannok was previously known as Quinn Group before it was rebranded in 2020. In addition to cement the company sells a range of construction products including PIR (polyisocyanurate) insulation, aircrete thermal blocks, roof tiles and precast concrete. The company is headquartered at Derrylin in Fermanagh, Northern Ireland in the UK but it operates in both Ireland and the UK. It runs a 1.4Mt/yr integrated plant at Ballyconnell, County Cavan in Ireland, just across the border from Derrylin. With the 17th Global CemFuels Conference scheduled to take place next week in Dublin, it is worth noting that this cement plant had a recent upgrade of interest to the alternative fuels sector. In 2023 the company said that it had installed the world’s first FLSmidth Fuelflex Pyrolyzer at a cement plant following an earlier pilot of the system back in 2018. It is used to replace coal with solid recovered fuels (SRF) in the pre-calcination stage of cement production. Later in 2023 Mannok said that the equipment was reducing its CO₂ emissions by 58,000t/yr.

As reported in the October 2023 issue of Global Cement Magazine, cement from the Ballyconnell plant is sold in both Ireland and the UK. In 2022, 35% of its sales were in Ireland, 30% in Northern Ireland and the remaining 35% in the rest of the UK. The company uses a storage unit at Warrenport in Northern Ireland to despatch cement to a 8400t cement storage and distribution at Rochester in Southern England.

Çimsa said that the acquisition is intended to help it to increase the share of its revenue in foreign currencies to over 70%. It is not a revelation that Çimsa might want to do this given the parlous state of the economy in Türkiye since 2018. Interest rates are high and the Turkish Lira has lost value. Çimsa raised the issues this has caused in its 2023 annual report. These include higher costs for imported goods and services such as energy, equipment and engineering services. In 2023 the company reported that 57% of its sales consisted of foreign currency-based revenue. The same year exports represented just under 40% of the company’s total revenue. Overall, Çimsa’s revenue fell slightly year-on-year in 2023, in part due to the divestment of a cement plant and other assets, but earnings rose significantly.

Buying Mannok gives Çimsa another route into the European Union (EU), via Ireland, and the UK. Crucially, this gives its first integrated grey cement production site outside of Türkiye. Both of these things are especially useful for an export-focused company facing increasing hurdles to sales in the guise of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. It also helps the business to further hedge against negative currency exchange effects back home in Türkiye. So ‘Sláinte’ to Çimsa and Mannok, and good luck.

The 17th Global CemFuels Conference & Exhibition takes place in Dublin, Ireland on 18 - 19 September 2024

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/

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

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: The World Cement Association (WCA) has lent its voice to cross-industry support for the roll-out of the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The mechanism taxes carbon-intensive imports, including cement, in order to prevent carbon leakage under the Emissions Trading Scheme. It first entered force on 1 October 2023, and will conclude its transitional period on 31 December 2025. Through its involvement, the WCA aims to inform and facilitate understanding of CBAM's reporting requirements, emission calculation methodologies and the workings of the CBAM Transitional Registry. WCA members and other stakeholders can access up-to-date CBAM information via a dedicated page on the association’s website.

WCA chief executive officer Ian Riley said "I'm pleased to announce our commitment to supporting our members in addressing the challenges and opportunities of this crucial initiative. The WCA is committed to supporting solutions that promote environmental responsibility and sustainability within the cement industry. We aim to work closely with our members and other stakeholders to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by the CBAM regulation, ultimately contributing to a greener and more resilient global economy."

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.”