Displaying items by tag: Norway

Europe: RHI Magnesita is heading a European Union Horizon project called ReSoURCE. The project seeks to develop a sensor-based refractory waste sorting and powder handling system. It involves academic partners in Austria, Germany, Ireland, Norway and the UK. The European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HADEA) supplied Euro6m in funding for the study, while the UK government supplied Euro1m. Global refractory waste generation is currently 28Mt/yr.

RHI Magnesita chief executive officer Stefan Borgas said “On average, 60% of all spent refractories generated by refractory-consuming industries go to landfill, while only 30% are recycled. With the ReSoURCE project, we aim to increase it up to 75%. This means we can achieve significant savings of CO₂ emissions per annum. With this research project, we have the chance to make a difference in the world.”

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

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

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

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

China

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

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

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

Turkey

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

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

North America

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

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

Other European countries

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

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

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

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

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

Developing countries

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweden: Cementa has completed its feasibility study for a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system at Slite cement plant in Gotland. The producer says that it will now proceed to the next stage of the project, with the aim of producing climate positive cement from 2030. Sister company Norcem is currently building a 400,000t/yr CCS system at its Brevik cement plant in Norway. Cementa says that its new system will have four times the capacity of that at the Brevik plant, and reduce Sweden's total CO₂ emissions by 3%. One or more of 'several storage solutions' currently under development in the North Sea will serve to store the plant's captured CO₂ emissions.

General manager Giv Brantenberg said "With the knowledge we have built up through our pioneering project at Norcem in Brevik, we now have a good picture of how to move forward in Sweden. The Nordic countries have what it takes to lead the climate transition in the construction sector."

Italy: Cementir’s revenue rose by 21% year-on-year to Euro362m in the first quarter of 2022 from Euro301m in the same period in 2021. It attributed this to higher prices linked to the increase in the costs of fuels, electricity, raw materials, transport and services. Its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) grew by 26% to Euro60.7m from Euro48.1m. Grey, white and clinker sales volumes increased by 1.8% to 2.4Mt and ready-mixed concrete sales volume remained stable at 1.13Mm³. Cement sales volumes grew in Belgium, Denmark and the US but fell in Turkey. Concrete sales volumes grew in Belgium and Norway but fell in Turkey, Sweden and Denmark.

Ghana: Denmark-based Investeringsfonden for Udviklingslande (IFU) and Norway-based Norfund have invested US$27.9m in CBI Ghana. The funding will support the cement producer’s upgrade of a clay calcination unit at its 0.6Mt/yr Tema grinding plant in Accra. Denmark-based FLSmidth is supplying the equipment for the project.

Norway: HeidelbergCement, agricultural cooperative Felleskjøpet AGRI and shipping company Egil Ulvan Rederi plan to build what they say will be the world's first zero-emission bulk carrier. The project has also received support of around Euro12m from the Norwegian government-owned sustainability company Enova. The vessel is scheduled for completion and commissioning in 2024. Once operational the ship will be used to transport aggregates products for HeidelbergCement and grain for Felleskjøpet between west Norway and east Norway using hydrogen powered transport.

Egil Ulvan Rederi was selected following a tendering process in 2021. The ship is intended to be highly energy efficient, using rotor sails and has a streamlined design to reduce energy consumption. It will be powered by hydrogen from Norwegian energy supplier Statkraft but will also have small auxiliary batteries and a fuel cell on board to maximize flexibility.

Giv Brantenberg, general manager HeidelbergCement Northern Europe, said “The project addresses emissions from the transport part of our value chain. It is unique, ambitious and future-orientated. It is fully in line with HeidelbergCement Group's target to be the leading actor in our industry on the path to carbon neutrality." HeidelbergCement estimates that the carbon footprint of the aggregates products can be reduced by 50 - 60% by using the zero emission vessel, as transport accounts for a significant part of the total carbon footprint of these products.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norway: Germany-based MAN Energy is supplying a compressor system for a carbon capture and storage (CCS) unit being built at Norcem’s Brevik cement plant. The scope of supply includes an RG 63-7 type electrically-powered compressor train. The steam generators cool the CO₂ mixture between the compressor stages and generate steam that is in turn used for capture. The project will be the first to use the ‘Carbon Capture Heat Recovery’ technology (CCWHR) developed by MAN and Aker Carbon Capture. This new process allows the heat emerging from the compressor system to be recovered and used as steam to meet approximately one third of the total heat demand from the Aker Carbon Capture plant. Consequently, MAN says that the system solution demands less energy compared with conventional carbon-capture technologies.

Alexander Sobolyev, Head of Standardisation & Solutions at MAN Energy Solutions, said: "As part of the Norcem project, the digital-twin-based engineering approach of MAN Energy Solutions has led to concrete optimisations. The dynamic process simulation showed that originally planned system components, including heating, valves and additional pipes for safe plant operation, were not required. The time taken for a cold start of the plant can thus be reduced from around 12 hours to 20 minutes – an important characteristic as quick-start capability is always a central criterion for renewable energies."

Spain/Norway: A team from Cartagen Polytechnic and Ostfold University College has demonstrated that Cementos La Cruz could reduce the cost of its concrete production by Euro1.45/m3, or Euro29,000/month by curing concrete with captured CO₂. EuropaPress has reported that the use of CO₂ would reduce the amount of cement required by 7 – 8%. This in turn would remove an estimated 4.6% of CO₂ from the concrete’s production.

In the two and a half years since Calix brought together cement producers across corporate and national boundaries to form the first Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC-1) consortium and commissioned a carbon capture installation at the Lixhe cement plant in Belgium on 10 May 2019, carbon capture and storage (CCS) has passed some major milestones. New installations have made Global Cement headlines from Canada (at Lehigh Cement’s Edmonton plant in November 2019) to China (at a China National Building Material (CNBM) plant in July 2021). Twelve other European cement plants now host current or planned carbon capture trials – including the first full-scale system, at HeidelbergCement’sBrevik plant in Norway. A second Calix-led project in Germany, LEILAC-2, attracted Euro16m-worth of funding from the European Union in April 2020.

The work of LEILAC-1 – backed by HeidelbergCement, Cemex, Lhoist, Tarmac and others, with Euro12m in funding – set the benchmark in innovation. Its pilot plant successfully captured 100% of 'unavoidable' process emissions by indirectly heating raw materials inside a vertical steel tube. Called direct capture, the model removes a CO₂ separation step, as our subsequent price analysis will reflect.

In October 2021, the LEILAC-1 consortium published its report of the concluded Lixhe trial. It described the three-fold key successes of the study:

1) Both limestone and raw meal may be processed;

2) CO₂ is successfully separated;

3) The energy penalty for indirect calcination is not higher than for conventional direct calcination.

Additionally, Calix’s first departure into the cement sector has demonstrated that its model exhibits no operational deterioration, does not suffer from material build-up and has no impact on the host plant when used in cement production. The plant’s clinker capacity remained the same as before the trial. Most importantly of all, the Lixhe cement plant recorded no process safety incidents throughout the duration of the trial.

The study has also put an evidence-based price tag on industrial-scale CCS at a cement plant for the first time: Euro36.84/t. Figure 1 (below) plots the full-cycle costs of three different carbon capture installations at retrofitted 1Mt/yr cement plants using 100% RDF, including projections for transport and storage. Installation 1 is an amine-based carbon capture system of the kind installed in the Brevik cement plant’s exhaust stack; Installation 2 is the Calix direct capture system and Installation 3 consists of both systems in combination. Direct capture’s costs are the lowest, while the amine retrofit and the combination installation are close behind at Euro43.68/t and Euro43.25/t respectively.

Figure 1: Full-cycle costs of three different carbon capture installations at retrofitted 1Mt/yr cement plants using 100% RDF

Installations 1 and 3 both entail additional energy requirements for the separation of CO₂ from flue gases and air. With the inclusion of the CO₂ produced thereby, the cost of Installation 1 rises to Euro94/t of net CO₂ emissions eliminated, more than double that of Installation 2 at Euro38.21/t. The combination of the two in Installation 3 costs Euro67.3/t, 76% more than direct capture alone. Figure 2 (below), breaks down the carbon avoidance costs for each one and compares them.

Figure 2: Carbon avoidance costs of three different carbon capture installations at retrofitted 1Mt/yr cement plants using 100% RDF

The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA)’s seven-point Roadmap to Net Zero strategy puts CCS at the forefront of concrete sector decarbonisation. CCS is expected to eliminate an increasing share of global concrete’s CO₂ emissions, rising to 36% in 2050 – by then 1.37Bnt of a total 3.81Bnt. This will depend on affordability. Calix’s model has reduced the capital expenditure (CAPEX) of a carbon capture retrofit by 72% to Euro34m from Euro98m for the amine-based equivalent. When built as part of a new plant, the CAPEX further lowers to Euro27m. Both models may also be retrofitted together, for Euro99m. In future, Calix expects to install direct capture systems capable ofachieving Euro22/t of captured CO₂. By contrast, the cost of emitting 1t of CO₂ in the EU on 11 October 2021 was Euro59.15.

In what it calls the Decade to Deliver, the GCCA aims to achieve a 25% CO₂ emissions reduction in global concrete production between 2020 and 2030, in which CCS plays only a minor part of less than 5%. LEILAC-1 presents a visionof affordable carbon avoidance which complements cement companies’ 2030 CO₂ reduction aspirations.

Unlike conventional CCS methods, however, direct capture only does two thirds of a job – eliminating the emissions of calcination, but not combustion. This would appear to make it unsuited to cement’s longer-term aim of carbon neutrality by 2050 in line with the Paris Climate Accords’ 2°C warming scenario. On the other hand, direct capture is not designed to work alone. Calix recommends use of the technology in conjunction with a decarbonised fuel stream to eliminate the plant’s remaining direct emissions. This increases the price - by 47% to Euro56.05/t of CO₂ avoided for biomassand by more than double to Euro104.48/t for an E-kiln.

The Lixhe cement plant’s carbon capture story is one of a successful crossover from one industry into another: Calix previously applied the technology in the Australian magnesite sector. Realisation of the Calix carbon capture vision in the global cement industry is a challenge primarily due to the scale of the task. It will require continued collaboration between companies and with partners outside of the industry. Further than this, parliaments must continue to enact legislation to make emission mitigation the economic choice for producers.