Displaying items by tag: OPEC

Renewables reportedly generated more power than coal in the first half of 2025. Energy think tank Ember put out a report this week, which showed that solar and wind generation also grew faster than the rise in electricity demand in the first half of 2025. Global electricity demand rose by 2.6% year-on-year, adding 369TW. Solar increased by 306TW and wind by 97TW. Both coal and gas generation fell slightly, although a rise in other fossil fuel generation slowed the decline further.

Tellingly, fossil fuel generation fell in both China and India. Indeed, China added more solar and wind than the rest of the world combined, cutting its fossil fuel generation by 2% or by 58.7TWh. In India, renewables grew at the expense of fossil fuels, but demand growth was relatively low at 12TWh. In the US and the European Union (EU) fossil fuel generation actually increased. In the US, this was due to demand growth outpacing new renewable power. In the EU, weaker wind and hydroelectric output led to a greater reliance on coal and gas.

Meanwhile, a separate report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), also out this week, predicts that installed renewable power is likely to more than double by 2030 even as the sector navigates headwinds in supply chains, grid integration and financing. The IEA forecasts that global renewable power capacity will increase by 4600GW by 2030, roughly the equivalent of adding the total power generation capacity of China, the EU and combined. Solar photovoltaic (PV) will account for around 80% of the global increase in renewable power capacity over the next five years, followed by wind, hydroelectric, bioenergy and geothermal. Solar PV is expected to dominate renewables’ growth between now and 2030, remaining the lowest-cost option for new generation in most countries. Wind power, despite its near-term challenges, is still set for considerable expansion as supply bottlenecks ease and projects move forward, notably in China, Europe and India. However, the IEA’s outlook for global renewable capacity growth has been revised downward slightly compared to 2024, mainly due to policy changes in the US and in China.

This is all very well but what does it mean for the cement sector? At face value, possibly not much anytime soon. Both Ember and the IEA are talking about domestic electricity generation, not industrial. Ember reckons that half the world’s economies may have already peaked in fossil fuel power generation, but usage rates are still high. Prices of fossil fuels may even subsequently come down - to the benefit of industrial users such as cement plants. Yet, carbon taxes should, in theory, discourage increased usage - if they are working correctly.

Market distortions should not be discounted though. Some readers may recall what happened with carbon credits in the earlier stages of the EU emissions trading scheme. Free carbon allowances, calculated during the boom years of 2005 - 2007 when production was maxed out, were far too much to cover production during the resulting economic crisis. The sale of extra allowances provided many plants with a nice little earner and did little to encourage decarbonisation. Carbon capture is likely to require large amounts of electricity, but cheaper energy from renewables may help.

However, take a look at renewable energy stories in the Global Cement website news so far in 2025 and there are nearly 30 solar-related and seven wind-related ones. Cement companies are busily adding renewable capacity to reduce the cost of their electricity. This week, for example, Equator Energy commissioned a 10MW captive solar power plant at Mombasa Cement’s Vipingo plant in Kenya. Last week, Southern Province Cement in Saudi Arabia signed a 25-year solar energy power purchase agreement for its Bisha cement plant. Lest one forget, Saudi Arabia was the largest exporter of crude oil among Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members in 2023 at 6,659,000 barrels/day. If a cement plant in Saudi Arabia is investing in renewables, then one might suspect a change in the global energy mix is occurring.

Electricity accounts for around 12% of the energy demand at a cement plant. Nearly two-thirds of that demand comes from either grinding raw materials or cement. Then, as mentioned above, carbon capture is expected to increase the demand for electricity. One estimate reckons it will increase electricity consumption by 50 - 120%. Renewables are expected to bring down the price of electricity but demand will also grow.

So… expect more renewable projects linked to cement plants.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) took on direct implications for the international cement industry this week when an Italian vendor infected with the virus visited Lafarge Africa in Ogun state, Nigeria. The cement producer said that it had ‘immediately’ started contact tracing and started isolation, quarantine and disinfection protocols. This included initiating medical protocols at its Ewekoro integrated plant, although local press reported the unit’s production lines were still open. Around 100 people were thought to have had contact with the man.

Global Cement has been covering the epidemic since early February 2020 when the virus’ effect on the construction industry in China started to become evident. First, an industry event CementTech was postponed, financial analysts started forecasting negative financial consequences for producers and plants started going into coronavirus-related maintenance or suspension cycles. Then at least one plant started to dispose of clinical waste and now China National Building Material Group (CNBM) is considering how to restart operations at scale. Also, this week Hong Kong construction companies reportedly laid off 50,00 builders due to a lack of cement due to the on-going production suspension in China.

The major cement companies have identified that their first business risk from coronavirus comes from simply not having the staff to make building materials. LafargeHolcim’s chief executive officer Jan Jenisch summed up the group’s action in its annual financial results for 2020 this week when he said, “We are taking all necessary measures to protect the health of our employees and their families.” Other major cement producers that Global Cement has contacted have placed travel restrictions for staff and reduced access to production facilities.

The next risk for cement companies comes from a drop in economic activity. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) forecasts a global 0.5% year-on-year fall in real gross domestic product (GDP) growth to 2.4%, with China and India suffering the worst declines in GDP growth at around 1%. The global figure is the worst since the -0.1% rate reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2009. The OECD blamed the disease control measures in China, as well as the direct disruption to global supply chains, weaker final demand for imported goods and services and regional declines in international tourism and business travel. This forecast is contingent on the epidemic peaking in China in the first quarter of 2020 and new cases of the virus in other countries being sporadic and contained. So far the latter does not seem to have happened and the OECD’s ‘domino’ scenario predicts a GDP reduction of 1.5%. All of this is likely to drag on construction activity and demand for cement and concrete for some time to come.

Moving to cement markets and production, demand is likely to be slowed as countries implement various levels of isolation and quarantine leading to reduced residential demand for buildings directly and as workforces are restricted. Business and infrastructure projects may follow as economies slow and governments refocus spending respectively.

The UK government, for example, is basing its coronavirus action plan on an outbreak lasting four to six months. This could potentially happen in many countries throughout 2020. This has the potential to create a rolling effect of disruption as different nations are hit. Assuming China has passed the peak of its local epidemic then its producers are likely to report reduced income in the first quarter of 2020. The effect may even be reduced somewhat due to the existing winter peak shifting measures, whereby production is shut down to reduce pollution. Elsewhere, cement companies in the northern hemisphere may see their busy summer months affected if the virus spreads. The effect on balance sheets may be visible with indebted companies and/or those with more exposure to affected areas disproportionately affected. The wildcard here is whether coronavirus transmits as easily in warmer weather as it does in the cooler winter months. In this case there may be a difference, generally speaking, between the global north and south. Exceptions to watch could be cooler southern places such as New Zealand, Argentina and Chile. Shortages, as mentioned above in Taiwan, potentially should be short term, owing to global overcapacity of cement production, as end users find supplies from elsewhere.

The cement industry is also likely to encounter disruption to its supply chains. Major construction projects in South Asia are already reporting delays as Chinese workers have failed to return following quarantine restrictions after the Chinese New Year celebrations. As other countries suffer uncontrolled outbreaks then similar travel restrictions may follow. Global Cement has yet to see any examples of materials in the cement industry supply chain being affected. On the production side, raw mineral supply tends to be local but fuels, like coal, often travel further. Fuel markets may prove erratic as larger consumers cut back and suppliers like the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) react by restricting production.

On the maintenance side cement plants need a wide array of parts such as refractories, motors, lubricants, gears, wear parts for mills, ball bearings and so forth. Some of these may have more complicated supply chain routes than they used to have 30 years ago. On the supplier side any new or upgrade plant project is vulnerable if necessary parts are delayed by a production halt, logistics delayed and/or staff are prevented from visiting work sites. Chinese suppliers’ reliance on using their own workers, for example, might well be a hindrance here until (or if) international quarantine rules are normalised. Other suppliers’ weak points in their supply chains may become exposed in turn. This would benefit suppliers with sufficiently robust chains.

Chinese reductions in NO₂ emissions in relation to the coronavirus industrial shutdown have been noted in the press. A wider global effect could well be seen too. This could potentially pose problems to CO₂ emissions trading schemes around the world as CO₂ prices fall and carbon credits abound. This might also have deleterious effects on carbon capture and storage (CCS) development if it becomes redundant due to low CO₂ pricing. In the longer-term this might undesirable, as by the time the CO₂ prices pick up again we will be that much nearer to the 2050 sustainability deadlines.

COVID-19 is a new pandemic in all but name with major secondary outbreaks in South Korea, Iran and Italy growing fast and cases being reported in many other countries. The bad news though is that individual countries and international bodies have to decide how to balance the economic damage disease control will cause, versus the effects of letting the disease run unchecked. Yet as more information emerges on how to tackle coronavirus, the good news is that most people will experience flu-like symptoms and nothing more. Chinese action shows that it can be controlled through public health measures while a vaccine is being developed.

Until then, frequent handwashing is a ‘given’ and many people and organisations are running risk calculations on aspects of what they do. It may seem flippant but even basic human interaction such as the handshake needs to be reconsidered for the time being.