Displaying items by tag: Sustainability

There was a glimmer of good news visible through the Delhi smog this week with the launch of a market-based emissions trading scheme (ETS) for particulate matter (PM). A pilot has started at Surat in Gujarat. The scheme will apply to 350 industries in the locality and it will be scrutinised for wider rollout in the country.

China robustly started to tackle its industrial PM emitters a few years ago although the work remains on-going. In its wake India has increasingly made the wrong sort of headlines with horrifically high dust emissions. Delhi, for example, reportedly had PM2.5 emissions of over 440µg/m³ in January 2019. To give this some context, the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) annual upper guideline figure for safe human exposure is 10µg/m³. Research by the Financial Times newspaper suggested that more than 40% of the Indian population is subject to annual PM2.5 emissions of over 50µg/m³.

Air Quality Life Index (AQLI) research reckons that if India were able to meet its national PM2.5 standard of 40µg/m³ then its population would live 1.8 years longer or 4.3 years longer if it met the WHO guideline level. The current situation is an unnecessary tragedy. In strictly structural terms the country’s productivity is being thrown away by damaging the health of its workforce. For comparison amongst other major cement producing countries, AQLI data placed China’s PM2.5 emissions at 39µg/m³, Indonesia at 22µg/m³, Vietnam at 20µg/m³ the US at 9µg/m³. These figures cover all industries in different conditions and climates. If the US can do it, why not the others?

Back on trading schemes, the famous ETS at the moment is the European one for CO₂ emissions. Similar schemes are slowly appearing around the world as governments look at what the European Union (EU) did right and wrong. For example, South Africa started up a carbon tax in early June 2019. Yet as the supporting documents by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) point out there have been a variety of ETS systems’ over the years. The US’s Acid Rain Program is generally seen to have achieved significant reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions although the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) has continued this work. Chile even ran its own PM ETS in the 1990s although the outcomes have been disputed.

One problem with a CO₂ ETS, and anthropomorphic or man-made climate change in general, is that it is intangible. Even if sea levels deluge major coastal cities, rising mean temperatures reduce agricultural yields and human populations contract sharply, people will still be arguing over the research and the causes. The beauty of a PM ETS is that if it works you can literally see and feel the results. A famous example here is the UK’s Clean Air Act in the 1950s that banished the fog/smog that London used to be famous for.

The Gujarat PM ETS is a pilot, the results of which will be considered by researchers from a number of US-based universities and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. Explicitly, the study plans to use a randomised control trial to compares its results against the command and control style approach used in the rest of the country. On the cement-side various Indian news stories have emerged as state pollution boards have increasingly started fining producers for emission limit breaches. Clearly the government is taking dust emissions seriously. Reduction is long overdue.

Nigeria: Dangote Cement has published its first sustainability report following Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards. Key data from the report include a CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious material of 687kg CO₂/t across all operations. Its total CO₂ emissions were 16.4Mt. In 2017 it reported estimated total CO₂ emissions of 8.45Mt from its domestic operations. The cement producer had an energy consumption of 52M GJ 2018. It had a 49% production capacity utilisation rate at its Nigerian plants. The group said that it supported 37,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs in Nigeria.

Algeria: LafargeHolcim Algeria’s Oggaz cement plant has been awarded ISO 14001:2015 certification for environmental management, according to the El Watan newspaper. The plant has a total cement production capcaity of 3.8Mt/yr, comprising 3.2Mt/yr of gray cement and 0.6Mt/yr of white cement. The unit also has a waste treatment facility.

There were two main takeaways from the Global Future Cement Conference that took place in Brussels last week. Firstly, there are not any obvious alternatives to using cement and concrete. Secondly, serious at-scale commercial investment on capturing CO₂ process emissions from clinker production is still waiting for the right economic conditions.

Graph 1: Embodied energy versus embodied CO₂ of building materials. Source: Hammond & Jones, University of Bath, UK.

Although the conference was heavily focused on Europe, the graph above explains why the cement and concrete industries are sitting pretty right now in the face of mounting environmental activism. The sector may be responsible for 5 - 10% of annual CO₂ emissions but, put bluntly, there is simply no alternative. As Karen Scrivner from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) explained during her presentation, concrete uses some of the most abundant minerals present on earth, notably silicon and calcium. Alternative chemistries are simply not backed up by available materials. The cement and concrete associations have strongly promoted the unique position by focusing on the whole lifecycle of building materials.

The energy and emissions research needs to be scrutinised much more closely but, if it’s correct, there is no way to maintain modern standards of living without concrete. And, judging from the response by the French public to a badly handled meagre carbon tax on diesel by the so-called Yellow Vest movement, whacking up the price of housing or infrastructure might go down badly, especially in developing countries.

Two immediate ‘outs’ presents themselves. Cement doesn't necessarily have to be made from clinker as Robert McCaffrey’s presentation reinforced (also given at the IEEE/IAS-PCA Cement Conference this year). Future research may find alternatives to clinker and wipe out the cement business in the process. Also, the graph above is based on per kilogramme amounts of each building material. It doesn’t indicate how much of each material is required to build things. Even if clinker-based building materials are irreplaceable, there is no reason why their market share might not decrease. This could have large consequences in a market already burdened by over-capacity.

Graph 2: Comparison of cost of carbon capture technology for the cement industry. Source: European Cement Research Academy (ECRA).

Solid research into carbon capture technology is proceeding apace, from the LEILAC project at HeidelbergCement’s Lixhe plant, to oxyfuel kiln development and other methods, as Jan Theulen from HeidelbergCement demonstrated in his presentation. Off-the-shelf technologies from other industries also exist ready to be used. Today, for example, Inventys has announced plans to test its own CO₂ capture technology with Lafarge Canada. Yet there are no commercial-scale installations in Europe. most likely due to the price burden it would place on the end product.

With the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) entering its fourth phase and the carbon price holding above Euro20/t the question is: when will the serious investment begin in Europe? Notably, more than a few major European cement equipment manufacturers attended the Global Future Cement Conference, yet none are offering mature products to capture CO₂ emissions. Most or all have projects up their sleeves ready to be developed and sold but orders aren’t being received. The carbon price in Europe is the problem here. If it's too low then nothing happens outside of government subsidy. Too high and cement plants start being shut down because they become too expensive to run. To be fair to the cement sector other carbon emission mitigation strategies are being employed from alternative fuels usage to lowering the clinker factor and other methods but the endgame is based on reducing process emissions.

The challenge for the cement and concrete industry is to show legislators that their materials are essential and irreplaceable. They are doing this. The legislators then need to concoct ways of encouraging mass scale rollout of carbon emissions abatement technology without destroying the cement industry. This is far from certain right now. If nothing else it’s in governments’ interest to get this right because, as the Yellow Vest protests show, if they get it wrong their voters become angry. All of this is happening against the clock as CCU/S is required to get the cement industry past the 2050 2°C maximum warming target set by the Paris Agreement. In the meantime the cement industry is essentially in a holding position on the more far-reaching aspects of CO₂ emissions mitigation. Its products are likely irreplaceable but its carbon capture technology has to be encouraged by governments. This means that, for most cement producers, waiting to see what happens next is the way forward.

The 3rd Future Cement Conference and Exhibition is scheduled to take place in Vienna, Austria in 2021

Canada: Sean Monkman, Senior Vice President of Technology Development at CarbonCure Technologies, has been named as Canada’s inaugural Mission Innovation Champion at the fourth annual Mission Innovation Summit (MI4) and 10th annual Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM10) summit hosted by Canada in Vancouver, British Colombia in late May 2019.

Mission Innovation, a global initiative involving 22 countries and the European Commission, has identified carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) as one of eight Innovation Challenges that are key to achieving substantial emissions reductions. Mission Innovation Champions were selected from member countries to celebrate individuals with a track record of progressing creative new ideas that drive the pace and scale of the clean energy revolution.

Mexico: Cemex has adopted the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). It has prioritised five goals from the charter that connect with the company’s business and represent an opportunity to contribute to the UN 2030 Agenda. These five goals are focused on the promotion of decent employment and economic growth (SDG 8), innovation and infrastructure development (SDG 9), climate change mitigation (SDG 13), environmental and ecosystem conservation (SDG 15) and the advancement of sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11). Cemex plans to continue embedding the UN SDGs into its business processes to create systemic change, increase engagement, promote a sense of purpose and raise awareness among its stakeholders.

Today is the first day of the Global FutureCem Conference taking place in Brussels, Belgium. The event is looking at how the cement industry can adapt to a low or zero carbon world. Although Global Cement is organising the event, it is clearly topical as two news stories this week demonstrate.

Firstly, the chief executive officers (CEO) from 13 US companies, including LarfargeHolcim, announced that they were lobbying the US government to enact business-led climate change legislation. The initiative, known as the CEO Climate Dialogue, included principles such as ‘significantly’ reducing US greenhouse gas emissions. This is shocking because, at face value, large-scale CO₂ emitters like LafargeHolcim have the most to lose from more rigorous environmental regulations. What do they have to gain from doing this? This is like turkeys voting for Christmas!

Interpretations of why LafargeHolcim and others might want to do this could go in a few directions. Firstly, the intention might be fully plausible. These companies could genuinely want to combat climate change. Secondly, more cynically perhaps, leading demands for legislation puts the lobbyists in the room when change is actually made. Given the integral nature of concrete in modern construction this is not necessarily a bad thing. Environmentalists may want to ban building materials that create CO₂ emissions but, until they can offer an alternative or convince people to accept reduced quality of life, then cement is the material of choice. Thirdly, leading change allows one to stay ahead of it or at least give the sector more time to react to it. The ‘turkeys’ may not want to vote for ‘Christmas,’ but perhaps ‘Christmas’ could be replaced with something else?

This latest initiative by the CEOs in the US has parallels with the creation of the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in 2018. Like the current moves in the US, cement producers led the creation of the GCCA, to promote concrete as the sustainable building material of choice.

Meanwhile, Germany’s HeidelbergCement also announced this week that its CO₂ reduction targets to 2030 have been assessed against the Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) criteria. Its SBTi target is to reduce scope 1 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% per ton of cementitious material by 2030 from a 2016 base year. HeidelbergCement has also committed to reduce scope 2 GHG emissions by 65% per ton of cementitious materials within the same timeframe. The SBTi target follows HeidelbergCement’s previous goal of a 30% reduction in its specific net CO₂ emissions by 2030 compared with 1990. It says it has achieved a reduction of 20% so far.

HeidelbergCement is a sustainability leader in the sector with various projects on the go including the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) consortium direct separation pilot project at the Lixhe cement plant in Belgium. Following SBTi is a continuation of this trend, albeit one that anchors it with a global consensus.

Coincidence perhaps but when the two largest non-Chinese cement producers start announcing sustainability stories like then the picture is changing. The questions at this point is how far will it go.

A full review of the 3rd Global FutureCem Conference will be published after the event. To find it and more information visit: http://www.globalcement.com/conferences/global-future-cement/introduction

US: The chief executive officers (CEO) of 13 US companies, including LarfargeHolcim, are lobbying the President and Congress to enact business-led climate change legislation. This initiative, known as the CEO Climate Dialogue, urges the government to put in place a long-term federal policy as soon as possible, in accordance with a set of six guiding principles. The group aims to build bipartisan support for climate policies that it says will, “… increase regulatory and business certainty, reduce climate risk, and spur investment and innovation needed to meet science-based emissions reduction targets.”

Companies involved in the CEO Dialogue include BASF, BP, Citi, Dominion Energy, Dow, DTE Energy, DuPont, Exelon, Ford Motor Company, LafargeHolcim, PG&E, Shell, and Unilever. Four environmental groups have also supplied input to the initiative. These are the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy and World Resources Institute.

The six principles include: ‘significantly’ reducing US greenhouse gas emissions; allowing an effective timeline for reductions that will help capital intensive industries to adjust in an ‘economically rational manner’; instituting a market-based price on carbon; making the policies durable and responsible; doing no harm to the competitiveness of the US economy with particular attention to carbon leakage; and promoting equity. Specifically the initiative says that US policy should ensure the country is on a path to achieve economy-wide emissions reductions of 80% or more by 2050 with ‘aggressive’ short and medium term emissions reductions.

“Tackling the challenge of climate change is no easy task, and as industry leaders, we have an opportunity to join forces to advocate for climate legislation. It is critical we begin to set durable and achievable goals that help safeguard the environment while reducing our carbon footprint,” said Jamie Gentoso, the CEO for US Cement operations of LafargeHolcim.

Germany: HeidelbergCement’s CO₂ reduction targets to 2030 have been successfully assessed against the Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) criteria. It says this makes it the first company in the cement sector to have approved science-based targets.

"Our goal is to realise the vision of CO₂-neutral concrete by 2050 at the latest. In the coming years, we want to make significant progress in this direction, and the SBTi’s approval is a clear proof of our strong commitment," said Bernd Scheifele, the chairman of the managing board of HeidelbergCement. The group’s CO₂ reduction strategy is based on measures on plant and product level. These include improving energy efficiency, and a steadily increasing use of alternative fuels and alternative raw materials.

HeidelbergCement’s SBTi target is to reduce scope 1 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% per ton of cementitious materials by 2030 from a 2016 base year. HeidelbergCement also commits to reduce scope 2 GHG emissions 65% per ton of cementitious materials within the same timeframe. The SBTi target is consistent with HeidelbergCement’s previous goal of a 30% reduction in its specific net CO₂ emissions by 2030, compared with 1990. The cement and concrete producer has achieved a reduction of 20% so far.

The SBTi assesses and validates corporate emissions reduction targets against climate science research. Targets adopted by companies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are considered ‘science-based’ if they are in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement – to limit global warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Switzerland: LafargeHolcim reduced its net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious material by 1% year-on-year to 576kg CO₂/t in 2018 from 582kg CO₂/t in 2017. It said that the improvement was achieved by reducing the clinker-to-cement ratio and consuming less energy per tonne of cement, mostly by using alternative fuels and improving the efficiency of the company’s processes. However, data from its Sustainability Report 2018 shows that both its overall gross and net emissions grew. Its net CO₂ emissions from cementitious material increased by 2.5% to 121Mt. At the same time its clinker production rose by 2.7% to 151Mt from 147Mt.

The group increased its treatment of waste-derived resources to 52Mt. its alternative raw material substitute rate grew to 11.2% from 10.7%. It established a new pre-processing facility in Madukkarai in India and upgraded its waste handling capacities in Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, India, Canada, Spain and Germany. It also reduced its freshwater withdrawal for cement production and improved its lost time injury rates.