Displaying items by tag: funding
Decarbonising in the US
04 June 2025A week ago, there were two fully-financed cement plant carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) projects underway in the US.1 Now, there aren’t.
Projects to decarbonise National Cement Company’s Lebec, California, plant and Heidelberg Materials North America’s Mitchell, Indiana, plant were each set to receive up to US$500m in US Department of Energy (DoE) funding on a one-for-one basis with private investments. The projects were to include eventual 950,000t/yr (Lebec) and 2Mt/yr (Mitchell) carbon capture installations. Additionally, the Lebec plant was to transition to limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) production and the use of alternative fuels (AF), including pistachio shells. Both were beneficiaries of the DoE’s US$6bn Industrial Demonstrations Program (IDP), touted by former US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm as ‘Spurring on the next generation of decarbonisation technologies in key industries [to] keep America the most competitive nation on Earth.’ Disbursement of funding under the programme was frozen by executive order of President Trump in January 2025.2, 3
On 30 May 2025, Trump’s Secretary of Energy announced that the government in which Granholm served had approved spending on industrial decarbonisation without a ‘thorough financial review.’ He cancelled remaining project funding in signature Trumpian style, in list form.4 Among 24 de-funded projects, Lebec and Mitchell accounted for US$1bn (27%) of a total US$3.73bn in allocated funds that have now been withdrawn.
It's hard not to feel sorry for the management of the Lebec and Mitchell plant and the teams that had been working to deliver these projects. Heidelberg Materials has yet to comment, though CEO Dominik von Achten was in North America in late May 2025. National Cement Company parent Vicat, meanwhile, conceded the setback with a strong statement of its commitment to CO2 reduction, to 497kg/t of cementitious product globally.5 There was a diplomatic edge to the statement too, however. Echoing the Secretary of Energy, Vicat said that its target remains ‘solely based on existing proven technologies, including energy efficiency, AF substitution and clinker rate reduction’ – as opposed to ‘any technological breakthroughs’ like carbon capture. There are currently no public details of possible back-up financing arrangements for these projects; for now, the best guess at their status is ‘uncertain.’
Alongside these group’s local subsidiaries, another organisation that has to do business daily with the DoE is the American Cement Association (ACA). President and CEO Mike Ireland has continually acknowledged the complex needs of the government, while stating the association’s case for keeping support in place. With regard to these funding cuts, Ireland’s emphasis fell on the latter side: “Today’s announcement is candidly a missed opportunity for both America’s cement manufacturers and this administration, as CCS projects have long been supported by bipartisan members in Congress and bipartisan administrations.”6 He reasserted the ACA’s understanding that carbon capture aligns with the administration’s strategy to bolster domestic manufacturing and innovation.
The early 2020s heyday of US carbon capture was founded on gradual, consensus-based politics – unlike its demise. Table 1 (below) gives a non-exhaustive account of recent and on-going front-end engineering design (FEED) studies and the funding they received:
|
|
Capture target |
DoE funding |
Programme |
|
Amrize Florence7 |
0.73Mt/yr |
US$1.4m (52%) |
Fossil Energy Research and Development |
|
Amrize Ste. Genevieve |
2.76Mt/yr |
US$4m (80%) |
NETL Point Source Carbon Capture |
|
Ash Grove Foreman8 |
1.4Mt/yr |
US$7.6m (50%) |
Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program |
|
Cemex USA Balcones9 |
0.67Mt/yr |
US$3.7m (80%) |
Fossil Energy Research and Development |
|
Heidelberg Materials North America Mitchell |
2Mt/yr |
US$3.7m (77%) |
Fossil Energy Research and Development |
|
TOTAL |
7.56Mt/yr |
US$20.2m |
N/A |
Additionally, MTR Carbon Capture, which is executing a carbon capture pilot at St Marys Cement’s Charlevoix plant in Michigan, previously received US$1.5m in Fossil Energy Research and Development funding towards a total US$3.7m for an unspecified cement plant carbon capture study.10
Market researcher Greenlight Insights valued industrial decarbonisation initiatives under the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (ODEC – the now defunct DoE office responsible, among other things, for the IDP) at US$65.9bn in cumulative returns in April 2025.11 The government has yet to publish any account of how it might replace this growth, or the 291,000 anticipated new jobs that would have come with it. Given all this (along with the extensive financial and technical submissions that accompanied each project), the issues raised by the DoE are presumably budgetary, or else founded in a perception of CCUS as essentially uneconomical.
Carbon capture is very, very expensive. A fatuous reply is that so is climate change, just with a few more ‘verys.’ Hurricane Ian in September 2022 cost US$120bn, more than enough to fund carbon capture installations at all 91 US cement plants, along the lines of the former Lebac and Mitchell agreements.12 Unlike climate change, however, carbon capture remains unproven. Advocates need to continually justify taxpayer involvement in such a high-risk venture.
At its Redding cement plant in California, Lehigh Hanson successfully delivered a funding-free FEED study, with its partner Fortera raising US$85m in a Series C funding. This presents an alternative vision of innovation as fully-privatised, in which the government might still have the role of shaping demand. This is borne out in the IMPACT Act, a bill which ‘sailed through’ the lower legislature in March 2025.13 If enacted, it will empower state and municipal transport departments to pledge to buy future outputs of nascent reduced-CO2 cements and concretes.
A separate aspect of the funding cancellation that appears decidedly cruel is the targeted removal of grants to start-ups. Two alternative building materials developers – Brimstone and Sublime Systems – were listed for a combined US$276m of now vapourised liquidity. Both are commercially viable without the funding, but the effect of this reversal – including on the next generation of US innovators who hoped to follow in their footsteps – can only be chilling. As non-governmental organisation Industrious Labs said of the anticipated closure of the ODEC in April 2025: “We may see companies based in other geographies start to pull ahead.”
Heidelberg Materials’s Brevik carbon capture plant came online in June 2025, 54 months after the producer secured approval for the project. The term of a presidency is 48 months. This probably means that producers in the US will no longer see CCUS as a viable investment, even under sympathetic administrations.
Even as government funding for CCS flickers from ‘dormant’ to ‘extinct,’ the sun is rising on other US projects. Monarch Cement Company commissioned a 20MW solar power plant at its Humboldt cement plant in Kansas on 27 May 2025. The global momentum is behind decarbonisation, even if economics determines that it will only take the form of smaller-scale mitigation measures at US cement plants into the medium-term future. We can hope that these, at least, might include the AF and LC3 aspects of National Cement Company’s plans at Lebec.
References
1. Clean Air Task Force, ‘Global Carbon Capture Activity and Project Map,’ accessed 3 June 2025, www.catf.us/ccsmapglobal/
2. Democrats Appropriations, ‘Issue 5: Freezing the Industrial Demonstrations Program Undermines U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness and Strands Private Investment,’ January 2025, www.democrats-appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-appropriations.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/5%20DOE%20Frozen%20Funding%20-%20Industrial%20Demos.pdf
3. Colorado Attorney General, ‘Attorney General Phil Weiser secures court order blocking Trump administration’s illegal federal funding freeze,’ 6 March 2025, www.coag.gov/press-releases/weiser-court-order-trump-federal-funding-freeze-3-6-25/
4. US Department of Energy, ‘Secretary Wright Announces Termination of 24 Projects, Generating Over $3 Billion in Taxpayer Savings,’ 30 May 2025, www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer
5. Vicat, ‘Cancellation of funding agreement for the Lebec Net Zero project by the US Department of Energy,’ 3 June 2025, www.vicat.com/news/cancellation-funding-agreement-lebec-net-zero-project-us-department-energy
6. American Cement Association, ‘Statement from the American Cement Association on Department of Energy’s Cancellation of Clean Energy Grants,’ 30 May 2025, www.cement.org/2025/05/30/statement-from-the-american-cement-association-on-department-of-energys-cancellation-of-clean-energy-grants/
7. Gov Tribe, ‘Cooperative Agreement DEFE0031942,’ 30 September 2022, www.govtribe.com/award/federal-grant-award/cooperative-agreement-defe0031942
8. Higher Gov, ‘DECD0000010 Cooperative Agreement,’ 13 May 2024, www.highergov.com/grant/DECD0000010/
9. Gov Tribe, ‘Cooperative Agreement DEFE0032222,’ 7 February 2025, www.govtribe.com/award/federal-grant-award/cooperative-agreement-defe0032222
10. Higher Gov, ‘DEFE0031949 Cooperative Agreement,’ 1 May 2023, www.highergov.com/grant/DEFE0031949/
11. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, ‘Jobs, Economic Impact of OCED Closure,’ 11 April 2025, www.c2es.org/press-release/oced-closure-could-cost-65-billion-290000-jobs/
12. National Centers for Environmental Information, ‘Events,’ accessed 4 June 2025, www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2022?disasters%5B%5D=tropical-cyclone
13. US Congress, ‘H.R.1534 - IMPACT Act,’ 26 March 2025, www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1534
US: The Trump administration has cancelled a US$500m grant awarded in December 2024 to National Cement in California for the conversion of its Lebec cement plant into the state’s first net-zero cement facility. The project, valued at US$891m, aimed to switch to limestone calcined clay cement and use agricultural waste as fuel, with CO₂ captured for permanent underground storage, according to the Bakersfield Californian newspaper. It was expected to create 20 - 25 permanent jobs. The US Department of Energy (DOE) said the project was among 24 grants worth US$3.7bn cancelled due to failure “to advance the energy needs of the American people,” and cited economic infeasibility and poor return on taxpayer investment.
US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said that the previous administration “failed to conduct a thorough financial review before signing away billions of taxpayer dollars.”
Executive director Steven Nadel of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy said “Choosing to cancel these awards is shortsighted, and I think we're going to look back at this moment with regret.”
The project was one of 33 cement, steel and aluminium decarbonisation projects awarded DOE grants in 2023. The project turned up on an April 2025 list of 39 projects the DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations was considering terminating.
US: The US Department of Energy may end the Industrial Demonstrations Program that aims to decarbonise hard-to-abate industries like cement, placing up to US$6bn in federal grants at risk, according to Canary Media. This includes an eventual US$500m in Heidelberg Materials North America’s Mitchell cement plant carbon capture project in Indiana. The project is reportedly at risk after 'significant' staff cuts at the Department of Energy.
The senior vice president of sustainability and public affairs for Heidelberg Materials North America, David Perkins, said that the company was ‘uncertain’ and that ‘coordination and communications [had] changed’. He added that the company is still submitting reports for the grant to the Department of Energy and exploring alternative funding sources.
US: Queens Carbon has secured US$10m in seed funding to scale up production of its novel cement and supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). The start-up will build a 2000t/yr demonstration plant at strategic partner Buzzi Unicem USA's Stockertown, Pennsylvania, cement plant. The plant will demonstrate Queens Carbon’s low-energy Q-Reactor technology, which employs novel hydrothermal chemistry, with the help of steam and pressure, to combine standard cement feedstocks into carbon-neutral hydraulic cement and SCMs. The company’s flagship product, Q-SCM, is capable of replacing up to 50% of cement in concrete mixes. Queens Carbon says that it will now also begin preparations for its first full-scale commercial plant.
Buzzi Unicem USA was among investors in the seed funding round, led by Climate technologies investor Clean Energy Ventures, with participation from fellow venture capital firm Plug and Play.
Queens Carbon CEO Daniel Kopp said "With support from Clean Energy Ventures, Buzzi Unicem USA and the US Department of Energy, we're building next-generation technology and assembling the creative talent needed to drive industry revenues to move cement innovation forward and significantly reduce CO2 emissions from cement production, all without a green premium."
Luigi Buzzi, Chief Technology Officer at Italy-based Buzzi, said "We know that achieving our goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 demands forward-thinking solutions to enhance both our operations and our environmental performance.”
Türkiye: TSKB (Industrial Development Bank of Türkiye) has signed a €75m investment loan agreement with Oyak Cement to fund renewable energy and waste heat recovery (WHR) projects. The funding will support the construction of a 115MW solar power plant in Beypazarı, Ankara, and waste heat recovery facilities at the Ankara, Adana and Mardin cement plants.
Oyak Cement general manager Murat Sela said “We have accelerated our investments for the Beypazarı solar power plant, as well as the WHR facility investments with a total installed capacity of 13.5 MW at our Adana, Ankara and Mardin plants. We expect these investments to help generate 237,000MW/yr of energy, while increasing the total renewable energy utilisation rate at our plants from 9% to 30%.”
Ireland: Ecocem has secured €4m in research funding as part of the European Innovation Council’s Pathfinder Challenges 2024 in order to optimise electric arc furnace (EAF) slag for low-carbon cement production. The four-year programme is funded by Horizon Europe and will explore ways to enhance EAF slag reactivity and its suitability as a supplementary cementitious material without compromising cement durability. The project was submitted to the Pathfinder Challenge 2 call: “Towards Cement and Concrete as a Carbon Sink.”
Corporate development executive director Eoin Condren said “For many years, we have been pioneering the use of a range of slags and cementitious materials to create scalable and durable low-carbon cement. Thanks to this grant, we will continue our groundbreaking work as the steel industry transitions to new manufacturing processes, delivering a viable solution for a new generation of waste from steel.”
Denmark: Air Liquide and Cementir Holding, via its Danish subsidiary Aalborg Portland, have signed the European Innovation Fund grant agreement for the ACCSION project at the Aalborg cement plant. The project aims to reduce the plant’s CO₂ emissions by 1.5Mt/yr, with the captured CO₂ transported via pipeline to onshore CO₂ storage facilities.
The value of the Innovation Fund grant is €220m, fully financed by the EU Emissions Trading System.
Boral receives government funding for kiln feed optimisation project at Berrima Cement Works
28 March 2025Australia: Boral will receive US$15.4m in government funding for a kiln feed optimisation project at its Berrima Cement Works, with CO₂ emissions expected to reduce by up to 100,000t/yr, based on predicted production rates. The Powering the Regions grant will support the producer’s installation of a new specialised grinding circuit and supporting infrastructure, which will raise the use of alternative raw materials in kiln feed to 23% from 9%, lowering the amount of limestone used.
Boral will use steel manufacturing by-products and industrial waste, including granulated blast furnace slag, steel slag, cement fibre board, fly ash and recycled fine concrete aggregates. The project will be operational in 2028.
The head of innovation and sustainability at Boral, Ali Nezhad, said “In terms of the resulting emissions intensity of the manufactured clinker, the project will result in up to 11% reduction in clinker emission intensity, 9% attributable to a reduction in calcination emissions and 2% attributable to thermal efficiency gains.”
Update on ammonia in cement production, March 2025
19 March 2025UBE Mitsubishi Cement recently released an update on its commercial scale demonstration using ammonia as a fuel at its Ube plant. It is currently testing the use of ammonia in both the cement kiln and calciner at the site. It has set the aim of reaching a 30% coal substitution rate with ammonia in the cement kiln by the end of March 2025. It has described the project as a world first. Planned future work includes running ammonia combustion tests alongside post-consumer plastics.
The company announced the three-year project in mid-2023. Utilities company Chubu Electric Power has been working on it and UBE Corporation has been supplying the ammonia for the test. The scheme dates back to before Mitsubishi Materials and Ube Industries merged their cement businesses in 2022. Ube Industries previously took part in a government research project looking at the topic, running combustion tests and numerical analysis in small industrial furnaces.
Another ammonia research project in the cement sector was revealed in 2024 by Heidelberg Materials in the UK. The company was awarded just under €0.40m in funding by Innovate UK through its UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) fund, together with engineering consultants Stopford and Cranfield University. The 12-month feasibility study aimed to assess the use of ammonia as a hydrogen carrier and evaluate the most economical method of on-site ammonia cracking to generate hydrogen for use by clinker kilns. It also intended to investigate the various tiers of the UK's existing ammonia supply chain network for the suitable transportation, offloading and storage of ammonia.
The UK project explained that it was looking at ammonia as a hydrogen carrier due to its high volumetric energy density. This, potentially, makes ammonia easier and cheaper to store and transport than hydrogen. It pointed out that storing and transporting hydrogen is difficult and the chemical is expensive. It also noted that the volumetric energy density of ammonia is 45% higher than that of liquid hydrogen. The benefit of switching to a zero-carbon fuel was that it could cut CO2 emissions by the cement and concrete sector in the UK by 16%.
The attraction of ammonia to the cement industry is similar to that of hydrogen. Both are versatile chemicals that can be produced and used in a variety of ways. The production processes and supply chains of both chemicals are linked. The Haber–Bosch process, for example, uses hydrogen to manufacture ammonia. It can also be cracked to release the hydrogen. When used as fuels neither release CO2 emissions directly. This comes down to the method of production. Like hydrogen, there is a similar informal colour scheme indicating carbon intensity (Grey, Blue, Green and Turquoise). Despite the advantages listed above, the disadvantages of using ammonia include toxicity and NOx emissions, as well as the fact that there is little experience of using ammonia as a fuel. The worldwide ammonia market was bigger by volume in 2023 with production of just under 200Mt compared to hydrogen production of just under 100Mt.
Back in Japan, the national government has been promoting the use of ammonia technology for the power generation sector. It added ammonia to the country’s national energy plan in the early 2020s following research on running power plants with a mixture of ammonia and coal. The ambition is to build up levels of ammonia co-firing at power plants, develop the necessary technology and grow supply chains. This, it is hoped, will broaden, diversify and decarbonise the domestic energy mix and pull together a new international market too. Unfortunately, this strategy has had criticism. One study by BloombergNEF in 2022 estimated, for example, that the electricity cost of Japan-based power stations switching to firing ammonia by 2050 would be more expensive than generation from renewables such as solar or wind.
This explains why the ammonia project by UBE Mitsubishi Cement is leading the way. The interest by a European cement company shows that others are thinking the same way too. Yet again, the potential decarbonisation solution for cement is likely to lead towards more complex industrial supply chains. The next steps to watch will be whether a cement plant in Japan actually starts to co-fire ammonia on a regular basis and if any more ammonia projects pop up elsewhere around the world.
Europe: 77 decarbonisation projects (including 14 for the cement sector) have signed grant agreements under the Innovation Fund 2023 Call (IF23), following the announcement of results in October 2024. The cement projects, spanning nine European countries, will begin operations between 2025 and 2029.
The funding, sourced from the EU Emissions Trading System, provides grants ranging from €4.4m to €234m, supporting projects expected to avoid 118Mt of CO₂. The total 77 projects funded have the potential to reduce emissions by around 398Mt of CO₂ equivalent over their first 10 years of operation. The projects funded in the cement industry mostly involve carbon capture and storage (CCS). Among the selected CCS projects are Carbon2Business in Germany, Olympus in Greece, Go4Zero in Belgium and Cementir’s Accsion project in Denmark.



