Displaying items by tag: US
US: Vicat subsidiary National Cement Company of Alabama inaugurated its new US$300m production line at its Ragland cement plant on 21 July 2022. Local press has reported that the line includes a new rotary kiln, equipped for alternative fuel (AF) use.
President Spencer Weitman said “This puts us into the next 40 or 50 years. And it’s prolonged the life of the plant to move us forward into the next century hopefully.”
Lehigh Cement’s Union Bridge plant to switch to Portland limestone cement production by 2023
20 July 2022US: Lehigh Hanson’s Lehigh Cement plant in Union Bridge, Maryland plans to fully switch from Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) to Portland limestone cement (PLC) production by January 2023. It will manufacture its EcoCemPLC product. The company says that the Union Bridge plant is currently the company’s largest cement plant in North America.
The decision to move to PLC follows similar changes at the company’s Mason City plant in Iowa and three cement plants in Indiana. Lehigh Hanson produced over 2Mt of PLC in 2021 and it says it is set to double this figure in 2022.
US: Dome Technology has commissioned a 169,000t dome at Lehigh Cement's Mitchell cement plant in Indiana. The dome is equipped with three reclaim tunnels, enabling 83% live reclaim.
Dome Technology sales manager Lane Robertssaid “It’s a colossal project. It’s one of our bigger domes as far as storage capacity goes."
US: Titan Cement Group has invested in renewably powered Heat Battery developer Rondo Energy, in the California-based company’s Series A funding round. The Heat Battery is a 98% efficient electrical heater with high scalability, according to the supplier. Its modular battery provides grid load flexibility, with the possibility of continuous operation. Titan Cement Group says that it will now work in a technological partnership with Rondo Energy to develop new concepts for cement decarbonisation using Rondo Energy’s ‘unique innovation.’
Terra CO2 raises US$46m in funding round
13 July 2022US: Silicate-based supplementary cementitious material (SCM) developer Terra CO2 raised US$46m in its first funding round, it announced on 12 July 2022. Fast Company News has reported that climate innovation venture capital company Breakthrough Energy Ventures led the round.
Terra CO2's SCM consists of silicate-containing igneous rocks and sediments, which are ground and heated to form glass spheres. The company says that these behave in a similar way to natural pozzolan and fly ash. Terra CO2 says that its product offers a 70% CO2 emissions reduction compared to ordinary Portland cement (OPC).
Update on California, July 2022
06 July 2022CalPortland completed its acquisition of the Redding cement plant from Martin Marietta this week. As previously announced the transaction involved the integrated cement plant in northern California, related cement terminals and 14 ready mixed concrete (RMC) plants also in the state. However, CalPortland’s parent company Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement revealed this time round that it is considering buying the Tehachapi cement plant from Martin Marietta too. It says it has some sort of preferential purchase agreement in place, although a final decision is yet to be made.
If CalPortland and Taiheiyo Cement do end up buying the Tehachapi plant as well as Redding then it will mark a fairly quick turnaround of owners. HeidelbergCement subsidiary Lehigh Hanson announced that it was selling up assets in its US West region to Martin Marietta for US$2.3bn in May 2021. The deal was completed by October 2021. Then, CalPortland said it was buying the Redding plant in March 2022. From an outside perspective it was not clear what Martin Marietta might have had planned for its new assets. Over three quarters of Martin Marietta’s revenue in 2021 came from its Aggregates and RMC products. However, it is also a prominent regional US cement producer with two plants in Texas and two plants in California, along with associated terminals. So, building up its cement business in California didn’t seem unfeasible. Now, as can be seen, it is likely to be sticking to its primary focus of aggregates and RMC. It is also worth noting that California has some of the stricter CO2 reduction policies in the US with a 40% reduction target for 2030 (compared to 1990 levels) and a local emissions trading scheme that started in 2013.
Looking at the local cement production base in California, the latest development with the former Lehigh Hanson plants shows the changing situation since the subsidiary of HeidelbergCement left the region. Beforehand, Cemex, Lehigh Hanson and CalPortland each had a similar clinker production capacity. Then, Martin Marietta took the lead and now CalPortland looks set to become the frontrunner if it buys Tehachapi. With the Redding deal completed it now operates three integrated cement plants in California and one in Arizona. Alongside this it runs 15 terminals in Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington – and – two terminals in Alberta and British Colombia in Canada. The Redding plant is also a distinctive addition to its portfolio as it is further north than the other clinker units.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) data shows that cement shipments to California grew by 5% from 10.05Mt in 2019 to 10.57Mt in 2021. So far in 2022, shipments to the state rose by 3.4% year-on-year to 3.56Mt for January to April 2022 compared to 3.44Mt in the same period in 2021. However, clinker production fell by 5% to 8.94Mt in 2021 from 9.45Mt in 2019. This trend seems to have continued into 2022 with a 9% fall to 2.54Mt for January to April 2022 compared to 2.81Mt in the same period in 2021. Despite this, California remained the second largest OPC and blended cement producer in the US in April 2022. In its Western US Regional Outlook in May 2022, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) forecast that the Pacific region of the US (including California) will experience flat growth in cement consumption in 2023 due to a slowdown in residential consumption. However, consumption is then expected to bounce back sharply in 2024 as the effects of the infrastructure bill take effect.
This suggests that CalPortland has picked an uncertain time to start buying cement plants in California. Yet only last year, in 2021, Cemex began restarting production at a previously mothballed cement plant in Mexico to supply the south-west US. Alongside all of this, environmental regulations are tightening. However, the key difference between Martin Marietta and CalPortland is that the latter is owned by Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement, which is more cement-focused than the aggregate and concrete oriented Martin Marietta. No doubt Taiheiyo Cement’s intention to become more international also played a part in its decision making. If CalPortland does decide to buy Tehachapi then this may give observers an idea of how much further its ambitions go.
US: Eco Material Technologies has won a contract with Georgia Power to mine 600,000t/yr from the energy company’s Plant Bowen ash dump in Cartersville, Georgia. Eco Material Technologies will use the ash to produce its 99% reduced-CO2 building materials, including an alternative cement with 20% greater compressive strength than ordinary Portland cement (OPC) after 28 days, according to the company.
Grant Quasha, CEO of Eco Material Technologies, said "As the largest partnership of its kind in the US, this project will not only use material from landfills and ash ponds, but also keep millions of tonnes of CO2 from going into the atmosphere."
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 realise a 55% reduction in EU industries' CO2 emissions 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, has 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 to the achievement of 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/
US: A team from the University of Colorado Boulder (UCB) has developed a carbon-neutral alternative cement from biogenic limestone. The limestone comes from farmed cocolitophores, which capture CO2 as they grow.
The UCB scientists collaborated with colleagues from the University of Carolina at Wilmington and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on the project. Their work has received US$3.2m in US Department of Energy funding.
This news story has been corrected to include the correct name of the University of Colorado Boulder
Nevada Department of Transportation approves Portland limestone cement for road projects
28 June 2022US: The Nevada Department of Transportation has approved the use of Portland limestone cement (PLC) for road construction and repairs. The department expects the move to reduce CO2 emissions by 4000t/yr. It uses 45,000t/yr of cement in its projects. Local press has reported that transport contributed 35% of Nevada’s CO2 emissions in 2022, making it the largest single source.