Displaying items by tag: Emissions

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, says it will undertake a review of the targets set out in its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap (2013/2018) in order to align the industry’s efforts with the carbon neutrality objectives contained in the European Green Deal published in December 2019. Following this reassessment, the association says it publish a revised low-carbon roadmap setting out the key role of cement and concrete in the circular economy and a path to achieving carbon neutrality along its value chain in Europe by 2050. Cembureau expects the revised roadmap to be published in early spring 2020.

“As an industry we are determined to ensure that we play our part in helping Europe to meet its emissions reduction targets. With concrete, our industry has a sustainable building material that is uniquely positioned as an essential enabler of the transition to a carbon neutral society,” said Cembureau’s president Raoul de Parisot.

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.

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

The European Union’s (EU) verified CO₂ emissions figures were released earlier this week on 1 April 2019. The good news is that no cement plant is within the top 100 largest emitters. All the top spots are held by power plants, iron and steel producers and the odd airline. Indeed, out of all of the verified emissions, cement clinker or lime production only represents 7% of the total emissions. Of course this is too much if the region wants to meet its climate change commitments but it is worth remembering that other industries have a long way to go as well and they don’t necessarily face the intrinsic process challenges that clinker production has. If the general public or governments are serious about cutting CO₂ emissions then they might consider, for example, taking fewer flights with airlines before picking on the cement industry.

The EU emitted 117Mt of CO₂ from its clinker and lime producers in 2018, a 2.7% year-on-year decrease compared to 120Mt in 2017. This compares to 158Mt in 2008, giving a 26% drop in emissions over the decade to 2018. However, there are two warnings attached to this data. First, there are plants on this list that have closed between 2008 and 2018. Second, there are plants that provided no data in 2018, for example, all the plants in Bulgaria. Climate change think tank Sandbag helpfully pointed out in its analysis of the EU emissions data that industrial emissions have barely decreased since 2012. The implication here being that the drop from 2008 to 2012 was mainly due to the economic recession. Sandbag also made the assertion that 96% of the cement industry’s emissions were covered by free allocations in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) thereby de-incentivising sector willingness to decarbonise.

By country the emissions in 2018 from cement and lime roughly correspond with production capacity, although this comes with the caveat that emissions link to actual production not potential capacity. So, Germany leads followed by Spain, Italy, Poland and France. Of these Poland is a slight outlier, as will be seen below.

Table 1: Top 10 CO₂ emitting plants in the European Union in 2018. Source: European Commission.

Poland leads the count in the top 10 EU CO₂ emitting cement plants in 2018 with five plants. Greece follows with two plants. This list is deceptive as all of these plants are large ones with production capacities of 2Mt/yr and above. As it contains many of the largest plants in the EU no wonder the emissions are the highest. It is also worth considering that there are far larger plants outside of the EU.

In summary, as most readers will already know, the cement industry is a significant minority CO₂ emitter in the EU. Countries with larger cement sectors emit more CO₂ as do larger plants. So far, so obvious. Emissions are down since 2008 but this mostly seems to have stalled since 2012, bar a blip in 2017. The change though has been the rising carbon price in the EU ETS in 2018. Coincidentally the carbon price has been fairly low and stable since 2012. If the mechanism is working properly then changes should start to appear in 2019. Already in 2018 a few European cement producers announced plant closures and blamed the carbon price. Watch this space.

The Global Future Cement Conference & Exhibition on low and zero CO2 cement production will take place in Brussels, Belgium on 22 - 23 May 2019

Research from the Global Carbon Budget (GCB) this week forecasts that fossil CO₂ emissions from the Indian cement industry will rise by 13.4% in 2018. This is in stark contrast to the smooth mood music from the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) last week, which stated that the local industry was on track to meet its commitments towards decarbonisation. So what’s going on?

The situation is akin to the fable about the blind men and the elephant. Both the GCB and the CSI are approaching the emissions of the Indian cement industry from different directions. The GCB is using available data (including data from the CSI) to try and estimate what the CO₂ emissions are. It takes cement production data using a method adapted from a paper published by Robbie M Andrew of Norway’s CICERO Center for International Climate Research in 2018 and then it takes into account the types of cement being produced and the clinker factor. This is then converted into an estimated clinker production figure and this is then converted into a CO₂ figure.

However, the CSI meanwhile actually has direct data from its local members. At the moment these include ACC, Ambuja Cements, CRH, Dalmia Cement (Bharat), HeidelbergCement, Orient Cement, Shree Cement, UltraTech and Votorantim Cimentos. As part of the Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) database it collects production and sustainability related data from its members. However, for reasons of competition, it maintains a year gap before it reports its data. This means that the GCB can report its estimate ahead of the CSI data.

There is nothing to stop the CSI reporting its progress against its targets though. And this is exactly what it has done in India with the recent document outlining progress towards the 2030 targets from the low carbon technology roadmap (LCTR). The headline CSI metric was direct CO₂ emission intensity. According to the CSI, this has fallen by 32kgCO₂/t cement to 588kgCO₂/t cement in 2017 mainly due to an increased uptake of alternative fuel and blended cement production, as well as a reduction in the clinker factor. This is bang on target with its aim of hitting 320kgCO₂/t in 2050 (around 560 kgCO₂/t in 2020, assuming a linear decrease).

The problem is that cement production growth in India suddenly sped up in 2018. Global Cement estimates that India’s cement production is set to rise by 7% year-on-year to 296Mt in 2018 from 280Mt in 2017. Data from the Ministry of Commerce & Industry shows that cement production rose by nearly 16% year-on-year to 244Mt in the first nine months of 2018 from 211Mt in the same period in 2017. Along these lines the Cement Manufacturers Association of India has forecast growth of 10% in the 2019 financial year to the end of March 2019. It reckons that this is the fastest growth in the sector since the industry slowed down in 2011.

India’s per capita cement consumption is low (222kg/capita) and its urban population is also low (around 30%). That’s a lot of cement that’s going to be used as it shifts to developed global rates and already it’s the globe’s second biggest cement market. The CSI was right to get in there eight years ago. Yet, the question now is can CO₂ emissions decrease whilst the market grows? Research in the US suggests that the real reason for emission drops in the 2010s was the economic recession, not policy shifts or changes in the energy mix. If that holds in India then the cement industry will have a hard time reducing its carbon footprint irrespective of the work the CSI has done.

The Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) has announced its aim to reduce CO₂ emissions by clinker producers by 20 - 25% by 2030. It made the announcement as part of a new action plan launched on 8 December 2015 at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21).

Most of the plan follows the CSI's existing aims announced to chime with the on-going COP21 negotiations. The plan depends on a long-term agreement being brokered successfully in Paris at COP21 as a whole. It then recommends policy in each of its key areas to achieve its goals. All of this sits beneath a general policy statement to, '...encourage policies for predictable, objective, level-playing and stable CO₂ constraints and incentives as well as energy frameworks on an international level.'

The Cement Action Plan is part of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development Low Carbon Technology Partnerships initiative (LCTPi). It puts together a series of measures to aspire to reduce CO₂ emissions by 1Gt by 2030 compared to business as usual. However this reduction is dependent on the entire cement industry getting involved, not just the existing 26 CSI members. Together these 26 members represent just a quarter of world cement production.

The drop in emissions is based on the so-called 'best-in-class' CSI company 2020 targets. To reach this the CSI is suggesting actions including focusing on recording Chinese cement industry emissions and energy usage, improving energy efficiency, promoting co-processing of alternative fuels, further lowering the clinker factor of cements, developing new low-energy and low-carbon cements, looking at the entire build chain to reduce emissions and considering other options such as carbon capture and storage. The plan had the support of the CEOs of 16 cement companies at its launch, with CNBM CEO Song Zhiping adding his assent at the event also.

The most prominent step is the clear focus on China for data capture using existing CSI tools such as the CO₂ and Energy Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, the Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) and the Cement Technology Roadmaps. As the CSI puts it, "What gets measured gets managed."

Given that China produces around 60% of the world's cement, according to United States Geological Survey data, the focus on China is essential. Currently the CSI has six Chinese members: CNBM, Sinoma, China Resources, Tianrui Group, West China Cement and Yati Group. Notable exceptions to CSI membership from the world's biggest cement producers include the Chinese producers Anhui Conch and Taiwan Cement, as well as Russia's Eurocement and India's Aditya Birla Group.

So, the CSI has set out its stall ahead of a hoped-for global agreement on climate change at the Paris conference. If some sort of legal agreement is reached then the CSI has its recommendations ready in the wings to hand to policymakers everywhere to promote its aims. If no agreement is reached then the plan loses momentum although pushing forwards makes sense where possible, starting with better CO₂ data reported especially in China.

Problems lie ahead for the CSI whatever happens in Paris given that the LCTPi Cement Action Plan is a series of policy suggestions from only 16 cement producers aiming for a non-binding target. For example, without some sort of world legal agreement there are clear commercial advantages for non-CSI members to burn cheap fossil fuels in their kilns and undercut their more environmentally pious rivals. The sustaining low cost of oil, dipping below US$40/barrel this week, can only aggravate this situation and distract the strategies of fuel buyers away from co-processing upgrades.

One highlight from the cement industry news over the last month was Skyonic's announcement that it has opened a commercial-scale carbon capture unit at the Capitol Aggregates cement plant in Texas, US. Details were light, but the press release promised that the unit was expected to generate US$48m/yr in revenue for an outlay of US$125m. Potentially, the implications for the process are profound, so it is worth considering some of the issues here.

Firstly, it is unclear from the public information released whether the process will actually make a profit. The revenue figures for the Skyonic unit are predictions and are dependent on the markets that the products (sodium biocarbonate, hydrogen and chlorine) will be sold into. Skyonic CEO and founder, Joe Jones, has said in interview that the sodium-based product market by itself could only support 200 - 250 plants worldwide using this process. Worldwide there are over 2000 integrated cement plants. Since Jones is selling his technology his market prediction might well be optimistic. It is also uncertain how existing sodium biocarbonate producers will react to this new source of competition.

Secondly, Skyonic is hoping to push the cost of carbon capture down to US$20/t. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and transportation varies between industries depending on the purity and concentration of the by-product. For example, in 2011 the US Energy Information Administration estimated the cost for CO₂ capture to range from US$36.10/t for coal and biomass-to-liquids conversion up to US$81.08/t for cement plants. The difference being that capturing CO₂ from cement plant flue gas emissions requires more cleaning or scrubbing of other unwanted chemicals such as mercury.

With these limitations in mind, Skyonic is placing itself in competition with the existing flue gas scrubbing market rather than the carbon capture market, since the level of CO₂ removal can be scaled to local legislation. Plus, SO_x, NO₂, mercury and other heavy metals can be removed in the process.

Back on carbon capture, Skyonic is securing finance for a process it calls Skycycle, which will produce calcium-based products from CO₂, with a pilot plant planned at Capitol Aggregates for late 2015. This puts Skyonic back amongst several other pilot projects that are running around the world.

Taiwan Cement and the Industrial Technology Research Institute inaugurated their calcium looping project pilot in mid-2013. It was last reported to have a CO₂ capture rate of 1t/hr.

The Norcem cement plant in Brevik, Norway started in early 2014 to test and compare four different types of post-combustion carbon capture technologies at its pilot unit. These are Aker Solutions Amine Technology, RTI Solid Sorbent Technology, DNV GL/ NTNU/ Yodfat Engineers Membrane Technology and Alstom Power Regenerative Calcium Cycle. The project in conjunction with HeidelbergCement and the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA) is scheduled to run until 2017.

St Marys Cement in St Marys, Canada started its bioreactor pilot project in July 2014. This process uses flue gas to grow algae that can then be used for bio-oil, food, fertiliser and sewage treatment.

If Skyonic is correct then its sodium biocarbonate process in Texas is a strong step towards cutting CO₂ emissions in the cement industry. Unfortunately, it looks like it can only be a step since the market won't support large-scale adoption of this technology. Other pilots are in progress but they are unlikely to gather momentum until legislation forces cement producers to adopt these technologies or someone devises a method that pays for the capture cost.

Industrial energy consumers in Romania have succeeded in extracting concessions from the government's green certificates scheme this week. Cement producers, including Lafarge, Holcim and local HeidelbergCement subsidiary CarpatCement Holding, will benefit now from a 10-year facility to acquire the certificates and they will be allowed to buy up to 85% fewer certificates than at present.

The Romanian government reckons the change will save industry Euro750m. It will be good news for the cement producers and aluminium producer Alro Slatina, one of the chief lobbyists for the change which paid Euro39m for the certificates in 2013, reported losses of Euro17m and threatened production closures.

The debacle strikes a chord with other government-led attempts to nudge society towards lower-carbon emitting energy sources. First a national or international scheme offers economic incentives toward some sort of carbon reduction. Then major industrial users either complain that the system 'unfairly' penalises them or they find a way to play the system. The latest example of the adjustments in Romania is an example of the former, as is the current Australian government's intention to remove its carbon tax. Multinational companies surrendering carbon offsets into the European Union's (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) is an example of the latter.

In defence of government-industry negotiation, the EU ETS is now in its third phase of trying to make the scheme work as the EU tries to reach its target of a 20% cut in emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2020. In late 2013 environmental group Sandbag accused the target of containing a loophole that allows for a much smaller cut in emissions due to a slack in carbon budgets, of potentially 2% of 1990 levels. However, the EU confirmed in early June 2014 that it is on track to beat its target and cut down total emissions by 24.5% by 2020.

Alongside all of this arguing, overall energy costs have steadily risen over the last decade, as have the rates of co-processing at European cement plants. As a secondary major fuels consumer, behind energy generation and transportation, the cement industry is particularly susceptible to energy prices being jolted around behind various market trends, such as increases in natural gas supply in the US market. In effect the cement industry hops between different 'next best' options, after the leading energy consumers have taken the premium fuels. The interplay between legislators and heavy industry over carbon taxes prompts the following question: what encourages cement producers more to move to reduce their carbon emissions – legislation or fuel prices?

In other news this week, the chief executive of African producer Bamburi Cement, Hussein Mansi, has announced his plans to move on to Lafarge Egypt. In his memo to staff he mentioned, '...five very interesting years leading the Kenya – Uganda business.' Telling words perhaps given the Kenyan government's attention on Bamburi Cement and the East Africa Portland Cement Company, a producer minority-owned by Lafarge. Of course Mansi may discover that 'interesting' is relative in Egypt, a country on the other side of the energy subsidy spectrum to Europe and its carbon taxes.

The Mineral Products Association (MPA), which looks after the interests of the cement industry (and other allied industries) in the UK, has said that it welcomes a temporary tax-freeze relating to climate change announced in the UK Budget of 20 March 2013. The MPA singled out the decision to freeze the indexation of the Aggregates Levy until April 2014 and the decision to introduce the Climate Change Levy mineralogical and metallurgical exemption for energy-intensive industries such as cement and lime.

Both of these moves by UK Chancellor George Osborne have been welcomed because they bring some relief to the UK cement industry and wider construction activities. MPA members make money from such activites and any potential cost that can be eliminated or delayed, even for a short time, is welcome amid the current slump that is the UK economy. This is especially true as the UK weathers the one of the longest and most severe winters for 50 years. So far, so much sense.

However, how does this reaction to the Climate Change Levy exemption tie in with the MPA's February 2013 announcement that it thinks that the UK cement industry's total CO₂ emissions should be reduced by 81% by 2050? What should UK cement producers make of this?

The MPA's cement industry CO₂ reduction targets are certainly bold. On the face of it, they look achievable given the progress that has been made to date by the UK cement industry, although much is left to the imagination as to which areas could and should contribute most to the reduction target. The 81% reduction target includes the successful future commercial development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. It also relies on an increased proportion of renewable sources for the electricity that the cement industry will receive in 2050, something else that is totally out of the industry's control.

However, much hard work has already been done by cement companies in the UK. As in other EU countries and developed nations, total dust and toxic emissions have fallen dramatically in the UK cement industry since 1990. The country's alternative fuel substitution rate has now hit ~40%. Yet, as the MPA highlights in its document detailing the targets for 2050, much of the low-hanging fruit has already been taken. Further reduction in overall CO₂ emissions will be significantly affected by both regulations and cement company progress. 

Cement companies can increase their consumption of 'wastes' and fit waste-heat recovery systems. Through such measures they can achieve further reductions in emissions. Some kilns have hit alternative fuel substitution rates of 100% for limited periods and examples from the near continent show that 80% alternative fuels can be the norm. However, unlike these 'bottom-up' approaches, which can be introduced at a plant in a period of months, regulations take years to evolve and come into force, often involving slow and lengthly debate by politicians, associations and consumers.

To discourage the government from seeking to impose stricter environmental regulations for the cement industry by welcoming the exemption, is the MPA undercutting its own calls to reduce CO2 emissions in the UK cement industry? From a cement producer's perspective, it looks like the MPA could hold two contradictory opinions on the same subject: that you can welcome reductions in climate regulation while also calling for stricter emissions regulations. This phenomenon was famously termed 'double think' by George Orwell in his classic novel '1984,' but the MPA's situation is far more subtle. Often the regulators and those being regulated can agree on the same target but not on how that target should be reached. The next 37 years will show whether or not this target is even possible.