4th Global CemCCUS Conference

The 3^rd Global CemCCUS Conference on carbon capture in the cement and lime industries has successfully taken place in Hamburg, Germany, with 100 delegates from 23 countries in attendance. The 4^th Global CemCCUS Conference will take place in Lyon, France, with a visit to the Vicat Monatlieu cement plant and carbon capture project, in June 2027.

On the day before the CemCCUS Conference, a number of participants too part in an ‘Introduction to carbon capture’ course conducted by John Kline of Kline Consulting, which brought attendees up to the ‘state-of-the-art.’

Joe Harder opened the conference with an overview of carbon capture in the global cement industry. He pointed out that net zero will certainly not be achieved by the cement industry by 2050. On the contrary, Joe suggested that global carbon capture from the cement industry will total no more than 45Mt by 2030, of a total emission of over 2Bnt. CCUS projects are strongly concentrated in Europe, with around 33 projects, with only a few scattered around the rest of the globe. He reiterated that there is a somewhat of a pause in cement CCUS projects in Europe, and that other decarbonisation measures are likely to be more economical in the short term.

Fabian Liss of Bellona, an international independent climate and environmental protection NGO, suggested some policies to overcome challenges in CCUS. Regulation, strategy and financing all need to be in place for successful CCS scale-up. Social acceptance can also be crucial. CO2 transport and storage infrastructure is also key, and incentives, regulations and risks must be aligned. It is clear that cement and lime plants are the highest priority industrial units for carbon capture, and should be prioritised for public funding, if required. Demand for low-carbon materials needs to be boosted. “The lack of transport and sequestration infrastructure is now the main barrier to CCS deployment,” he concluded.

Merten Becker of Heidelberg Materials next looked specifically at the challenges of transport and storage. He pointed out that CO2 has specific phases with particular properties; gas phase (pipelines), liquid phase (low, medium, and high pressure, for truck, ship or rail), and dense phase, for use in pipelines. Each of the transport systems has its own pros and cons. Brevik involved interim storage, ship transport, another interim storage and then pipeline transportation - involving complexity and significant costs. Other projects may be even more complex and more expensive. Key learnings so far include that pipelines are the preferred transport mechanism; Storage should be close to the plant if possible; Operation of the cement plant changes with carbon capture and requires a mindset change; Gaps in legislation need to be closed; Risk sharing needs to be improved between emitter, state, transport and storage; The public needs to be educated about CCS; The CBAM needs to be enforced; Carbon contracts for difference (CCfD) need to be aligned across EU member states; It needs to be understood that CO2 transport and storage is not value creation (even though CO2 storage can create a stable income for carbon storage providers compared to the fluctuating income from hydrocarbons; Ground-breaking lighthouse projects are needed to achieve mindset change; and existing infrastructure should be repurposed if at all possible.

Harry Öhman of Veyt, a market intelligence company, next gave a view on future directions in the EU ETS and implications for CO2 pricing. Geopolitics has affected the price, but so has politics, with a seemingly concerted attack from politicians including Germany’s Chancellor Merz against the EU ETS which drove down the price earlier in 2026. Speculation also has a role in setting the EUA price. During 2026, a major review of the EU ETS is taking place, setting the framework for phase 5 (2031-2040). One MP has suggested that the linear reduction factor in reducing available EUAs should be reduced from 4% to 3.4%, essentially meaning that free allowances will be available for longer, having the effect of softening prices in the market. Modelling the market, Harry suggested that EUAs will increase to €156/t CO2 by 2030 and to €317/t CO2 by 2040. Staying under the 2040 roadmaps will take big cuts in emissions from industry. On one hand, alternative fuels offer a profitable option to reduce carbon emissions from cement production, while CCS will be costly.

The first speaker in the second session, on CCS project management, was Frank Schumann of gas company Linde GmbH, who spoke about integration of carbon capture plants with existing industrial units, bringing in examples from oil and gas, and fertiliser production. Logistics of delivering carbon capture equipment into already congested sites can be a real challenge. Air coolers are now favoured, due to frequent unavailability of cooling water. The Mergelstetten oxyfuel project, although relatively small, was held up as a good example of advanced technologies applied for the first time in the cement industry.

David Jayanth of Ramboll and co-author Moritz Köpcke next spoke about procurement and delivery challenges for CCS plants. David pointed out that eight out of nine projects submitted to the Danish Energy Agency CCS tender dropped out of the process, due to storage availability, timing uncertainty, cost constraints and contract risks. Cement plants need to realise that they are not really buying a CCS plant, and instead they are ‘contracting uncertainty’! “A feasibility study that can’t be turned into a work package and tender plan is a report, not a project.” Moritz then spoke about several important lessons learned from ten carbon capture projects: the first lesson being that you should start with the site, not with the capture technology; Permitting will ask for details earlier than the engineering team expects; FEED (front-end engineering design) is not a phase, but a promise of specific outputs; The package map is one of the biggest procurement decisions and must be decided before suppliers decide it for you; One FEED can lock in expense: “keep competitive tensions alive for as long as it adds value;” The CC plant is only one contract in a much larger deal, so that commercial agreements need to be developed in parallel with the technical plant; The business case drives the technical solution and the business case should be treated as an engineering input, not a financial appendix; Risk pushed to the wrong party comes back as cost, delay or no bid, so that risk should be allocated with care; Do not just think “can we build this?” but think also “can we run this?”; and finally, feasibility tells you if CCS is possible: procurement tells you if it is deliverable.

Jonathan Marriott, Wood, discussed technologies for CCUS by considering the specific requirements from the cement sector from the perspective of an engineering consultant. He introduced the key methods: solvent chemical absorption; solid sorbent adsorption; membrane separation; and cryogenic separation. He noted that cryogenic processes work well with other methods. Marriott then introduced Wood’s modelling tool called CCXpert, which lets users estimate the CAPEX, OPEX and other factors from using an amine-based absorption capture method at a cement plant. He then presented a series of examples showing how capital, operating and CO2 capture costs could vary as inputs such as heat sources, type of capture method and type of emissions captured (including biogenic sources) were amended. He concluded that the availability and cost of low-carbon heat and power can be a critical factor in the technology selected for a project.

Tuomas Saksa, Valmet Technologies, highlighted the importance of the pre-treatment of flue gas for solvent chemical absorption CCUS methods. He noted that the solvent represents 15 – 30% of the process OPEX and so should be protected from degradation. He then compared Direct Contact Cooler (DCC) flue gas scrubbers to Wet Electrostatic Precipitators (WESP). The former is better for the removal of acid gases, while the latter is efficient at removing fine particles less than 5μm in diameter and aerosol-bound SO3. Valmet has released a combined DSS and WESP scrubber that it is marketing to the carbon capture market. It currently has one reference for this in the power sector. 

Pim van Keep, SLB Capturi, spoke about his company’s experiences from carbon capture in operation and sub-surface storage, including at the Brevik CCS project in Norway. This was a challenge due to the small available area, which was hemmed in by the fjord, village and quarry, but also the relative lack of heat energy to generate the steam needed to regenerate the solvent. This ultimately limited the capacity of CO₂capture to 0.4Mt/yr, 50% of the plant’s total emissions. Van Keep also explained how SLB assessed potential storage sites for a 1.5Mt/yr on-shore CCS facility for Sonatrach in Algeria. Hundreds of potential former oil and gas wells were narrowed down to 10-12 candidates by overlapping restrictions from seismicity, population density, ground permeability, faults and seal thickness. SLB’s AI-based tools can rapidly identify the best locations, from which human project teams can make decisions. The project is ongoing.

Jeroen Michiels, Everllence, presented on the topic of CO₂ compressors and dehydration systems for CO₂. Everllence’s compressors can compress to gas, liquid or supercrtitical phases, depending on the application and transport / storage option. CO₂ is very compressible, so volumes decrease rapidly at high pressures. However, compression generates heat, so cooling steps are necessary. Everllence’s compressors are extremely reliable, operating at 98.7% availability in a CCS application for Shell in Canada. Michiels pointed out that the water used to cool the condensed CO₂ can be used in district heating systems, as high-pressure steam at 245bar, or anywhere in between. This can help with the steam requirements for the regeneration of the solvent, increasing the efficiency of the process.

John Kline, Kline Consulting, concluded the first day’s presentation programme by playing ‘Devil’s Advocate’ – stating that decarbonising clinker should come before efforts to implement CCUS. Working from the basic premise that a CCS plant will cost as much as a greenfield integrated cement plant, and double its power and water consumption, Kline pointed out that even relatively small reductions in CO₂ emissions will provide large capex and opex gains over the lifetime of a CCS facility. Providing examples from numerous spreadsheets, he pointed out that gaining control of standard deviation in C3S will reduce fuel use, reduce CO₂ and increase cement reactivity, further reducing CO₂ emissions by increased use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). By reducing the temperature at which the plant produces highly reactive clinker, emissions can fall by as much as 5%. Using 5% CaO instead of CaCO₃, for example by including recycled concrete paste, can reduce emissions by 10%. Kline’s ‘Master Score Card’ showed that, if we do everything we can, plants can reduce CCS capex by US$225m and opex by USS$40m/yr. 

CemCCUS Awards Dinner Cruise

During the evening of the first day of the conference, delegates gathered together on a dining yacht on the River Elbe to continue networking and to hear about the winners of the Global CemCCUS Awards 2026. Holcim was awarded ‘CemCCUS Company of the Year,’ while Capsol Technologies won for ‘Supplier of the year.’ The technical innovation award went to Fortera for its ReCarb process, while the ‘project of the year’ prize went to Peak Cluster, UK, comprising Breedon, Holcim, Tarmac and Buxton Lime. Global CemCCUS ‘Personality of the Year’ went to David Jayanth of Ramboll.

Second Day

Kristina Fleiger, VDZ, outlined the technical challenges that cement plants face with implementing CCUS. Her starting argument was that fluctuations in the composition, flow and temperature of flue gas present issues for capture. The fluctuations arise from homogeneities in raw material and fuels, especially from alternative sources. Crucially, this can lead to different patterns of shut down and stand-by periods. The duration and frequency of shutdowns has implications for carbon capture because, if reduced, they lead to greater capture rates. Fleiger reflected that reaching net zero requires the use of biogenic alternative fuels but these make it harder to stabilise the kiln, which in turn reduces CO2 capture rates. She went on to discuss how capture costs can be improved by up to €40 – 45/t CO2 through a suite of plant improvements, from improved maintenance to rerouting flue gas. Fleiger also talked about tackling impurity management, tailoring capture to production lines used for different products and finding time-savings in CCUS project management. 

Gianluca Di Federico, Baker Hughes, introduced using hot potassium carbonate (HPC) as a solvent absorption CO2 capture method. Baker Hughes started working with Italian company Giammarco Technologies in early 2026 on using HPC products. Di Federico emphasised that HPC is a good choice due to its flexibility: It is a non-toxic and non-volatile product that does not use any promoters, and it does not foam, corrode or thermally degrade. The company offers a variety of approaches, which can vary the heat demand, use waste heat or fully use electricity, depending on the deployment scenario. Energy demand is driven by the use of the compressors but it is necessarily the biggest consideration given the process can be fully electrified, energy can potentially be reused and other issues. The speaker also mentioned that Baker Hughes markets a digital tool, called CarbonEdge, to manage and verify CCUS lifecycles.

Henrik Wingerath, Brunel University of London, presented a technical assessment of HPC CO₂ capture for cement kiln flue gas. This desktop study used a Design of Experiments (DOE) approach for the modelling to find optimal parameters. It found that capture performance is governed primarily by absorber pressure, making compression strategy a key design decision. The liquid-gas ratio (L/G) was also found to be more influential than temperature and the number of stages. Wingerath reported that increasing solvent circulation can achieve higher capture but it shifts the penalty to regeneration energy demand. Capture feasibility is created primarily by pressure, while higher L/G expands the ≥90% region. The team then identified a feasibility window by overlapping capture and heat-demand constraints. Future work intends to change process configuration, assess promotors, consider site-specific heat-integration and analyse other capture technologies.

Haining Gao, Canmet, ENERGY–Ottawa, Natural Resources Canada, talked about using molten clinker as a technique to indirectly heat and decompose calcium carbonate. The rationale behind this method is to create a relatively pure CO2 stream and reduce the cost of separating flue gas. The modelling method used considered using a mixing reactor between the pre-heater and the kiln where molten clinker from the kiln at 1500°C is recirculated back to the mixing reactor. The assessment concluded that, despite burning more fuel and releasing more CO2, the process produced a CO₂/H₂O stream containing over 70% of the total CO₂ generated in the cement production process. Gao also said that mixing and transporting molten clinker in a refractory and insulation-lined reactor and conveyors appeared to present fewer technical and materials challenges than other indirect heating approaches. 

Andrew Corner, CEO of Cool Planet Technologies, spoke about the PolyActive™ membrane-based CO₂capture technology, for which his company has exclusive commercialisation rights. The end-of-pipe solution uses polyethylene oxide membranes. As a passive solution, there is very little degradation of the membrane. Low pressure drop ensures high efficiency and a small footprint, around 30-35% of a conventional CCS solution. The system offers low cost per tonne and needs little energy, does not require water or chemicals and has zero emissions. Extensive testing of a two-stage 37,000t/yr CO₂ capture module in the UK has led to a 12 month deployment at Holcim’s Höver plant, producing 95% pure CO₂ at a capture rate of 95%. The company is now working on a 0.1Mt/yr project and is sketching out designs for a 0.8Mt/yr capture plant. It is developing a membrane unit production plant in Austria, which will start production in 2028.

Richard Hamilton, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), spoke on the topic of the Kansai Mitsubishi Carbon Dioxide Removal (KM CDR) process, developed alongside its KS-1 amine-based solvent since 1990. This formulation has a high CO₂ capacity, enabling lower capex and opex costs due to reductions in the size – and energy demand - of the equipment needed for the solvent loop. The solvent is also robust, reducing replenishment costs. Hamilton presented HWI’s work on the HyNet Cluster in the UK, which will collect and store 0.8Mt/yr of CO₂ from Heidelberg Materials’ Padeswood plant. As well as the many technical considerations, Hamilton offered unique perspectives regarding the tendering, FEED, FID and construction process. Completion of the Padeswood project is expected in 2029.

Sven Fürstenberg, BASF, spoke about his company’s OASE blue amine technology. Developed since 2004, it needs relatively little energy to capture CO₂, using between 1.9-3.0GJ/t of CO₂captured. This translates to a >30% saving on reboiler duty and >30% lower recirculation rate compared to a typical solvent. Case-studies were provided from the soda ash and lime industries. BASF is now working with Heidelberg Materials’ Lengfurt plant in Germany alongside Linde Gas. A 230t/day CO₂ capture plant was due to be commissioned on 11 June 2026, the day after the presentation.

Maria Hoxhaj of the Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen next presented a co-authored paper on accelerated carbonation of fine recycled concrete aggregates (FRCA), as part of the final session at the conference on the subject of ‘sequestration options.’ A stream of recycled concrete from a precast factory was used in Maria’s experimental set-up, which measured carbonation rates at three different CO2 partial pressures, three different reactor rotation rates, and three levels of moisture, with moisture found to be the most significant factor on the control of CO2 uptake rates. TGA was used to determine the degree of carbonation of the samples, suggesting that the samples had taken up 2.33g of CO2/100g of dry FRCA. Lack of portlandite XRD peaks in the carbonated samples suggest that the mineral was ‘consumed’ during carbonation reactions.

Jonne Hirvonen of Carbonaide next spoke about CO2 sequestration in concrete. He first suggested that the CO2 price in Europe may ascend to €300-500 by 2050, and he pointed out that sequestering carbon dioxide in concrete will therefore save producers a lot of money. Carbonaide’s solution is to use a patented atmospheric pressure curing-chamber-based technology, which Jonne claimed added to concrete strength development. A small-scale real-world unit has been in use since 2022, and further wall-element and concrete production factory units are now operating, with a RMX application due in 2028. EU ETS-certified data can be produced from the system, and Carbonaide is now actively looking for partners in the cement industry in Europe.

An industry panel, featuring John Kline, Trudi Christensen of Capsol, and Steve Martin of supply-chain manager 2JCP, as well as input from the audience, then discussed the topic ‘Has the tide turned on carbon capture?’ The consensus seemed to be that there is a slight slowing in the pace of confirmations, and perhaps a dose of reality which has brought a pause to some projects, but that there will likely be a requickening of progress in carbon capture in the cement industry in the coming years as various more-or-less ‘hard’ deadlines approach (and as global warming becomes ever-more obvious). It was pointed out that the usually conservative cement industry has taken the industrial sector lead on non-hydrocarbon carbon capture, leaving other sectors far behind in ambition and accomplishments.

Craig Hargis and Nick Barnett of Fortera gave the penultimate presentation at the conference, on the synthesis of vaterite to produce ‘ReAct’ cement. Limestone is used as a feedstock: CO2 is driven off and captured and CaO is formed: the two are combined to form vaterite, a reactive form of CaCO3, which reacts with water to reform calcite in a binder-forming reaction. ReAct cement is white, and hits all strength targets, while having a low heat of hydration, very low shrinkage and high alkali resistance, as well as reduced alkali-silica reaction. Retarders need to be used to adjust workability, while full strength is achieved within two days, retaining that strength out to a thus-far-measured five years. The product makes a nice self-consolidating concrete. ReAct cement has 75% lower CO2 emissions than OPC, with a pathway to 100% reduction using clean energy.

The final presentation at the conference was given by Juha Paldanius of Finnish company Vaisala, on measurement methodologies for CO2 for pipeline transportation. Paldanius started by highlighting the draft European standard prEN 18329 April 2026. He then moved on to discussing classification and frequency of impurities by category and considering the limits of detection and frequency. He noted that “if you have a bad sample, you have a bad result,” and then considered in-line measurement versus sampling and analysis, representative sampling and online analyser technologies and selection. His examples of in-line methods considered the best ways to measure the various impurities. The general methods - including gas chromatography, IR spectroscopy and mass spectroscopy - can measure most of the impurities but not all. Finally, he highlighted the necessity of strict quality assurance, clear data traceability, risk management and standardised good practices before and during pipeline operations.

Prizes and farewells

After the end of the conference programme, delegates voted for their favourite presentations, which were then awarded at the even farewell party. In fourth place was Sven Fürstenburg of BASF for his paper on low-emission amine carbon capture; third place was taken by Merten Becker of Heidelberg Materials for his presentation on the challenges of transportation and storage; second place went to David Jayant and Moritz Köpcke of Ramboll for their joint presentation about procurement and delivery challenges for CCS plants. However the prize for best presentation went to Kristina Fleiger of the VDZ for her presentation outlining the technical challenges that cement plants face when trying to implement CCUS.

Delegates strongly praised the conference for its technical content, excellent networking opportunities and slick organisation.

It was announced that the 4^th Global CemCCUS Conference will take place in June 2027, In Lyon, France, with a confirmed field trip to Vicat’s Montalieu cement plant and carbon capture project. See you there!

What the delegates said about the 3^rd Global CemCCUS Conference in Hamburg, June 2026:

Excellent conference

Excellent organisation, thank you

Fantastic event, great fun and a really positive vibe

Good focus. Good papers.

Well moderated & organised

Outstanding

I really appreciated the effort that the organisers made to minimise side conversations and keeping the conference on schedule.

Substantial. Impactful. Networking.

Very good job to keep momentum and enthusiasm

Great opportunity to learn more about new technologies, ongoing problems, and implementation issues in the industry.

Thanks a lot! See you next!

Truly relevant

One of the best events - very specific to cement and very specific on carbon capture.

Very interesting. Good venue and content and well organised.

Looking forward to coming again!

Very well organised conference

Thank you to the organisers for a wonderfully structured and highly professional event

It’s definitely worth to join!

Perfect organised, straight on the time table which is very important for this kind of conferences. Well done

Excellent organisation, thank you

Thanks a lot for the organisation!

Good atmosphere

My first time attending and really great meeting

It was very pleasure to join this conference!