2nd Global FutureCem Conference on cement industry decarbonisation
22 - 23 May 2019 - Brussels, Belgium
View the conference image gallery
Watch the presentation delivered by Professor Karen Scrivener
The 2nd Global FutureCem Conference (‘FutureCem’) on cement industry decarbonisation successfully took place on 22 - 23 May 2019 in Brussels, Belgium, with 100 attendees from 26 countries. The 3rd Global FutureCem Conference will take place in Brussels in 2022, after delays caused by the global coronavirus pandemic.
Peter Levi of the International Energy Agency (IEA) opened the conference by looking at a technology roadmap for a low-carbon transition in the cement industry. Peter forecast a major reduction in Chinese cement production up to 2050, although other countries will increase their production so that cement production is expected to grow only slowly to mid-century. Peter suggested that the four levers to reduce CO2 will be the use of alternative fuels, reducing the clinker ratio, energy efficiency and the use of innovative technologies (including the use of carbon capture and storage, CCS). He suggested that up to $244bn will need to be invested to support the transformation of cement production to a low-carbon basis by 2050. This is obviously a challenge, but it is also an incredible opportunity particularly for equipment and technology companies.
Claude Loréa of the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) pointed out the many benefits and advantages of cement and concrete, saying that “concrete is essential for shaping our world, concrete is crucial for the transition to the sustainable development goals and more generally for the clean energy transition and energy efficient buildings.” Claude pointed out that the application of CCU/CCS will entail an increase in energy usage by the cement industry.
Jan Theulen of HeidelbergCement stated that his company is “committed to fulfilling our share of the global responsibility to keep any temperature rise to below 2°C.” Jan promoted the possibility of recycling of concrete in three phases; any coarse phase as an aggregate, a fine phase as a sand-substitute and any separate cement paste phase for recycling as a ‘pre-decarbonised’ cement raw material. The electrification of the cement production process, instead of using a combusted fuel, is at an early stage of investigation. Jan outlined technologies for CO2 capture from the cement production process, including an amine scrubbing plant at the Brevik cement plant in Norway. Oxyfuel combustion, using elevated levels of oxygen, allows higher levels of CO2 in exhaust gases, while the Cemcap experiment has shown that it is possible to use CO2 to cool clinker with no deleterious effects to the clinker. The LEILAC project is underway at the Lixhe cement plant in Belgium to demonstrate the flash calcination of clinker using indirect heating, allowing separation of nearly-pure CO2. Jan suggested that the depletion of oil and gas fuels in the North Sea offers a good opportunity for storage and permanent sequestration. He suggested that in the current absence of CO2 pipelines, that the gas will be liquified and transported by barge and ship to its final storage location: the port of Rotterdam has promoted itself as a hub for CO2 sequestration. Jan also mentioned a project to use waste CO2 to grow algae as a fish food.
Mette Quinn, head of implementation of the EU ETS at the European Commission, gave details of how the EU plans to arrive at a climate-neutral economy by 2050. Mette outlined revisions to the EU ETS for its Phase IV starting in 2021, which has led to a steady increase in CO2 costs in the EU. An Innovation Fund is to start from 2020 (to 2031), with financing from the sale of at least 450m permits (currently worth around Euro11bn), while ‘climate mainstreaming’ of the EU budget means that 25% of the EU’s total budget of Euro320bn from 2021 - 2027 will be spent on actions that directly contribute to EU climate objectives and the reduction of CO2 emissions from industry.
Trevor Sikorski of Energy Aspects next spoke about the EU ETS and its effect on CO2 prices. The Market Stability Reserve (MSR) has effectively taken out of circulation any surplus permits, which was the main reason for the low price of permits from 2012 to 2018. The MSR has taken 400Mt of permits out of circulation for two years running, which has meant that the market has started to look ‘tight.’ The MSR can also add the permits back into the market, but only at a maximum rate of 100Mt per year. The market is expected to be in deficit for the next several years, which will tend to push up the price, peaking - according to Trevor’s forecasting models - at around Euro35/t in 2021. Gas market prices have reduced, due to a mild winter in Europe, and greater market supply of LNG. Gas is a less carbon-intensive fuel compared to coal, and this has led to a surfeit of permits coming through onto the market, which has put a ceiling on possible permit prices. Coal- and lignite-powered power plants in Germany will all be closed by 2038, if not before. This will also affect prices and the EU ETS is being changed to take this into account. Free allocation of permits is being tightened up, even for industries like cement that are considered as ‘highly exposed’ to carbon costs.
Aditi Maheshwari of the IFC Climate Business Department next spoke about the role of carbon pricing in the greening of construction. The World Bank is targeting at least 35% of its projects as being climate neutral or better by 2020. Aditi suggested that there is a $25tn opportunity for green buildings. Companies are increasingly using an internal carbon price, which allows them to prepare for carbon pricing, and forces companies to consider ‘greener’ business options. For example, Dalmia Bharat Cement of India has applied an Euro11/t internal carbon price on long-term, low-return projects. Companies are reticent to apply carbon pricing, however, due to a perceived reduction in competitiveness; a level playing field is what is consistently most requested by all companies. Aditi suggested that the more integrated a building project can be over its entire lifespan (in terms of the designers, owners and builders talking to each other), the more likely that it will have low-carbon, low-emission characteristics.
Haley Gershon of Beta Analytic next spoke about the use of C14 testing to determine the fossil/non-fossil carbon content of inputs into the cement production process. Essentially, fossil fuels do not contain C14, since it has decayed since its first formation. On the other hand, recently grown biomass organic matter contains a known amount of C14. Knowing the proportion of C14 in a sample will allow the determination of the modern (biomass) versus fossil content. Beta Analytic passes a sample through an accelerator, and returns a percentage result. Biofuels, for example, are climate neutral, and it is not required to buy permits for their emission, a clear saving. Alternative fuels for the cement industry (including tyres) are now commonly analysed for their biomass content. Gases can be analysed using a gas bag collection protocol.
Professor Albrecht Wolter of the Technical University of Clausthal next spoke about new clinker and cement production schemes. According to Professor Wolter, magnesia-based cements have proved to be outrageously expensive, Celitement seems to have no performance advantages versus its price, alumina-rich-glass cement has problems since there are currently no refractories that are suitable for its production, geopolymers have questions over their effective CO2 abatement, and the CSA family of clinkers are constrained by alumina sources. He suggested that clinker substitution still has great potential to reduce the CO2 emissions of the cement industry. Albrecht suggested that in the future there will be a merger of waste management, cement production and power generation in individual business clusters. Professor Wolter gave some details of the Low Profile Process, which does away with a separate preheater tower, and instead uses a steam turbine and generator, a proprietary ‘process interface’ and a calciner to deliver both clinker and electrical energy products from the same system, preferably powered using alternative fuels. The dust load and stickiness of particles in the process gases is an issue and is yet to be fully solved. Clinker burning under the Müller-Kühne regime may be an alternative clinker production route for the cement industry. Using the cement process for power production will reduce clinker production capacity, but this may not be a big problem in a clinker-oversupplied world.
Professor Karen Scrivener of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne firstly stated that cement-based materials cannot be replaced by alternative substitute materials for many applications. Karen pointed out that sustainable solutions are urgently required for people in developing countries, especially since only around 10% of current cement production takes place in OECD countries. The solutions need to be practical, usable by unskilled workers, and economically viable. Karen pointed out that calcium aluminate cements have lower CO2 emissions, but there are few good economic sources of raw materials, so that they are unlikely to provide large volumes of cements in the future. Portland Cement is likely to remain the dominant form of cement, but its use will be modified through the introduction of clinker substitution and blended cements. Slag and flyash are close to being fully-utilised in the world today, and Karen made a plea for the increased use of calcined clays. In particular, a blend containing a combination of limestone and calcined clays, so-called LC3 cement, offers significant CO2 reductions, strength gain and economic benefits compared to OPC-based cements. LC3 cements develop good early strength, partly due to very dense microstructure, while showing very good chloride resistance.
Conference Dinner
The conference dinner took place at the Maison Grand’Place, on the UNESCO-listed Grand’Place in the heart of Brussels.
Second day
On the second day of the conference, Koen Coppenholle, chief executive of Cembureau, the European Cement Association, described the current status and future trends of the industry. The EU has an ambition to be climate-neutral, based on a fully-circular economy, possibly with an emphasis on hydrogen and electrification, by 2050. Koen pointed out that the low-carbon transition will need to be financed, which is a bottleneck at the moment for future progress. Cembureau suggests that the industry has its own counter-needs; long-term legal certainty: access to renewable and affordable energy: financing for the low-carbon transition: pipeline infrastructure for CCS: and support from employees and wider society. Koen mentioned the ‘five Cs,’ clinker, cement, concrete, construction and (re-)carbonation, the areas in which the environmental impact of the industry can be reduced (and profits optimised).
Stefano Zampaletta of Cementir Holding next spoke about Futurecem, a low-CO2 cement which has been tested at full scale in the Danish Green Concrete II project. Futurecem cement is based on calcined clays and limestone, as well as Portland clinker. Two bridges and an extensive floor slab have been built with Futurecem-based concrete. Crucially, the material can be produced and placed with the same conventional production and execution technologies, and with the same performance as conventional concrete in terms of workability and strength. “Calcined clay cement is highly resistant to corrosion by chloride, as well as degradation by sulphate attack.” Durability testing on the concrete is ongoing. However, stated Stefano, “European cement standards limit achievable CO2 reductions,” limited by the stipulation that Portland composite cements must contain at least 35% Portland clinker.
Anne Dekeukelaere of the consultancy Cementis next gave an economic appraisal of LC3, limestone/calcined clay cements. LC3 contains 50% Portland clinker, 30% calcined clays, 15% limestone and 5% gypsum. Three main appraisal scenarios were considered, that of a pre-existing clinker production plant, a pre-existing grinding plant and a greenfield grinding plant. For the first scenario, production of LC3 cement was $2 - 7/t less expensive than producing CEM I, while for the grinding scenarios the benefit was $10 - 15/t. The distance of the source of clay to the production plant (and its transport cost) is a key factor in the profitability of the process. These figures do not take into account the cost of CO2. Given that the LC3 product has 30 - 40% lower CO2 emissions than CEM I, the CO2 costs for LC3 cements should be proportionately lower.
Jørgen Skibsted of Aarhus University in Denmark then went on to give details of high-resolution solid-state NMR studies of calcined clays. Different isotopes of various elements have different nuclear spins, and this fact is used in NMR to determine the phase status of atoms in samples in terms of their atomic coordination, including their state of hydration. The NMR studies were backed up with XRD and XRF studies, among other approaches. He pointed out that there are synergistic advantages of ternary blends of Portland clinker, calcined clays, silica fume and limestone, probably due to the stabilisation of mineral phases by sulphur atoms derived from the gypsum component. The studies suggest a number of means of optimising raw materials composition and of processing approaches.
Guido Neu of Haver & Boecker suggested that the avoidance of the manufacture of wasted cement is the best way to reduce the cement industry’s CO2 footprint. “The carbon footprint of paper sacks is 2.5 times smaller than that of FFS Polyethylene sacks - 71g/sack versus 192g/sack. However, the CO2 footprint of the cement in the bag is around 28 - 30kg.” Guido also pointed out that at least a quarter of the cement produced around the world is inadvertently pre-hydrated prior to use, to the extent that concrete compressive strengths are affected. A secure closure of the bag is critical, as well as the effectiveness of the bag as a vapour barrier. Guido suggested that plastic bags can be more effective in delivering the product to the consumer, and that some types of plastic bags can then be recycled. A new infrastructure for bag manufacture will be required, as well as further systems for recycling.
Martin Schneider of the VDZ and ECRA examined the cement industry’s approach to carbon capture. Dr Schneider pointed out that there are various approaches to reducing the cement industry’s CO2 emissions, but if the industry is to approach carbon neutrality, then carbon capture must be considered. Oxyfuel carbon capture technology, post-combustion capture and indirect calcination (LEILAC) are all under active investigation. Post-combustion capture is a very energy-intensive process, but is well-known technology: Norcem’s Brevik pilot plant project is underway (and the plant is also considering the use of WHR as an energy source for carbon capture). Oxyfuel technology with pure or enriched oxygen requires process and design adaptations (including burner, refractories, cooler and air-tightness of the kiln), and a number of pilot projects are underway. Both approaches involve a doubling of energy requirements per tonne of product. “Currently the legal and economic conditions of these technologies would impair the competitiveness of cement production.” On the other hand, what should be done with any captured CO2? Martin Schneider suggested that geological storage is the likely destination for such carbon, firstly on-shore, due to lower costs, and eventually, once infrastructure has been developed, offshore, for Europe most likely in the North Sea’s depleted oil and gas fields. Another option is to use the CO2 to produce fuels, which would then substitute for fossil fuels, thereby avoiding further CO2 emissions.
Daniel Rennie of Calix next spoke about the LEILAC project at the HeidelbergCement/CBR Lixhe cement plant in Belgium, which involves indirect heating and ‘direct separation’ of 95% pure CO2. Pre-ground raw materials are dropped through an indirectly-heated reactor tube, with liberated CO2 exiting in a counter-current flow for subsequent capture. The performance of the steel reactor tube, which is heated to around 1000°C, is critical to the performance of the system, as is the refractory used in the reactor. Daniel pointed out that the LEILAC project has been built on time and under budget and that the project will be undergoing operation and testing for the next 18 months. There is a possibility of using electricity, hydrogen or alternative fuels to heat the system.
Philippe Fonta from Scrum-Consult next spoke on the prospects for a ‘New International Carbon Economy’ (‘NICE’). Philippe suggested that stopping carbon emissions (even 100%, today) is too little, too late, and that CCU/S will be required. “If fossil fuel consumption was reduced by a third by 2040 with coal consumption in particular cut by around 67% by that date, the world might still need 7 - 8Gt of carbon sequestration by 2040.” He suggested that the largest near-term opportunity for using captured CO2 is in the cement and concrete industry. In the US, the 45Q tax credit has generated investment in CCU/S, while the Carbon Capture Coalition has released the first-ever blueprint outlining a comprehensive set of policy priorities to promote nationwide deployment of the technology. Philippe concluded that new thinking is required to form a new economy based on the circularity of carbon.
Dimitar Dimov of Concrene Ltd, a spin-off company from the University of Exeter, spoke about a graphene-reinforced concrete - called Concrene. Dimitar suggested that Concrene is 40% stronger than conventional concrete, “meaning that 40% less cement can be used.” Graphene is around 200 times stronger than steel, has exceptional conductivity and is stretchable to 20 - 25% of its original length. According to Dimitar’s calculation, one cubic metre of concrete in the UK costs around £100. By reducing the requirement for cement in concrete, the graphene reinforcement would only increase the cost to £101/m3. Challenges in the future will be certification and product and structural insurance, as well as its global scalability.
Sean Monkman of CarbonCure Technologies gave the penultimate presentation, on a scheme for carbon capture and utilisation (CCU). He first suggested that 25 - 30Gt of concrete is produced each year, and that cement production accounts for 6.3% of mankind’s carbon emissions in each year (2018 numbers). Sean suggested that adding CO2 back into concrete causes a reaction with free calcium ions to form nano-scale carbonates, which then further catalyse mineralisation, leading to a strength gain. Around 2Mm3 of CO2-treated concrete is now made each month. The Argos Roberta plant in Alabama has now used its own CO2 for off-site carbonation of concrete. Small amounts (0.235kg) of CO2 per cubic metre of concrete can lead to a reduction in cement content of 3% for the same strength.
Luc Rudowski of thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG gave the final presentation at the conference, on a concept for a ‘sustainable cement plant.’ Five areas must be addressed: emissions, resource efficiency, digitalisation, energy use and the effectiveness of the binder. The company already has proven industrial options for carbon capture, and has a full range of technologies for NOx emissions and for the use of alternative fuels. Luc pointed out that flash-calciner-based ‘polysius activated clay’ (calcined clay) can reduce the clinker factor to 50%, with a 70% reduction of CO2 intensity compared to pure OPC clinker. If the price of cement doubles, the price of a family house would increase by 0.5%, while the cost for a bridge would increase by only 1%.
Prize-giving and conclusions
At the end of the conference, prizes were awarded for the favourite presentations, as voted for by the delegates. In third place was Philippe Fonta for his paper on a new carbon-based circular economy: in second place was Jan Theulen, with his paper on the steps that HeidelbergCement is taking to reduce its CO2 intensity. In first place was Professor Karen Scrivener of the EPFL, with her paper on the realistic options for reducing the impact of cementitious products.
Delegates praised the conference for its excellent technical content and for its networking opportunities.
What the delegates said…
Great conference, congratulations!
Good balance on topics, speakers and time management.
I enjoyed the chance to meet different people and hearing different perspectives on CO2 reduction.
Good pacing and the schedule was kept.
Great learning on new technologies.
Good overview of CO2 issues.
Very glad I came, I enjoyed the mix of economics, technology and policy etc.
The networking was outstanding.
The broad overview and networking were very good.
Gorgeous conference as a whole.
Clean and cohesive presentations, excellent time management.
Very satisfied with the conference.
Great job by all Global Cement staff!
Good conference as a whole.
Congratulations to the Global Cement team for the excellent organisation.
Very good meeting, presentation and organisation.
Booklet and USB stick with presentations worked very well.
Good line-up of speakers: good mix of participants.
