Analysis

Renewables reportedly generated more power than coal in the first half of 2025. Energy think tank Ember put out a report this week, which showed that solar and wind generation also grew faster than the rise in electricity demand in the first half of 2025. Global electricity demand rose by 2.6% year-on-year, adding 369TW. Solar increased by 306TW and wind by 97TW. Both coal and gas generation fell slightly, although a rise in other fossil fuel generation slowed the decline further.

Tellingly, fossil fuel generation fell in both China and India. Indeed, China added more solar and wind than the rest of the world combined, cutting its fossil fuel generation by 2% or by 58.7TWh. In India, renewables grew at the expense of fossil fuels, but demand growth was relatively low at 12TWh. In the US and the European Union (EU) fossil fuel generation actually increased. In the US, this was due to demand growth outpacing new renewable power. In the EU, weaker wind and hydroelectric output led to a greater reliance on coal and gas.

Meanwhile, a separate report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), also out this week, predicts that installed renewable power is likely to more than double by 2030 even as the sector navigates headwinds in supply chains, grid integration and financing. The IEA forecasts that global renewable power capacity will increase by 4600GW by 2030, roughly the equivalent of adding the total power generation capacity of China, the EU and combined. Solar photovoltaic (PV) will account for around 80% of the global increase in renewable power capacity over the next five years, followed by wind, hydroelectric, bioenergy and geothermal. Solar PV is expected to dominate renewables’ growth between now and 2030, remaining the lowest-cost option for new generation in most countries. Wind power, despite its near-term challenges, is still set for considerable expansion as supply bottlenecks ease and projects move forward, notably in China, Europe and India. However, the IEA’s outlook for global renewable capacity growth has been revised downward slightly compared to 2024, mainly due to policy changes in the US and in China.

This is all very well but what does it mean for the cement sector? At face value, possibly not much anytime soon. Both Ember and the IEA are talking about domestic electricity generation, not industrial. Ember reckons that half the world’s economies may have already peaked in fossil fuel power generation, but usage rates are still high. Prices of fossil fuels may even subsequently come down - to the benefit of industrial users such as cement plants. Yet, carbon taxes should, in theory, discourage increased usage - if they are working correctly.

Market distortions should not be discounted though. Some readers may recall what happened with carbon credits in the earlier stages of the EU emissions trading scheme. Free carbon allowances, calculated during the boom years of 2005-2007 when production was maxed out, were far too much to cover production during the resulting economic crisis. The sale of extra allowances provided many plants with a nice little earner and did little to encourage decarbonisation. Carbon capture is likely to require large amounts of electricity, but cheaper energy from renewables may help.

However, take a look at renewable energy stories in the Global Cement website news so far in 2025 and there are nearly 30 solar-related and seven wind-related ones. Cement companies are busily adding renewable capacity to reduce the cost of their electricity. This week, for example, Equator Energy commissioned a 10MW captive solar power plant at Mombasa Cement’s Vipingo plant in Kenya. Last week, Southern Province Cement in Saudi Arabia signed a 25-year solar energy power purchase agreement for its Bisha cement plant. Lest one forget, Saudi Arabia was the largest exporter of crude oil among Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members in 2023 at 6,659,000 barrels/day. If a cement plant in Saudi Arabia is investing in renewables, then one might suspect a change in the global energy mix is occurring.

Electricity accounts for around 12% of the energy demand at a cement plant. Nearly two-thirds of that demand comes from either grinding raw materials or cement. Then, as mentioned above, carbon capture is expected to increase the demand for electricity. One estimate reckons it will increase electricity consumption by 50 - 120%. Renewables are expected to bring down the price of electricity but demand will also grow.

So… expect more renewable projects linked to cement plants.

Heidelberg Materials announced this week that it had received the funding clearance to build a carbon capture and storage (CCS) unit at its Padeswood cement plant in Cymru (also known as Wales). Construction on the project will start later in 2025 with net zero cement production expected in 2029. The upgrade will be the group’s first full-scale carbon capture facility. It will capture around 0.8Mt/yr of CO₂ at the site or around 95% of the CO₂ emissions from the process. As the captured emissions will also include biogenic CO₂ from biomass fuels - including domestic food, wood and paper wastes - cement produced at the plant could potentially be net negative.

Just like Heidelberg Material’s first large-scale CCS project at the Brevik cement plant in Norway, the work at Padeswood is part of a larger government-backed decarbonisation cluster. In this case it’s the HyNet North West project. Captured CO₂ from Padeswood will be transported via an underground pipeline for storage under the seabed in Liverpool Bay. The wider cluster will also produce, transport and store hydrogen. A waste-to-energy company Encyclis also announced this week that it had also agreed terms with the government for its Protos CCS project.

It is worth noting the differences between Heidelberg Material’s first two large-scale CCS projects. Padeswood, like Brevik, will use an amine-based carbon capture system but the technology is likely to be provided by a different supplier. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Worley were awarded the contract for the Front End Engineering Design (FEED) phase of the project in 2024 with the intention of using MHI’s Advanced KM CDR Process. The funding model is also different for Padeswood. In Norway the original estimate was that over three-quarters of the carbon capture unit would be paid for using state aid and over two-thirds of the funding for the transport and storage of CO₂ would come from the government. Large sums of government grant funding could be seen entering Heidelberg Materials’ balance sheet in 2024 for example. By contrast, Heidelberg Materials says it has agreed a ‘contract for difference’ (CFD) with the UK government. Under the terms of this contract the cement company will provide the upfront investment to build the project and will also be responsible for any additional costs over the agreed contract price. The CFD will likely track the carbon price in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The wider picture is that the UK government allocated just under €25bn in late 2024 towards two decarbonisation clusters with the funding to be made available over 25 years. However, the completion date for the Padeswood CCS of 2029 is, coincidentally, the latest year by which the next UK parliamentary election could be held. The incumbent Labour party is currently behind in the polls to the populist Reform UK party. The deputy leader of the latter said that his party would cut all "net stupid zero" policies if they entered government. It is likely that the arrangement between Heidelberg Materials and the UK government is legally binding for decades to come with provision for all sorts of eventualities. Yet readers may recall the decision by the second Trump administration in the US to cancel funding for various carbon capture projects including at least one cement project. There is also opposition from various groups in the UK to carbon capture generally and from some groups to HyNet specifically. HyNot, for example, applied for a judicial review in August 2025 challenging the government’s decision to allow Italy-based Eni to store carbon dioxide in Liverpool Bay.

Another issue is that UK cement production dropped to 7.3Mt in 2024, the lowest level since 1950. The impending carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), due in 2027, should help local producers fight off imports but if the market stays down then the production base may need to be rationalised. A cement plant with a new CCS unit linked to the government’s flagship decarbonisation cluster doesn’t seem an obvious choice for closure anytime soon though.

From here it’s all about building new carbon capture projects at different cement plants in different locations with different technologies and so on to determine what works and what doesn’t. A major part of this phase is deciding what kind of government involvement fits and trying it out over the coming years. To end, a CCS project in the north of the UK is poignant given that the Industrial Revolution started here in the late 18th Century. ‘Pob lwc’ (good luck) to all concerned!

Producers and associations in India have been praising this week’s reduction in tax on cement. On 22 September 2025 the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate on cement was cut from 28% to 18%. Local press showed examples of 50kg bags of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) dropping in price by 8% and Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) dropping by 11%.

Anoop Kumar Saxena, the CEO of Vicat’s operations in India, said its subsidiaries would be, “...passing on the complete benefit of this GST reduction to our customers across both our brands - Bharathi Cement in the South and Vicat Cement in Maharashtra.” Shree Cement’s chair HM Bangur echoed these comments. Similarly, the South Indian Cement Manufacturers' Association (SICMA) described the tax cut as a “particularly impactful move.” It went on to reiterate that the move would reduce construction costs to the benefit of both private builders, public housing and infrastructure projects.

Credit rating agency ICRA’s latest report on the cement sector in India has forecast that operating profit margins are set to rise by 12 - 18% to around US$10.50/t in the 2026 financial year (FY2026). The price of cement in India increased by 7.5% year-on-year from April to August 2025. Despite the current price drop though, an increase of 3 - 5% is anticipated for FY2026 as a whole. Cement sales volumes grew by 8.5% from April to August 2025 and are projected to increase by 6 - 7% to 480 - 485Mt in FY2026. ICRA noted that input prices are expected to remain stable in FY2026. However, it warned that petcoke and freight costs are linked to global crude oil prices and are exposed to global trends. That warning from ICRA is fitting given that one of the reasons the GST has been adjusted is widely interpreted to have been in response to the 50% tariffs that the US imposed upon India at the end of August 2025. The lower GST rates are expected to boost consumption but there are worries that this will come at the expense of reduced tax income and subsequent government spending.

For those unfamiliar with India’s tax system, the GST was introduced in 2017 as a way of simplifying some of the country’s central and state taxes. Broadly, it has been viewed as a success. It should also be noted that the current changes to GST mostly further simplify the tax from four bands to two. Yet, similar to Value Added Tax (VAT) in other countries, consumption taxes can create odd situations through their complexity. Typically this ends up with arguments over the classifications of goods and services for tax purposes. For example, in the UK the company that manufactures Jaffa Cakes infamously challenged the revenue authorities in the 1990s over whether their product should be classified as a biscuit or a cake for tax purposes! As the tax lawyer Dan Neidle joked, “any sufficiently detailed VAT rule is indistinguishable from satire.”

A cut to the price of cement in the world’s second biggest cement market is big news. It may be temporary if the analysts like ICRA are correct and prices carry on mounting. Cement producers - and other businesses along the supply chain - may also decide to withhold the tax cut either now or later on. Meanwhile, factors outside of India such as global fuel prices may exert themselves. For the time being though it’s a good news story.

Carmeuse announced this week that it has acquired a controlling stake in Chile-based Cbb. It said that the transaction strengthened its presence in South America, building on its existing operations in Colombia and Brazil. The move marks a diversification for the Belgium-based lime company. Cbb, formerly Cementos Bío Bío, is a vertically integrated heavy building materials producer with cement and concrete plants, in addition to limestone mines and plants.

The transaction sees Carmeuse take over a 97% share of Cbb for around US$490m. The deal was made public in early August 2025. A public tender offer, as part of the acquisition process, then completed on 11 September 2025. The settlement date, when the share ownership changes and the payment is made, will take place on 23 September 2025. The takeover was able to proceed once the main family-based shareholders of Cbb, who owned around 65%, agreed to the deal. Peru-based cement company Yura, which owned around another 20%, also consented. It sold its share for around US$100m.

The takeover of Cbb has been a while in the making and has involved different parties. It first became apparent to the public in late 2024 that Peru-based Grupo Gloria, the owner of Yura, had launched a bid to buy an additional 20% share. The board of Cbb rejected the offer, which appraised the full company at just under US$400m, as undervalued. Around the same time, Cbb revealed that US-based Mississippi Lime Company (MLC) had made its own takeover bid in May 2024 for around US$500m. However, MLC then withdrew its offer. Both Yura and MLC reportedly made their approaches in conjunction with some of the local family-based major shareholders. Also, note the interest by another lime company in Cbb.

Jump forward nine months and the deal appears done. Yet, as mentioned above, Carmeuse is buying more than just a lime producer. Cbb operates three integrated cement plants and one grinding plant in Chile. It also runs a grinding plant at Matarani, in the south of Peru. Global Cement Directory data suggests that the plants in Chile have a cement production capacity of over 3Mt/yr. This places the clinker capacity cost at around US$160/t. However, the capacity utilisation rate is likely to be low at present given that the company reported cement despatches of 1.2Mt in 2024. In addition, Cbb runs 27 ready-mixed concrete plants, two lime plants and three limestone mines in Chile. In Argentina it operates a lime plant and a lime mine. The company reported lime despatches of 0.83Mt in 2024.

Cbb recorded sales revenue of US$204m for cement and US$174m for lime. Pertinently, it noted a profit of US$2.26m for the cement division but one of US$35m for the lime one. Although, to be fair, sales revenue and profit grew year-on-year for both divisions. For the cement sector, the company said that the industry had experienced one of the “most severe crises in 2024 in the last 30 years.” It reported a decline in new construction projects due to rising material costs, higher credit requirements, low business confidence and a poor general economy. Ratings agency Humphreys noted, in a report on the cement sector in Chile in December 2024, that Cbb had improved its earnings margin in recent years due to the performance of its lime division.

Carmeuse’s acquisition of Cbb is a major change for the cement sector in Chile following declining cement despatches since 2021. From here one question is whether Carmeuse wants to run a cement and concrete business in Chile. The current state of the cement market in Chile, Carmeuse’s expertise in lime and the profitability of Cbb’s lime division, are three reasons why it might decide to divest this part of the business at a later date. On the other hand, Carmeuse’s expertise running rotary lime kilns could certainly feed into a new cement division if it chose to. MLC’s earlier interest in Cbb and a lack of many other cement companies being linked to the divestment also suggest that the focus has firmly been on the lime side of Cbb’s business. The one cement company that was interested, Yura, has links to lime too. Sister company Cal & Cemento Sur runs a lime plant in Puno Region in Peru, with US$100m plans for a new lime plant in Lima also in the works. The future of the cement division of Cbb is likely to be watched closely.

The FICEM Technical Congress 2025 has been taking place this week in Lima, Peru

There have been a few burner and related stories to note in the cement industry news this week. Firstly, Canada-based PyroGenesis announced that it had signed a deal with an unnamed-European cement company to supply a plasma torch system for a ‘calcination furnace.’ Around the same time UBE Mitsubishi Cement (MUCC) revealed that it had successfully tested natural gas co-firing at MUCC’s Kyushu Plant using a newly developed burner.

The PyroGenesis project is a potential game-changer for the sector because it alters the way cement production lines are heated. Roughly one third of CO₂ emissions associated with cement manufacture arise from the fossil fuels used to heat the kiln and the pre-calcination system. Cut out some of that and the specific CO₂ emissions of cement production drop. PyroGenesis’ approach uses electricity to generate high-temperature plasma. This then gives the cement plant the option of obtaining its electricity from renewable sources. PyroGenesis signed a memorandum of understanding with the power conversion division of GE Vernova in March 2025. This had the aim of targeting high temperature processes, such as cement production, with electric plasma torches. The current deal with a cement producer has been valued at US$871,000 with delivery to the client scheduled for the first quarter of 2026.

We don’t know who the mystery client might be. However, Heidelberg Materials reportedly operated a 300kW plasma-heated cement kiln at its Slite cement plant in February 2025 as part of the ELECTRA project. The producer said it had achieved 54 hours of continuous operation, with 60% CO₂ concentration in the flue gas. The aim was to reach 99%. It then said that it was planning to build a larger 1MWel furnace at its Skövde cement plant in 2026 with tests to continue in 2027. In an interview with Global Cement Magazine in May 2025, Heidelberg Materials said that it was using commercially supplied CO₂ as the ionising gas in the plasma generator but that it was considering using captured CO₂ from the production process in the future. It also mentioned issues from its trials such as the effective ‘flame’ being hotter than the conventional process but not as long. This increased the reactivity of the resulting clinker. Finally, Heidelberg Materials noted from a feasibility study that a 1Mt/yr cement plant would need around 170MW of plasma generation, but that typical plasma generators topped out at around 8MW. Hence, any full set-up would likely require multiple plasma generators. For more on non-combustion style kilns see GCW561.

UBE Mitsubishi Cement’s burner installation is more conventional but again it is concerned about sustainability. In this case the line has tested burning natural gas. The cement producer says it is the first such installation at a cement plant in Japan to do so commercially. The burner was jointly developed by UBE Mitsubishi Cement, Osaka Gas and Daigas Energy. Firstly, the plant will consider switching to natural gas. This will reduce the unit’s CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion. However, a later step being considered is to move on to e-methane. This is a synthetic methane made from CO₂ and hydrogen using renewable energy.

Finally, another recent story on this theme is the installation of a new satellite burner by Northern Ireland-based Mannok at its Derrylin cement plant in August 2025. This is Phase One of a two-part project to upgrade the pyro kiln system at the site. The cement company worked with FLSmidth on the €2.5m upgrade. The new burner has now allowed the plant to burn solid recovered fuel (SRF) by up to a 30% substitution rate in the kiln. This followed a project, also with FLSmidth, to install a FuelFlex Pyrolyzer in 2022. This is used to replace coal with SRF in the pre-calcination stage of cement production. Phase two will be an upgrade of the main burner to a new Jetflex burner. Once this part is completed, Mannok is aiming for an overall substitution rate of 65 - 70% on the whole pyro-processing system.

Burners at cement plants are replaced fairly commonly. However, the supplier companies don’t advertise every installation due to the commercial relationships with their clients and other factors. Hence the more interesting upgrades tend to get the publicity. Typically this means if a burner uses new technology, meets sustainability goals and so on, we find out about it. It’s a similar situation when a new heating technology such as plasma is trialled. Changing trends in fuel types for cement plants suggest different types of conventional burners. Some of this can be seen in the burner stories above with the trend moving towards ever higher rates of alternative fuels usage. Combustion in cement kilns is here to stay for the time being but plasma trials will be watched carefully.

The 18th Global CemFuels Conference & Exhibition on alternative fuels for cement and lime 2025 will take place in Milan on 17 - 18 September 2025