Displaying items by tag: CO2

There were two main takeaways from the Global Future Cement Conference that took place in Brussels last week. Firstly, there are not any obvious alternatives to using cement and concrete. Secondly, serious at-scale commercial investment on capturing CO₂ process emissions from clinker production is still waiting for the right economic conditions.

Graph 1: Embodied energy versus embodied CO₂ of building materials. Source: Hammond & Jones, University of Bath, UK.

Although the conference was heavily focused on Europe, the graph above explains why the cement and concrete industries are sitting pretty right now in the face of mounting environmental activism. The sector may be responsible for 5 - 10% of annual CO₂ emissions but, put bluntly, there is simply no alternative. As Karen Scrivner from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) explained during her presentation, concrete uses some of the most abundant minerals present on earth, notably silicon and calcium. Alternative chemistries are simply not backed up by available materials. The cement and concrete associations have strongly promoted the unique position by focusing on the whole lifecycle of building materials.

The energy and emissions research needs to be scrutinised much more closely but, if it’s correct, there is no way to maintain modern standards of living without concrete. And, judging from the response by the French public to a badly handled meagre carbon tax on diesel by the so-called Yellow Vest movement, whacking up the price of housing or infrastructure might go down badly, especially in developing countries.

Two immediate ‘outs’ presents themselves. Cement doesn't necessarily have to be made from clinker as Robert McCaffrey’s presentation reinforced (also given at the IEEE/IAS-PCA Cement Conference this year). Future research may find alternatives to clinker and wipe out the cement business in the process. Also, the graph above is based on per kilogramme amounts of each building material. It doesn’t indicate how much of each material is required to build things. Even if clinker-based building materials are irreplaceable, there is no reason why their market share might not decrease. This could have large consequences in a market already burdened by over-capacity.

Graph 2: Comparison of cost of carbon capture technology for the cement industry. Source: European Cement Research Academy (ECRA).

Solid research into carbon capture technology is proceeding apace, from the LEILAC project at HeidelbergCement’s Lixhe plant, to oxyfuel kiln development and other methods, as Jan Theulen from HeidelbergCement demonstrated in his presentation. Off-the-shelf technologies from other industries also exist ready to be used. Today, for example, Inventys has announced plans to test its own CO₂ capture technology with Lafarge Canada. Yet there are no commercial-scale installations in Europe. most likely due to the price burden it would place on the end product.

With the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) entering its fourth phase and the carbon price holding above Euro20/t the question is: when will the serious investment begin in Europe? Notably, more than a few major European cement equipment manufacturers attended the Global Future Cement Conference, yet none are offering mature products to capture CO₂ emissions. Most or all have projects up their sleeves ready to be developed and sold but orders aren’t being received. The carbon price in Europe is the problem here. If it's too low then nothing happens outside of government subsidy. Too high and cement plants start being shut down because they become too expensive to run. To be fair to the cement sector other carbon emission mitigation strategies are being employed from alternative fuels usage to lowering the clinker factor and other methods but the endgame is based on reducing process emissions.

The challenge for the cement and concrete industry is to show legislators that their materials are essential and irreplaceable. They are doing this. The legislators then need to concoct ways of encouraging mass scale rollout of carbon emissions abatement technology without destroying the cement industry. This is far from certain right now. If nothing else it’s in governments’ interest to get this right because, as the Yellow Vest protests show, if they get it wrong their voters become angry. All of this is happening against the clock as CCU/S is required to get the cement industry past the 2050 2°C maximum warming target set by the Paris Agreement. In the meantime the cement industry is essentially in a holding position on the more far-reaching aspects of CO₂ emissions mitigation. Its products are likely irreplaceable but its carbon capture technology has to be encouraged by governments. This means that, for most cement producers, waiting to see what happens next is the way forward.

The 3rd Future Cement Conference and Exhibition is scheduled to take place in Vienna, Austria in 2021

Canada: Lafarge Canada plans to develop and demonstrate a full-cycle solution to capture and reuse CO₂ from a cement plant. Project CO₂MENT will demonstrate and evaluate Inventys' CO₂ capture system and a selection of CO₂ utilisation technologies at Lafarge's Richmond cement plant in British Colombia over the next four years. This project is being led by Inventys in partnership with Lafarge Canada and Total. It also received financial support from CCP (CO₂ Capture Project), the Province of British Colombia and Canada's federal government through the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC IRAP).

"At Inventys, we see a real opportunity to build a CO₂ marketplace where tonnes of CO₂ are traded between emitters and users," said Inventys president and chief executive officer (CEO) Claude Letourneau.

Phase I of Project CO₂MENT, the Contaminant Program, will attempt to reduce harmful organic and inorganic substances, such as sulphur dioxide, dust and soot, as well as nitrogen oxides, from cement flue gas. Phase II, the CO₂ Capture Program, will separate the CO₂ from flue gas using a customised-for-cement version of Inventys' carbon capture technology at pilot scale. Phase III, the CO₂ Reuse Program, will prepare post-combustion CO₂ for reuse and support the economical assessment and demonstration of CO₂ conversion technologies onsite, such as CO₂-injected concrete and fly ash.

Funding for the first two phases is complete and development of Phase I is underway. Phase I will begin operation in 2019 followed by Phase II and III in 2020.

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

US: The chief executive officers (CEO) of 13 US companies, including LarfargeHolcim, are lobbying the President and Congress to enact business-led climate change legislation. This initiative, known as the CEO Climate Dialogue, urges the government to put in place a long-term federal policy as soon as possible, in accordance with a set of six guiding principles. The group aims to build bipartisan support for climate policies that it says will, “… increase regulatory and business certainty, reduce climate risk, and spur investment and innovation needed to meet science-based emissions reduction targets.”

Companies involved in the CEO Dialogue include BASF, BP, Citi, Dominion Energy, Dow, DTE Energy, DuPont, Exelon, Ford Motor Company, LafargeHolcim, PG&E, Shell, and Unilever. Four environmental groups have also supplied input to the initiative. These are the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy and World Resources Institute.

The six principles include: ‘significantly’ reducing US greenhouse gas emissions; allowing an effective timeline for reductions that will help capital intensive industries to adjust in an ‘economically rational manner’; instituting a market-based price on carbon; making the policies durable and responsible; doing no harm to the competitiveness of the US economy with particular attention to carbon leakage; and promoting equity. Specifically the initiative says that US policy should ensure the country is on a path to achieve economy-wide emissions reductions of 80% or more by 2050 with ‘aggressive’ short and medium term emissions reductions.

“Tackling the challenge of climate change is no easy task, and as industry leaders, we have an opportunity to join forces to advocate for climate legislation. It is critical we begin to set durable and achievable goals that help safeguard the environment while reducing our carbon footprint,” said Jamie Gentoso, the CEO for US Cement operations of LafargeHolcim.

Germany: HeidelbergCement’s CO₂ reduction targets to 2030 have been successfully assessed against the Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) criteria. It says this makes it the first company in the cement sector to have approved science-based targets.

"Our goal is to realise the vision of CO₂-neutral concrete by 2050 at the latest. In the coming years, we want to make significant progress in this direction, and the SBTi’s approval is a clear proof of our strong commitment," said Bernd Scheifele, the chairman of the managing board of HeidelbergCement. The group’s CO₂ reduction strategy is based on measures on plant and product level. These include improving energy efficiency, and a steadily increasing use of alternative fuels and alternative raw materials.

HeidelbergCement’s SBTi target is to reduce scope 1 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% per ton of cementitious materials by 2030 from a 2016 base year. HeidelbergCement also commits to reduce scope 2 GHG emissions 65% per ton of cementitious materials within the same timeframe. The SBTi target is consistent with HeidelbergCement’s previous goal of a 30% reduction in its specific net CO₂ emissions by 2030, compared with 1990. The cement and concrete producer has achieved a reduction of 20% so far.

The SBTi assesses and validates corporate emissions reduction targets against climate science research. Targets adopted by companies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are considered ‘science-based’ if they are in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement – to limit global warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Switzerland: LafargeHolcim reduced its net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious material by 1% year-on-year to 576kg CO₂/t in 2018 from 582kg CO₂/t in 2017. It said that the improvement was achieved by reducing the clinker-to-cement ratio and consuming less energy per tonne of cement, mostly by using alternative fuels and improving the efficiency of the company’s processes. However, data from its Sustainability Report 2018 shows that both its overall gross and net emissions grew. Its net CO₂ emissions from cementitious material increased by 2.5% to 121Mt. At the same time its clinker production rose by 2.7% to 151Mt from 147Mt.

The group increased its treatment of waste-derived resources to 52Mt. its alternative raw material substitute rate grew to 11.2% from 10.7%. It established a new pre-processing facility in Madukkarai in India and upgraded its waste handling capacities in Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, India, Canada, Spain and Germany. It also reduced its freshwater withdrawal for cement production and improved its lost time injury rates.

Belgium: The Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) consortium partners and its external advisory board have held a ribbon-cutting ceremony at its pilot Direct Separation Calciner unit at the HeidelbergCement cement plant in Lixhe. The project started commissioning the unit in March 2019. Testing is now set to start to validate the performance of the pilot.

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

Spain: Oficemen the Spanish cement association has blamed falling cement exports in 2018 on rising electricity and CO₂ emissions prices. The association said the European Union CO₂ price tripled to Euro24.60/t at the end of 2018 from Euro7.80/t at the start of the year, with an average price of Euro16.00/t of cement. Exports fell by 12% year-on-year to 8.1Mt in the 11 months of the end of November 2018. Cement consumption grew by 8% year-on-year to 13.4Mt in 2018. It forecasts growth of 3 – 6% in 2019.

Sweden: LafargeHolcim has been named by Sasja Beslik, the head of sustainable finance at Nordea, as the second worst company for increasing CO₂ emissions in the five years between 2011 and 2016. Other cement companies in the list that Beslik published via his Twitter account include CRH, HeidelbergCement and Shree Cement. The list, entitled ‘The CO₂ Culprits Top 100’, was assembled using data from financial services company MSCI.