Displaying items by tag: European Union

It’s the end of the year so it’s time to look at trends in the sector news over the last 12 months. It’s also the end of a decade, so for a wider perspective check out the feature in the December 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine. The map of shifting production capacity and the table of falling CO₂ emissions per tonne are awesome and inspiring in their own way. They also point towards the successes and dangers facing the industry in the next decade.

Back on 2019 here are some of the main themes of the year in the industry news. This is a selective list but if we missed anything crucial let us know.

European multinationals retreat

LafargeHolcim left the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, HeidelbergCement sold up in Ukraine and reduced its stake in Morocco and CRH is reportedly making plans to leave the Philippines and India, if local media speculation can be believed. To be fair to HeidelbergCement it has also instigated some key acquisitions here and there, but there definitely has been a feel of the multinationals cutting their losses in certain places and retreating that bit closer to their heartlands.

CRH’s chief executive officer Albert Manifold summed it up an earnings meeting when he said, “…you're faced with a capital allocation decision of investing in Europe or North America where you've got stability, certainty, overlap, capability, versus going for something a bit more exotic. The returns you need to generate to justify that higher level of risk are extraordinary and we just don't see it.”

The battle for the European Green Deal

One battle that’s happening right now is the lobbying behind the scenes for so-called energy-intensive industries in Europe as part of the forthcoming European Green Deal. The cement industry is very aware that it is walking a tightrope on this one. The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) CO₂ price started to bite in 2019, hitting a high of Euro28/t in August 2019 and plant closures have been blamed on it. The rhetoric from Ursula von der Leyen, the new president of the European Commission, has been bullish on climate legislation and the agitation of Greta Thunberg internationally and groups like Extinction Rebellion has kept the issue in the press. Cembureau, the European Cement Association, is keen to promote the industry’s sustainability credentials but it is concerned that aspects of the proposed deal will create ‘uncertainty and risks.’ Get it wrong and problems like the incoming ban on refuse-derived fuel (RDF) imports into the Netherlands may proliferate. What the Green Deal ends up as could influence the European cement industry for decades.

The managed march of China

Last’s week article on a price spike in Henan province illustrated the tension in China between markets and government intervention. It looks like this was driven by an increase in infrastructure spending with cement sales starting to rise. Cement production growth has also picked up in most provinces in the first three quarters of 2019. This follows a slow fall in cement sales over the last five years as state measures such as consolidation and peak shifting have been implemented. The government dominates the Chinese market and this extends west, as waste importers have previously found out to their cost.

Meanwhile, the Chinese industry has continued to grow internationally. Rather than buying existing assets it has tended to build its own plants, often in joint ventures with junior local partners. LafargeHolcim may have left Indonesia in 2018 but perhaps the real story was Anhui Conch's becoming the country's third biggest producer by local capacity. Coupled with the Chinese dominance in the supplier market this has meant that most new plant projects around the world are either being built by a Chinese company or supplied by one.

India consolidates but watches dust levels

Consolidation has been the continued theme in the world's second largest cement industry, with the auction for Emami Cement and UltraTech Cement’s acquisition of Century Textiles and Industries. Notably, UltraTech Cement has decided to focus its attention on only India despite the overseas assets it acquired previously. Growth in cement sales in the second half of 2019 has slowed and capacity utilisation rates remain low. Indian press reports that CRH is considering selling up. Together with the country's low per capita cement consumption this suggests a continued trend for consolidation for the time being.

Environmental regulations may also play a part in rationalising the local industry, as has already happened in China. The Indian government considered banning petcoke imports in 2018 in an attempt to decrease air pollution. Later, in mid-2019, a pilot emissions trading scheme (ETS) for particulate matter (PM) was launched in Surat, Gujarat. At the same time the state pollution boards have been getting tough with producers for breaching their limits.

Steady growth in the US

The US market has been a dependable one over the last year, generally propping up the balance sheets of the multinational producers. Cement shipments grew in the first eight months of the year with increases reported in the North-Eastern and Southern regions. Imports also mounted as the US-China trade war benefitted Turkey and Mexico at the expense of China. Alongside this a modest trade in cement plants has been going on with upgrades also underway. Ed Sullivan at the Portland Cement Association forecasts slowing growth in the early 2020s but he doesn’t think a recession is coming anytime soon.

Mixed picture in Latin America

There have been winners and losers south of the Rio Grande in 2019. Mexico was struggling with lower government infrastructure spending hitting cement sales volumes in the first half of the year although US threats to block exports haven’t come to pass so far. Far to the south Argentina’s economy has been holding the cement industry back leading to a 7% fall in cement sales in the first 11 months of the year. Both of these countries’ travails pale in comparison to Venezuela’s estimated capacity utilisation of just 12.5%. There have been bright spots in the region though with Brazil’s gradual return to growth in 2019. The November 2019 figures suggest sales growth of just under 4% for the year. Peru, meanwhile, continues to shine with continued production and sales growth.

North and south divide in Africa and the Middle East

The divide between the Middle East and North African (MENA) and Sub-Saharan regions has grown starker as more MENA countries have become cement exporters, particularly in North Africa. The economy in Turkey has held back the industry there and the sector has pivoted to exports, Egypt remains beset by overcapacity and Saudi Arabian producers have continued to renew their clinker export licences.

South of the Sahara key countries, including Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa, have suffered from poor sales due to a variety of reasons, including competition and the local economies. Other countries with smaller cement industries have continued to propose and build new plants as the race to reduce the price of cement in the interior drives change.

Changes in shipping regulations

One of the warning signs that flashed up at the CemProspects conference this year was the uncertainty surrounding the new International Maritime Organistaion (IMO) 2020 environmental regulations for shipping. A meeting of commodity traders for fuels for the cement industry would be expected to be wary of this kind of thing. Their job is to minimise the risk of fluctuating fuel prices for their employers after all. Yet, given that the global cement industry produces too much cement, this has implications for the clinker and cement traders too. This could potentially affect the price of fuels, input materials and clinker if shipping patterns change. Ultimately, IMO 2020 comes down to enforcement but already ship operators have to decide whether and when to act.

Do androids dream of working in cement plants?

There’s a been a steady drip of digitisation stories in the sector news this year, from LafargeHolcim’s Industry 4.0 plan to Cemex’s various initiatives and more. At present the question appears to be: how far can Industry 4.0 / internet of things style developments go in a heavy industrial setting like cement? Will it just manage discrete parts of the process such as logistics and mills or could it end up controlling larger parts of the process? Work by companies like Petuum show that autonomous plant operation is happening but it’s still very uncertain whether the machines will replace us all in the 2020s.

On that cheery note - enjoy the winter break if you have one.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 8 January 2020

Belarus: Cement producers plan to switch imports from Ukraine to the European Union (EU). Architecture and Construction Minister Dmitry Mikulenok said that the decision was made due to tariffs in Ukraine, according to the Belarusian Telegraph Agency (BELTA). He said that the industry had moved away from exporting to Russia and that exports from Ukraine stopped in July 2019. He added that exports grew through the Belarusian Universal Commodity Exchange (BUCE) in 2018.

Prime minister Sergei Rumas also noted that the government was watching local cement companies to make sure they were meeting their state support provision terms. He cited falling exports, low production capacity utilisation and market inefficiencies as issues facing the sector. The government has proposed restructuring the debts held by cement companies.

Russia: Eurocement’s Maltsovsky integrated plant in Bryansk Region has gained European certification for its CEMI 52.5N, CEMI 42.5R and CEMII / A-S 42.5N products. Local testing and independent certification confirmed the new designation. Following an earlier certification for CEMI 42.5N the plant now hopes to grow its exports to the European Union.

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates entered the world of cement this week with a public relations blitz for Heliogen. He’s one of the backers of a new Californian technology startup looking to use concentrated solar power (CSP) to power heavy industrial processes like clinker or steel production. The company says it has concentrated solar energy commercially to levels above 1000°C.

Its process, called HelioMax, uses a closed-loop control system to improve the accuracy of a heliostat system. It says it achieves this by using computer vision software to better align an array of mirrors to reflect sunlight towards a single target. Temperatures of up to 1500°C is one of its targets so that it can apply itself to a variety of processes in the cement, steel, mining, petrochemical and waste treatment industries. It says it can do this for US$4.5/MCF. Another target once it hits 1500°C is to start manufacturing hydrogen or synthetic gas fuels.

Heliogen’s press release was picked up by the international press, including Global Cement, but it didn’t mention the similar work that SOLPART (Solar-Heated Reactors for Industrials Production of Reactive Particulates) project is doing in France. This project, backed by European Union Horizon 2020 funding, is developing a pilot scale high temperature (950°C) 24hr/day solar process for energy intensive non-metallic minerals’ industries like cement and lime. It’s using a 50kW solar reactor to test a fluidised bed system at the PROMES (PROcédés, Materials and Solar Energy) testing site in Odeillo, France.

Heliogen’s claim that it can beat 1000°C is significant here but it doesn’t go far enough. Clinker production requires temperatures of up to around 1450°C in the sintering phase to form the clumps of clinker. SOLPART has been only testing the calcination stage of clinker production that suits the temperature range it can achieve. Unless Heliogen can use its method to beat 1450°C then it looks likely that it will, similarly, only be able to cut fossil fuel usage in the calcination stage. If either Heliogen or SOLPART manage to do even this at the industrial scale and it is cost effective then the gains would be considerable. As well as cutting CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel usage in cement production this would reduce NO_x and SO_x emissions. It would also cut the fuel bill.

As usual this comes with some caveats. Firstly, it doesn’t touch process emissions from cement production. Decomposing limestone to make calcium oxide releases CO₂ all by itself with no fuel. About one third of cement production CO₂ emissions arise from fossil fuel usage but the remaining two thirds comes from the process emissions. However, one gain from cutting the amount of fossil fuels used is a more concentrated stream of CO₂ in the flue gas. This can potentially reduce the cost of CO₂ capture and utilisation. Secondly, concentrated solar power systems are at the mercy of the weather, particularly cloud cover. To cope with this SOLPART has been testing a storage system for hot materials to allow the process to work in a 24-hour industrial production setting.

Looking more broadly, plenty of cement producers have been building and using solar power to supply electricity. Mostly, these are photovoltaic (PV) plants but HeidelbergCement built a CSP plant in Morocco. Notably, PPC Zimbabwe said this week that it was building a solar plant to supply energy to two of its cement plants. It is doing this in order to provide a more reliable source of electricity than the local grid. India’s Birla Corporation has also said that it is buying a solar energy company today. The next step here is to try and run a cement plant kiln using electricity. This is exactly what Cementa, HeidelbergCement’s subsidiary in Sweden, and Vattenfall have been exploring as part of their CemZero project. The pilot study demonstrated that it was technically possible but only competitive compared with ‘other alternatives in order to achieve radical reductions in emissions.’

None of the above presents short or medium-term reasons for the cement industry to switch to solar power in bulk but it clearly deserves more research and, critically, funding. One particular strand to pull out here about using non-fossil fuel powered clinker production systems is that it produces purer process CO₂ emissions. Mounting carbon taxes could gradually force cement plants to capture their CO₂ but once the various technologies above become sufficiently mature they could bring this about sooner and potentially at a lower cost. In the meantime the more billionaires who take an interest in cement production the better.

Dalmia Cement threw down the gauntlet this week with the announcement of a large-scale carbon capture unit (CCU) at one of its plants in Tamil Nadu, India. An agreement has been signed with UK-based Carbon Clean Solutions Limited (CCSL) to use its technology in building a 0.5Mt/yr CCU. The partnership will explore how CO₂ from the plant can be used, including direct sales to other industries and using the CO₂ as a precursor in manufacturing chemicals. No exact completion date or budget has been disclosed.

The move is a serious declaration of intent from the Indian cement producer towards its aim of becoming carbon neutral by 2040. Dalmia has been pushing its sustainability ‘journey’ for several years now hitting targets such as reaching 6Mt of alternative raw materials usage in its 2018 financial year and reaching a clinker factor of 63% at the same time. In an article in the November 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine it said it had achieved CO₂ emissions of 526kg/t from its cement production compared to 578kg/t from other Indian members of the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). In its eastern operations it had gone further to reach 400kg/t.

Using CCU is the next step to this progression but Dalmia’s approach is not without its caveats. Firstly, despite the size of the proposed project it is still being described as a ‘large-scale demonstration.’ Secondly, the destination of all that captured CO₂, as mentioned above, is still being considered. CCSL uses a post-combustion capture method that captures flue gas CO₂ and then combines the use of a proprietary solvent with a heat integration step. Where the capture CO₂ goes is vital because if it can’t be sold or utilised in some other way then it needs to be stored, putting up the price. Technology provider CCSL reckons that its CDRMax process has a CO₂ capture price tag of US$40/t but it is unclear whether this includes utilisation sales of CO₂ or not.

The process is along similar lines to the Skyonic SkyMine (see Global Cement Magazine, May 2015) CCU that was completed in 2015 at the Capitol Cement plant in San Antonio, Texas in the US. However, that post-combustion capture project was aiming for 75,000t/yr of CO₂. Dalmia and CCSL’s attempt is six times greater.

Meanwhile, Cembureau, the European cement association, joined a group of industrial organisations in lobbying the European Union (EU) on the Horizon Europe programme. It wants the budget to be raised to at least Euro120m with at least 60% to be dedicated to the ‘Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness’ pillar. This is relevant in a discussion on industrial CO₂ emissions reduction because the scheme has been supporting various European cement industry projects, including HeidelbergCement’s work with the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) consortium and Calix at its Lixhe plant in Belgium and its pilots in Norway. As these projects and others reach industrial scale testing they need this money.

These recent developments provide hope for the future of the cement industry. Producers and their associations are engaging with the climate change agenda and taking action. Legislators and governments need to work with the cement sector to speed up this process and ensure that the industry is able to cut its CO₂ emissions while continuing to manufacture the materials necessary to build things. Projects like this latest from Dalmia Cement are overdue, but are very encouraging.

Forgive the poor image quality but our magazine editor Peter Edwards spotted this provocative graphic (above) at the Federación Interamericana del Cemento (FICEM) technical congress that is taking place in the Dominican Republic this week. It came from a presentation given by Yassine Touahri from On Field Investment Research. The reason this slide raises eyebrows is because it seems to inversely link CO₂ emission regulations with cement grinding capacity growth.

One would expect integrated or clinker production capacity addition to decline in the face of various carbon taxes because the majority of emissions in cement production are process emissions. Yet this graphic suggests that it goes further by affecting the supply of clinker in these regions. If correct then it supports the argument that introducing carbon taxes forces related capacity investment to go elsewhere. In other words, if governments try to control industrial CO₂ emissions, then the market will follow the path of least resistance. The world has a clinker production capacity surplus and the countries with no CO₂ regulations are scooping it up.

The counter argument is that capacity growth and CO₂ legislation is unrelated. The regions with flat or falling grinding capacity additions are the places were this trend is occurring anyway for other reasons. These areas have built their houses and infrastructure and so one would expect no or low capacity growth. In this environment it is easier to introduce CO₂ laws because, rightly or wrongly, it is perceived to be less important to the overall economy. Meanwhile, outside of these zones national economies are growing: they want to build things and new grinding plants to take advantage of a global glut of clinker are helping them to do this.

Other issues with this graphic are the widely different reasons for low cement grinding capacity growth in the areas with CO₂ legislation. Europe, for example, has endured the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for over a decade and it has seen growth in the slag-cement grinding model in some countries in recent years. General trends have also seen a considerable drop in production capacity in Southern Mediterranean countries as their export markets decline. China is actively trying to manage a reduction in production capacity following a period of unparalleled growth. CO₂ legislation is one potential means to do this.

The next step here would be to model the effect of a carbon tax on a developing market, which is genuinely growing its cement consumption, compared to a more mature one. This might help to answer whether economic development can be untangled from carbon emissions. CO₂ regulations are undoubtedly distorting cement markets though. Touahri is right when he says that, “CO₂ management will be the key challenge for the cement industry in the 21st century.” Once it is given a value then it changes the nature of the business.

There will be a full review of the FICEM technical congress 2019 in a future issue of Global Cement Magazine

The UK waste fuels industry is facing potential challenge from changing Dutch environmental legislation. As part of its new National Climate Agreement the government in the Netherlands is considering imposing a tariff of Euro32/t on imported refuse-derived fuel (RDF) from the start of January 2020. It also wants to add a CO2 tax of Euro30/t on industrial emitters from the start of 2021.

This is bad news for the UK’s waste export market because 1.28Mt or 44% of exported waste fuels from the UK in 2018 went to the Netherlands. The majority of this was RDF. That was more than the next two biggest destinations, Sweden and Germany, combined. Andy Hill of Cynosure Partners summed up the UK situation in the June 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine when he said, “The UK generates more far more waste than it has landfill, recycling and alternative fuel capacity combined. Quite simply, that’s why the UK exports and has become a leading force in Europe in terms of RDF and solid recovered fuel (SRF) exports.”

Graph 1: International Waste Shipments exported from England, 2011 – 2018. Source: UK Environment Agency.

Graph 2: Destinations of English waste fuels exports in 2018. Source: UK Environment Agency.

Waste management companies and their representative associations on both sides of the North Sea are not taking this terribly well. Robert Corijn, chair of the RDF Industry Group, a European waste organisation, summed up his members response by pointing out both the environmental cost of the new legislation and the risk to jobs in the UK. “RDF export forms a vital and flexible part of the UK’s waste management system, supporting over 6800 additional jobs in the UK, and saving over 0.7Mt/yr CO₂e emissions.” Robert Loos of the Dutch Waste Management Association made a similar response questioning what exactly the Dutch government was attempting to achieve.

Steve Burton, one of the directors of UK-fuels producer Andusia, went further by saying that the Dutch had proposed the move on environmental grounds because it has an incineration capacity of 8Mt/yr but produces only 6Mt/yr of waste. “So they think that by setting a tax it will significantly curtail how much gets incinerated in the Netherlands and thus produce less CO₂. All very sensible if you consider CO₂ in isolation in your own country. However, the Dutch Government aren’t looking at the bigger picture…” He then went on to point out that the RDF would then either get burnt elsewhere or landfilled resulting in no overall CO₂ emissions reduction. His further assessment, which you can read here, goes on to speculate amongst other things that Dutch Energy for Waste (EFW) plants could end up having to cut their gate fees by more than the import tariff in order to keep running. The state-owned EFW plants would then made a loss for the tax payers until the market stabilised. It should be noted that the data from the Environment Agency indicates that Andusia exported just under 38,000t of RDF to the Netherlands in 2018.

The more prickly issues of using waste fuels may prove tricky for Dutch legislators. Corijn’s distinction above of using CO₂e for the savings from RDF usage is important in this argument since burning RDF and alternative fuels, either for generating energy or making cement, still releases CO₂. In the European Union (EU) it’s the biomass fraction of RDF that’s important for the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the like because biomass emissions are counted as carbon-neutral. Remove this effect and the benefit of waste fuels are more to do with the waste hierarchy and reusing materials rather than leaving them to rot and release methane, a gas with a more potent global warming effect than CO₂. Despite this, at face value, importing rubbish and then burning it to release yet more unwanted CO₂ may seem nonsensical to the parliamentarians. Perhaps the other thing they should consider is that waste-derived fuels are manufactured products to set specifications. On-going arguments around the world about the developed world ‘exporting its rubbish’ frequently ignore this point.

Since the new Dutch National Climate Agreement is currently at the proposal stage it has a long way to go before it becomes law. First it has to be turned into legislation and then this has to be approved by the Dutch Parliament. As indicated so far the waste management industry will continue to fight its corner with vigour.

Ireland: Local environmental activists have accused the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of ignoring European Union (EU) NO_x emission limits by granting an exemption to Irish Cement’s Limerick integrated plant. Limerick Against Pollution group alleges that the plant has been allowed a limit of 800mg/m3 despite a EU directive reducing the limit to 500mg/m³, according to the Limerick Post newspaper.

Belgium: WindEurope, the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) and the European Composites Industry Association (EUCIA) have created a cross-sector platform to look into using glass fibres and fillers from old wind turbine blades as a raw material for cement production. Other methods, such as a mechanical recycling, solvolysis and pyrolysis, are being developed and considered.

In 2018 wind energy supplied 14% of the electricity in the European Union (EU), from 130,000 wind turbines. Wind turbines blades are made up of a composite material, which boosts the performance of wind energy by allowing lighter and longer blades. At present 2.5Mt of composite material are in use in the wind energy sector. In the next five years 12,000 wind turbines are expected to be decommissioned.

“Wind energy is an increasingly important part of Europe’s energy mix. The first generation of wind turbines are now starting to come to the end of their operational life and be replaced by modern turbines. Recycling the old blades is a top priority for us, and teaming up with the chemical and compositors industries will enable us to do it the most effective way,” said Giles Dickson, the chief executive officer (CEO) of WindEurope.

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.