Displaying items by tag: European Union

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has published its new Carbon Neutrality Roadmap, setting out its ambition to reach net zero emissions along the cement and concrete value chain by 2050. The roadmap examines how CO₂ emissions can be reduced at each stage of the value chain – clinker, cement, concrete, construction and (re)carbonation – to achieve zero net emissions by 2050. It quantifies the role of each technology in providing CO₂ emissions savings, making concrete political and technical recommendations to support this objective.

“As Europe begins its green recovery, the significance of this moment for our sector is huge. This is our response to the EU Green Deal – we have a plan and are ready to make the leap.” said Raoul de Parisot, president of Cembureau. The association has identified areas where it says it requires decisive political action from the European Union (EU). These include: the development of a pan-European CO₂ transportation and storage network; action on circular economy to support the use of non-recyclable waste and biomass waste in cement production; policies to reduce European building’s CO₂ footprint, based on a life-cycle approach, that incentivise the market uptake of low-carbon cements; a ‘level’ playing field on carbon, regulatory certainty and an industrial transformation agenda.

Cembureau says it aspires to be in line with the Paris Agreement’s two degrees scenario, reducing CO₂ emissions by 30% for cement and 40% down the value chain. Its chief executive Koen Coppenholle added that, “Carbon neutrality along our full value-chain will be a massive effort, but we are confident we can achieve it. Our sector has made significant progress and, with the right tools and support from the EU, we can go much further.”

The headline from the cement section of FLSmidth’s first quarter results summed up what may be the current situation for many companies supplying the sector: “service relatively stable – cautious on capex.” The general picture across both its mining and cement businesses was ‘significantly’ increased demand for local resources, remote support and digital products. On the mining side FLSmidth pointed out that it was impossible to assess the impact of coronavirus on its business because of the difference between government policies. Some places continue lockdowns or impose additional restrictions but others are starting to ease them. This point has ramifications for multinational cement producers and other suppliers too. It seems likely to continue during the coming months as lockdowns ease at different rates in different countries.

On cement specifically, FLSmidth provided a good global view of what the pandemic and government responses are actually doing to the industry. It reports that around 80% of the world's cement plants (excluding China) are currently in operation with some operating at reduced capacity. It described the market for services as ‘relatively stable’ in the first quarter but that cement consumption was being reduced by lower construction activity, plant shutdowns and restricted access to sites leading to reduced demand for technical services and commissioning. By region it identified the biggest impact to its business from coronavirus in India and the Middle East. Generally, it says that cement producers are suspending capital investments until the impact of coronavirus on economies is clearer. There has been some good news though, with the supplier noting that several of its customers have been looking for services that can reduce their operational costs.

The European Commission tackled this pervading sense of uncertainty in its roadmap towards lifting coronavirus containment measures that was published on 15 April 2020. The Committee for European Construction Equipment (CECE) was keen to share this with its members this week, pointing out how the European Union (EU) plans to lift border controls and re-start economic activity.

The plan is to ease travel restrictions between border regions for cross-border and seasonal workers, and then between European areas with low coronavirus infection rates. External borders can later be reopened with access by non-EU residents to the EU scheduled for a second stage. To re-start economic activity the EU recommends, again, a phased approach focusing on sectors that are ‘essential’ to facilitate economic activity such as transport. The commission says it will also create a rapid alert function to identify supply and value chain disruptions, relying on existing networks such as Enterprise Europe Network (EEN), clusters, chambers of commerce and trade associations, small and medium enterprise (SME) envoys and more. Whether the EU can actually coordinate a return to normality following its poor response in aiding Italy at the start of the European outbreak of coronavirus remains to be seen. Yet, its historical roots as an economic community dating back to the Treaty of Rome in 1957 suggests it may be more successful when coordinating technical aspects of trade.

Detailed above are the views and plans of just one supplier and one continental organisation, although they are both prominent. The takeaway from this is that uncertainty is a major problem so far for the cement industry in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak. Companies have faced a cash crunch in the short term as economies slowed down and they are reluctant to release cash until the future becomes clearer. Large parts of the cement industry and its suppliers are very international, which exposes it to even more uncertainty. Different countries enforcing different restrictions and different easing strategies at different times create a major headache for everyone and a block to investment. Making cement is undeniably an essential industry and this realisation by legislators can be seen in some countries that at first shut down their plants before understanding that they needed them open after all! Suppliers should benefit from this too, although at reduced activity levels. We don’t know what kind of recovery will come – hopefully one releasing plenty of pent up demand. Yet one thing is certain. The work of the regional cement associations and those representing suppliers is going to be crucial in the coming months.

If you needed a sign that the cement industry has become serious about carbon capture it was the presence of two organisations offering CO₂ transport and storage capacity in northern Europe at last week’s Innovation in Industrial Carbon Capture Conference 2020 (IICCC). Both Norway’s Northern Lights and the Rotterdam CCUS (Project Porthos) were busy at their stands during the event’s exhibition. Meanwhile, Cembureau, the European Cement Association, said that it will work on finding other potential storage sites for CO₂ and on identifying existing gas pipelines that could be converted. The industry is planning what to do about CO₂ transport and storage.

As with the previous IICCC event in 2018 the heart of the programme was the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) project. Since then Calix’s 60m tall pilot Direct Separation Calciner unit has been built at the HeidelbergCement cement plant in Lixhe and has been tested since mid-2019. Early results look promising, with CO₂ separation occurring, calcined material produced and the tube structure and mechanical expansion holding up. Problems with thermocouples failing, blockages and recarbonation at the base of the tube have been encountered but these are being tackled in the de-bottlenecking phase. Testing will continue well into 2020 and plans for the next demonstration project at another cement plant in Europe are already moving ahead. LEILAC 2 will see industry partners Cimpor, Lhoist, Port of Rotterdam and IKN join Calix, HeidelbergCement and other research partners to work together on a larger 0.1Mt/yr CO₂ separation pilot scheduled for completion in 2025.

Alongside this HeidelbergCement presented a convincing vision of a carbon neutral future for the cement industry at the IICCC 2020. It may not be what actually happens but the building materials producer has a clear plan across the lifecycle chain of cement. It is researching and testing a variety of methods to capture CO₂ process emissions, is looking at supply chains and storage sites for the CO₂ and is working on recycling concrete as aggregates and cementations material via recarbonation. In terms of carbon capture technology, an amine-based industrial scale CCS unit looks likely to be built at Norcem’s Brevik plant in the early 2020s. HeidelbergCement’s other joint-research projects – direct separation and oxyfuel – are further behind, at the pilot and pre-pilot stages respectively. Each technology looks set to offer progressively better and cheaper CO₂ capture as they come on line.

Or put another way, cement companies in Europe could build industrial scale amine-based carbon (CC) capture plants now. Yet the game appears to be to wait until the cost of CCS falls through new technology versus the rising emissions trading scheme (ETS) price of CO₂. CC is expected to become economically feasible in a decade’s time, sometime in the 2030s. At which point there might be an upgrade boom as plants are retrofitted with CC units or new production lines are commissioned. Other ways of reducing the cement industry’s CO₂ emissions, of course, are being explored by other companies such as further reducing the clinker factor through the use of calcined clays (LC3 and others), solar reactor or electric-powered kilns and more.

The usual problem of how the construction industry can cope with a higher cost of cement was acknowledged at IICCC 2020 but it is largely being worked around. Higher priced cement poses competitive issues for specifiers and construction companies but it is widely expected to result in price rises below 5% for most residential end users. In the short-term government policy such as requiring low carbon cement in state building projects could stimulate the market. The start of this process can be seen already with the use of slag cements in various infrastructure projects.

Hans Bergman, Head Unit ETS Policy Development at the Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG Clima) partly addressed the cost issue by talking about the EU Green Deal. The EU wants to meet its new targets but it also wants to let gross domestic product (GDP) rise whilst greenhouse emissions fall. The EU ETS is its principle vehicle for this but the commission is wary of changes, such as making modifications linked to CCS, in case it undermines the system. Discussions are ongoing as the work on the Green Deal continues.

IICCC was a wider forum beyond just what LEILAC is up to. To this extent the CC projects involve multiple partners, including those from other cement companies like Cemex and Tarmac (CRH) in LEILAC and Dyckerhoff (Buzzi Unicem), Schwenk Zement and Vicat in the oxyfuel project. The decarbonisation fair included representatives from Vicat’s FastCarb project and Polimi’s Cleanker. Speakers from the European Climate Foundation, Acatech, INEA, TCM, SINTEF and Lhoist were also present.

During one speaker discussion Calix was described as the 'Tesla' of industrial CC by one speaker, who said that, “…there is a genuine competitive opportunity for those bold enough to grasp it.” Calix’s managing director Phil Hodgson enjoyed the accolade but the point was that leading innovation or setting the agenda offers advantages. In the case of industrial CC for the cement industry, change feels a step closer.

The visible lobbying work by Cembureau, the European cement association, has been building in recent months as it has started to tackle the European Green Deal. Last week’s move was its aim to align with the objectives of the new legislation. To this end it plans to review the targets from its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap (2013/2018) to fit with what the European Commission’s (EC) policy initiatives are aiming to do. It intends to publish the new roadmap in the spring of 2020.

The immediate problem for the European cement industry is that the EC wants to pick up the pace. Before the Paris agreement in 2016 it was aiming for a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The overall target, remember, was an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. However, the wording from the EC to the European Parliament about the Green Deal in December 2019 is now targeting carbon neutrality and the 2030 target has increased to ‘at least 50%’ and toward 55% in a ‘responsible way.’

To give readers an idea of the uphill battle facing the cement industry. Cembureau said it was on target in 2015 with a 14% reduction in emissions per tonne of cement produced from direct, indirect and transport sources. For comparison, gross CO₂ emissions Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) data from the Global Cement & Concrete Association (GCCA) shows a 29% drop from 1990 to 2017 from Cembureau members. The EC now wants to make it even harder to meet the 2030 target.

The cement industry’s problem is that it is energy intensive and that making clinker releases CO₂ (process emissions) as limestone is calcined. Cembureau’s roadmap offered multiple paths to its end goal including resource efficiency, energy efficiency, carbon sequestration and reuse, product efficiency. However, most of these things - like lower clinker factors, production efficiency use of alternative fuels, better transport efficiency and so on - only reach a reduction of a little below 35%. We should note here that great work has been achieved in all of these with Europe leading the way for many. The other 45% was intended to come from breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture and usage (CCU) and/or storage (CCS). Again, Europe has been leading the way worldwide with its various research and pilot projects. Yet, given that there are no commercial-level carbon capture installations at any cement plants in Europe in 2020, the EC is potentially cutting off the industry’s escape route to meet the 2030 deadline.

The EC gives the impression that it knows that energy intensive industries need help meeting the targets with the publication of its masterplan for energy-intensive Industries in November 2019. CCS, CCU, biomass, alternative binders to make cement, more efficient use of cement in concrete and the use of alternative fuels were all listed as being of in use of high potential to the sector. These are similar to Cembureau’s five paths on its roadmap. Incidentally, more recently Cembureau has been promoting its so-called 5C approach: clinker, cement, concrete, construction & built environment, and (re)carbonation. This is intended to initiate a wider debate across the construction industry supply chain along similar lines to the objectives in the roadmap. It also follows the general industry pivot towards concrete.

However, just one badly-considered measure from the legislators could scupper this. The new tax on refuse-derived fuel (RDF) imports in the Netherlands is one example of this. It potentially complicates alternative fuels markets in Europe. Another, more subtle risk that Cembureau warned of in December 2019, was of the EC’s intent to propose a carbon border adjustment mechanism to reduce the risk of carbon leakage. Its argument was that a new untested scheme could create uncertainty in an industry already at risk being replaced by production capacity outside of the EU.

So now we wait to see how many more reductions Cembureau can squeeze out of its revised roadmap in the spring. It may be able to gain more from its existing measures or offset emissions more widely along the construction chain. Whether it does or does not though the bulk of emissions reduction needs to come from the continued research, testing and implementation of novel technologies like CCU/S. CCS also needs help setting up the infrastructure to move CO₂ to the storage sites. To this end the EU heavy industry expert group says that developing large-scale pilot projects on ‘clean’ technologies should be supported with EU funds and by easier access to private financing. The ongoing question is how and when can this funding be unlocked? The answer is far from clear.

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