Displaying items by tag: European Union

UK: The Mineral Products Association (MPA) says it is disappointed that UK-based cement and lime producers have been excluded from the government’s compensation scheme for climate change costs. The association says that the government has, “missed an opportunity to support two essential industries during the current energy crisis, despite other industry sectors - which directly compete with cement and lime - receiving the compensation.”

Under the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) scheme, some energy intensive industries can apply for compensation from the indirect costs of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) and Carbon Price Support (CPS) if they meet certain criteria. In the government’s 2021 consultation on the compensation mechanism, energy intensive industries needed to meet at least one of three tests to qualify. However, the MPA says that BEIS later changed this so that they had to pass all three tests and modified the targets.

Diana Casey, Director for Energy and Climate Change at the MPA, said “It is extremely disappointing that having met the criteria set out in the consultation, BEIS has decided to move the goalposts and exclude cement and lime from the scheme. UK manufacturers of all products face higher electricity and gas costs than European competitors, and this decision misses an opportunity to support the competitiveness of the UK cement and lime sectors, both essential foundation industries, especially during the current energy crisis and rapidly rising costs. Reaching net zero and delivering our economic potential requires huge investment from global businesses and it becomes harder to make the case for the UK as a location for such investment if policy costs make operating in the UK uncompetitive.”

From the Nordics to the Mediterranean, European countries lead the field in reduced-clinker cement production using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). While consumers, faced with ever-greater choice, continue to opt for sustainability, projects to improve existing SCMs and develop new ones have won government backing and have become a matter of serious investment for other heavy industries beside cement. European cement producers’ decisions are steering the course to a world beyond CEM I. Yet, even in Europe, great untapped potential remains.

Companies generated a good deal of marketing buzz around their latest reduced-CO₂ cement ranges in 2021 and the first quarter of 2022: Buzzi Unicem’s CGreen in Germany and Italy, Holcim’s EcoPlanet in six markets from Romania to Spain, Cementir Holding’s Futurecem in Denmark and Benelux, and Cemex’s Vertua in Spain and several other countries. All boast reduced clinker factors through the use of alternative raw materials. This, however, is really a rebranding of a long-established norm in Europe.

Since 2010, cements other than CEM I have constituted over 75% of average annual cement deliveries across Cembureau member countries (all cement-producing EU member states, plus Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and Ukraine). This statistic breaks down differently from country to country. CEM II is the norm in Austria, Finland, Portugal and Switzerland, with deliveries in the region of 90%. Portland limestone cement (PLC) makes up a majority of deliveries in all four. It has been central to Switzerland’s transition to 89% (3.72Mt) of CEM II deliveries out of a total 4.18Mt of cement despatched in 2021. There, the main types of cement were CEM II/B-M (T-LL) Portland composite cement, with 1.38Mt (33%), and two different classifications of PLC: CEM II/A-LL PLC, with 1.28Mt (31%), and CEM II/B-LL PLC, with 888,000t (21%).

A second approach is that of the Netherlands, where CEM III blast furnace slag cement with a clinker factor below 65% predominates, favoured for its sulphate resistance and the protection it offers against chloride-initiated corrosion of steel reinforcement in marine settings. By contrast, the UK has traditionally maintained a higher reliance on CEM I cement. This can be partly explained by the preference of builders there for adding fly ash or ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) at the mixing stage. Nonetheless, CEM II Portland fly ash cement held a 14% (1.43Mt) market share in the UK’s 10.2Mt of cement consumption in 2021.

The UK Mineral Products Association (MPA) has identified limestone as an underutilised resource in the country’s cement production. Together with HeidelbergCement subsidiary Hanson Cement, it has applied for a change to National Application standards to allow the production of Portland composite cement from fly ash and limestone or GGBFS and limestone. The association has forecast that Portland composite cement could easily rise to 30 – 40% of UK cement consumption, and that this has the potential to eliminate 8% of the sector’s 7.8Mt/yr-worth of CO₂ emissions.

Metallurgical waste streams have long flowed into European cement production, primarily as GGBFS, but also as bauxite residue. In 2021, alumina production in the EU alone generated 7Mt of bauxite residue, of which the bloc recycled just 100,000t (1.4%) that year. Two projects – the Holcim Innovation Center-led ReActiv project and Titan Cement and others’ REDMUD project – aim to produce new alternative cementitious materials from bauxite residue.

By collaborating with other industries, cement producers’ investments can most effectively reduce the overall cost of using these materials in cement production. In Germany, HeidelbergCement and ThyssenKrupp’s Save CO₂ project aims to develop new improved latent hydraulic binders or alternative pozzolan from GGBFS by producing slag from directly reduced iron (DRI). The Save CO₂ team believes that GGBFS substitution for clinker has the capacity to eliminite 200Mt/yr of CO₂ emissions from global cement production.

Meanwhile in the world of mining, ThyssenKrupp and others’ NEMO project is investigating the recovery of a useable mineral fraction for cement production from the extractive waste of the Luikonlahti and Sotkamo mines in Finland and the Tara mine in Ireland, through bioleaching and cleaned mineral residue upcycling. This may give cement producers full access to Europe’s 28Bnt stockpiles of sulphidic mining waste, of which mines generate an additional 600Mt each year.

Denmark-based CemGreen, which produces the calcined clay supplementary cementitious material CemShale, is developing a shale granule heat-treating technology called CemTower. This consists of three pieces of equipment vertically integrated into cement plants’ preheaters, kilns and coolers, and brings the processing of waste materials – here oil shale – to the cement plant.

Lastly, cement producers are exploring the possible uses of waste made of cement itself. In Wallonia, HeidelbergCement subsidiary CBR’s CosmoCem project is investigating the production of alternative cement additives from large available flows of local demolition, soil remediation and industrial waste. Similarly, the Greece-based C2inCO₂ project seeks to mineralise fines from concrete recycling for HeidelbergCement to use in the production of novel cements in its Greek operations.

In Switzerland, ZND Portland composite cement (produced using fine mixed granulate from building demolitions) is the third largest cement type, with 178,000t (4.3%) of total deliveries – narrowly behind CEM I with 239,000t (5.7%).Holcim Schweiz developed its Susteno 4 ZND Portland composite cement with Switzerland’s lack of any ash or slag supply in mind, demonstrating the potential flexibility of a circular economic approach to cement production.

On 21 March 2022, the University of Trier reported that it is in the process of mapping mineral resources, waste deposits and usable residues ‘on a cross-border scale,’ in an effort to produce new materials for use in cement production. Industry participants include France-based Vicat, CBR, Buzzi Unicem subsidiary Cimalux and CRH subsidiary Eqiom. Vicat is preparing a kiln at its 1Mt/yr Xeuilley cement plant in Meurthe-et-Moselle to use in testing new alternative raw materials developed under the project.

For Cembureau and its members, work continues, with the goal of Net Zero by 2050 constantly in sight. This goal includes a reduction in members’ clinker-to-cement ratios to well below 65%. In this, the association and its members are working towards a world not just beyond CEM I, but beyond CEM II, too. What exactly this will mean remains to be seen.

Sources

CemSuisse, ‘Lieferstatistik,’ 11 January 2022, https://www.cemsuisse.ch/app/uploads/2022/01/Lieferstatistik-4.-Quartal-2021.pdf

WSA, ‘December 2021 crude steel production and 2021 global crude steel production totals,’ 25 January 2022, https://worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2022/december-2021-crude-steel-production-and-2021-global-totals/

MPA, ‘Low carbon multi-component cements for UK concrete applications,’ July 2018, https://prod-drupal-files.storage.googleapis.com/documents/resource/public/Low%20carbon%20multi-component%20cements%20for%20UK%20concrete%20applications%20PDF.pdf

European Commission, ‘European Training Network for Zero-waste Valorisation of Bauxite Residue (Red Mud),’ 16 July 2020, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/636876

European Commission, ‘Industrial Residue Activation for sustainable cement production,’ 16 February 2022, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/958208

Recycling Portal, Zement der Zukunft – Forschungsprojekt „SAVE CO₂“ gestartet, 28 May 2021, https://recyclingportal.eu/Archive/65677

h2020-NEMO, ‘Project,’ https://h2020-nemo.eu/project-2/

European Commission, ‘Green cement of the future: CemShale + CemTower,’ 14 April 2021, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101009382

CosmoCem, ‘Communiqué de Presse,’ https://cosmocem.org/

CO₂ Win, ‘C²inCO₂: Calcium Carbonation for industrial use of CO₂,’ https://co2-utilization.net/en/projects/co2-mineralization/c2inco2/

Les Echos, ‘Rendre le ciment moins gourmand en CO₂,’ 21 March 2022, https://www.lesechos.fr/pme-regions/innovateurs/des-substituts-au-clinker-rendent-le-ciment-moins-gourmand-en-co2-1395002

Türkçimento’s Volkan Bozay took to the airwaves last week to raise the issues that the war in Ukraine is causing for Turkey-based cement producers. The head of the Turkish Cement Manufacturers’ Association explained, to the local Bloomberg HT channel, that the dramatic jump in the price of Newcastle Coal posed a serious threat to the sector. The price jumped nearly US$100/t in a single day in early March 2022. Bozay said that the cost of cement from a plant using imported coal would consequently rise by around US$15/t. He added that the association’s members had an average of 15 – 20 days of coal stocks.

Graph 1: Price of coal, March 2020 – March 2021. Source: Trading Economics.

In a separate press release Türkçimento revealed that Turkey, as a whole, imported approximately US$1.5bn of coal from Russia in 2021. The cement industry imported about 5Mt of coal in 2021, from all sources, although the majority of this came from Russia. Coal shipments from Russia since the start of the war were reported as ‘very limited or even not possible.’ It was further explained that each US$10/t increase in the price of coal put up plant production costs by US$1.5/t of cement.

Naturally Bozay’s appearance on a television news show carried a lobbying aspect. He called for government import standards – such as the sulphur ratio, lower heating values and volatile matter limits - to be relaxed to allow coal to be imported more freely from sources such as Colombia, Indonesia and South Africa. There was also a push to let in more alternative fuels such as tyres and waste-derived fuels. The bit that Bozay didn’t mention though was how many of his members had long term coal supply contracts in place to cushion them, from short term price inflation at least. Yet, if coal shipments from Russia have simply stopped, then the price is irrelevant. A cement kiln configured to run on coal stops when it uses up its stocks.

Turkey was the world’s fifth largest cement producer in 2021 according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Türkçimento data shows that in 2020 it exported 145,000t of cement to Russia by sea. Overall it exported 16.3Mt of cement and 13.5Mt of clinker. The US, Israel, Syria, Haiti and Libya were the top destinations for cement. Notably, Ukraine was the sixth largest recipients of cement, with 752,000t imported, although anti-dumping legislation introduced in mid-2021 looked set to reduce it until the war started. Ghana, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Cameroon and Belgium were the principal recipients of clinker. Cumulative cement exports for the year to October 2021 were up by 3% year-on-year compared to the first 10 months of 2020. Clinker exports were down by 27% though. Overall domestic production and sales in Turkey rose by 9.5%, suggested an estimated production figure of 79Mt for 2021.

Other fallout in the cement sector from the war in Ukraine this week included Ireland-based CRH’s decision to quit the Russian market. It entered the region in 1998 through a subsidiary based in Finland and was operating seven ready-mixed concrete plants via its LujaBetomix joint venture. CRH says that all operations in Russia have now stopped. In 2021 it sold its lime business in Russia, Fels Izvest, to Russia-based Bonolit. Although selling concrete plants is not trivial, these are far cheaper assets than clinker production lines. Germany-based HeidelbergCement, Italy-based Buzzi Unicem and Switzerland-based Holcim each operate at least one integrated cement plant in Russia. So far these companies have publicly expressed dismay at the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Ukraine and made donations to the Red Cross.

Graph 2: European Union Emission Trading Scheme price, 2020 – March 2022. Source: Sandbag.

Finally, one more surprise this week has been a crash in the European Union (EU) Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) carbon price from a high of Euro96/t in early February 2022 to Euro58/t on 7 March 2022. As other commentators have stated, normally the carbon price would be expected to follow the energy market, but this hasn’t happened. Instead investors have pulled out, possibly to maintain liquidity for other markets.

With the US set to ban Russian oil, gas and coal imports and phase-outs to varying degrees promised by the UK and the EU in 2022, we can expect more turbulence from energy markets in the coming days. As the Turkish example above shows, all of this can... and will... have effects on cement production.

The data on cement consumption for 2021 in Spain is out this week and it looks promising. As the national cement association Oficemen explained, last year was the sector’s best for over a decade, nearly reaching 15Mt consumption and exceeding the figure in 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic started. Oficemen also singled out particular strong performance in December 2021. It now expects this growth trend to continue into 2022 with a forecast of 5% to 15.6Mt predicted based on both domestic and infrastructure segments.

Graph 1: Cement consumption in Spain, 2012 – 2021. Source: Oficemen.

The Spanish cement industry reached a peak consumption of over 50Mt in the late 2000s before hitting a near-50 year low in the 2010s in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The market then started to recover in the second half of the 2010s until Covid-19 came along. A report on the Spanish cement market to the start of 2021 that lays out the situation can be found in the February 2021 issue of Global Cement Magazine. The larger news stories since then have been Votorantim Cimentos’ growth in the market through its acquisitions of FYM and Cementos Balboa, and Çimsa Çimento’s final completion of its deal to buy the Buñol white cement plant from Cemex. Each of these stories involve an integrated cement plant changing ownership.

Looking back at Oficemen’s summary describing 2012 depicts a much different dwindling market. However, one commonality it shares with the association’s roundup for 2021 is that it complains about the country’s disadvantage in electricity costs compared to its neighbours. Back in 2012 this was framed as holding back exports. As Oficemen noted at the time it exported 5.9Mt of cement in 2012, less than half the 13Mt it exported in 1983. Jump forward to 2021 and exports are now 6.8Mt. Energy is still a key issue though. Now Oficemen’s president, José Manuel Cascajero Rodríguez, says that the sector’s production costs have increased by 25% since the latest round of electricity price rises began. He then compares the cost of energy intensive industry in Spain unfavourably against France and Germany and calls for a structural change in the Spanish electricity market to make prices more predictable. Cement producers elsewhere in Europe and beyond may share Oficemen’s concerns regard unpredictable energy prices over the last six months but electricity has been a particular issue for Spain for a long time. To take one recent local example, in November 2021 Cementos Cosmos said it was planning to scale down the production of clinker at its Córdoba cement plant as a result of the high cost of electricity.

The other issue that gets raised in Oficemen’s 2021 summary is competition from cement importers outside the European Union (EU) and the necessity of a border carbon adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to take in account carbon taxation for producers within Europe. To jump back a bit, back in May 2021 the EU Emissions trading Scheme (ETS) reached Euro50/t. Then in December 2021 Cembureau, the European cement association, published a calculation predicting that if the EU ETS CO₂ cost made it to Euro90/t then this could represent 12 - 15% of the production costs of cement producers. Well, as readers will have guessed, the EU ETS beat Euro90/t on 2 February 2022 and then rose to Euro96.7/t on 7 February 2022. Answers in an email for when readers think the EU ETS price will top Euro100/t.

All of the above feeds neatly into the week’s other big Spanish news story: Cemex and Synhelion have successfully produced clinker from concentrated solar radiation at a pilot unit at the Very High Concentration Solar Tower of IMDEA Energy near Madrid. It’s early days yet as the process needs to be scaled up but, make no mistake, this is a big story. An interview with the team behind Cemex and Synhelion’s solar concentration project can be found in the December 2020 issue of Global Cement Magazine for more information. The SOLPART (Solar-Heated Reactors for Industrials Production of Reactive Particulates) project in France did similar research a few years ago but it didn’t reach the 1500°C target required to reach the sintering phase where clumps of clinker form. US-based Heliogen has been trying to industrialise concentrated solar energy but not much has been heard about its cement-industry ambitions since it said it reached temperatures of about 1000°C in 2019.

The relevance of an eventual full-scale concentrated solar unit for the entire production line or just the preheater and/or calciner at a cement plant in Spain makes considerable sense. At a stroke energy costs are reduced, diverted to a renewable source and any desired CO₂ capture becomes, in theory, easier and cheaper. Cemex said in the interview with Global Cement Magazine that the tentative next step would be a pilot unit at a cement plant, although, candidate plants could be in the US or Mexico, as well as Spain. Another side of the drive to cut energy and carbon costs can also be seen in a couple of photovoltaic solar projects supplying cement plants that were announced in 2021 for Spanish plants run by Cemex and Cementos Cosmos.

We leave the Spanish cement sector in a growth phase but with plenty of challenges ahead, not least from electricity costs and the mounting cost of carbon. Yet in common with other countries in Europe the industry faces a high-wire balancing act between staying economically viable and inching towards net zero. It’s conceivable that an industrial scale concentrated solar unit at a cement plant in Spain by 2030 might steady the wobbles along the way.

Europe: A forthcoming report by consultancy CemBR has forecast that the European cement industry could potentially face carbon related costs of over Euro1.5bn in 2022 if production continues at 2020 levels or earlier. It looks at the performance of the European cement sector and the impact of the Phase IV of the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme ( ETS), which started in January 2021. Other key findings include that the sector reduced its carbon emissions per tonne of clinker by a 0.4% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) to the end of Phase III of the scheme.

The commercial market report has analysed the performance of each individual clinker producing plant in the scheme (including the UK) and has compared the end of Phase III with the beginning of Phase IV. It has also detailed the level of free allowances for part one of Phase IV and undertaken several analytical scenarios. Part one, running from 2021 to 2025, of Phase IV allowances for the whole scheme are around 16% lower than the 2020 level. Allowances have remained unchanged for this period but further ‘significant’ reductions are expected for part two of Phase IV. CemBR also reports that not all member countries are in the same position with regard to Phase IV with some countries exposed to more risk. In addition, there is a wide range of vulnerability with regards to carbon among the 201 operational clinker producing plants even within the same market.

The ‘EU ETS & Cement - Enter the Phase IV’ report is due to be published in February 2022.

Two stories tie into larger trends this week as Global Cement Weekly says goodbye to 2021. Firstly, the state government of Odisha dropped a bombshell this week with its approval for an 18.75Mt/yr cement plant. Keen readers of the Global Cement Directory should note that, if built, this would be around the 10th largest plant worldwide and possibly the biggest outside of China. Credit to Odisha and India though for showing us how to end the year!

Odisha has been encouraging steel production in recent years. In March 2021 local press reported that Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (AMNS) had signed a memorandum of understanding with the state government for a US$6.6bn steel plant in the same district. Notably, a more binding agreement was intended to be signed once land and mining leases had been secured. This week the state said that its High Level Clearance Authority had approved an enlarged plan with AMNS worth US$13.5bn. This includes a 24Mt/yr steel plant and a 18.75Mt/yr cement plant. Both are to be built in phases over seven years. No further word on those land and mining leases though. How this fits into India’s overall plans for net zero CO₂ emissions by 2070 is anyone’s guess. Yet this is another cement project linked to steel production. Readers may recall that steel producer Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional (CSN) Cimentos picked up Holcim’s Brazilian cement plants in September 2021.

The other story of note this week was Cembureau’s calculation that if the European Union (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) CO₂ price reached Euro90/t then this could represent up to 15% of a cement plant’s production costs. The European cement association made the calculation using data from Ecorys, WIFO, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research for the EU Commission and Agora Energiewende. It wants the EU to bolster carbon leakage measures as soon as possible to fight rising import rates from outside the region. It is pushing for a delay to phasing out the free allocation in the ETS, bringing forward the proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and for legislators to tackle rising carbon and energy costs generally. It should be noted that the EU ETS price reached Euro88/t on 8 December 2021 but it has stayed below that level since then.

As mentioned at the start, both of the stories above connect to larger trends, principally the cement sector’s adjustments to meet its sustainability goals. A new cement plant with a readily available supply of ground granulated blast furnace slag, such as a potential AMNS unit might have, can reduce its clinker factor more easily than its competitors. One major story in Europe over the last two years has been the steep increase in the ETS price, and Cembureau is highlighting the problems this has caused its members. Global Cement Magazine has run a number of annual round-ups in the last two issues that cover these issues and others. Dr Robert McCaffrey’s news and trends list for 2021 from the Global Cement LIVE broadcast on 21 December 2021 pulls together many of these ideas and more and is well worth watching.

We’ll finish with a list of the top 10 news stories on the Global Cement website in 2021. This reflects what readers all over the world are interested in at a particular time and the list is also biased towards stories that were published in the first half of the year as they have had more time to gather views. Yet, note, new plants in Africa and South Asia, a cement shortage story, Holcim’s decision to change its name and the problems a European producer, Cementa, has had with its quarrying. All of these touch upon larger themes.

Top 10 news stories on Global Cement website in 2021

1. Dzata Cement bagging plant to open in mid-2021
2. UK faces short-term cement shortage
3. LafargeHolcim shareholders agree to change group name to Holcim
4. SRM Concrete acquires 24 concrete plants in Dallas from Cementos Argos
5. Bestway Cement to build new cement plant in Mianwali
6. ThyssenKrupp abandons sale of ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions cement section
7. Holcim launches new corporate brand identity
8. Swedish supreme court rejects application by Cementa to renew mining permit for Slite cement plant
9. Larsen & Toubro wins new 3.5Mt/yr cement plant contract in Rajasthan
10. ACC breaks ground on 2.7Mt/yr Ametha cement plant project

Enjoy the Christmas and New Year break if you have one.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 5 January 2022

It’s been a good week for carbon capture in cement production with new projects announced in France and Poland.

The first one is a carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) collaboration between Vicat and Hynamics, a subsidiary of energy-provider Groupe EDF. The Hynovi project will see an integrated unit for capturing CO₂ and producing methanol installed at Vicat’s Montalieu-Vercieu cement plant in 2025. It aims to capture 40% of the CO₂ from the kiln exhaust stack at the plant by using an oxy-fuel method and installing a 330MW electrolyser to split water into oxygen and hydrogen for different parts of the process. The CO₂ will then be combined with hydrogen to produce methanol with potential markets in transport, chemicals and construction. The setup is planning to manufacture over 0.2Mt/yr of methanol or about a quarter of France’s national requirement. The project was put forward under a call for proposals by the Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) program. Pre-notification of its participation in the program has been received from the French government and it is currently being evaluated by the European Commission. Vicat’s decision to choose its Montalieu-Vercieu plant for this project is also interesting since it started using a CO₂ntainer system supplied by UK-based Carbon8 Systems there on an industrial scale in November 2020. This system uses captured CO₂ from the plant’s flue gas emissions to carbonate cement-plant dust and produce aggregate.

The second new project is a pilot carbon capture and storage (CCS) pilot by HeidelbergCement at its Górażdże cement plant in Poland. This project is part of the wider Project ACCSESS, a consortium led by Sintef Energi in Norway that aims to cut carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) costs and to link CO₂-emitters from mainland Europe to storage fields in the North Sea. The cement plant part in Poland will test an enzyme-based capture method using waste heat at the plant. Another part of the project will look at how the captured CO₂ can then be transported to the Northern Lights storage facility in Norway including the regulatory aspects of cross-border CO₂ transport. ACCSESS started in May 2021 and is scheduled to end in April 2025. It has a budget of around Euro18m with Euro15m contributed by the European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 fund.

HeidelbergCement also says that the second stage of its LEILAC (Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement) project at the Hannover cement plant is part of ACCSESS, with both testing of the larger-scale Calix technology to capture CO₂ and the connected transport logistics and bureaucracy to actually get it to below the North Sea. That last point about Calix is timely given that US-based Carbon Direct purchased a 7% stake in Calix in mid-September 2021 for around US$18m. Whilst on the topic of carbon capture and HeidelbergCement don’t forget that the group’s first full-scale carbon capture unit at Norcem’s Brevik cement plant, using Aker Solution’s amine solvent capture technology, is scheduled for commissioning in September 2024. Another carbon capture unit is planned for Cementa’s Slite plant in 2030 but the proposed capture method has not been announced.

Other recent developments in carbon capture at cement plants include Aalborg Portland Cement’s plan to capture and store CO₂ as part of the Project Greensand consortium. The overall plan here is to explore the technical and commercial feasibility of sequestering CO₂ in depleted oil and gas reservoirs in the Danish North Sea, starting with the Nini West Field. The project is still securing funding though, with an Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program application to the Danish government pending. However, the Danish Parliament decided in December 2021 to set aside a special funding pool to support a CO₂ storage pilot project so this initiative seems to be making progress. If the application is successful, the consortium wants to start work by the end 2021 and then proceed with an offshore injection pilot from late 2022. How and when Aalborg Portland Cement fits in is mostly unknown but a 0.45Mt/yr capture unit at its Rørdal cement plant is tentatively planned for 2027. There’s also no information on the capture method although Aker Carbon Capture is also part of the Project Greensand consortium. Finally, also in September 2021, Chart Industries subsidiary Sustainable Energy Solutions announced that it had selected FLSmidth to help adapt and commercialise its Cryogenic Carbon Capture carbon capture and storage (CCS) system for the global cement industry.

All of this tells the cynics in the audience that a large international climate change meeting is coming up very soon. Most cement companies will likely want some good news to show off when the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) dominates the media agenda in November 2021. Other observations to point out include that none of the projects above are full-scale industrial carbon capture installations, most of them are consortiums of one sort of another and that they are all subsidised or want to be. While hydrogen and CO₂ networks get built this seems inevitable. Yet, we’re not at the stage where cement companies just order carbon capture units from a supplier, like they might a new clinker cooler or silo, without the need for long lists of partners. When this changes then carbon capture looks set to flourish.

On a final note, the UK is currently experiencing a shortage of commercially-used CO₂. The reasons for this have nothing to do with the cement industry. Yet consider the constant doom-and-gloom about record global CO₂ emissions and the sheer amount of effort going into reducing this by the projects mentioned above and others. Life has a sense of humour at times.

For a view on the CO₂ sequestration permitting process in the US look out for the an article by Ralph E Davis Associates, in the forthcoming October 2021 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Germany: The German Cement Works Association (VDZ) has lobbied national and European Union governments for ‘appropriate and reliable’ framework conditions for the industry’s to realise its sustainability objectives. Its Environmental Data of the German Cement Industry 2020 report set out the sector’s agenda under three overlapping headings: climate neutrality by 2050, preservation of primary raw materials and air pollution control. The VDZ said that government support for the necessary ‘unprecedented’ reduction in CO₂ emissions will be especially vital in the area of renewable power and the creation of a functioning CO₂ infrastructure.

VDZ president Christian Knell said “The often bureaucratic and complex processes involved in approval procedures and applications for funds to finance necessary investments are a cause for concern.”

Belgium: The European cement association Cembureau says that the European Union’s (EU) upcoming ‘Fit for 55’ emissions legislation must provide an enabling regulatory framework for the cement industry’s carbon neutrality roadmap. Key issues of concern to the association are the prevention of carbon leakage, the retention of free allocation and a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) until 2030 and the need for a ‘coherent package’ to boost the uptake of low-carbon technologies. It said that the industry supports the European Green Deal and the major challenge of delivering deep emissions cuts by 2030.

Chief executive officer Koen Coppenholle said “Whilst we welcome that the CBAM will seek to bridge the widening gap in carbon costs between EU and non-EU countries, the proposed phase-out of free allocation and the absence of export rebates would cause significant risks to investments.” He added “The decision not to include indirect emissions at this stage is also regrettable.”

Europe: The European cement producers’ association Cembureau says that a possible reduction of European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) free allowances would endanger cement producers’ investment decisions and projects. It says that this in turn might produce competition distortions with third parties. The EU is planning to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) but the association is concerned that its ‘Fit for 55’ 55% CO₂ emissions reduction target for 2030 may have negative implications for the cement industry. However, the association said that it supported the concept of a CBAM.

Cembureau has called for a transition period until 2030 whereby free allocation under the EU ETS will continue fully alongside the introduction of the CBAM. It added that this is compatible with World Trade Organisation rules and avoids any form of ‘double protection’ provided the free allocation is taken into account when calculating the levy paid by any third-party importers. It further stated that the CBAM must cover both direct and indirect emissions. It has also continued to press the legislators to provide for a CO2 charge exemption for EU exporters to third countries, if the country in question is not covered by an equivalent carbon pricing mechanism. The association asked the EU to consider implementing secondary legislation before any CBAM enters force, and to ensure consistency of ‘Fit for 55’ legislative initiatives, applied across a sufficient breadth of sectors to preclude market distortions.