Displaying items by tag: European Union

Germany: Holcim Deutschland announced a planned upgrade to its Lägerdorf cement plant’s kiln on 14 July 2022. The producer will install a second generation oxyfuel kiln, which uses an air separation unit to supply oxygen directly, emitting CO₂-rich flue gas. A new carbon capture system will supply captured CO₂ to a synthetic hydrocarbons plant, which will produce methanol for other industrial applications. The upgrade will result in the capture of 1.2Mt/yr
of CO₂ emissions and make Lägerdorf one of the world’s first carbon neutral cement plants, according to Holcim Deutschland.

The project, called Carbon2Business, was among four cement plant projects and 13 other EU-wide projects to win a share of a US$1.81bn EU Innovation Fund funding pot. CEO Thorsten Hahn acknowledged that the awarding of funds was ‘good news for Holcim and all partners working with us to decarbonise cement.’ He said “Climate change means cement change.”

From 2027, the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) will begin to charge third country-based cement exporters for the CO₂ emissions of their products sold inside the bloc. The new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a lynchpin in the strategy to reduce EU industries' CO₂ emissions by 55% between 1990 and 2030. Starving foreign cement industries of a source of income may also help to make them change their ways. A regional solution leveraged through an unfair head start, however, might cause progress to falter where it is most needed in the global fight against climate change.

Carbon leakage has hung over the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) since its inception in 2005. Cembureau, the European cement association, reported a 300% five-year increase in third-country cement imports up to 2021, with spikes matching those in ETS credit prices. Companies from Turkey to Australia have produced and transported their cement into the EU, at great CO₂ cost, while benefitting from a competitive edge over domestic producers, it would seem. Lawmakers rectified the situation by maintaining free allocations of ETS credits to EU industries, including cement, which received US$92m-worth in 2021.¹ In the wake of the Paris Agreement, an emissions pricing mechanism on cement imports first came before a vote of the member states in February 2017.

In what would become a recurring theme, opposition from all sides of the issue defeated the proposal. Most interesting was the international response: Brazil, China, India and South Africa voiced ‘grave concern’ over the proposed CBAM. A Russian representative at the Department of European Cooperation lamented the possible necessity of ‘response measures,’ while US Climate Envoy John Kerry coolly urged the EU to wait until after the COP26 climate change conference in November 2021. The outbursts were surprising given that the mechanism clearly conformed to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules: free allocations were always expected to phase out in a mirror image of the CBAM phase-in. The proposal eventually adopted on 22 June 2022 set the end date for both as 2032.

In 2020, the EU imported US$383m-worth of cement and concrete across its external borders, down by 17% year-on-year from US$463m in 2019.² Imports had previously more than doubled decade-on-decade from US$204min 2009. China accounted for US$167m-worth (43%) of global cement and concrete exports to the EU in 2020, followed by Vietnam with US$34m (9%) and the UK with US$30m (7.9%). Other significant sources include Belarus (US$28m - 7.4%), Russia (US$13.8m - 3.6%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (US$13.5m - 3.5%), Serbia (US$13.1 million - 3.4%), Israel (US$13m - 3.4%), Turkey (US$12.6m - 3.3%) and the US (US$10.3m - 2.7%).

China

China’s first emissions trading scheme will be one year old on 16 July 2021. The scheme, covering more than twice the CO₂ emissions accounted for under the EU ETS, may lend an apparent synergy to EU energy policy and that of the bloc’s main trade partner.³ On the contrary, Chinese carbon credits cost 8.5% the price of EU ETS credits on 29 June 2022, with a growth rate of just 10% year-on-year, compared to 53% in EU ETS credit prices. Unlike their European equivalent, they are also restricted to the energy sector. Chinese cement exporters are unready to meet the CBAM on its own terms. The inclusion of indirect emissions further disadvantages plants operating in China’s 57% coal-powered economy. Premier Li Keqiang has warned countries to be on their guard against a ‘new green trade barrier.’

These concerns ought to be considered in light of the scale and diversified nature of the China-EU trade partnership. The eventual inclusion of polymers, hydrogen and ammonia under the CBAM still does not extend its scope beyond 3% of Chinese imports to the EU by value, enabling China to retain the leverage it has previously proved willing to exercise against those who threaten the perceived interests of global trade.

China plans to reach net zero CO₂ emissions by 2060 through an energy transition in which it invested US$266m in 2021, more than the next six ranked countries combined.⁴ In the medium-term future, the CBAM may become a green bridge, connecting with Chinese emissions reduction policies in a single carbon border measure to raise money for developing countries’ sustainable transitions, as suggested by former governor of the People’s Bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan. Until then, China seems well positioned to ensure that a fair share of the costs arising from the CBAM pass to importers and the consumer.

Turkey

Turkey provided 3.3% of the EU’s cement and concrete imports in 2020, but the volume corresponded to 13% of Turkey’s total exports of the same. Thus, the country has a high exposure to any adverse effects of the CBAM – quantified at an estimated US$789m/yr by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.⁵ Turkey’s ratification of the Paris Agreement in late 2021 is among the positive outcomes of the CBAM. The country now plans to align with the CBAM. In this, the Turkish cement industry will rely on a share of a US$3.2bn loan from the World Bank, France and Germany.

The UN has yet to receive an updated climate action plan from the Turkish government in line with its pledges. Should Turkey fail to transition within the short timeframe provided by the CBAM, its cement sector might increase its existing focus on the West African market, where it holds 55% and 46% market shares for cement and clinker imports to Ghana and Ivory Coast respectively. The beleaguered industry has one greater refuge still: the US market, which consumed 18% of Turkish cement exports in 2020.

North America

Discussions of the CBAM’s impacts in Canada and the US are tied to those countries’ on-going deliberations over possible adjustment mechanisms of their own. At present, individual provinces and states are responsible for implementing carbon pricing. An international emissions trading scheme, called the Western Climate Initiative, already exists between the US state of California and the Canadian province of Quebec. The Canadian government is conducting a consultation on federal Border Carbon Adjustment (BCA) credits in the context of economy-wide pricing.⁶ Carbon border adjustment was previously an item on the US Trade Policy Agenda in 2021, but disappeared in 2022. President Biden pledged to impose 'carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations' during his candidateship in the 2020 US presidential election. On 7 June 2022, two weeks before the EU adopted CBAM, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a carbon border adjustment bill to the US Senate, which it referred to its Committee on Finance.⁷

North American legislators will need to follow the European Parliament in building a broad centrist majority in order to pass their CBAMs. If they succeed, the world will gain a low-carbon axis of cement markets, bringing their trade partners behind them.

Other European countries

The UK cement industry expects to pay an extra US$30.1m/yr on account of the CBAM.⁹

A November 2021 report by the Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment) concluded that Ukraine's 'largest and most technological' cement producers will experience no critical influence from the CBAM when exporting to the EU.⁸ At that time, the Ukrainian strategy consisted of an alignment with any future CBAM. On 31 May 2022, The European Business Association calculated Ukrainian cement producers' total CBAM tax bill as US$3.36m/yr.¹⁰

Montenegro introduced its own emissions trading system, modelled on the EU ETS, in February 2021, a move which Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia have both announced their intent to follow.¹¹

Norway has called for international acceptance of the CBAM, but questioned the practicality of including indirect carbon pricing.

An example of the possible adverse effects of the CBAM comes from the EU's ban on Russian cement imports in April 2022. The loss of the EU market was one likely contributor to a rollback of climate regulation there.¹²

Developing countries

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Oxfam has criticised the CBAM's failure to include an exemption for the least developed countries. The EU's solution is an indirect one: it will put CBAM revenues towards its budget, from which international climate finance funding will be raised to an equivalent level. As Paris Agreement signatories, EU member states already expect to contribute towards a total US$100bn/yr in climate finance funds for poorer countries in 2023.

Oxfam has recommended that the EU do more to take account of its disproportionate contribution to cumulative global CO₂ emissions. This would include directly paying CBAM revenues into international climate finance and accelerating the phase-out of free ETS allocations.

Conclusion

On 22 June 2022, the most sustainable cement market in the world successfully harnessed market forces to its emissions reduction ambitions. The European cement industry will be able to celebrate the end of carbon leakage. Cement companies outside of the EU, however, now face increased costs and lower prices for their product. The legislation addresses some of the harm that it causes to less developed countries; those – like China, Turkey and Vietnam – in the middle must meet it head-on.

So far, we have cited governments and lobby groups, but the real question of readiness for the CBAM lies with producers. Global cement companies, including those based in the EU, have implemented their sustainable cement technologies across all continents, and are beginning to reap the rewards of a new world where paying for pollution is unavoidable.

Sources

1. Sandbag, E3G and Energy Foundation, A Storm in a Teacup, Impacts and Geopolitical Risks of the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, August 2021, https://9tj4025ol53byww26jdkao0x-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/E3G-Sandbag-CBAM-Paper-Eng.pdf

2. Trend Economy, ‘Imports: European Union: 6810,’ 14 November 2021, https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/EuropeanUnion/6810

3. Energy Monitor, ‘Carbon trading the Chinese way,’ 5 January 2022, https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/carbon-markets/carbon-trading-the-chinese-way

4. China Power, ‘How Is China’s Energy Footprint Changing?’ https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/

5. Politico, ‘EU’s looming carbon tax nudged Turkey toward Paris climate accord, envoy says,’ 6 November 2021, https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-turkey-paris-accord-climate-change/

6. Canadian Climate Institute/L'Instut Climatique du Canada, 'Border Carbon Adjustments,' 27 January 2022, https://climateinstitute.ca/publications/border-carbon-adjustments/

7. Congress, 'S.4355 - Clean Competition Act,' 7 June 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4355?s=1&r=6

8.Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment), ' The Impact of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on the EU - Ukraine trade,' November 2021, https://www.rac.org.ua/uploads/content/624/files/impactcarbonmechanismcbamukrainesummaryen.pdf

9. Burke et al, 'What does an EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism mean for the UK?' April 2021, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/What-does-an-EU-Carbon-Border-Adjustment-Mechanism-mean-for-the-UK_FULL-REPORT.pdf

10. European Business Association, 'Ukrainian exporters to pay more than € 1 billion in carbon tax to the EU under the CBAM,' 31 May 2022, https://eba.com.ua/en/ponad-1-mlrd-yevro-podatku-na-vuglets-shhoroku-splachuvatymut-ukrayinski-eksportery-v-yes-v-ramkah-svam/

11. Balkan Green Energy News, 'Which Western Balkan countries intend to introduce carbon tax?' 18 May 2022, https://balkangreenenergynews.com/which-western-balkan-countries-intend-to-introduce-carbon-tax/

12. Climate Home News, 'Russian climate action and research is collateral damage in Putin’s war on Ukraine,' 26 May 2022, https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/05/26/russian-climate-action-and-research-is-collateral-damage-in-putins-war-on-ukraine/

Russia: Kaliningrad region is redirecting cement deliveries to the region to sea transport following the implementation of trade sanctions by neighbouring Lithuania. The first consignment of cement redirected from the railroad, on the Kholmogory dry-cargo carrier, is scheduled to be transported on the Bronka - Kaliningrad shipping route by the end of June 2022, according to Interfax. The Ursa Major cargo ship will also be used on the Ust-Luga - Baltiisk shipping route. Additional ships will be used to increase transport capacity to supply the Russian enclave.

Deputy head of the regional government Alexander Rolbinov said, "Now, with the support of the Russian Transport Ministry, the logistics of supplying the region with essential cargos are changing. In particular, we are fully redirecting cement deliveries to sea transport. We have already worked out with Eurocement the required amount of material for the construction industry, which will be packed in 'big bags' and shipped by the fleet. The situation is under the constant control of the governor."

The Kaliningrad region needs about 600,000t/yr of cement. Previously cement was transported by rail through the European Union (EU). However, EU economic sanctions in response to the war in Ukraine started being implemented directly by Lithuania from 18 June 2022. The Russian government has threatened Lithuania with retaliatory sanctions.

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association has welcomed the adoption of the European Parliament reports on the European Union (EU) Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

Koen Coppenholle, the chief executive officer of Cembureau, said “Our sector needs a coherent and predictable regulatory framework to deliver on its carbon neutrality ambitions. The texts adopted today offer significant improvements on key issues – such as the reinforcement of CBAM, the inclusion of indirect emissions, the need for a strong export solution for CBAM sectors, the inclusion of waste incineration in the EU ETS and the support for key breakthrough technologies - which we welcome.” He added that the association regretted the compromise reached suggesting delaying the implementation of the CBAM by one year as cement imports into the EU were growing “exponentially”.

Eurostat data cited by Cembureau shows that EU cement imports have increased by 300% in the past five years from 2016 to 2021, with specific spikes when the EU carbon price was at its highest level. The association is lobbying for what it calls a ‘watertight’ CBAM and a ‘realistic’ with the phase-out of free allocation of carbon credits to cement producers.

Germany: HeidelbergCement has accelerated its specific CO₂ emissions reduction target to 2030 to 400kg CO₂/t CEM compared with 1990 levels. This represents a 30% cut compared to 2021 levels and a 47% cut compared to 1990 levels. The previous target was 33% compared to 1990 levels. The company said that in the next eight years to 2030 its CO₂ emissions are set to decrease more strongly in percentage terms than in the last three decades.

The building materials producer made the announcement as part of a new set of medium-term sustainability and financial targets entitled ‘Concrete Promises’ that were presented at its Capital Markets Day event in late May 2022. The group plans to generate half of its revenue from sustainable products by 2030. Carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) projects that have already been launched are expected to achieve a cumulative reduction of 10Mt CO₂ by 2030. By 2025, more than 70% of its debt will be covered by sustainable financial instruments. Among other things, the group plans to use a bond programme that it says is the first in the industry to be aligned with the climate goals of the European Union taxonomy.

Dominik von Achten, chair of the managing board of HeidelbergCement, said “We have the ambition, speed, knowledge, technologies and partners to lead the necessary change process in our sector. Our focus is on expanding our portfolio of sustainable products, reducing our CO₂ emissions quickly and significantly, proving that CO₂-free products are possible on a large scale, and creating a circular economy by consistently applying the principles of circularity. Our new sustainability targets for 2030 illustrate this ambition.”

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.