Displaying items by tag: Trial

There have been a few burner and related stories to note in the cement industry news this week. Firstly, Canada-based PyroGenesis announced that it had signed a deal with an unnamed-European cement company to supply a plasma torch system for a ‘calcination furnace.’ Around the same time UBE Mitsubishi Cement (MUCC) revealed that it had successfully tested natural gas co-firing at MUCC’s Kyushu Plant using a newly developed burner.

The PyroGenesis project is a potential game-changer for the sector because it alters the way cement production lines are heated. Roughly one third of CO₂ emissions associated with cement manufacture arise from the fossil fuels used to heat the kiln and the pre-calcination system. Cut out some of that and the specific CO₂ emissions of cement production drop. PyroGenesis’ approach uses electricity to generate high-temperature plasma. This then gives the cement plant the option of obtaining its electricity from renewable sources. PyroGenesis signed a memorandum of understanding with the power conversion division of GE Vernova in March 2025. This had the aim of targeting high temperature processes, such as cement production, with electric plasma torches. The current deal with a cement producer has been valued at US$871,000 with delivery to the client scheduled for the first quarter of 2026.

We don’t know who the mystery client might be. However, Heidelberg Materials reportedly operated a 300kW plasma-heated cement kiln at its Slite cement plant in February 2025 as part of the ELECTRA project. The producer said it had achieved 54 hours of continuous operation, with 60% CO₂ concentration in the flue gas. The aim was to reach 99%. It then said that it was planning to build a larger 1MWel furnace at its Skövde cement plant in 2026 with tests to continue in 2027. In an interview with Global Cement Magazine in May 2025, Heidelberg Materials said that it was using commercially supplied CO₂ as the ionising gas in the plasma generator but that it was considering using captured CO₂ from the production process in the future. It also mentioned issues from its trials such as the effective ‘flame’ being hotter than the conventional process but not as long. This increased the reactivity of the resulting clinker. Finally, Heidelberg Materials noted from a feasibility study that a 1Mt/yr cement plant would need around 170MW of plasma generation, but that typical plasma generators topped out at around 8MW. Hence, any full set-up would likely require multiple plasma generators. For more on non-combustion style kilns see GCW561.

UBE Mitsubishi Cement’s burner installation is more conventional but again it is concerned about sustainability. In this case the line has tested burning natural gas. The cement producer says it is the first such installation at a cement plant in Japan to do so commercially. The burner was jointly developed by UBE Mitsubishi Cement, Osaka Gas and Daigas Energy. Firstly, the plant will consider switching to natural gas. This will reduce the unit’s CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion. However, a later step being considered is to move on to e-methane. This is a synthetic methane made from CO₂ and hydrogen using renewable energy.

Finally, another recent story on this theme is the installation of a new satellite burner by Northern Ireland-based Mannok at its Derrylin cement plant in August 2025. This is Phase One of a two-part project to upgrade the pyro kiln system at the site. The cement company worked with FLSmidth on the €2.5m upgrade. The new burner has now allowed the plant to burn solid recovered fuel (SRF) by up to a 30% substitution rate in the kiln. This followed a project, also with FLSmidth, to install a FuelFlex Pyrolyzer in 2022. This is used to replace coal with SRF in the pre-calcination stage of cement production. Phase two will be an upgrade of the main burner to a new Jetflex burner. Once this part is completed, Mannok is aiming for an overall substitution rate of 65 - 70% on the whole pyro-processing system.

Burners at cement plants are replaced fairly commonly. However, the supplier companies don’t advertise every installation due to the commercial relationships with their clients and other factors. Hence the more interesting upgrades tend to get the publicity. Typically this means if a burner uses new technology, meets sustainability goals and so on, we find out about it. It’s a similar situation when a new heating technology such as plasma is trialled. Changing trends in fuel types for cement plants suggest different types of conventional burners. Some of this can be seen in the burner stories above with the trend moving towards ever higher rates of alternative fuels usage. Combustion in cement kilns is here to stay for the time being but plasma trials will be watched carefully.

The 18th Global CemFuels Conference & Exhibition on alternative fuels for cement and lime 2025 will take place in Milan on 17 - 18 September 2025

Japan: Mitsubishi UBE Cement Corporation (MUCC), Osaka Gas, Daigas Energy and Saibu Gas have successfully tested natural gas co-firing at MUCC’s Kyushu Plant in the Kurosaki area. Using a newly developed burner, the companies replaced 40% of coal with natural gas at commercial scale without affecting kiln stability, product quality or environmental performance.

The burner was developed using MUCC’s coal combustion expertise alongside Osaka Gas and Daigas Energy’s gas combustion and simulation technologies, with Saibu Gas supplying natural gas from LNG tank trucks. MUCC said the trial paves the way for full-scale implementation and supports future use of e-methane in cement kilns.

MUCC aims to cut CO₂ emissions by 40% by 2030, compared to 2013 levels, and achieve group-wide carbon neutrality by 2050 under its medium-term management strategy “Infinity with Will 2025 – MUCC Sustainable Plan 1st STEP.”

US: Ash Grove Cement, part of CRH, has deployed Boston Dynamics’ autonomous robot ‘Spot’ at its cement plant in Washington in a year-long pilot to boost efficiency and safety. Operating more than 80 hours a week, the four-legged robot conducts routine inspections using a 4K camera and laser scanning, detecting anomalies and alerting teams before failures occur.

The company said that the robot can measure refractory bricks inside cement kilns, reducing risks by keeping employees out of hazardous environments. During the trial, Spot detected a failing bearing in rotating equipment, preventing unplanned downtime. Ash Grove said that the technology improves site safety, frees skilled teams for complex work and enables real-time monitoring in the hot and dusty conditions at the plant.

Plant manager Andy White said “Our aim for Spot is that, at the moment, we don’t have preventative or proactive maintenance routines on night shifts and the weekends. And, also, our labour force has to spend a lot of time recording data rather than analysing it… Spot can do this for us. When we come in the mornings, we already have reported generated, so we can proactively fix those issues thather than spending eight hours trying to find them.”

Saudi Arabia: The National Center for Waste Management (MWAN) completed a five-month trial with Riyadh Cement on the use of iron slag in ordinary Portland cement, according to the Saudi Press Agency. The study used 1274t of slag and showed that adding 1 - 2% improved the cement’s properties. MWAN said that the results confirm the feasibility of using industrial byproducts to cut waste and reduce CO₂ emissions.

China/US: A team led by Fengyin Du, then at Southeast University in Nanjing, developed a new cement formulation that reflects sunlight and emits heat more effectively than ordinary Portland cement, according to the New Scientist. The cement incorporates reflective ettringite crystals on its surface, which Du says “works like a mirror and a radiator, so it can reflect sunlight away and send heat out into the sky, so a building can stay cooler without any air conditioning or electricity.”

To make it, the researchers produce tiny pellets from limestone and gypsum, which are ground and mixed with water before being poured into a silicone mould covered in small holes. Ettringite crystals grow in slight depressions on the surface created by air bubbles, while an aluminium-rich gel allows infrared light to pass through, lowering heat retention.

Du said that tests at Purdue University, Indiana showed the cement’s surface was 5.4°C cooler than the air and 26°C cooler than conventional cement under the same conditions. The process is reportedly scalable and costs US$5/t less than ordinary Portland cement, as it can be produced at lower temperatures.

India: Tamil Nadu will host one of five national carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) testbeds aimed at lowering CO₂ emissions in the cement sector in a step towards the country’s 2070 net-zero target, according to The New Indian Express newspaper. The testbed will be located at UltraTech Cement’s Reddipalayam plant in Ariyalur district, supported by the Indian Institute of Technology Madras and Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani. The project is part of a Department of Science and Technology (DST) programme, which will trial an oxygen-enriched kiln system capturing up to 2t/day of CO₂ for mineralisation into concrete products. Other CCU testbeds are being established in Rajasthan, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh, with JK Cement and Dalmia Cement involved.

Union Minister for Science and Technology and Earth Sciences Jitendra Singh said the DST was currently processing financial sanctions for the projects, and full-scale implementation is expected in 2025.

A week ago, there were two fully-financed cement plant carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) projects underway in the US.¹ Now, there aren’t.

Projects to decarbonise National Cement Company’s Lebec, California, plant and Heidelberg Materials North America’s Mitchell, Indiana, plant were each set to receive up to US$500m in US Department of Energy (DoE) funding on a one-for-one basis with private investments. The projects were to include eventual 950,000t/yr (Lebec) and 2Mt/yr (Mitchell) carbon capture installations. Additionally, the Lebec plant was to transition to limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) production and the use of alternative fuels (AF), including pistachio shells. Both were beneficiaries of the DoE’s US$6bn Industrial Demonstrations Program (IDP), touted by former US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm as ‘Spurring on the next generation of decarbonisation technologies in key industries [to] keep America the most competitive nation on Earth.’ Disbursement of funding under the programme was frozen by executive order of President Trump in January 2025.^{2, 3}

On 30 May 2025, Trump’s Secretary of Energy announced that the government in which Granholm served had approved spending on industrial decarbonisation without a ‘thorough financial review.’ He cancelled remaining project funding in signature Trumpian style, in list form.⁴ Among 24 de-funded projects, Lebec and Mitchell accounted for US$1bn (27%) of a total US$3.73bn in allocated funds that have now been withdrawn.

It's hard not to feel sorry for the management of the Lebec and Mitchell plant and the teams that had been working to deliver these projects. Heidelberg Materials has yet to comment, though CEO Dominik von Achten was in North America in late May 2025. National Cement Company parent Vicat, meanwhile, conceded the setback with a strong statement of its commitment to CO₂ reduction, to 497kg/t of cementitious product globally.⁵ There was a diplomatic edge to the statement too, however. Echoing the Secretary of Energy, Vicat said that its target remains ‘solely based on existing proven technologies, including energy efficiency, AF substitution and clinker rate reduction’ – as opposed to ‘any technological breakthroughs’ like carbon capture. There are currently no public details of possible back-up financing arrangements for these projects; for now, the best guess at their status is ‘uncertain.’

Alongside these group’s local subsidiaries, another organisation that has to do business daily with the DoE is the American Cement Association (ACA). President and CEO Mike Ireland has continually acknowledged the complex needs of the government, while stating the association’s case for keeping support in place. With regard to these funding cuts, Ireland’s emphasis fell on the latter side: “Today’s announcement is candidly a missed opportunity for both America’s cement manufacturers and this administration, as CCS projects have long been supported by bipartisan members in Congress and bipartisan administrations.”⁶ He reasserted the ACA’s understanding that carbon capture aligns with the administration’s strategy to bolster domestic manufacturing and innovation.

The early 2020s heyday of US carbon capture was founded on gradual, consensus-based politics – unlike its demise. Table 1 (below) gives a non-exhaustive account of recent and on-going front-end engineering design (FEED) studies and the funding they received:

Additionally, MTR Carbon Capture, which is executing a carbon capture pilot at St Marys Cement’s Charlevoix plant in Michigan, previously received US$1.5m in Fossil Energy Research and Development funding towards a total US$3.7m for an unspecified cement plant carbon capture study.¹⁰

Market researcher Greenlight Insights valued industrial decarbonisation initiatives under the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (ODEC – the now defunct DoE office responsible, among other things, for the IDP) at US$65.9bn in cumulative returns in April 2025.¹¹ The government has yet to publish any account of how it might replace this growth, or the 291,000 anticipated new jobs that would have come with it. Given all this (along with the extensive financial and technical submissions that accompanied each project), the issues raised by the DoE are presumably budgetary, or else founded in a perception of CCUS as essentially uneconomical.

Carbon capture is very, very expensive. A fatuous reply is that so is climate change, just with a few more ‘verys.’ Hurricane Ian in September 2022 cost US$120bn, more than enough to fund carbon capture installations at all 91 US cement plants, along the lines of the former Lebac and Mitchell agreements.¹² Unlike climate change, however, carbon capture remains unproven. Advocates need to continually justify taxpayer involvement in such a high-risk venture.

At its Redding cement plant in California, Lehigh Hanson successfully delivered a funding-free FEED study, with its partner Fortera raising US$85m in a Series C funding. This presents an alternative vision of innovation as fully-privatised, in which the government might still have the role of shaping demand. This is borne out in the IMPACT Act, a bill which ‘sailed through’ the lower legislature in March 2025.¹³ If enacted, it will empower state and municipal transport departments to pledge to buy future outputs of nascent reduced-CO₂ cements and concretes.

A separate aspect of the funding cancellation that appears decidedly cruel is the targeted removal of grants to start-ups. Two alternative building materials developers – Brimstone and Sublime Systems – were listed for a combined US$276m of now vapourised liquidity. Both are commercially viable without the funding, but the effect of this reversal – including on the next generation of US innovators who hoped to follow in their footsteps – can only be chilling. As non-governmental organisation Industrious Labs said of the anticipated closure of the ODEC in April 2025: “We may see companies based in other geographies start to pull ahead.”

Heidelberg Materials’s Brevik carbon capture plant came online in June 2025, 54 months after the producer secured approval for the project. The term of a presidency is 48 months. This probably means that producers in the US will no longer see CCUS as a viable investment, even under sympathetic administrations.

Even as government funding for CCS flickers from ‘dormant’ to ‘extinct,’ the sun is rising on other US projects. Monarch Cement Company commissioned a 20MW solar power plant at its Humboldt cement plant in Kansas on 27 May 2025. The global momentum is behind decarbonisation, even if economics determines that it will only take the form of smaller-scale mitigation measures at US cement plants into the medium-term future. We can hope that these, at least, might include the AF and LC3 aspects of National Cement Company’s plans at Lebec.

References

1. Clean Air Task Force, ‘Global Carbon Capture Activity and Project Map,’ accessed 3 June 2025, www.catf.us/ccsmapglobal/

2. Democrats Appropriations, ‘Issue 5: Freezing the Industrial Demonstrations Program Undermines U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness and Strands Private Investment,’ January 2025, www.democrats-appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-appropriations.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/5%20DOE%20Frozen%20Funding%20-%20Industrial%20Demos.pdf

3. Colorado Attorney General, ‘Attorney General Phil Weiser secures court order blocking Trump administration’s illegal federal funding freeze,’ 6 March 2025, www.coag.gov/press-releases/weiser-court-order-trump-federal-funding-freeze-3-6-25/

4. US Department of Energy, ‘Secretary Wright Announces Termination of 24 Projects, Generating Over $3 Billion in Taxpayer Savings,’ 30 May 2025, www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer

5. Vicat, ‘Cancellation of funding agreement for the Lebec Net Zero project by the US Department of Energy,’ 3 June 2025, www.vicat.com/news/cancellation-funding-agreement-lebec-net-zero-project-us-department-energy

6. American Cement Association, ‘Statement from the American Cement Association on Department of Energy’s Cancellation of Clean Energy Grants,’ 30 May 2025, www.cement.org/2025/05/30/statement-from-the-american-cement-association-on-department-of-energys-cancellation-of-clean-energy-grants/

7. Gov Tribe, ‘Cooperative Agreement DEFE0031942,’ 30 September 2022, www.govtribe.com/award/federal-grant-award/cooperative-agreement-defe0031942

8. Higher Gov, ‘DECD0000010 Cooperative Agreement,’ 13 May 2024, www.highergov.com/grant/DECD0000010/

9. Gov Tribe, ‘Cooperative Agreement DEFE0032222,’ 7 February 2025, www.govtribe.com/award/federal-grant-award/cooperative-agreement-defe0032222

10. Higher Gov, ‘DEFE0031949 Cooperative Agreement,’ 1 May 2023, www.highergov.com/grant/DEFE0031949/

11. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, ‘Jobs, Economic Impact of OCED Closure,’ 11 April 2025, www.c2es.org/press-release/oced-closure-could-cost-65-billion-290000-jobs/

12. National Centers for Environmental Information, ‘Events,’ accessed 4 June 2025, www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2022?disasters%5B%5D=tropical-cyclone

13. US Congress, ‘H.R.1534 - IMPACT Act,’ 26 March 2025, www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1534

Australia: Suvo Strategic Minerals has been offered an opportunity to field test its lower carbon cement made from kaolin in the Victorian government's level crossing removal project (LXRP). This trial aims to evaluate Suvo’s cement formulation, which the company hopes can reduce up to 70% of Portland cement typically used in construction.

The company utilises ‘hydrous’ kaolin from its Pittong operation, located 40km west of Ballarat, Victoria, in producing this cement. The LXRP trial will allow Suvo to demonstrate the feasibility of using their product in real-world infrastructure projects, with help from the government to navigate the commercial and technical approval processes to introduce its cement product to the market.

Türkiye: Limak Çimento has carried out a month-long test on hydrogen fuel blends at its cement plant in Ankara. The company partnered with France-based Air Liquide for the supply of hydrogen, which was injected into the preheater tower. The pair previously used a 50% hydrogen blend during a test at Limak’s Polatli plant in June 2024, with ‘excellent results’, according to Hydrogen Insight.

Erkam Kocakerim, CEO of Limak Çimento, said "The purpose of this investment is to enable safe and effective use of hydrogen technologies in our cement kilns and to increase the rate of alternative fuel substitution. We aim to operate the kilns in our seven integrated cement plants with a low-carbon fuel mix between 2030 and 2035."

One unusual thing about coverage of cement in the media is the way that discussions often centre precisely on its absence – that is, on alternatives to cement. These alternatives boast unique chemistries and performance characteristics, but are all produced without Portland cement clinker. They are generally called ‘alternative cements,’ perhaps because ‘cement-free cement’ does not have such a commercially viable ring to it. This contradictory tendency reached a new high in the past week, with developments in alternative cement across Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North America. Together, they hint at a more diverse future for the ‘cement’ industry than the one we know today.

Asia

In Indonesia, Suvo Strategic Minerals has concluded tests with Makassar State University of a novel nickel-slag-based cement. Huadi Nickel-Alloy Indonesia supplied raw materials, and tests showed a seven-day compressive strength of 37.5MPa. Suvo Strategic Minerals says that a partnership with Huadi Nickel-Alloy Indonesia for commercial production is a likely next step.

Europe

Cement producer Mannok and minerals company Boliden partnered with the South Eastern Applied Materials (SEAM) research centre in Ireland to launch a project to develop supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) from shale on 7 October 2024. The project will additionally investigate CO₂-curing of cement paste backfill for use in mines. Irish state-owned global commerce agency Enterprise Ireland has contributed €700,000 in funding.

UK-based SCM developer Karbonite expects to launch trial production of its olivine-based SCM with a concrete company in 2025. The start-up launched Karbonite Group Holding BV, with offices in the Netherlands, to facilitate this new phase. Karbonite’s SCM is activated at 750 – 850°C and sequesters CO₂ in the activation process, resulting in over 56% lower CO₂ emissions than ordinary Portland cement (OPC). Managing director Rajeev Sood told Global Cement that talks are already underway for subsequent expansions into the UAE and India.

Back in the UK, contractor John Sisk & Son has received €597,000 from national innovation agency Innovate UK. John Sisk & Son is testing fellow Ireland-based company Ecocem’s <25% clinker cement technology in concrete for use in its on-going construction of the Wembley Park mixed development in London.

At the same time, Innovate UK granted a further €3.23m to other companies for concrete decarbonisation. Recipients included a calcined clay being developed by Cemcor, an SCM being developed from electric arc furnace byproducts by Cocoon, a geopolymer cement technology being developed by EFC Green Concrete Technology UK and an initiative to develop alternative cement from recycled concrete fines at the Materials Processing Institute in Middlesbrough. Also included was the Skanska Costain Strabag joint venture, which is working on the London stretch of the upcoming HS2 railway. The joint venture, along with partners including cement producer Tarmac and construction chemicals company Sika UK, will test low-kaolinite London clay as a raw material with which to produce calcined clay as a cement substitute in concrete structures in HS2’s rail tunnels.

Middle East

Talks are underway between UK-based calcined clay producer Next Generation SCM and City Cement subsidiary Nizak Mining Company over the possible launch of a joint venture in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The joint venture would build a 350,000t/yr reduced-CO₂ concrete plant, which would use alternative cement based on Next Generation SCM’s calcined clay.

North America

Texas-based SCM developer Solidia Technologies recently patented its carbonatable calcium silicate-based alternative cement, which sequesters CO₂ as it cures.

Meanwhile, C-Crete Technologies made its first commercial pour of its granite-based cement-free concrete in New York, US. C-Crete Technologies says that the product offers cost and performance parity with conventional cement, with net zero CO₂ emissions. Its raw material is globally more abundant than the limestone used as a raw material for clinker. Other abundantly available feedstocks successfully deployed within C-Crete Technologies’ repertoire include basalt and zeolite.

Across New York State, in Binghamton, KLAW Industries has succeeded in replacing 20% of concrete’s cement content with its powdered glass-based SCM, Pantheon. KLAW Industries has delivered samples to local municipalities and the New York State Department of Transportation. Its success expands the discussion of possible circular cement ingredients from the industrial sphere into post-consumer resources.

In Calgary, Canada, a novel SCM has drawn attention from one of the major cement incumbents: Germany-based Heidelberg Materials. It invested in local construction and demolition materials (CDM)-based SCM developer EnviCore on 9 October 2024. The companies plan to build a pilot plant at an existing Heidelberg Materials CDM recycling centre.

Conclusion

Alternative cement developers are still finding the words to talk about their products. They may be more than ‘supplementary’ up to the point of entirely supplanting 100% of clinker. Product webpages offer ‘hydraulic binder,’ ‘pozzolan’ and even ‘cement.’ As alternative ‘cements’ are developed, they build on the work of pioneers like Joseph Aspdin and Louis Vicat. Start-ups and their backers are now reaching commercial offerings, on a similar-but-different footing to cement itself. None of these novel materials positions itself as the sole, last-minute ‘super sub’ in the construction sector’s confrontation with climate change. Rather, they are a package of solutions which can combine into a net zero-emissions heavy building materials offering, hopefully before 2050.

Related to this is the need for ‘technology neutral’ standards, as championed this week by the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete (ALCCC), along with 23 other European industry associations, civil society organisations and think tanks. The term may sound new, but the concept is critical to the eventual uptake of alternative cements: standards, the ALCCC says, should be purely performance-based. They ought not attempt to define what technology, for example cement clinker, makes a suitable building material. According to the ALCCC, Europe’s building materials standards are not technology neutral, but instead ‘gatekeep’ market access, to the benefit of conventional cement and the exclusion of ‘proven and scalable low-carbon products.’

At the same time, cement itself is changing. Market research from USD Analytics showed an anticipated 5% composite annual growth rate in blended cement sales between 2024 and 2032, more than doubling throughout the period from US$253bn to US$369bn. If you can’t beat it, blend with it!

For a further discussion of alternative cement and binders in Europe, see Global Cement’s interview with ALCCC co-ordinator Joren Verschaeve in the forthcoming November issue of Global Cement Magazine on 17 October 2024.