Report Cement

8/10/2019 Report Cement

1/45


2/45

i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ i

About WADE................................................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4

The Cement Industry.............................................................................................................. 5

International Cement Markets ................................................................................................ 6

Onsite Power Benefits .......................................................................................................... 11

Environmental Impacts of Cement Production .................................................................... 13

Onsite Power and Cement .......................................................................................................... 19

Technologies ........................................................................................................................ 20

Baseline ................................................................................................................................ 23

Potential................................................................................................................................ 25

Barriers and Driving Forces ................................................................................................. 27

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 32

References .................................................................................................................................... 34

Annex 1. Selected Companies Involved in Onsite Power in Cement Plants.......................... 36

Annex 2. Statistics and the Cement Industry........................................................................... 37

Annex 3: The CDM and Cement............................................................................................... 38


3/45

ii

About WADE

The World Alliance for Decentralized Energy (WADE) was established in 2002, as a non-profit

organization, to accelerate the worldwide development of high efficiency decentralized energy

systems that deliver substantial economic and environmental benefits. WADE represents the

interests of those involved in the entire value chain of combined heat and power (CHP) and

renewable decentralized energy (DE) systems.

WADE believes that the wider use of DE is a key solution to bringing about the cost-effective

modernization and development of the worlds electricity systems. With inefficient central power

systems holding a 90% share of the worlds electricity generation capacity, and with the DE shareat only about 10%1, WADEs overall mission is to have this share reach 14% by 2012. A more

cost-effective, sustainable and robust electricity system will emerge as the share of DE increases.

WADE undertakes a growing range of research and programs on behalf of its supporters and

members:

Cutting-edge research and analysis on energy and the environment;

Global advocacy of policies and programs designed to level the playing field for DE;

Organization of events and activities designed to promote and advance the market

for DE technology and showcase member product offerings; Communications and public relations that delivers the DE message to policy-makers

and the general public;

Dissemination of market intelligence and breaking news to keep members informedof the latest developments in the global DE marketplace.


4/45

iii

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the following individuals for their help in the researching and

writing of this paper:

Peter Bell, International Cement Review Michael Brown, Delta Energy and Environment Stefano Campanari, Milan Polytechnical Edouard DeLafarge, Lafarge Sytze Dijkstra, WADE Ihab Elmassry, Carbon Capital Hanno Garbe, Siemens Sandeep Junjarwad, Cogen India Dr. Howard Klee, WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative Ludovic Lacrosse, EC-ASEAN COGEN Program Eliane Lacroux, Cembureau Arul Joe Mathias, EC-ASEAN COGEN Program Dr. Brahmanand Mohanty, Asian Institute of Technology H. Nagasako, Kawasaki Heavy Industry Jonathan Sinton, International Energy Agency K Sivaram, Confederation of Indian Industry Ahmet Sonmez, Turbomach Vivek Taneja, Thermax

Hendrik van Oss, US Geological Survey Ernst Worrell, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

All efforts have been made to ensure that the data contained in this report is the best available at

the time of publication. If you are aware of any omissions or errors in the data used to make the

calculations in this report, please contact WADE and bring the error(s) or omission(s) to our

attention.

Lead Author:

Jeff Bell, the World Alliance for Decentralized Energy


5/45

1

Executive Summary

The cement sector represents approximately 5% of total global CO2emissions (see figure E-1).

About half of these emissions are a result of the chemical reaction necessary to transform the raw

material into the finished product. However, the other half of the sectors emissions results from

the combustion of fossil fuels for heat and power. The process of making cement is among the

most energy intensive of any industry. In order to catalyse the chemical reaction, extremely high

temperatures must be reached. Therefore, most of the fuel input is for heat. Power accounts for

less than 10% of the sectors emissions, yet electricity supply is fundamental to the process.

FIGURE E-1

GLOBAL ANNUAL CO2 PRODUCTION, BY INDUSTRY (30GT CO2)

Electricity/transport 10%

Fuel 40%

Calcination 50%

Heat and power

34%

Energy industry

5%

Manufacturing Excluding

cement

17%

Road transport

18%

Non-road transport

6%

Other sectors

14%

Cement manufacturing

5%

SOURCE: 5, 25

While generating electricity on cement manufacturing sites is a common practice in many areas

of the world, significant untapped potential for onsite power remains. Onsite power offers many

benefits, both to society in general and, in many cases, for the cement plant managers. System

level benefits include significantly reduced capital expenditure for transmission, distribution and


6/45

2

generation infrastructure, decreased vulnerability to fuel price volatility and vastly reduced smog

and climate change causing emissions. At a plant level, onsite power guarantees against

production interruptions from utility failures, saves energy costs, allows higher kiln utilization

and increases quality of the finished product.

Three types of onsite power are discussed in this report: bottom cycle cogeneration, top cyclecogeneration and onsite power-only applications. Bottom cycle applications, where heat from the

kiln is recovered to generate electricity, may have the most potential for reducing the

environmental impact of the cement sector. Top cycle plants, where fossil generators are placed

on the cement plant site and the waste heat is used for some useful purpose, either in cement

manufacturing or for a neighbouring facility, also offer considerable promise to the industry.

Finally, standby plants in power only applications can also offer valuable benefits.

WADE has compiled documentation of over 2,900MW of installed electric generating capacity in

cement plants worldwide (see table E-1). This is certainly an underestimation. Data, although

imperfect, suggests that onsite plants are installed at a minority of the worlds cement plants. In

the top 20 cement producing countries alone it is estimated that the overall potential to generateelectricity at cement plants is about 57 TWh annually. Total potential is estimated to be about

68.3 TWh/year or 0.41% of total global electricity demand in 2003 (including all sectors: other

industries, residential agriculture, etc). If all or even some of the potential were realized

considerable emissions from the central power plants serving these cement plants could be

displaced. If it is assumed that all power displaces coal then about 68.3 Mt CO 2of total global

emissions could be displaced every year. Opportunities for either top or bottom cycle

cogeneration, or both, exist at many of the worlds cement plants.

In short, while the cement sector is responsible for a disproportionately high percentage of global

GHG emissions, there remains significant potential for investment in onsite power technologies

that can improve competitiveness, increase reliability and reduce environmental damage.


7/45

3

TABLE E-1

EXISTING ONSITE POWER CAPACITY* AND GENERATION IN CEMENT PLANTS BY TOP CEMENT PRODUCING NATION

Country # plants# plants withonsite power

CapacityMW*

Gen (GWh)*purchased(GWh)

PotentialOnsite Power(TWh/year)*

*China 570 63 569 27.6

India 365 65 1,609 4,981 10,144 4.9

USA 109 4 150 486 10,300 3.4

Japan 33 281 2.4

Korea 2 19 9 2.0

Russia 2.1

Spain 37 1.3

Brazil 0 0 0 1.5

Italy 93 572 5,127 1.5

Egypt 12 0 0 0 3,628 1.1Mexico 30 1 250 3,759 1.3

Thailand 0 0 0 1.6

Turkey 2 49 0 1.1

Indonesia 11 1 12 1,494 5,307 1.4

Iran 29 1.1

Germany 50 2 1.0

Saudi Arabia 1 1 0.8

France 38 0.7

TOTAL 1,344 174 2,939 7,541 38,264 57

* INCLUDES TOP AND BOTTOM CYCLE COGENERATION AS WELL AS POWER ONLY APPLICATIONS.** CALCULATED BASED ON AVERAGE POTENTIAL OF 32.5 KWH OF GENERATION/TON CLINKER (SEE TABLE 3)SOURCE: WADE COMPILATION- WHERE CELLS ARE BLANK DATA IS UNAVAILABLE


8/45

4

Introduction

Question

The cement industry is one of the most important industrial sectors in the world both in terms of

the benefits it brings to society and the phenomenal impact it has on the environment. Energy use

is a key ingredient of plant productivity and efficiency. After the power sector and transportation

sectors cement uses more energy than any other industry. There is scope for improving energy

efficiency in the cement manufacturing process and there are various means of realizing this great

promise. Cogeneration of heat and electricity is one such means. Little public data exists on the

potential for onsite power in the cement industry to combat air emissions and increase economic

competitiveness. Similarly, little information exists in the public domain on the extent to whichonsite power is already being employed. This report aims to improve the general knowledge base

so that better decisions on the appropriateness of investment in onsite power in the cement

industry can be made. The main questions this study sets out to answer are:

What are the benefits of onsite power?

What potential exists for onsite power in the global cement industry?

What proportion of the potential has been realized?

What needs to be done to realize the remaining potential?

Audience

The reports ultimate beneficiaries will be the many companies active in the cement industry:

clinker-manufacturing companies, integrated cement plants and grinding-only plants. It will

interest plant engineers, commodity financiers, managers, and market researchers. Many of these

companies will have in-house research on onsite power relevant to their business, but this is the

first report looking at the potential from the perspective of the sector as a whole. The primary

intended audience of the report are those less familiar with the cement industry, but who care

about the impact the industry has: governments and policy makers, power sector professionals, as

well as environmental organizations and the general public.

JustificationThe cement industry is a highly energy intensive industry. In 2004 it is estimated that fuel

consumption and electricity use in the cement industry accounted for about 3%of total global

primary energy consumption2,3,4 (See figure 1) and 5% of total global CO2 emissions.5 Given

increasing issues of energy supply reliability, price volatility and environmental impact of

inefficient energy use, the impetus to improve efficiency in every sector is pressing. Because the

2-5% depending on source


9/45

5

cement industry uses so much energy around the world it makes sense to re-examine the potential

for efficiency improvements in every aspect of the cement making business. The purpose of this

report is to examine the potential of one type of energy efficiency gain that has not been fully

realized: onsite power generation in the cement industry.

FIGURE 1

TOTAL GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION (EXAJOULES) (2002)

Cement

sector

3%

Industrial

sector

(excluding

cement)

33%All other

sectors

64%

SOURCE: 2,3 &4

Cement manufactures operate in a highly competitive environment both at a local and

international level. Efficiency improvements in production can translate into important increasesin competitiveness. There are both economic and environmental gains to be made by optimising

investment in onsite power in the cement industry.

Taking a global perspective may lend new inspiration to those involved in the cement industry

and encourage people to look beyond the local industry to see what precedents exist in other

countries.

The Cement Industry

Cement is the binding material that, when mixed with an aggregate such as sand or gravel, forms

concrete, one of the most common construction materials in the world. Other uses include plasters

mortars and other widespread building materials. Portland cement is the most common type of

cement but various others also exist as illustrated in table 1. From a customer perspective the

various types can often be substituted for one another.


10/45

6

TABLE 1

TYPES OF CEMENT

Ordinary Portland Cement Most common type of cement made of ground hydraulic calcium silicates

Aluminous cement A cement based on calcium aluminates rather than calcium silicates

Blended cement A cement where portions of the unmilled cement has been replaced with wa

materials from other industries (e.g. slag from steel furnaces, ash from pow

plants, etc.) or natural materials (e.g. volcanic ash).

Specialty Cements Cement that has been especially prepared for specific end uses such as high

water resistance, etc.

SOURCE: 7

International Cement Markets

Growing demand for roadworks, waterworks, residential commercial and industrial buildings are

all expected to result in steady increase in demand for cement in the long term all around the

world. Table 2 shows some of the top cement manufacturers in the world with total production

for 2004. Tables 3 and 4 show the top 20 countries for cement and clinker production over the

last half decade. Over the last five years total clinker capacity has increased 20% and cement

production 22%. Most markets around the world are expected to continue to expand cement

production, in some cases rapidly. Chinas annual cement production, for example, more than

doubled between 1994-2003, and there is every indication that growth will continue.6

TABLE 2

SELECTED TOP CEMENT PRODUCERS WITH RECENT PRODUCTION DATA

CompanyAnnual Cement Productioncapacity (MT in 2004)

Lafarge 130

Holcim 111

CEMEX 66

HeidelbergCement 65

Taiheiyo Cement 53

Italcementi 52Buzzi Unicem 38

Cimpor 24

Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd 13

Cementos Molins 2

SOURCE: WADE COMPILATION


11/45


12/45

8

TABLE 4

HISTORIC CEMENT PRODUCTION BY YEAR AND COUNTRY

World Cement Production (Thousand metric tons)Country2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 % growth

China 597,000 661,040 725,000 862,080 933,690 36

India 95,000 105,000 115,000 123,000 125,000 24

United States 89,510 90,450 91,266 94,329 99,015 10

Japan 81,097 76,550 71,828 68,766 67,369 -20

Korea 51,255 52,046 55,514 59,194 53,900 5

Spain 38,154 40,512 42,417 45,000 46,790 18

Russia 32,400 35,300 37,700 41,000 43,000 25

Turkey 35,825 30,125 32,577 35,077 38,019 6

Brazil 39,208 38,927 38,027 34,010 38,000 -3Italy 38,925 39,804 40,000 38,000 38,000 -2

Indonesia 27,789 31,300 34,640 35,000 36,000 23

Thailand 25,499 27,913 31,679 32,530 35,626 28

Mexico 33,228 32,110 33,372 33,593 34,992 5

Germany 35,414 32,118 31,009 32,349 31,954 -11

Iran 23,880 26,640 28,600 30,000 30,000 20

Egypt 24,143 24,700 28,155 26,639 28,000 14

Vietnam 13,298 16,073 21,121 23,282 25,320 47

Saudi Arabia 18,107 20,608 22,000 23,000 23,200 22

France 20,137 19,839 19,450 19,660 20,960 4

Taiwan 17,572 18,128 19,363 18,474 19,050 8

Top 20 Total 1,337,441 1,419,183 1,518,718 1,674,983 1,767,885 24

World Total 1,660,000 1,750,000 1,850,000 2,020,000 2,130,000 22

SOURCE: 20

Cement Making

Cement production is an intensive practice involving huge amounts of natural resources, capital,

labour and energy. Various types and qualities of end product exist.7A variety of manufacturing

processes also exist depending on the age of the technology and type of cement. The most

common manufacturing processes include shaft kiln, wet kiln, dry kiln and precalciner. In figure

2, below, a diagram of the general simplified process is illustrated.


13/45

9

FIGURE 2

SIMPLIFIED CEMENT MANUFACTURING PROCESS DIAGRAM

SOURCE: WADE FROM VARIOUS

In all processes first the raw material, limestone, along with much smaller quantities of clay or

sand, is quarried, transported to the mill, crushed, blended and milled. The wet kiln process and

shaft kiln process, although still more common in some regions than the newer dry process, are

much less energy efficient. With the wet kiln process the mixture is mixed with water to form a

slurry, which is then fed into preheaters and then a large rotating kiln. In the dry process, on the

other hand, the mixture is fed into the preheaters and kiln in a dry state.

Within the rotary kiln the mineral mix undergoes chemical reaction under extremely high

temperatures (between 1480C and 1870C) fuelled by a coal, oil or gas-fired burner. Out the

other end of the kiln emerges the new material, clinker, which is then cooled, ground and blendedwith various additives depending on the type of cement being produced. For example, small

amounts of gypsum or other additive can be added to the cement prior to sale to control setting

time. The finished product is then ready for shipping.

With the precalciner process some of the waste heat from the rotary kiln is used to preheat the

raw materials on their way to the kiln but much scope typically exists for improved energy

recovery (see figure 3). With the aim of improving the efficiency of manufacture, a gradual shift

Quarrying Crushing Blending Drying

Heating in Kiln

Preheating/Precalcification

Clinker

Cooling

BlendingPackaging and

ShippingFinished

Cement

Milling

Clinker

Milling


14/45

10

from wet technology to dry technology has been occurring around the world.8 Other cement

processes that are being phased out include hollow rotary kilns and earthen vertical kilns once

common in smaller cement mills in China.6 Old shaft kilns are being replaced with new

suspension preheater (NSP) kilns.6 New solutions for overcoming technical challenges which

prevent economic heat recovery are constantly being sought and much progress has been made in

the last 20 years.

FIGURE 3

SIMPLIFIED CEMENT MANUFACTURING PROCESS DIAGRAM WITH MAIN ENERGY FLOWS

SOURCE: WADE FROM VARIOUS

Drying MillingQuarrying Crushing Blending

Preheating/

Precalcification

Clinker

Cooling

Clinker

Milling

Packaging and

ShippingFinished

Cement

heat

fuel

heatfor

fuel

heatfor

heat

1.

heat

2.

heat

3.

Blending

heat4.

Heating in Kiln

= Indicates electricity input requirement

fuel

heatfor


15/45


16/45

12

purchased from a polluting and inefficient central generator.

Other

Other plant level benefits of installing cogeneration include:10

reduced downtime and interruption of kiln operation

improved fuel efficiency

lower consumption of refractories

enhanced clinker quality

higher kiln utilization

System Level

Grid Benefits

Having onsite power plants embedded into the grid, especially where load pockets exist, can

improve the quality of service offered by the grid by functioning as a stabilizing mechanism,

reducing transmission constraints, and reducing the frequency of brownouts. Several European

countries, such as Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands, have proven that grid performance is

not impeded even when onsite power accounts for more than 50% of total generation.1 Indeed

there is strong evidence that having DE embedded in the grid reduces the risk of power

outage,11

defers grid investment, alleviates grid congestion,12 and offers quantifiable benefits to

companies in the form of insurance from blackouts.13In other words, even with DE saturation of

up to 50%, special controls for power distribution are not required.

Cost Savings

Research by WADE has shown that investment in onsite power, has the potential to consistently

deliver significant cost savings at a system level. Both cost savings in the form of reduced capital

cost expenditure and, more importantly, delivered energy cost can be realized via a shift in

investment from traditional central plants to smaller distributed plants to meet incremental

demand growth for electricity. Work that WADE was recently commissioned to conduct in the

UK, for example, demonstrates that a shift in investment towards DE results in about UK 1.4

billion of avoided capital costs and reduced delivered energy cost of 0.38 pence/kWh.14Other

WADE work suggests that similar savings are achievable in other countries around the world.

Environment

Onsite power generation, where waste heat is put to use, can offer significant environmental

benefits compared to even the most efficient central electricity generating facility. This is the case

whether it is a cement plant displacing central fuel combustion or some other factory or building.

Centralized power plants average about 33% efficiency because the majority of the energy in the fuel burned is wasted as thermalenergy up the stack.Refractories are special temperature-resistant materials used to line kilns/ furnaces etc in order to increase their lives.


17/45

13

The environmental benefits of onsite plants are realized via the displacement of power generation

that would otherwise come from (fossil-fired) centralized utility plants. The benefits are a result

of several factors and driven by the technology chosen (see section below on technologies). The

main environmental benefit of onsite power is reduced emissions of GHG. Just as important, but

often overlooked, are the other air pollutants arising from fossil fuel combustion that are also

reduced, such as SO2, NOx, mercury and particulates. Onsite plants may also benefit fromincreased water use efficiency, but as of yet there is little research to verify this.

Fuel Savings and Independence

From a system level, the reduced fuel use associated with onsite power also means that less fuel

needs to be produced or imported in order for the economy to run. This is especially relevant in

any heavily fuel import-dependent economy where significant fuel imports has a strong negative

impact on the balance of payments and overall economy.

Environmental Impacts of Cement Production

The cement industry is among the worlds industries with the largest environmental footprint

because of the exceptional amount of energy and raw materials used. Manufacturing cement is

responsible for about 5% of total global GHG emissions. Because of its impact the industry is

under tremendous pressure to improve its environmental performance.

Table 5 shows the results from the Science and Technology Policy Research Institutes

Sustainable Cement Initiative study on benchmark figures for participating European cement

producers. Onsite power production is not tracked, but the table does provide some interesting

figures for a wide range of environmental performance metrics including energy and electricity

use per unit output.Of particular interest is the wide range of energy use per unit output for even

a small selection of European cement manufacturers. Future studies could consider including

power from waste heat/unit output or electricity generated onsite/unit output.

In total 27 separate indicators were tracked from such diverse categories as: energy, resource use and waste, pollution and social andeconomic


18/45


19/45

15

FIGURE 4.

ENERGY INTENSITY OF CEMENT PRODUCING REGIONS OVER TIME (MJ/KG CLINKER)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

USA

Cana

da

Wes

tern

Europe

Japan

Aus

tra

lia/New

Zea

lan

d

China

Sou

thEas

tAs

ia

Sou

thKorea

India

Former

Sov

ietUn

ion

Other

Eas

tern

Europe

La

tinAmerica

Africa

MiddleEas

t

1990

2000

SOURCE. 3, PAGE 5

Figure 5, below, shows the typical energy intensity of various cement manufacturing processes.

Note that the most efficient method (which recovers waste heat from the kiln to preheat materials

as they enter the kiln) uses 30-40% less energy than some of the older methods which suggests in

general that there is considerable room for improvement.

FIGURE 5

ENERGY INTENSITY OF VARIOUS CEMENT/ CLINKER PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Shaft kiln Wet kiln Dry kiln (four

stage preheater)

Precalciner dry

kiln (six stage

preheater)

GJ/tclinker

SOURCE: 22


20/45

16

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Cement Sector

Greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO2, are of growing importance to cement manufacturers

and the public in general. The arrival of the European Emission Trading scheme, for example, has

made CO2emissions an economic liability for manufacturers in Europe. Table 6 shows the GHG

emissions attributable to the cement industry for a select number of countries.

TABLE 6

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM THE CEMENT INDUSTRY

CountryMtonsCO2

year

Brazil 22 1996

USA 90 2000

Canada 8 2000

Japan 60 2000

Australia & NZ 6 2000

China 449 2000

Korea 40 2000

India 64 2000

Former Soviet Union 71 2000

SOURCE: WADE COMPILATION

Figure 6, below, shows the world cement industrys contribution to total global CO 2emissions.

The industry is responsible for about 5 % of total man-made CO2 emissions in the world.23,24

Unlike other industries, fuel-use is not the most important source of GHG in cement manufacture.

About half of the sectors emissions are derived from the chemical process of clinker production.

Under extremely high temperatures limestone (calcium carbonate) is calcinised into lime

(calcium oxide) and carbon dioxide:

CCaO3 +heat = CaO + CO2

The calcium oxide then reacts with the silicates to form dicalcium and tricalcium silicates

(cement). CO2is one of the chemical by-products of the process. This means that, despite plantefficiency, the clinker based cement industry will always be an important source of CO2emissions. Fuel burned for heat and electricity account for the other half of emissions from the

sector. The actual portion of CO2 resultant in the cement industry can roughly be divided into

50% chemical reaction, 40% fuel consumption for heat and 10% fuel consumption for electricity

and transport of raw materials (see figure 6).


21/45

17

FIGURE 6

GLOBAL ANNUAL CO2PRODUCTION, BY INDUSTRY (30GT CO2)

Electricity/transport 10%

Fuel 40%

Calcination 50%

Heat and power

34%

Energy industry

5%

Manufacturing Excluding

cement

17%

Road transport

18%

Non-road transport

6%

Other sectors

14%

Cement manufacturing

5%

SOURCE: 5, 25

CO2Abatement Approaches

Various CO2 abatement approaches are possible in the cement industry, some of which have

greater potential to reduce emissions than can be realized from onsite power alone. Table 7

summarizes some of the main approaches for emission abatement in the industry, including

electricity generation, the main solution of interest here.

Because it accounts for such a high percentage of the industrys overall emissions, displacing

clinker with other cementous materials that do not require calcination has been the GHG

abatement approach that has so far garnered the most attention. Although fewer GHG emissions

abatements are achievable via power generation, the potential is nevertheless considerable, and in

many cases the payback period can be negligible. At the very least, the possibility deserves re-

examination in light of changing electricity markets, volatile fuel prices and regulatoryframeworks that increasingly include the cost of carbon in their accounts. The various means of

power generation discussed in the following section are realistic solutions that deserve closer

scrutiny.


22/45

18

TABLE 7GREENHOUSE GAS A BATEMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE CEMENT INDUSTRY

Approach Process

Bottom Cycle Cogeneration Use waste heat to generate electricity.

Top Cycle Cogeneration Generate power onsite and use waste heat frompower system to dry fuels for kiln or cement rawmaterials.

Blending cement Replace a portion of the clinker in the cement withpozzolanic materials (the production of whichproduces less CO2). Examples include ash, slag andnatural pozzolans.

Fuel switching Replace coal with gas or gas with biomass.

Transport Replace transport fuels with biofuels.

Plant efficiency Increase plant efficiency via insulation, eliminatingleaks, improvement of grinding systems, advancedpyro-processing techniques, switch to dry from wetprocess, etc.

Preheater/precalciner Capture waste heat to preheat raw material prior toentering kiln.

Production of Reactive Belite Clinker Allows lower clinkering temperature and thereforereduced emissions because less fuel is required.

Off-site Green Power Buy grid-power from green sources.

SOURCE: WADE BASED ON 26,27 & 28

Using a heat exchange system to preheat raw material is usually more energy efficient than the cogeneration of electricity becausecogeneration systems convert thermal energy to electrical energy at about a 30% efficiency (typically about 9,935 Btu are required to

produce 1 kWh (3,412 Btu)). Source: 29


23/45

19

Onsite Power and Cement

Heat inputs are an important part of the cement manufacturing process (see figure 3). As a result,

opportunities for making use of waste heat are abundant. As mentioned above, although

electricity is a secondary energy requirement in cement plants compared to heat, supply is

nevertheless a prerequisite to the operation of any cement plant. Table 8 below shows the typical

electricity required of Indian cement plants of various cement production capacities. Figure 7,

below, illustrates the breakdown of a typical power bill faced by a cement manufacturer in Brazil.

Prospects for onsite power generation and cogeneration exist for all cement manufacturing

facilities including both wet and dry kilns, though the trend of wet kilns slowly being phased outshould be seen as an encouraging sign in the context of heat recovery. This is because exhaust

gases from even the best maintained wet kilns tend to be of insufficient temperature and have a

moisture content that is too high for optimal heat recovery via steam generators. 9All else being

equal, dry kilns tend to require more electricity per ton output,20however, it is plant size that is

the main factor that determines electricity use. Larger plants require more power in absolute

terms irregardless of process (see table below). A Brazilian study estimates that cogeneration

represents between 11.8% and 12.1% of total energy efficiency improvement potential

realistically realizable in the cement sector between 1995 and 2015.30The same study found that

14% of the sectors power demands could be met via cogeneration.

Even where there is potential for onsite power generation in a cement manufacturing plant theeconomics of an upgrade that includes onsite power capacity may not always be favourable.

Plants considering major upgrades, such as switching to dry process, are in a good position to

simultaneously examine opportunities for investing in onsite power. Such major upgrades often

present good opportunities for onsite power investment because many of the incremental costs,

such as engineering studies, land acquisition studies, and financing options can be combined, thus

reducing significantly the costs that would be required if onsite power were to be considered on

its own.

TABLE 8POWER REQUIREMENTS IN INDIAN CEMENT PLANTS

Plant capacityTons/day

Typical electricityrequirements(MW)

1,200 10

3,000 24

4500 29

SOURCE: 28


24/45

20

FIGURE 7

TYPICAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY USE IN BRAZILIAN CEMENT PLANTS

32%21%

41%

3%

1%

2%

Preparation of raw material

Preparation and grinding untreatedmaterialBlending clinkering kiln and cooling

Finish grinding

General auxillary jobs

Lighting

SOURCE: 30

Technologies

CHP in the cement industry can be either bottom or top cycle. In other words, waste heat

produced in existing industrial processes can be captured and put to use generating power or

power can be generated using an onsite engine or turbine and its waste heat can be captured and

used for some industrial process such as drying, preheating, and cooling. With this in mind, there

are three options for onsite power in cement plants:

Bottom Cycle Cogeneration (waste heat recovery or energy recycling)

Top Cycle Cogeneration

Onsite Standby/Baseload Power Generation

Annex One shows a list of selected companies involved in developing onsite power projects inthe cement sector.


25/45

21

Bottom Cycle Cogeneration - Waste Heat Recovery

This process is the most promising onsite power generation opportunity in the sector because of

the abundant waste heat of both high and low grade. All waste heat that is successfully recovered

directly displaces energy costs that would have otherwise been borne by the cement producer.

Table 9 summarizes the various sources of heat from a cement plant and the related estimations oftheoretically recoverable energy.

TABLE 9

TYPICAL HEAT RECOVERABLE FROM A 1000 TON/DAY OF CLINKER CAPACITY PLANT

Source of heat within process Recoverable Energy(MJ/ton of clinker)

Reference from Figure 3

raw material drying ? 1

cyclone preheater exhaust gas 388-457 2

by-pass gas 120-241 3

clinker cooler exhaust gas 345-457 4

SOURCE: BASED ON 10

Various approaches can be used for this bottom cycle approach including, a Steam Rankine

Cycle, an Organic Rankine Cycle or the Kalina Cycle. Table 10 summarizes three parameters of

the various approaches: heat resource requirements, cost and possible output.

TABLE 10COMPARISON OF VARIOUS TECHNICAL APPROACHES OF WASTE HEAT RECOVERY FOR POWER GENERATION

ApproachParameter

Steam Rankine Organic Rankine Kalina

Waste heat temperature needed(C)

>250 >200 >200

Approximate capital cost($US/kW generating capacity)

1100-1400 1500-3500 1100-1500

Electric Generation(Steam Rankine=1)

1 1.3-1.7 1.3-1.6

SOURCE: BASED ON 9, TABLE 5

The Steam Rankine approach is the most common approach and the one used in existing onsite

power plants in US cement plants (examples include the Florida Crushed Stone, BrooksvilleFlorida and CalMat in Colton California which has been in operation since 1985).9 The Organic

Rankine Cycle (ORC) (also known as ORMAT energy converter (OEC)), though more

expensive, can make use of lower temperature waste heat. An example of a successful ORC

installation is the Heidelberger Zement in Germany.9Examples of the successful application of

Kalina cycles also exist in industrial settings, for example in the Sumitomo Corporation Kashima

Steel works in Japan, but there are not yet any commercial applications in cement plants.31


26/45


27/45

23

Onsite Standby/Baseload Generators

Power-only plants to supply cement plants electricity can be used for standby/emergency use or

for baseload. The important distinction is that no heat is recovered. An example of this approach

is seen at Grasim Cement in Chhatisgarh India. Although, from an environmental (and long term

economic efficiency) perspective this approach is suboptimal compared to the above two options,

there can be a strong economic case to invest in such technologies. Periodic power shortages and

power quality issues have led some cement plant operators to invest in this technology because of

its relative cheap upfront capital costs and its separation from the core processes (i.e. power

supply can be independent of operating the kiln). Such an approach has proven especially popular

in areas where grid power has been found insufficiently reliable to meet plant needs (such as in

India). For example, the Twiga Cement plant in Tanzania ensures continual operation thanks to a

3MW onsite power supply. The local electricity supply in Dar es Salaam is so unreliable that,

without the onsite power, the cement company could expect power outages up to five times a day.

Even though no heat is recovered, there may still be environmental benefits if inefficient and dirty

central generation (such as from coal) is displaced by cleaner onsite gas or biomass. In somecases, however, the local environment may suffer as emissions shift from a remote central power

plant to the onsite generator or where the central grid is largely hydro based.

From a system perspective there may be some overall environmental benefits even with power

only applications as the elimination of transmission and distribution losses may allow central

thermal plants to reduce output by 5-10% of the cement plants load; an amount equal to average

transmission and distribution losses. Reduced line losses are of course applicable to top and

bottom cycle CHP as well. Clearly, an onsite power plant combined with some use of waste heat

is optimal but even power only can be a move in the right direction.

BaselineAlthough onsite power technologies offer many benefits, they have been employed only

sporadically around the world. Table 11 illustrates the extent to which onsite power is currently

being used around the world based on an extensive survey by WADE. The results show that there

is an imperfect correlation between the amount of cement produced and use of onsite power

generation. In some countries the benefits from onsite power are already being widely realized,

elsewhere the potential has hardly begun to be tapped.


28/45


29/45


30/45

26

dry process may also consider investing in onsite power production. Kiln upgrades or other major

infrastructure changes may provide similar opportunities.

System Level

Little research seems to have been done on the scope for power generation technology in the

cement industry from a system perspective, although a recent report examining energy efficiency

opportunities in Chinas cement industry focused considerably on the opportunities for power

generation.6It is safe to say that in any country with cement manufacturing capacity there is some

untapped opportunity for power generation.

Based on annual global clinker production and an assumption of the technical potential of heat

recovery per ton of clinker, a theoretical maximum electricity generation from the global cement

industry can be estimated. In a large cement plant, it is technically feasibleto generate 30-35 kWh

via bottom cycle cogeneration per of ton clinker produced.Including top cycle cogeneration and

power only applications increases the potential considerably.

Since 2.1 billion metric tons of clinker were produced in 200519and about 32.5 kWh of electricity

can be generated per ton clinkerit would be possible to annually generate 68.3 TWh of electricity

if waste recovery opportunities in the cement industry were maximized. Total global demand for

generation was 16,661 TWh in 2003.33 Therefore, if power generation potential were realized the

cement industry could supply about 0.41% of total world generation. Less than one percent of

total global power generation may not seem like much, but it is in fact a phenomenal amount of

generation realizable from the cement sector with zero incremental pollution. If it is assumed that

all power displaces coal (and coal has an emission factor of 1kgCO2/kWh generated) then about

68.3Mt CO2or 0.23% of total global emissions could be displaced every year. Coal is the main

source of fuel for power generation in many of the worlds top cement making countries

including China, India and the United States. Clearly if all this power displaced from centralfossil fuel major CO2benefits could be realized. Emissions could be further reduced using top

cycle cogeneration.

Globally the current onsite generation capacity totals 2.9 GW (including bottom and top

cogeneration and power only plants in the worlds cement plants). This means that only a very

small proportion of this theoretical maximum generation (68.3 TWh) has been achieved. Also, the

above calculation provides an estimation of bottom cycle cogeneration potential only. The

significant potential for top cycle cogeneration is additional.

A similar calculation can be made at a national level. For example, since 105,000,00019tons of

clinker were produced in the US in 2004, and 32.5 kWh/ton clinker is achievable, about 3.4 TWhcould be generated annually. The total demand for the electricity in the US cement sector was

13.7 TWh in 2004.20Therefore, onsite power generation in the US cement industry could meet

25% of the industrys demand. Another study found that a similar proportion of the industrys

power demand could also be achieved in India.28 In China, a study estimated that large scale

onsite power uptake could save 4.2Mtce**of coal every year and displace 11.8 million tons of

Source: 6,9 (Source 10 uses 50-100 kWh/ton of clinker ; Source 30 uses 21.1kWh/ton clinker)**One Megaton coal equivalent equals 7.1 TWh therefore this is equivalent to about 29.82 TWh of energy.


31/45

27

CO2.6 Table 11, above, shows an approximate potential for onsite power production in various

cement producing nations based on 2005 clinker production figures. Indeed, various studies

suggest that about 20-30% of total power demand for the cement sector could be met by onsite

generation.9,28,30

Barriers and Driving Forces

Economics

Arguably, all barriers to developing onsite power projects in the cement sector are economic.

Although electricity accounts for a small proportion of the energy used in a cement production

facility it can account for a much higher proportion of production costs. This is true whether or

not the power sector has been deregulated. As fuel costs are expected to rise, this proportion of

the overall cost of cement manufacture can also be expected to rise, especially in countries

heavily reliant on fossil fuels to generate power. In most cement producing areas of the world

power was traditionally seen as a fixed cost, whereas fuel was a variable cost.9Now that power

markets around the world are increasingly subject to competition, power managers must re-examine the economics of onsite power. Onsite power can be considered a form of buffer from

power price volatility, especially in areas where deregulation shifted the risk of energy price

volatility to purchasers, where before these risks were limited by fixed power rates and long term

contracts.

Figure 8 illustrates the typical costs faced by a cement manufacturer in China. In cases such as

this, where power accounts for a high proportion of overall costs, although power generation will

not be the approach to maximize CO2 reductions, it is one of the investment options with the

quickest payback. Figure 9 shows similar cost data for a plant in Egypt, where power accounts for

a considerably smaller proportion of total costs.

FIGURE 8

TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CEMENT PRODUCTION COSTS OF PLANTS IN CHINA

Others

23%

Raw materials

23%

Coal

28%

Electricity

26%

SOURCE: 6


32/45

28

FIGURE 9

TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CEMENT PRODUCTION COSTS OF PLANTS IN EGYPT

Financing

22%

Electricity

9%Parts and

M&O

9%

Packing

13%

Heavy Oil

7%

Miscellaneous

6%

Gas

8% Depreciation

11%

Raw Materials

6%

Labour

9%

SOURCE: 34

Of course the above estimates are only illustrative. Every cement plant has unique operating costs

so only a detailed evaluation of the individual plant circumstances can suggest the

appropriateness of investing in onsite power. Among the factors that need to be considered are

the quantity, temperature and temporal availability of heat streams, local availability and cost of

financing and available technologies. A major factor that should also not be overlooked is

whether non-energy related plant upgrades will be required in the near future and, if so, what the

marginal cost of including onsite power in such upgrades would be. Economics for onsite power

investments are most attractive when the investment can be combined with other plant upgradesor included in the original plant design.

Tax and Other Incentives

Tax considerations can play an important role in the economics of onsite power projects. For

example, one estimate suggests a capital cost of between $US 1,250 and 2,750 per kW nameplate

generating capacity depending mostly on the origin of technology.6Of course the quality of the

technology is the main cost driver, but import duties and taxes are also an important factor. In

China, for example, one of the main factors preventing local plant operators from investing in

foreign waste heat recovery generators is cost. Import duties and other taxes create a disincentive

for plant owners to make the investment.

Depreciation policy is another factor of CHP economics over which policy makers have

considerable influence. Because onsite power equipment in cement factories tends to have

extremely high capacity factors (even compared to the power sector plants) they wear out faster

than other units that run less continuously.35Depreciation rates for tax purposes do not always

allow for this distinction. In India, for example, estimates suggest that while energy (including

the landed cost of coal which is about 26%) and freight (15%) are the major cost components,


33/45

29

interest and depreciation can account for 25-30% of total costs36.

Financing

Because banks have little experience in financing energy conservation schemes, upgrades in

cement plants to generate power are often unappealing. Such projects can involve many

transactions with comparatively little investment and progress can be difficult to measure.

Employing Energy Service Companies (ESCOs), Joint Implementation (JI), and the Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM) (see box below) are three possible routes to successful

financing of onsite power in the cement industry.

ESCOs are a promising model, but several main challenges remain.6First, there is a shortage of

specialized knowledge of the cement sector among ESCOs, who tend to concentrate on

equipment common in many industries. Second, existing ESCOs do not have access to the large

amounts of capital required for onsite power projects in the cement sector and are forced to

borrow. A typical strength of the ESCO model is therefore rendered moot (typically one of the

reasons an end user turns to an ESCO is because it has access to the necessary capital to

undertake a project where the user may not). There are strategies for overcoming this barrier. For

example, in China, rather than granting funds from the Global Environment Facility to ESCOs

directly, funds are pooled as a form of guarantee against ESCO borrowing. This in an effort to

allow ESCOs to prove themselves to the lending institutions which before were hesitant to lend to

ESCOs. Another idea being considered in China is the establishment of a specialist ESCO that

works only with onsite power projects.

One study cited the importance of technology transfer as a possible driver for improving investor

confidence in major cement plants investments in the developing world.6The Kyoto protocols

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was cited as one promising means of modernizing the

cement sector. Laws can also provide an important means of realizing financing for onsite power

projects. A policy adopted in China May 2004 prohibited lending that permitted installation of

smaller, less efficient technology.6As a result it is expected that the number of larger scale plants

with waste heat recovery potential will increase.

Reliability

It seems that the single most important factor driving cement industry investment in onsite power

is reliability. India has the most installed onsite capacity in the sector followed closely by China.

In both cases one of the most important factors in deciding the investment was that reliable grid

power was not available.6On the other hand, the United States, the third most important cement

producing nation in the world, has comparatively very little onsite generation in the sector. This is

likely because the grid supply is relatively stable and projects must go ahead on payback alone.To the extent that the benefits of increasing the reliability of a cement plant can be combined with

the other cost saving and environmental benefits, even plant owners in the US and other countries

with reliable grid power may want to reconsider investing in onsite power.


34/45

30

Technology

Technological change in industry is often slow because once a technology has been installed at a

factory businesses will try to maximize its payback by operating existing equipment for the

duration of its useful lifetime. As a result, new technologies may only have a short window of

opportunity to compete every 20 years or so (when existing equipment such as kilns and

preheaters needs to be replaced). Thus technological change and upgrade cycle are importantdrivers for onsite power investment.

In the cement making process the waste gases are hottest, and therefore potential for heat

recovery for power generation is greatest, when the gases first leave the kiln. Unfortunately these

gases also contain dust and contaminants that can foul turbine blades. The exhaust gases must be

cleaned prior to feeding them into a power generation application. By the time the gases are

sufficiently clean they have lost much of their energy content. One persistent technical challenge

to waste heat recovery in the cement sector then is how to maximize recovery of useful heat from

gases leaving the kiln. One approach to overcome this challenge is to gather cement industry

professionals together to discuss possible solutions. For example in 2004 the China cement

Association organized a training course for ESCOs in the cement sector.6

Policy

General policy can play an important role in making power projects in the cement sector viable.

Broader regulatory decisions affecting the power sector is perhaps the best example of this. Does

the government or regulatory commission allow industrial facilities with onsite power facilities to

connect to the grid? To feed power into the grid? Are bilateral power contracts permissible? If the

cement plant ever fed power to the grid would a fair tariff be guaranteed?

Other more prescriptive rules are also possible to envisage. For example: Does the government

require all plants to look at the possibility of CHP in cement plants (as is the case in Japan)? Whatkind of environmental regulations does the industry have to adhere to and how do these directly

or indirectly encourage onsite power production? Must a cement plant optimise waste heat

recovery in order to be granted approval for new build or renovation? Are there policies to ensure

that renovations that improve energy efficiency obtain favourable access to finance? Are there

any arrangements in place to permit a cement plant owner to take advantage of carbon savings

such as carbon trading?

A recent example of how policy can directly effect onsite power in the cement sector can be

found in the China Medium and Long Term Energy Conservation Plan introduced in 2004. The

plan actively promotes the use of low temperature heat for power generation in cement plants.6

Environment

Environmental issues such as air quality and climate change are increasingly rising on the

political agenda around the world. As these issues continue to gain momentum and rise in

importance in the eyes of the worlds governments the cement sector will be increasing pressure

to reduce its environmental footprint.


35/45

31

The environment issue will manifest itself in tougher anti-pollution laws as well as frameworks

that will facilitate cleaner production. Examples include the CDM (see annex 3), the EU emission

trading scheme or the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development & Climate which has

specific Task Forces for both the cement sector and distributed generation.


36/45

32

Conclusions

The cement sector is one of the worlds most energy intensive industries and is responsible for

large proportions of the worlds CO2 emissions as well as other pollutants. There are many

options at the sectors disposal for reducing its environmental footprint all of which merit

attention. Onsite power is one option which deserves renewed consideration. While generating

electricity on cement manufacturing sites is a common practice in many areas of the world,

significant untapped potential for onsite power remains.

From a system perspective it is clear that onsite power, especially waste heat recovery technology

and top cycle cogeneration, provides significant untapped potential to reduce the environmentalfootprint of the cement sector as well as having significant scope for displacing a portion of the

environmental footprint of the power sector. If the full potential of onsite power in the cement

sector were realized about 0.41% of total worlds demand for electricity generation could be met.

If even a small percentage of displaced power was from central fossil fuel plants major CO 2

benefits could be realized. If bottom cycle cogeneration were used to its maximum in the order of

0.23% of total global emissions could be avoided annually. The environmental benefits of onsite

power in cement plants depend not only on the efficiency increases that result but also on the fuel

mix of the local grid power which is displaced.

Major cost savings can also be expected as investments in onsite power in major industries such

as cement can displace the need for expensive local distribution and transmission infrastructureand redundant remote generating plant. Other system level benefits include improved grid

reliability and decreased vulnerability to fuel price volatility.

Cogeneration can often reduce production costs without negatively affecting the core plant

operations or the quality of the end product. Indeed, operations can be improved due to increased

reliability and plant run time and end users can expect a more reliable and higher quality product.

At a plant level, onsite power guarantees against production interruptions from utility failures,

saves energy costs, allows higher kiln utilization and increases quality of the finished product.

Nevertheless it is difficulty to generalize whether an investment in onsite power makes sense for

a particular plant. Only a detailed evaluation of heat streams (quantity, temperature andtemporal), power demand patterns and energy prices can determine its appropriateness. Other

factors critical to deciding if onsite power is suitable include local rules related to grid connection

and feeding power into the grid, tax structures, available incentives, financing mechanisms and

management risk strategy.

In some cases major plant upgrades, for example a shift to dry process or major rotary kiln

upgrades, could include power generation equipment or make use of waste heat in cogeneration


37/45

33

applications with little additional cost. Certainly costs can be reduced if power production

capacity is included at the time of upgrade.

Leaders in the cement industry have much to gain by reconsidering the role that top and bottom

cycle cogeneration can have in improving the efficiency of their plants, the competitiveness of

their business and the perception with which an increasingly demanding public sees them. Policymakers and the general public also have much to gain from the wider system level benefits

provided by clean, efficient and cost effective onsite power generation.


38/45

34

References

1. World Survey of Decentralized Energy 2006, WADE, May 2006.http://www.localpower.org/documents_pub/report_worldsurvey06.pdf

2. International Network for Energy Demand Analysis in the Industrial Sector, Lawrence Berkley NationalLab, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, June 1999.http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ies/iespubs/2297.pdf

3. Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, World Business Council for SustainableDevelopment, Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), June 2005.http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/tf1/tf1_guidelines.pdf

4. Holcim Factsheet- Climate Change. Holcim, 2005.

http://www.holcim.com/gc/CORP/uploads/climate_2005.pdf5. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Cement Sustainability Initiative website,

http://www.wbcsdcement.org/6. Financing of Energy Efficiency Improvement for Cement Industry in China, Globe Environment

Institute, January 2005.http://www.geichina.org/en/pro/energy.htm

7. Cement and Concrete Basics, The Portland Cement Association, 2005.http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_faqs.asp

8. Energy Use in the Cement Industry in North America: Emissions, Waste Generation and PollutionControl, 19902001, Marisa Jacott, Cyrus Reed, Amy Taylor and Mark Winfield, 2001.http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/ECONOMY/Jacott-Exec_en.pdf

9. Waste heat/Cogen Opportunities in the Cement Industry. Cogeneration and Competitive Power Journal,Vol 17, No 3, Summer 2002.

http://fairmontpress.metapress.com/link.asp?id=bjmwp3q1ghrfyab310. Technology, Energy Efficiency and Environmental Externalities in the Cement Industry, BrahmanandMohanty, School of Environment, Resources and Development Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok Thailand, 2005.http://www.faculty.ait.ac.th/visu/Data/Publications/Chapters%20&%20books/CEMENT.pdf

11. Electric Power Systems Under Stress, An Evaluation of Centralized vs. Distributed SystemArchitectures, Hishram Zerriffi, Carnagie Mellon University, September 2004.http://www.localpower.org/documents_pub/reporto_hz_systemunderstress.pdf

12. System Wide Economic Benefits of Distributed Generation in the New England Energy Market,Dragoljub Kosanovic & Christopher Beebe, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,University of Massachusetts, February 2005.http://www.localpower.org/documents_pub/reporto_ceere_desysteminnewengland.pdf

13. Assessing the Benefits of On-Site Combined Heat and Power during the August 14, 2003 Blackout, AnneCarlson & Bruce Hedman, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, June 2004.

http://www.localpower.org/documents_pub/reporto_ornl_chpinblackout.pdf14. The WADE Economic Model: China - A WADE Analysis, WADE, January 2005.

http://www.localpower.org/documents_pub/report_model_china_english.pdf15. Introduction to the Indian Cement Industry, Confederation of Indian Industry

.http://www.greenbusinesscentre.com/cementintro.asp16. Towards a Sustainable Cement Industry. Trends, Challenges and Opportunities in China's Cement

Industry. China Study. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Cement SustainabilityInitiative, Mason H. Soule, Jeffrey S. Logan, and Todd A. Stewart, March 2002.


39/45

35

http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/china_country_analysis.pdfhttp://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/sub_china.pdf

17. Global Energy Use, CO2Emissions and the Potential for Reduction in the Cement Industry, Lynn Price,Environmental Energy Technologies division, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Cement EnergyEfficiency Workshop, Paris 4-5 September 2006.www.iea.org/textbase/work/2006/cement/Price_Worrell.pdf

18. Japan's Law Concerning the Rational Use of Energy, Chapter 2, Article 4, Krmer, Trine Pipi and LajlaStjernstrm, Energy Policy Instruments - Description of Selected Countries, 1997.http://www.akf.dk/eng/udland8.htm

19. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries: Cement 2002-2006, World Production andCapacity Tables, 2006.http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/

20. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Yearbook 2004: Cement (excel format), 2004.http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/cemenmyb04.xls

21. PERFORM Industrial benchmarking project.http://www.sustainability-performance.org/index.php

22. Energy Technology Perspectives, 2006, IEA, 2006.http://www.iea.org/Textbase/nptable/Energy%20efficiency%20of%20various%20cement-clinker%20production%20technologies.pdf

23. CO2Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, World Business Council for

Sustainable Development, Cement Sustainability Initiative, June 2005.http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/tf1/tf1_guidelines.pdf

24. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Global Cement Industry, Ernst Worrell, Lynn Price, Nathan Martin,Chris Hendriks, and Leticia Ozawa Meida, November 2001.http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303

25. The Cement Sustainability Initiative Progress Report, World Business Council for SustainableDevelopment, Cement Sustainability Initiative, June 2005.http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/csi_progress_report.pdf

26. Toward a Sustainable Cement Industry, Substudy 8: Climate Change, World Business Council forSustainable Development, Cement Sustainability Initiative,by Ken Humphreys and Maha Mahasenan. March 2002.http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/final_report8.pdf

27. Methodology for Greenhouse Gas Reductions through Waste Heat Recovery and Utilization for Power

Generation at Cement Plants (AM0024), UNFCCC, CDM Executive Board,http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_0A9596GXQFS3URWTGN57MM3MD4E2BX

28. Discussion Paper on Clean Energy Opportunities in the Cement Industry, Pradeep Kumar, NationalCouncil for Cement and Building Materials.http://www.ficci.com/ficci/media-room/speeches-presentations/2001/aug/aug3-clean-pradeep.ppt

29. Energy and Emission Reduction Opportunities for the Cement Industry.http://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/imf/pdfs/eeroci_dec03a.pdf

30. Energy Efficiency and Reduction of CO2Emissions through 2015: the Brazilian Cement Industry.31. Personal communication with Hanno Garb, Siemens32. Personal communication with Ernst Worrell, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory33. Personal communication with IEA34. Personal communication with Ihab Elmassry, Carbon Capital

35. Alternative Depreciation Policies for Promoting CHP development in Brazil, J.B Soares, A.S. Szklo,M.T. Tolmasquim, Energy 2005. Elsevier36. India Infoline Sector Reports: Cement. http://www.indiainfoline.com/sect/ceme/ch04.html

37. UNFCCC Website, Baseline and Monitoring Methodologies.http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies


40/45

36

Annex 1.Selected Companies Involved in Onsite

Power in Cement Plants

TABLE 14

SELECTED COMPANIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN POWER GENERATION PROJECTS IN THE CEMENT INDUSTRY

ABB Group Ormat Technologies

AEES Polysius

Alstom Power Power Developments International

Arab Swiss engineering Company Rockwell Automation

Autec Power Systems Sadeven SA

CBMEC Siemens AG*

Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Thermax Ltd*

FLSmidth Tianjin Nengda Technology Development Co., Ltd

Hangzhou Boiler Group Co. VA Tech Elin EBG Gmbh

Huaxiao Resource Co. Virginia Transformer Corp

Kawasaki Wartsila*

Kerpen Industrial Wedag

KHD Humboldt Zhongxin Heavy Machine Company

* DENOTES WADE MEMBER COMPANYSOURCE: WADE COMPILATION


41/45

37

Annex 2.Statistics and the Cement Industry

In general, public statistics on the use of onsite power generation in the cement industry are

poorly documented. Because of this lack of data, all forms of onsite power (bottoming, topping

and power only plants) have all been included together in the same column in table 11. Only bystarting to track this kind of information will we know when the market for generating powering

in the cement industry has been saturated in a particular region. The process is further

complicated because cement companies in some countries, during the process of electricity sector

reform, have outsourced electricity production assets, thereby complicating the statistical work.

Table 15 below illustrates the problem with poor data relating to onsite power by sector. The

table shows CHP capacity for the EU-25 including that capacity installed in the cement sector. It

is not clear how much of the capacity is attributable to cement versus glass and ceramics.

Although Eurostat does not track data of CHP use in the cement sector specifically, it is likely

that cement accounts for very little of the 483MW capacity cited1 (10% may be a realistic

estimate).

TABLE 15CHP IN THE EU-25 BY ECONOMICAL ACTIVITY IN 2002

Maximum CHP Capacity CHP Production Fuel Input

ElectricalMW

Heat MWElectricityGWh

Heat TJ TJ (NVC)

Non-metallic

mineralproducts*

483 1045 2599 20453 43429

TOTAL(all sectors)

91634 236136 299164 2844166 6487558

*INCLUDES, GLASS AND GLASS PRODUCTS, CERAMIC PRODUCTS, AND CEMENT AND PLASTER.SOURCE: STATISTICS IN FOCUS, EUROSTAT, 3/2006


42/45

38

Annex 3:The CDM and Cement

The Kyoto Protocols Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is opening up new opportunities

for financing efficiency projects that did not exist even five years ago. For a detailed background

and explanation of the CDM see WADEs report: Clean Development through Cogeneration.

Various CDM methodologies have been developed which are directly or indirectly applicable toonsite power projects in the cement sector:

TABLE 13

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM METHODOLOGIES RELATED TO THE CEMENT SECTOR

Methodology Description

AM0024 Methodology for greenhouse gas reductions through waste heat recovery andutilization for power generation at cement plants

ACM0005 Consolidated Methodology for Increasing the Blend in Cement Production.

ACM0003 Emissions reduction through partial substitution of fossil fuels with alternativefuels in cement manufacture

AM0027 Substitution of CO2 from fossil or mineral origin by CO2from renewablesources in the production of inorganic compounds

AM0014 Natural gas-based package cogeneration

ACM0004 Consolidated methodology for waste gas and/or heat for power generation

SOURCE: 37

The Taishan Huafeng Cement Works was the inspiration for the main methodology that has been

established so far that is of interest to the cement plant owners considering onsite power

applications. AM0024 deals with bottom-cycle cogeneration projects where:

The electricity produced is used within the cement works where the proposed projectactivity is located and excess electricity is supplied to the grid. It is assumed thatthere is no electricity export to the grid in the baseline scenario to which the proposedCDM project must be compared (in order to qualify for CDM credits carbon savingsfrom a project must be additional to those that would be realized if the project wereto go ahead without CDM- the baseline scenario).

Electricity generated under the project activity displaces either grid electricity or


43/45

39

power from an identified specific generation source. Identified specific generationsource could be either an existing captive power generation source or new generationsource;

The grid or identified specific generation source option is clearly identifiable;

Waste heat is only to be used in the project activity.

In the baseline scenario, the recycling of waste heat is possible only within the boundary of the

clinker making process (e.g. clinker production lines in baseline scenario could include some heat

recovery systems to capture a portion of the waste heat from the cooler end of the clinker kiln and

use this to heat up the incoming raw materials and fuel ).

This methodology is NOT applicable to project activities,

Where the current use of waste heat or the identified alternative business as usual useof waste heat is located outside of the clinker making process;

That affect process emissions from cement plants.

Some other methodologies may not yet have been applied in the context of a cement plant but

there is no reason why they should not be in the future. It is possible to envisage for example

AM0014 being applied for a gas turbine at a cement plant where waste heat is used for drying raw

material or fuel prior to use.


44/45


45/45

Documents

Report Cement