|
|
By Demosthenes, on August 13th, 2010
As widely reported this week, the EPA has passed a long anticipated set of rules regulating the emission of mercury and other pollutants from cement plants. Reactions have been predictable: dire predictions that the regulations “can’t be met” with existing technologies for certain plants and claims of the billions of dollars the new regulations will cost the industry.
Industry spokespersons would be wise to study the historical statements of those who have come before them, such as the US automakers in 1972 fighting against catalytic converters. GM’s Earnest Starkman famously claimed that introducing converters on 1975 model cars could result in “complete stoppage of the entire production”…”obvious tremendous loss to the company, shareholders, employees, supplier and communities.” Local Allentown hero Lee Iacocca, then head of Ford, went even farther, claiming that the rule would cause Ford to shut down and result in a reduction to the GNP of $17 billion and the collapse of some local governments. Well, automakers may be dying today but it certainly wasn’t catalytic converters that killed them, nor did they cause the collapse of society.
There will, in fact, be tremendous cost to the industry and this should be considered in the context of a current weak U.S. economy. Catalytic converters did not come for free (although they initially cost about one third of the projections given by the industry), and neither will reducing mercury and other pollutants from cement plants. The significant difference here is that the catalytic converter regulations applied to all cars brought into the United States, making a level playing field. This is not the case for cement! As a fungible commodity, cement can be imported theoretically from anywhere (at a cost) including from sources where no emissions regulations apply. This is the ”missing link” from the EPA-imposed regulations: the topic of harm/compensation should be used to minimize the impact on sectors, such as cement, that are exposed to “leakage” from other parts of the world. The industry should be fighting for a “Mercury tax” on imported cement. This is not protectionism, it is simply making an economic adjustment for the projected environmental cost of higher mercury emissions. These “taxes” should then fund R&D activities to reduce emissions even further and to drive costs down through economies of scale. Under this scenario, importers could choose to meet the same requirements and avoid the tariffs (or have them imposed by their own governments), but in the meantime US companies would do well to focus their efforts on reducing mercury emissions at the lowest possible cost.
Alas, this approach may not find many allies in the industry because most cement producers are multi-national and have the option of importing cement from their non-US facilities. The multi-nationals are not inclined to support taxes against themselves to protect higher cost production in the US. Still this the type of visionary leadership that is needed because the cost of mercury emissions is not currently reflected in the cost of U.S. cement. It is treated as an “externality” and, therefore, the economics do not reflect the realities.
This is a watershed moment. Mercury and the other pollutants covered by these new regulations are the latest, perhaps largest, but certainly not the last emissions challenges that will be faced by the US cement industry. How the industry chooses to meet these challenges will define the next era.
By Lehigh Ben, on July 28th, 2010
Last Thursday, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced the six projects selected to receive grant money to pursue carbon capture and reuse from industrial sources. The DOE had $106 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act along with $156 million in private funding to split between its chosen projects. The projects, now in Phase 2 of design work, are required to construct a pilot-scale facility to demonstrate the viability of their methods.
Our old friend Calera was among the recipients of this grant, receiving nearly $20 million of the DOE money. The basic outline of Calera’s plan is straightforward: take the carbon dioxide (CO2) rich flue gas and bubble it through seawater rich in magnesium hydroxide [Mg(OH)2] to form carbonates. The process mimics coral reefs and is claimed to already working at a small northern California plant where Calera says it captures thirty thousand tons of CO2 every year. Despite early criticism and on-going skepticism, Calera and one of its chief backers, Vinod Khosla, are excited about the company’s prospects. In regards to Calera’s process, Khosla said that it’s the “only viable solution to carbon sequestration.”
Calera, however, will be facing competition in the field of “carbon capture and reuse” from some of the other grant winners. Other winners are pursuing biofuel and thermoplastic polymers for their pilot facilities. US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, “These innovative projects convert carbon pollution from a climate threat to an economic resource. This is part of our broad commitment to unleash the American innovation machine and build the thriving, clean energy economy of the future.” Other companies receiving grants are Alcoa Inc., Novomer Inc., Touchstone Research Laboratory Ltd., Phycal LLC, and Skyonic Corporation.
By Lehigh Ben, on July 16th, 2010
The Philippines-based cement company, Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. (TCPI), has the options to use volcanic ash or fly ash as additives in their cement – both of which are aimed at environmental conservation and lower production costs.
Environmental and safety manager for TCPI, Nilo Yap, stated that – for the time being – the company prefers natural additives for its cement given the option of procuring ash from nearby cities. The additive, called tuff, is made from volcanic rock that has hardened or compacted. TCPI has considered the use of coal ash instead of its volcanic cousin, but for the time being decided in favor of volcanic ash. The company expressed more concern for the chemical composition of the coal ash, especially in regards to potential leaks while the ash is being transported to the cement plants. Yap said, “Handling pozzolan or volcanic ash is easier than handling coal ash because of its chemical composition. We do not like its [coal ash] effect on our water supply. There will be more problems with coal ash.”
TCPI has stated that its new cement mix is comparable to traditional Portland Cement. “Using tuff, you will attain the same and even higher strength cement. It also prevents thermal stress,” said Yap. This product is intended for use in the construction of high rise buildings, water pipes, hollow block filling, and sewer systems. It is a viable, green option in areas with high volcanic ash concentrations.
By Lehigh Ben, on July 7th, 2010
Back in March, in celebration of Earth Hour, Roanoke Cement Company (RCC), a subsidiary of Titan America, decided to switch off the lights on its pre-heater tower indefinitely as part of its plan to reduce energy consumed by the plant. RCC is back in the news again as it takes another step towards reducing its carbon footprint.
Plant manager Kevin Baird is prepping the plant to begin using massive amounts of biomass to help fuel its kilns. The company has already invested in the machinery to use the alternative fuels and is setting November as the date when trials will begin. RCC will be burning waste wood to offset some of its coal consumption and prevent the build-up of organic material in landfills which generates methane when decomposed.
There are two hurdles the company must overcome to be successful in their plan:
The first concern is the moisture content of the wood. To maximize the heat benefit of the waste wood, it must have a very low moisture content. RCC plans on using otherwise wasted heat from the cement production process to pre-dry the wood before firing. The company plans on burning one hundred thousand tons of wood which in turn would emit five thousand tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). However, if that same amount of wood were allowed to decompose in a landfill, approximately five hundred thousand tons of CO2 would be released through methane gas. Taking the biomass approach allows RCC to reduce their coal consumption by thirty percent.
The second hurdle that RCC faces in pursuing the use of alternative fuels is government regulations. Both the EPA and the Department of Environmental Quality have regulations regarding the types of green technologies that can be employed by companies. Baird does not foresee any problems with the installation of the biomass equipment, but feels that the government could be more helpful in pushing green energy. He said, “We need a green regulatory highway to get some of the green technology in place.”
RCC is excited about their upcoming trials and is hopeful that it will make a difference in its community. In the long run, they envision the production and consumption of biomass fuel to sustain an eco-friendly industry where the plant is located.
By Lehigh Ben, on July 6th, 2010
In 2009, industrialized nations across the world took serious steps toward reducing their carbon footprints and reducing emissions as compared to 1990 levels. The global average decrease of seven percent was fueled mainly by the economic crisis and its lack of energy demand. However, despite this heartening improvement, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA) has said that this gain may have been nullified by increased emissions from both China and India.
China’s emissions grew nine percent last year despite the country’s continued increase into alternative energies. For the fifth year in a row, China doubled both its wind and solar capacity; but these improvements could not keep up with its rapidly growing industrial sector. China’s current emissions are now forty percent higher than its 1990 levels. India too is unable to keep pace with its growing emissions, causing a six percent increase over 2009 emission levels.
Overall though, the average CO2 emissions per person in fast developing countries like China and India is still lower than that in the heavily industrialized nations. China averaged 6 tonnes/person and India 1.4 tonnes/person while the United States held an average of 17 tonnes/person and the Netherlands 10 tonnes/person. Despite the setbacks it’s facing, the Chinese government is still taking an aggressive stance on clean, alternative energy sources. Hopefully, when 2010 draws to a close, the Chinese will have been able to get growing emissions under control and begin the long process of reducing those emissions once again.
By Lehigh Ben, on June 15th, 2010
On June 2, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled new sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA’s main reason for revoking the former standards is the public health risk posed by sulfur oxides, which SO2 is a part. They claim that sulfur oxides react with compounds in the atmosphere to form particulates that pose health risks to intensify existing heart conditions or may cause and worsen certain respiratory conditions. EPA estimates show the cost of the new ruling will be approximately $1.5 billion; however, it estimates the health benefits between $13 and $33 billion. Power generation sites and cement plants will be particularly affected by the EPA’s new ruling. These plants are known for temporary SO2 spikes, especially during the start-up and shutdown of combustion equipment.
The particulars of the regulation require that plants maintain a level of no more than 75 parts per billion (ppb) of SO2 evaluated over a one hour period compared with the former rule of 140 ppb evaluated over a twenty-four hour period. This new ruling also overturns the other standard of maintaining a level of no more than 30 ppb evaluated over a year. The second part of the new regulation also revises the ambient air monitoring system. The EPA feels that 41 new monitoring stations will need to be established for operation beginning the first of January, 2013. These new sites will use air quality modeling and air dispersion monitoring to designate the areas that meet or fail the new standards, designated “attainment” and “non-attainment” areas. All sites must meet the new standards no later than August 2017. Secondary SO2 standards will be addressed in a separate ruling.
One immediate effect of this action is that Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits issued after the effective date of the new NAAQS must include a compliance demonstration with respect to the new NAAQS.
By Lehigh Ben, on May 28th, 2010
The European Union’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard is pushing to increase the 2020 emissions reduction goal from the current twenty percent to thirty percent. The heavy industries, including cement and steel, have lobbied the EU against such drastic cuts successfully in the past (ever since the United Nations talks in Copenhagen failed this previous December) on the basis that it would be economically untenable in the current global economic situation. However, the EU’s climate commission has performed a cost analysis of increasing the emission reduction and found that such a move would only result in a fifteen percent increase in cost (11 billion more Euros from the already agreed 70 billion). In a paper released earlier this week, the commission said, “Both the international context and the economic analysis suggest that the EU is right to continue preparing for a move to a 30 percent target.”
Europe’s heavy industry, though, is threatening ‘carbon leakage’ if concessions are not made for them, two proponents of which are Arcelor Mittal and Lafarge. Carbon leakage is the act of moving plants and jobs from highly regulated regions to areas with more relaxed rules and regulations. Arcelor Mittal specifically told the EU Commission that under the new regulations ninety thousand jobs might be eliminated in Germany alone due to the harsh economic backlash of new regulations.
There is no doubt that ‘leakage’ is an important issue given that CO2 emissions are a global (versus local) problem. A report from the Corporate Europe Observatory, however, claims that companies like Lafarge and Arcelor Mittal have exaggerated the negative effect that such environmental regulations have on European business. In addition, others have argued that the industrial giants stand to make considerable profits from the excess carbon dioxide permits already granted to them free of charge by the Commission. Arcelor Mittal alone stands to make approximately one billion pounds profit from the sale of its permits.
The debate in Europe is shaping up to be the OK Corral of the emissions battle overseas.
By Lehigh Ben, on May 21st, 2010
For the past twenty years, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has hosted the Entrepreneurship Competition for new companies founded by MIT graduates in six key areas: products and services, web and IT, energy, development, mobile, and life sciences. The winner of each category competes for the overall grand prize of one-hundred thousand dollars. This year’s energy and overall winner, out of some two-hundred teams, was a cement-alternative developer called C-Crete Technologies.
C-Crete’s play in this space is a special type of nano-engineered, carbon negative cement that has improved strength over traditional cement. C-Crete’s co-founder Natanel Barookhian said, “For many years, the world has been looking for simple, scalable solutions to reduce the global carbon footprint and limit its impact on the environment. We at C-Crete Technologies have developed a method for tackling this issue by targeting the production of cement, one of the most widely used materials on earth, while improving all of its core properties. We believe our technology will make a significant impact on the world.’’
C-Crete is one of the growing number of start-up companies (Calera, C-Fix, CeramiCrete, etc) who are focused on replacements, alternatives, or supplements for traditional cement. This niche is beginning to attract a fair amount of attention from venture capitalists. Also, after ignoring the possibility that the cement manufacturing process might be fundamentally changed in no less significant a way than refrigeration changed the ice harvesting business, the traditional producers and industry insiders are now taking notice. While fly ash and similar materials have long been recognized and utilized, research into “manufactured” supplemental cementitious materials is now being directly funded by cement producers. These materials may never entirely replace cement, unquestionably one of the most cost effective and flexible building materials available, but environmental challenges make research expenditures a wise investment in the future.
Congratulations to C-Crete on this important recognition. As the issue of CO2 emissions related to the manufacture of cement attracts more money and institutional research interest, the cement industry is certain to change. Those who recognize this inevitibility and invest in developing a vision of the future stand to gain much. Those who ignore the signs may go the way of the icebox.
By Lehigh Ben, on May 11th, 2010
With almost 900 ash-containing landfills nationwide, the proper disposal of coal ash was a problem that could be avoided no longer.
Early last week, the Environmental Protection Agency finally announced a new proposed set of regulations on coal ash, the first time this by product is being nationally regulated. The main concern with this coal power plant after product lies in its contents of potentially hazardous contaminants, such as mercury, arsenic, and cadmium. Because the ash is commonly stored in liquid form, seepage of these heavy metals into groundwater has been a concern that the EPA is working to eliminate. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said, “The time has come for common-sense national protections to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash. We’re proposing strong steps to address the serious risk of groundwater contamination and threats to drinking water and we’re also putting in place stronger safeguards against structural failures of coal ash impoundments. The health and the environment of all communities must be protected.”
Despite its desire to control the waste material, the EPA has yet to decide on the final course to pursue, which are open to public comment for 90 days. The first option is drawn from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which would create an extensive program of federally enforceable requirements. The second option, drawn from another part of the RCRA, would create standards for the proper waste management and would be primarily enforced through civil lawsuits. The EPA has published a comparison of the two options for public review.
Fortunately, in order to keep from alienating support in industry, the EPA announced that it will leave the Bevill exemption in place under the new rules. This exemption allows different industries to recycle the ash into other useful products that do not present health hazards. The assistant administrator of the office overseeing the regulations, Mathy Stanislaus said, “EPA supports the legitimate beneficial use of coal combustion residuals. Environmentally sound beneficial uses of ash conserve resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lessen the need for waste disposal units, and provide significant domestic economic benefits. This proposal will clearly differentiate these uses from coal ash disposal and assure that safe beneficial uses are not restricted and in fact are encouraged.”
The long awaited rules are definitely a step in the right direction and fortunately the legitimate, beneficial uses of the waste material are preserved.
By Lehigh Ben, on April 27th, 2010
The tri-partisan climate bill was expected to be unveiled in Congress yesterday after months of work, debate, and re-work. However, due to mixed signals from the White House and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the bill has been postponed pending immigration reform. Members of Congress, including a co-writer of the bill, are infuriated by this delay and blame President Obama and Reid for side-stepping the pressing climate issue in order to win Latino votes in November’s midterm election. Sen. John Kerry, a major proponent of the climate bill, feels that the window of opportunity for this bill is closing and that action is needed soon. If passed, this bill will cut greenhouse emissions by 17% in 2020 compared to 2005 levels. Heavy polluters like the cement and steel industries can expect to see emissions caps by 2016.
|
|