Taking a step back, however, reveals an even broader but extremely pertinent issue.  On one hand the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is looking at toxic emissions and their effect on the world, and tightening the emissions standards accordingly.  On other hand the EPA is ignoring half of the issue.  As the Portland Cement Association (PCA) points out, the stringent standards issued by the EPA will greatly retard industrial and economic growth, with comparatively small recompense by way of reduced environmental impact (see PCA on impact of regulations).  It remains to be seen if the PCA and its supporters will carry their point in the future or if restrictions will continue become stronger.  In either case, it is companies like Titan Cement who will be affected, and often caught in the middle.

The main outrage rises from the fact that the project will be funded by tax-free bonds.  Since foreign cement is already and increasingly produced cheaper (largely due to lack of environmental emissions regulations), the subsidization of import costs will give foreign producers an edge in the business market where purchase decisions are generally based solely on price.  Though the project will create 200 temporary and 125 permanent jobs, it will mean the loss of more permanent jobs if one or more plants were to close as a result of decreased demand.  Representative Charlie Dent (R-Pa), in a letter to President Obama, said, “It is unbelievable that legislation billed as a job creator is providing the key financial backing for a project that will harm a crucial domestic industry and cause the net loss of hundreds of American jobs, largely for the benefit of a foreign competitor.”

Proponents of the project, such as Staten Island Borough President Jim Molinaro, argue that the pier project would create good paying local jobs for his constituents.  He says the project is just another in the rounds of state competition for jobs.  Also, Dent’s opponents in the upcoming midterm election doubt his motives for helping these companies.  Democrat John Callahan’s campaign manager said, “The reality is Charlie Dent did nothing to save these jobs, instead he waited until three weeks before an election to use these poor people and their jobs as a political football.”  Dent, however, was only recently informed by the threatened plants.

Regardless of politics, any project that hurts domestic industry is not helpful at a time when the economy is in such an oppressed state.  Hopefully lawmakers and city officials will re-evaluate this project and see if it is truly in the best interest of the American people.

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.

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.

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.

The growth in Indian demand is due to the plans of infrastructure improvement the local government has put in place. The Indian government plans to spend at least $1 trillion on infrastructure improvement between 2012 and 2017 in order economic growth and subsequent poverty reduction. FLSmidth already one contracts to install 9.45 million tons of cement capacity in 2009. This amount totaled to twenty-one percent of the global expansion outside of China. The 2009 performance in India stands in stark contrast to FLSmidth’s sales performance in other markets in recent years which saw the Danish giant fall to the number 2 slot behind Chinese competitor Sinoma in the global market outside China. India sales in 2009 allowed FLSmidth to regain the position of world’s largest kiln producer by a slim margin while the cement equipment market in the rest of the world remained relatively cool.

“FLSmidth contracted all new cement capacity in India during 2009 and can well be considered as the incumbent. It will be difficult to maintain that kind of track record going forward, but India will remain a key market and priority,” said Frederik Meinertsen, a Copenhagen analyst. Other analysts consider it a realistic notion that FLSmidth might again make a clean sweep in India in 2010. It now only remains to be seen how the Danish company fares against its rival Sinoma in the rest of the world as the global recovery slowly gains momentum.

Success came for the French company after it spent nearly 800 million Euros over the last five years to reduce its plants’ footprint.  This money was partially spent in the development of new products with higher levels of sustainability.  Their goal was to help reduce not only their footprint in production, but also of the buildings where their products were being used.  An example of one such product is Thermedia 0.6B which is the first in a line of structurally insulating products.  In addition to money spent, Lafarge has maintained strong ties with the Cement Sustainability Initiative in order to affect a broader change across the entire cement industry.

Despite the positive steps taken by Lafarge, many European-based heavy carbon emitters have come under criticism regarding their manipulation of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) set up by the European Union.  The system works on the principle that companies are granted carbon permits for their emissions which they can buy or sell depending on whether they meet or exceed their quota.  However, due to the economic recessions, the heavy CO₂ producers (energy, steel, and cement sectors) fell short of their forecasted quotas.  These companies now stand to make millions or billions of Euros from the sale of excess permits.  Lafarge alone had excess permits valued at 140 million Euros last year.  Critics are infuriated that these companies can get away with doing nothing to reduce their environmental impact, yet make millions of free money for it.  These critics want the ETS system to be re-evaluated and changed.

Whether Lafarge’s CO₂ reduction stems from actions taken by the company or simply from decreased demand is yet to be seen.  However, you cannot ignore the fact that less CO₂ is being released into the atmosphere from Lafarge plants.  No matter what the cause, the environment has come out ahead.

For now, only part of the exhaust is diverted to the test facility, where homegrown algae from sunlight and the nearby Thames River absorb the CO₂ and emit oxygen in return.  The algae are continually harvested and dried using the plant’s waste heat.  Pond Biofuels utilizes the harvested algae to create an alternative fuel for the plant to use in its kilns and to make a biofuel to be used in SMC’s trucking fleet.  This new process allows the CO₂ to be continuously recycled, vastly reducing the plant’s carbon footprint.  The two companies hope to be able to scale up the facility to accept a plant’s entire emissions.  SMC environmental manager Martin Vroegh said, “It’s a small model of what a big full-scale facility could be.”

The development of this algae process comes under the looming threat of carbon prices being set across the globe.  When these prices are introduced, even a moderate $30 per ton of CO₂ would mean that consumers can expect to see a fifteen percent jump in price at the register.  Concerning carbon pricing, Vroegh said, “The amount of exposure to carbon pricing we face as an industry is very high.  If we want to be around tomorrow we have to be sustainable. This project helps us achieve that” and “This is a made-in-Ontario solution to a global problem.”  The world, and especially the energy-intensive cement industry, will be watching as SMC and Pond Biofuels work to improve upon and expand their process.