BridgeGap Engineering Blog » emissions

Lafarge Sets New CO2 Emission Goals

Lehigh Ben — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:56:21 +0000

Cement industry giant Lafarge announced on Thursday a set of new goals in order to continue its agenda of reducing CO₂ emissions. The goals are divided into two main areas: straight emissions reductions and a sustainable construction development.

In developing the first goal category, Lafarge worked within a framework developed in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund International (WWF). As such, Lafarge has announced its intention of reducing its CO₂ emissions by 33% by 2020 as compared to 1990 values. This comes on the heels of its success in reducing values by 20% by 2010. Not only did Lafarge meet this goal, but it was accomplished a year ahead of schedule and reductions totaled 21.7% at the close of 2010.

The second part of their goals will not help Lafarge comply with any regulations or standards, but is still vitally important to continued environmental improvement which Lafarge recognizes. Lafarge estimates that buildings account for 40% of global energy use. Lafarge hopes to mitigate this problem by launching at least ten new innovative construction products by 2015 along with contributing to five hundred energy-efficient construction projects globally.

Commenting on their recently set goals, Lafarge CEO Bruno Lafant said, “Lafarge has made the reduction of its CO₂ emissions a major objective, and has met its commitments. I am pleased with our partnership with WWF, which helps us to progress even faster. It is no longer a matter of just reducing the CO₂ emitted in the production of our materials, but also of developing construction solutions for buildings that consume less energy.”

Lehigh Cement Reduces Hg Emissions with Activated Carbon

Lehigh Ben — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:09:33 +0000

On June 3, the Lehigh Permanente Cement Company, located in Cupertino, California, announced the launch of a new system to reduce mercury emissions at the plant by ninety percent. The system utilizes a powdered activated carbon (PAC) injection system to capture the mercury and ultimately trap it in the resultant concrete. The move comes in anticipation of the 2013 effective date for recent Environmental Protection Agency’s legislation on mercury emissions. The new regulation limits companies to producing only fifty-five pounds of mercury for every one million pounds of clinker.

Lehigh Permanente is the first in California and one of the first in the nation to make use of such technology. Plant manager Henrik Wesseling said at a news conference, “We are the first cement plant in California using this progressive technology to proactively reduce our mercury emissions.” The plant also plans to install a continuous monitoring system in the fall to collect emissions data in real time.

Some people of Cupertino and the surrounding towns still question what else the plant may be emitting. Cupertino is gathering data and information and has a plan to hire an outside expert to analyze the results.

In response, Wesseling has said, “We take our responsibility to the community very seriously, and that’s why this project has been my top priority since my first day on the job in 2008. I’m proud of our 70-year history here in Cupertino, and we will continue to invest in our environmental performance at this facility.”

Beginning of an Era

Demosthenes — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:45:30 +0000

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.

CO2 Emissions Reductions Nullified

Lehigh Ben — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:03:44 +0000

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.

Emissions Cuts and Scare Tactics

Lehigh Ben — Sat, 29 May 2010 00:27:11 +0000

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.

Pac-Man of Exhaust Scrubbers: CO2-eating Algae

Lehigh Ben — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:04:11 +0000

One of the world’s most abundant organisms, algae, may be the solution to CO₂emissions for the cement industry. Two Ontario, Canada-based companies have developed a process in which carbon-eating algae is used to scrub exhaust gases of the greenhouse gas. St. Mary’s Cement (SMC), part of Votorantim, and Pond Biofuels have been working on the process for some time, and have finally constructed a small test facility at SMC’s facility west of Waterloo.

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 CO₂and 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 CO₂to 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 CO₂would 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.

Industry Improvement Strategies

Lehigh Ben — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:19:03 +0000

In September 2009, a group of agencies and industry representatives (including the Cement Energy and CO2 Reduction Group and the US DOE) convened for a two-day conference to discuss reducing the carbon footprint of the US cement industry. The cement industry provides tens of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly, so government agencies are seeking to work with the industry.

The industry only consumes about 1-2% of US industrial energy use, however as a result of the calcination process needed to produce cement clinker, it produces about 5% of CO₂ emissions. It comes down to the fact that for every ton of cement clinker produced, a ton of CO₂ is also released. The conference suggested several short term improvements as well as longer term improvements. A comprehensive report is expected to be released in the coming months.

Cement is the building block of the nation’s construction industry and it will remain vital to infrastructure development for the foreseeable future. Existing cement processing methods will need to be transformed in order to meet the Obama Administration’s ambitious U.S. climate goals. Concerted R&D efforts are required. We’ll continue to keep you updated on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Industrial Technologies Program and its cooperative efforts with established cement industry leaders, such as Lehigh Hanson, CalPortland, Lafarge, Cemex and the Portland Cement Association.

Cemex receives Energy Star recognition

Demosthenes — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:24:17 +0000

Control Engineering reports that Cemex has been awarded the Energy Star Partner of the Year award for a second time. Cemex has been an Energy Star partner since 2004, and in 2009 saved more than 1.1. million MMBTU on energy, cutting an equivalent of 107,500 metric tons of CO2 emissions.

In a time of economic stress, Cemex, arguably under more financial pressure than many cement producers, continues to pursue Energy Star not because of government mandates to reduce emissions, but because it makes business sense. Energy Star provides a disciplined framework for companies to use to pursue energy and emission reductions that improve the bottom line rather than just imposing additional costs. BridgeGap Engineering has the expertise to help cement companies follow the Energy Star path in improved financial performance. Call us for more information and to schedule a power audit.

Industry Spending to Total Over $3.5 Billion for Air Pollution Control

Lehigh Ben — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:21:10 +0000

During this year alone, the cement industry is expected to spend approximately $3.5 billion to help control atmospheric emissions. By 2015, spending is predicted to rise to nearly $5 billion annually. Each region of the world is facing different challenges and taking different steps in order to meet increasing emission standards.

In the United States, most of the money being spent is due to new air pollutant standards prepared to be issued June of this year. These new standards could force plants to install regenerative thermal oxidizers and selective catalytic reduction units (SCR) for hydrocarbon and NO_X emission control. These methods are much more capital intensive than the forerunner selective, non-catalytic approach (SNCR) which is widely used around the globe. The SCR has only been used in a handful of plants around the world. The Portland Cement Association predicts that the US will be importing 33% of its cement by 2020 because of new regulations, where it would only import 18% without them.

One of Asia’s main concerns during production is mercury emissions. Chinese cement and power plants currently emit two to five times more mercury per year than equivalent plants in the United States. The Chinese are investing heavily in reducing this global problem with new technology. Also, many of the former Soviet states are upgrading their electrostatic precipitators or replacing them completely with new baghouses. In fact, investments in fabric filters account for over fifty percent of the aforementioned global spending.

Europe is continually improving their technology and is steadily reducing the acid gas and NO_Xemissions. They accomplish this through widespread use of HCl removal systems. Europe has the highest concentration of these systems on their plants in the world, despite their small cement production on the global scale. Companies in Europe are also looking at installing new two-stage scrubber systems (stage one: HCl, stage two: SO₂) with the by-product of marketable, commercial-grade hydrochloric acid.

Regardless of where you stand on the climate debate, it is necessary to recognize the need of preserving the earth for posterity. This climate crisis has opened up a world of opportunity for progress and innovation!

Debate on Emission Regulations

Lehigh Ben — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:48:26 +0000

Members of the Portland Cement Association (PCA), lobbying on behalf of the cement industry as a whole, are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to not add new regulations limiting the amount of mercury and other pollutants emitted from cement plants. Their argument is based on the subsequent rise in production costs which would seriously hamper the government-funded stimulus projects, as construction companies would be forced to purchase cement from overseas producers.

The PCA hired the Southern Methodist University’s Maguire Energy Institute to conduct a study of the effects of the new regulations on the cement industry. The study concluded that over the next several years approximately fifteen thousand jobs would be lost if these regulations are put into effect. Also, the Institute judged that the number of jobs created by existing and soon to come stimulus packages would be decreased by forty percent. These figures agree with the EPA’s findings that cement industry employment would fall by eight percent under the new regulations.

Environmentalist groups claim that these arguments are just attempts to delay pollutant limits designated by the Clean Air Act. They focus their attention on Texas, the state home to the most cement kilns at twenty-two. One of their main concerns is about the mercury resulting from the use of limestone. In the atmosphere, the mercury quickly settles into water systems where fish and other marine life can absorb it. This is then transferred to humans upon consumption of the seafood. Environmentalists are seeking to reduce this exposure through the new pollution controls being considered by the EPA as requirements for the industry.

A compromise is what is truly needed in this situation. An agreement must be found that will allow continued job growth while also reducing the impact on the environment. The final ruling on the matter is set for June 30. Let us hope that the Obama administration can find a healthy balance between both sides of the argument.