Industry spokespersons [...]]]> 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.

In a time of economic stress, Cemex, [...]]]> 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.

Through an article on tonic [...]]]> BGE has been hitting the pavement hard in recent weeks serving our customers and exploring opportunities, as a result, the blog has fallen a bit too silent. We won’t let that become a habit (well, serving customers and exploring opportunities are habits we intend to keep). Nevertheless, interesting news has not rested!

Through an article on tonic today, we found a story on The Guardian about “Liquid Granite”, a so called carbon neutral cement substitute developed by Prof Pal Mangat of Sheffield Hallam University. As is normal, details are sketchy. Professor Mangat says only that Liquid Granite is made from an inorganic powder, 30-70% of which is recycled industrial waste materials. Using the same aggregates as normal concrete, it could be used anywhere cement is but with a fraction of the carbon footprint.

The same article points to an earlier story we have mentioned previously about a carbon negative cement developed by Novacem which, in theory, absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere at a greater fraction than is released during manufacture. The tonic article also mentions our favorite press release pixie dust company, Calera, who manages to stay in the news despite no real signs of a marketable product yet (and much scientific skepticism).

Finally (phew) Recycling Product News has a feature not cement specific, but about how much time and effort is being put into research for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) without considering what to do with all that stored CO2. Many companies are sprouting up around methods to turn captured CO2 into valuable products such as formic acid, algae biofuel, methanol, etc. All very real processes with very real commercial results.

BGE has the skills and knowledge required to integrate CCS and CO2 conversion technologies into cement production facilities. Contact us to discuss the possibilities. The future is now.

The first, a USGS study, found mercury contamination in every fish tested from 291 streams across the country and levels in more than two thirds of them were “a concern to fish eating mammals”. [...]]]> Two new studies released today will only serve to increase the public pressure on the EPA to regulate mercury emissions from cement kilns.

The first, a USGS study, found mercury contamination in every fish tested from 291 streams across the country and levels in more than two thirds of them were “a concern to fish eating mammals”. The study was conducted from 1998-2005 and represented bodies of water in undeveloped areas as well as those more directly influenced by industry. This alarming news has been called “irresponsible” and “deeply flawed” by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit coalition representing the food service industry.

Compounding this was another study released by Duke University describing how natural processes help turn industrial mercury into methylmercury, a far more toxic form of the element.

At BGE we don’t know if the methodology or the conclusions of the USGS study are flawed, but we do know that 600+ Google News items today will assure that the findings are put in front of the eyeballs of tens of millions of consumers who will increase the pressure on lawmakers, flawed conclusions or not. The cement industry needs to prepare itself for the reality of impeding mercury regulation, and it needs to do it now.