BridgeGap Engineering Blog » Green

Mixed Feeling in the UK Over Alternative Fuels

Lehigh Ben — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:05:47 +0000

South Ferriby, North Lincolnshire, United Kingdom, was put on the radar of the cement industry as Cemex’s plant achieved production over a three day period using nothing but alternative fuels to fire the kilns. The fuel, known as Climafuel, is gathered locally from residential and commercial waste that would otherwise be sent to a landfill. In addition to the Climafuel, Cemex burns secondary liquid fuels (SLFs) that are made from industrial waste liquids such as paints, inks, and varnishes. The South Ferriby plant is believed to have set a new record in the UK in a country where 35% of all burned fuels are non-fossil fuel based; a notable achievement. Plant manager Philip Baynes-Clarke said, “I am immensely proud that this record has been set using a kiln that was commissioned in 1973. It proves that with the right team, skills and capital investment, plants like ours in South Ferriby can have a long and healthy shelf life…The use of alternative fuels at South Ferriby is key to improving the environmental performance of cement making…Our 100% record was set over a three day period in March, with the kiln remaining stable and producing good-quality cement clinker. The challenge is now to exceed our 90% weekly average record and use 100% over a more sustained period.”

Over the past year, the South Ferriby plant has burned more than thirty-six thousand tonnes of waste that would have ended up in a landfill. The reduction in emissions from this recycled waste is the equivalent of the emissions of eleven thousand automobiles.

However, not all plants in the UK are experiencing such success and acceptance with their local communities. Lafarge’s Aberthaw Works plant located in Southern Wales is finding environmental activists and local residents fighting its proposed plan to burn old tires and plastic in its kilns. Lafarge’s plan to utilize solid recovered fuels (SRFs) would save the plant approximately fifteen thousand five hundred tonnes of coal per year resulting in a reduction of twenty thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. Plant manage James Kirkpatrick said, “SRF has been used for over 10 years. End-of-life tyres have been used for around 30 years and increasingly so over recent years since landfilling of them became illegal in the UK. We are basing our plans on a safe and proven technology and are aiming to provide cost-effective solutions for local waste.”

Despite these reassuring words, resident Ron Lloyd, who lives adjacent to the plant, has expressed concern over the smell and storage of the tires. Lloyd said “alarm bells [are] ringing” and wants more information for Lafarge before they begin using the SRFs. Environmental activist Keith Stockdale is concerned over possible “chemical and industrial pollution” released by burning this waste. He would want strict government regulation on the plant were the proposal to be adopted. Lafarge has plans to send out four thousand letters to local residents as well as to hold two public exhibitions to inform the public about the ins and outs of the proposed process.

Holcim Makes Progress to Reduce CO2 Emissions

Lehigh Ben — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:14:05 +0000

On January 10, 2010, Holcim Vietnam signed a contract with a Chinese contractor to construct a heat recycling power plant at their Hon Chong Cement Plant. The contract, valued at US$9 million, will allow for the construction of 6.3MW plant that will use excess heat from the cement kilns to operate. China’s Sinoma Energy will equip the plant with another US$8.85 million of machinery. By project’s end, Holcim will have invested roughly US$18 million into this project.

The new plant is expected to output 44 million kWh per year, which is enough to save nine thousand tonnes of coal and reduce 25,000 tonnes of CO₂annually. The addition of the power plant will allow Holcim Vietnam to reach its emissions goals. Gerhard Schutz, Holcim Vietnam Director General, said, “The system to re-use of waste heat will help Holcim Group to reduce CO2 emissions by 25 per cent by the end of 2015 as the group has committed. As of 2010, Global Holcim is proud to have achieved 23 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions.”

China Unveils Kiln Fired with Solid Waste

Lehigh Ben — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:40:55 +0000

China’s Tongling Conch unveiled a new technology earlier this year that allows for the reduction of landfills while maintaining plant productiveness. The Tongling Conch Municipal Garbage Incineration Demonstration Project is under construction in the mountain village of Tongling in the Anhui province.

The project is the first municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration kiln in the world. The plant is planned to be built in two phases, with the first already completed. The completed section is already processing approximately 250 tons of garbage each day. The second phase will be able to handle roughly the same amount of garbage as the first. The MSW is initially sent into a pre-treatment plant that vaporizes it. The gases are pumped into a new type of rotary kiln for further burning while the un-burnt solids are used as additives in clinker material and raw materials.

Concerns have been raised over emissions of odors into the city’s atmosphere, but Tongling has provided a solution. They sealed the pre-treatment plant and use negative pressure to pump the combusted gases into the kiln. The project, costing approximately $36.3 million, has already allowed city officials to close the local landfill. Li Quanfeng, Tongling Cement’s general manager, said, “This is an effective energy conservation project that benefits the local residents immensely.”

With this new technology, China can face their problem of overcrowded landfills and subsequent environmental difficulties. The Chinese have once again shown their determination to lead the way in green expertise.

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.

Calera Receives Extensive DOE Grant

Lehigh Ben — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:58:47 +0000

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.

Roanoke Cement Continues the Earth Hour Trend

Lehigh Ben — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:35:41 +0000

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.

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.

MIT Entrepreneurship Award Given to Cement Start-up

Lehigh Ben — Fri, 21 May 2010 04:37:16 +0000

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.

Fly Ash Debate Continues

Lehigh Ben — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:12:11 +0000

Talks are still underway concerning government regulation of fly ash by-product. Members of the Portland Cement Association (PCA) are part of a coalition of various industries that are reviewing the legislation in attempts to find a universally satisfying proposal. The legislation is expected to take one of following three paths:

1) Classify the fly ash as hazardous except when it is reused beneficially;

2) Continue the current classification as solid waste, regardless of disposal or reuse (which would be subject to state regulation);

3) Continue the current system, but with recommendations to close all fly ash surface impoundments.

The heart of the issue comes down to whether federal bureaus (like the EPA) or state government will be in charge of regulating. Depending on the result, the cement industry may find it difficult to use recycled fly ash to make useful concrete products. The EPA hopes to release the proposal sometime by the end of the month, but it may be delayed through further talks.

Lafarge Testing Biomass Fuel

Lehigh Ben — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:15:20 +0000

As part of its aggressive emissions reduction goals, Lafarge’s plant in Bath, Ontario, Canada, began research and testing of new biomass fuels for its kiln in the middle of 2008. Lafarge partnered with Performance Plants, Inc. to develop a string of seeds that are heat and drought resistant and that can grow on otherwise unproductive farmland. The plants, mainly perennial grasses, were planted on twenty-five acres surrounding the plant and tended by local farmers. That ground, too mineral poor to sustain crops for human consumption, was ideal for Lafarge’s plan.

With the initial trial crops a success, Lafarge launched a multi-year life-cycle assessment despite Performance Plants Inc. being forced to withdraw from the project for financial reasons. The plant set aside 2500 acres for this new experiment in four different locations each with a separate soil compositions. This new trial is being conducted in conjunction with Ontario’s Queen’s University. According to Lafarge environmental and public affairs manager Robert Cumming, the trial’s purpose was “[To] try to confirm that we can get at least a 90 percent savings on CO2 by growing these crops. It would be a 100 percent savings if we could use tractors fired by biomass. We’re looking at carbon sequestration while root structures are being established in the first two years.” The harvest was a success with approximately nine-hundred fifty half ton bales being collected.

The next step in Lafarge’s biomass project is underway now. Machinery is being delivered to the plant in order to grind and shred the bales into a powdered material. This powder will then be pneumatically blown into the plant’s kiln along with the coal and petcoke. Tests scheduled for June will test the emissions of straight fossil fuel firings and of the biomass/fossil fuel mix. Lafarge plans to use between ten and thirty percent biomass in any given firing.

The final step for Lafarge is to help push the biomass concept to the industry. Not only does this process create agricultural jobs, but also reduces the need to transport in fossil fuels therefore further reducing truck emissions. Lafarge’s Ontario plant may have developed a viable option for biomass fuels which has benefits beyond the reduced emissions. Chalk one up for Lafarge’s green strategy.