Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (2016) 361e369

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Assessing the environmental and economic potential of Limestone

Calcined Clay Cement in Cuba

nchez Berriel a, A. Favier b, *, E. Rosa Domínguez a, I.R. Sa
S. Sa
nchez Machado a, U. Heierli c,
K. Scrivener b, F. Martirena Herna
ndez a, G. Habert d
a
Universidad Central de las Villas, Santa Clara, Cuba
b
Ecole Polytechnique F
ed

erale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
c
MSD Consulting, Bern, Switzerland
d
Chair of Sustainable Construction, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Cement is the most produced material around the world. Developing countries face a growth of popu-
Received 25 November 2015 lation involving an increasing need of infrastructures. Due to this situation, the cement industry needs to
Received in revised form find the best comprise between increasing the cement production and without increasing the negative
26 January 2016
environmental impact. A promising solution has been found in the use of supplementary cementitious
Accepted 23 February 2016
materials (SCM), these materials are used to replace clinker in cement because of their pozzolanic
Available online 5 March 2016
reactivity. In this paper, a method was developed to assess the details of the economic and environ-
mental potential of the specific Limestone Calcined Clays Cement LC3 technology in the Cuban context. A
Keywords:
Life cycle assessment
comparison with traditional Portland cement and the current commercial blended cement with zeolite
Cement (PPC) sold in Cuba was made. The results provide evidenced based data for the development of a strategy
Sustainability to adopt the LC3 technology by the Cuban market. This assessment method can then be easily extended
Emissions to markets in other developing countries.
Cost © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Worldwide demand for cement and concrete has increased
exponentially in the last twenty years which was a result of the
combination of strong ongoing trends such as the growth of pop-
ulation and the increased need for infrastructure and housing.
Consequentially, this demand has been fulfilled by the expansion of
cement plants, increasing the extraction of raw materials, increased
consumption of fossil energy and negative environmental impact.
The cement industry has faced significant pressure and made
efforts to improve its production efficiency (Ishak and Hashim,
2015) as well as its environmental impact (Kajaste and Hurme,
2016). Amongst the main improvements, the development of dry
calcination process instead of a wet one, and an increased use of
alternative fuels has drastically reduced the energy consumption
and associated CO2 emissions in cement production (Deja et al.,
2010; Feiz et al., 2015a, 2015b). However, these improvements in
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aurelie.favier.paris@gmail.com (A. Favier).
the production process were not sufficient to face the increasing
demand and at the same time achieve low CO2 emissions.
A promising solution has been found in the use of supplemen-
tary cementitious materials (SCM) (OECD/IEA and WBSCD, 2009;
Scrivener, 2014). These materials were used to replace clinker in
cement because of their pozzolanic reactivity. Their use was
intended to prevent the emissions that would have been created by
producing the equivalent quantity of clinker. SCMs were generally
industrial by-products or waste such as fly-ashes and slags.
Numerous studies have assessed the potential of these resources
which depend on their availability as well as their efficiency to
replace clinker (Scrivener, 2014; Damtoft et al., 2008). As an
example, slags can replace 70% of clinker but the available amount
of slag was only 5% of the amount of clinker produced which
therefore does not place slag as a global alternative for cement. Fly
ash was available in larger amounts but a large part was not suit-
able for cement production and its replacement as SCM in cement
was often limited to 30%. Faced with the limited availability of
traditional SCMs and/or their limited efficiency, alternative SCMs
should be studied. Clays which become reactive after calcination at
temperatures between 600 and 800
C have been used as SCM for a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.125
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
362
nchez Berriel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (2016) 361e369
S. Sa

long time. It was the Roman mortar that was made with lime and
calcined clay. Its development in the late 1970s in India and South
America has been important as clay deposits were abundant and
have a worldwide distribution. However, as fly ashes, their substi-
tution potential was limited to around 30%.
Recently, it has been shown that a coupled substitution of
limestone with calcined clay could significantly enhance most
properties. Limestone reacts with the alumina in the presence of
calcium hydroxide (Damidot et al., 2011; Lothenbach et al., 2008;
Matschei et al., 2007). This reaction was enhanced in the pres-
ence of extra alumina provided by the calcined clay. Carbo alumi-
nate hydrates were formed and filled the pore space which
increased the strength of the entire mortar as shown in equation
(1):
A(from calcined clay) þ Cc þ 3CH / C3A$Cc$H11
The potential of this ternary blend of limestone, calcined clay
and clinker which we call LC3 has been demonstrated by Antoni
et al. (2012) and recently with a large panel of clays by Avet et al.
(in press). These studies show that this blend gave good mechani-
cal performance with only 50% clinker content. Moreover, indus-
trial trials have been already carried out with success in Cuba
(Vizcaíno-Andre
s et al., 2015).
The Cuban economy was currently experiencing large structural
changes. The Cuban government has declared an expected annual
economic growth from 3 to 5% (Murillo, 2014). In this situation the
construction sector e which was strongly related with develop-
ment and the economy e was projected to grow. The Cuban Min-
istry of Construction was planning to reach a production of 3.5 Mt
of cement per year by 2019. Considering that current production
was under 2 Mt/year, the demand should increase around 15e18%
yearly to reach that amount in 2019. This was a gigantic challenge
considering that at the same time, CO2 emissions have to be
reduced in order to stay below the 2
C increase of global tem-
perature (Meinshausen et al., 2009).
In other industrial sectors and in country-specific studies, a
classic way to assess the balance between an increase in product
demand and technology improvement was to use the Holdren/
Ehrlich framework that was known as the I ¼ PAT equation, where I
represents impact (here the cement demand), P is the population
size, A is the affluence per capita and T is the effect of technology
(Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971). This equation has already been used to
determine the future of cement demand (Szabo
et al., 2003). In
Szabo
's study, cement production evolution was linked with eco-
nomic activity and the levels of industrialization and in-
frastructures development of the country. These parameters can be
expressed as an intensity of cement use that refers to the amount of
cement used per unit of GDP (kg/unit of GDP). Note that a Unit of
GDP was here adjusted to 1000 constant dollars (base year: 2000)
and expressed in term of Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) which
were the rates of currency conversion that eliminate the differences
in price levels between countries. The intensity of the use of cement
differs between countries according to economic growth (GDP) and
economic structure.
In this paper, a method was developed to assess the details of
the economic and environmental potential of the specific LC3
cement technology in the Cuban context. A comparison with
traditional Portland cement and the current commercial blended
cement with zeolite (PPC) sold in Cuba was made. The results
2. Assessment method
Two methodologies were used to assess Low Carbon Cement
(LC3) impacts:
 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Through a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), environmental evalua-
tion was done. It was a method for evaluating the environmental
load of processes and products during their life cycle, from cradle to
grave (“ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management e Life cycle
assessment e Principles and framework,” 2006). LCA has been
used in the building sector since 1990 (Fava, 2006) and was now a
widely used methodology (Cabeza et al., 2014; Feiz et al., 2015a,
2015b; Monahan and Powell, 2011; Zabalza Bribia
n et al., 2011).
(1) The LCA method was divided into 3 main stages (“ISO 14040:2006
Environmental management e Life cycle assessment e Principles
and framework,” 2006). First, the functional unit and the system
boundaries had to be defined (Section 2.1). Secondly, the inventory
phase covered the identification and the quantification of all input
and output from the considered system. Finally, once the Life Cycle
Inventory has been done, the environmental impact categories
have to be defined. These three stages were detailed in Section 2.3.
 Capital and Operational Expenditures analysis.
Concerning the economic impact assessment, the Capital and
Operational Expenditures analysis were performed. The same sys-
tem boundaries and functional units were used for both
calculations.
2.1. Choice of the functional unit
This study focused on the production and transport of the
cement constituents. The analysis did not include every stage of the
product's life cycle (cradle to grave) but ended at an intermediate
stage (cradle to gate) as shown in Fig. 1. This can be done when the
production, such as cement, which has multiple specific applica-
tions in civil engineering (beams, pillars, pavements, houses,
bridges, etc.) does not allow a unique life cycle to be defined. This
type of partial analysis was useful for the further construction of
complete life cycles for specific cement products on a larger scale.
The functional unit used in the study was 1 tonne of cement.
Three cements were compared:
(1) The standard Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). It was to be
noted that in Cuba it was made with 5% of Calcium Carbonate
(OPC)
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC)
Fuels extracƟon Limestone Gypsum
Raw materials
ClinkerizaƟon Grinding Packing
extracƟon
Pozzolanic Portland Cement (PPC)
Fuels extracƟon Zeolite Gypsum
Raw materials
ClinkerizaƟon Grinding Packing
extracƟon
Use Disposal
Low Carbon Cement (LC3)

provide evidenced based data to provide guidance on the strategic Fuels extracƟon Limestone Gypsum

position to be adopted for the LC3 technology on the Cuban market. Raw materials
extracƟon
ClinkerizaƟon Grinding Packing

This assessment method can then be easily extended to markets in Clay calcinaƟon
other developing countries such as India which has a fast growing
cement demand. Fig. 1. Production scheme for each cement.

nchez Berriel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (2016) 361e369
S. Sa
(2) The current blended cement sold on the island (PPC). It was
produced with 15% of Zeolitic tuff considered as a Natural
Pozzolan
(3) The new cement, called Limestone Calcined Clay Cement
(LC3) where 30% of Calcined Clay and 15% of Calcium Car-
bonate were introduced.
The first laboratory tests provided confidence in the fact that
similar compressive strength can be achieved with these 3 cements
(Antoni et al., 2012). Furthermore, the first industrial tests
confirmed the results (Vizcaíno-Andre
s et al., 2015). The choice of a
functional unit by mass of cement can be justified by the fact that
for non-structural application, the strength was the main param-
eter. Therefore the same amount of cement was used. Concerning
the durability, it had been shown recently that the results from the
tests were difficult to interpret with cement with such a high SCM
substitution. Carbonation might be very fast but might induce less
deleterious effect than in OPC based concrete (Antoni, 2013;
Morandeau et al., 2015). However, caution is required when
extrapolating these results by mass from cradle to gate to structural
application from cradle to grave.
The studied production system has been separated into five
main processes as shown in Fig. 1. The first one is the raw materials
extraction which included raw materials extraction and prepara-
tion in the quarry. The second one is the fuel extraction which
considers extraction and refinement of fuels used in all the process.
The third process is the transport of raw materials and fuels. The
next process is the clinkerization as well as the calcination of clays
for the LC3 case. This process was known to be the most important
process in terms of cost and environmental impact (Chen et al.,
2010). Finally, the grinding, packing and other processes were
gathered due to their low impact during the whole process of
cement production (Chen et al., 2010).
Finally, in the economic assessment, the operational expendi-
tures (OPEX) were determined along the productive chain until
cement was produced but capital expenditures (CAPEX) were
linked with the initial cement production process investments. In
order to have the same system, boundaries for both the environ-
mental and the economic assessment were included for all infra-
structure in the LCA calculation. The impact of the infrastructure
was similar to the CAPEX.
2.2. Data collection
In order to reduce the number of hypothesis in the type of
process used and the location of the quarries from the cement
plant, the data was organized at a technological level reflecting a
gradation in the investment.
1. The first level considered no investment (Pilot). The data used
for energy and material consumption were measured during the
first industrial trial (Vizcaíno-Andre
s et al., 2015). The clinkeri-
zation as well as the clay calcination were carried out at existing
facilities. It was therefore probably an inefficient and not opti-
mized production process.
2. The second technological level considered a low investment
allowing the retrofitting of wet cement kiln into a clay calciner
(Industrial). The clinker was produced by a more efficient
technology. This was a suitable option for cement plants having
an idle wet-process clinker kiln, where sources of efficiently
produced clinker were available. The wet-process kiln could be
set in production by converting it into a clay calciner, as a low
CAPEX alternative to produce calcined clay.
3. The third technological level considered massive investment in
Best Available Technology (BAT), with state of the art
363
equipment for both the calcined clay and the clinker produc-
tion. Clay would then be calcined through a flash calciner and
clinker would be produced by a dry process with preheater and
precalciner.
The detail of the three levels of technology are presented in
Table 1.
Once these technological packages were established, the
necessary data was collected. A distinction between background
data and foreground data was defined.
The background data came from different sources: a) The
cement Sustainability initiative (WBCSD World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, Cement Sustainability Initiative, 2013)
and the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC, 2015)
for emission factors and heating values of different types of fuels;
and b) some processes linked with extraction of raw material and
fuels, transport and electricity were modelled using Ecoinvent
(Frischknecht et al., 2007) database and adapted when necessary to
the Cuban conditions. Among them the electricity mix was adapted
to follow the Cuban statistics of electricity consumption, the fuel
used for trucks and trains is adapted due to the very bad efficiency
and age of the current stock of Cuban transport infrastructure.
Furthermore, crude oil is often used in some industrial process in
Cuba as it is currently provided at a very low price by Venezuela.
Preliminary data was collected from Siguaney factory which has
been selected by the Cuban Cement industry to introduce LC3
production. The main data was related to consumption indexes,
distances to raw materials, technology type, transport means and
extraction processes. All this data has been collected in close
collaboration with the Cuban cement industry and the Cuban
Geological Survey. Table 2 shows a summary of input data collected.
Despite the fact that finding economic data for investment in
cement sector was a challenge, the authors were able to gather some
information on CAPEX using different sources as shown in Table 3.
In this study, it was assumed that the production capacity for
retrofitted calciners was about 350 kt/y (kiloton per year). CAPEX
was 12mil USD (Technology papers from ECRA). For the flash
calciner, the production capacity came from San-Nicolas (San
Nicolas, 2011) and was about 80 kt/y. CAPEX in the case of Argeco
(Argeco, n.d.) company was 6.08 mil EUR, which was ~6.68 mil USD
(considering 1.3 USD/EUR). However, the data from the company
FLSmidth was for CAPEX about 24 thousand USD and 300 kt/y for
production capacity. For the same production capacity, investment
required for a flash calciner was identical. Clinker kiln investment
cost according to (Alsop, 2014) was nearly 135.9 thousand USD for a
capacity of 750 kt/y.
These figures applied specifically to Cuba where unused cement
plant infrastructure can be retrofitted at a low cost to increase the
production. In a different context, the implementation of a calcined
clay production line might require additional equipment than a
calciner. For instance additional new grinding facility or storage
equipment can be required. However, it seemed clear that even if
prices and technology fluctuate, the construction and installation of
a clinker kiln (þpreheater, precalciner as well cooling facilities) will
always be more expensive than a clay calciner. Alsop (2014) pro-
posed a difference between 50 mil USD for a clinker kiln compared
to 10 mil USD for a clay calciner (Alsop, 2014).
2.3. Impact assessment
Many environmental studies have detailed the impacts of the
different processes involved in cement production process (Boesch
and Hellweg, 2010; Chen et al., 2010; Josa et al., 2007, 2004;
Valderrama et al., 2012). In this study, the only impact category that
was shown was the Global Warming Potential for one hundred years
364
nchez Berriel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (2016) 361e369
S. Sa

Table 1
Details for input data in different technologies for Cuban cement industry.

Indicators Pilot level Industrial level BAT level

Kaolinite clay distance (km) 150 60e150 <100

Type of fuel Cuban crude oil Pet-coke þ Cuban crude oil Gas þ waste
Clinker technology Wet rotatory kiln 4 stage pre-heater þ pre-calciner 6 stage pre-heater þ pre-calciner
Clay calcining technology Wet rotatory kiln Retrofitted calciner Optimized flash calciner

Table 2
Foreground data per tonne of cement.

Materials Unit Pilot level Industrial level BAT level

3 3
OPC PPC LC OPC PPC LC OPC PPC LC3

Raw materials
Limestone, crushed, for mill kg 841 459 717 1056 900 459 1056 900 459
Clay kg 117 64 100 318 271 64 318 271 64
Iron kg 45 25 38 28 24 25 28 24 25
Kaolinite clay kg 390 390 390
Clinker from Cienfuegos kg 197 165 106
Additions
Gypsum kg 62 50 70 62 50 70 62 50 70
Zeolite kg 200 200 200
Limestone kg 44 150 44 150 44 150
Energy for clinkerization
Crude oil kg 167 143 91
Pet coke kg 101 86 55
Gas kg 20 17 11
Waste oil kg 53 45 29
Electricity kWh 70 60 38 80 68 44 23 19 13
Energy for clay calcination
Crude oil kg 31 23
Gas kg 5
Waste oil kg 14
Electricity kWh 20 16 5
Grinding þ packing þ other
Electricity kWh 51 51 31 52 51 24 31 31 15

period of time projection (GWP100) expressed in kg CO2 equivalent
and calculated by the IPCC2013 methodology (IPCC, 2008, 2015). This
reduction can be justified due to different reasons. The first one was
that the main impact of concrete industry was CO2 emission caused
by both the fuel combustion and the limestone decarbonation in the
clinker kiln (Damtoft et al., 2008; Habert et al., 2010; Steenberg et al.,
2011). It was therefore the first priority. Secondly, the assessment of
this new technology was sensitive to a large number of parameters.
Considering that no detailed database was available in Cuba and that
no large scale measurements have been carried out on this LC3
technology on an optimized production process, it was difficult to
look for the large number of background and foreground data
required for the other impact categories. Actually, it has been recently
shown that the Global Warming Potential (GWP) was much less
sensitive than the other impact categories due to reduced number of
flow quantified (Lasvaux et al., 2014) as well as to the accuracy of the
measurement (Chen et al., 2010; Gomes et al., 2013). The cost was
calculated in US dollars (USD).
2.4. Sensitivity analysis
To evaluate the effect of the different parameters and the
robustness of the results, a sensitivity analysis on some specific
parameters has been carried out. The parameters assessed were the
type of technology for the clinker and the calcined clay, the type of
fuels and the distance of transportation for raw materials. For each
parameter, emissions have been calculated when the parameter
was set to its extreme value while other parameters were main-
tained constant and equal to their Pilot case values. Results are
presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
3. Results
3.1. Environmental and monetary costs for the BAT
In cement production, as in any other industrial process, there
was a need of considering the contribution of infrastructure as well
as the operation phase. In LCA, the importance of infrastructure has
been evidenced long time ago (Althaus et al., 2004). Economically,
this aspect was carried by the consideration of OPEX and CAPEX.
The comparison between environmental and monetary costs of
cement production considering both production and operational
costs could describe the environmental and economic impact in
two phases of the lifetime of a cement plant: construction and
setting into operation and day to day operation. Fig. 2 presents

Table 3
CAPEX and production capacity by type of technology.

Technology CAPEX (MUSD) Production capacity (t/year) References

Retrofitted calciner 12 350,000 (ECRA, 2009)

Flash calciner 71/242 80,0001/300,0002 1
(San Nicolas, 2011) and 2(FLSmidth, n.d.)
Clinker kiln 136 750,000 (Alsop, 2014)

nchez Berriel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (2016) 361e369
S. Sa 365

results obtained when the best available level of technology was

used.
From an environmental point of view nearly all impacts came
from the operation phase (the production of cement) and not the
initial construction of the infrastructure (the cement plant). How-
ever, from the point of view of actual cost, the figure was
completely reversed and it was indeed the initial construction of
the cement plant (CAPEX) which represented the major costs for
the production of one ton of cement and not so much the operation
costs for the fuel and raw materials (OPEX).
Furthermore, for both the OPC and the LC3, environmental and
monetary costs came mainly from the clinkerization phase. LC3
outperforms OPC in all phases.

3.2. Comparison of LC3 with other products in Cuban case

A detailed analysis of the improvement potential of LC3 pro-
duction in energy use in the pilot case is presented in Fig. 3. Results
show that the best improvement, in comparison with OPC pro-
duction, is observed in clinkerization and fuels extraction pro-
cesses. An increase in energy consumption related to transport and
raw materials extraction is also observed, because the amount of
raw materials to transport is higher. However, this increase in
environmental impact (because of the increase in the use of raw
materials) is clearly negligible when it is compared with cost sav-
ings achieved by the other processes.
The high reduction reported in energy consumption can be
observed comparing clinkerization and calcination process. In
Cuban conditions, clinker production in a wet kiln or a dry kiln with
preheater and pre-calciner requires respectively 7530 and 4185 MJ/
t. Clay calcination can be done in a retrofitted kiln or a flash calciner
requiring respectively 3235 and 2775 MJ/t (data from FLSmidth,
n.d.). Note that a high potential of reduction still remains by
substituting Cuban crude oil by renewable fuels, but this was highly
dependent on the political evolution of Cuba as well as Venezuela
which provides crude oil at a very low price.
Energy consumption from fossil fuels was associated with CO2
emissions. The use of carbon-based fuels for heating in the clin-
kerization phase was responsible of 0.39 t of CO2 for every ton of
cement produced (Habert et al., 2010). To mitigate that, the cement
industry was moving towards the use of alternative fuels to reduce
environmental pollution.
The comparison of the environmental impact for OPC, blended
cement PPC and LC3 for the three different technical levels: Pilot,
Industrial and BAT e are shown in Fig. 4. It is interesting to note that
Fig. 3. Improvement potentials with LC3 production in energy use per process in Pilot
case.
whatever the technological level, the LC3 cement always produces
around 30% savings. Furthermore, it is noticed that the worse LC3
cement made in the pilot industrial trial is better than the best OPC
that can be produced with the BAT. Major emission reductions were
related to energy savings and clinker substitution, although there is
reported a significant decrease in electricity consumption during
grinding process due to LC3 softness in comparison with OPC.
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
3.3.1. Environmental impact sensitivity
Sensitivity of GHG emissions savings for the LC3 production was
evaluated depending on the level of technology, the fuel and the
transport type. Results are shown in the percentages saved
compared to the OPC and PPC in Table 4. The technology changes
induce variations from 6 to 10% depending on the type of fuel used.
The changes in fuel types do not provide great changes in GWP
except when a flash calciner was used for LC3 and a
preheater þ precalciner kiln was used for clinker production
(BBAT). In this specific context, the use of gas and waste as sec-
ondary fuels drastically increased the efficiency of the clinker kiln
while the flash calciner technology cannot use secondary fuels.
These fuels can actually only be used when the combustion tem-
perature (~1000
C) was enough high that a perfect combustion of
all organic matter will be achieved. Otherwise, an incomplete
combustion indeed leads to potential release of dioxins in the

Fig. 2. Comparison between environmental and monetary cost LC3 vs. OPC (BAT scenario) (processes included in dashed box are part of the production and the other one is related
to infrastructure required for the production).
366
nchez Berriel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (2016) 361e369
S. Sa

Fig. 4. Relative Global Warming Potential impact of cement production in Cuba. All scenarios.

exhaust gas (Conesa et al., 2008; Ka €a

€ntee et al., 2004; Schneider technology. For instance using the BAT technology for clinker
et al., 2011; Wirthwein and Emberger, 2010). Similar results were production as well as clay calcination (BBAT) can induce a higher
found when the comparison of LC3 was made over OPC or PPC. The production cost for LC3 when secondary fuels were used in the
savings compared to OPC were around 35% while the savings clinkerization process. In this case a combination of waste oil (70%)
compared to PPC were around 25%. and gas (30%) with a price of 15USD/GJ for the gas and no costs for
The availability of a suitable clay source was also a key aspect in waste has been assumed. It should be noted that in certain coun-
the LC3 production process. Geological surveys have already shown tries waste can even have a negative costs for cement plant when
potential good clay deposits in Cuba but the environmental and they were permitted to use highly hazardous waste (Animal meal
economic performance of these clay deposits has still to be for instance) in the kilns.
measured. Fig. 5 shows the results of the sensitivity of raw mate-
rials transport of LC3 compared to the current OPC production costs
3.4. Projection for production capacity
in Cuba. When the clays are transported by truck over 350 km the
economic benefits of LC3 against OPC are less. However, if the size
Different studies reviewed demonstrate that this cement in-
of the Cuban island (1200 km long) was considered, and the fact
tensity follows an inverted U-shape curve (Lafarge, 2014, 2006;
that three cement plants a available by 2020 (one in the North, one
Scheubel and Nachtwey, 1997; Szabo
et al., 2006, 2003; Van
in the middle and one in the South), it was clear that this distance
Vuuren et al., 1999). Intensity of cement demand will then
would be the absolute maximum distance, thus most probably clay
decline in developed countries and increase in many developing
will come from around 100 km from the cement plant. As a result,
countries (Taylor et al., 2006). In Western Europe OECD countries,
at this distance the environmental impact is minimized. Equally if
the intensity of cement use was currently estimated at 21 kg of
raw material transport was done by train, its contribution to the
cement per unit of GDP (1000 USD, PPP 2000) and will be around
overall negative environmental impact of LC3 was also negligible.
17 kg of cement per unit of GDP at the 2050 horizon (Taylor et al.,
2006). To give a comparison, the intensity of cement demand in
3.3.2. Monetary costs sensitivity China was today around 131 kg of cement by unit of GDP (1000
Concerning the economic feasibility of the LC3 production a USD, PPP 2000) and was expected to be reduced to match the in-
similar sensitivity analysis as the environmental one was carried tensity of Western European countries by the 2050.
out. Cost savings referred to OPC and PPC are presented in Table 4 as
well as in Fig. 6. The sensitivity to fuel and technology shows a
different pattern than the environmental sensitivity analysis.
Actually, variation in term of production costs is higher than for
GWP when differences in technology were considered. It varies
from 10% to 30% depending on the technology and the type of fuel
used. Furthermore for the same technology, changing type of fuel
can also be quite deleterious for the implementation of LC3

Table 4
Economic impact sensitivity to fuels and technology.

GWP savings comparing PPC-LC3 (%) GWP savings comparing OPC-LC3 (%)

Fuels/techno Wet Dry BAT BBAT Fuels/techno Wet Dry BAT BBAT

Crude 26% 24% 24% 34% Crude 36% 35% 35% 42%
Petcoke 24% 25% 23% 33% Petcoke 36% 36% 32% 40%
Gas þ waste 26% 26% 25% 20% Gas þ waste 37% 36% 33% 27%
Fig. 5. GWP comparison per transported tonne of cement.

nchez Berriel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (2016) 361e369
S. Sa
Fig. 6. Comparison depending on transport distance and costs of alternative materials.
In low and medium economy countries, another strong driving
factor linked to economic growth for cement demand was the fast
growing population. Humphreys and Mahasenan (2001) observed a
remarkably consistency across all regions, that showed cement
demand was strongly proportional to the GDP at lower income
levels, while at higher income levels, it was more proportional to
the population.
According to these parameters, the Cuban government con-
siders that cement production will reach 3.5 Mt per year in 2019.
Considering that current production was under 2 Mt/year, demand
should then increase at around 15e18% yearly. Finally, considering
long term cement demand, one can estimate a peak at around
8e10 Mt/year happening in the next 10e20 years. Cuba reported to
FICEM in 2013 a per capita consumption of 122 kg of cement, lower
than the region average 301 kg/cap.
To face the very fast increase in demand for cement, the
Cuban cement sector is planning to open a modernized factory by
2019 in Santiago de Cuba increasing clinker capacity over 4 Mt/
year. However, a further increase from 4 to 8 Mt/year of the
production capacity is required over the next 20 years. In Fig. 7,
we represent the consequence of this increase in production
capacity for three different scenarios. So we consider a demand
of 3.5 Mt for 2020 (short term) and a demand of 6.5 Mt for 2030
(mid term)
Scenario 1: Business as Usual scenario (BAT_OPC).
In this scenario the demand was fulfilled through the invest-
ment in new cement kiln and the same share of OPC vs. blended
cement (PPC) as currently (i.e. 75% OPC, 25% PPC). It induces the
investment in a new clinker kiln in 2020 and four new clinker
kilns in 2030. If the development of LC3 was strongly supported
Fig. 7. Cumulative CAPEX to reach 6.5 Mt per year capacity OPC vs. LC3 in 2030.
367
by the government, two investment scenarios can be
considered:
Scenario 2: A Low investment LC3 scenario (Retrofit_LC3).
The demand was met through an intense retrofitting of all old
wet clinker kiln into clay calciner. One retrofitted kiln was
required to support the demand in 2020. Three kilns should be
retrofitted by 2030 which will provide sufficient capacity to
satisfy the anticipated demand when it was combined 3 new
cement kilns (BAT).
Scenario 3: A high investment LC3 scenario (BAT_LC3).
The 2020 demand was met through installing one flash calciner.
By 2030, the demand was met using three clinker kilns (BAT)
and three flash calciners. Results from an investment point of
view were shown in Fig. 7. The cumulative CAPEX was the
lowest for the retrofit scenario while it was the highest for the
BAT_OPC scenario (Fig. 7).
In Fig. 7, it is observed that there is no big difference between
retrofitted and flash calcination technology due to the parallel need
for clinker kilns. However, flash calcination technology costs twice as
much as a retrofitted one, thus leaving to the conclusion that for LC3
production retrofitted kilns are the cheapest investment choice and
still allow the required cement production capacity to be achieved.
Following the introduction of the LC3 technology (scenarios 2
and 3) in 2020, it is clearly noticed (Fig. 8) a reduction in CO2
production. Because of the massive cement production in 2030
(6.5 Mt), this effect decreases or disappears in the case of scenario 3
(Retrofit-LC3). Indeed, in the case of retrofit furnaces, the optimi-
zation of this technology is limited. CO2 production is then
controlled by the OPC production and undergoes the same increase
for scenario 1.
Fig. 8. CO2 production to reach 6.5 Mt per year capacity OPC vs. LC3 in 2030.
368
nchez Berriel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (2016) 361e369
S. Sa
4. Discussion
The assessment that has been done in this study seemed to
show that promoting the use of LC3 in Cuba is a long term efficient
strategy from an environmental as well as from an economic point
of view. However the robustness of these assessments in a country
that was facing currently rapid economic and political changes, as
well as for a technology that was still under development, was a
challenging exercise. As a consequence, our study included a
sensitivity analysis where different types of technology as well as
alternative fuel types have been tested.
The results show a remarkable robustness of results from the
environmental point of view. It shows that LC3 technology, if
implemented in Cuba will definitively provide an environmental
advantage compared to the OPC as well as the available blended
cement produced on the island (PPC). The only case where the
benefits were reduced was when new fuels were introduced in
Cuba especially if the cement industry can use secondary fuels.
These type of fuel were massively used in Europe and they were
responsible of the improvement made in European cement in-
dustry between 1990 and 2000 (Habert et al., 2010).
However, these changes will probably not take place very fast in
Cuba. It requires, besides the changes in the burning process of kiln,
the addition of new filters on the exhaust gas (not taken into ac-
count in our cost calculation) and a very good management of in-
dustrial waste in the country to provide a regular and reliable
source of waste/secondary fuels. It is the limiting factor for the
implementation of such fuels in developing countries. Further-
more, in Cuba, the size of the country and its island geographic
character limit the amount of waste generated. We can therefore be
confident that LC3 has a clear environmental leverage, even if it
shows that in some other countries where secondary fuels would
be a potential energy source for cement plant, the LC3 technology
would be less interesting.
From an economic perspective, the sensitivity analysis showed a
different pattern and a much higher sensitivity to variation of
technology and fuel type. However, as for the environmental anal-
ysis, the main threshold was passed when secondary fuel was used
which has low chance to be implemented in the next 20 years. The
cost analysis showed also a smaller difference in comparison with
PPC. However, the further study that focused not only on the pro-
duction of 1 kg of cement but on the production capacity of Cuba
showed that the LC3 strategy had the potential to increase much
more the production capacity at a reduced level of financial invest-
ment. The main limiting cost aspect seemed to be the transport
distance of the clay to the cement plant. 150 km e by trucks-nearly
put the production price of LC3 at the level of the one from OPC.
It seemed therefore absolutely crucial to implement the LC3
technology in places where a clay deposit was available at less than
100 km and in countries where the possibilities for the cement
industry to massively use secondary fuel was limited.
Finally more detailed research needs to be done in the area of
investment costs. The study shows the predominant contribution
of investment costs (CAPEX) compared to operation costs (OPEX) in
the production of cement. It was known however, that alternatives
to cement cannot be only thought in terms of availability of cheap
material or the use of a cheap technology with low fuel require-
ment. Investment costs need to be included. For the specific case of
our study, the good contact with the Cuban cement industry allows
us to be confident in the CAPEX costs shown in this study. However,
in other context this data has to be used with great caution as the
local situation might be different, from an economic and political
point of view, but also from the availability of existing infrastruc-
ture. It can be concluded that the installation of a complete pro-
duction line, which would involve a mixing step, a calciner and its
cooling process as well as the grinder and the construction of extra
silos for storage and mixing, would considerably increase the in-
vestment price for the LC3 technology. Savings from an OPC strat-
egy would still be achieved but the difference would be smaller.
5. Conclusion
This study has assessed, from both an economic and environ-
mental point of view, three cements that can be produced in Cuba.
Our study showed that the LC3 technology, which involve the
combination of 50% of clinker, 15% of unburned limestone and 30%
of calcined clay (and 5% Gypsum), was an energy and cost efficient
technology. Savings in term of greenhouse gas emissions as well as
production and investment costs were significant.
The presented results take into account a number of variables
and are robust. LC3 had therefore great potential to provide a viable
opportunity to meet an increase in cement demand with low CO2
released and low dollar investment.
This study also shows that it can be transferred to other coun-
tries as long as transport distance from the clay deposit to the
cement plant was limited to around 100 km (by truck) and that the
availability of an abundant and reliable source of alternative fuel
cannot be provided for the production of clinker.
Acknowledgement
The Swiss Development and Cooperation Agency (Project n
:
7F08527) and the Cuban Government are thanked for funding the
project of Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3).
References
Alsop, P.A., 2014. The Cement Plant Operations Handbook: for Dry-Process Plants.
Althaus, H.-J., Kellenberger, D., Doka, G., Künniger, T., 2004. Manufacturing and
disposal of building materials and inventorying infrastructure in ecoinvent. Int.
J. Life Cycle Assess. 10, 35e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.11.181.4, 8 pp.
Antoni, Mathieu, 2013. Investigation of Cement Substitution by Blends of Calcined
Clays and Limestone. http://dx.doi.org/10.5075/epfl-thesis-6001.
Antoni, M., Rossen, J., Martirena, F., Scrivener, K., 2012. Cement substitution by a
combination of metakaolin and limestone. Cem. Concr. Res. 42, 1579e1589.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.09.006.
Argeco, n.d. Personal communication.
Avet, F., Snellings, R., Alujas, A., Scrivener, K., 2015. Development of a new rapid,
relevant and reliable (R3) test method to evaluate the pozzolanic reactivity of
calcined clays. Cem. Concr. Res. (in press).
Boesch, M.E., Hellweg, S., 2010. Identifying improvement potentials in cement
production with life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 9143e9149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es100771k.

n, L., Vilarin
Cabeza, L.F., Rinco ~ o, V., Pe

rez, G., Castell, A., 2014. Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector:
a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 394e416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2013.08.037.
Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A., 2010. Environmental impact of cement
production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability
evaluation. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 478e485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2009.12.014.
Conesa, J.A., G
alvez, A., Mateos, F., Martín-Gullo
n, I., Font, R., 2008. Organic and
inorganic pollutants from cement kiln stack feeding alternative fuels. J. Hazard.
Mater. 158, 585e592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.01.116.
Damidot, D., Lothenbach, B., Herfort, D., Glasser, F.P., 2011. Thermodynamics and
cement science. Cem. Concr. Res. 41, 679e695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2011.03.018.
Damtoft, J.S., Lukasik, J., Herfort, D., Sorrentino, D., Gartner, E.M., 2008. Sustainable
development and climate change initiatives. Cem. Concr. Res. 38, 115e127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.09.008. Special Issue d the 12th
International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement. Montreal, Canada, July
8e13 2007.
Deja, J., Uliasz-Bochenczyk, A., Mokrzycki, E., 2010. CO2 emissions from Polish
cement industry. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 4, 583e588. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.02.002.
ECRA, 2009. ECRA__Technical_Report_CCS_Phase_II [WWW Document]. http://
www.ecra-online.org/fileadmin/redaktion/files/pdf/ECRA__Technical_Report_
CCS_Phase_II.pdf (accessed 10.20.15.).
Ehrlich, P.R., Holdren, J.P., 1971. Impact of population growth. Sci. New Ser. 171,
1212e1217.

nchez Berriel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (2016) 361e369
S. Sa
Fava, J.A., 2006. Will the next 10 years be as productive in advancing life cycle
approaches as the last 15 years? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 6e8. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.003.
Feiz, R., Ammenberg, J., Baas, L., Eklund, M., Helgstrand, A., Marshall, R., 2015a.
Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part I: utilizing life-cycle assess-
ment and key performance indicators to assess development within the cement
industry. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 272e281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.01.083.
Feiz, R., Ammenberg, J., Baas, L., Eklund, M., Helgstrand, A., Marshall, R., 2015b.
Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part II: framework for assessing CO2
improvement measures in the cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 282e291.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.103. Special Volume: Support your
future today! Turn environmental challenges into opportunities.
FLSmidth, n.d. Personal communication.
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.J., Bauer, C., Doka, G., Dones, R.,
Hischier, R., Hellweg, S., Humbert, S., Ko € llner, T., 2007. Implementation of Life
Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Ecoinvent Rep.
Gomes, F., Brie re, R., Feraille, A., Habert, G., Lasvaux, S., Tessier, C., 2013. Adaptation
of environmental data to national and sectorial context: application for rein-
forcing steel sold on the French market. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 926e938.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0558-4.
Habert, G., Billard, C., Rossi, P., Chen, C., Roussel, N., 2010. Cement production
technology improvement compared to factor 4 objectives. Cem. Concr. Res. 40,
820e826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.09.031.
Humphreys, K.K., Mahasenan, N., 2001. Towards a Sustainable Cement Industry:
Substudy 8. Technical report.
IPCC, 2015. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
IPCC, 2008. Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Geneve.
Ishak, S.A., Hashim, H., 2015. Low carbon measures for cement plant e a review.
J. Clean. Prod. 103, 260e274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.003.
ISO 14040:2006, 2006. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e
Principles and Framework.
Josa, A., Aguado, A., Cardim, A., Byars, E., 2007. Comparative analysis of the life cycle
impact assessment of available cement inventories in the EU. Cem. Concr. Res.
37, 781e788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.02.004.
Josa, A., Aguado, A., Heino, A., Byars, E., Cardim, A., 2004. Comparative analysis of
available life cycle inventories of cement in the EU. Cem. Concr. Res. 34,
1313e1320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.12.020.
Ka€a
€ntee, U., Zevenhoven, R., Backman, R., Hupa, M., 2004. Cement manufacturing
using alternative fuels and the advantages of process modelling. Fuel Process.
Technol. 85, 293e301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(03)00203-0.
Kajaste, R., Hurme, M., 2016. Cement industry greenhouse gas emissions e man-
agement options and abatement cost. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (Part 5), 4041e4052.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.055.
Lafarge, 2014. Sustainability Report.
Lafarge, 2006. Sustainability Report.
Lasvaux, S., Schiopu, N., Habert, G., Chevalier, J., Peuportier, B., 2014. Influence of
simplification of life cycle inventories on the accuracy of impact assessment:
application to construction products. J. Clean. Prod. 79, 142e151. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.003.
Lothenbach, B., Le Saout, G., Gallucci, E., Scrivener, K., 2008. Influence of limestone
on the hydration of Portland cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 38, 848e860. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.01.002.
Matschei, T., Lothenbach, B., Glasser, F.P., 2007. The role of calcium carbonate in
cement hydration. Cem. Concr. Res. 37, 551e558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2006.10.013.
369
Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S.C.B., Frieler, K., Knutti, R.,
Frame, D.J., Allen, M.R., 2009. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting
global warming to 2
C. Nature 458, 1158e1162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature08017.
Monahan, J., Powell, J.C., 2011. An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
methods of construction in housing: a case study using a lifecycle assessment
framework. Energy Build. 43, 179e188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2010.09.005.
Morandeau, A., Thie
ry, M., Dangla, P., 2015. Impact of accelerated carbonation on
OPC cement paste blended with fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 67, 226e236. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.10.003.
Murillo, M., 2014. Discurso sobre nueva ley de inversion extranjera en la primera
sesion extraordinaria de la VIII legislatura de la Asamblea Nacional.
OECD/IEA, WBSCD, 2009. Cement Roadmap.
San Nicolas, R., 2011. Performance-based Approach for Concrete Containing Meta-
kaolin Obtained by Flash Calcination (Theses). Universite
Paul Sabatier e Tou-
louse III.
Scheubel, B., Nachtwey, W., 1997. Development of Cement Technology and its In-
fluence on the Refractory Kiln Lining. Presented at the Refra Kolloquium, Berlin.
Schneider, M., Romer, M., Tschudin, M., Bolio, H., 2011. Sustainable cement pro-
ductiondpresent and future. Cem. Concr. Res. 41, 642e650. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.019.
Scrivener, K., 2014. Options for the future of cement. Indian Concr. J. 88 (7).
Steenberg, M., Herfort, D., Poulsen, S.L., Skibsted, J., Damtoft, J.S., 2011. Composite
cement based on Portland cement clinker, limestone and calcined clay. In: XIII
Int. Congr. Chem. Cem., p. 97.
Szabo
, L., Hidalgo, I., Ciscar, J.C., Soria, A., 2006. CO2 emission trading within the
European Union and annex B countries: the cement industry case. Energy
Policy 34, 72e87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.06.003.
Szabo
, L., Hidalgo, I., Ciscar, J.C., Soria, A., Russ, P., 2003. Energy Consumption and
CO2 Emissions from the World Cement Industry (No. EUR 20769). In: EN
Technical Report Series. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Euro-
pean Commission.
Taylor, M., Tam, C., Gielen, D., 2006. Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions from the
Global Cement Industry. Presented at the Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emission
Reduction Potentials and Policies in the Cement Industry. IEA International
Energy Agency, Paris.
Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J.L., Gasol, C.M., Guillem, M., Josa, A., 2012.
Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: a life-
cycle assessment study. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 60e67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2011.11.055.
Van Vuuren, D.P., Strengers, B.J., De Vries, H.J.M., 1999. Long-term perspectives on
world metal useda system-dynamics model. Resour. Policy 25, 239e255.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4207(99)00031-8.
Vizcaíno-Andre
s, L.M., S
anchez-Berriel, S., Damas-Carrera, S., Pe
rez-Hern
andez, A.,
Scrivener, K.L., Martirena-Herna
ndez, J.F., 2015. Impacto del uso de un cemento
de bajo carbono en la mejora de la sostenibilidad de la produccio
n de cemento.
Mater. Constr. 65, e045. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/mc.2015.00614.
WBSCD Cement Sustainability Initiative, 2013. Getting the Numbers Right Project e
Reporting CO2 2013 e Excel Worksheet.
Wirthwein, R., Emberger, B., 2010. Burners for alternative fuels utilisation: opti-
misation of kiln firing systems for advanced alternative fuel co-firing. Cem. Int.
8, 42e46.
Zabalza Bribia
n, I., Valero Capilla, A., Aranda Uso
n, A., 2011. Life cycle assessment of
building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts
and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build. Environ. 46,
1133e1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002.