Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Comparison of energy consumption and carbon emissions from

clinker and recycled cement production

Alexandre Bogas *
Vitor Sousa , Jose
Instituto Superior T

ecnico, University of Lisbon, CERIS, Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon,
Portugal

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

Article history: The cement industry is presently facing the demanding challenge of reducing its large amount of carbon
Received 20 November 2020 emissions in order to meet the targets set to fight climate changes. One recent, and very promising,
Received in revised form approach to reduce the carbon footprint is the production of more eco-efficient recycled cement from
26 March 2021
cement-based waste materials. This study aims at comparing the difference in terms of energy con-
Accepted 22 April 2021
Available online 25 April 2021
sumption and carbon dioxide emissions between recycled cement and conventional clinker production.
In a conservative scenario, the estimated carbon dioxide emissions from recycling cement was as low as
^as de
Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo 58%e74% of the clinker production. From the sensibility analysis, it was found that the most influencing
Almeida factors for the carbon emissions from the recycled cement production are: i) the waste cement water
content; ii) the fraction of cement paste on waste material; and iii) the dryer energy intensity. The main
Keywords: drawback of the recycled cement production process is the pretreatment stage related with washing and
Recycled cement drying of waste materials. The carbon dioxide emissions from recycled cement production can be
High-quality recycled fine aggregates potentially reduced to only 13% of the emissions from clinker production, if these pretreatment stages are
Carbon dioxide emissions
avoided by developing a dry process.
Clinker production
© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Waste concrete reuse

1. Introduction attain sintering temperatures (roughly 1450
C) and all processes

With a 30-fold increase since 1950 and almost 4-fold since 1990,
cement production became the third largest source of anthropo-
genic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), after fossil fuels and land-
use changes (Andrew 2018, 2019).
The high carbon emissions from cement production result from
the combination of two of the three main sources of anthropogenic
emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere: i) carbonate decomposition;
and ii) oxidation of fossil fuels. With roughly 60% of the raw ma-
terial comprising of carbonates (mostly limestone, CaCO3), the
production of the main component of Portland cement (clinker)
results in the release of large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere
during the process of calcination (decomposition of CaCO3 into CaO
and CO2 by the addition of heat). Excluding land-use changes, this
source of carbon emissions, usually referred to as process emis-
sions, contributes to approximately 5%e8% of the total anthropo-
genic CO2 emissions (Boden et al., 2017). The energy required to
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vitor.sousa@tecnico.ulisboa.pt (V. Sousa), jose.bogas@tecnico.
ulisboa.pt, jose.bogas@tecnico.ulisboa.pt (J.A. Bogas).
before and after the sintering process imply the combustion of
significant amounts of fossil fuels, both directly (thermal energy
generation) and indirectly (through electricity production). The
emissions resulting from the thermal processing of the raw mate-
rial to obtain the clinker, referred to as energy emissions, can add
further 60%e90% of CO2 to the process emissions, depending on the
technology used (IEA, 2016).
This poses a significant challenge to the cement industry
directly, and to the sector using it (namely construction) indirectly.
The main approaches to reduce CO2 emissions in the production of
Portland cement are (Barcelo et al., 2014; Carriço et al., 2020): i)
increasing energy efficiency in the production process; ii) use of
alternative fuels and/or biomass; iii) replace clinker by other
products; and iv) carbon capture and storage. The shift from wet to
dry process improved the energy efficiency from 26% to 58%. The
use of alternative fuels and/biomass is now a standard in many
countries, with some using a share of alternative fuels of more than
50% of the total amount of fuel required for the thermal processing
(ECOFYS, 2017). Replacing clinker by nearly inert (e.g., calcium
carbonate filler), pozzolanic (e.g., silica fume, fly ash) or latent hy-
draulic (e.g., ground granulated blast-furnace slag) additions allows

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127277
0959-6526/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
Notation
RC Recycled Cement
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Wc Water Content of the concrete waste
CP Cement Paste proportion
EI Energy Intensity of the sand dryer
EE Emissions from Electricity production
reducing the proportion clinker in the cement, in some cases over
50%. Globally, the fraction of clinker replacement in all cement
produced is about 25% (GCCA, 2018). Still, even at their full po-
tential, these measures combined are not enough to meet the CSI
(Concrete Sustainability Initiative) and IEA (International Energy
Agency) targets for the cement industry (IEA and CSI, 2018).
Furthermore, some of the most used supplementary cementitious
materials are by-products of industrial processes that are changing
and eliminating them. This is the case of the fly ash (with the green
energy transition, coal being replaced by natural gas and renew-
ables) or the ground granulated blast-furnace slag (with the shift
from producing steel from iron ore to recycling used steel, the
amount of ground granulated blast-furnace slag generated is
decreasing). Recent developments, have also explored the use of
ternary binders with calcined clay and lime, reaching over 40%
clinker replacements with little variation of concrete properties
(Scrivener et al., 2019; Kadhum and Owaid, 2020).
Construction and demolition waste generation exceeds 3 billion
tonnes worldwide, with concrete waste making a substantial
portion of it (Akhtar and Sarmah, 2018). To avert concrete waste
going into landfills, many countries are effectively using it in other
applications. Probably the most “noble” of the uses for concrete
waste is its incorporation in new concrete as recycled aggregates.
However, the mortar adhering onto their surface affects the con-
crete performance, namely due to higher water absorption, lower
strength and increased chloride penetration (Martín-Morales et al.,
2011). Acid attacks (Peng et al., 2014; Ismail and Ramli, 2014),
mechanical abrasion (Al-Mufti and Fried, 2017; Florea et al., 2014)
and thermal treatments (Ahn et al., 2001; Carriço et al., 2020) have
been proposed to enhance the performance of recycled aggregates.
Reviews on the performance enhancement of recycled aggregates
and recycled aggregate concrete can be found in Shi et al. (2016)
and Behera et al. (2014), respectively. In practice, the need for
additional treatment to make recycled aggregates more suitable to
use in structural concrete renders their use primarily to road con-
struction, namely to replace natural aggregates in roadbeds (ECRA,
2015) or incorporating in asphalt mixtures (Milad et al., 2020).
Other types of wastes and subproducts have also been incorporated
into concrete, such as plastic (Bachtiar et al., 2020) or boron wastes
(Aldakshe et al., 2020).
A solution that tackles both the construction and demolition
waste and the cement production challenges is recycling cement.
This solution is aligned with the circular economy plan devised in
the EU (EC, 2020; EEA, 2020; Wahlstro €m et al., 2020) by creating a
closed-loop-recycling (ECRA, 2015). At the same time, it will also
contribute to meet the goal of re-using, recycling or recovering a
minimum of 70% (by weight) of non-hazardous construction and
demolition waste, excluding naturally occurring material (article
11.2 of the Waste Framework Directive (EC, 2008)). In Europe, the
partial or total replacement of Portlant clinker by recycled cement
(RC) may play an important role in meeting the green deal targets
(CEMBUREAU, 2020). Cement recycling is based on the thermal
reactivation of the cement pastes and an extensive literature review
on the topic can be found in Carriço et al. (2020).
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
The benefits of recycling cement are not limited to averting the
use of natural and the deposition of construction and demolition
waste. On modern kilns, the calcination reaction represents be-
tween 50% and 70% the CO2 emissions (Müller and Harnish, 1998;
IEA and CSI, 2018). The theoretical minimum energy required for
the calcination is estimated to be about 1760 MJ/t clinker, but the
best performing plants consume around 2800 MJ/t clinker (IEA,
2007; Summerbell et al., 2016). The heat losses during the pro-
cess are responsible for the significant difference in energy con-
sumption (over 40%), with the energy spent on drying the raw meal
(typically 900 MJ/t) representing a large share of the heat losses
(ECOFYS, 2009). By producing cement from recycling hydrated
cement it is possible to recover the hydration properties, while
avoiding the CO2 emissions from the calcination and the high sin-
tering temperatures.
Previous studies have shown lower mechanical performance of
RC compared to Portland cement of equal composition (Real et al.,
2020; Bogas et al., 2020b). Moreover, one main issue of RC is its high
water demand and consequent reduction of workability (Bogas
et al., 2019; Carriço et al., 2020). Nevertheless, Carriço et al.
(2020) reported that blended mixtures with Portland cement and
20, 50 and 100% RC can potentially attain the common cement
strength classes 52.5, 42.5 and 32.5, respectively, according to EN
197e1 (2011). Taking all this into account and the still limited
availability of enough waste concrete, at this point, the RC is mainly
considered to be used as a partial replacement of clinker in struc-
tural or non-structural applications, representing an alternative to
some conventional mineral additions that are becoming scarce
(e.g., fly ash; ground granulated blast-furnace slag). A compre-
hensive review on the production, main properties and potentiality
of thermoactivated recycled cements is presented in Carriço et al.
(2020).
So far, only few studies have attempted the partial environ-
mental assessment of RC (Wang et al., 2018; He et al., 2019),
highlighting the potential environmental benefits of this binder.
However, these studies only account for the thermal activation
stage, since they use cement paste produced in laboratory condi-
tion as raw material. The past research focused in studying the
properties of the RC, but didn’t provide any solution to obtain it
from the available waste cement-based building materials. As such,
they fail to account for the total environmental burden of producing
RC from concrete waste. In addition, some studies have been
focused on the environmental assessment of more eco-efficient
clinkers produced from waste concrete (Kwon et al., 2015;
Gastaldi et al., 2015). This is based on a different philosophy, since
the aim is not recovering the rehydration properties of hardened
cement, but rather producing a new clinker only involving the
partial replacement of natural raw-material with waste concrete. In
this case, some reduction of CO2 emissions is attained, but the
sintering temperature and thermal energy is about the same of that
involved in conventional clinker production.
The research developed in the scope of the EcoHdyb project,
funded by the Portuguese National Foundation for Science and
Technology, aims at contributing to overcome the cement industry
and concrete waste management challenges through the develop-
ment of a technical solution for the production of RC. This solution
is a step forward on the ongoing trend of incorporating waste in the
cement industry (CEMBUREAU, 2016) by allowing: i) producing
cement without consuming natural raw material by using only
concrete waste; ii) averting the emissions from calcination by
thermally reactivating the hydrated cement components; iii)
reducing the temperature required in the production process and,
therefore, decrease the fuel consumption; and iv) producing high
quality recycled fine aggregates by separating the cement paste
from the aggregates.
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
In this research effort, the estimated energy consumption and
CO2 emissions of the novel RC production process are compared
with the conventional clinker production to quantify the reduction
that is possible to achieve. The energy and CO2 emissions of the RC
production are estimated by extrapolating the laboratory results to
a hypothetical industrial implementation of the process. The
worldwide and European energy and CO2 emissions from Portland
clinker production and a specific cement plant in Portugal are used
for comparison. The comparison is focused in estimating the
cradle-to-gate (from raw material processing to cement factory
gate) energy consumption and CO2 emissions differences between
RC and Portland clinker production.
The manuscript is organized as follows: 1) This section 1 frames
the topic and presents a portion of the literature review. 2) Section
2 is dedicated to: i) presenting the novel RC production process and
extrapolating the laboratory results to a hypothetical industrial
facility; and ii) detailing the methodology and data sources used for
the energy and CO2 emissions estimation. 3) Section 3 presents the
results of the energy consumption and CO2 emissions for the RC
production process and compares them with reference values for
Portland clinker production. Since there are different approaches to
estimate the energy consumption and CO2 emissions and there is a
significant variability on the data used as input, a stochastic analysis
is done in complement to the deterministic. 4) Section 4 is dedi-
cated to the main conclusions.
2. Case study and methodology
2.1. Novel recycled cement production process
The process for producing the RC developed in the scope of the
EcoHydb project is based on the thermal reactivation of the
cementious fraction of concrete waste. The novelty of the solution
is the separation of the cement paste from the aggregates in waste
concrete by resorting to a new patented magnetic separation
method developed at IST (Bogas et al., 2020). Overall, the process
developed for producing RC is comprised of three main stages: i)
release; ii) separation; and iii) reactivation.
The first stage consists in mechanically crushing, milling and
grinding the concrete waste to promote the release of the cement
paste from the aggregates. The implementation in laboratory con-
ditions was set to produce material with less than 1 mm for the
separation, which was then sieved to split into four fractions: i)
0.5e1 mm; ii) 0.25e0.5 mm; iii) 0.15e0.25 mm; and iv) less than
0.15 mm. This calibration resulted in a good balance between the
amount of cement paste that can be separated and the fraction that
is too small or too large to go through the magnetic separator.
However, different settings may be more suitable in an industrial
setup and depending on the concrete waste characteristics. In
laboratory conditions, the material losses, corresponding to parti-
cles over 1 mm, were only approximately 2%.
Since the efficiency of the magnetic separation process imple-
mented in the laboratory was highly sensible to the presence of
ultrafine powder, the material required washing and drying be-
forehand. The material loss in this stage was less than 1%, in labo-
ratory conditions.
The final stage consists in reactivating the cement paste by
promoting the de-hydration of the cement compounds. In order to
achieve this goal, the material undergoes heat treatment at a
temperature of 600e700
C, with an average value of 650
C (Bogas
et al., 2019; Real et al., 2020). This range of temperatures is
consistent with was used by other authors to produce RC (Wang
et al., 2018; He et al., 2019). The material loss in this stage was
negligible in laboratory conditions. However, there is a reduction of
about 20e25% in the waste cement weight due to the release of
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
water from the hydrated cement paste. This reduction depends on
the hydration degree of old waste concrete and it may be affected
by the size of the cement paste particles and duration of the ther-
mal treatment.
Fig. 1 resumes the mass fluxes of the process implemented in
laboratory. In each field, the values presented on top, middle and
bottom represent the best, average and worst results in terms of RC
obtained, respectively. The performance of the thermal treatment
stage is constant since the degree of purity of the cement paste
separated and the mass loss from the de-hydration of the cement
compounds showed very little variability in the laboratory
implementation.
Fig. 1 also highlights that the production of the RC results in
three additional products: i) standard quality fine recycled aggre-
gate; ii) standard quality recycled filler; and iii) high quality fine
recycled aggregate. If the products from the release stage (standard
quality fine recycled aggregate and standard quality recycled filler)
are identical to what can be obtained in any conventional concrete
waste treatment station, the high quality fine recycled aggregate
obtained in the separation stage shows minimal amount of
attached cement paste (less than 5%). This later product may
contribute to tackle two problems: i) the environmental impacts
from natural sand extraction; and ii) the performance implications
of incorporating recycled fine aggregates in structural concrete.
Peduzzi (2014) estimated the worldwide consumption of ag-
gregates in over 40 billion tonnes a year, pinpointing the con-
struction sector as the largest consumer. Since this is twice the
amount of sediments transported by all the rivers in the world
(Milliman and Syvitski, 1992), which is the main source of fine
aggregates, it implies that the natural mass balance is violated.
Extracting sand from rivers and other natural sources entails also a
multitude of environmental impacts, namely on biodiversity (ma-
rine, rivers and inland), coastal and inland erosion and climate
(Peduzzi, 2014). In fact, the spatial variability in aggregates avail-
ability and consumption results in a dynamic market that imply the
transportation of large amounts of sands over long distances,
resulting in significant amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
(Gavriletea, 2017).
Despite the existence of more research on the use of coarse
recycled aggregates in concrete, the majority of the studies focusing
on the use of fine recycled aggregates are consistent in showing
poorer performance of the concretes incorporating this type of
aggregates. A recent literature review on the topic from Upshaw
and Cai (2020) indicates that concretes produced with standard
fine recycled aggregates possess lower strength, modulus of elas-
ticity, density and durability, while exhibiting higher water ab-
sorption rate. The cause reported by the various authors (e.g., Juan
and Gutie
rrez, 2009) for the differences in performance when
comparing concrete produced with natural and recycled aggregates
from concrete waste is the presence of a significant amount of
adhered cement paste in the later. Reducing the residual amounts
of cement attached in recycled aggregates may minimize the dis-
advantages of using recycled aggregates in structural concrete.
2.2. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions estimation
Two main approaches are available for extrapolating the labo-
ratory results to an industrial setup: i) by simulation; and ii) by
analogy. The first consists in mimicking the experimental setup at a
larger scale by selecting and assembling a hypothetical production
line. This requires considering that: i) the productivity advertised
for the industrial equipment, which may have not been specifically
tested for this application, is a good estimate of the real perfor-
mance; and ii) the efficiency measured on the various stages at the
laboratory scale do not change at the industrial scale. The
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
Fig. 1. Mass fluxes of the recycled cement production process.
underlying idea of the analogy approach is to extrapolate from a
similar industrial process, in this case the production of the con-
ventional Portland cement and the production of recycled and/or
artificial fine aggregates, to the RC production. This alternative is
restricted by the fact that some stages simply do not exist in any of
the processes used for establishing the analogy, while others are
distinct. There is, however, a third option of mixing simulation and
analogy in a hybrid approach, by complementing the stages for
which an analogy is not possible with simulation.
Complementarily, the results can be presented in absolute or
relative terms. The former require estimating the detailed values
for all steps and stages of the process, providing an absolute esti-
mate of the energy and emissions. In alternative, the results can be
presented in relative terms in the sense that it is possible to esti-
mate the emissions (or the energy, depending in the reference
used) to equilibrate the RC and Portland cement production. The
results may also be mixed, with some results presented in absolute
estimates while others are presented in relative numbers.
Herein, it was adopted a hybrid mixed methodology. The main
reason for this was the fact that the largest portion of energy
consumption, and consequently the largest source of CO2 emis-
sions, takes place during the drying (separation stage) and thermal
activation (heat treatment stage). By analogy with the Portland
cement production, these are the steps resorting to thermal energy
in an industrial setup. All other steps, in both Portland cement and
RC production process, are powered by electricity.
The coincidence in terms of thermal energy consumption allows
for two alternatives: i) an analogy with the wet process for
manufacturing cement to estimate the portions of thermal energy
required for drying and thermal activation (Alternative A); and ii)
an analogy with the dry process for estimating the energy for the
thermal activation and simulation of the drying using an industrial
sand dryer (Alternative B). The two alternatives considered entail,
implicitly, two distinct industrial setup models. The first option
implies that the separation and thermal treatment phases take
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
place in a Portland cement plant, while the second is more suitable
to assemble the release and separation stages at the construction
and demolition waste recycling plant and only the thermal treat-
ment stage will be carried out at a Portland cement plant.
Concerning electricity consumption, some of the steps in RC
production process are non-existent (e.g., magnetic separation) and
others may have distinct processing times when compared with
the Portland cement production process. Attempting to simulate an
industrial setup in this context would imply several assumptions
that can’t be verified. As such, instead of directly estimating the
electricity consumption of the various steps, it was estimated the
amount of electricity that would be required for the total CO2
emissions of the RC production to be equal to the Portland cement
production. This was done by: i) estimating the CO2 emissions from
the thermal energy consumption; ii) determining the maximum
CO2 emissions from electricity consumption so that the total
emissions do not exceed the emissions from the Portland cement
production; and iii) compute the electricity corresponding to the
emissions allowed.
The methodology used for estimating the energy (and corre-
sponding CO2 emissions) of an industrial implementation of the
novel RC production process is represented schematically in Fig. 2.
Conservatively, the overall mass loss in the industrial setup was set
to 5% and assumed that it takes place during the release stage. In
practical terms, this corresponds to multiplying the mass fluxes of
the release stage (Fig. 1) by 0.95.
In addition to the deterministic analysis based on the average
values, a stochastic evaluation will also be carried out for the EU
context using Monte Carlo Simulation for the most adequate so-
lution (Alternative A or B). The goal of this complementary analysis
is to quantify explicitly the multiple sources of uncertainty and/or
variability associated with the industrial implementation of the
novel RC production process (e.g., mass flux, energy consumption
intensity, CO2 emissions intensity).
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
Fig. 2. Analysis methodology.
2.2.1. Thermal energy
Madlool et al. (2011) report that nearly 41% of the energy con-
sumption in the wet process is spent in evaporating water (Fig. 3).
Also, relatively to the dry process, the heat losses are 21% higher,
which can be assumed to result from the longer heat treatment
stage. The energy required for the chemical reactions is estimated
by several authors (Gartner, 2004; OECD and IEA, 2007; Worrel
et al., 2001) in 1760 MJ/t clinker. This theoretical estimate is
based on the stoichiometry of the reactions, with Summerbel et al.
(2016) estimating the minimum feasible energy required in an in-
dustrial application to be 2070 MJ/t clinker.
For establishing the analogy with the Portland cement produc-
tion process in Alternative A, it was assumed that the energy con-
sumption for drying the material in the RC production process
corresponds to the energy required to evaporate water in the wet
production process plus the additional heat losses between the wet
and dry production processes. The energy estimated for drying
ranged from 1276 MJ/t clinker, for the world, to 1138 MJ/t clinker, in
Europe. These results are consistent with the values reported by
ECRA (2016) for evaporating water from the raw material, which
range from 200 to 1000 MJ/t clinker for water contents between 3%
and 15%.
The remaining thermal energy consumption (chemical reactions
and heat loss) were assumed to be the required for attaining a
temperature of at least 1450
C for enough time to the sintering of
all material to take place. Establishing the analogy for the RC pro-
duction process, it was assumed a linear relation between tem-
perature and energy. For simplicity, this implies that the reaction
kinetics times during thermal reactivation of cement waste are
Fig. 3. Thermal energy consumption distribution for dry and wet production processes
(Madlool et al., 2011).
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
similar to that of the Portland cement chemical reactions (calcining
and sintering). Regarding the heat losses, this is a conservative
approach, since the energy lost through the kiln walls is linearly
proportional to the temperature difference. This portion of the heat
losses should be roughly half of the Portland cement production
process, but the relative overall effect depends on the efficiency of
heat recovery from the combustion gases. Furthermore, contrarily
to the components formed during the sintering process, the ther-
mally reactivate products making the RC do not have to be rapidly
cooled down to retain their chemical composition.
In the solution of assembling the separation stage at the con-
struction and demolition waste treatment plants (Alternative B),
the drying was simulated assuming that the efficiency of a sand
drier would be the same for drying the concrete waste. This may
not be entirely realistic, due to the higher porosity of the cement
waste. However, the magnetic roll separator only requires the
material to have the surface dry, allowing it to be nearly saturated.
Therefore, leaving the water that is harder to remove does not affect
the magnetic separation. Moreover, cement waste is only 15e20%
of treated waste material, being the remaining common natural
aggregates (Bogas et al., 2020).
Based on information from the sand driers manufacturers, a
direct heated rotary dryer without any heat recovery consumes, in
average, 1000 kWh to remove 1 tonne of water from sand. On the
other end of the spectrum, the most advanced technology for
drying sand (fluidized bed with recirculation and evaporative
cooling) consumes less 40% of the energy. Fluidized bed driers
without and with recirculation consume less 20% and 30%,
respectively (https://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/ventilex-drygenic/
sand-dryer/55192-610621.html). These values are consistent with
the theoretical energy for heating (from 10
C) and vaporizing
water (1 tonne water requires 730 kWh).
Energy and CO2 emissions from cement production are related,
but depend on various factors. The total CO2 emissions from the
thermal processes in the production of clinker depends on: i) the
raw material composition; ii) the production process; and iii) the
fuel mix.
The release of CO2 from the raw material depends mostly on the
content of calcium carbonate and is reported to range between 500
and 550 kg/t clinker (IEA, 2020; IPCC, 2000; Cai et al., 2016; Barcelo
et al., 2014). Herein, an average value of 540 kg/t clinker was
considered based on the 2018 estimates from the IEA (2020).
The average CO2 emissions are presented in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 a)
presents the average values for each production process for the
world and EU-28. The average values weighted by the amount of
cement produced (CO2 emissions of a production process multi-
plied by the relative amount of cement produced by the process
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
Fig. 4. Average CO2 emissions intensity from Portland cement production: a) by production process and b) weighted by amount produced.
divided by the total amount of cement produced) are presented in
Fig. 4 b) for the world, EU-28 and Portugal. In most cases, the
average emissions in the EU are lower than the worldwide average
values, both by production process and weighted average. The only
“unexpected” result is the dry-long production process revealing
lower emissions than more recent alternatives. However, the dif-
ferences are within the range of variability of the calcination
emissions and may be explained by sight differences in the raw
material composition used in this type of kilns. In Fig. 4 the data
from a specific cement plant in Portugal with fully disclosed in-
formation relevant for the study, the Outa ~o plant from the Portu-
guese cement producer SECIL, was included to provide a reference
between average values and a potential location to implement the
RC production (SECIL, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018).
The emissions from the thermal energy consumption vary with
the type of fuel used, but for a given fuel mix it is possible to esti-
mate them from measurements or calculations of the corre-
sponding carbon intensity. Herein, the difference of the calcination
emissions (540 kg/t clinker) to the total emissions of CO2 measured
at the cement plants divided by the thermal energy used provided
the estimates of the average carbon intensity of the fuel mix pre-
sented in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Weighted average carbon intensity from fuel mixes used for generating thermal energy in Portland cement production (GCCA, 2018; ATIC, 2019; SECIL, 2011, 2014, 2016,
2018).
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
2.2.2. Electrical energy
In most cases, the electricity consumed in the production of
Portland cement is reported in relation to the amount of cement
and not of clinker, as is usual for the thermal energy (Fig. 6). This
entails not only the amount of clinker, but also the partial sub-
stitutes used. The conversion to energy consumed by amount of
clinker was done based on the most recent data found concerning
the average proportion of clinker in the cement. IEA, 2016, the
clinker content on cement was 74% and 75% in the EU-28 (ATIC,
2019) and Portugal (ATIC, 2019), respectively. In 2014, it was 75%
at world level (WBCSD, 2016). Regarding the Secil plant at Outa ~o,
the data is reported both in terms of the amount of clinker and
cement produced (SECIL, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018). In this plant, the
substitutes incorporation in the cement produced varied between
20% and 26%.
The CO2 emissions from electricity production depends on the
mix of sources of energy used and has been steadily decreasing over
the years (Fig. 7) with the ongoing transition to green energy.
Despite the investments in renewable energy sources (water, wind
and solar), the carbon emissions variability over time at a world
level is small, with an overall decrease of only 3.8% on the CO2
emissions per kWh of electricity produced between 1990 and 2013
(Ang and Su, 2016). However, the variability between countries is
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
Fig. 6. Weighted average electricity consumption intensity for Portland cement production (GCCA, 2018; ATIC, 2019; SECIL, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018).
Fig. 7. Average CO2 emissions intensity from electricity production (GCCA, 2018; ATIC, 2019; SECIL, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018).
much larger, with values ranging from less than 30 kg CO2/kWh to
over 1000 kg CO2/kWh). Therefore, regarding the emissions from
electricity consumption, it is more important where the cement
was produced than when it was produced.
It is noteworthy that, in average, the electricity is not a cleaner
source of energy when comparing with the emissions intensity due
to fossil fuels consumption to produce thermal energy. In 2017, the
EU average CO2 emissions intensity from electricity production was
83 kg/MJ, while from the fuel mix used to generate thermal energy
for producing clinker was only 75 kg/MJ (GCCA, 2018; EEA, 2017).
However, this conclusion depends strongly on the country under
analysis. Considering the 5 biggest clinker producers in the EU
(Spain, Germany, Italy, France and Poland), that make over 70% of
the total EU annual production (EU, 2018), the average CO2 emis-
sions intensity from electricity production range from 58 kg/kWh,
in France, to 773 kg/kWh, in Poland (EEA, 2017). The average CO2
emissions intensity from electricity consumption weighted by the
cement production in these countries is 353 kg/kWh.
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
With the electricity intensity for producing clinker and the
emissions from electricity production, the increase in electricity
consumption with the production of RC required to offset the
eventual emissions reduction with thermal energy consumption
was estimated. Conservatively, it was assumed that the electricity
consumption in the release stage is of the same order of magnitude
of the electricity consumption in all the process for preparing the
raw meal for clinker production. In this context, the ratio between
the electricity required to offset the eventual emissions reduction
with thermal energy consumption and the electricity consumed to
produce the clinker corresponds to the maximum electricity con-
sumption in the separation process.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Deterministic analysis
In 2018, the average thermal energy consumption for the semi-
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
wet/semi-dry and wet/shaft kiln Portland cement production pro-
cess was 4895 MJ/t clinker, in the world, and 4785 MJ/t clinker, in
Europe. Conversely, the dry process average thermal energy con-
sumption was only 3618 MJ/t clinker and 3646 MJ/t clinker in the
world and Europe, respectively (GCCA, 2018). At a world and EU-28
level, the transition from the wet process kilns to the dry kilns with
preheater and precalciner allowed for a reduction on thermal en-
ergy consumption from 5688 MJ/t clinker to 3371 MJ/t clinker and
from 5695 MJ/t clinker to 3553 MJ/t clinker, respectively (GCCA,
2018). In Portugal, this information is not available by production
process, but the average thermal energy consumption varied be-
tween 3400 MJ/t clinker and 3650 MJ/t clinker, from 2009 to 2016,
without any increasing or decreasing pattern (ATIC, 2019).
At a cement plant scale, the variability on the energy con-
sumption (and emissions) results from the natural randomness of
the raw materials and fuels composition (particularly the alterna-
tive fuels), along with the environmental conditions affecting the
production process (e.g., rain and raw material water content). In
the Outa ~o cement plant, 3570 MJ/t to 3700 MJ/t clinker were
consumed between 2009 and 2018 (SECIL, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018).
In Portugal, the order of magnitude of the interannual variability at
a plant and at a national scales is of the same order of magnitude.
The corresponding energy and emissions presented in Table 1
were estimated assuming that: i) the thermal energy required for
drying the raw material of the RC corresponds to the difference
between the average consumption of the technologies available for
the wet and dry processes (Alternative A); and ii) the energy for the
reactivation can be estimated assuming a linear relation with the
temperature required. An average ratio of 1.56 between the amount
of raw material required and the clinker produced was used to
compensate the difference in input/ouput ratios in both processes.
This value was estimated from the values published by Worrel
(2001), Huntzinger and Eatmon (2009), Manning et al. (2019),
Gao et al. (2016) and EMEP and EEA (2019), which ranged from 1.5
to 1.75.
In Table 1, the drying portion takes into account that during the
cement recycling process it is necessary, on average, to dry almost 7
times more material than the final amount of RC obtained. This
ratio accounts for the proportion of cement paste on the raw ma-
terial (roughly 20%) and a mass loss of 25% during the thermal
reactivation.
In any context, the thermal energy consumption for producing
RC is higher than that from ordinary clinker. However, in terms of
CO2 emissions, the scenario is reverted. The absence of emissions
from the raw material, except for water vapour, largely compen-
sates for the additional thermal energy required (Table 1). The CO2
emissions from the thermal processing is roughly 74%e68% of the
best average solutions in generalized use for industrial cement
production (832 kg CO2/t clinker and 797 kg CO2/t clinker for the
world and EU-28, respectively) (GCCA, 2018). The average CO2
emissions in Portugal have decreased steadily from 850 kg CO2/
t clinker in 2005 to 810 kg CO2/t clinker in, 2016 (ATIC, 2019). At the
Table 1
RC thermal processing CO2 emissions (Alternative A).
Stage World Europe Portugal
Average SECIL
Thermal energy [MJ/t recycled cement]
Drying 5457.9 4869.5
Reactivation 1238.3 1332.1 1339.6 1350.5
Total 6696.2 6201.7 6209.1 6220.1
Emissions from thermal processing [kg CO2/t recycled cement]
Drying 499.3 436.6 403.3 378.3
Reactivation 113.3 106.6 91.5 85.8
Total 612.6 543.1 494.9 464.1
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
Outa~o cement plant (SECIL), the emissions decreased from 815 to
794 between 2009 and 2016, with a low of 762 kg CO2/t clinker in
2013 (SECIL, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018).
The electricity that the RC production process would have to
consume in order to offset the savings in the stages involving the
use of thermal energy is estimated in Table 2. For the world and EU-
28, the estimations were done comparing with the overall average
CO2 emissions (Global) and with the average CO2 emissions of the
most efficient technology widely implemented in the market
(Best). In Portugal the comparison was done with the national
average and the SECIVL plant at Outa ~o average.
Comparing with the reference specific electricity consumption
associated with the Portland cement production (Fig. 6 corrected by
the percentage of clinker incorporation), the estimates in Table 2
would represent an increase in electricity consumption of 348%,
569%, 474%, 775% and 955% for the average values of the World
Global, EU-28 Global (average and weighted average), Portugal
average and SECIL plant at Out~ ao, respectively.
A similar analysis was done for the scenario of carrying out the
separation stage at the construction and demolition waste treat-
ment plants (Alternative B). The results reveal that both solutions
are equivalent, with the energy estimates for drying in this alter-
native being slightly higher (Table 3 and Table 4). A possible
explanation for the difference may be the water content of the
concrete waste entering the dryer considered (30%) being higher
than the water content of the raw material in the wet process for
Portland cement production.
The average electricity consumption breakdown for Portland
cement (Table 5) reveals that it is almost uniformly split by the
main stages (Medlool et al., 2011; Afkhami et al., 2015): i) raw
material processing; ii) thermal processing; and iii) cement
processing.
Assuming that the electricity consumption for thermal and
cement processing is similar to the heat treatment and processing
stage of the RC production, the difference is concentrated in the
preparation of the raw material. It should be noted that this a
conservative approach, since the lower temperature required for
the RC production implies less fuel and less cooling needs. There-
fore, the electricity consumption of the coal mill and coolers is
lower in the case of the RC production. Moreover, RC requires less
grinding energy than ordinary clinker, due to its lower stiffness and
hardness, as well as its lower input particle size.
Comparing the release and separation stages, the RC production
requires the use of a magnetic separator and additional screening
efforts. Regarding the magnetic separation, the energy consump-
tion is minimal (0.1 kWh/t material processed) and may be dis-
regarded when compared to that of the other activities. Moreover,
the electricity consumption for crushing and milling should be
equivalent. Additionally, the raw material for RC is available already
pre-processed in a concrete waste treatment plant, whereas the
raw material for clinker requires obtaining from a quarry.
Therefore, due to the above mentioned, the electricity con-
sumption of RC production should not be higher than that of or-
dinary clinker and these estimates can be regarded as largely
conservative, at least considering the European Union cement,
aggregates and waste management sectors context.
Starting with the release stage, a portion of the energy required
for crushing, grinding, milling and sieving the concrete waste is
already consumed nowadays to enable its recycling in the majority
of the countries in the EU. This will tend to increase even further in
the future, since the countries will need to comply with the
increasingly stringent waste landfilled targets and to meet the
circular economy goals. Furthermore, the laboratory implementa-
tion indicates that the energy requirements in this stage will be low
due to the higher porosity and lower hardness of the concrete
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277

Table 2
Maximum electricity consumption to balance CO2 emissions (Alternative A).

Electricity Emissions [kg CO2/t recycled cement]

[kWh/t clinker] World EU-28 Portugal

Global Best Global Best Global Best Average SECIL

World 470.3 460.9 223.4 218.9

Europe 902.9 864.3 265.6 254.3
Europe* 752.0 719.9 265.6 254.3
Portugal 1142.3 314.1
Secil 1200.9 330.3

Note*: average of the electricity emissions of the 5 largest cement producers in the EU (Spain, Germany, Italy, France and Poland) weighted by the corresponding amounts of
cement produced in 2018.

Table 3 waste when comparing to the raw material of the conventional

RC thermal processing CO2 emissions (Alternative B). Portland cement. As such, the production of RC will only imply a
Stage World Europe Portugal marginal increase of the energy that is already consumed in a
construction and demolition waste management plant for pro-
Average SECIL
ducing the standard recycled aggregates. This additional energy is
Thermal energy [MJ/t recycled cement]
required to obtain a product that is finer than the usual coarse
Drying 5783.6
Reactivation 1281.0 1378.1 1385.8 1397.1 recycled aggregates. However, comparing this additional energy
Total 7064.6 7161.7 7169.4 7180.7 consumption in processing the concrete waste with the energy
Emissions from thermal processing [kg CO2/t recycled cement] required to process the raw material for Portland cement produc-
Drying 529.1 462.6 427.4 400.8 tion, it should be significantly lower due to: i) the higher porosity of
Reactivation 117.2 110.2 94.7 88.8
the concrete waste, being easier to mill than the natural raw ma-
Total 646.3 572.9 522.1 489.6

Table 4
Maximum electricity consumption to balance CO2 emissions (Alternative B).

Electricity Emissions [kg CO2/t recycled cement]

[kWh/t clinker] World EU-28 Portugal

Global Best Global Best Global Best Average SECIL

World 399.4 390.0 189.7 185.2

Europe 801.8 763.3 235.9 224.6
Europe* 667.8 635.7 235.9 224.6
Portugal 1043.3 286.9
Secil 1108.1 304.7

Note*: average of the electricity emissions of the 5 largest cement producers in the EU (Spain, Germany, Italy, France and Poland) weighted by the corresponding amounts of
cement produced in 2018.

Table 5
Portland cement electricity consumption breakdown by production stage.

Stage Proportion Electricity [kWh/t clinker]

[%] World EU-28 Portugal Secil

Afkhami et al. (2015) e

Raw material preparation 44.6 52.4 48.6 39.6
Raw material collection 5 6.8 7.9 7.4 6.0
Raw material processing 28 37.8 44.4 41.3 33.6
Thermal processing 25 33.8 39.7 36.8 30.0
Cement processing 56.8 66.6 61.9 50.4
Clinker grinding 32 43.3 50.8 47.1 38.4
Conveying, packaging, etc. 10 13.5 15.9 14.7 12.0
Medlool et al. (2011) e
Raw material preparation 35.1 41.2 38.3 31.2
Mines, crusher and stacking 2 2.7 3.2 2.9 2.4
Re-claimer, raw meal grinding and transport 24 32.4 38.1 35.4 28.8
Thermal processing 48.7 57.1 53.0 43.2
Kiln feed, kiln and cooler 29 39.6 46.5 43.2 35.2
Coal mill 7 9.0 10.6 9.8 8.0
Cement processing 44.2 51.8 48.1 39.2
Clinker grinding 31 41.4 48.7 45.2 36.8
Conveying, packaging, etc. 2 2.7 3.2 2.9 2.4
Other (lights, pumps, services, etc.) 5 7.2 8.5 7.9 6.4

9
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
terial used in the clinker production; and ii) the raw material for
producing the RC is coarser than the raw meal for clinker produc-
tion. Establishing and analogy with the energy consumption for
crushing the raw material for clinker production from Worrel et al.
(2001), the energy required for the release stage can be estimated
to be at most between 2.3 and 10.5 kWh/t recycled cement.
In the separation stage, the energy consumption of an industrial
magnetic separator is only about 0.1 kWh/t material processed,
which corresponds to about 0.67 kWh/t recycled cement. Addi-
tionally, the energy associated with the fraction corresponding to
high quality recycled fine aggregates should be evaluated in com-
parison with the energy consumed in obtaining fine aggregates of
equal quality from other sources (natural sand extraction or arti-
ficial fine aggregates production). This implies the assumption that
the performance of the concrete produced with both types of
aggregate is similar. Based on the results by Smith and Durham
(2016), the CO2 emission factor for producing gravel and sand is
of 2.24 kg CO2eq/t aggregates. Rosado et al. (2017) estimated
emissions of 4.33 kg CO2/t and 0.125 kg CO2/t of natural and recy-
cled aggregates, respectively. Considering an average ratio of 5.3
tonnes of high quality aggregates per tonne of recycled cement,
these high quality fine recycled aggregates correspond to an addi-
tional potential savings between 13 and 23 kg CO2/t recycled
cement.
In the thermal treatment stage, the lower temperature required
will decrease the energy losses in the process. Considering all other
variables constant, the energy lost by conduction is linearly pro-
portional to the temperature gradient. In addition, it is licit to as-
sume that the temperature of the exhaust gases and of the RC at the
output will be lower, decreasing also the losses through these two
ways. Using the data from Worrel et al. (2001), and assuming a
linear relation between electricity consumption and the peak
temperature in the kiln, the electricity consumption in the thermal
treatment stage of the RC production can be estimated to be be-
tween 12.7 and 17.3 kWh/t recycled cement.
Regardless of the benefits demonstrated by the novel RC pro-
duction process, the bottleneck of the laboratory implementation is
the need for washing and drying the material before the magnetic
separation. The average ratio between the amount of material that
needs to be dried and the amount of RC produced is almost 7. Any
reduction of the water content of the raw material or the devel-
opment of equipment enabling a dry processing (e.g., dust removal
with air blowing, more powerful magnetic separator) will boost
significantly the benefits of the solution. Avoiding the dry treat-
ment, the CO2 emissions from RC production would be only 11%e
14% of the clinker production. Another benefit is the lower tem-
perature of the thermal treatment stage, which makes the use of
cleaner energy sources more viable. This will be interesting in
countries such as France, where the emissions from electricity
production are lower than from the thermal treatment fuel
combustion.
Despite the similar results between both Alternatives, the trans-
portation of raw material is an important factor favouring Alternative
B. In fact, the amount of raw material to transport from the con-
struction and demolition treatment plants to the cement plants in
Alternative A (mixture of aggregates and cement paste) is 7 times
larger than in Alternative B (just cement paste). Additionally, there are
comparatively less cement plants than construction and demolition
waste treatment plants. Both tend to be close to the respective sources
of raw material, which in the case of the construction and demolition
waste treatment plants tend to be coincident with the potential
consumers of the sub-products resulting from the RC production
process (recycled aggregates). In fact, Alternative A will also imply
larger transportation distances for the high quality recycled fine
aggregate resulting from the separation stage.
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
3.2. Stochastic analysis
The stochastic analysis was carried out for Alternative B in the
EU context considering the variability of the: i) temperatures of the
clinker sintering (1400
C to 1500
C, with an average of 1450 -
Castan ~ on et al. (2015); EMEP and EEA (2019)) and RC reactivation
(600
C to 700
C - Bogas et al. (2020a,b)); ii) proportion of cement
paste in the raw material processed in the separation stage (13%e
23% - Bogas et al. (2020a,b)); iii) water content of the raw material
processed in the separation stage (20%e35% by weight - experi-
mental results); iv) energy intensity of the sand dryer (2.4e3.6 MJ/
kg water e information from sand dryers manufacturers); v) CO2
emissions (797e824 kg CO2/t clinker - GCCA (2018)), energy con-
sumption (3553e3702 MJ/t clinker - GCCA (2018)) and CO2 emis-
sions intensity (0.078e0.083 kg CO2/MJ - GCCA (2018)) of the
thermal processing of the clinker; vi) CO2 emissions from electricity
production for the EU-28 (0.016e922.4 g CO2/kWh e EEA (2017))
and for the 5 largest cement producers (58.5e773.3 g CO2/kWh -
EEA (2017)); vii) the ratio between raw material and clinker
(1.5e1.75 - Huntzinger and Eatmon (2009); Manning et al. (2019);
Gao et al. (2016); Worrel (2001); EMEP and EEA (2019)). Except for
the proportion of cement paste in waste material, which was fitted
to a PERT distribution, all other variables were modelled with
triangular distributions.
In terms of the CO2 emissions from the thermal processing of the
RC production process (drying and reactivation), the probability of
exceeding the emissions from clinker production is roughly 1% for a
threshold of 800 kg CO2/t recycled cement (Fig. 8). The sensibility
analysis reveals that the variability is mostly driven by the: i) water
content of the waste cement before drying (WC); ii) proportion of
cement paste on the raw material entering the separation stage
(CP); and iii) energy intensity of the dryer (EI).
Regarding the additional electricity consumption required to
offset the CO2 emission savings during the thermal processing, the
probability of being negative is less than 1%, considering either the
average EU-28 or the largest cement producers’ emissions from
electricity production (Fig. 9). The dispersion is higher when
considering the EU-28 average (Fig. 9 a)) than the only the largest
cement producers (Fig. 9 b)). In both cases, the sensitivity analysis
reveals an additional factor to the list of the most influential for the
thermal processing emissions, the CO2 emissions from electricity
production (EE).
Considering the 7% potential fuel consumption reduction from
optimizing the Portland clinker production process estimated by
Summerbell et al. (2016), or the combined 120 g CO2/t cement
reduction forecasted by Wang et al. (2014), the RC solution out-
performs largely those savings.
4. Conclusions
The present research evaluates the energy savings and CO2
emissions from producing RC in practical context. Contrarily to the
past studies in the topic, all stages required to produce RC from
concrete waste available at construction and demolition waste
treatment plants are accounted for. This is done considering a novel
RC production process that resorts to magnetic separation to split
the cement past from the aggregates.
Comparing to the conventional clinker production, the esti-
mates demonstrate that an industrial facility for recycling cement
using this novel process would reduce the CO2 emissions between
22% (comparing with best Global world scenario) and 39% (for the
SECIL Outa~o cement plant). For Europe, the estimated savings are of
29% in average. These savings result from avoiding the calcination
process emissions, since the energy consumption is not reduced.
In terms of energy consumption, it was demonstrated that the
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277

Fig. 8. Stochastic results of the recycled cement production process thermal processing: CO2 emissions (left) and sensibility analysis (right).

Fig. 9. Stochastic results of the recycled cement production process additional electricity consumption: consumption (left) and sensibility analysis (right) for the average CO2
emissions intensity in electricity production on a) the EU-28 and b) the largest cement producers.

11
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
electricity consumption is less than for producing Portland cement.
However, the need for washing and drying the material before
magnetic separation implies a consumption of thermal energy 60%
higher than the average for Portland cement production. This
excess of thermal energy consumption is due to the low proportion
of cement paste on the raw material that has to dried. However, this
proportion is a function of the cement content on the concrete and
cannot be changed.
The need for drying the raw material before the magnetic sep-
aration is clearly the bottleneck of the RC production process at this
stage of development. It is the authors believe that, in an industrial
setup, it would be possible to reduce the thermal energy con-
sumption by: i) minimizing the raw material water content before
entering the drying oven; and ii) use the exhaust gases from the
oven to pre-dry the material before entering the oven. In the lab-
oratory implementation, the hand washing process used is far from
being optimized and there is no possibility of using the exhaust
gases from the drying and heat treatment to pre-dry the material.
The major breakthrough for the success of the solution for
producing RC evaluated in this research would be avoiding the need
for washing and drying the material before the magnetic separation
altogether. A possibility to achieve this may be the use of powerful
industrial magnetic separators, possibly combined with air blowers
to remove a portion of the dust in the raw material.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vitor Sousa: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,

Alex-
Writing e original draft, Writing e review & editing. Jose
andre Bogas: Resources, Project administration, Funding acquisi-
tion, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing e review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Portuguese Foundation for Sci-
ence and Technology (FCT) for funding this research under the
project PTDC/ECI-COM-28308/2017 and under the unit project
UIDB/ECI/04625/2020 of CERIS.
References
Afkhami, B., Akbarian, B., Beheshti, A., Kakaee, A.H., Shabani, B., 2015. Energy
consumption assessment in a cement production plant. Sustain. Energy Tech-
nol. Assess. 10, 84e89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2015.03.003.
Ahn, J.W., Kim, H.S., Han, G.C., 2001. Recovery of aggregates from waste concrete by
heating and grinding. Geosyst. Eng. 4, 117e122. https://doi.org/10.1080/
12269328.2001.10541178.
Akhtar, A., Sarmah, A.K., 2018. Construction and demolition waste generation and
properties of recycled aggregate concrete: a global perspective. J. Clean. Prod.
186, 262e281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.085.
Aldakshe, A., Çag lar, H., Çag
lar, A., Avan, Ç., 2020. The investigation of use as
aggregate in lightweight concrete production of boron wastes. Civ. Eng. J. 6 (7),
1328e1335. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091551.
Al-Mufti, R.L., Fried, A.N., 2017. Improving the strength properties of recycled
asphalt aggregate concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 149, 45e52. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.056.
Andrew, R.M., 2018. Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst. Sci.
Data 10, 195e217. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-195-2018.
Andrew, R.M., 2019. Global CO2 emissions from cement production, 1928-2018.
Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1675e1710. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1675-2019.
Ang, B.W., Su, B., 2016. Carbon emission intensity in electricity production: a global
analysis. Energy Pol. 94, 56e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.038.
ATIC, 2019. National Path towards the Decarbonation of the Cement Industry.
Associaça~o Te
cnica da Indústria de Cimento (ATIC), Portugal (in Portuguese).
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
Bachtiar, E., Mustaan, M., Jumawan, F., Artayani, M., Tahang, T., Rahman, M.J.,
Setiawan, A., Ihsan, M., 2020. Examining polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as
artificial coarse aggregates in concrete. Civ. Eng. J. 6 (12), 2416e2424. https://
doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091626.
Barcelo, L., Kline, J., Walenta, G., Gartner, E., 2014. Cement and carbon emissions.
Mater. Struct. 47, 1055e1065. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0114-5.
Behera, M., Bhattacharyya, S.K., Minocha, A.K., Deoliya, R., Maiti, S., 2014. Recycled
aggregate from C&D waste & its use in concrete e a breakthrough towards
sustainability in construction sector: a review. Construct. Build. Mater. 68,
501e516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.003.
Boden, T.A., Andres, R.J., Marland, G., 2017. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel
CO2 Emissions, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA available at.
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html. accessed 2 October
2020.
Bogas, J.A., Carriço, A., Pereira, M.F.C., 2019. Mechanical characterization of thermal
activated low-carbon recycled cement mortars. J. Clean. Prod. 218, 377e389.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.325.
Bogas, J.A., Carriço, A., Tenza-Abril, A., 2020a. Microstructure of thermoactivated
recycled cement pastes. Cement Concr. Res. 138, 106226. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106226.
Bogas, J.A., Pereira, M.F.C., Guedes, A.M., Carriço, A., Hu, S., Sousa, R., 2020b. Sepa-
ration Process of Waste Hardened Concrete for Obtaining Recycled Cement
from Waste Concrete. Pattent Application No. 116130 priority date 24/02/2020.
Cai, B., Wanga, J., He, J., Geng, Y., 2016. Evaluating CO2 emission performance in
China’s cement industry: an enterprise perspective. Appl. Energy 166, 191e200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.006.
Carriço, A., Bogas, J.A., Guedes, M., 2020. Thermoactivated cementitious materials -
a review. Construct. Build. Mater. 250, 118873. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2020.118873.
Castan~o
n, A.M., García-Granda, S., Guerrero, A., Lorenzo, M.P., Angulo, S., 2015.
Energy and environmental savings via optimisation of the production process at
a Spanish cement factory. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 47e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.03.028.
Cembureau, 2016. Cement, Concrete & the Circular Economy. The European Cement
Association (CEMBUREAU). Brussels, Belgium. https://circulareconomy.europa.
eu/platform/sites/default/files/cement_concrete_the_circular_economy.pdf.
assessed 16 October 2020.
Cembureau, 2020. Cementing the European Green Deal: Reaching Climate
Neutrality along the Cement and Concrete Value Chain by 2050. The European
Cement Association (CEMBUREAU). Brussels, Belgium. https://cembureau.eu/
media/w0lbouva/cembureau-2050-roadmap_executive-summary_final-
version_web.pdf. assessed 16 October 2020.
EC, 2008. Waste Framework Directive - Directive 2008/98/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing
Certain Directives. European Commission (EC). Brussels, Belgium. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri¼CELEX:32008L0098. assessed 16
October 2020.
EC, 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions: A New Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More
Competitive Europe. European Commission (EC). Brussels, Belgium. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid¼1583933814386&uri¼COM:
2020:98. FIN (assessed 16 October 2020.
ECOFYS, 2009. Methodology for the Free Allocation of Emission Allowances in the
EU ETS Post 2012: Sector Report for the Cement Industry. ECOFYS project
Number: PECSNL082164. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/ets/
allowances/docs/bm_study-lime_en.pdf. assessed 10 November 2020.
ECOFYS, 2017. Status and Prospects of Co-processing of Waste in EU Cement Plants.
Executive Summary. https://cembureau.eu/media/rjqiyqca/2017-05-11_ecofys_
publication_alternativefuels_report.pdf. assessed 10 November 2020.
ECRA, 2015. Closing the Loop: what Type of Concrete Re-use Is the Most Sustainable
Option. European Cement Research Association (ECRA), Duesseldorf, Germany.
https://www.theconcreteinitiative.eu/images/Newsroom/Publications/2016-
01-16_ECRA_TechnicalReport_ConcreteReuse.pdf. assessed 10 November 2020.
ECRA, 2016. Evaluation of the Energy Performance of Cement Kilns in the Context of
Co-processing. European Cement Research Academy GmbH (ECRA). Technical
Report A-2016/1039. https://cembureau.eu/media/oyahklgk/12042-ecra-en-
ergy-performance-cement-kilns-2017-10-15.pdf. assessed 10 November 2020.
EEA, 2017. CO2 Intensity of Electricity Generation. European Environment Agency
(EEA). https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/co2-intensity-of-elec-
tricity-generation. assessed 16 October 2020.
EEA, 2020. Construction and Demolition Waste: Challenges and Opportunities in a
Circular Economy. Resource efficiency and waste, Waste Management, Euro-
pean Environment Agency (EEA). https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/
waste-management/construction-and-demolition-waste-challenges. assessed
16 October 2020.
EMEP, E.E.A., 2019. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2016:
Cement Production. Version Guidebook 2019. European Monitoring and Eval-
uation Programme (EMEP), European Environment Agency (EEA). In: https://
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2019/part-b-sectoral-
guidance-chapters/2-industrial-processes/2-a-mineral-products/2-a-1-
cement-production/view. assessed 16 October 2020.
EU, 2018. Competitiveness of the European Cement and Lime Sectors. Final Report.
European Commission (EU), Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry,
V. Sousa and J.A. Bogas
Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2873/300170, 978-
92-79-64665-2.
Florea, M.V.A., Ning, Z., Brouwers, H.J.H., 2014. Activation of liberated concrete fines
and their application in mortars. Construct. Build. Mater. 50, 1e12. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.012.
Gao, T., Shen, L., Shen, M., Liu, L., Chen, F., 2016. Analysis of material flow and
consumption in cement production Process. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 553e565.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.054.
Gartner, E., 2004. Industrially interesting approaches to ‘‘low-CO2’’ cements.
Cement Concr. Res. 34, 1489e1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2004.01.021.
Gastaldi, D., Canonico, F., Capelli, L., Buzzi, L., Boccaleri, E., Irico, S., 2015. An
investigation on the recycling of hydrated cement from concrete demolition
waste. Cement Concr. Compos. 61, 29e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2015.04.010.
Gavriletea, M.D., 2017. Environmental impacts of sand exploitation. Analysis of sand
market. Sustainability 9, 1118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071118.
GCCA, 2018. Getting the Numbers Right (GNR). Global Cement and Concrete As-
sociation (GCCA) available at. https://gccassociation.org/sustainability-
innovation/gnr-gcca-in-numbers/. assessed 16 October 2020.
He, Z., Zhu, X., Wang, J., Mu, M., Wang, Y., 2019. Comparison of CO2 emissions from
OPC and recycled cement production. Construct. Build. Mater. 211, 965e973.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.289.
Huntzinger, D.N., Eatmon, T.D., 2009. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement
manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technolo-
gies. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 668e675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.007.
IEA, 2007. Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions. International
Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264030404-en.
IEA, 2016. Energy Technology Perspectives 2016: towards Sustainable Urban Energy
Systems. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, ISBN 978-92-64-25233-2
available at. www.iea.org/etp2016. assessed 16 October 2020.
IEA, 2020. Cement. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris available at: https://
www.iea.org/reports/cement. assessed 16 October 2020.
IEA, CSI, 2018. Technology Roadmap: Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement In-
dustry. International Energy Agency (IEA), Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI).
https://www.wbcsd.org/Sector-Projects/Cement-Sustainability-Initiative/
Resources/Technology-Roadmap-Low-Carbon-Transition-in-the-Cement-
Industry. assessed 16 October 2020.
IPCC, 2000. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), Japan, ISBN 4-88788-000-6 available at. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.
jp/public/gp/english/. assessed 16 October 2020.
Ismail, S., Ramli, M., 2014. Mechanical strength and drying shrinkage properties of
concrete containing treated coarse recycled concrete aggregates. Construct.
Build. Mater. 68, 726e739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.058.
Juan, M.S., Gutie
rrez, P.A., 2009. Study on the influence of attached mortar content
on the properties of recycled concrete aggregate. Construct. Build. Mater. 23 (2),
872e877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.04.012.
Kadhum, A.O., Owaid, H.M., 2020. Experimental investigation of self-compacting
high performance concrete containing calcined kaolin clay and nano lime.
Civ. Eng. J. 6 (9), 1978. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091583, 1808.
Kwon, E., Ahn, J., Cho, B., Park, D., 2015. A study on development of recycled cement
made from waste cementitious powder. Construct. Build. Mater. 83, 174e180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.086.
Madlool, N.A., Saidur, R., Hossain, M.S., Rahim, N.A., 2011. A critical review on en-
ergy use and savings in the cement industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15,
2042e2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.01.005.
Manning, D.A.C., Tangtinthai, N., Heidrich, O., 2019. Evaluation of raw material
extraction, processing, construction and disposal of cement and concrete
products: datasets and calculations. Data Brief 24, 103929. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dib.2019.103929.
Martín-Morales, M., Zamorano, M., Ruiz-Moyano, A., Valverde-Espinosa, I., 2011.
Characterization of recycled aggregates construction and demolition waste for
concrete production following the Spanish Structural Concrete Code EHE-08.
Construct. Build. Mater. 25, 742e748. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2010.07.012.
Milad, A., Ali, A.S.B., Yusoff, N.I.M., 2020. A review of the utilisation of recycled
waste material as an alternative modifier in asphalt mixtures. Civ. Eng. J. 6,
42e60. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-SP(EMCE)-05.
Milliman, D., Syvitski, M., 1992. Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge
to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers. J. Geol. 100 (5),
525e544. https://doi.org/10.1086/629606.
Müller, N., Harnisch, J., 1998. How to Turn Around the Trend of Cement Related
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127277
Emissions in the Developing World. World Wildlife Foundation (WWF. https://
wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/cement_blueprint_climate_
fullenglrep_lr.pdf. retrieved 10.02.2021.
Peduzzi, P., 2014. Sand, rarer than one thinks. Environ. Dev. 11, 208e218. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2014.04.001.
Peng, G.F., Yang, J., Wang, J.Y., 2014. Influence of recycled aggregate defects on the
durability of recycled aggregate concrete. Key Eng. Mater. 629e630, 173e182.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.629-630.173.
Real, S., Carriço, A., Bogas, J.A., Guedes, M., 2020. Influence of the treatment tem-
perature on the microstructure and hydration behavior of thermoactivated
recycled cement. Materials 13, 3937. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13183937.
Rosado, L.P., Vitale, P., Penteado, C.S.G., 2017. Life cycle assessment of natural and
mixed recycled aggregate production in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 634e642.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.068.
Scrivener, K., Avet, F., Maraghechi, H., Zunino, F., Ston, J., Hanpongpun, W., Favier, A.,
2019. Impacting factors and properties of limestone calcined clay cements
(LC3). Green Mater. 7 (1), 3e14. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgrma.18.00029.
SECIL, 2011. Environmental declaration. Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento, S.A.
(SECIL), Secil-Out~ ao plant, Setúbal Portugal (in portuguese). http://www.secil-
group.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Declaracao-Ambiental-Outao-2011.
pdf. assessed 24 October 2020.
SECIL, 2014. Environmental declaration. Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento, S.A.
(SECIL), Secil-Out~ ao plant, Setúbal Portugal (in portuguese). http://www.secil-
group.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Declaracao-Ambiental-Outao-2014.
pdf. assessed 24 October 2020.
SECIL, 2016. Environmental declaration. Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento, S.A.
(SECIL), Secil-Out~ ao plant, Setúbal Portugal (in portuguese). http://www.secil-
group.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2018_05_14_SECIL_Declaracao-
Ambiental_Outa%CC%83o.pdf. assessed 24 October 2020.
SECIL, 2018. Environmental declaration. Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento, S.A.
(SECIL), Secil-Out~ ao plant, Setúbal Portugal (in portuguese). http://www.secil-
group.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Declaracao-Ambiental-Outao-2011.
pdf. assessed 24 October 2020.
Shi, C., Li, Y., Zhang, J., Li, W., Chong, L., Xie, Z., 2016. Performance enhancement of
recycled concrete aggregate - a review. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 466e472. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.057.
Smith, S.H., Durham, S.A., 2016. A cradle to gate LCA framework for emissions and
energy reduction in concrete pavement mixture design. Int. J. Sustain. Built
Environ. 5, 23e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.01.001.
Summerbell, D.L., Barlow, C.Y., Cullen, J.M., 2016. Potential reduction of carbon
emissions by performance improvement: a cement industry case study. J. Clean.
Prod. 135, 1327e1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.155.
Upshaw, M., Cai, C.S., 2020. Critical review of recycled aggregate concrete proper-
ties, improvements, and numerical models. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 32 (11), 03120005
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003394.
Wahlstro €m, M., Bergmans, J., Teittinen, T., Bache
r, J., Smeets, A., Paduart, A., 2020.
Construction and Demolition Waste: Challenges and Opportunities in a Circular
Economy. European Environment Agency (EEA), European Topic Centre Waste
and Materials in a Green Economy. Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2020/1. https://
www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/products/etc-reports/construction-and-
demolition-waste-challenges-and-opportunities-in-a-circular-economy#:
~:text¼Construction%20and%20Demolition%20Waste%3A%20challenges%20and
%20opportunities%20in%20a%20circular%20economy,-Publication%20date%3A%
2013&text¼Through%20selected%20illustrative%20examples%2C%20the,of
%20construction%20and%20demolition%20waste. assessed 24 October 2020.
Wang, J., Mu, M., Liu, Y., 2018. Recycled cement. Construct. Build. Mater. 190,
1124e1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.181.
Wang, Y., Ho €ller, S., Viebahn, P., Hao, Z., 2014. Integrated assessment of CO2r-
eduction technologies in China’s cement industry. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control.
20, 27e36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.10.004.
WBCSD, 2016. Cement Industry Energy and CO2 Performance: Getting the Numbers
Right (GNR). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD),
Geneva. https://www.wbcsd.org/Sector-Projects/Cement-Sustainability-
Initiative/Resources/Cement-Industry-Energy-and-CO2-Performance#:∼:
text=Getting%20the%20Numbers%20Right%20(GNR)%20is%20an%
20independently%20managed%20database,on%20the%20global%20cement%
20industry.&text=The%20database%20delivers%20uniform%2C%
20accurate,key%20emissions%20and%20performance%20drivers. (Accessed 23
September 2020).
Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Hendriks, C., Meida, L.O., 2001. Carbon dioxide
emissions from the global cement industry. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 26,
303e329. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303.