Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Cement industry greenhouse gas emissions e management options

and abatement cost
Raili Kajaste*, Markku Hurme
Aalto University, Department of Biotechnology and Chemical Technology, PO Box 16100, FI-00076 AALTO, Finland

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

Article history: Growing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and increasing global demand for cement are general
Received 13 March 2015 drivers for managing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the cement industry. Overall CO2 dominates
Received in revised form cement sector GHG emissions. The aim was to study how the management of GHG emissions in the
8 June 2015
cement production chain is related to (1) clinker substitutes, (2) primary source of energy, (3) electricity
Accepted 10 July 2015
emissions, (4) technology in use and (5) geographic location. Therefore regional CO2 emissions in the
Available online 28 July 2015
cement industry were analyzed by applying a climate impact management matrix on a cradle-to-gate
basis. The use of clinker substitutes in cement varied from 3% to 36.4%. The results show that the vari-
Keywords:
Cement
ation of process technology and thermal energy use related CO2 emissions is more significant than that of
Climate impact electricity emissions. The highest near term potential to avoid emissions is replacing clinker with mineral
Abatement cost components (MIC). Increasing the global use of MIC to a level of 34.2%in cement would save 312 Mt CO2
CO2 emission management with the 2013 level of annual cement production. Similarly, a 2.7% reduction in thermal energy use would
save 28 Mt CO2 annually, and a 10% decrease of emissions from electricity use would save 26 Mt CO2. The
best long term options from 2030 onwards are different carbon capture technologies and MgO and
geopolymer cements. In addition, the CO2 abatement costs of different investment projects were
compared by using a uniform capital recovery factor. The abatement cost of avoided emissions varied
from US$4 to US$ 448 per ton of CO2 depending on the technology, geographical location and initial level
of CO2 emissions.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since 1950 the production of cement has gone up by a factor of
25, and China used more cement in 2011e2013 than the USA during
the entire 20th century (Smil, 2013). Consequently, in 2010 the
cement sector was responsible for 2823 million metric tons (Mt) of
CO2 emissions (OECD, 2012). This corresponded to almost 9% of
global CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels that year. In total,
cement production accounts for roughly 5e8% of global CO2
emissions. Thus growing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
and increasing global demand for cement are general drivers that
motivate finding solutions for managing greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) in the cement industry and comparing the abatement cost of
different technological or technical solutions. The United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and the Inter-
national Energy Agency (IEA) estimate that the annual mitigation
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: raili.kajaste@aalto.fi (R. Kajaste).
potential of GHG emissions in the cement industry will vary be-
tween 480 and 1700 million metric tons in 2030 (IPCC, 2007; IEA,
2006).
Global reporting on cement industries is, however, not com-
plete: available statistics on cement industry production volumes
and GHG emissions do not fully cover global emissions and vary in
different sources of information. The large amount of CO2 emis-
sions, considerable use of energy, and depleting resources has
pushed the cement industry to implement commitments like the
Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI, 2011; WBCSD, 2012). A road-
map for reducing the climate impact of cement industries gives the
general framework (IEA, 2009) that is supported by other organi-
zations (Gupta, 2011). Global cement production grew by over 73%
between 2005 and 2013 from 2310 Mt to 4000 Mt (Cembureau,
2014), highlighting the importance of reducing CO2 emissions of
cement production.
Research on the management of cement industry GHG emis-
sions and, in particular, those of CO2 has received considerable
interest worldwide. The cement production process, energy use
and related CO2 emissions are known from previous research

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.055
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
4042 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052
(Uso
n et al., 2013; Benhelal et al., 2012; Mikulcic et al., 2012).
Traditional pathways to decrease cement production emissions
are improved energy efficiency through improved technology,
better process integration together with the use of clinker sub-
stitutes like waste fly ash and slags from power production and
minerals processing (Ishak and Hashim, 2014; Worrell et al.,
2008), and fuel switching and alternative fuels (McLellan et al.,
2012; Rahman et al., 2015). Ash from agricultural wastes which
constitute pozzolanic materials can be used as a replacement for
cement (Aprianti et al., 2015). Hasanbeigi et al. (2012) reviewed
eighteen emerging technologies and their benefits for the cement
industry. One of the conclusions was that information is still
scarce and scattered regarding energy-efficiency and low-carbon
technologies. Also most of the technologies have an energy pen-
alty associated with their operation. Considerable research effort
is dedicated to reducing the cement production emissions in
China, and accompanying investments in new kiln technologies
have considerably reduced the CO2 emissions per ton of cement
from 2006 onwards (Xu et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014, 2013; Wen
et al., 2015; Hasanbeigi et al., 2013).
Cement is one of the key components in concrete. Several
studies concentrate on the possibility to replace cement in concrete
or mortar with recycled materials like porcelain polishing residues
(Jacoby and Pelisser, 2015), glass (de Castro and de Brito, 2013),
recycled tyre rubber (Uso
n et al., 2013), basalt aggregates (Ingrao
et al., 2014), ceramic aggregates (Medina et al., 2013) or other ag-
gregates (Mutuk and Mesci, 2014). Research on alternative binders
to Portland cement that reduce the CO2 emission is progressing
(Ponikiewski and Gołaszewski, 2014; Juenger et al., 2011), and e.g.
the use of alkali-activated (AA) binder instead of ground granulated
blast-furnace slag (GGBS) cement in concrete or in ordinary Port-
land cement (OPC)-based concrete reduces the CO2 emission of
concrete by between 55 and 75% (Yang et al., 2013). GGBS can also
be used as a soil stabilizer instead of cement in non-fired clay mixes
(Kinuthia and Oti, 2012). Composite masonry bricks without Port-
land cement have been successfully tested (Turgut, 2012), and the
Fig. 1. System boundary for a cradle-to-gate LCA of a cement plant. Adapted from Finnsementti (2007).
latest news report on compostable bricks grown on agricultural
waste frames with the help of fungi for short life time constructions
(NS, 2014). Carbon capture technologies are also one of the future
options to reduce the CO2 emission of cement production leading to
life cycle GHG emission reductions of 39e78% for cement produc-
tion (Volkart et al., 2013; Hasanbeigi et al., 2012). Simulation
models for oxy-combustion, calcium looping and amine scrubbing
reduced the flue gas CO2 content by 63e85% but increased the
specific energy consumption (Vatopoulos and Tzimas, 2012). A
scenario analysis for Spain forecasts a 45% emission reduction from
the 2010 level in 2030 (García-Gusano et al., 2015). The promising
different options to reduce the GHG of cement production and
partially incomplete and scattered data motivated us to study how
the overall management of GHG emissions in the cement produc-
tion chain is related to clinker substitutes, technology in use, pri-
mary source of energy, electricity emissions and geographic
location. In addition, we compared the abatement costs of reducing
the GHG of cement production by using a uniform capital recovery
factor. Our focus in this paper is on managing GHG emissions in
cement production chains. Other environmental burdens like par-
ticulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification and freshwater
eutrophication are excluded. Methods are described in Section 2,
and Section 3 presents the results of our study. The conclusions are
highlighted in Section 4.
2. Methods
The system boundary for a single plant GHG management was
selected on a cradle-to-gate basis and is described in Figs. 1 and 2.
For analyzing regional differences, data on cement production GHG
emissions collected from several sources were grouped by
geographic region. GHG emissions in the cement industry were
analyzed and calculated in uniform unit (kg CO2/t cement) as
shown in the resulting datasets (Table 2). The consistency and ac-
curacy of contributors to the overall CO2 emissions in the cement
industry in the datasets e clinker baseline, positive impact of
 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052
clinker substitutes, fossil fuel emissions and electricity emissions e
was assessed by using least square linear regression. The clinker
baseline is defined as CO2 released from decomposition of mainly
limestone and magnesium carbonate during the clinker production
process (GNR, 2011). The resulting regional CO2 emissions together
with previous research on managing energy and GHG emissions
were used for a comparative analysis of different options to
improve the GHG balance of cement industries based on found
contributors. In addition, the abatement cost of emission re-
ductions were calculated using a uniform capital recovery factor
(CRF).
2.1. System boundary for single plant GHG management
Cement sector GHG emissions are dominated by CO2, which
constitutes 98.5% (Ingrao et al., 2014), and usually cradle-to-gate
life cycle assessment (LCA) studies include only CO2 with few ex-
ceptions (Li et al., 2014). Most of the statistics cover only process
emissions and related energy emissions excluding emissions from
electricity use from the assessment. Usually LCA studies of cement
production report life cycle inventories (LCI) on a plant or regional
scale (Li et al., 2014; Moya et al., 2011) and evaluate possibilities to
reduce the environmental impact either by alternative technologies
(Chen et al., 2010; Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009) or by upgrading
an existing plant (Valderrama et al., 2012). The key functional unit
(FU) used is either kg or m3 of produced clinker, cement or concrete
in cases where the target is to reduce the amount of cement in
concrete. The climate impact of raw material mining and quarrying
including transport is generally considered to contribute about 5%
of the overall CO2 emissions and, therefore, has often been left out
of emission evaluations. A 50% increase in transport distance has a
relative impact of 3e10% on the emission for OPC concrete
(McLellan et al., 2011). This means that uncertainties in assessing
GHG emissions of the cement raw material supply chain remain to
be clarified.
Fig. 2. Climate impact management matrix for cement industries.
4043
A typical set of boundary limits for a cradle-to-gate basis life
cycle assessment (LCA) for a modern dry cement plant with pre-
heaters is shown in Fig. 1. A climate impact management matrix
for the cement industry was developed based on a similar man-
agement matrix as for biorefinery production chains (Kajaste,
2014). The life cycle of a single cement production site, on a
cradle-to-gate basis, consists of feedstock production, storage,
transportation, intermediate storage, pretreatment, cement pro-
duction operations, product storage, packaging and dispatching
(Fig. 2). The importance of reducing GHG emissions of cement
comes evident also in LCAs of its end users; it was found for all US
roads studied that the majority of emissions occur in year one e
from cradle-to-gate materials production e primarily due to
cement production (Loijos et al., 2013).
2.2. Matrix for contributors
The sum of CO2 specific emissions ETotal (kg CO2/t cement) is:
ETotal ¼ EClinker Baseline  EClinkerSubstitute þ EFossil Fuel
þ EElectricity þ ETransport ; (1)
and can be rewritten with regression parameters wi as
ETotal ¼ w1 EClinker baseline w2 EClinkerSubstitute þw3 EFossil Fuel
þw4 EElectricity þw5 ETransport : (2)
Since the information available does not allow the estimation of
transport emissions (ETransport), these were excluded from the
evaluation, and Eq. (1) was rewritten as:
ETotal ¼ EClinkerBaseline  EClinker substitutes þ EFossilFuel
þ EElectricity : (1a)
4044 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052

Table 1
Geographical distribution of 25% of the world cement production and CO2 emissions in 2011.

Region Production t/year Emissions tCO2/year Specific emission Fuel carbon g CO2/MJ MIC % wt Coverage %
kg CO2/t clinker of production

Europe 201,000,000 129,000,000 847 82.8 25.1 96

North America 59,800,000 44,500,000 897 90.3 8.15 76
Japan Aus NZ 24,600,000 17,100,000 838 90.8 15.1 39
CIS 16,800,000 13,500,000 976 76.8 18.4 18
Central America 38,500,000 25,100,000 858 90.7 27.0 67
Brazil 46,200,000 26,800,000 850 81.8 32.3 72
South America* 32,100,000 18,900,000 848 82.1 29.3 61
China 106,000,000 75,700,000 867 96.4 25.2 5
India 123,000,000 72,200,000 837 95.9 27.3 55
Asia** 116,000,000 83,500,000 843 90.2 18.5 37
Africa 82,400,000 46,300,000 814 72.3 21.2 51
Middle East 30,700,000 21,200,000 851 91.1 16.7 11
WORLD 25% 877,100,000 573,800,000 852 87.3 23.61 25

Notes: specific emission does not include emissions from the use of electricity. *ex. Brazil, **excl. China, India, CIS and Japan, MIC ¼ mineral components in Portland and
blended cements. Adapted from GNR (2011).

Table 2
Cement production carbon dioxide emissions in kg CO2/t cement.

Dataset Etotal Eclinker baseline ECSubstitute Efossil fuel Eelectricity Year Location Adapted from

Dataset 1 Plant data

1.1 806 521 68 333 20 2000 Finland Finnsementti, 2006
1.2 823 532 73 344 20 2001 Finland
1.3 860 529 69 380 20 2002 Finland
1.4 824 525 68 346 21 2003 Finland
1.5 872 527 70 394 21 2004 Finland
1.6 848 525 67 370 20 2005 Finland
Dataset 2 Plant data
2.1 723 524 134 216 117 2004 India CDM, 2014
2.2 754 551 154 241 116 2004 India Project 0287
2.3 837 534 146 299 150 2004 India
2.4 711 551 154 241 73 2004 India
Dataset 3 Countrywide
3.1 729 520 156 291 74 2007 China Ke et al., 2013
3.2 748 547 164 291 74 2007 China Ke et al., 2013
3.3 755 557 167 291 74 2007 China Ke et al., 2013
3.4 863 712 214 291 74 2007 China Ke et al., 2013
3.5 790 607 182 291 74 2007 China Ke et al., 2013
3.6 680 532 202 275 75 2007 China Wang et al., 2013
3.7 727 546 162 269 74 2007 China Li et al., 2014
3.8 664 547 187 229 75 2009 China Li et al., 2014
3.9 664 547 202 243 76 2011 China Ke et al., 2013
3.10 673 547 205 255 76 2011 China Xu et al., 2014
Dataset 4 Plant data
4.1 906 510 0 293 103 2010 Iran Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi and Attari, 2013
4.2 900 510 0 287 103 2010 Iran
4.3 923 510 0 318 95 2010 Iran
4.4 1000 510 0 389 101 2010 Iran
4.5 940 510 0 331 99 2010 Iran
Dataset 5 Europe
5.1 719 525 6*** 188 n.a. 2011 UK MPA Cement, 2012
5.2 597 525 142 160 54 2011 Germany VDZ, 2014
5.3 614 525 131 166 54 2007 Germany VDZ, 2014
5.4 634 525 132 241 n.a. 2011 Europe GNR, 2011
5.5 757 510 77 266 58 2010 Nordic Rootzen and Johnsson, 2015
5.6 646 525 129 250 n.a. 2010 Europe GNR, 2011
5.7 670 525 118 263 n.a. 2005 Europe GNR, 2011
Dataset 6 Global
6.1 824 525 43 342 n.a. 2011 N. America
6.2 712 525 79 266 n.a. 2011 Japan Aus NZ
6.3 796 525 97 368 n.a. 2011 CIS
6.4 626 525 142 243 n.a. 2011 C. America
6.5 576 525 170 221 n.a. 2011 Brazil
6.6 600 525 154 229 n.a. 2011 S. America*
6.7 649 525 132 256 n.a. 2011 China
6.8 609 525 143 227 n.a. 2011 India
6.9 687 525 97 259 n.a. 2011 Asia**
6.10 641 525 111 227 n.a. 2011 Africa
6.11 709 525 88 272 n.a. 2011 M. East
6.12 654 525 124 253 n.a. 2011 WORLD 25% GNR, 2011

*excl. Brazil, **excl. China, India, CIS and Japan, ***does not reflect the actual situation. Calculations by the authors. Electricity emissions are missing from Dataset 6 and partly
from dataset 5, therefore the lower summary emissions.
 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052
2.3. Uniform capital recovery factor for calculation of the GHG
abatement cost
Statistical data on investment costs in different regions were
collected for the GHG abatement/mitigation cost calculations in the
cement industry. For investment cost calculation we used a capital
recovery factor (CRF),
 compared to the theoretical 100% clinker in cement value of
CRF ¼ ið1 þ iÞn ð1 þ iÞn  1;
where i is discount rate and n is the number of annuities received.
The annual abatement cost for one ton of GHG reduction (CO2eq)
was calculated by combining the emission reduction data with Eq.
(3) using two discount rates (5% and 10%) and a 10-year payback
period. The two discount rates also indicate the sensitivity of
abatement cost for changes in the investment cost.
3. Results and discussion
The object was to study how the overall management of GHG
emissions in the cement production chain is related to (1) clinker
substitutes, (2) primary source of energy, (3) electricity emissions,
(4) technology in use and (5) geographic location. The results give
the impact of the four first components for geographic regions. The
impact of technology in use is directly linked to the amount of CO2
emissions from thermal energy used in kilns. There is a clear
geographical variation in the CO2 emissions of the cement pro-
duction that is also reflected in the comparative analysis of different
options to improve the GHG balance of cement industries.
3.1. Regional distribution of cement production
Global cement production is dominated by China, India and
other Asian countries, which in 2013 produced almost 74% of the
world's cement. The regional split of production is shown in Figs. 3
and 4.
3.2. Datasets developed
Geographical differences in CO2 emissions from cement pro-
duction were the reason to develop regional datasets. Formation of
datasets was done for Eq. (1a). Initial data for dataset development
is shown in Table 1 covering 25% of the world's cement production
(but only 5% in China) in 2011. The emissions from electricity use
are not included in the specific emission of Table 1. The emission unit
in all the developed datasets is kg CO2/t cement.
Mt/year
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
China
Europe
India
2005
Asia*
CIS
Japan, Aus, NZ
United States
Brazil
Turkey
Africa
Middle East
America**
Fig. 3. World cement production volumes by region 2005e2013 in million metric tons.
Notes: *excl. China, India, CIS and Japan, **excl. Brazil and United States. Sources: GNR
(2011), Cembureau (2014), Ke et al. (2013).
4045
Several estimates of the world's cement production and corre-
sponding CO2 emissions exist, and one of them e based on satellite
monitoring e reported for 2007, 2008 and 2009 gives estimates of
1382, 1417 and 1397 Mt CO2, respectively (ORNL, 2010). These
emissions exclude emissions from fossil fuel and electricity use in
the cement industry, and taking 3000 Mt as total cement produc-
tion in 2009 we get a process emission of 466 kg CO2/t cement that
(3) 510e525 indicates a MIC% of 8.63e11.24 in the cement. This is
lower than the World 25% value of 22.55% for the same year
(Table 1). The difference may be explained by the fact that the
companies reporting to GNR have less clinker loss in dust emis-
sions, are more efficient in their fossil fuel use and are overall more
prone to replace clinker with mineral components that reduce the
overall CO2 emission.
Datasets (Table 2) are either based on single plant measured
values or on country/region based data. In all, the datasets cover
best the production in China (96%), Europe (96%), North America
(76%), Brazil (72%), Central America (67%), India (55%) and Africa
(51%). The percentages in brackets give the minimum coverage in
the region. For the rest of the regions the coverage % is shown in
Table 1. Conclusively, the datasets cover over 77% of the world's
cement production in 2013 assuming that no significant techno-
logical improvements have occurred since 2011. The relative un-
certainty of the estimates and confidence intervals including
standard deviations of datasets differ (Table 4).
Dataset 1 also presents measured clinker baseline values
including the dust loss emissions, which are valuable when
comparing the three internationally recommended baseline values
of 510, 525 or 540 generally used in assessing cement production
CO2 emissions (GNR, 2011). The relative uncertainty of the esti-
mates in Dataset 1 is considered to be of the normal level of labo-
ratory and plant instrument accuracy i.e. lower than 3%. The
median value for Etotal is 836 and standard deviation 21. Dataset 2
represents plant benchmarks with unknown accuracy and there-
fore assumed uncertainty is over 5%.
The relative uncertainty of the estimates of the CO2 emissions
from China's cement production (Dataset 3, Table 2) is in the range
of 10%e18% and reflects the discrepancies between different
methodologies (Ke et al., 2013). This uncertainty range indicates
that the total estimated CO2 emissions from China's cement in-
dustry in 2010 was lower than 1.1 Gt or higher than 1.4 Gt, a dif-
ference of more than 0.3 Gt.
Dataset 4 gives the results of a recent emission assessment of
five plants in Iran. The relative uncertainty of the estimates is
considered to be higher than that of Datasets 1 and 2. Dataset 5
America** 126 Middle East 185
Africa 192 (4.8%)
(3.2%) (4.6%)
Turkey 70 (2%) China
Brazil 70 (2%) 2344 (58.6%)
2005 CIS 104 (2.6%)
2010 Asia* 310 (7.8%)
Japan, Aus, NZ 72
2011
(2%)
Cement
2012
United States 78 producƟon
(2%)
2013 Mt in 2013
Europe 170
(4.3%)
India 280 (7%)
Fig. 4. World cement production in 2013 by regions in million metric tons. Notes:
*excl. China, India, CIS and Japan, **excl. Brazil and United States. Source: Cembureau
(2014).
4046 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052

Table 3
World cement production CO2 emissions by geographic region in 2011 in kg CO2/t cement.

District Production Mt Emissions Specific emission Clinker with MIC kg Fossil fuel kg Electricity emission
cement/year Mt CO2/year kg CO2/t cement CO2/t cement CO2/t cement kg CO2/t cement

China 2085 1440.74 691 365 250 76

India 210 174.93 833 387 332 114
Europe 209 143.79 688 393 241 54
United States 79 70.63 894 482 342 70
Japan, Aus, NZ 63 49.52 786 446 266 74
Asia* 270 205.47 761 428 259 74
CIS 93 81.38 875 440 385 50
Brazil 63 41.08 652 355 221 76
Turkey 64 45.31 708 392 242 74
America** 111 77.15 695 377 236 82
Middle East 168 149.04 920 502 318 100
Africa 162 134.30 829 457 272 100
WORLD 3577 2613.34 766 433 260 73

Notes: *excl. China, India, CIS and Japan, **excl. Brazil and United States, MIC ¼ mineral components in Portland and blended cements. National statistics usually excludes
electricity emission to avoid double counting. Calculations by the authors.

Table 4
Median values, standard deviations and relative uncertainties of CO2 emissions.

Data Median Etotal kg CO2/t cement Standard deviation kg CO2/t cement Relative uncertainty % Reference

25% World 852* 83 10e20 Table 1

Dataset 1 836 21 2.5 Table 2
Dataset 2 739 40 5.4 Table 2
Dataset 3 728 48 7e15 Table 2
Dataset 4 923 29 3e8 Table 2
Dataset 5 646 45 7e10 Table 2
Dataset 6 649 64 10 Table 2
World >77% 766* 79 5e12 Table 3

*Weighted average.

reflects best the total CO2 emissions of cement production in
Europe. The relative uncertainty comes from the values left outside
the range of 10% and 90%.
Dataset 6 is derived from the data given in Table 1, which covers
967 individual facilities that reported absolute net CO2 emission
556 MtCO2 and absolute gross emission 573 MtCO2 excluding
emissions from electricity in 2011. Originally, the gross and net
emissions per ton of clinker (Table 1) were estimated by GNR (2011)
using linear regression e between 10% and 90% e resulting in
weighted average values of 852 kg CO2/t clinker with a standard
deviation of 83 for gross emissions and correspondingly 825 kg
CO2/t clinker with a standard deviation of 100 for net emissions
(net CO2 emissions ¼ gross CO2 emissions minus emissions from
the use of alternative fossil fuels). Similarly the weighted average of
electricity use was estimated at 107 kWh/t cement with a standard
deviation of 53 (no estimate for CO2 emissions was included). The
emission estimate of GNR (2011) covered 651 facilities and the
electricity use of 254 companies.
Datasets were further used to estimate regional emission data
(Table 3) covering over 77% of the world's cement production. The
emissions are expressed as total specific CO2 emission and include
clinker baseline emission minus clinker substitute (MIC) impact,
emission from fossil fuel use and emission from electricity use. Elec-
tricity emissions of cement production were estimated using values
from Table 2 and regional data from IEA (2013). The emission values
for the total world production in 2011 were calculated as summary
emission of mass-fractional contributions of different regions.
The estimate of 2613 Mt CO2 emissions from the cement in-
dustry in 2011 (Table 3) correlates with the preliminary estimate of
2823 Mt CO2 emissions from the cement industry in 2010 by OECD
(2012) with a difference of 7.44%. A recent rough estimate for global
emissions from cement production uses the following values:
clinker baseline of 510 kg CO2/t clinker, clinker fuel emission of
353 kg CO2/t clinker, and for cement a process emission of 403 kg
CO2/t cement (assumes a 21% MIC content), cement fuel emission of
318 kg CO2/t cement and cement electricity emission of 100 kg CO2/
t cement. The corresponding summary specific emission is 821 kg
CO2/t cement (Gupta, 2011). This is 7.05% higher than the corre-
sponding value in Table 3 and gives a total global emission of
2933 Mt CO2 for the 2011 world production of cement. This is 3.9%
higher than the OECD (2012) estimate for 2010.
3.3. Model for consistency testing and fitting total emissions
The consistency and accuracy of Table 2 was checked by using
Eq. (1a), in which the wi values were fitted by a least square
regression. The regression parameters w1, w2, w3 and w4 all
equaled to 1, confirming a perfect fit with less than a one percent
error margin. The importance of correct EClinkerSubstitute values
emerged from checking with data regression incomplete data from
a CDM project number 0711 Mysore and Dalmia in India (CDM,
2014) that included only the impact of fly ash and slag on clinker
baseline values. By assuming that Etotal equals 980 kg CO2/t cement
we got the following weighted coefficients: w1 e 1.009, w2 e 5.69,
w3 e 1.005 and w4 e 0.993, and by assuming that Etotal equals
833 kg CO2/t cement (global for India from Table 3) the weighted
coefficients changed to: w1 e 1.004, w2 e 2,54, w3 e 1.002 and w4 e
0.997. The error margin for the generated emission values (Eq. (1a))
varied from 7.52% to þ6.38%. This means that selected EClinker-
Substitute values have a considerable impact on the total emissions of
cement production. The relative uncertainty of the estimates and
confidence intervals including standard deviations of datasets are
shown in Table 4.
3.4. Comparative analysis of different options
Various sustainability initiatives and recent research have
already managed to reduce the CO2 emissions of the cement
 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052
industry. The specific emission level has dropped by 14.8% from the
average 1000 kg CO2/t clinker in 2006 to 852 kg CO2/t clinker in
2011 (Hasanbeigi et al., 2012; GNR, 2011). The electric energy
consumption has not dropped in similar tact; the global weighted
average was 111 kWh/t cement in 2006 and 107 kWh/t cement in
2011 corresponding to a 3.6% reduction in 6 years (IEA, 2009; GNR,
2011). Despite improvements, the continuously increasing pro-
duction volumes of cement mean that the magnitude of the
problem is not diminishing, as shown in Fig. 5. The starting point
for our comparative analysis of different mitigation options was the
global cement industry emission data for 2011 estimated by the
authors (Table 3). A minimum and maximum range for the possi-
bilities to reduce CO2 emissions by increasing MIC in cement, by
reducing the fossil fuel components, by improving the carbon
balance of electricity use, and by changing the kiln technology were
compared on the basis of the actual reduction potential. The
addition of MIC reduces the clinker baseline (510e525e540 kg CO2/
t clinker) linearly. Emissions from fossil fuel use depend on the fuel
mix and utilized kiln technology. Emissions from electricity depend
on the fossil use of generation and on the efficiency of its use in the
cement plant.
The specific emission in kg CO2/t cement varies geographically
from 652 in Brazil to 920 in the Middle East. Brazil has lower fossil
fuel and electricity baselines than the Middle East and uses mineral
components (34.2%) considerably more than is the practice in the
Middle East (5%), where OPC dominates the market. The differences
in fossil fuel and electricity baselines depend on several factors and
are highly specific for each region. Kiln technology is one of the
factors that impact the energy and electricity consumption of
cement plants. The regional differences of cement production
emissions are shown in Fig. 6. The total specific emission is shown
as (clinker baseline e MIC impact) plus emission from fossil fuel use
plus emission from electricity use as in Eq. (1a).
3.4.1. Management of CO2 emissions by increasing the MIC content
in cement
Substitution of clinker with MIC reduces the CO2 emission of
calcination and is an efficient way to improve the GHG manage-
ment in the cement industry.
The current use of these clinker substitutes (Fig. 7) is less than
the maximum allowable by current standards and national regu-
lations (Bhushan, 2010). Regional differences in replacing clinker
with other mineral substitutes are significant (Fig. 6) and can be
assessed based on the “Clinker with MIC kg CO2/t cement” emission
values that vary from 355 in Brazil to 502 kg CO2/t cement in the
Middle East (Table 3) if clinker to cement ratios are not available.
The widely used ASTM standard (2013) and the European cement
standard EN 197-1 (2011) allow varying clinker to cement ratios.
The latter includes 27 different variations for clinker content
starting from 95% for CEM I 42.5 (ordinary Portland cement) and
ending with 27% for CEM III/B 42.5 (a blended cement with ground
granulated blast furnace slag). In the United States and in the
4500
Million metric tons (Mt)
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 76.77
2005 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fig. 5. World cement production and corresponding CO2 emissions 2005e2013.
4047
1000
800
600
Electricity
400
Fossil fuel
200
0 Clinker+MIC
Fig. 6. Regional specific emissions in kg CO2/t cement in 2011.
Middle East, cement consumption is dominated by OPC, which
explains the low clinker substitute use, and is also reflected in the
high total specific emissions. The clinker substitute rate of Brazil is
34.2%. The clinker to cement ratio reached 62.6% in China in 2011
and is not expected to be lower than 60% before 2050 (Xu et al.,
2014). The minimum reduction potential could be that the world
average use of clinker substitutes in 2011 (17.52%) would be
increased to the level of Brazil. This would mean a reduction of
78 kg CO2/t cement produced, meaning a total reduction of 312 Mt
CO2/year (10.2%) with the production amount of 4000 Mt cement as
in 2013 with the assumption that OPC can always be replaced with
blended cement. The Cement Roadmap of IEA (2009) estimates a
27% average use of clinker substitutes in 2030 corresponding to a
reduction of 50 kg CO2/t cement. The latter would mean a 200 Mt
CO2/year reduction with the production level of 2013. The
maximum reduction potential will depend on how quickly the
positive mechanical and physical test results from high substitute
content in cement (>35%) will be adapted to international stan-
dards and national regulations. The availability of additional fly ash,
slag, pozzolan, limestone and recycled mineral components is not
considered a hindrance (Gupta, 2011).
3.4.2. Management of CO2 emissions by reducing fossil fuel use or
improving energy efficiency
The energy balance and technical solutions of cement kilns have
a considerable impact on CO2 emissions (Morrow et al., 2014). The
use of high calorific municipal solid waste (MSW) and other refuse-
derived fuel (RDF) as co-fired fuel in cement kilns significantly re-
duces GHG emissions (Garg et al., 2009; Genon and Brizio, 2008;
Kara, 2012). Sewage sludge (SS) both reduces fossil fuel use and
replaces up to 14% of the clinker in cement (Rodríguez et al., 2013).
However, the use of sludge slightly increases the CH4 and N2O
emission of cement production (Nakakubo et al., 2012). A review on
the technical, economic and environmental effects of MSW, SS,
biomass, meat and bone animal meal (MBM) and end-of-life tyres
(ELT) as alternative fuels and raw materials in the cement industry
concluded that by coupling the cement and waste management
Gypsum Limestone Puzzolana
4.46 6.52 1.9
Slag 5
Fly ash
4.39
World producƟon
Others 0.98
CO2 emissions
Grey
clinker
Fig. 7. Use of clinker and clinker substitutes (%) at 25% of the world cement facilities in
2011. Adapted from GNR (2011).
4048 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052
industries, it is possible to significantly reduce the GHG emissions
and natural resource consumption associated with cement pro-
duction (Uso
n et al., 2013). Similarly, the use of charcoal from
sawmill residues reduces fossil fuel emissions by 83e91%
compared to coal as fuel in a cement kiln (Sjølie, 2012). Up to 8% of
the cement in mortar could be replaced by rice straw coke without
a significant impact on the mechanical properties (Wang and Wu,
2013).
The CO2 emission from fossil fuel use in the cement industry
depends mainly on three factors: (1) the type of fossil fuel used; (2)
the amount of biomass and waste materials replacing fossil fuels;
and (3) the type of kiln used. The type or mix of fossil fuels available
for cement production in a specific country or region has remained
relatively unchanged for the last 10 years (GNR, 2011; IEA, 2009).
Biomass and different waste materials can both be used to replace
fossil fuel and as mineral substitutes for clinker (Rodríguez et al.,
2013). However, there is little evidence that the use of alternative
fuels has considerably increased in cement production.
In China a massive replacement of old shaft kilns with new dry
rotary kilns with suspension pre-heaters or pre-calciners (NSP
kilns) has taken place so that in 2012 shaft kilns corresponded to
20% of production capacity (Xu et al., 2014). NSP kilns dominate the
facilities of cement producers that report to the Cement Sustain-
ability Initiative (CSI) (GNR, 2011), as shown in Fig. 8. The average
fossil fuel emission of these producers is 253 kg CO2/t cement
(Table 2), and the average carbon intensity of energy is 87.3 g CO2/
MJ (Table 1). From this data by calculation we get an average energy
use of 2898 MJ/t cement, which corresponds to 3793 MJ/t clinker
with the given average value of clinker substitutes (Table 1). The
world average fossil fuel emission of 260 kg CO2/t cement (Table 3)
gives with the same carbon intensity as in Table 1 an average en-
ergy use of 2978 MJ/t cement, which corresponds to 3611 MJ/t
clinker with an average value of 17.52% of clinker substitutes. The
difference between the world 25% and the world total estimates is
80 MJ/t cement or 2.76%. The difference is 5.04% if calculated for MJ/
t clinker. This variation reflects the uncertainty with which the
amount of clinker substitutes (17.52%) is estimated in Table 3.
The specific energy use varies between different kilns. The
highest energy consumers are wet kilns with 5900e6700 MJ/t
clinker, and vertical shaft kilns, long dry kilns, dry rotary kilns with
preheater and NSP kilns consume 5000, 4600, 3100 and 2900 MJ/t
clinker, respectively. The theoretical endothermic minimum is
considered to be 1800 MJ/t clinker (IEA, 2007), and the best
observed one is 2842 MJ/t clinker. The average CO2 emissions of
different kiln types (Table 5) are based on the average fossil fuel
emissions and average heat consumption of different kilns.
The minimum reduction potential could be that the world
average energy use of 2978 MJ/t cement in 2011 would be reduced
by 2.7% to the current 2898 MJ/t cement of CSI member companies.
This would mean a reduction of 80 MJ/t cement or 7 kg CO2/t
cement, which on a global scale means 28 Mt avoided CO2
Semi-
Mixed kiln wet/semi-dry
type* 11.75 kiln 1.54 Wet kiln 3.19
Long dry kiln
Dry with
3.43
preheater and
precalciner
63.43
Dry with
preheater
16.26
Fig. 8. Distribution of kiln technologies (%) at 25% of the world cement facilities in
2011. Note: *facility uses several types of kilns simultaneously. Adapted from GNR
(2011).
emissions (1%) with the production level of 2013. Conclusively,
taking into account that the cement industry could reduce its
average energy use by 18.5% per ton of cement from current levels
by 2030 (IEA, 2009), the minimum and maximum energy saving
potential of the world cement industry would be from 7 to
48 kg CO2/t cement, which with the 4000 Mt/year production of
2013 would mean avoided emissions of between 28 and
112 Mt CO2/year on the global scale. The maximum avoided CO2
emissions from fossil fuel use would require an increase of up to
23e24% in the use of carbon neutral fuels like biomass or expensive
carbon capture technologies and a global clinker to cement ratio of
73% (IEA, 2009). Even higher CO2 emission savings could be reached
by increasing the use of carbon neutral fuels to over 24% of the fuel
mix.
3.4.3. Management of CO2 emissions by improving the carbon
balance of electricity use
The electricity use in cement plants takes place dominantly in raw
material preparation, grinding, homogenization and in cement finish
grinding. In kilns, the biggest electricity consumers are the drives of
rotary kilns. The carbon balance of electricity use is defined by the
consumption of electricity (usually expressed as kWh/t cement) and
by the CO2 emission of produced electricity (usually expressed as kg
CO2/MWh). A cement plant can seldom impact the latter, and avoided
emission measures are usually concentrated on the efficient use of
electricity inside the facility. The weighted average of electricity use
was 107 kWh/t cement with a standard deviation of 53 in 2011 (GNR,
2011). Depending on the source of electricity and on the efficiency of
the electricity use, the CO2 emission level varied from 20 to 150 kg
CO2/t cement (Tables 2 and 3). A reduction target could be to level the
electricity use of all facilities to the average level of 107 kWh/t cement
now used only among CSI member companies. The data available did
not allow estimation of the corresponding CO2 emission reductions
that this would bring with sufficient accuracy. A recent estimate on
upgrading existing cement plants proposes electricity efficiency
improvements with 90 Mt CO2/year savings e with assumed emis-
sion of 100 kg CO2/t cement from electricity use e on a global scale
before 2020 (Gupta, 2011). One reference point could be the world
average grid electricity emission of 516 g CO2eq/kWh for mineral
producing countries (IEA, 2010), which gives with 111 kWh/t cement
an emission of 57 kg CO2/t cement instead of the 73 kg CO2/t cement
used in Table 3. The difference is mainly explained by the fact that
coal and petcoke still dominate as the fossil fuel used in many cement
kilns with their own electricity production (GNR, 2011; Gupta, 2011).
A 10% decrease in the electricity emission would improve the carbon
balance with 6e7 kg CO2/t cement savings which with the 2013
global production level means savings from 24 to 28 Mt CO2/year
(0.9% on average).
3.4.4. Measures for the mitigation of CO2 emissions in the cement
industry
The implementation of energy efficiency and CO2 emission
saving measures in the cement industry has been studied widely. A
Table 5
CO2 emissions by kiln type in kg CO2/t clinker in 2000 and 2011.
Kiln type 2000 2011
Dry with preheater and precalciner (NSP) 847 840
Dry with preheater without precalciner 866 852
Long dry rotary kiln 965 876
Semi-wet/semi dry kiln 892 877
Wet kiln 1060 1020
Note: does not include CO2 emissions from the electricity use. Adapted from GNR
(2011).
 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052 4049

recent study on Germany found an annual 3.4% fuel and process-
related CO2 emissions reduction potential in relation to 2012
(Brunke and Blesl, 2014). A listing of possible measures to manage
CO2 emissions in the cement industry is shown in Table 6. The
measures are grouped into: (1) Raw material and fuel preparation,
grinding, homogenization; (2) Clinker kiln; and (3) Product and fuel
improvements.
Conclusively, on global scale, the highest near term potential is
in increasing the use of clinker substitutes, using more alternative
fuels and in recycling of materials. A recent single cement plant
analysis came to a similar conclusion (Feiz et al., 2015).
3.5. The abatement cost of reducing GHG emissions in cement
production
The mitigation of GHG emissions in the cement industry is
progressing slower than the growth rate of production. Cement
production grew by 73% between 2005 and 2013. The CO2 emis-
sions calculated as kg CO2/t clinker dropped by 14.8%, and the
electric energy consumption calculated as kWh/t cement was
reduced by 3.6% from 2006 to 2011. Several reasons for the slow
implementation of energy efficiency and CO2 emission reduction
measures exist: (1) the average lifespan of a cement plant is 50
years, and the service life of key equipment is often more than 20
years; (2) new plants have high capital expenditure requirements;
(3) emission trading systems have low CO2 prices; (4) the cement
market is price dominated; and (5) the quality of cement is strictly
standardized and regulated. All these factors together create bar-
riers to changing the cement composition, investing in new kiln
technology, improving the energy efficiency and reducing the
electricity use at cement facilities. The price of decreasing CO2
emissions at a single facility level needs to be attractive enough to
overcome these barriers. In order to demonstrate the sensitivity of
the abatement cost we collected cost data on different CO2 emis-
sions reduction measures in the cement industry and estimated
unit abatement costs using a uniform capital recovery factor (Eq.
(3)) with a 10-year payback time with two different discount rates.
Cement companies have initiated Clean Development Mecha-
nism (CDM) projects on clinker substitution, fuel switch and waste
heat recovery and on general energy efficiency projects. Clinker
substitution projects are the most common. The expected financial
benefits of CDM in Brazil and India varied from US$10 to US$18/
tCO2eq in 2005 (Hultman et al., 2012). Implemented projects give
an indication of the price level for the abatement cost of CO2 re-
ductions in the cement industry. Our results (Table 7) give a price
variation from US$4 to US$75 for an avoided ton of CO2 with an
average cost of US$26.3eUS$33.0/t of avoided CO2. The average cost
for all 8 projects was calculated using Eq. (3) on the summary in-
vestment cost and summary avoided emissions for a year. A
voluntary GHG saving program in the Taiwanese cement sector
resulted in 1099 kt of avoided CO2 emissions in 2004e2008. The
corresponding investment cost was US$202.6 million and the total
5-year operational cost savings US$71 million (Chen and Hu, 2012).
By dividing the savings and avoided emissions by 5 and by applying
Eq. (3) we get an abatement cost of US$55eUS$85/t of avoided CO2
originating mainly from energy and electricity savings.
Table 8 shows additional costs of avoided CO2 emissions for the
assumed construction of a new dry-process cement plant with a
five-stage preheater and precalciner with either post-combustion
carbon capture (CCS) or oxy-fuel combustion technologies in
Europe and Asia. The oxy-combustion technology costs at a cement
plant are about the same as the costs of similar technology installed
at a typical coal-fired power plant. The estimated costs of post-
combustion CCS are substantially higher at a cement plant
(Barker et al., 2009). Both technologies are in the development
phase, and several technical issues need to be solved before these

Table 6
Management measures for the mitigation of CO2 emissions in the cement industry.

Management measure CO2 reduction in kg CO2/t clinker Key references

Raw material and fuel preparation, grinding, homogenization Madlool et al., 2013
Efficient transport systems 0.4e3.2 Worrell et al., 2008
Raw meal homogenizing 0.3e2.7
Use of roller mills 0.2e10.5
High-efficiency classifiers/separators 0.5e5.2
Clinker kiln Worrell et al., 2008
Improved refractoriness and combustion system 2.6e24.1 Madlool et al., 2013
Energy management and process control systems 2.5e16.6
Conversion of long dry kilns to pre-heater/precalciner kilns 20.5e112.6
Conversion to reciprocating grate cooler 6.3e20.5
Optimizing heat recovery/upgrading clinker cooler 0.8e40.7
Replacing vertical shaft kilns with pre-heater/precalciner 62
Cement finish grinding Worrell et al., 2008
Process control and management 0.9e4.1 Madlool et al., 2013
Vertical roller mill 8.8e26.7
High pressure (hydraulic) roller press 1.3e25.1
High-efficiency motors and adjustable or variable speed drives 1.0e47
Product and fuels improvements Worrell et al., 2008
Blended cements 0.3e212.5
Use of biomass derived charcoal 308e394 Sjølie, 2012
Use of waste-derived fuels 12.0e76.3 Uso
n et al., 2013
Limestone Portland cement 8.4e29.9
Low-alkali cement 4.6e12.1
Use of steel slag in kiln 4.9e50 Madlool et al., 2013
Use of calcium carbide residue Up to 374
Geopolymer cement Up to 300 McLellan et al., 2011
CCS from precalcination of limestone Up to 410 Volkart et al., 2013
Oxy-fuel technology 404e658 Vatopoulos and Tzimas, 2012
Post-combustion carbon capture (CCS) Up to 725 Hasanbeigi et al., 2012
MgO based cements Up to 750 McLellan et al., 2011

Note. The magnitude of potential CO2 reduction is shown in kg CO2/t clinker, which can be calculated to kg CO2/t cement if the MIC content of the cement or the clinker to
cement ratio is known.
4050 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052

Table 7
Unit abatement cost of avoided CO2 emissions with 5% and 10% discount rates.

Country Investment cost US$ CO2 reduction t CO2/year Abatement cost 5%, Abatement cost 10%, Reference in CDM, 2014
US$/tCO2 US$/tCO2

Indonesia 15,750,107 144,413 14 18 CDM493

Ukraine 182,000,000 755,851 31 39 JI UA01
Ukraine 3,900,000 119,436 4 5 JI UA
Ukraine 78,000,000 168,701 60 75 JI UA100
China 32,520,000 222,048 19 24 CDM3522
China 34,320,000 216,232 21 26 CDM1676
Mongolia 19,100,000 123,794 20 25 CDM1730
Colombia 24,000,000 169,565 18 23 CDM1790
TOTAL 8 projects 389,590,107 1,920,040 26.28 33.02

Source: Calculations by the authors, data adapted from CDM (2014).

Table 8
Abatement cost of avoided CO2 emissions for CCS and oxy-fuel technologies.

Location Europe Europe Asia Asia

Capacity 1 Mt cement/year 1 Mt cement/year 3 Mt cement/year 3 Mt cement/year

Technology oxy-combustion CCS oxy-combustion CCS
Abatement cost US$/tCO2 US$/tCO2 US$/tCO2 US$/tCO2
56 149.8 32.2 82.6

Adapted from: Barker et al. (2009).

technologies are ready to be utilized on a large scale in cement
production by 2030.
Generally the cost of CCS is considered to be too high (Table 9)
for the cement industry to implement without e.g. carbon trade
benefits in the form of additional revenues. However, many coun-
tries including China and the Nordic countries have included both
oxy-combustion and CCS in their long-term plans up to 2050 to
reduce cement sector emissions (Rootzen and Johnsson, 2015;
Wang et al., 2014).
The CCS costs with a 10-year payback time (Table 9) compare
well with a recent estimate for retrofitting a cement plant with CCS
in 2012 costing US$70/t CO2 at a 14% discount rate with a 25-year
payback time and using US$12/tCO2 as an estimated income from
carbon trade. The estimate included no additional operational costs
(Liang and Li, 2012).
The average fuel cost with coal and petcoke as dominant sources
of thermal energy is US$11/t cement (Uso
n et al., 2013). This makes
replacing fossil fuels sensitive to the price of alternative fuels. For
example, the marginal cost of CO2eq savings from a 10% replace-
ment of fossil fuels with refuse derived fuel (RDF) varied from
V4.38/tCO2eq when only the transport costs of RDF were covered to
V0/tCO2eq when the RDF price is V2.7/t and up to V84.2/tCO2eq
when the RDF price is V50/t (Schneider et al., 2012). Geopolymers
are considered not competitive with OPC without carbon tax of
US$20/t CO2 (McLellan et al., 2011).
Conclusively, the cost of mitigation varies depending on the
geographical location, on the plant capacity, on implemented
mitigation measures and on the initial level of CO2 emissions. Even
if the payback time of investments varies, the operational cost
savings make the investments viable in most of the cases, especially
when carbon trade benefits exist.
4. Conclusions
Different options to manage CO2 emissions in the cement pro-
duction chain were analyzed by applying a climate impact man-
agement matrix on a cradle-to-gate basis. Key contributors to the
overall CO2 balance are clinker substitutes, technology, primary
source of energy and geographic location. Several regional datasets
were analyzed by linear data regression. This approach was also
used for estimating missing parameters. Regional variation of
process and thermal energy use related CO2 emissions is more
significant than that of electricity emissions. A comparative analysis
of different options to improve the CO2 balance of cement in-
dustries revealed that the highest near term potential to avoid
emissions is by replacing clinker with mineral components (MIC).
Increasing the MIC use to the level of Brazil would save 312 Mt CO2
annually with the 2013 level of global cement production. Similarly,
a 2.7% reduction in the thermal energy use of the cement industry
would save 28 Mt CO2 and a 10% decrease of emissions from elec-
tricity use would save 26 Mt CO2. These three emission savings
would reduce the global emissions from cement production by
12.1% from the level of 2013. The best future options under devel-
opment are MgO and geopolymer cements, different oxy-
combustion and carbon capture technologies. In addition, the
abatement cost of different investment projects were estimated
using a uniform capital recovery factor. The cost of mitigation
varied depending on the geographical location, technology used

Table 9
Abatement cost of avoided CO2 emissions for CCS in 2030 with a 10-year payback time.

IEA scenario Low High Low High

Capacity 2 Mt cement/year 2 Mt cement/year 2 Mt cement/year 2 Mt cement/year

Investment US$ 140,000,000 US$ 420,000,000 US$ 140,000,000 US$ 420,000,000
Operational cost US$ 20,440,000/y US$ 102,000,000/y US$ 20,440,000/y US$ 102,000,000/y
CO2 savings 380,000 tCO2/year 380,000 tCO2/year 380,000 tCO2/year 380,000 tCO2/year
Discount rate 5% 5% 10% 10%
Abatement cost US$/tCO2 US$/tCO2 US$/tCO2 US$/tCO2
investment 47.71 143.13 59.96 179.88
with oper. cost 101.50 411.55 113.75 448.30

Source: Calculations by the authors, data adapted from IEA (2009).

 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052
and on the initial level of CO2 emissions. Uncertainties in assessing
GHG emissions of the cement production raw material supply chain
need future analysis. Further research on the total GHG impact of
the cement sector would benefit from including the transport
emissions in the estimates.
This paper focused on the cradle-to-gate management of
cement industry CO2 emissions. Many other factors, in addition to
those covered in this paper, impact the sustainability of cement.
One of them is recycling concrete, which contributes to the full life-
cycle impact of cement as well. Future research on managing the
sustainability of cement needs to include long term testing pro-
grams aiming at changing the existing standard requirements for
cements and recycled concrete to encourage the building sector to
use more MIC e like geopolymers and alternative types of waste
material e in cements, and to strive for a circular economy in the
use of concrete.
Acknowledgements
R. Kajaste acknowledges with gratitude a research grant from
Fortum Foundation (201 300 147), Finland.
References
Aprianti, E., Shafigh, P., Bahri, S., Farahani, J.N., 2015. Supplementary cementitious
materials origin from agricultural wastes e a review. Constr. Build. Mater. 74,
176e187.
ASTM, 2013. ASTM Volume 04.01, September 2013, ASTM C150/C150M e 12,
Standard Specification for Portland Cement. Subcommittee C01.10 on Hydraulic
Cements for General Concrete Construction.
Barker, D.J., Turner, S.A., Napier-Moore, P.A., Clark, M., Davison, J.E., 2009. CO2
capture in the cement industry. Energy Procedia 1, 87e94.
Benhelal, E., Zahedi, G., Hashim, H., 2012. A novel design for green and economical
cement manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 22, 60e66.
Bhushan, C., 2010. Challenge of the New Balance. Center for Science and Environ-
ment, New Delhi.
Brunke, J.-C., Blesl, M., 2014. Energy conservation measures for the German cement
industry and their ability to compensate for rising energy-related production
costs. J. Clean. Prod. 82, 94e111.
de Castro, S., de Brito, J., 2013. Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with
crushed glass aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 7e14.
CDM, (2014). htpps://cdm.unfccc.int/projects. (accessed 12.08.14.).
Cembureau, 2014. The European Cement Association. http://www.cembureau.be/
about-cement/key-facts-figures (accessed 01.06.14.).
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.
Chen, L.-T., Hu, A.H., 2012. Voluntary GHG reduction of industrial sectors in Taiwan.
Chemosphere 88, 1074e1082.
CSI, 2011. The Cement CO2 and Energy Protocol Version 3.0: CO2 Accounting and
Reporting Standard for the 368 Cement Industry. Cement Sustainability
Initiative (CSI), World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/tf1_co2%20protocol%20v3.pdf (accessed
30.06.13.).
European Standard EN 197-1, 2011. Cement- Part 1: Composition, Specification and
Conformity Criteria for Common Cements. European Committee for
Standardization.
Feiz, R., Ammenberg, J., Baas, L., Eklund, M., Helgstrand, A., Marshall, R., 2015.
Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part II: framework for assessing CO2
improvement measures in the cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 282e291.
Finnsementti, 2007. Finnsementti Oy, Suomalainen Sementti. Parainen, Finland,
p. 14 (in Finnish).
Finnsementti, 2006. Environmental Permit. Kaakkois-Suomen Ympa €risto
€keskus,
Finnsementti Oy Ymp€ € lupa. Nro A 2023, Dnro KAS2006Y101111, 21.12.2006
aristo
(in Finnish).
García-Gusano, D., Cabal, H., Lechon, Y., 2015. Long-term behaviour of CO2 emis-
sions from cement production in Spain: scenario analysis using an energy
optimisation model. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 100e111.
Garg, A., Smith, R., Hill, D., Longhurst, P.J., Pollard, S.J.T., Simms, N.J., 2009. An in-
tegrated appraisal of energy recovery options in the United Kingdom using
solid recovered fuel derived from municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 29,
2289e2297.
Genon, G., Brizio, E., 2008. Perspectives and limits for cement kilns as a destination
for RDF. Waste Manag. 28, 2375e2385.
GNR, 2011. Cement Data Base. http://www.wbcsdcement.org/index.php/gnr-
database (accessed 01.06.14.).
4051
Gupta, A., 2011. In: Cullinen, M.S. (Ed.), Cement Primer Report. Carbon War Room,
Washington D.C.. www.CarbonWarRoom.com (accessed 8.8.14.).
Hasanbeigi, A., Morrow, W., Masanet, E., Sathaye, J., Xu, T., 2013. Energy efficiency
improvement and CO2 emission reduction opportunities in the cement industry
in China. Energy Policy 57, 287e297.
Hasanbeigi, A., Price, L., Lin, E., 2012. Emerging energy-efficiency and CO2 emission-
reduction technologies for cement and concrete production: a technical review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 6220e6238.
Hultman, N.E., SimonePulver, S., Guimar~ aes, L., Deshmukh, R., Kane, J., 2012. Carbon
market risks and rewards: firm perceptions of CDM investment decisions in
Brazil and India. Energy Polcy 40, 90e102.
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.
IEA, 2013. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights (2013 Edition). OECD/
IEA, Paris, pp. 100e104.
IEA, 2010. International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion.
OECD/IEA, Paris, p. 512.
IEA, 2009. International Energy Agency, ‘Cement Technology Roadmap 2009, Car-
bon Emissions Reductions up to 2050’. OECD/IEA, Paris.
IEA, 2007. International Energy Agency, ‘Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and
CO2 Emissions’. OECD/IEA, Paris. Available from: http://www.iea.org/
publications/freepublications/.
IEA, 2006. International Energy Agency, 'Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios
and Strategies to 2050'. OECD/IEA, Paris.
IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007, mitigation. In: Metz, Bert, et al. (Eds.), Contribu-
tion of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007. Cambridge University Press.
Ingrao, C., Giudice, A.L., Tricase, C., Mbohwa, C., Rana, R., 2014. The use of basalt
aggregates in the production of concrete for the prefabrication industry:
environmental impact assessment, interpretation and improvement. J. Clean.
Prod. 75, 195e204.
Ishak, S.A., Hashim, H., 2015. Low carbon measures for cement plant e a review,
(2014). J. Clean. Prod. 103, 260e274.
Jacoby, P.C., Pelisser, F., 2015. Pozzolanic effect of porcelain polishing residue in
Portland cement. J. Clean. Prod. 100, 84e88.
Juenger, M.C.G., Winnefeld, F., Provis, J.L., Ideker, J.H., 2011. Advances in alternative
cementitious binders. Cem.Concr. Res. 41, 1232e1243.
Kara, M., 2012. Environmental and economic advantages associated with the use of
RDF in cement kilns. Res. Conserv. Recycling 68, 21e28.
Kajaste, R., 2014. Chemicals from biomass e managing greenhouse gas emissions in
biorefinery production chains - a review. J. Clean. Prod. 75, 1e10.
Ke, J., McNeil, M., Price, L., Zheng Khanna, N., Zhou, N., 2013. Estimation of CO2
emissions from China’s cement production: methodologies and uncertainties.
Energy Policy 57, 172e181.
Kinuthia, J.M., Oti, J.E., 2012. Designed non-fired clay mixes for sustainable and low
carbon use. Appl. Clay Sci. 59e60, 131e139.
Li, C., Nie, Z., Cui, S., Gong, Z., Wang, Z., Meng, X., 2014. The life cycle inventory study
of cement manufacture in China, 2014. J. Clean. Prod. 72, 204e211.
Liang, X., Li, J., 2012. Assessing the value of retrofitting cement plants for carbon
capture: a case study of a cement plant in Guangdong, China. Energy Convers.
Manag. 64, 454e465.
Loijos, A., Santero, N., Ochsendorf, J., 2013. Life cycle climate impacts of the US
concrete pavement network. Res. Conserv. Recycling 72, 76e83.
Madlool, N.A., Saidur, R., Rahim, N.A., Kamalisarvestani, M., 2013. An overview of
energy savings measures for cement industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19,
18e29.
McLellan, B.C., Corder, G.D., Giurco, D.P., Ishihara, K.N., 2012. Renewable energy
in the minerals industry: a review of global potential. J. Clean. Prod. 32,
32e44.
McLellan, B.C., Williams, R.P., Lay, J., van Riessen, A., Corder, G.D., 2011. Costs and
carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland
cement. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1080e1090.
Medina, C., de Rojas, M.I.S., Frías, M., 2013. Freeze-thaw durability of recycled
concrete containing ceramic aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 151e160.
Mikulcic, H., Vujanovic, M., Fidaros, D.K., Priesching, P., Minic, I., Tatschl, R., Duic, N.,
Stefanovic, G., 2012. The application of CFD modelling to support the reduction
of CO2 emissions in cement industry. Energy 45, 464e473.
Morrow, W.R., Hasanbeigi, A., Sathaye, J., Xu, T., 2014. Assessment of energy effi-
ciency improvement and CO2 emission reduction potentials in India's cement
and iron & steel industries. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 131e141.
Moya, J.A., Pardo, N., Mercier, A., 2011. The potential for improvements in energy
efficiency and CO2 emissions in the EU27 cement industry and the relationship
with the capital budgeting decision criteria. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1207e1215.
MPA Cement, 2012. http://cement.mineralproducts.org/documents/MPA_Cement_
SD_Report.pdf (accessed 18.8.14.).
Mutuk, T., Mesci, B., 2014. Analysis of mechanical properties of cement containing
boron waste and rice husk ash using full factorial design. J. Clean. Prod. 69,
128e132.
Nakakubo, T., Tokai, A., Ohno, K., 2012. Comparative assessment of technological
systems for recycling sludge and food waste aimed at greenhouse gas emissions
reduction and phosphorus recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 32, 157e172.
NS, 2014. Urban Growth: Bio-bricks Offer a Whiff of the Future. www.newscientist.
com/article/dn25952-urban-growth-biobricks-offer-a-whiff-of-the-future.
html#.U9fAV7Evsxt (accessed 29.07.14.).
4052 R. Kajaste, M. Hurme / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 4041e4052
OECD, 2012. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. OECD Publishing, pp. 72e135.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-en.
ORNL, 2010. Boden, T.A., Marland, G., Andres, R.J.. 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., U.S.A.
ccsi.ornl.gov/Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2009 from 26 October 2011 (accessed
05.11.11.).
Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi, M.J., Attari, M., 2013. Advancing environmental evaluation
in cement industry in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 23e30.
Ponikiewski, T., Gołaszewski, J., 2014. The influence of high-calcium fly ash (HCFA)
on the properties of fresh and hardened self-compacting concrete and high
performance self-compacting concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 72, 212e221.
Rahman, A., Rasul, M.G., Khan, M.M.K., Sharma, S., 2015. Recent development on the
uses of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing process. Fuel 145, 84e99.
Rodríguez, N.H., Martínez-Ramírez, S., Blanco-Varela, M.T., Donatello, S.,
Guillem, M., et al., 2013. The effect of using thermally dried sewage sludge as an
alternative fuel on Portland cement clinker production. J. Clean. Prod. 52,
94e102.
Rootzen, J., Johnsson, F., 2015. CO2 emissions abatement in the Nordic carbon-
intensive industry e an end-game in sight? Ener 80, 715e730.
Schneider, D.R., Kirac, M., Hublin, A., 2012. Cost-effectiveness of GHG emission
reduction measures and energy recovery from municipal waste in Croatia. Ener
48, 203e211.
Sjølie, H.K., 2012. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from households and in-
dustry by the use of charcoal from sawmill residues in Tanzania. J. Clean. Prod.
27, 109e117.
Smil, V., 2013. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Wiley.
ISBN-13:9781119942535.
Turgut, P., 2012. Manufacturing of building bricks without Portland cement. J. Clean.
Prod. 37, 361e367.
Uso
n, A.A., Lopez-Sabiro, A.M., Ferreira, G., Sastresa, E.L., 2013. Uses of alternative
fuels and raw materials in the cement industry as sustainable waste manage-
ment options. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23, 242e260.
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.
Vatopoulos, K., Tzimas, E., 2012. Assessment of CO2 capture technologies in cement
manufacturing process. J. Clean. Prod. 32, 251e261.
Volkart, K., Bauer, C., Boulet, C., 2013. Life cycle assessment of carbon capture and
storage in power generation and industry in Europe. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control
16, 91e106.
VDZ., 2014. http://www.vdz-online.de/en/publications/factsandfigures/. (accessed
18.8.14.).
Wang, Y., Ho €ller, S., Viebahn, P., Hao, Z., 2014. Integrated assessment of CO2
reduction technologies in China's cement industry. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control
20, 27e36.
Wang, Y., Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., 2013. Trajectory and driving factors for GHG emissions in
the Chinese cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 53, 252e260.
Wang, W.-J., Wu, C.-H., 2013. Benefits of adding rice straw coke powder to cement
mortar and the subsequent reduction of carbon emissions. Constr. Build. Mater.
47, 616e622.
Wen, Z., Chen, M., Meng, F., 2015. Evaluation of energy saving potential in China's
cement industry using the Asian-Pacific integrated model and the technology
promotion policy analysis. Energy Polcy 77, 227e237.
WBCSD, 2012. The Cement Sustainability Initiative e 10 Years of Progresse Moving
on to the Next Decade. World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
pp. 12e19. June 2012.
Worrell, E., Galitsky, C., Price, L., 2008. Energy Efficiency Improvement Opportu-
nities for the Cement Industry. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berke-
ley CA. Paper LBNL-72E. http://ies.lbl.gov/publications/energy-efficiency-
improvement-oppor-3 (accessed 05.08.14.).
Xu, J.-H., Fleiter, T., Fan, Y., Eichhammer, W., 2014. CO2 emissions reduction potential
in China's cement industry compared to IEA's Cement technology roadmap up
to 2050. Appl. Energy 130, 592e602.
Yang, K.-H., Song, J.-K., Song, K., 2013. Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-
activated concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 265e272.