Cement industryDraft standard and results of field testsRob van der MeerNovember 24th, 2014

Composition subgroup 3 - cement

Associations 4 members Measurement expert 1 member Industry 7/8 members ISO representative 1 member (Japan) Chinese representatives 2 members (one meeting)

Secretary Convenor

Target dates WG 33 subgroup cementAction Original date Updated date

Specification of the verification work March 2012 March 2012Start call for tender June 2012 July 2012Evaluation of responses to call for tender August 2012 October 2012 Complete formulation and planning of 1st field test November 2012 April 2013Initial report on outcome of planning and formulation (selected site, methods, supplementary data)

December 2012

1st field test February 2013 May/June 2013Evaluation of 1st field test April 2013 June/July 2013Reporting (interim report) – including requirements for 2nd field test and conclusions for inputs to standard

May 2013 May 2013

2nd field test Septemb. 2013 February 2014

Evaluation 2nd field test December 2013 May/June 2014Review of all verification work programme and conclusions for inputs to standard

February 2014 August 2014

2nd report to Commission May 2014 May 2014

CO2 emissions of cement production

30% fuel energy

Process emissions 60%from calcination of raw meal (limestone) 10% electrical power

indirect emissions

quarryCrusher

cement-clinker

cement

cement mill

raw mill

calci-nation

clinker burning

cementconstituants

crusher fan

filter

rotary kiln

CaCO3 => CaO + CO2

∑ ~ 650 kg CO2/t cement (CSI 2011)

Slide 4 CEN TC264 WG33 / CementRob van der Meer - 24/11/2014

The Cement CO2 and Energy Protocol

CO2 and Energy Accounting and Reporting Standard

Harmonized and transparent methodology for calculating CO2emissions and energy use

Addresses all direct and the main indirect sources of CO2 emissions related to cement manufacturing

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in absolute as well as in specific or product unit-based terms

And….. a global database (GNR)

Changes from CO2 protocol to CEN standard1. Standardization texts

– Definitions, references, other standards2. Changes of definitions to EN 197-1

– Cement, Cement (eq), Cementitious products

– Clinker substitutes -> cement constituents3. Emissions

– Absolute gross– Gross emissions– Net emissions

Excluding on site power export Excluding heat export Excluding other emissions.

4. Field tests5. Uncertainty assessments

Verification tests in the cement industry

11/11/2014Slide 7 CEN TC264 WG33 / Cement

Rob van der Meer -

System Boundaries - Scope of plant tests:Clinker production and Cement production processes

excludedquarries

On-site powergeneration

Raw material preparation

Fuel preparation in the plant

Room heatingMobile transport

Slide 8 CEN TC264 WG33 / CementRob van der Meer - 11/11/2014

Operational boundaries (1/2)Process Step Scope Category Remarks

Quarrying and Transport of Raw Materials to Plant

Quarrying of Raw Materials

Scope 1 Quarries managed by the company Direct Emissions

Scope 2 Crushing managed by the company Indirect Emissions

Scope 3 Quarries not managed by the company Indirect Emissions

Raw Materials Transport Scope 1 Lorries managed by the company Direct Emissions

Scope 2 Belt conveyer managed by the company Indirect Emissions

Scope 3 Lorries/ Belt conveyer not managed by the company Indirect Emissions

Clinker Production

Raw Materials Drying Scope 1 Direct Emissions

Fuels Preparation

Scope 1 Installations managed by the company Direct Emissions

Scope 3 Installations not managed by the company Indirect Emissions

Fuels for Kiln Scope 1 Installations managed by the company

Direct Emissions(“heat transferred to external activities” is required for KPIs calculation)

Calcinations Scope 1Direct Emissions(Calcinations rate of CKD should be considered )

Power Consumption of Clinker Production

Scope 2 Indirect Emissions

Operational boundaries (2/2)Process Step Scope Category Remarks

Cement Production

Drying of MIC Scope 1 Direct EmissionsPower Consumption of Cement Production

Scope 2 Indirect Emissions

Shipping, Room Heating and Transport in Plant

Packaging and Dispatch

Scope 1 Lorries managed by the company Direct Emissions

Scope 2 Belt conveyer managed by the company Indirect Emissions

Scope 3 Lorries/ Belt conveyer not managed by the company Indirect Emissions

Room Heating＆Cooling Scope 1 Direct Emissions

Mobile Transport

Scope 1 Lorries managed by the company Direct Emissions

Scope 2 Belt conveyer managed by the company Indirect Emissions

Scope 3 Lorries/ Belt conveyer not managed by the company Direct Emissions

Onsite Power Generation andWaste Heat Recovery Scope 1

Direct Emissions(Power exported to external activities is required for KPIs calculation)

Imported Clinker Scope 3 Indirect Emissions

Examples of alternative fuels

“Complex” plant: CBR-HeidelbergCement Lixhe, Belgium

Visit of local authority and DG ENT, European Commission

Preparatory meeting in Lixhe in April 2013

12

Direct CO2 emissions determined by five methods

Input Mass Balance Output Mass Balance Stack Emissions

A1Simple

LOIraw mealAnalysis

A2DetailedTCraw mealAnalysis

B1Simple

StandardCO2 EF

B2Detailed

CaO, MgOAnalysis

StStack

Velocity,CO2, CO

Two 48h-kiln tests have been conducted in each a plant with simple and one with complex

configuration (mainly regarding raw materials and fuels)

Direct CO2 emission, close agreement of all results, differences < 2.5 % within expanded uncertainties

refe

renc

e

*

simple settingverification dataadditional plant datauncertainty assessmentreference value 1,00uncertainty not assessed*

Input mass balance Input mass balance Stackemissions

Direct CO2 emission, close agreement of all results, differences < 2.5 % within expanded uncertainties

refe

renc

e

Plantstandard method

Kiln feed input scale

control VelocitySRM

verification dataadditional plant datauncertainty assessmentreference value 1,00uncertainty not assessed*

*

All five methods proposed for cement plants by SG 3 are very suitable for determining CO2 emissions.

simple setting

Plant B - Complicated test setting:Alternative raw materials & fuels

4th plant test: + coal grinding + tyres

Input

Output

Stack

FuelsInput

combustion related GHG emissions

process related GHG emissions

Direct CO2 emission, close agreement of 8 results, differences < 2.5 % within expanded uncertainties

refe

renc

e

complicated setting

*

verification dataadditional plant datauncertainty assessmentreference value 1,00uncertainty not assessed*

Input mass balance Input mass balance Stackemissions

Direct CO2 emission, close agreement of 8 results, differences < 2.5 % within expanded uncertainties

refe

renc

e

*Methods proposed for cement plants by SG 3 are well applicable in complicated plant setting with significant share of alternative

raw materials and fuels.Lab experience with raw meal and clinker matrix required!

verification dataadditional plant datauncertainty assessmentreference value 1,00uncertainty not assessed*

complicated setting

Cement plant stack measurements confirmed no relevance of non-CO2 GHG’s (CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, PFCs)

Stack Measurement of CO2, CO and non-CO2 greenhouse gases 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th test

Component mass flow

Result GWP [CO2eq]IPCC AR5

CO2 equivalent emissions [CO2eq]

Relative uncertaintyincluding uncertainty of velocity SRM (pitot tube)

CO2 measured 1 99.4%…99.8% 5.2… 9.5%*

CO measured 1 0.08%…0.15% 12…48%**

CH4 at LOD 28 < 0.01% ≥ 50%

N2O at LOD 265 ≤ 0.02%… ≤ 0.4% ≥ 50%

SF6 not detected 23500 n.a. n.a.

HFC not detected ≥ 140 n.a. n.a.

PFC not detected ≥ 6500 n.a. n.a.

* close to LOD of stack gas velocity** close to LOD of CO measurements

non-

CO

2G

HG

s at LOD< 0.5 %

≥ 99.5%

Objective: The participants will obtain an overview of different

greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting approaches and experiences with their application in the cement sector. The latest developments in monitoring methods and measurements will also be presented and discussed.

Description: In the light of an international agreement on climate change

or a sectorial approach, efficient procedures, their comparability and the verification of GHG emissions will become key elements. The seminar will give an overview of the existing M&R approaches and their application in the cement sector. Examples will include version 3.1 of the CO2 Protocol of the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS, phase III) and reporting in the framework of CDM/JI projects. In addition, technical developments and current European standardisation works in the field of CO2 monitoring will be introduced. The seminar includes a visit to the Kamari plant of TITAN Cement in Elefsina, Greece.

http://www.ecra-online.org/238/

ECRA Seminar: CO2 Monitoring and Reporting: Latest Developments and Experiences, Athens, 12-13 June 2014

New feeding line for tires, Kamari cement plant, in Elefsina near Athens, Greece, www.titan.gr

Option for new seminar on international standard, when published, 2016

10

August 2014scale adjustment

Tara 10 10

December 2014scale adjustment

Tara 10 10

April 2015scale adjustment

Tara 10

10.20 9.97 9.95 10.01 10.15 9.98

0%

-3%

+3%

scalecleaning

+2.0 % -0.5 % +1.5 %average scale error (± 95% confidence interval): +1.0 (±1.5) % => uncertainty U= 2.5 %

Practitioners seminar on scales and dosing technology, including procedures for quality assurance of metering

scalecleaning

Conclusions1. Surprise: High added value of the field tests !

2. Non CO2-Green House Gases are less relevant in cement.

3. Input and output mass balances deliver highly reliable values.Measurements, especially gas volume measurement are less reliable.

4. CO2 standard now available as draftDifferent to CO2 protocol of WBCSD/CSIDifferent to EU ETS Monitoring & Reporting Regulation Different to Chinese standard, Californian system, EPA, etc.

5. CO2 protocol used worldwide: NAM, Japan, China….. = Challenge for draft standard !

6. Missing: Calculation toolDevelopment needed to implement worldwide one uniform system

Biogenic fraction of direct CO2 emissions8 alternative fuels, 5 with biogenic fraction incl. tyres

AdditionalMeasurements:

17.7

±2%

Biogenic fuel selective dissolution analysis and standard factors

for tyres

Stackmeasuremen

t for 2nd

revision

±2%

Both methods for biogenic fraction seem to agree and perform

relatively well.

18.8

±2%

Gas sample14C analysis