Title:
Unintended Consequences of the Global Reduction in Clinker-to-Cement Ratio
Author(s):
Jean-Martin Lessard, Guillaume Habert, Arezki Tagnit-Hamou and Ben Amor
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
349
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
394-407
Keywords:
Economic optimization, Environmental impact, Material flow, Multiregional industrial symbiosis, Supplementary cementitious materials, Supply chains, Trade effects
DOI:
10.14359/51732760
Date:
4/22/2021
Abstract:
To decarbonize the portland cement sector worldwide, the Cement Sustainability Initiative recommends systematically reducing the clinker-to-cement ratio down to 60% by 2050. However, the sources of usable clinker substitutes - the supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) - are unevenly distributed geographically and will become increasingly scarce in the future. Through a time-series material-product chain analysis, this paper investigates the multi-regional and multi-sectorial (cement, coal-fired electricity, and steel sectors) interactions that occur when increasing demand for SCMs in eastern Canada and Northeastern U.S., up to 2050. It tracks the trade effects and how it affects region-specific domestic flows of raw and secondary materials, end-product products, and greenhouse gas emissions. Although the lever is favorable overall, the results show unintended economic and environmental consequences across regions, with winners and losers. At the material level, benefits are influenced by the local availability of SCMs, which disadvantages Canadian regions due to the increasing remoteness of supply to meet demand. At the product level, decoupling blended cement production capacity from clinker production capacity allows the U.S. regions to reduce their dependence on Canadian cement imports. These new perspectives provide key geopolitical, environmental, and economic insights for better decision-making when developing sustainable initiatives.
Related References:
1. Habert, G., Billard, C., Rossi, P., Chen, C., and Roussel, N., 2010, “Cement production technology improvement compared to factor 4 objectives,” Cem. Concr. Res., 40(5), pp. 820–826.
2. Aïtcin, P.-C., and Mindess, S., 2011, Sustainability of Concrete, Taylor & Francis, New York, United-States, 302 pp.
3. IEA/WBSCD, 2018, “Technology Roadmap: Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry.”
4. Hooton, R. D., 2000, “Canadian use of ground granulated blast-furnace slag as a supplementary cementing material for enhanced performance of concrete,” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 27(4), pp. 754–760.
5. Bouzoubaâ, N., and Fournier, B., 2005, “Current situation with the production and use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in concrete construction in Canada,” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 32, pp. 129–143.
6. Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M., 2013, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, McGraw Hill Professional, New York, 675 pp.
7. Habert, G., and Roussel, N., 2009, “Study of two concrete mix-design strategies to reach carbon mitigation objectives,” Cem. Concr. Compos., 31(6), pp. 397–402.
8. M.E., B., and S., H., 2010, “Identifying improvement potentials in cement production with life cycle assessment,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 44(23), pp. 9143–9149.
9. Malhotra, V. M., 1999, “Role of supplementary cementing materials in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Geography.
10. Lessard, J.-M., Cloutier, J., Tagnit-Hamou, A., and Amor, B., 2017, “Environmental benefits of using glass powder in manhole production,” American Concrete Institute, ACI Special Publication SP 320, Montreal, Canada.
11. Chen, H., Soles, J. A., and Malhotra, V. M., 1993, “Investigations of supplementary cementing materials for reducing alkali-aggregate reactions,” Cem. Concr. Compos., 15(1–2), pp. 75–84.
12. ASTM C1697-18, 2018, Standard Specification for Blended Supplementary Cementitious Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
13. Association Canadienne De Normalisation, 2014, Béton : Constituants et exécution des travaux / Méthodes d’ essai et pratiques normalisées pour le béton (CSA A23.1-09/A23.2-09), Missisauga, Canada, 584 p.
14. Scrivener, K. L., John, V. M., and Gartner, E. M., 2016, “Eco-efficient cements: Potential, economically viable solutions for a low-CO2, cement-based materials industry,” United Nations Environ. Progr., p. 64.
15. Rossetti, D., 2018, The future of European Steel: Innovation and sustainability in a competitive world and EU circular economy, Brussel, Belgium, 32pp.
16. Johannes Prosman, E., and Sacchi, R., 2017, “New environmental supplier selection criteria for circular supply chains : Lessons from a consequential LCA study on waste recovery,” J. Clean. Prod.
17. Millward-Hopkins, J., Zwirner, O., Purnell, P., Velis, C. A., Iacovidou, E., and Brown, A., 2018, “Resource recovery and low carbon transitions: The hidden impacts of substituting cement with imported ‘waste’ materials from coal and steel production,” Glob. Environ. Chang., 53(April), pp. 146–156.
18. Crawford, R. H., Bontinck, P. A., Stephan, A., Wiedmann, T., and Yu, M., 2018, “Hybrid life cycle inventory methods – A review,” J. Clean. Prod., 172, pp. 1273–1288.
19. Bouman, M., Heijungs, R., and Voet, E. Van Der, 2000, “Material flows and economic models : an analytical comparison of SFA , LCA and partial equilibrium models,” 32, pp. 195–216.
20. Hartley, F., Caetano, T., and Daniels, R. C., 2016, “The general equilibrium impacts of monetising all waste streams in South,” Energy Res. Centre. Univ. Cape Town. South Africa.
21. McCarthy, A., Dellink, R., and Bibas, R., 2018, “The macroeconomics of the recircular economy transition: A critical review of modeling approaches,” OECD Environ. Work. Pap. No. 130.
22. Brunner, P. H., and Rechberger, H., 2004, Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, United-States, 318 pp.
23. Kandelaars, P. A. A. H. P., 1999, Economic Models of Material-Product Chains for Environmental Policy Analysis, Springer Netherlands, Netherlands, 219 pp.
24. Schwarz, H.-G., 2006, “Economic materials – product chain models : Current status , further development and an illustrative example,” Ecol. Econ., 58, pp. 373–392.
25. Lessard, J.-M., Habert, G., Tagnit-Hamou, A., and Amor, B., 2021, “A time-series material-product chain model extended to a multiregional industrial symbiosis: the case of material circularity in the cement sector,” Ecol. Econ., 179(106872).
26. Kandelaars, P. P. A. A. H., and van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., 1997, “Dynamic analysis of materials-product chains : An application to window frames,” Ecol. Econ., 22, pp. 41–61.
27. Statistics Canada, 2018, “Table 303-0061 - Destination of shipments of cement, annual (metric tonnes), CANSIM (database).”
28. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 2005, Cement and Structural Concrete Products : Life Cycle Inventory Update # 2, Ottawa, Canada.
29. Portland Cement Association, 2019, “Cement Industry in your State” Online.. Available: https://www.cement.org/economics/state-and-regional-data/cement-industry-in-your-state. Accessed: 26-Jun-2019..
30. G. van Oss, H., 2018, “Minerals Yearbook - Cement Advance release.,” U.S. Geol. Surv., p. 34.
31. Group, P., 2016, “Ontario Cement Market overview: Economic growth, construction and cement demand,” Petrus Gr., p. 13.
32. National Energy Board of Canada, 2017, “Canada’s Energy Future 2017: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2040,” p. 90.
33. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017, “Annual Energy Outlook 2017 with projections to 2050,” EIA Annu. Energy Outlook 2017, 44(8), pp. 1–64.
34. Black, A. P., 2015, Production and use of coal combustion products in the U.S. Market Forecast through 2033, United-States, 48 pp.
35. World Steel Association, 2018, “World Steel in Figures 2018,” p. 31 Online.. Available: https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2018/world-steel-in-figures-2018.html. Accessed: 01-Jan-2020..
36. ArcelorMittal USA, 2018, “The domestic steel industry,” p. 3 Online.. Available: https://usa.arcelormittal.com/sustainability/our-business/operating-context/understanding-the-domestic-steelindustry. Accessed: 01-Jan-2020..