Increasing production capacity but simultaneously reducing CO2 emissions (carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas) sounds contradictory / paradoxical. It is indeed like that in passing. However, with a decarbonization or CO2 removal (CDR) program, efforts to reduce emissions can be done while increasing cement production. How big the target of reducing emissions and increasing cement production will depend on how much decarbonization efforts are made. The greater the reduction in emissions, the more expensive it will usually be. This is why efforts to reduce emissions while increasing production must also be carried out in stages with certain strategies.
Cement plant is an industry that contributes to an increase in CO2 of more than 6% globally. However, there is something unique about this cement industry, namely that most of the CO2 emissions produced do not come from fuel use, but from the calcination process. The percentage of CO2 produced from the calcination process reaches around 60%, while from fuel use it is only around 40%. The fossil fuels commonly used in cement industries are coal and petcoke, both of which are the two fossil fuels that pollute the air the most. In fact, in a number of areas cement plants are the largest coal users. Cement plants close to oil refineries will use more petcoke.
Decarbonization programs or efforts to reduce CO2 emissions that can be carried out in cement plants include increasing energy efficiency, using clinker substitute materials, using alternative/renewable energy, and using CCUS (Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage). With these characteristics, total decarbonization in the cement industry cannot be carried out by using only the best efficiency technology or by simply replacing the fuel. Meanwhile, the use of clinker substitutes and CCUS is very important among other technologies to achieve near-zero emissions in cement production.
The best scenario for increasing production and reducing emissions can be done by using much higher energy efficiency improvements using commercially available technology, using more aggressive fuels to low carbon or even carbon neutral fuels, using higher rates of clinker substitute materials. and adopting a higher portion of commercially available CCUS technologies.
And it's worth noting that all suggested improvements in these best-case scenarios can be achieved by implementing technologies that are already commercially available and most of them should also be cost-effective. As for CCUS, while the technology is commercially available, implementation requires large investments that demand higher financial incentives or carbon prices. However, on the other hand, CCUS has the largest contribution to CO2 reduction, followed by the use of clinker substitutes and the switch to low-carbon or even carbon-neutral fuels. And the use of efficiency-enhancing technology has the smallest contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. This is mainly because process-related emissions from calcination account for around 60% of total CO2 emissions and are not related to energy use.
