Low and zero emissions in the steel and cement industriesThere's no improvisation regarding what we was perceived by some as a "sudden" interest "out of nowhere" from many industries regarding PYR's plasma technologies, from players such as the iron pelletization and cement industries, not to many the glass industry and others.
Only shorts can try to make you believe there's no global plan ... when there is one.
The work had already begun back in 2019 at very higher level, as per post activities coming out of the Paris Accord, as per this document:
Low and zero emissions in the steel and cement industries (oecd.org) Executive Summary The
iron & steel and
cement & concrete industries are essential elements of the global economy and development aspirations. They provide key materials for buildings, infrastructure, and industry that can be used more efficiently but are also irreplaceable for key needs for the foreseeable future. These sectors are significant and growing emitters of CO2.
Iron & steel represents 6- 8% and cement & concrete 6% of global energy system combustion and industrial process CO2 emissions (International Energy Agency, 2018[1]; International Energy Agency, 2018[1]; Lehne and Preston, 2018[2]). Global cement demand is projected to grow by 12- 23% by 2050 compared to 2014 (International Energy Agency; Cement Sustainability Initiative, 2017[3]), and global steel demand by 15-40% by 2050 (Accenture Strategy, 2017[4]). In one scenario,
absent new climate policies, both sectors are projected to double by 2060 (OECD, 2019[5]).
The Paris Agreement climate goals to stabilise global temperatures at “well below 2°C, and towards 1.5°C” require energy system and industrial process CO2 emissions either become net negative by 2050-2070 or be compensated with land use or technological negative emissions (Edenhofer et al., 2014[6]; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2018[7]).
This applies to all sectors, including steel and cement. Reaching net-zero CO2 emissions for these sectors will require increasing material efficiency to reduce the primary demand of these materials, more and higher value recycling, as well as decarbonising production. This requires that we change how we design and build structures and machinery, and develop very low or zero emissions production technologies by 2030-2040 to allow for the replacement of older facilities as they wear out (Bataille et al., 2018[8]).
Retrofitting and early retirement may also be required. The most effective way to reduce steel and concrete emissions is to use them only for necessary applications in new products, vehicles and structures (-25 to -50% emissions reduction potential) (Allwood and Cullen, 2015[9]; International Energy Agency, 2019[10]). This requires innovation in design for: material substitution; longer lifetimes for final products and structures; ease of deconstruction, component reuse; and high value recycling when their useful life ends. This will require engagement with national institutions responsible for a wide range of topics, including architecture, design, civil engineering, construction, trades, and building code formation and enforcement. Appropriately sizing and mixing aggregates, and reducing the clinker content of cement are key short-term strategies to reduce CO2 emissions of existing plants (UNEnvironment et al., 2018[11]). The building material concrete familiar to most people is a mixture of cement glue holding together various sizes and mixtures of gravel and sand aggregates. How well this mixture is mixed, and the appropriate sizing and packing of the aggregates, is key to the final strength of concrete. This argues for professional mixing and pouring, and a movement away from bagged cement and ad-hoc mixing. The most GHG intense part of cement production (~60% of total emissions) is limestone calcination to 6 | produce clinker. It is already common to partially replace some of the clinker with blast furnace slag, coal fly ash, bauxite, and natural pozzolanic materials, but use of all these products may be constrained by available volume. While not yet common, clinker can be substituted (up to 40-50% by mass) with a mixture of limestone and heat treated clays, which are common materials globally. In the medium term, all cement plants should be retrofit to existing best available technology, and the use of alternative lower carbon fuels (e.g. biomass and waste) for process heat should be maximized. All facilities should be using dry kilning with preheating of the ground limestone entering the calciner using the waste clinker production heat; this is retrofittable in most cases. Hydrogen or ammonia are possible zero emissions fuels to be considered for retrofitting for process heat needs.
New cement emissions reduction technologies that are currently being tested could also play an important role in the longer term (International Energy Agency; Cement Sustainability Initiative, 2017[3]; Lehne and Preston, 2018[2]). Waste CO2 from other sectors via carbon capture and utilisation (CCUS) can be added to the concrete. A pilot is underway to concentrate the CO2 emissions of limestone calcination from clinker production (i.e. the EU LEILAC project). The technology used for LEILAC will be retrofittable in most cases, and the geologic disposal of highly concentrated CO2 emissions (>=80-85%) has already been commercially proven by the oil and gas industry. Carbon capture and utilisation (CCUS) for CO2 in dilute flue gases, i.e. from process heating to make cement, is at a lower technology readiness level. Finally, there are several potential alternative chemical pathways to make cement with much lower emissions, some of which may allow negative emissions, but most are at a low technology readiness level. The first step to reducing emissions from steel is to maximise the volume and quality of recycling (25% of current production is secondary steel). Using roughly half the energy of primary steel production, steel recycling is mostly done with electric arc or induction furnaces powered by electricity, which must also be decarbonised. For recycled steel to be used for all purposes, however, contamination with copper and to a lesser extent other metals must be minimised through intentional design and post-use deconstruction. Very low or zero emissions primary iron & steel and production can be achieved through two main pathways: advanced coal based methods using CCUS (e.g. HISARNA), or CO2-free hydrogen and electricity based methods (e.g. HYBRIT) (Fischedick et al., 2014[12]; Vogl, hman and Nilsson, 2018[13]). There are several retrofittable and new build methods for both pathways with widely varying levels of technological readiness. Some could be commercially available by 2030 with concerted effort. While technological innovation policy is a key priority, policy to address market conditions, behaviour and political economy challenges will be equally if not more important. Steel and cement production are both highly competitive with low profit margins (i.e. they have difficulties passing on costs) and steel is highly traded, facilities last a long time, new facilities are capital intense, and installations are often keystone elements of local supply chains with substantial indirect capital and employment value added (e.g. ~$1000 of steel is essential to making a $25,000-100,000 car). There is also no existing market ready to pay a premium for low emissions steel. At present, despite the overarching net-zero CO2 emissions goal of the Paris Agreement, iron & steel and cement & concrete firms face a lack of global and national clarity regarding what actual policies they will face. This results in an | 7 investment limbo: carbon-intensive choices are incompatible with the Paris Agreement and face risks of more stringent climate policy, while climate-friendly choices lack a clear investment case in the currently uncertain policy regime. To break this impasse clear long term policy signals are needed, followed by comprehensive strategies incorporating all key actors and addressing all key challenges, actualised by policy packages to incentivise all actors to play their parts (Neuhoff et al., 2018[14]; Wesseling et al., 2017[15]; Bataille et al., 2018[8]; Wyns et al., 2019[16]; Material Economics, 2019[17]; UK Energy Transitions Commission, 2018[18]). The first thing required is an initial policy commitment to eventual net-zero emissions and appropriate interim targets that reflect reasonable stock turnover and investment operations dynamics. Then a transition plan needs to be formed that includes participation, input and buy-in from all key stakeholders, including governments, sector associations, firms, product consumers, unions, communities and other impacted and concerned parties. Practically speaking, the national and global steel and cement firms and associations need to enter into a long term technical pathways and policy planning process with appropriate governmental institutions that are engaged in the low-carbon agenda, at appropriate regional (e.g. California), national (e.g. the UK, Netherlands, France, Germany, China, Canada), supra-national (e.g. the EU) and international levels. The policy packages would likely need to include many elements: 1) Material use design and standards to reduce demand, implemented through engagement with architectural, transport, civil engineering, design, and construction institutions. 2) Promotion of R&D, including strategic demonstration pilot projects. 3) Lead market demand creation for early ‘green’ commercial plants through guaranteed markets that reflect the higher production costs and investment risk, for instance via green public procurement (e.g. preferred or minimum market shares for green materials), low emissions material “feed-in-tariffs” (or “contracts-for-difference”, a.k.a CFDs) or private buyers coalitions (e.g. Apple’s role in the Elysis green aluminium project). 4) Removal of energy subsidies combined with an initially low but rising carbon price. The role of carbon competitiveness protection measures (e.g. border carbon adjustment or standards) may need to be considered. 5) Harmonisation of process and product standards and removal of barriers (e.g. for clinker substitution). 6) Infrastructure planning and support for high voltage electricity transmission, CO2 capture and hydrogen production, including consideration of potential industrial clusters. 7) Supporting institutions, including for workforce adjustment and for assessment of life cycle emissions of given materials and derivative products. In sum, very low and zero emissions from the iron & steel and cement & concrete sectors is a technically and economically reasonable challenge, but given the physical, economic and political challenges, this must be done with well-designed policy packages and careful consultation with all parties involved and affected. The main technical and policy knowledge gaps to be addressed and discussed include: • How to engage with architectural, transport, civil engineering, design, and construction institutions in a systematic way to implement materially efficient, reusable and recyclable design for vehicles, machinery, buildings and infrastructure. • When, where, and how to create publically and privately driven lead markets and business models for new low emission steel and concrete. This would be essential to prove the technologies for wider mainstream use before they can become the new commercial standards around which the market builds. 8 | • When, where and how retrofits can be made to reduce the emissions of the existing long lived plants to very low or zero emissions. • Whether “sunset” decommissioning regulations may be needed for high GHG facilities that are not retrofittable and don’t wear out, and how could these be designed to minimize disruption for firms, workforces and communities • How can the key stakeholders be involved in the transition, and what are possible sequencings of actions that could build trust and enable the planning of a long-term low-carbon transition strategies in developed, in-transition and developing country contexts (Bataille, 2019/2020[19])? This should look at the role governments, multinational steel and cement firms, national and global sector associations, and big steel and cement users like vehicle and construction companies. Are there key trusted convenors, like the OECD, the International Energy Agency, the European Commission, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that can help start the dialogue?