Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

A review on emission analysis in cement industries

M.B. Ali a , R. Saidur a,b, , M.S. Hossain b
a
b

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Malaya, Faculty of Engineering, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Centre of Research UMPEDAC, Level 4, Engineering Tower, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 27 October 2010
Accepted 31 January 2011
Keywords:
Cement industry
CO2 emissions
Emission reductions

a b s t r a c t
The cement subsector consumes approximately 1215% of the total industrial energy use. Therefore,
this subsector releases CO2 emissions to the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels to produce
energy needed for the cement manufacturing process. The cement industry contributes about 7% of the
total worldwide CO2 emissions. This study complied a comprehensive literature in terms of Thesis (MS
and PhD), peer reviewed journals papers, conference proceedings, books, reports, websites for emission
generation and mitigation technique. Emission released associated with the burning of fuels have been
presented in this paper. Different sources of emissions in a cement industry has been identied and
presented in this study. Different techniques to reduce CO2 emissions from the cement manufacturing
industries are reviewed and presented in this paper. The major techniques are: capture and storage
CO2 emissions, reducing clinker/cement ratio by replacing clinker with different of additives and using
alternative fuels instead of fossil fuels. Apart from these techniques, various energy savings measures in
cement industries expected to reduce indirect emissions released to the atmosphere. Based on review
results it was found that sizeable amount of emission can be mitigated using different techniques and
energy savings measures.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents
1.
2.
3.

4.

5.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2252
Specic energy consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2253
Emissions from cement industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2254
3.1.
Carbon dioxide emissions from calcination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2254
3.2.
The cement manufacturing process and CO2 emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2255
3.3.
Carbon dioxide emissions from fuel use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2255
Reduction of emissions from cement industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2255
4.1.
Capture and storage technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2256
4.1.1.
Post-combustion capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2256
4.1.2.
Oxy-fuel combustion capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2256
4.1.3.
Pre-combustion capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2256
4.2.
Reduction of clinker/cement ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2258
4.3.
Use of alternative fuels to reduce CO2 emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2258
4.4.
Pyroprocessing improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2259
4.5.
Optimized model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2260
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2260
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2260
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2260

1. Introduction
Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Malaya, Faculty of Engineering, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel.: +603 79674462;
fax: +603 79675317.
E-mail addresses: saidur@um.edu.my, saidur912@yahoo.com (R. Saidur).
1364-0321/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.02.014

The cement industry is one of the major contributors for

greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, specically CO2 emission. This
is due to the calcinations of raw materials for the production

M.B. Ali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261

Oceanial/
Australia, 0.50 Africa, 4.10%
%

Nomenclature
fuel type
sector or source activity
calcium oxide (CaO) content of clinker produced
cost of applying CO2 capture technology (c) on unit
i (US$/year)
Cie
cost of applying efciency improvement technology
(e) on unit i (US$/year)
Cif
operating cost for a unit i with fuel f (US$/ton)
Clinkercontent percentage of clinker in the cement
(tclinker /tcement )
Cr
cost of purchasing raw material r (US$/ton)
EFcl
emission factor for the clinker produced (ton
CO2 /ton clinker)
Energykiln associated with the kiln technology (MJ/tclinker )
Fuelemis CO2 released from fuel burning (tCO2 /MJ)
magnesium oxide (MgO) content of clinker proMgOCl
duced
Pif
amount produced from unit i using fuel f (ton/year)
Productioncement /year production of cement per year
(tcement /year)
Qcl
quantity of clinker produced (ton).
Rawmatemis refers to the CO2 released from the raw materials and is then expressed in (tCO2 /tclinker )
Rif
retrot cost for switching unit i to run with another
fuel f (US$/year)
Rr
purchased amount of raw material r (ton/year)
Xif
binary variable representing switching or not.
Yie
binary variable representing applying efciency
improvement technology (e) or not.
Z
annualized capital and operating cost of the cement
plant (US$/year)
Zic
binary variable representing applying CO2 capture
technology (c) or not.
44.0/56.1 stoichiometric ratio of CO2 /CaO stochiometric
ration is 0.785
44.0/40.3 stoichiometric ratio of CO2 /MgO

a
b
CaOCl
Cic

of cement and burning fuels needed to maintain high temperatures in a Kiln. In recent times, one of the most important
goals of the global environmental agenda is the reduction of
emissions to protect the Earths climate pattern. The increasing trend of atmospheric emissions is a driving factor to design
and develop policies to overcome challenges facing by climate
change.
Cement industry subsector require about 12% of total energy use
in Malaysia [1] and 15% in Iran [2,3]. It is observed that coal, fuel
oils and petroleum coke are the major sources of energy needed in
a cement manufacturing process. Recently natural gas, and alternative fuels found to be used by many cement industries around
the world [4]. Approximately seven percent of the total CO2 is
emitted by cement industries [5]. This percentage is rapidly increasing mainly because cement production is increasing at a faster
rate than the speed at which emissions are presently reduced
[6].
China is the major cement producer around the world and it
produced 1388 million metric tons (MMT) of cement in 2008. This
accounts for nearly half of the worlds total cement production [7].
Indian cement industry is the second largest in the world with an
installed capacity of 135 MMT per annum. It accounts for nearly
6% of the world production [8]. At present, the United States is the
third major cement producer in the world next to China and India
[4]. In 2002, the United States produced 89,000,000 metric tons of

2253

Other
Europe, 6.30%
European
Union, 10.80%
Central and
South
America, 6.40
%

Asia, 67.60%

North
America, 6.30
%

Fig. 1. Worldwide cement production in 2004 [10].

Table 1
Comparison of electrical and thermal SEC for few selected countries around the
world [12].
Country
India
Spain
Germany
Japan
Korea
Brazil
Italy
China
Mexico
Canada
US
World best

Electrical SEC (kWh/ton)

Thermal SEC (GJ/ton)

88
92
100
100
102
110
112
118
118
140
141
65

3.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.70
3.70
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.50
4.60
2.72

cement [9]. Fig. 1 shows worldwide cement production statistics

[10].
2. Specic energy consumption
A plant or process with a lower SEC value corresponds to a
similar plant or similar process that is more energy efcient. By
comparing to SEC, the information developed can be used to assess
the energy-efciency potential of a plant. The SEC can also be used
for evaluating and tracking a plants progress in energy-efciency
improvements by eliminating the effects of a change in product mix
[11]. Average specic thermal and electrical energy consumption
is presented in Table 1 for few selected countries.
Table 2 shows specic thermal energy consumption for different
types of clinker manufacturing process. It has been observed that
pre-heating with different stages can reduce energy consumption
signicantly. Waste heat from different sources is used to pre-heat
the clinker.
Table 2
Specic thermal energy consumption in a clinker manufacturing process [13].
Kiln process

Thermal energy consumption

(GJ/ton clinker)

Wet process with internals

Long dry process with internals
1-Stage cyclone pre-heater
2-Stage cyclone pre-heater
4-Stage cyclone pre-heater
4-Stage cyclone pre-heater plus
calciner
5-Stage pre-heater plus calciner
plus high efciency cooler
6-Stage pre-heater plus calciner
plus high efciency cooler

5.866.28
4.60
4.18
3.77
3.55
3.14
3.01
Less than 2.93

2254

M.B. Ali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261

Table 3
Specic electrical energy consumption in dry and wet process [2].
Process sections

Raw material
treatment and crushing
Mashing
Fans and coolers
Dust collector
Cement milling
Transportation
Total electricity
required (kWh/ton)
Fuel burned in furnaces
(lit/ton)

Electrical energy consumption

(kWh/ton)
Dry

Wet

44
23
6
45
8
130

10
25
8
45
58
149

112.5

156

Table 3 shows specic electrical and thermal energy consumption for wet and dry process. It has been observed that dry process
is more efcient compared to wet process. In a wet process extra
energy is needed to remove moisture contained in wet slurry.
Industries around the world are moving towards dry manufacturing process as they consume less energy than a wet process. Dry
process consumes about 13% less energy (electrical) than a wet process. Dry process found to consume about 28% less fuel than a wet
process.
Table 4 shows specic electrical and thermal energy consumption trend in Polish cement industries. As industries are
implementing different energy savings measures, this consequently will reduce specic energy consumption.
3. Emissions from cement industry
About one third of the global carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions
released to the atmosphere are associated with the use of energy
at various industrial sectors [14,15] reported that industry emitted about 2370 Tg CO2 . This accounts for about 43% of global CO2
emissions. Deja et al. [5] reported that cement industries contribute
for about 7% of the total global CO2 emissions. It is estimated that
about 0.91.0 tons of CO2 are produced for a ton of clinker depending on the type of fuels used [5,14]. Hoenig et al. [10] reported that
0.650.92 kg of CO2 is produced for per kg cement produced based
on a cement plant with a modern technology and equipment. In a
study by [5] reported that on an average 0.79 ton of CO2 is emitted
for per ton of cement. Fig. 2 shows the energy related CO2 emissions
for few selected countries around the world [10]. The concentrations of CO2 in ue gases are relatively high in cement production.
And they are in the range of 1433% [16].
Emissions of CO2 in a cement industry mainly come directly
from combustion of fossil fuels and from calcinations of the limestone into calcium oxide. An indirect amount of CO2 comes from
the consumption of electricity that is generated by burning fossil fuels. Approximately half of CO2 emissions are originated from
the combustion of fuels and half of them are originated from
the calcinations of the limestone [14,1719]. The typical exhaust

Fig. 2. Process and energy CO2 emissions per ton of cement by country [10].

Table 5
Exhaust gases from cement process.
Component

Concentration

CO2
NO2
NOx
SO2
O2

1433% (w/w)
510 of NOx
<2003000 mg/Nm3
<10-3500 mg/Nm3
814% (v/v)

gas compositions from a cement process is shown in Table 5

[20].
Global carbon dioxide emissions from cement manufacturing
processes were about 829 million metric tons in 2000 as reported
by [7]. Global CO2 emissions trend is illustrated in Fig. 3 [21].
Total CO2 emissions emitted from a cement plant can be considered as the sum of emissions released from the consumption of
thermal energy and generation of electric energy required for the
plant. Total CO2 emissions can be estimated using Eq. (1) [14].
Total CO2 emissions = CO2 emissionclinker use
+ CO2 emissionelectric energy use + CO2 emisionsthermal energy use
(1)

3.1. Carbon dioxide emissions from calcination

Almost half of the CO2 is produced from the calcination process
where conversion of raw materials takes place [5]. The amount of
CO2 produced by the calcination can be expressed mathematically
as [17]:
CaCO3 CaO + CO2

About 6467% of clinker composition is CaO and the remaining

share consists of iron oxides and aluminum oxides. About 0.5 kg of

Table 4
Specic energy consumption in Polish cement industry [5].
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Consumption of electric energy

(kWh/ton)
105
105
102
101
101
95
94

Consumption of unit gross

heat energy (GJ/ton)
3.77
3.48
3.41
3.46
3.50
3.64
3.64

(2)

Fig. 3. Global CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2005 [21].

M.B. Ali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261

2255

Fig. 4. Typical cement process mass balance [22].

CO2 is produced for per kg clinker. Emissions of CO2 are dependent

on the clinker and cement ratio. This ratio varies normally from 0.5
to 0.95 [17]. The amount of CO2 generated by the process varies on
the basis of loss of the raw materials (limestone) during ignition.
Fig. 4 shows the mass balance results of CO2 emissions in a cement
manufacturing process [22].
For CO2 emissions from calcinations process based on clinker
production data, the following equation can be used [23].
Emissions (clinker production) CO2 = EFcl Qcl

(3)

The above equation assumes that all of the CaO and MgO in the
clinker are produced from a carbonate source (CaCO3 , MgCO3 in
limestone). The emission factor (EF) is dependent on the CaO and
MgO contents of the clinker. EF is also dependent on the stoichiometric compositions of the reaction. The EF can be expressed as
[23]:


EF



cl

44.0
CaO
56.1

 44.0
40.3

MgO


(4)

3.3. Carbon dioxide emissions from fuel use

A fuel is burned to produce heat which in turn is used for
producing clinker. A pyroprocess removes water from the raw
meal, calcines the limestone at temperatures between 900 and
1000 C. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted during this process is inuenced by the type of fuel used (i.e. coal, fuel oil, natural
gas, petroleum coke and alternative fuels). The total CO2 emission
during the cement production process depends mainly on type of
production process, fuel used, and clinker/cement ratio [17]. Table 6
shows the global carbon emission from cement production.
Amount of CO2 emissions produced by the cement industry can
be expressed mathematically by Eq. (5) [17].
tCO2
year[(Fuelemis Energykiln (raw-matemis) CLinker content ]
production cement
year

Carbon dioxide emissions from stationary combustion processes can be expressed by the general equation [23].
emission (stationary combustion) CO2 = EFab xEFab

3.2. The cement manufacturing process and CO2 emissions

Limestone is a major raw material used in the production of
cement. It is burnt at about 1450 C to make clinker and is blended
with additives. The nished product is then nely grounded to produce different types of cement [14]. Emissions are produced mainly
by de-carbonation of limestone and the use of carbon based fuels
for heating. Average CO2 emissions associated with grinding processes are in the order of 0.1 ton of CO2 per ton of cement and are
mostly associated with electricity production [24]. Fig. 5 describes
schematically the cement production process and associated CO2
emissions at different sections of a cement manufacturing process
[24].

(5)

(6)

Carbon dioxide emissions from whole process of clinker production can be expressed as:
Emission CO2 = Emission (clinker production)
CO2 (emission (stationary combustion) CO2

(7)

4. Reduction of emissions from cement industry

The cement industry is one of the largest sectors that contribute emissions of CO2 to atmosphere. This sector accounts for
about 1.8 Gt of CO2 emission annually [25]. At the moment, CO2

Fig. 5. Simplied cement fabrication process, with a specic interest in the CO2 emissions [24].

2256

M.B. Ali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261

Table 6
Global carbon emissions from cement production [17].
Country
China
Europe
OECD Pacic
Other ASIA
Middle East
North America
EE/FSU
Latin America
India
Africa
Total

Cement production
(Tg)
423
182
151
124
111
88
101
97
62
41

Clinker/cement
ratio (%)

Primary intensity
(MJ/kg)

Primary energy (PJ)

Process carbon (Tg

CO2 )

Carbon emissions
(Tg CO2 )

83

5
4.1
3.5
4.9
5.1
5.4
5.5
4.7
5
4.9

2117
749
533
613
563
480
558
462
309
201

175
73
65
56
51
39
42
42
28
18

197
56
41
179
44
40
38
30
30
15

372
129
105
105
95
78
80
71
60
33

4.8

6585

587

830

1126

89

1381

reduction is the most important environmental target worldwide

in order to reduce the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
gases. Followings are the few selected techniques that can be used
to reduce CO2 emissions from the cement manufacturing process
[20,22,23,2628]:
Use of waste heat as an alternative source of energy;
Implementation of CO2 capture and storage technologies;
Sequestering CO2 by enhancing biological absorption capacity in
forests and soils;
Use of blended cement by reducing clinker/cement ratio;
Increasing the use of renewable energy sources or nuclear energy;
The raw mixture can be prepared with non-carbonated calcium;
Use of alternative raw materials that contains carbonates (y ash,
slag, gypsum, anhydrite and uorite).
Indirect CO2 emission reductions can be achieved by reducing energy consumption in cement manufacturing. These can be
done by applying energy savings measures for machineries used in
cement manufacturing. Table 7 shows CO2 reductions associated
with different energy savings technologies.
There are other techniques to reduce CO2 emission and energy
consumption from cement industry. These can be achieved by
introducing energy efciency technologies and measures in cement
industry as shown in Table 8.
4.1. Capture and storage technologies
In a carbon capture technique, a stream of concentrated CO2
is transported and sequestered underground or in the deep Ocean.
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) may become an emerging
approach for CO2 abatement using this technique, carbon dioxide
could be captured and stored away for a very long period of time.
Fig. 6 shows process of cement plant without CO2 capture [20,31].
Newell and Anderson [16] reported that the application CCS
technologies in cement production may reduce carbon emissions
of CO2 by 6570%. In a cement manufacturing process, CO2 is
produced during the conversion of CaCO3 to CaO and the combustion of a fuel to provide heat for the process [32]. Different
methods for the capture of CO2 at the point of combustion have
been researched and developed [26]. The techniques include:
Table 7
Technologies for efciency improvements [22,26].
Technology

CO2 emission reduction (%)

High efciency motors and drives

Adjustable speed drives
High efciency classiers
Efcient grinding technologies
Conversion from wet to dry process

4.0
5.5
8.1
10.5
50.0

Total (Tg CO2 )

chemical stripping, membrane system, cryogenic separation and

physical absorption [22]. The implementation cost of each of
these possibilities is highly uncertain; costs are directly related
to technical performance, economic growth and fuel type [26].
The other possibilities for the capture process in cement industry include; post-combustion capture, oxy-fuel combustion capture
and pre-combustion capture [10,22,31]. Fig. 7 presents an idea for
CO2 capture system.
4.1.1. Post-combustion capture
Post-combustion capture of CO2 from ue gases is produced
by the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass in air. Instead of
being discharged directly to the atmosphere, the ue gas is passed
through equipment which separates most of the CO2 . In most cases,
CO2 is captured from a ue gas at low pressure and low CO2 content.
Generally, the efciency of post-combustion abatement technologies increases with CO2 concentration in the exhaust gas [10]. The
CO2 is fed into a storage reservoir and the remaining ue gas is discharged to the atmosphere. A chemical sorbent process is normally
used for CO2 separation [31,34].
4.1.2. Oxy-fuel combustion capture
In oxy-fuel combustion, almost pure oxygen is used for combustion instead of air. Therefore, a ue gas mostly contains CO2 and
H2 O [31]. If fuel is burnt in pure oxygen, the ame temperature is
excessively high. However, CO2 or H2 O-rich ue gas can be recycled
to the combustor to reduce the excessive heat [10]. Oxygen is usually produced by a low temperature (cryogenic) air separation and
novel methods to supply oxygen to the fuel, such as membranes
and chemical looping cycles [31,34]. Fig. 8 illustrates the oxy-fuel
process with a re-circulating ue gas.
4.1.3. Pre-combustion capture
Pre-combustion capture, a fuel is reacted with oxygen or
air/steam to produce a synthesis gas that contains carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The carbon monoxide is then reacted with steam
in a catalytic reactor to produce CO2 and more hydrogen. Carbon
dioxide is then separated, usually by a physical or chemical absorption process. The resulting fuel rich in hydrogen can be used in
boilers, furnaces, gas turbines, engines and fuel cells [31,34]. Currently there is no pre-combustion technology used in a cement
plant because they are designed for smaller volumes compared
to the requirements of cement kilns [10]. Therefore, to apply precombustion technology in cement productions, the clinker burning
process need to be modied.
In a cement industry, a separate hydrogen plant with carbon
dioxide capture technology need to be built. Waste heat from the
cement plant could provide some energy for reforming and shift
reaction in the hydrogen production process. Even though the
hydrogen production from natural gas, light hydrocarbons and coal

M.B. Ali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261

2257

600 kg CO 2
=1566 kg N 2
= 262 kg O 2
Pre-Heater

Raw
material
processing

Rotary
kiln

Clinker
Cooler

Final
grinding

Pre-Calciner

1150 kg raw material

Fuel preparation

63kg fuel oil 1050 kg air

Fig. 6. Schematic of process ow of cement plant without CO2 capture [20].

is a well-known technology, the subsequent capture and storage of

CO2 has not yet been applied [10].
A preliminary calculation suggests that the applications of CCS
technologies in cement production could cut down carbon emissions by as much as 65 70%. If feasible, avoided capture and storage
costs would likely be US$ 180/tC to US$ 915/tC [16]. The costs of

a plant with and without capture technologies are summarized in

Table 9 [25].
Table 10 shows the results of the cost CO2 reduction associated
with different percentage of CO2 reductions.
Fig. 9 shows the global CO2 emissions from cement industry
with CCS capture and without capture.

Table 8
Summary of energy savings in clinker production, raw materials preparation and nish grinding [2830].
Energy savings measures

Emission reduction (kgCO2 /ton)

Improved refractoriness for clinker making in all kilns

Energy management and process control systems for clinker making in all kilns
Adjustable speed drive for kiln fan for clinker making in all kilns
Installation or upgrading of a pre-heater to a pre-heater/pre-calciner Kiln for clinker making in rotary kilns
Conversion of long dry kilns to pre-heater/pre-calciner kilns for clinker making in rotary kilns
Dry process upgrade to multi-stage pre-heater kiln for clinker making in rotary kilns
Increasing number of pre-heater stages in rotary kilns
Conversion to reciprocating grate cooler for clinker making in rotary kilns
Kiln combustion system improvements for clinker making in rotary kilns
Indirect ring for clinker making in rotary kilns
Optimize heat recovery/upgrade clinker cooler for clinker making in rotary kilns
Low temperature heat recovery for power generation for clinker making in rotary kilns
Seal replacement for clinker making in rotary kilns
High temperature heat recovery for power generation for clinker making in rotary kilns
Efcient kiln drives for clinker making in rotary kilns
Replacing vertical shaft kilns with new suspension pre-heater/pre-calciner kilns for clinker making in vertical shaft kilns
Process control and management in grinding mills for nish grinding
Improved grinding media
High pressure (hydraulic) roller press for nish grinding
High efciency classiers for nish grinding
Efcient transport systems for raw materials preparation in dry process
Raw meal blending systems in dry process
Raw meal process control for vertical mills in dry process
High-efciency classiers in dry process
Slurry blending and homogenizing in wet process
Wash mills with closed circuit classier in wet process
Roller mills for fuel preparation

10.315.5
21
3.97
45.69
169.07
141.44
8.44
43.13
40.68
0.390.57
15.38
19.18
0.3
18.03
0.745
62
2.63
3.34
13.63
4.08
2.61
1.37
0.94
4.03
0.15
2.3
0.25

Table 9
Summary of cement plant costs with and without CO2 capture.
Descriptions

Unit

Capital cost
Operation cost
Fuel cost
Electrical energy cost
Other variable operating cost
Fixed operating cost
Capital charges
Total cost
Cement production cost
CO2 abatement costs
Cost per ton of cement product
Cost per ton of CO2 captured
Cost per ton of CO2 emission avoided

US$M
US$M/year
US$M/year
US$M/year
US$M/year
US$M/year
US$M/year
US$/ton
US$/ton
US$/ton
US$/ton

Base case (no capture)

350
8.9
5.3
8
25
39
87
87

Post combustion capture

Oxy-combustion

742

435

28.6
-1.5
14
47
84
172
172

9.2
11.6
9
30
49
109
109

85
79
143

21
46
53

2258

M.B. Ali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261
2,

Coal, Gas, Biomass

Heat & Power

Classification

O2

CO2
Separation

steam
Reformer
+CO2 Sep

CO2

N2 O2

Heat & Power

CO2

CO
Compression&
Dehydraon

Heat & Power

2

Air Separation

CO2

Air Separation

Post-combustion,

Oxy-fuel,

Pre-combustion,

Fig. 7. CO2 capture systems process [31,33].

Air

Air separation

N2

Atmosphere

Flue gas recirculaon

Flue gas (CO2-rich)

O2
Fuel
Raw material

ClinkerBurning
process

Clinker

Fig. 8. Oxy-fuel technology with ue gas recirculation [10].

4.2. Reduction of clinker/cement ratio

4.3. Use of alternative fuels to reduce CO2 emissions

A sizeable amount of CO2 is emitted during the clinker production as it is an energy intensive process [20]. Reducing the amount
of clinker in blended cement can be considered as one of the most
effective ways to reduce CO2 emissions. It was found that blending
cement with the additives to replace clinker has the most remarkable contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions. In blended
cement, the clinker/cement ratio is reduced by substituting a part
of clinker with additives such as y ash. An addition of about 10%
y ash to the cement would reduce annual CO2 emissions substantially [23]. Cement and concrete quality can be improved with the
addition of y ash as well. In addition, limestone, blast furnace slag,
natural pozzolans, silica fume and volcanic ash may also be used
[24,35,36] as additives. It was reported that the granulated blast
furnace slag is one of the widely used additives [37]. These industry based by-products are mixed with the ground clinker to give
a blended cement product. The global potential for CO2 emission
reductions through the blended cement is estimated to be at least
5% of total CO2 emissions from cement making. However it may be
as high as 20% as reported by [20]. Fig. 10 presents the evolution of
mineral additions in a cement manufacturing process. It shows that
the percentage has remained roughly constant at about 20% over
the last 30 years, but its nature has changed, with a diminution of
blast furnace slags (BFS) and an increase in limestone addition [24].

Carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by burning waste or

biomass as alternative fuels. Cement kilns are well suited for the
waste combustion because of their high process temperature [12].

Fig. 9. Direct CO2 emissions from cement production (19702050) [12].

M.B. Ali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261

2259

Table 10
Result for different CO2 reduction target [26].

Fig. 10. Evolution of clinker substitution from 1973 to 2007 [24].

Alternative fuels used in the cement industry can be divided into

three basic groups [3840]:
Gas (landll gas, pyrolytic gas, biogas),
Liquid (used oils, solvents),
Solid (tires, wood waste, plastics).
Used chemicals, animal meal/fat, rubber, impregnated saw dust,
sewage/industrial sludge, paper sludge and other types of waste can
also be co-combusted in cement kilns in large quantities [12,41].
Substitutions of alternative fuels depend on the type of alternative
fuel used. Fuel substitutions can be from 80% to 100% [42]. Belgium,
France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland have reached
average substitution rates from 35% to more than 70% of the total
energy used [12]. In the US, it is common for cement plants to derive
2070% of their energy needs from alternative fuels [43]. The substitution rate in Europe is approximately 17% [41]. Few individual
plants have even achieved 100% substitution rates using appropriate waste materials. However, very high substitution rates can only
be accomplished if a tailored pre-treatment and surveillance system is in place [12]. The benets of using alternative fuels in cement
industry include [42,44,45]:
1. Reduction of CO2 emissions as shown in Fig. 11;

CO2 reduction (%)

Cost (million US$/year)

Increase in cost (%)

0
1
5
10
20
30
50

25
25.60
25.72
26.80
29.35
33.31
38.85

0
2.4
2.9
7.3
17.4
33.2
55.4

2. Cost reduction of clinker production due to using inexpensive

fuel;
3. Preservation of resources lower use of fossil nonrenewable fuel;
4. Reasonable secondary use of material;
5. Residue free combustion due to not existing ash, soil and
sewage;
6. No signicant change of emissions;
7. Hazardous substances will be destroyed due to the
processhigh temperature level, long gas residue time,
alcalic combustion material, counter ow principle and
oxidizing atmosphere;
8. High thermal efciency;
9. Fulllment of substantial dump disposal;
10. High yielding ecological balance.

4.4. Pyroprocessing improvement

The greatest opportunities to reduce energy consumption and
lowering emissions associated with cement manufacturing process
will be obtained with improvements in pyroprocessing. Improvements can be made on the energy management, upgrading existing
equipment, adopting new pyroprocessing technologies and R&D to
develop completely new concepts for the cement manufacturing
processes. Raw material drying at the raw mills; waste heat recovery from kilns exit gases using steam generator; and Kiln shell heat
loss reductions can be considered for the pyroprocessing improvements. The typical pyroprocessing system is presented in Fig. 12
[46].

Fig. 11. Benets of co-combustion of alternative fuels in a cement industry [43].

2260

M.B. Ali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261

Fig. 12. Flow diagram of pyroprocessing system [46].

4.5. Optimized model

Acknowledgements

An optimization model an objective function for the cement

industry is reported in this study. The objective of the model is
to nd the best strategy or mix of strategies to reduce CO2 up to
a certain target with minimum overall cost for cement production
while meeting the demand. The model can be expressed as:

The authors would like to acknowledge the nancial support

from the Vice Chancellor, University of Malaya. This research was
carried under the High Impact Research Grant (HIRG) scheme.

Z ($/year) =
+


Ie

CrRr +

Cie Yie +



If


Ic

Cif Pif +

Cic Zic



If

Pif if
(8)

The rst term in the objective function represents the cost associated with purchasing the raw material. The second term takes into
account the operating cost for different units. The cost of switching to less carbon content fuel is shown in the third term. The
fourth term represents the cost associated with applying efciency
improvement technologies. The remaining term adds the cost that
result from applying CO2 capture technology. A binary variable is
dened for each CO2 mitigation option [26].
5. Conclusions
It has been found that cement manufacturing is an energy intensive industry consuming about 125% of total industrial energy
use. Therefore, sizeable amounts of emissions are released to the
atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels to supply energy
requirements of these industries. Emissions are produced from
the calcinations process as well. For these reasons, special attention is needed on the clinker production to reduce CO2 emissions.
It was identied that there are several effective measures those
can be applied in cement industries to achieve emissions reductions target. One of the most cost effective ways is to capture CO2
from the ue gases and store it away into the soil or ocean. This
can reduce carbon emissions by as much as 6570%. By reducing
clinker/cement ratio with the addition of various additives, CO2
emissions can be reduced substantially. However, it was found that
the substituting fossil fuels with alternative fuels may play a major
role in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. These measures
will reduce environmental impacts along with the overall of quality
cement production.

References
[1] PTM, Pusat Tenaga Malaysia; 2003.
[2] Avami A, Sattari S. Energy conservation opportunities: cement industry in Iran.
International Journal of Energy 2007;1(3):6571.
[3] PTM, Pusat Tenaga Malaysia; 2003, www.ptm.org.my [23 August 2010].
[4] Jacott M, Comunes F. Energy use in the cement industry in North America:
emissions, waste generation and pollution control, 19902001; 2003.
[5] Deja J, Uliasz-Bochenczyk A, Mokrzycki E. CO2 emissions from Polish cement
industry. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2010;4(4):5838.
[6] Damineli BL, Kemeid FM, Aguiar PS, John VM. Measuring the eco-efciency of
cement use. Cement and Concrete Composites 2010;32(8):55562.
[7] Hanle L, Jayaraman K, Smith J. CO2 emissions prole of the US cement industry;
2004.
[8] Cement,
Cement
industry;
2010.
Online
at:
http://www.emtindia.net/process/cement/pdf/industry%20overview%20-%20Cement.pdf
[accessed 10 August 2010].
[9] Choate WT. Energy and emission reduction opportunities for the cement industry. Columbia: U.S. Department of Energy; 2003. p. 55.
[10] Hoenig V, Hoppe H, Emberger B. Carbon capture technologyoptions
and potentials for the cement industry. Tannenstrasse: European Cement
Research Academy; 2007. p. 96, Online available at: http://www.ecraonline.org/downloads/Rep CCS.pdf [accessed 16 August 2010].
[11] Xu T, Flapper J. Energy use and implications for efciency strategies in global uid-milk processing industry. Energy Policy 2009;37(12):
533441.
[12] Taylor M, Tam C, Gielen D. Energy efciency and CO2 emissions from the global
cement industry. Korea 2006;50(61.7).
[13] energyefciencyasia,
http://www.energyefciencyasia.org/docs/Industry
SectorsCement draftMay05.pdf, 2010.
[14] Anand S, Vrat P, Dahiya R. Application of a system dynamics approach for
assessment and mitigation of CO2 emissions from the cement industry. Journal
of Environmental Management 2006;79(4):38398.
[15] Yeonbae K, Worrell E. CO2 emission trends in the cement industry: an international comparison. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
2002;7(1):1.
[16] Newell R, Anderson S. Prospects for carbon capture and storage technologies.
Discussion Paper; 2003, p. 70.
[17] Hendriks CA, Worrell E, De Jager D, Blok K, Riemer P. Emission reduction of
greenhouse gases from the cement industry Citeseer. Netherland: International
Energy Agency (IEA); 2002. p. 11.
[18] Gonzalez JLA. Technology change and environmental management for cement
manufacturing: the cement industry in the United States (20042050). PhD
thesis, Carnegie Mellon Unversity; 2005.
[19] Development, W.W.B.C.f.S. The cement sustainability initiative. Cement
industry energy and CO2 performance; 2010. Online available:

M.B. Ali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 22522261

[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]

[24]

[25]
[26]

[27]

[28]
[29]

[30]
[31]
[32]

[33]

http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/LDqFZHcewCUmDh4v02pN/csi-gnr-reportwith-label.pdf [accessed 17 September 2010].

Bosoaga A, Masek O, Oakey J. CO2 capture technologies for cement industry.
Energy Procedia 2009;1(1):13340.
Oh T, Chua S. Energy efciency and carbon trading potential in Malaysia.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010;14(7):2095103.
Caruso H. Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from cement plants. Thesis,
University of Waterloo, Canada: Canada; 2007.
Stefanovic GM, Vuckovic GD, Stojiljkovic MM, Trifunovic MB. CO2 reduction options in cement industry-the Novi Popovac case. Thermal Science
2010;14(3):6719.
Habert G, Billard C, Rossi P, Chen C, Roussel N. Cement production technology
improvement compared to factor 4 objectives. Cement and Concrete Research
2010;40(5):8206.
Barker DJ, Turner SA, Napier-Moore PA, Clark M, Davison JE. CO2 capture in the
cement industry. Energy Procedia 2009;1(1):8794.
Ogbeide S. Developing an optimization model for CO2 reduction in cement
production process. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review
2010;3(1):858.
Hasanbeigi A, Price L, Lu H, Lan W. Analysis of energy-efciency opportunities
for the cement industry in Shandong Province, China: a case study of 16 cement
plants. Energy 2010;35(8):346173.
Worrell E, Christina G, Lynn P. Energy efciency improvement opportunities
for the cement industry, LBNL-72E; 2008.
Hasanbeigi A, Christoph M, Pichit T. The use of conservation supply curves in
energy policy and economic analysis: the case studies of Thai cement industry.
Energy Policy 2010;38(1):392405.
Worrell E, Martin N, Price L. Potentials for energy efciency improvement in
the US cement industry. Energy 2000;25:189214.
Metz B. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge
University Press; 2005. p. 431.
ECDN. Capturing and storing carbon dioxide: technical lessons learned;
2004. Online available at: http://www.co2net.eu/public/reports/technical
lessons learned nal report.pdf [accessed 17 August 2010].
GreenFacts. Scientic facts on CO2 capture and storage; 2007. Online available at: http://www.greenfacts.org/en/co2-capture-storage/index.htm#il1
[accessed 17 August 2010].

2261

[34] Figueroa JD, Fout T, Plasynski S, Mcilvried H, Srivastava RD. Advances in

CO2 capture technologyThe U.S. Department of Energys Carbon Sequestration Program. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2008;2(1):
920.
[35] Martin N, Worrell E, Price L. Energy efciency and carbon dioxide emissions
reduction opportunities in the US cement industry. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory; 1999.
[36] Damtoft JS, Lukasik J, Herfort D, Sorrentino D, Gartner EM. Sustainable
development and climate change initiatives. Cement and Concrete Research
2008;38(2):11527.
[37] PCA. Carbon dioxide control technology review. USA: VDZ Research Institute
of the Cement Industry and PENTA Engineering Corp.; 2008. p. 73.
[38] Mokrzycki E, Uliasz-Bocheczyk A, Sarna M. Use of alternative fuels in the Polish
cement industry. Applied Energy 2003;74(1/2):10111.
[39] Kntee R, Zevenhoven R, Backman MH. Cement manufacturing using alternative fuels and the advantages of process modelling. Fuel Processing Technology
2004;85(4):293301.
[40] Mokrzycki E, Uliasz-Bocheczyk A. Alternative fuels for the cement industry.
Applied Energy 2003;74(1/2):95100.
[41] Lorea C. 2006. Use of alternative fuels and materials in the European cement
industry. Cement and Concrete Research. IEA meeting. 2006:124.
[42] Willitsch DF, Gernot S, Pmt-Zyklontechnik G, Friedrich W, Theodor
P. Alternative fuels in the cement-industry; 2010. Online available
at:
http://www.coprocem.com/documents/alternative-fuels-in-cementindustry.pdf [accessed 2 September 2010].
[43] Lawrence E. Use of alternative fuels in cement manufacture: analysis of fuel
characteristics and feasibility for use in the Chinese cement sector, LBNL-525E;
2008.
[44] Cembureau. Alternative fuels in cement manufacture; 2010. Online available at: http://www.groundwork.org.za/Cement/Alternative Fuels in Cement
Manufacture CEMBUREAU Brochure EN.pdf [accessed 2nd September 2010].
[45] Cembureau. Environmental benets of using alternative fuels in cement
production; 2010. Online available at: http://www.wbcsdcement.
org/pdf/tf2/CEMBUREAU.pdf [accessed 2 September 2010].
[46] Kabir G, Abubakar A, El-Nafaty U. Energy audit and conservation opportunities for pyroprocessing unit of a typical dry process cement plant. Energy
2010;35:123743.