Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, PR China
NAAM Group, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
c
Department of Mathematics, Quaid-i-Azam University, 45320 Islamabad, Pakistan
b
h i g h l i g h t s
The lifetime environmental impacts of a cement production chain were evaluated.
A comparison of best available technologies was conducted by setting scenarios.
Calcination and grinding processes are the largest environmental emitters.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 October 2014
Received in revised form 1 July 2015
Accepted 2 September 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Cement production
Life-cycle analysis
Raw material and fuel substitution
Best available technology
Environmental emissions
a b s t r a c t
Cement is one of the three main construction materials, which provides support for other related industries and fuels the economic growth. However, cement production is also a high-polluting sector. In this
study, a life-cycle environmental assessment was performed for a typical new suspension preheater dry
process (NSP) cement production in China. A comparison of the life cycle environmental impact of best
available technologies was also conducted by setting a series of scenarios so as to find the most promising
alternative in reducing environmental impacts. The results suggest that although direct calcination is the
largest contributor of environmental emissions in the cement production system, indirect sections, particularly the downstream grinding section, play an important role in terms of environmental impact,
which should be considered as the control point in achieving energy saving and emission reduction goal.
Comparing the environmental performance of raw material and fuel substitution alternatives and best
available technologies, the results of scenario analysis reveals that environmental benefits of carbide slag
and the mixture of carbide slag and limestone slag as raw material substitutions is not prominent as it
induces extra environmental costs that offset the environmental benefits from reduced limestone usage.
Corn straw as coal substitution and heat recovery and cogeneration are found to be promising ways to
achieve environmental mitigation with a notable environmental benefit for cement production. The prevailing NSP kiln technology is more environmental beneficial compared with shaft kiln technology.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Cement industry provides an irreplaceable support for the operation of various downstream industries of Chinese economy. The
production of cement industry in China increased from 597 million
q
This article is based on a short proceedings paper in Energy Procedia Volume
161 (2014). It has been substantially modified and extended, and has been subject
to the normal peer review and revision process of the journal. This paper is included
in the Special Issue of ICAE2014 edited by Prof. J Yan, Prof. DJ Lee, Prof. SK Chou, and
Prof. U Desideri.
Corresponding author at: No. 19, Xinjiekouwai Street, Beijing 100875, PR China.
Tel./fax: +86 10 58807368.
E-mail address: chenb@bnu.edu.cn (B. Chen).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.003
0306-2619/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Song D et al. Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a typical cement production chain. Appl Energy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.003
concern in exploring its emission reduction potential [6,7]. Different from other industries, cement production emits pollutions not
only via direct fossil fuel use, but also through the production procedure as indirect emission [8]. Therefore the whole process emission must be considered when assessing the environmental
impacts of cement industry.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a valuable tool for improving our
understanding of the environmental hazards posed by a products
life stages. Using LCA, many existing studies have been conducted
to evaluate the environmental impacts of cement production
chains [7,914]. However, in light of the expanding cement production in China, it is crucial to not only probe into environmental
impacts of traditional production lines, but also to find possible
improvements of Chinese cement production through technological changes in the context of environmental impacts alleviation.
Currently, research on environmental impacts of fuel substitutions
[15,16], raw materials substitutions [1721], and best available
technologies [3,12,2226] for cement production have already
been conducted. In China, although new suspension preheater
dry process cement production constitutes more than 90% of total
cement production in 2012, technological improvements that contribute to energy saving and environmental emission reduction
should be explored to meet the more and more strict environmental protection goals.
This paper aims to undertake a lifetime environmental assessment of a typical 2500 t/d new suspension preheater dry process
(NSP) cement production line in China, and compare its environmental impacts with those of best available technologies and raw
material and fuel substitutions in calcination. The purposes of this
paper include: to find the environmental emission-intensive sections in the cement production chain, and to shed light on future
technology selection of cement production based on a life-cycle
examination of the pro and cons of best available technologies in
cement production. The rest of this paper is organized as below:
In Section 2, the steps how LCA is conducted in cement production
are introduced in detail. The environmental impact assessment
results of a typical Chinese NSP cement production chain are presented in Section 3. Scenario analysis of best available technologies
is conducted in Section 4. Finally, based on the LCA of the cement
production line, conclusions are drawn to shed light on the selection of cement production technological pathways.
2. Methodology
LCA is a tool to assess the potential environmental impacts and
resources used throughout a products lifetime, i.e., from raw
material acquisition, via production and use phases, to waste management [27]. Based on ISO 14040 standard, there are four major
steps of an LCA of cement production, i.e., (1) define the assessment goal and system boundary; (2) compile the life-cycle inventory; (3) conduct the life-cycle impact assessment of the product/
technology; and (4) interpret, summarize, analyze and communicate the results. In this section, the LCA method of cement production is elaborated based on the steps aforementioned.
2.1. Goal and scope definition
The goal of this study is to appraise the environmental performances of a typical NSP cement production chain as well as its
technological alternatives. The considered functional unit is 1 t
Portland cement production. In terms of system boundary, LCA is
in principle a cradle to grave exercise. However, in some cases cradle to gate, gate to gate, gate to cradle or, more recently, cradle to
cradle approaches are possible. In the case of cement the approach
can only be cradle to gate as it can have many different
Please cite this article in press as: Song D et al. Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a typical cement production chain. Appl Energy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.003
Background system
Energy
Production process
Cement
Raw material
preparation
Resource
depletion
Calcination
Waste gas
Grinding
Packaging
Waste treatment
Waste water
Waste soil
Table 1
The specification of cement types.
Type
Composition (%)
Standard
0.455
0.578
42.5
42.5
GB1752007
GB1752007
Table 2
Transportation of major materials.
Materials
Quantity
(million ton/yr)
Quantity (ton/day)
Distance (km)
Limestone
Sandstone
Flyash
Sulfur acid residue
Mixtures
Raw coal
Gypsum
0.96
0.13
0.09
0.02
0.20
0.12
0.04
3095.96
434.90
305.56
61.86
661.87
398.44
115.57
1.5
2.0
3.1
232
3.1
33
70
Please cite this article in press as: Song D et al. Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a typical cement production chain. Appl Energy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.003
Table 3
Environmental impacts of producing 1 tonne of cement. (Units: kg/ton).
Stage
ADP
Antimony eq
GWP
CO2-eq
ODP
CFC-11 eq
HTP
1,4-DCB-eq
FAETP
1,4-DCB-eq
MAETP
1,4-DCB-eq
AP
SO2-eq
POCP
C2H4-eq
EP
PO4-eq
TETP
1,4-DCB-eq
Mining
Transportation
Raw meal preparation
Calcination
Waste gas treatment
Grinding
Packaging
Others
Total
1.97E
1.59E
1.44E
1.97E
8.98E
2.54E
1.16E
6.79E
2.65E
1.65E+01
1.16E+00
1.89E+01
5.99E+02
1.19E 01
3.35E+01
1.53E 01
8.97E+00
6.78E+02
3.65E
9.92E
3.26E
4.48E
2.04E
5.77E
2.64E
1.54E
6.15E
8.94E
6.88E
2.11E
7.25E
1.32E
3.73E
1.71E
9.99E
8.83E
3.25E
1.21E
1.46E
2.00E
9.10E
2.57E
1.18E
6.89E
5.14E
3.03E+02
1.75E+01
2.69E+01
3.70E+01
1.68E 01
4.76E+01
2.18E 01
1.27E+01
4.45E+02
8.51E 02
2.32E 02
9.60E 02
2.09E+00
6.00E 04
1.70E 01
7.76E 04
4.54E 02
2.51E+00
1.77E
6.00E
2.61E
9.55E
1.63E
4.62E
2.11E
1.24E
1.28E
1.04E
4.30E
6.74E
1.22E
4.22E
1.19E
5.45E
3.19E
1.59E
8.95E
3.52E
8.40E
1.16E
5.25E
1.49E
6.79E
3.98E
1.32E
06
08
07
07
10
07
09
08
06
07
08
08
08
10
08
10
08
07
02
04
02
01
04
02
04
03
01
01
01
02
02
05
02
04
03
01
02
03
03
02
05
03
05
03
01
02
03
03
01
05
02
05
03
01
03
04
04
03
06
03
06
04
02
Please cite this article in press as: Song D et al. Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a typical cement production chain. Appl Energy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.003
Normalized impact
1.60E-011
1.40E-011
1.20E-011
1.00E-011
8.00E-012
6.00E-012
4.00E-012
2.00E-012
0.00E+000
ADP
GWP
ODP
POCP
AP
EP
Impact categories
Fig. 3. Normalized environmental impacts of producing 1 tonne of cement.
600
500
Indirect emissions
Direct emissions
400
300
kg/t
200
100
30
20
10
Others
Package
Grinding
Calcination
Transport
Mining
Please cite this article in press as: Song D et al. Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a typical cement production chain. Appl Energy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.003
Table 4
The composition of carbide slag and limestone slag.
Carbide slag
Limestone slag
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
CaO
MgO
SO3
K2O
Na2O
Cl
Loss
3.38
2.15
1.30
0.35
0.24
0.05
68.90
51.57
0.06
2.01
0.39
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.04
0.01
0.0004
25.61
43.55
Table 5
Comparison of environmental performances of raw material substitutions (Units: kg/ton).
Baseline
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
11
12
13
21
22
23
ADP
Antimony eq
GWP
CO2-eq
ODP
CFC-11 eq
HTP
1,4-DCB-eq
FAETP
1,4-DCB-eq
MAETP
1,4-DCB-eq
AP
SO2-eq
POCP
C2H4-eq
EP
PO4-eq
TETP
1,4-DCB-eq
2.65E
1.95E
1.52E
1.24E
1.24E
1.24E
1.24E
6.78E+02
6.73E+02
6.70E+02
6.67E+02
6.70E+02
6.72E+02
6.74E+02
6.15E
5.31E
4.81E
4.48E
4.48E
4.48E
4.48E
8.83E
8.45E
8.23E
8.07E
8.07E
8.07E
8.07E
5.14E
3.54E
2.59E
1.95E
1.95E
1.96E
1.96E
4.45E+02
3.20E+02
2.45E+02
1.94E+02
1.94E+02
1.94E+02
1.94E+02
2.51E+00
2.48E+00
2.47E+00
2.46E+00
2.46E+00
2.46E+00
2.46E+00
1.28E
1.21E
1.17E
1.14E
1.14E
1.14E
1.14E
1.59E
1.54E
1.52E
1.50E
1.50E
1.50E
1.50E
1.32E
1.08E
9.43E
8.49E
8.49E
8.48E
8.47E
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
TETP
EP
POCP
AP
MAETP
FAETP
HTP
ODP
GWP
ADP
Calcination
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
TETP
EP
POCP
AP
MAETP
FAETP
HTP
ODP
GWP
ADP
Calcination
Transportation
Transportation
Mining
Mining
0.00E+000
0.00E+000
2.00E-013
1.20E-012
1.40E-012
2.00E-013
1.20E-012
1.40E-012
Please cite this article in press as: Song D et al. Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a typical cement production chain. Appl Energy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.003
Baseline
Scenario 31
Difference
ADP
Antimony eq
GWP
CO2-eq
ODP
CFC-11 eq
HTP
1,4-DCB-eq
FAETP
1,4-DCB-eq
MAETP
1,4-DCB-eq
AP
SO2-eq
POCP
C2H4-eq
EP
PO4-eq
TETP
1,4-DCB-eq
2.74E+00
2.53E+00
2.11E 01
7.01E+08
6.73E+08
2.79E+07
6.35E 01
5.87E 01
4.80E 02
9.13E+05
8.82E+05
3.11E-+04
5.31E+05
5.09E+05
2.14E+04
4.60E+08
4.21E+08
3.96E+07
2.59E+06
2.45E+06
1.41E+05
1.32E+05
1.28E+05
3.85E+03
1.64E+05
1.54E+05
9.92E+03
1.36E+04
1.24E+04
1.24E+03
5. Conclusions
This study highlighted the lifetime environmental impacts of a
2500 t/d NSP cement production chain. The results derived from
the LCA can be used to quantify the system performance of cement
production in terms of environmental aspect and minimize the
negative environmental impacts from cement production. Scenario
analysis also informs the pro and cons of introducing best available
technologies in cement production, which may shed light on the
management of cement production process.
The cement production has a prominent impact on global
warming, acidification, and photochemical oxidation. The largest
environmental emissions, especially GHG emissions, are generated
in the calcination stage, from both calcium carbonate decomposition and coal consumption. Therefore, finding raw material and
fuel substitutions is a potential way to reduce environmental emissions. Wastes and by-products that contain usable minerals such
as calcium, silica, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide can be used to
replace limestone, clay and shale in cement production. Grinding
Please cite this article in press as: Song D et al. Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a typical cement production chain. Appl Energy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.003
[6] Rehan R, Nehdi M. Carbon dioxide emissions and climate change: policy
implications for the cement industry. Environ Sci Policy 2005;8(2):10514.
[7] Josa A, Aguado A, Cardim A, Byars E. Comparative analysis of the life cycle
impact assessment of available cement inventories in the EU. Cem Concr Res
2007;37(5):7818.
[8] Hu D, Guo Z, Wang Z, Xiao Q. Metabolism analysis and eco-environmental
impact assessment of two typical cement production systems in Chinese
enterprises. Ecol Inform 2015;26:707.
[9] Boesch ME, Koehler A, Hellweg S. Model for cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment of clinker production. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:757883.
[10] Boesch ME, Hellweg S. Identifying improvement potentials in cement
production with life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:91439.
[11] Gbel K, Forsberg P, Tillmann AM. The design and building of a life-cycle based
process model for simulating environmental performance, product
performance and cost in cement manufacturing. J Clean Prod 2004;12:7793.
[12] Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD. A life-cycle assessment of Portland
cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative
technologies. J Clean Prod 2009;17:66875.
[13] Marceau ML, Nisbet MA, Van Geem MG. Life cycle inventory of Portland
cement manufacture. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association [PCA]; 2006.
[14] Li C, Nie Z, Cui S, Gong X, Wang Z, Meng X. The life cycle inventory study of
cement manufacture in China. J Clean Prod 2014;72:20411.
[15] Reza B, Soltani A, Ruparathna R, Sadiq R, Hewage K. Environmental and
economic aspects of production and utilization of RDF as alternative fuel in
cement plants: A case study of Metro Vancouver Waste Management. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2013;81:10514.
[16] Valderrama C, Granados R, Cortina JL, Gasol CM, Guillem M, Josa A.
Comparative LCA of sewage sludge valorisation as both fuel and raw
material substitute in clinker production. J Clean Prod 2013;51:20513.
[17] Saade MRM, Gomes da Silva M, Gomes V. Appropriateness of environmental
impact distribution methods tomodel blast furnace slag recycling in cement
making. Resour Conserv Recy 2015;99:407.
[18] Gbel K, Tillmann AM. Simulating operational alternatives for future cement
production. J Clean Prod 2005;13:124657.
[19] Hong JL, Li XZ. Environmental assessment of sewage sludge as secondary raw
material in cement production a case study in China. Waste Manage
2011;31:136471.
[20] Crossin E. The greenhouse gas implications of using ground granulated blast
furnace slag as a cement substitute. J Clean Prod 2015;95:1018.
[21] Navia R, Rivela B, Lorber KE, Mndez R. Recycling contaminated soil as
alternative raw material in cement facilities: life cycle assessment. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2006;48:33956.
[22] Valderrama C, Granados R, Cortina JL, Gasol CM, Guillem M, Josa A.
Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: a
life-cycle assessment study. J Clean Prod 2012;25:607.
[23] Van den Heede P, De Belie N. Environmental impact and life cycle assessment
(LCA) of traditional and green concretes: literature review and theoretical
calculations. Cem Concr Comp 2012;34:43142.
[24] Galvez-Martosa JL, Schoenberger H. An analysis of the use of life cycle
assessment for waste co-incineration in cement kilns. Resour Conserv Recy
2014;86:11831.
[25] Garca-Gusano D, Garran D, Herrera I, Cabal H, Lechn Y. Life cycle assessment
of applying CO2 post-combustion capture to the Spanish cement production. J
Clean
Prod
2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.056.
Forthcoming.
[26] Chen C, Habert G, Bouzidi Y, Jullien A. Environmental impact of cement
production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability
evaluation. J Clean Prod 2010;18:47885.
[27] ISO. ISO 14040 International Standard. In: Environmental management life
cycle assessment principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organisation for Standardization; 2006.
[28] IKE, SCU-ISCP, Chinese Life Cycle Database (CLCD). IKE Environmental
Technology Co., Ltd. & Institute for Sustainable Consumption and Production
at Sichuan University. <http://www.itke.com.cn>.
[29] Guine JB, Gorre M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning de A, et al.
Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
[30] CML
[Internet].
CML-IA
Characterisation
Factors.c2013-[cited
27.10.14]. Available from: <http://cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.
html#downloads>.
[31] Wang YL, Dong SJ, Liu LL, Cui SP. Using calcium carbide slag as one of calciumcontaining raw materials to produce cement clinker. Mater Sci Forum
2013;743744:1714.
[32] Mokrzycki E, Uliasz-Bochenczyk A. Alternative fuels for the cement industry.
Appl Energy 2003;74(1):95100.
[33] Mokrzycki E, Uliasz-Bochenczyk A, Sarna M. Use of alternative fuels in the
Polish cement industry. Appl Energy 2003;74(1):10111.
[34] Mikulcic H, Vujanovic M, Duic N. Reducing the CO2 emissions in Croatian
cement industry. Appl Energy 2013;101:418.
[35] Galitsky C, Price L. Opportunities for improving energy efficiency, reducing
pollution and increasing economic output in Chinese Cement Kilns. 2007
ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in industry. Available from: <http://
aceee.org/files/proceedings/2007/data/papers/27_3_031.pdf>.
Please cite this article in press as: Song D et al. Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a typical cement production chain. Appl Energy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.003