No abstract

▪ Abstract  The cement industry contributes about 5% to global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, making the cement industry an important sector for CO2-emission mitigation strategies. CO2 is emitted from the calcination process of limestone, from combustion of fuels in the kiln, as well as from power generation. In this paper, we review the total CO2 emissions from cement making, including process and energy-related emissions. Currently, most available data only includes the process emissions. We also discuss CO2 emission mitigation options for the cement industry. Estimated total carbon emissions from cement production in 1994 were 307 million metric tons of carbon (MtC), 160 MtC from process carbon emissions, and 147 MtC from energy use. Overall, the top 10 cement-producing countries in 1994 accounted for 63% of global carbon emissions from cement production. The average intensity of carbon dioxide emissions from total global cement production is 222 kg of C/t of cement. Emission mitigation options include energy efficiency improvement, new processes, a shift to low carbon fuels, application of waste fuels, increased use of additives in cement making, and, eventually, alternative cements and CO2 removal from flue gases in clinker kilns.

We review the relationship between energy efficiency improvement measures and productivity in industry. We review over 70 industrial case studies from widely available published databases, followed by an analysis of the representation of productivity benefits in energy modeling. We propose a method to include productivity benefits in the economic assessment of the potential for energy efficiency improvement. The case-study review suggests that energy efficiency investments can provide a significant boost to overall productivity within industry. If this relationship holds, the description of energy-efficient technologies as opportunities for larger productivity improvements has significant implications for conventional economic assessments. The paper explores the implications this change in perspective on the evaluation of energy-efficient technologies for a study of the iron and steel industry in the US. This examination shows that including productivity benefits explicitly in the modeling parameters would double the cost-effective potential for energy efficiency improvement, compared to an analysis excluding those benefits. We provide suggestions for future research in this important area.