Sustainability assessment in Cuban cement sector- a methodological approach

Abstract

The search of sustainability is a need for human activities in general. Particularly, cement sector as a significant contributor to climate change has to implement strategies to reduce its environmental impacts. But, effective strategies have to be complemented by adequate methodological techniques to assess, guide and certificate sustainability. Amongst all the techniques developed by the scientific community in recent years, life cycle techniques highlight as one of the most used one due to its integrated and holistic philosophy. In Cuba, a new cement based on a combination of calcined clay and limestone to reduce clinker to 50% (Low Carbon Cement, LC3) is been developed as part of an international collaboration project. The main goal of this research is to assess sustainability of cement sector in Cuba using life cycle techniques such as: Life cycle assessment (environmental-LCA), Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), Economic Life Cycle Assessment (EcLCA). As part of the assessment LC3 is compared with traditional produced cements in Cuba OPC and PPC. Results show that LC3 introduction allows increasing sustainability in cement sector by reducing carbon emissions, energy consumption, costs and reporting positive effects on society.

Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: A Systematic Literature Review

“…The results themselves were reported as absolute numbers, percentages or graphs. Relevant and in need of improvement are the details and information on FU, databases, exact procedures, justified indicator selection, etc., which were partly missing [4,5,[91][92][93]98,[101][102][103]. In particular, a very deliberate and well-founded selection of the functional unit is relevant in the construction sector.…”

“…Furthermore, the costs named and considered as relevant varied in the studies; for example, on the one hand, capital, labor, energy, waste, other costs and paybacks were named; on the other hand, only project costs were named, missing an explanation of what was included in the project costs. One study [102] focused additionally on depreciation but named the relevant costs differently than other studies with salary, consumption, energy and transport costs. The economic approach seems to be more tangible for authors and readers as it is expressed in a globally known and used quantity: a monetary value.…”