AB SP Decarbonisation Report PDF

A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR
THE EUROPEAN CEMENT AND

CONCRETE INDUSTRY
Technology assessment for full decarbonisation

of the industry by 2050
The authors
Dr. Aurélie FAVIER is senior scientist in materials chemistry in the Chair of Sustainable
Construction, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ), Zürich, Switzerland.
Dr. Catherine DE WOLF is conducting postdoctoral research with Prof. Corentin Fivet on
embodied carbon impacts of structural design in Switzerland, in the Structural Xploration
Lab (SXL) within the smart living lab (HEIA Fribourg and EPFL, Switzerland), a research
and development centre for the built environment of the future.
Prof. Karen SCRIVENER is Professor and Head of Laboratory of Construction Materials,

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne.
Prof. Guillaume HABERT holds the Chair of Sustainable Construction and is associate
professor at the ETH Zürich.
3
Foreword
This report summarises the practices and technologies that can be implemented to
significantly reduce CO2 emissions from the cement and concrete sector in Europe by
2050.
An important message communicated in this report is to show that reduction efforts

must be supported along the complete value chain and not by a single stakeholder.
In this way, the concrete construction sector can reduce up to 80% of these emissions
(compared to 1990) without major changes in terms of standards and with moderate
investments. Moreover, this approach would be a major step towards a more circular
economy in the sector which is estimated to be a key element of a sustainable economy.
The possibility of achieving the objective of the Paris Agreement (temperature rise limited
to 1.5°C in the long term) is also emphasised by analysing certain practices beyond
current standards or by combining them with carbon capture and storage technologies
showing that carbon neutrality is technologically feasible in the cement and concrete
sector.
Finally, we propose measures and policies to overcome the limitations for the adoption
of these technologies and practices targeting all stakeholders.
This one-year project was undertaken researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETHZ), Zürich, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL),
Lausanne, and commissioned by the European Climate Foundation. The objective of
the project was to assess the potential of technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from
the cement and concrete industry. Two consultation workshops with representatives
from the construction industry, academic experts and European policy professionals in
Brussels in January 2018 and May 2018 were held to verify the results.
We hope that the work presented in this report will bring attention to the needed
policies to be put in place to transform the cement and concrete industry towards a
more sustainable future.
5
Executive summary
This report examines different pathways to reduce CO2 emissions associated with the
use of cement in the construction sector.
Worldwide, cementitious materials make up more than half of all the materials we use.
While cementitious materials are intrinsically materials with low embodied energy,
these large volumes mean they account for approximately 8% of global emissions. The
cement demand in Europe represents 5% of the global market and has been stable for
nearly a decade. This demand is not likely to significantly increase in the future, unlike in
emerging and developing countries, where the demand for cement will continue to rise
to meet the demand of the growing population and urbanisation. In volume, construction
is the biggest source of waste in Europe, but almost 90% can be revalorised highlighting
an untapped potential for more efficient resource management in the sector.
The cement and concrete sector play an important role in the European economy and
also in reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement which commits governments to keep
global warming well below 2°C Celsius and to pursue efforts to keep it below 1.5°C.
According to the Special Report on 1.5°C published by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) (October 2018), limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires the
economy to be carbon neutral globally by 2050.
Carbon neutrality is particularly challenging for the cement sector as less than 40% of
emissions come from the energy used to produce cement. More than 60% of emissions
come from the chemical breakdown of limestone – calcium carbonate (CaCO3) – into
CO2; limestone is a calcium source that is used to produce the active component of
cement - the clinker - which reacts with water at ambient temperature to produce a
strong durable material. There is no practical alternative to the use of limestone due to
its abundance and widespread distribution in the earth’s crust. Therefore, total carbon
neutrality can only be achieved by recapturing this “chemical” CO2.
Technologies for carbon capture and storage are under development, although some
technical challenges need still to be surmounted. These technologies are estimated to
require large investments in terms of capital investment and in operating cost. They are
also dependent on large quantities of renewable energy to be effective.
In this report, we examine different scenarios to reduce CO2 emissions from cement
production and minimise the cost of the remaining CO2 that must be captured to achieve
overall carbon neutrality.
6
We show that by considering all the stages in the value chain, reductions of up to
80% CO2 emissions compared to the 1990 values is achievable by 2050 without using
carbon capture and storage technologies. Achieving such reductions would require
the different actors in the construction value chain to work together, and measures
should be taken to incentivise this. However, these CO2 savings could be achieved for a
relatively low financial cost and even with financial savings in some cases.
Levers for CO2 reduction along the construction value chain
The construction sector includes various players (figure below), and pressure for CO2
reduction has, up to now, remained only at the level of the cement producers. Yet, cement
production is highly efficient, and it is unlikely that further significant savings (more than
10%) can be made here due to the low growth perspective in Europe.
Representation of the cementitious construction value chain used in this report
CEMENT
PRODUCTION
SCMs
Raw
materials
Admixtures
Aggregates
CONCRETE
PRODUCTION
Ready mix
Precast concrete
Mortar
STRUCTURE
Engineers/architects Demolition
7
We identify 10 technologies (kiln improvement, alternative fuels, recycling fines as

raw materials, alternative binders, carbon capture and storage, concrete mix design,
structure optimisation etc.) at different stages of the value chain and the corresponding
CO2 saving potential, focusing on actions that concrete producers, gravel producers,
engineering offices, construction companies or demolition companies can make. All of
the levers studied are based on proven technologies that can be quickly and massively
implemented in practice. These levers are combined in different ways in three scenarios
which are considered and compared to a reference, depending on the level of integration
of the stakeholders and the different levels of the required investment.
Reference scenario is based on the IEA-CSI Roadmap 2018 reference scenario. It

requires some investment by cement manufacturers to improve kiln technologies and
some extension of the use of alternative fuels and clinker substitution.
Scenario 1: “Breakthrough technologies” will require massive investment by cement

producers to equip their plants with carbon capture and storage technologies as well as
increased market penetration of alternative clinkers.
Scenario 2: “Efficient use and recycling” will require moderate investment distributed
across the different actors; significant increase in the use of alternative fuels; recycling
of concrete with fines reused as raw material for clinkers; optimisation of the concrete
mix design via better aggregate packing and strictly not exceeding the requirements of
codes and standards to avoid the over use of cement in concrete.
Scenario 3: “Structural optimisation and circular economy principles”, similar to scenario

2, will require slightly higher investment at the level of the structure (in particular
the precast industry). In addition to concrete, the structure is also optimised, and
consideration is given to reusing elements.
8
The figure below shows the final results for 2050 according to the scenario (figure a)
and stakeholders (figure b from 2015 to 2050):
Figure 2 CO2 savings by 2050 a) as a function of scenarios and b) as function of

stakeholders
a) CO2 saved by 2050

(100%= 1990 emissions level)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reference Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
scenario Breaktrough Concrete Structure
9
CO2 emission reduction

b)
40%
35%
30%
25% Demolition
companies
20% Construction
companies
Engineers
15%
Concrete
producers
10%
Cement
producers
5% Waste
management
0%
Under the proposed scenarios, the pressure to reduce CO2 emissions is based on different
stakeholders. It is clear that to achieve the same reduction, the overall investment
required in scenario 3 is very much lower than that required in 1, and the effort is
distributed more evenly (figure 2b). The challenge will be to find incentives that can push
this cooperation and integration. The reduction measures used in scenario 3 are mostly
well known, and there are no major technical issues to their implementations. With this
scenario, the reduction is close to a 2°C scenario. However, we think that the reduction
measures in this scenario could be pushed even further if standards and norms are
adapted. Moreover, net-zero emissions would be possible to reach if combined with the
use of carbon capture and storage technologies.
Figure 3 shows that a 2°C target (80% emission reduction) can be achieved by
combining extreme scenario 3 with 25% CCS or by “pushing” the savings in scenario
3 and 95% CO2 reduction can be achieved compared to 1990 levels using 80% CCS.
Net zero emissions are technically possible, but will require very large investments in the
cement industry. The objective of carbon neutrality in the cement industry could also be
achieved in combination with other sectors using less costly technologies, but this has
not been assessed in-depth in this work.
10
Figure 3 How to achieve the 1.5°C and well-below 2°C target?
1990 emissions
100%
80%
60%
CO2 saving (%)
40%
20% CCS
CCS
0%
Scenario 3 Scenario 3 Extreme Scenario 3
+25% CCS Scenario 3 +80% CCS
Summary of the key recommendations
To enforce the applicability of the structural optimisation and circular economy scenario,
we propose incentives for policy makers. The main incentives are as follows:
At the clinker scale
Stakeholders Suggestion
Cement producers Introduce financial incentives to

close old plants and implementation
of stringent landfill regulations to
increase the use of alternative fuels.
11
At the cement scale
Cement and concrete Incentive to invest in better grinders

producers and clay calciners.
At the concrete and structure scale
Concrete producers, Encourage communication between

engineering offices, all actors by:
demolition and construction
• Defining sustainable concrete and
companies
sustainable structures as criteria
for awarding contracts;
• Rewarding the use of low carbon
concrete; and
• Limiting total demolition via taxes
and severe landfill regulations.
Finally, we propose to the stakeholders and policy makers the use of indicators at each
level of the concrete value chain to directly involve the concerned stakeholder.
• For cement producers: a clinker with less than 0.7 t CO2/tclinker
• For concrete producers: a standard concrete containing less than 3.5 kg

clinker/m3/MPa
• For structural engineers: a structure containing less than 250 kg CO2/ m2

of building
• For construction companies: a building containing less than 500 kg CO2/m2
The upstream indicators and constraints for cement producers already exist considering
the energy intensive EU regulations. Downstream targets also exist for construction
companies considering sustainable building labels, but only on a voluntary basis. The
middle stream indicators are lacking, and their enforcement would allow the involvement
of concrete producers and engineering offices and the integration of the complete value
chain into the common objective of fulfilling the Paris Agreement. These indicators are
targeted for 2030 and should be regularly reviewed in line with latest scientific and
technological developments at sectoral level.
13
Contents
Contents
The authors 2
Foreword 3
Executive summary 5
1 Introduction 15
2 The European cement and construction sector 17
2.1 World situation and UNEP report 17
2.2 The European situation 18
3 Levels of intervention for CO2 reduction 21
4 Technologies applicable at the different levels 23
4.1 Clinker level 23
4.2 Cement level 25
4.3 Concrete level 31
4.4 Structural level 36
4.5 Recycling, circular economy 39
5 Breakthrough technologies: The reality behind the hype 41
5.1 Alternative clinkers 41
5.1.1 Belitic clinkers 41
5.1.2 Calcium sulfo aluminate cements 41
5.1.3 Energetically modified cement (EMC) 42
5.1.4 Alkali activated binders 42
5.1.5 Supersulfated slag cements 43
5.1.6 Carbonatable calcium silicate cements 43
5.1.7 Hydrothermal reactive belite cements (incl. celitement) 43
5.1.8 Magnesium cements 44
5.1.9 Summary of potential from alternative binders 44
5.2 Carbon capture, storage and use 44
6 Strategies for CO2 reduction in the cementitious value 47
chain
6.1 Introduction 47
6.2 Background data 49
6.3 Reference scenario 51
6.3.1 Description 51
6.3.2 Results 52
6.4 Scenario 1: breakthrough technologies 54
6.4.2 Results 55
6.5 Scenario 2 Efficient use and recycling 56
6.5.2 Results 59
6.6 Scenario 3 Structural optimisation and circular 60
economy principles
6.6.2 Results 63
6.7 Towards the well-below 2°C and 1.5°C target 64
6.7.1 Extreme scenario 3 beyond the standards 64
6.7.2 Scenario 3 with additional Carbon Capture and Storage 65
7 Policy recommendations 67
7.1. Introduction 67
7.2. Enabling lowering of CO2 in the clinker 68
7.3. Enabling the reduction of CO2 in cement 69
7.4. Enabling the efficient use of cement in concrete 70
7.5. Enabling the efficient use of concrete in structures 71
7.6. How to track good practices and sustainable concrete? 72
8 Final remarks 77
9 Acknowledgement 79
10 References 81
11 Annex 1: Model 87
12 Definition and glossary 92
15
1. Introduction
The construction sector provides 18 million direct jobs and constitutes approximately
9% of EU’s GDP. However, the construction sector represents a major share of
European greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The two main construction materials
represent approximately 10% of the total European CO2 emissions. Cement production
is responsible for 5% of CO2 emissions, and the steel used in construction represents a
similar amount [1].
Figure 1 EU OECD countries’ CO2 emissions by sector (source:[2])

0%
3%
11% Energy supply

29%
Transport
Industry w/o cement

12%
Cement industry
Heating/ Cooling
5% Agriculture
Waste
14%
26% Other
These materials are then incorporated into a multitude of construction products.

Regarding cement, it is used in mortars and tile adhesives, concrete blocks and reinforced
concrete. To date, the main efforts to reduce CO2 emissions have focussed on the cement
level; however, further savings can be achieved by considering the entire value chain,
from cement production to its final use in the construction site in mortars and concrete.
Furthermore, Europe is a very specific context for the construction industry: most of
the building stock and infrastructure required by 2050 already exists. The population
is expected to be relatively stable (although aging) and economic growth is expected
to be moderate, which is in strong contrast to the rest of world, where the construction
industry is booming due to economic and population growth. The objective of this report
is therefore to identify the low carbon technologies for cement as well as for downstream
products in the European context. To do so, we define scenarios and calculate the CO2
saving potentials for the construction industry. We then provide recommendations for
their implementation.
17
2. The European cement and

construction sector
2.1. World situation and UNEP report
Between today and 2050, the world’s population will increase from 7 to 9 billion [3],
mainly in urban regions (Figure 2). The need for infrastructure and housing will increase,
leading to an increase in demand for energy and materials. This increase will take
place in a context in which resources are already limited and the effects on climate are
extremely difficult to mitigate.
Figure 2 Production of cement and crude steel with population [4]
5000 8000
4500
7000
Materials production (MioT)
4000
6000
3500
Poulation(M)
5000
3000
2500 4000
2000
3000
1500
2000
1000
1000
500
0 0
Year 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
Population Cement Steel
In 2015, a group mandated by UN Environment published the report “Eco-Efficient

Cements” [4]. This report explains the central role cementitious materials play in our
modern societies, as these materials constitute more than half of all manufactured
materials. This report stresses that the majority of the growth in cement demand will
happen in emerging countries. As an example, the demand will increase by 2 or 3 times
in India during the next few decades (Figure 3). This increase in cement demand would
have drastic consequences in term of CO2 emissions and resource depletion if the current
industrial trend continues.
18
Figure 3 Projection of cement demand from the IEA-CSI report[5]
6000 World high-varisbility

case
World low-varisbility
5000 case
Africa
4000 Middle East

Mt cement/yr
Eurasia
3000
Europe
2000 America
Other Asia
Pacific
1000
India
0 China
2014 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
The report argues that action at the level of cementitious materials has the potential to
deliver a major contribution to climate change mitigation. The report shows that there
are low cost solutions available and usable everywhere by low skilled workers and
should be pushed forward by all governments and industry representatives.
The UN report “Eco-efficient Cement” identifies two main routes that can fulfil the
demand and deliver CO2 reductions in the relatively short term, which are as follows:
• increasing the substitution of clinker by supplementary cementitious

materials and
• making more efficient the use of cement in downstream products (mortars,
concrete).
In the long term, breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture storage will have
to contribute to fully decarbonise the sector, but within the short time gap between now
and 2050, and considering that most of the construction growth will happen during this
period, these technologies cannot be implemented at the required pace and will play
a significant role in the long term, while the low carbon solutions identified in the UN
report can already be implemented at the required scale.
19
2.2. The European situation
In Europe, one can expect a very moderate growth in cement demand. Eurostat’s
projections indicate that the EU-28’s population will grow overall by 3.7 % by 2045
[6] and economic activity, if sustained at the current rate, will stabilise between 1 and
2% per year [7]. As a consequence, the cement demand, which has been stable (even
decreasing) over the last 20 years, is projected to remain stable for the coming decades
[8]. Finally, as the production of cement has been decreasing since 2007 (Figure 4) and
despite efforts to reduce the production capacity, there remains an overcapacity in the
cement sector.
Considering Europe’s slow economic growth, stable population, the existing over
production capacity and the focus of the European Commission to reduce public deficit,
it is likely that large capital investment from private or public institutions in the cement
infrastructure will not occur in Europe, even if the cement demand in the rest of the world
is increasing.
Figure 4 Projection of cement demand from the IEA-CSI report[5]
350
300
250
EU Cement (MioT)
200
150
100 Estimated capacity
Consumption
Production
50
0
Year 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
20
In 2011, the European Commission [10] redefined its commitment to reduce GHG
emissions by 40% by 2030 and 80-95% by 2050 compared to 1990. These objectives
and strategies are currently under revision to fully align the European Union’s climate
action efforts of the Paris Agreement (2015). To meet a 1.5°C target, all sectors must
fully cut their emissions, especially the energy, building and industry sectors. Although
it is a mature market in Europe, the construction sector is an important player to meet
the commitments to GHG reduction in the Paris Agreement. With this perspective,
many associations and stakeholders have analysed potential solutions to reduce GHGs
in the construction industry, notably the European association of cement producers,
CEMBUREAU. In 2013, CEMBUREAU [11] proposed five routes for cement and
concrete industries that would lead to a significant reduction of the carbon footprint:
resource efficiency, energy efficiency, carbon sequestration, reuse, product efficiency
and downstream applications. However, breakthrough technologies, such as carbon
capture and storage, would have a major impact on the cost of cement production. One
can question the feasibility of this scenario considering the previous assessment of the
European economic situation and the likelihood of limited investment.
Therefore, carbon storage ambitions need to be pursued, but with the objective of
being effective for post 2050 targets (2100), and we urgently need solutions that
can be implemented massively within the next ten to twenty years to fulfil the Paris
Agreement to stay within a 1.5°C scenario.
21
3. Levels of intervention for CO2

reduction
Four strategies can be identified to reduce CO2 emissions in the concrete industry, as
follows:
• Reduce CO2 emissions from clinker production by improving the energy efficiency of
cement plants. This strategy includes improving the thermal efficiency of the kilns
and increasing the use of alternative fuels.
• Reduce CO2 emissions from cement by reducing the clinker content. This strategy
mainly consists of substituting a part of the clinker with supplementary cementitious
materials at the cement production level but also at the concrete production level.
• Reduce CO2 emissions from concrete by reducing the cement content. This strategy
looks at the mix design of concrete and the quantity of the binder phase as well as
the quantity and quality of the aggregates.
• Reduce CO2 emissions from structures by adapting the concrete mix design and
the element shape to the final application. Two aspects are taken into account, i.e.,
reducing the quantity of concrete to manufacture a structural element or a standard
residential building in the first place and reducing the amount of concrete if the
shape of an element is optimised to meet the same structural load requirements.
All of these strategies can be combined as follows: the use of less fossil fuel for
clinker production combined with the use of less clinker in cement and less cement in
concrete and, finally, the use of less concrete per structure or m2. The result is that
the same level of services is provided to society but with much less CO2 emissions due
to the lower clinker use.
23
4. Technologies applicable at the

different levels
4.1. Clinker level
Clinker is the active component of cement and is produced by calcining limestone and
clay at 1500°C. The cement industry has been active in the past decades in improving
the efficiency of clinker production. Clinker production is an energy intensive process
and produces approximately 875 kgCO2eq/t clinker. 30%- 40% of CO2 emissions are
coming from the energy required to heat limestone and clay at 1500°C, while 60%-
70% of the emissions are linked with the chemical reaction of the decarbonisation of
limestone. The first level of action has been to reduce the CO2 contribution from energy.
Energy efficiency
The energy required for clinker production has been significantly reduced over the time,
especially since the energy crisis in the 70’s[12]. Technologies where raw materials
are introduced in a dry stage are more energy efficient than wet processes. Therefore,
wet kilns have been gradually replaced in EU by the dry kiln process combined with
heat recovery technologies that allow for preheating and precalcining of the raw
material before entering in the kiln (Figure 5). As old kilns have already been replaced,
improvement in kiln technologies are reduced and the new IEA CSI roadmap estimates
that a 10% improvement can be made by 2050 in the best case scenario at the global
level.
Figure 5 Evolution of cement kiln technologies [13]

100%
90%
Percentage of kilns in Europe
80%
70%
Dry technologies
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2 006
2 009
2 000
2 008
2 005
2 007
1 990
2 010
2 014
2 012
2 015
2 013
2 011
Wet /shaft kiln Semi wet/semi dry
Mixed kiln type Dry without precalciner
Dry with preheater without precalciner Dry with preheater and precalciner
24
The best available technologies in modern cement plants are based on dry kilns with
pre heaters and precalciners that require 3000 MJ/t clinker. The energy efficiency of an
EU cement plant is currently approximately 3300 MJ/t clinker. Finally, it has to be noted
that waste heat recovery is a technology where there is room for progress. In Europe,
plants may be retrofitted with this technology. The cost of the initial investment and the
dependence on local electricity costs are barriers to the more widespread uptake of this
technology.
Alternative fuels
The use of alternative fuels and raw materials for cement clinker production is of
major importance. Currently, the fuel source is a mix of coal, pet coke, biomass and
waste materials. In Europe, the cement industry has replaced a part of its traditional
fuel sources with biomass, which involves a significant reduction of CO2. The cement
industry was using three times more biomass in 2010 than in 2000.
Figure 6 Forecast of alternative fuel use in cement technology by region. Europe is part of
the developed region in the forecast for alternative fuel use by 2050 (Source: [5,14,15])
40%-60% Developed regions

Alternative fuel use (%)
40%-60%
25%-35%
16%
Raw Material
5% 10%-20% Developing regions
2006 2030 2050
Further improvement can be made [11]. Actually, much higher substitution rates are
technically possible, but several factors limit the use of alternative fuels. First, the
calorific value of most organic materials is relatively low, and additional treatment may
be needed. Second, the availability of waste is dependent on the local waste legislation.
Third, an important limiting factor is the potential impact on clinker chemistry, e.g.,
increase in phosphate by use of sewage sludge, increase in chlorides when waste
plastics (PVC) are used, etc. Finally, a higher CO2 price may increase the global demand
for biomass, for which cement companies will then compete with heat and electricity
producers.
25
Figure 7 Carbon intensity of the fuel mix in Europe - Data from WBCSD GNR [16]
100
Carbon intensity of fuel mixes (kgCO2/MJ)
95
90
85
80
75
70
Year
2 000
2 005
2 020
1 990
1 995
1 985
2 010
2 015
4.2. Cement level
The so called CEM I (ordinary Portland cement) contains 95 % clinker. European

standards EN197-1 allow other cement types with a clinker to cement ratio varying
from 5% to 95%. In the other cement types (Figure 8), a part of the clinker has been
substituted by a product that does not require the same energy intensive production
process. These products can be waste or by-products from other industries, such as fly
ash from coal power plants or blast furnace slag from the iron industry. These products
can also be natural materials, such as natural pozzolans or even just ground limestone.
These substitutions drastically reduce the energy required to produce the cement and
therefore the CO2 emissions. Today in Europe, the average clinker to cement ratio (also
26
called clinker factor) over all cement types is equal to 0.73. The most sold cement type
is CEM II-A, where clinker is substituted with limestone up to a maximum substitution of
20%. 47% of the cements sold in Europe are CEMII Portland composite cements mostly
substituted with limestone.
Figure 8 Cement type sold in Europe in 2015 (Source: Cembureau)

CEM V -
Composite
Cement &
CEM IV - Others Unspecified
Pozzolanic
Cements
CEM III - Blast

Furnace & Slag
Cements CEM I -
Portland
Cement
Portland
Limestone
cement (58%)
CEM II -
Portland
Composite
Variations in the clinker content influence the type of applications the cement can be
used for. Different supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) can give particular
properties. Part of the substitution may also take place at the concrete production stage.
In ready-mix concrete, the cement factor is currently approximately 0.8 and the main
additions are slag, fly ash, limestone and silica fume.
Availability of SCMs
We can consider six classes of alternative materials to substitute for clinker. These are
discussed below according to the level of their current use as substitute materials:
27
• Limestone is the most widely used SCM, currently, in Europe and worldwide.
Limestone is simply ground without heating, is abundant and is easily accessible
to most cement plants. However, the substitution potential of limestone is relatively
low as only small amounts react, due to the limited availability of alumina in cement.
Nonetheless, the potential of limestone increases significantly when it is used in
ternary blends with other aluminium rich additions, such as calcined clay, burnt oil
shale, and fly ash.
• Fly ash is used in significant amounts in concrete worldwide to replace clinker and
thereby lower CO2 emissions. Fly ash comes from the coal power industry and
represents the mineral residue once the organic material has been burned. Fly ash
may be siliceous or calcareous, showing different reactivity in cement. Approximately
34 Mio tons of fly ash were produced in Europe in 2013 and 4.7 Mio tons of bottom
ash (source: ECOBA1), which correspond to 74 % of the total of coal combustion
products (CCP). Almost 90 % of CCP has already been valorised by the construction
industries and their availability is planned to decrease with the closing of coal power
plants. Figure 9 represents the electricity energy mix, including the share from hard
coal and from lignite. Both sources were already low in the energy mix and will be
reduced by 2050 [17]. In 2050, a production of approximately 23 Mio tons of fly ash
can be expected, which is insufficient to increase the substitution of clinker by fly
ash.
Figure 9 Fuel mix forecast in Europe from Energy Brainpool [17]
1600
5%
1400
1200
Gross capacity in GW
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
nuclear lignite hard coal gas hydro wind solar other
1
ECOBA : European Coal Combustion Products Association
28
• The production of blast furnace slag (BFS) was equal to 24.6 Mio tons in Europe
in 2016. More than 80% is already used in cement or concrete (Source: Euroslag2).
In 2016, we used in total 25.8 Mio tons (5% coming from interim storage), which
is already more than the European production (implying import of slag from other
regions). The availability of BFS is linked to the steel industry and production in
Europe is not forecast to increase. Moreover, Figure 10 shows a map of blast furnaces
in Europe (red dots). It is observed that these furnaces are not homogeneously
distributed in Europe. A future increase in use of BFS would require significant
imports, but possibilities are still limited, as the worldwide level of BFS production
covers only 8% of the cement demand and the proportion already used in cement
and concrete in Europe is close to 80%.
Figure 10 Map of the steel production sites in EU 27. Red dots correspond to the
production sites of blast furnace slag [18]
• Natural pozzolans (called P in EN 197-1) are mainly volcanic ashes, and their use
is relatively common in some areas of Europe, where they are available, i.e., mainly
southern regions, such as Italy, Greece, and Slovenia. According to the European
standard EN 197-1, various cement types may contain natural pozzolans from 6 to
55 mass%; however the proportion of pozzolans is usually in a range of 15 to 35
mass%. In 2003, only approximately 150 Mio tons were used worldwide in cement
and concrete industries [19]. The reserves are not known, but only a slight increase
is assumed. Further increased use of pozzolans for cement manufacturing will also
imply larger transport distances.
2
Euroslag : European association of organisations and companies concerned with all aspects of
manufacturing and utilisation of ferrous slag products
29
• Burnt shale (T) is also used in Europe, and the availability is estimated to
be important. According to the European standard EN 197-1, the production of
various cement types containing natural pozzolans from 6 to 35 mass% is possible.
However, it is the by-product of the shale gas industry, whose exploitation raises
important unresolved questions in Europe in term of social acceptance.
• Calcined pozzolans (Q), such as calcined clays, require an “activation” treatment
(thermal or mechanical). This means there are some CO2 emissions associated with
their production, but this may be offset by their high reactivity, which allows high
levels of substitution. Today their use is limited in Europe as they have not been
economically competitive compared to slag and fly ash. However, this situation
is likely to change in the future due to the limited availability of slag and fly ash
and the discovery that higher levels of clinker substitution are possible with a
coupled substitution of calcined clay with limestone. It is now widely accepted that
a ternary blend (clinker, limestone, calcined clay) allows for 50% substitution with
strength comparable to CEM I [20,21]. Furthermore, low-purity clays that cannot
be used by other industries (ceramic, gravel…) can be used in these ternary blends.
Recently, Scrivener and co-workers demonstrated the real potential of low quality
or overburden clays as artificial pozzolans in ternary blend Limestone Calcined
Cements LC3 [22–24]. However, even if the clay availability in Europe is important,
as shown on the map of clay soils suitable for SCM in Europe (Figure 11), the size of
the quarries and the logistics for the supply of large cement plants can be difficult.
Figure 11 Repartition of argilitic soils in EU 27 from Portail Européen des Sols. The areas
in blue are clayey soils except soils containing smectites (called albeluvisol, luvisols and
acrisols). The blue areas are suitable for SCM use.
30
Dredging sediments are also a potential resource, as Europe generates approximately

300 Mton/yr of dredging sediments (expressed on dry base). Finally, other by-products
from industries can also be used as substitute materials, such as vegetable ash and
wood ash, but the availability is low, and the quality is variable. It is crucial to understand
that a viable SCM source is ideally a product available in large quantities and with a
constant composition. Deviation from this ideal case requires higher costs in supply
chain management and quality control.
Improving reactivity with efficient grinding and separated

grinding/blending of blended cements
The main hurdle of clinker substitution of SCM is the low early strength development of
the blended cements. Finer grinding can help to improve this early strength development,
but a compromise needs to be found to avoid detrimental effects on workability.
Nevertheless, there is room for considerable improvement in the performance of blended
cements by optimising the particle size distributions of the different components, which
will require high performance grinders and separate grinding of each component.
Ball mills are the traditional grinding technology. They have been improved by adding
a separator in the closed circuit [25]. Furthermore, high pressure comminution systems,
such as vertical rolls mills (VRMs) or high pressure grinding rolls (HPGRs), are slowly
replacing grinding by ball mills and could be further implemented. Separate grinding
allows a better-controlled particle size distribution, giving the best compromise between
workability (water demand) and strength development. The limitation in using separate
grinding or improving the actual technology is the investment cost. VRMs and HPGRs
cost approximately 30 Mio€ for a new installation and approximately 6 Mio € for a
retrofitted technology [14].
Grinding remains the biggest source for electric energy consumption in a cement plant,
which means that additional grinding has a direct impact on the electricity costs of
the cement plant. Considering the CO2 emissions, the impact of energy is negligible
compared to the impact of calcination[26], but considering the economic costs, extra
grinding has a consequence on the operational costs.
31
Figure 12 Electrical energy demand for cement production [11]

Packing
Raw material
extraction/blending
Clinker
Raw material production
homogenisation
Raw material
grinding
Cement
production
4.3 Concrete level
Concrete has a low embodied carbon coefficient compared to other common construction
materials, with, on average, 200 kgCO2eq /t of concrete. For example, in contrast, recycled
steel emits 1100 kgCO2eq by tonne of steel produced. However, for the same purpose,
you will need more concrete than steel. The question of improving the environmental
performance is more a question of improving the efficient use of cement in concrete. It is
important to look at the whole life cycle to understand how cement is used in concrete.
In Europe, half of the cement is used in non-reinforced structures where there is a higher
potential of substitution without risk of serious durability problems. On the contrary,
improving the mix design of reinforced concrete needs to be more carefully considered
due to safety and durability concerns. The mix design of reinforced concrete is also more
sensitive to a reliable supply of aggregates, admixtures, cement and additions.
32
Figure 13 Use of cement in downstream products in Europe (2015). The hatched area
corresponds to unreinforced applications (Source: Cembureau, ERMCO3, and BIBM4).
Ready - Mixed
Concrete Non Reinf. 5%
Mortars and
Plasters 24%
Ready - Mixed
Concrete Reinf.
43%
Precast Concrete
Non Reinf 14%
Precast Concrete
Reinforced 14%
It is observed that in ready mix concrete, on average, 20 % of the cement (CEM I or CEM
II) is substituted by additional materials, including mainly fly ash, slag, silica fume and
inert fillers. The limitations are similar to those at the cement scale, as follows: low early
strength development slows down the construction process and creates productivity
losses; and lower workability may involve an increase in admixtures (and therefore
costs) or water on the construction site (and therefore strength loss). As a consequence,
the use of blended cements is excluded in parts of Europe for certain concrete exposure
classes because of the lack of building experience within the scope of the respective
national annexes to concrete standard EN 206-1 and because there have been no
scientific investigations into the use of these cements. Müller et al. [27] combined national
specifications, as shown in Table 1. For example, Denmark allows a low cement content
of 150 kg cement/m3 of concrete but has a high restriction concerning the cement type.
It is therefore difficult to have a common European rule in terms of the amount of clinker
that can be substituted.
3
ERMCO : European Ready Mix Concrete Organisation
4
BIBM : European Precast Association
33
Table 1 National annexes to the norm EN 206-1 for the choice of cement as a function
of the exposure class[27]
However, it seems that the construction community agrees that it is possible to achieve
savings by better respecting these norms, which can be done at two levels.
The first level is the difference between the field reality and what is required in the
standards concerning the amount of cement per cubic metre. There is often 20% more
cement in the concrete mix than what is required by the standard. The study performed
by Passer and co-authors [28] confirms this statement for concrete produced in Austria
34
(Figure 14). Mix designs systematically contain too much cement, which can be explained
by the fact that concrete producers want to reduce the risk and have an error margin (of
20%) or want to be sure that the concrete still has the appropriate strength even with
the addition of uncontrolled extra water to the construction site.
Figure 14 Quantity of cement per cubic meter of concrete as a function of the exposure
class in Austria. Black dots represent the quantity of cement specified in the Austrian
national standards. The bar charts with uncertainties represent the effective mix design
produced in Austria.
330-441 kg/m3
276-410 kg/m3
288-375 kg/m3
275-375 kg/m3
258-364 kg/m3
500
263-314 kg/m3
235-318 kg/m3
224-283 kg/m3
213-298 kg/m3
76-207 kg/m3
Kg/m3
Cement XO XC1 XC2 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7
The second level of saving is on the choice of the exposure class. Actually, the engineers
and designers working on a project will often specify only one single concrete exposure
class, which will then be the most conservative. However, for a house, the exterior
concrete and the interior concrete are not subject to the same constraints. As an example,
if a house is built with a distinction between indoor concrete, where exposure class XC1
C16/20 would be sufficient, and concrete exposed to external weather, which could be
consist of XC4 C25/30, 20 kg of cement per cubic meter can be saved compared to the
current classic solution in which all of the concrete will be specified as XC4 C25/30.
The role of civil engineering and engineering offices is therefore very important because
they often choose the simplest and safest option and comply with the standard.
Optimization of the concrete formulation, particularly of the granular skeleton, by
continuous distribution of aggregates and thus reducing the final porosity of the
granular skeleton. It is this final porosity that is filled by the cement paste. Therefore,
optimizing the granular lining reduces the amount of cement required for a given
compressive strength [29] but is also essential for the workability and the robustness of
the mix. On average, we will then find 300 kg cement/m3, even though the standards
35
could allow for much less [27]. It is possible to replace a part of this cement by
fines fillers and keep a similar volume of paste for workability reasons, but the
concrete producer will usually go for easy and robust mixes and prefer to have
just one fine particle to weight and mix, the cement. The second reason that
creates difficulty in optimising the mix the supply of good quality aggregates is
not always easy. Aggregates are local materials. Therefore, if the local quarry is
not able to provide a good variety of aggregates, it will not be possible to design
an optimised granular skeleton and more cement will be required to achieve the
necessary strength and workability criteria.
Granular optimisation through a better aggregate quality can significantly

reduce the cement demand. Granular optimisation is estimated to be able to
save 10% of cement in a concrete mix.
Another way to reduce of cement is through the use of admixtures. These

admixtures will reduce the water demand and therefore allow the amount
of cement to be reduced while achieving similar workability and strength
[30,31]. Today in Europe, 80% of ready mix and precast concrete is modified
with admixtures. Although the savings are small, Cembureau estimated that
the improvement in admixture use could reduce global warming potential of
concrete by 10 to 20%.
To assess the efficiency of cement use, an indicator of binder intensity has recently
been developed. This indicator calculates the amount of cement needed for 1 m3
of concrete to generate 1 MPa of strength. This factor was discussed in many
papers [29,32–34] and the UNEP report [4]. Table 1 shows the results presented
in the study by Müller et al (2014) [29], where a binder with approximately 110
kg of CEMI by cubic metre of concrete can be designed to reach 40 MPa and a
good durability, compared to the classic 250 to 300 kg cement/m3. They also
showed in their study that the use of microcement (Portland cement; Blaine
value 6900 cm2/g) can allow a compressive strength of 60 MPa with 110 kg
of microcement by cubic meter of concrete due to the optimised packing of
microcement within the full granular skeleton of the concrete.
36
Figure 15 Binder intensity related to the compressive strength in fcm of a 7d cube of

mixtures with varying cement contents and particle size distributions (fit parameter n)
compared to the literature results of Fennis and Daminelli [33] (all of the literature values
are given in 28-days strength). The black line is the lowest amount currently used, and
the blue line represents the trend of low carbon cement that can be produced.
20
18
16
Binder Intensity (kg/m3.MPa)
14
12
10
0
10 30 50 70 90
Compressive Strength (MPa)
4.4. Structural level
Cement is not used by itself, but in cementitious materials, such as concrete or mortar,
and concrete is used for architectural structures, walls, foundations, dams, bridges etc.
Therefore, the main objective is to provide society with housing and infrastructure, if the
same service is provided, the amount of cement or clinker in these elements is not of
primary importance.
In this section, discuss the possibility of reducing the amount of concrete required while
still providing the same level of service of the structure. On average, 50% of the cement
is used for building construction, 30% for civil engineering structures and the rest in
maintenance work, even if this repartition is not homogeneous across Europe (Figure
16). Civil engineering structures are often carefully designed, and the form is controlled
by the load. So, the amount of concrete is fairly well optimised. This is different from
buildings where engineering offices are take less time to optimise the design and where
habits in term of repetitive structures lead to the overuse of materials. A concrete slab
has 20 cm, as does a concrete wall, and the spacing between columns is often close to
37
6 metres. These dimensions are used regardless of the height and dimensions of the
building, and these sizes are more controlled by practical reasons on the construction
site, the size of the truck used to transport the element or acoustic purposes than by
structural reasons. Looking at the concrete used in buildings from a structural perspective
shows great savings potential.
Figure 16 Use of cement in different construction types at the national scale (2015). The
straight lines show the averages for Europe.
Overestimation of concrete in structures
The strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from structures is to optimise the quantity of
concrete needed [31]. The quantity is often overestimated to “be on the safe side” but
also sometimes for practical reasons, such as the quantity in a router truck, etc. In the
short term, savings could be made by insisting that only the quantities specified in the
codes are used and not more. In their survey (MEICON Project)[36], researchers from
Cambridge University and Bath University highlight that there are no requirements for
designers to be efficient in the use of embodied energy. Examining steel beams in the
UK, Moynihan and Allwood [37] shows that the average use of the material is 50%
below its capacity. In addition, Dunant and co-authors [38] note that 35-45%wt of steel
is not structurally necessary. A large part of the embodied energy could be saved within
the framework of existing European design codes. Concerning concrete, Orr and co-
38
authors [39] show that the use of concrete structural elements suffers like steel from a
lack of design optimisation.
In the long term, there is almost certainly scope for further savings, but this would
require the difficult and time consuming process of revaluation of the safety criteria as
defined in Eurocode: the generalised normative construction framework in Europe. Some
researchers have used algorithms or other systems to optimize the cost and embodied
energy. Paya and co-authors [40] provide a methodology to help structural engineers
to improve their design in term of cost, constructability and environmental impact
simultaneously. Yeo and co-authors [41] conclude from their study that approximately
10% of embodied energy can be reduced for an increase of 5% in the cost for the same
simple reinforced concrete structural element. Although difficult to quantify, the works
of De Wolf [42], Shank and co-authors [43] show that a reduction of 10%-20% can be
made today without design changes. By combining low carbon cement and reducing
the amount of cement and concrete in a structure, a reduction of more than 50% is
possible.
Improving structural elements
Some shapes can be optimised to provide the required performance with much lower
amounts of concrete, such as beams. It is well known that the most optimised shape
to distribute forces is the arch shape. Up to now, this was difficult to realise on site, as
optimised elements need high control in the concrete mix design and the reinforcement’s
structure and specific frameworks. However, through the development of digital
fabrication, the development of these elements can be envisaged in the precast industry,
where a good control of all parameters is possible. The work of Block and co-workers
[44] (Figure 17) shows drastic savings of more than 50% of the cement for a similar
service as a normal concrete slab that would be a solid 20 cm thick.
Figure 17 Rib-stiffened funicular floor system. Block research group https://block.arch.

ethz.ch/brg/research/rib-stiffened-funicular-floor-system Photo credit: Nick Krouwel
39
4.5. Recycling, circular economy
The philosophy of the circular economy is linked to the promotion of resource efficiency,
taking into account the full lifecycle of buildings, from initial planning and manufacturing
of construction products to final demolition and waste treatment and disposal. Improving
the resource efficiency throughout the lifecycle of buildings will make the construction
sector more competitive as well as reduce material use and the environmental impact
associated with our built environment. In 2015, the EU Commission adopted the Circular
Economy package and LIFE Programme[45] to stimulate and support the transition
towards a circular economy. The construction and demolition waste sector was defined
as one of five priority sectors for a more circular economy. In volume, construction is
the biggest source of waste in Europe and almost 90% can be revalorised but is largely
downgraded in low-value applications.
Recycling concrete
Recycled concrete can be reused as aggregates; however, the quality varies greatly
according to the origin and treatment. Recycled aggregates often have lower intrinsic
strength than virgin aggregates. It is often necessary to increase the quantity of
cement in the new concrete to achieve the same strength as a concrete with natural
aggregates. However, CO2 savings are still possible if the use of recycled aggregates
reduces the transport distance compared to natural aggregates. Studies show that if
distances as above 50 km are saved it starts to be an environmentally viable solution
[46]. The quantity that can be incorporated varies according to national restrictions from
10% to 25% and often the recycling of fines is not considered. A large part of recycled
aggregate is already used as road base (where it saves use of virgin aggregates), so
there may not be large amounts of recycled aggregate available. The fine material can
most effectively be used as a raw material for clinker production as a zero fossil CO2
source of calcium. Studies have shown the feasibility[47–49]. The main difficulty is the
quality of the source. To encourage the waste provider to give a source of pure concrete
fines to the cement plant (without a mix of plaster or brick), some partnerships between
cement producers and demolition companies have been proved efficient. The demolition
companies that also have a construction business gets the cement back at a lower
cost with its own concrete waste incorporated, which works for. Therefore, the waste
provider has a direct interest to provide good quality waste, as he will beneficiate from
a good quality cement at a lower price. More efficient recycling treatments with better
fine separation can still be developed, but it is also clearly a change in the construction
culture that is needed, where the waste at the end of life is no longer considered to be
an end product, but is considered to be a valuable resource that, if well sorted, can be
economically interesting to trade.
40
Recycling element
Increasingly, concrete recycling after deconstruction is not only about being recycled
into aggregates but also about reusing certain elements in their original form [50]. An
example in Belgium is give below:
Figure 18 Circular Retrofit Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Van Der Meeren (1973),
Brussels[42]
In this case, they re-used original elements in a new construction, which significantly
reduces the cost of construction, and the potential for reducing the embodied CO2 is
very important. In this case, the only energy cost is due to transport if the elements
are not available nearby. Unfortunately, some of the drawbacks seem higher than the
advantages currently, e.g., availability of elements, as elements are integrated into
structures designed for 50-100 years, changing connections between elements will
reduce other properties, which will need extra material to compensate, and elements
available today can be outdated in 10 years. To counterbalance, designing flexible
structures to allow new functions of the building by rearranging walls, for example,
should be promoted.
41
5. Breakthrough technologies:
The reality behind the hype
5.1. Alternative clinkers
Alternative binders were studied in detail in the UNEP report[4] and in two supporting
white papers written by Gartner and Sui [51] and John Provis [52]. Here, we resume the
basics as they apply to Europe.
These cements have not been proven, and their potential for CO2 saving is limited by
questions regarding resources and technical application difficulties, which means that
they are only likely to find niche applications. Such applications usually require a high
level of technical support, which, along with the loss of economies of scale, means that
the products will have a cost often several times higher than conventional cements to
be economically viable. It is not realistic to imagine that such materials will be able to
meet more than approximately 5% of the demand for cementitious materials. It should
be noted that the CO2 savings are expressed compared to plain Portland cement, CEM
I. Given that the average level of clinker substitution in Europe is currently 0.73, the
average CO2 saving of the cements we already use compared to CEMI are already
approximately 25%.
5.1.1. Belitic clinkers
The technology is very similar to Portland cement, but the calcination to form belitic
phases is performed at a slightly lower temperature. There is typically only a 10% CO2
reduction (much less than in current CEM II). Moreover, the lower performance cancels
out this marginal savings. These cements can be made in existing plants, so there
are negligible investment costs. The main drawbacks are the lower reactivity, the low
savings potential and a lower heat recovery potential at the cement plant. Overall, this
technology is of interest for mass concrete, where the lower heat of hydration is an
advantage, but the potential for CO2 savings is negligible.
5.1.2. Calcium sulfo aluminate cements
Calcium sulfo aluminate cements (CSAs) have been produced commercially in China for
more than 40 years and there is now some production in Europe. They can be produced
with the same technology as Portland cement. The reduction in CO2 mainly comes from
the change in the chemical composition. The main reactive phase (ye’elimite: C4A3$)
contains a lower proportion of calcium, so there are lower process emissions from the
42
decarbonisation of limestone. In addition, the clinkering temperature is lower, and they

are more easily ground. The CO2 saving potential is approximately 20-30% (+/- 5%
compared to CEMII), depending on the content of the reactive phases: ye’elimite. The
fast and variable setting time of these cements poses some barriers to their use and
favours development in precast applications. Their long term durability in different
environments is also not yet well established. However, the main issue is the expense
and availability of the high alumina raw materials needed for their production. In the
UN Environment report “Eco efficient cement”, the extreme situation was considered in
which all bauxite currently mined for production of aluminium would be switched to the
production of CSAs. Even in this extreme situation, only approximately 15% of the current
cement demand could by met. It has been shown that some waste materials can also
be used for production but supplies of these are also limited. In China, after many years
of promotion of this technology, the amount of CSAs produced is only approximately
0.1%. Therefore, even in the long term (2050), an upper level of substitution of 10% is
considered, but it is likely to be much lower as a niche product.
5.1.3. Energetically modified cement (EMC) [53]
Energetically modified cement (EMC) technology is based on blended cement (see

discussion above, section 4.2), which is finely ground to improve its reactivity by
changing the atomic structure. The CO2 savings potential is linked to the potential to
obtain higher levels of clinker substitution with reasonable performance, but this is offset
by the higher energy required. As such, we do not consider an independent contribution
for this technology, but it could contribute to an overall reduction of the clinker factor in
blended cements.
5.1.4. Alkali activated binders
Alkali activated binders are also well known, and residential infrastructures were built
in the 60’s in Ukraine with alkali activated slag. However, it was performed in the
specific context of Portland cement scarcity and high availability of slag, which is not
representative of the context in Europe today. Some products are still produced around
the world and they are partially standardised. The savings potential of CO2 (compared to
CEM I) is estimated to be between 40 and 80 %; however, the emissions of the activator
are often not taken into consideration. Different solid precursors can be used. These
are basically the same as the SCMs used in blended cements, with the same limitations
in their availability as discussed previously. In particular, slag and/or high calcium fly
ash are always used in formulations that can set and harden at ambient temperature;
other formulations require heat curing to develop significant strength. In addition, there
are many other technical issues, such as the safety issues associated with the use
of strong alkalis, fast and variable setting and hardening, lack of admixtures able to
improve workability, high shrinkage and questions regarding the durability in different
environments. In view of these constraints, their use is likely to be limited to precast
factories and niche applications.
43
5.1.5. Supersulfated slag cements
Supersulfated slag cements are estimated to have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions
by up to 80% compared to CEMI, but the production is linked to the availability of slag,
which is decreasing and is already used in blended cement. In addition, their setting and
hardening is highly variable, so it is difficult to deliver a consistent product on site.
5.1.6. Carbonatable calcium silicate cements
These are cements based on Wollastonite (CaSiO3) and dicalcium silicate

(Ca2SiO4), which hardens by reaction with CO2 rather than water. The saving potential
in CO2 is up to 60% (eventually higher if waste derived calcium silicates are used (e.g.,
steel slag)). These materials have potential applications in precast products, such as
blocks, tiles and pavers, but there are several limitations to their more extensive use,
which are as follows:
• The elements need to be thin enough for the CO2 to be able to penetrate;
• The carbonation needs to be carried out in a specially adapted curing chamber with
a supply of concentrated CO2; and
• The alkalinity of the materials is greatly reduced and will not protect conventional
steel reinforcement from corrosion.
For these reasons, the UN Environment report estimated the maximum market
penetration at 10%.
5.1.7. Hydrothermal reactive belite cements (incl.

celitement)[54]
The production of these materials consists of the two following steps, before mixing
with water:
• Production of α-C2SH by a hydrothermal process, generally from lime and silica; and
• Activation of α-C2SH to produce reactive belite (x-C2S), either by mechanical action
(Celitement) [37] or heat treatment [56].
Such a manufacturing process is complex due to the need for more processing steps
than required for Portland cement and, at present, has only been proven at laboratory
scale. Due to the lack of a commercially viable process, it is difficult to estimate their
energy and CO2 efficiencies at this stage. However, simple thermodynamic arguments
indicate that the manufacture of the reactive belite cannot be more energy or CO2
efficient than the production of belite in PC or the high belite cements discussed above.
The technology seems to make no sense if processed lime (with very high process CO2)
44
is used as a precursor, but could be interesting if waste materials were used. Due to the
early stages of the technology and CO2 savings, which are unclear compared to existing
blended cements, we do not think the contribution of this technology can be significant
in the period of study.
5.1.8. Magnesium cements
Magnesium based cements, which harden by carbonation, have been proposed. The CO2
saving potential is critically dependent on the source of the raw materials. If the more
common magnesium carbonate is used, the CO2 emissions are higher than for Portland
cement due to the lower atomic weight of magnesium. Therefore, the focus has been on
preparation from magnesium silicates. This has proven to be possible on a small scale
but requires high amounts of energy and several steps involving high pressure. Despite
considerable effort, it has not proven possible to find a process that can be scaled up
(Novacem [57] went out of business in 2012). Furthermore, even though magnesium
silicate minerals are abundant, they are much more localised than limestone and occur
deeper in the earth’s crust, so wide spread use would require significant efforts in mining
and transportation. Even if all these technical problems were surmounted, the properties
of these cements seem quite limited, and the hardening by carbonation means that they
would suffer from the same limitations identified for the carbonatable calcium silicates
cements described above.
5.1.9. Summary of potential from alternative

binders
As a summary of the sections above, we consider that only calcium sulfo aluminate
cements (incl. BYF) and carbonatable calcium silicates cement (CCSC) have any
significant potential to contribute to CO2 reduction in the period of study. The penetration
in the market will be limited due to the level of investment required, the lack of standards
and available resources. We estimate that no more than 5% of cement can be replaced
by these alternatives by 2030 and 10% by 2050.
5.2. Carbon capture, storage and use
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) of use (CCU) is being studied in many industries.
Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is the term used when captured CO2 is transported
to an underground facility and stored permanently. There are technical and social
issues to be solved if this is to be deployed on a large scale. Carbon capture and use
or CCU envisages use of the captured carbon as a precursor for the production of
other chemicals. Apart from the technical issues, there is a major issue here that the
45
requirements for such chemicals are several orders of magnitude less than the amount
of CO2 that would have to be captured. CCS/CCU has been identified in the IEA/CSI
roadmaps of 2009 and 2018 as an important technology to reduce CO2 emissions from
the cement industry. There are several on-going pilot programmes. Precombustion
capture technologies have limited mitigation potential in cement production, as only
energy-related CO2 emissions, which represent approximately 35% of the total cement
carbon emissions, would be affected. Oxyfuel combustion technology is considered
promising to give higher concentrations of CO2 in the output gases, which allows more
efficient capture. In this technology, pure oxygen is used to burn fuel and, as nitrogen is
not heated, fuel consumption is reduced, and higher flame temperatures are possible.
The main problem has been separating oxygen from the air. This process requires a
large amount of energy, and the additional electricity needs can increase by 2 or 3.
The investment cost is estimated to be 300 Mio€ and the CO2 saving potential can be
between 50 and 800 kg CO2 per t clinker (10 to 100% CO2 saving).
The non-exhaustive list below presents some of the CCS technologies under development,
including the post combustion process, combustion process and storage process. The
investment costs are current estimations and can be reduced with further research and
development. The information mainly comes from the technical report written by CSI5
and ECRA6 [14].
• CCS by adsorption refers to the uptake of CO2 molecules onto the surface of
another material. The investment cost is estimated to be between 200 and 300
Mio€, inducing a possible increase between 10 and 50 € per ton of cement. The
direct CO2 saving can be between 0 to 740 kgCO2 /t clinker, but the high energy
demand will increase the indirect CO2 emissions.
• CCS by membrane process leads to a potential CO2 saving of approximately 720
kg CO2/tCK and a lower investment of approximately 50 Mio€. However, the process
requires a high electrical energy demand that induces a higher cost of producing of
cement.
• CCS by Calcium looping is a second generation carbon capture technology. This
process is not a post combustion capture, but the cement production is perfectly
designed to reuse the CaO sorbent needed in the Ca-looping process with no
additional CO2 emissions during the clinkerisation. However, a low temperature
calcination is needed to form the sorbent, which leads to an increase in the thermal
energy demand. The potential CO2 saving is approximately 800 kg CO2/tCk (without
taking into account the CO2 emitted in the production of the CaO sorbent), and the
investment is approximately 200 Mio€, increasing the price by 36€ per tonne of
clinker.
• CCS by mineral carbonation involves the reaction of CO2 with a mineral compound
such wollastonite or olivine to form stable mineral carbonates and SiO2. This
technology needs expensive additives for the direct carbonation of minerals. The
cost is estimated to be higher than geological storage due to an important increase
in the thermal and electrical energy requirement. The cost is approximately 100€ per
tonne of captured CO2. Moreover, the carbonated minerals would then have to be
used or disposed of somehow.
5
CSI : Cement Sustainability Initiative – From the World Business Council on Sustainable Development
6
ECRA : European Cement Research Academy
46
• With exactly the same savings potential of 750 kg CO2/t CK as the previous
technology, the CCS by algae capture involves the consumption of CO2 for the
growth of algae, which can be used as biomass fuel. The cost is projected to be
competitive with other CCS processes at approximately 30 -50€ per tonne of CO2
capture. The main limitation is the need for large amounts of land to grow the algae.
Figure 19, from the roadmap from IEA CSI, shows the projected deployment of these
technologies by 2050 in the cement sector worldwide.
Figure 19 Global deployment of CO2 capture for permanent storage in the cement sector
worldwide.
800 100% Captured CO2

High-variability case
700
Captured CO2
80%
600 Low-variability case
Captured CO2/yr
500 Fuel oxy-fuel

60%
Partial oxy-fuel
400
Post-combustion
300 40%
Captured CO2 share of
200 generated CO2
20% - High-variability case
100
Captured CO2 share of
0 0% generated CO2
2014 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 - Low-variability case
The main limitation of the implementation of CCS is its very high cost. The cost of
investment is 2 times higher than that of a new cement plant (approx. 150 Mio € for 1
million tonne annual capacity). If these technologies are to be applied at a large scale,
the power consumption would increase drastically. The requirement for high amounts
of electrical energy also has implications for both the cost and CO2 mitigation potential
as it heavily depends on the decarbonisation of electricity.
47
6. Strategies for CO2 reduction

in the cementitious value chain
6.1. Introduction
This section focuses on the assessment of CO2 reduction achieved under different
scenarios. We considered the whole cement and concrete value chain, as represented
below.
Figure 20 Representation of the cementitious construction value chain used in this report
CEMENT
PRODUCTION
SCMs
Raw
materials
Admixtures
Aggregates
CONCRETE
PRODUCTION
Ready mix
Precast concrete
Mortar
STRUCTURE
Engineers/architects Demolition
Interviews with cement producers, European associations, and constructors showed us

that for those different actors of the construction:
48
• maintaining the productivity on the construction site is considered very

important.
• maintaining the low cost of cement production and low cost of building
construction are also very important.
• the availability of resources is a critical question, as often it is not easy to
obtain access to the desired resource in the right amounts.
• performance based standards would solve many problems but are currently
not in place. National Standards on cement choice and kg of cement per
m3 of concrete are too restrictive and do not allow the CO2 reductions that
would otherwise be possible..
Moreover, the construction sector is a capital intensive industry with long returns on
investment and little incentive to invest due to the current production overcapacity. This
sector is also fragmented between many players [57]. Few constructive partnerships
have been observed, and they are mainly based on client-supplier relationships with
no interactions. Furthermore, a recent study from McKinsey reported in 2015 that
construction is among the least digitised the sectors, resulting in typical delays in
completion of 20%, budget overruns of 80% and finally a very low financial return for
the constructor [58]. Based on different discussions (workshops taking place in January
and May at ECF Brussels) and reports published so far, future developments in the
construction sector with a view to reducing their GHG emissions appear to be as follows:
• An increase in the digitalisation of the sector will occur, leading to more prefabrication
and the use of building information modelling.
• Resource conservation and the circular economy approach are gaining traction in
economic and political circles. The construction industry will have to position itself in
the conversation [45,59].
• Breakthrough technologies all require very high investment costs and the industry is
not willing to invest so much in the current situation.
The sector will need to evolve on two fronts, as follows:

• Continuous improvement of old technologies and aggregating different good
practices to systematically reduce emissions and
• Using new technologies.
Following these findings, the construction sector faces two limitations, as follows: the
need for investment on the one hand and the lack of interaction between the various
stakeholders along the fragmented value chain on the other. As an example, increasing
the use of blended cements needs research and development from cement plants, but
these cements need to be bought by concrete companies and allowed by construction
companies to be implemented largely.
49
Based on these two bottlenecks for innovation in the construction sector, four scenarios
covering the potential future evolution of the sector are proposed (Figure 21). The CO2
reduction potential for each potential future are then assessed.
Figure 21 Four scenarios covering the potential future evolution of the sector
Investment
Very high investment- High investment-

Cement industry only Multi Actors PRECAST
Scenario 1 oriented-
Breaktrough technologies Scenario 3
Structural optimisation
Circular economy
Low investment-Multi
Actors RMC oriented-
Scenario 2
Efficient use and recycling
Low investment- 1 Actor
Reference Scenario
Integration along the value chain
CEMENT CONCRETE STRUCTURE
As will be explained, these scenarios are not mutually exclusive and cannot simply
be added to each other.
6.2. Background data
All scenarios combine different abatement levers and involve one or many actors in
the value chain. For these calculations, our hypothesis is to maintain the same required
properties of concrete (strength, durability, etc.) and the same standards. In the model
(Annex 1), the parameter “quantity of cement” is consider to be stable in Europe [5] from
2015 to 2050; however, scenario 2 and scenario 3 will involve a decrease in cement
demand in the medium and long term, but a constant supply in terms of final service.
It is commonly accepted to refer to 1990 emissions as 100% of total CO2 emissions, but
our scenarios will start in 2015. It is important to note that the 40% observed reduction
between 1990 and 2015 is mainly (30%) due to the reduction in cement demand that
followed the 2008 economic crisis. The roadmap of the European Commission defines
the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% compared to 1990
levels, [60] but in a Paris Agreement compatible scenario, the sector will most likely have
to reduce to almost zero CO2 emissions.
50
The ten levers evaluated in the possible scenarios are the following:
TECHNOLOGIES DESCRIPTION
Reduce the thermal energy during clinker

E�ciency of clinker production production by upgrading old kilns to dry
kilns with preheaters and precalciners.
Increase the quantity of waste and

Alternative fuels biomass as the main fuels for clinker
production.
Use alternative raw materials (with no

fossil CO2) in the clinker process,
Recycling the fines from
including the fines from concrete
concrete
demolition.
Decrease the clinker factor in cement to

Clinker substitution 0.6 using supplementary cementitious
materials.
Improving the concrete Improve the packing of aggregates and

mix design optimise the mix design.
XC3 Reduce the cement in concrete by

following the standards. Engineering
Strict respect of exposure o�ces specifying di�erent concrete
classes classes and concrete producers providing
XC0
XC5 XC4 concrete with just the necessary cement
content.
Reducing the concrete content Optimise the structural design of the

in structures elements to reduce concrete needs.
Favouring reuse and recycling Reuse of concrete elements- designing

flexible buildings.
Di�erent alternatives can be used as

previously described. (See Annex 1) The
Alternative binders CO2 emissions will be averaged to 520 kg
CO2 /t alternative binders in 2030 and 495
kg CO2 /t alternative binders in 2050.
Equip cement plants with carbon capture

Carbon capture and storage technology and reinject the cement in
CO2 storage facilities.
51
6.3. Reference scenario
Characteristics:
• Low investment capacities.
• No collaboration between actors: only cement producers can act.
Most promising actions in this context:
• Kiln technologies improvement.
• Small increase in clinker substitution and alternatives fuels.
6.3.1. Description
The scenario is based on and is an extension of the Reference Technology Scenario

named RTS in the IEA-CSI Roadmap 2018 (see Blue Box). The low investment envisaged
in this scenario is mainly confined to improving the thermal efficiency of clinker kilns. A
small increase in the use of alternative fuels as well as an increase in the use of SCMs
are the other reduction levers.
52
Table 2 Summary of the potential savings by technologies for the reference case
scenario
REFERENCE
DEGREE OF IMPLEMENTATION
SCENARIO
2015 2030 2050 SCALE

E�ciency of clinker
production
80% 83% 84% Clinker scale
Alternative fuels

(No data IEA-CSI at EU
level –global 17.5%in
RTS- 30% in 2DS)
Clinker substitution
Cement Scale
23% 30% 35%

(No data IEA-CSI at
EU level –global
34% in RTS
and 40% in 2DS)
CO2 savings
compared
to 1990
40% 45% 55%
6.3.2. Results
Compared to the actual emissions (2015), this scenario will lead to a reduction of
nearly 15% by 2050. Indeed, the improvement of kiln technologies is marginal and at
its maximum can allow a reduction of only 4%. Further development discussed by CSI-
ECRA Technology papers[14] indicates that with more investment, it is possible that
10% can be achieved on thermal efficiency.
53
Figure 22 CO2 evolution by 2050 for the reference case scenario
100%
80%
60%
CO2 (%)
Reference Scenario
40%
20%
0%
Year 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BOX: IEA-CSI Roadmap 2018

The International Energy Agency and Cement Sustainable Initiative (part of
World Business Council for Sustainable Development) developed a Roadmap
to consider the reduction of CO2 emissions of the cement sector up to 2050 at a
world scale. Global cement demand is set to grow by 12-23% by 2050, under the
Reference Technology Scenario (RTS), the direct CO2 emissions are expected to
increase by 4% by 2050. To realise the 2 degree scenario (2DS), direct emissions
from cement manufacture must be cut by 24 % compared to the current level
by 2050. Improving energy efficiency, switching to alternative fuels, reducing
clinker content, alternative clinkers and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
are the mitigation levers supported by the cement sector to realise 7.7 GtCO2
reduction by 2050. Realising the RTS scenario will represent an investment of
107-127 billion USD by 2050 and the 2DS will require an investment of 176-244
billion USD by 2050.
54
6.4. Scenario 1: breakthrough technologies
Characteristics:
• High investment capacities coming either from public or private investors.
• No collaboration between actors: only cement producers can act.
• Carbon capture and storage
• Alternative clinkers
6.4.1. Description
In this scenario, very high investment is required. This investment must be made by
a single actor, i.e., the cement producer, which would probably be done through
public/private investment to finance a carbon storage infrastructure and subsidise the
installation of carbon capture technologies. Cement companies would invest only if
there is a high tax on CO2; otherwise, they would prefer public support. Two types of
investments are then considered. First, cement producers adapt their clinker kilns with
carbon capture post-combustion systems and develop CO2 storage facilities. Second,
alternative cements such as calcium sulfoaluminates cement and carbonatable calcium
silicate cements with a CO2 saving potential of 40-50% become more common and
available at a larger scale in 2050. As explained in section 5, alkali activated binders
are severely limited by resources and pose technical difficulties, particularly for use on
site. The other issue is the market penetration; in the case of calcium sulfo aluminates,
the lack of high alumina raw materials means that the there is a substitution limit of
approximately 5%. These technologies are added to the one that would be favoured in
the reference scenario.
55
Table 3 Summary of the potential savings by technologies for scenario 1
SCENARIO 1:
BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY DEGREE OF IMPLEMENTATION
2015 2030 2050 SCALE
production
Alternative fuels
23% 30% 35% Cement
Carbon capture
and storage
0% 0-5% 25-50% Clinker scale

CO2
Alternative binders
0% 0-12% 10-25% Cement
CO2 savings
compared
to 1990
40% 50% 65-75%
6.4.2. Results
With 25 % CCS and 10% alternative binders, a reduction of 25% is possible, and in
case of higher investment, 35% can be achieved compared to 2015. A major difficulty
in this scenario is to access the real numbers for implementation of CCS and alternative
binders.
CCS is not a proven technology at large scale and its deployment is estimated to be
expensive. Its potential is extremely interesting. In our calculations, this technology
56
allows all the CO2 emitted during production to be “reabsorbed”. However, our
calculation neglects the CO2 coming from the electricity sector and the capacity of
this sector to provide the necessary low carbon energy for the installation of CCS
technology. In addition, transport to a use or storage site for the captured carbon
is not considered.
Figure 23 CO2 savings by 2050 for scenario 1
100%
80%
60%
CO 2 (%)
Scenario 1
40%
20%
0%
Year 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
6.5. Scenario 2 Efficient use and recycling
Characteristics:
• Moderate investment capacities distributed among different actors.
• Integration of the value chain from cement to concrete and collaboration
between actors.
• Good waste management practices: increase in alternative fuels and
concrete recycling.
• High increase in clinker substitution.
57
6.5.1. Description
Scenario 2 follows a different path than scenario 1 by involving the whole value chain. In
this scenario, there is no strong investment in carbon capture and storage.
The use of waste as energy as a raw material in the manufacture of clinker or as SCM
in cement and concrete production is emphasised. The good integration of actors in one
territory favours good waste management practices and efficient collection of waste
and biomass for alternative fuels as well as sorting construction demolition waste. If
well sorted, the fine part of concrete demolition waste can be used as a raw material in
the manufacture of clinker and the rest can be used as recycled aggregates in concrete.
Waste from other industries, such as calcined overburden clays, wood ashes, agricultural
ashes etc., are implemented as supplementary cementitious materials.
The availability of local resources is no longer limited, and the clinker factor can reach 0.5-
0.6 if the required properties are reached. Moreover, there is an important contribution
at the concrete scale; the quantity of cement needed is optimised by the better packing
of aggregates and by respecting the various exposure classes of concrete in the building,
which can be achieved through the active involvement of sand and gravel producers that
can invest in crushers and sieves to produce diverse aggregate sizes. Optimisation of
the quantity of cement needed also involves the engineering offices, which are currently
specifying the use of a single type of concrete that meets the highest exposure class and
therefore contains the most cement, and would change their practice in scenario 2 and
specify the appropriate exposure class for each part of the project. The only risk would
be not to have the right concrete at the right place due to confusion on the construction
site, but new technologies, such as tracking concrete trucks with RFID technologies and
Building information modelling [61,62], can easily be implemented at low costs.
58
Table 4 Summary of the potential savings by technologies for scenario 2
SCENARIO 2:
EFFICIENT USE AND DEGREE OF IMPLEMENTATION
RECYCLING
2015 2030 2050 SCALE
RMC PRECAST MORTAR RMC PRECAST MORTAR RMC PRECAST MORTAR
production
80% 83% 84% Clinker
Alternative fuels
33% 40/ 80% Cement

60%
Alternative raw materials

including recycling fines
3-4% 10% 20% Clinker
23% 30% 30% 30% 40% 40% 40% Cement
Binder per m3 of
concrete per MPa
8 kg/ 5 5 - 5 5 - Concrete
m3/ kg/m3/ kg/m3/ kg/m3/ kg/m3/
MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
Appropriate use
of standards
XC3
287- 275-
300 292 - - 285 - - Concrete
kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3
XC0
XC5 XC4
CO2 savings
compared 40% 50% 65%
to 1990
59
6.5.2. Results
In this scenario, emissions are reduced by approximately 25% compared to 2015 (65%
compared to 1990). The recycling of concrete fines and the reuse of waste as fuel are
limited by the availability and commitment of demolition and waste companies to co-
process.
The other limitation in this scenario is the reduction of the amount of cement in the
concrete while meeting the standards in place. The values represent a European
average, with some countries allowing larger reductions. Homogenisation of standards
on a European scale as well as better thought-out requirements in terms of durability
constraints would ultimately lead to greater emission reductions.
100%
80%
60%
CO 2 (%)
40% Scenario 2
20%
0%
Year 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
60
6.6. Scenario 3 Structural optimisation and

circular economy principles
Characteristics:
• Moderate to high investment by all actors.
• Integration of the value chain from cement to structure (involving the precast
industries).
• In addition to scenario 2, higher use of prefabrication.
• Structural optimisation and reuse of building elements.
6.6.1. Description
Scenario 3 adds levers to scenario 2 at the structure scale.
In this scenario, the involvement of construction companies and concrete producers is

dominant. The technologies developed in the previous scenarios are the same and an
additional effort is made in terms of structures. The structural element will be optimised,
an example is the use of partially hollow structures that reduce concrete usage by 50 to
70% while maintaining the same performance.
Regardless of the chosen routes, i.e., using less cement or less concrete, the mix design
of the concrete must be perfectly controlled as well as its placement and curing, which
can be achieved more easily in a controlled environment, such as ready mix plants for
the concrete mix design and the precast industry for the structural design. To properly
control the quantity of concrete for the structure, the precast industry will have to
develop skills in cement substitution; today, the use of CEM I is preferred to ensure rapid
demoulding. This scenario will therefore favour the development of precast elements,
more complex shapes can be used and only the performance of the finished element
counts for its future use. The market share between ready mix concrete and precast
industries could be changed to obtain higher impact.
61
Table 5 Market share in scenario 3
2015 2030 2050

RMC
PRECAST
MORTAR
RMC
PRECAST
MORTAR
RMC
PRECAST
MORTAR
MARKET 50% 25% 25% 40- 30- 25% 30- 35- 25%
SHARE 45% 40% 40% 45%
62
Table 6 Summary of the potential savings by technology for scenario 3
SCENARIO 3:
STRUCTURAL DEGREE OF IMPLEMENTATION
OPTIMISATION
2015 2030 2050 SCALE
RMC PRECAST MORTAR RMC PRECAST MORTAR RMC PRECAST MORTAR
production
80% 83% 84% Clinker
Alternative fuels
33% 40- 80% Cement

60%

3-4% 10% 20% Clinker
23% 30% 30% 30% 40% 40% 40% Cement
Binder per m3 of
concrete per MPa
8 5 5 - 5 5 - Concrete
kg/m3/ kg/m3/ kg/m3/ kg/m3/ kg/m3/
MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
Appropriate use
of standards
XC3
300 292 - - 285 - - Concrete

kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3
XC0
XC5 XC4
Re-use of cement
N/A - 0-10% - - 10-20% - Structure
Optimization
N/A 10-20% 20-40% Structure
CO2 savings
compared 40% 55% 75%
to 1990
63
6.6.2. Results
This scenario is the most promising to reduce CO2 emissions while integrating all
construction actors and reducing investment compared to scenario 1. A reduction
between 30 and 35% is possible compared to 2015. An additional reduction is, however,
possible because the reduction of concrete in a structure and the reuse of elements
present a large potential. Although difficult to quantify, the work of De Wolf et al.[42]
and Shank et al.[43] show that a reduction of 10%-20% can be made today without
design changes. By combining low carbon cement and reducing the amount of cement
and concrete in a structure, a more than 50% reduction is possible.
This scenario involves a controlled production chain as in precast and to achieve a

reduction in CO2 emissions, a change in the market share was considered; it was assumed
that 5% to 10% of the cement (all types) previously used in the ready mix industry was
now used in precast. This assumption does not upset the economic balance of the two
sectors, but a more marked change in market share can be envisaged and would allow
an even greater reduction.
100%
80%
60%
CO 2 (%)
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
40%
20%
0%
Year 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
64
6.7. Towards the well-below 2°C

and 1.5°C target
To sum up, Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 are the most promising scenarios to reduce CO2
emissions. Scenario 3 can be considered more interesting as it integrates the full value
chain in the CO2 reduction strategies and considerably lowers the investment needed
compared to Scenario 1. However, none of the scenarios achieve the reduction required
to reach the 2 degree target. In this section, we tested combined scenarios using costly
and integrative technologies to reach the EU recommendations.
It is actually possible either to make more constraining efforts in the sector with better
quality control, allowing, for instance, changing the standards or to combining scenario
3 and 1 and to include carbon storage for a good value chain integration.
6.7.1 Extreme scenario 3 beyond the standards
Characteristics:
In addition to moderate investment and good integration of all actors:
• Change in standards can be required.
• Strong effort to optimise concrete and structures.
Clinker substitution Improved packing Exposure class

XC3
XC0
XC5 XC4
50% 4kg/m3/MPa 200kg/m3

65
Figure 26 Extreme Scenario 3 towards a 1.5 °C target
100%
80%
60%
CO 2 (%)
Scenario 3
Extreme Scenario 3
40%
20%
0%
Year 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
6.7.2 Scenario 3 with additional

Carbon Capture and Storage
The second option is to keep efforts along the value chain as in scenario 3 and add
capturing emissions during the manufacturing process by CCS (Carbon Capture and
Storage). Figure 27 shows that the 2°C target can be achieved by combining scenario
3 with 25% CCS and that a 95% reduction can be achieved compared to 1990 through
the use of 80% CCS.
66
Figure 27 CO2 savings by integrating carbon capture and storage (CCS) for scenario 3
1990 emissions
100%
80%
60%
CO2 Saving (%)
40%
20% CCS
CCS
0%
Scenario 3 Scenario 3 Scenario 3
+25% CCS +80% CCS
These scenarios will imply the investment of scenario 3 and an additional investment
of 12 billion euros to equip 1 million ton/year plants for the 25% CCS scenario. Net zero
emissions would technically be possible, but only with extremely large investments. We
introduce this net zero carbon vision to highlight the choices available.
67
7. Policy recommendations
7.1. Introduction
Under the proposed scenarios, the pressure to reduce CO2 emissions is based on different
stakeholders. Figure 28 shows the distribution of “forces”. It is clear that to achieve
the same reduction objective (Scenario 1: Breakthrough technologies vs Scenario 3:
Structural optimisation), the effort is distributed more evenly in the cases of Scenario
2 and Scenario 3. Consequently, the incentives will also have act on to the entire value
chain. In Scenario 1, the effort to reduce CO2 emissions relies heavily only on the cement
producers and the capacity to finance their investment.
Figure 28 Savings along the concrete value chain from the scenarios between 2015 and
2050
40%
35%
30%
CO2 emission reduction
25% Demolition
companies
20% Construction
companies
Engineers
15%
Concrete
producers
10%
Cement
producers
5% Waste
management
0%
68
7.2. Enabling lowering of CO2

in the clinker
To enable a reduction of CO2 in the clinker, the following four processes need to be
incentivised through policy: kiln optimisation, alternative fuels, use of fines from
demolished concrete as raw materials and carbon capture and storage.
1. Dry technologies implementation is limited in term of savings, as the cement industry
is already optimised. Some kilns are underused or not used anymore, some financial
incitation can force cement producers to close old kilns and update some other kilns.
As an example, a cement producer could keep the CO2 ETS from an old kiln for some
years after its closure.
2. The use of alternative fuel to improve energy efficiency is highly linked to the waste
supply chain. Without a policy to favour co-processing and a legislation against
landfill of waste, no CO2 can be saved. Incentives or taxes should prioritise waste
managers. Adopting this policy will also support a shift in waste heat recovery
and renewable energy, such as Energy Efficient Certificates available in some EU
countries (e.g., Italy).
3. The third method to reduce CO2 at the clinker scale is to replace the main component
of clinker and the main emitter of CO2 during calcination, i.e., the limestone. One of
the most interesting ways to do this is to replace part of the limestone with concrete
fines from demolition, which implies a good demolition process that is able to
separate the coarse aggregates, sand and cement matrix properly. Fostering local
business models between cement and demolition/recycling companies in a circular
economy approach should be performed. In a sense, what the cement industry has
been able to do very efficiently with the waste collection for alternative fuels needs
to be applied to the end of life concrete demolition to provide a continuous and
quality-controlled supply of fines from recycling that mainly contains a zero fossil
CO2 calcium source for clinker. Furthermore, focusing on recycling fines allows the
continued use of coarse recycling concrete to be valorised as aggregates or as road
base (main reuse of demolished concrete today).
4. The last technology, i.e., carbon capture and storage as post combustion, is a real
innovation that offers great potential but is not proven at large scale. Deployment of
these technologies before 2040 should be ensured. Several projects are underway
in Norway in particular, where SINTEF is currently studying the full-scale use of
CCS in power generation industries (Horizon 2020 project CEMCAP https://www.
sintef.no/cemcap). CCS can only be useful if a complete chain is available, including
transport infrastructures and suitable storage facilities. A legal framework for CO2
transport and public acceptance will be the key for application.
69
Table 7 Summary of policy suggestions at the clinker level
RELEVANT POLICY
TECHNOLOGIES BARRIERS
STAKEHOLDERS SUGGESTIONS
Kiln improvement Cement producers
Financial incentive to close

High Investment old plants (keep CO2 credits
temporarily)
Alternative fuels Waste managers
Waste supply chain Foster co processing

ine�cient Landfill regulations
(taxes)
Carbon capture Cement producers

and storage
Very high investment-not Public-private financial

proven at scale support
Societal acceptance
CO2
Alternative raw Demolition

materials company Incentivise local partnerships
between cement and waste
Need a good demolition producers (circular economy)
technique (time & cost) Landfill regulations
(taxes, legislation)
7.3. Enabling the reduction of CO2 in

cement
Another lever consists of replacing a part of the clinker in cement by substitutes,

such as fly ash, ground blast furnace slag and limestone. To date, clinker substitution
has contributed a 20-30% decrease in CO2 emissions compared to the 1980’s[63].
Unfortunately, further increases in substitution are limited by the reactivity and the
availability of classic SCMs; therefore, it will involve introducing new types of SCMs,
such as ternary blends with calcined clays and limestone. Increasing the use of calcined
clay requires an investment in clay calciners. Improving the reactivity will also involve
investments in grinder, separation, homogenisation technologies. Moreover, under the
current situation of overcapacity, there is no motivation to increase the amount of cement
that can be produced from a given quantity of clinker, which would be a consequence of
increased substitution levels.
As discussed in section 5, it is not realistic to imagine that alternative binders, such

as alkali activated materials or cements based on magnesium silicates, can make a
significant contribution before 2050. Most importantly, these technologies are limited by
lack of available resources in the EU, lack of technologies for large scale production, as
well as uncertainties about long term performance.
70
Table 8 Summary of policy suggestions at the cement level
RELEVANT POLICY
Alternative binders Cement producers
Low market penetration
Cement producers
Supplementary
Lower Reactivity = Lower Compensation for loss of
cementitious
production speed productivity
materials
Scarcity of resources = Incentives to optimise
need for new sources reactivity by better
Concrete producers (calcined clay = grinding/blending
investment in calciner for Financial incitation to
clay) invest in clay calciners
7.4. Enabling the efficient use

of cement in concrete
An improvement in the design of the concrete by optimizing the choice of aggregates

and with the help of admixtures would reduce the quantity of cement and, consequently,
CO2 emissions. On the other hand, the exposure classes of concrete determine the
minimum quantity of cement; this quantity varies from one country to another for the
same class. Moreover, it is usual practice to choose the simplest solution, which is to
use a single concrete for all the elements of a building that meets the most restrictive
exposure class and therefore contains the most cement. This practice requires several
incentives targeting different actors. Quarries should be encouraged to provide several
granular classes of aggregates. Initially, without changing standards, we would
recommend promoting the know-how in the ready-mix sector to establish a basis in
mix design and by taking into account the full carbon life cycle, including the choice of
materials. To make a real change, it would be necessary to increase the demand for
low carbon concrete by construction companies by making it interesting for engineering
firms to propose low carbon solutions (e.g., through the gain of points in tenders). In a
second step, the homogenisation of standards towards the most competitive national
standards in terms of sustainable construction as well as a more efficient approach to
sustainability could allow a more significant reduction.
71
Table 9 Summary of policy suggestions at the concrete level
RELEVANT POLICY
Concrete mix Concrete producers
design: Packing Scarcity of aggregates Require quarries located
close to urban areas to
Need space to have provide more than one
di�erent grades on site granular class
Concrete mix design: Engineering o�ce

Exposure class
XC3
More time for design
Need tracking on site Include as a criterion for
Engineering o�ces need awarding contracts
XC0 to assume risk
XC5 XC4
Overestimation Concrete producers Enforce respect of

of concrete standard (e.g., tax on
additional cement)
Perceived risk of loss of Increase demand for low
robustness carbon concrete by
incentivising construction
companies (e.g., lower
VAT)
7.5. Enabling the efficient use of concrete

in structures
Reducing CO2 emissions at the scale of the structure would mean reducing the quantity
of concrete. It is known that the quantity of concrete is often overestimated (by
approximately 20%), and part of the concrete is even unused and ends up as waste.
Moreover, part of the concrete does not necessarily contribute to the structural strength
of an element. Block et al.’s work[44], for example, perfectly illustrates that for an
element, a part of the material can be removed without compromising its integrity. The
contribution of concrete and the potential of CO2 emissions can be difficult to quantify
because it is necessary to take into account all materials in the elements; however, the
reduction in CO2 can represent several tens of percent. It is obvious for an engineering
firm to perform this structural optimisation move, and either their client has to ask, or it
must be part of the tender. In addition to progressive digitisation, the increasing use of
planning tools (BIM, Integrated Project Delivery) should be encouraged.
There is an increasing trend to recycle after demolition whereby entire concrete elements
are reused in their original form. Designing flexible building elements, an increase in
taxes for complete demolition and good deconstruction practices should be promoted.
72
Table 10 Summary of policy suggestions at the structure level
RELEVANT POLICY
Reuse of elements Demolition Promote deconstruction-
company carbon credits for reusing
Need a deconstruction elements
technique (time & cost) Tax for complete
demolition
Landfill regulations
Optimisation of Engineering o�ce

structure
Include as a criterion for
More time for design
awarding contracts
Engineering o�ces need
Foster the development of
to assume risks
Integrated Project
Delivery practices
7.6. How to track good practices and

sustainable concrete?
In recent decades, the reduction of the ecological impact of buildings has received
increased attention from researchers, decision-makers and businesses.
It focused on two strategies. The first one, which was taken with an industrial efficiency
point of view, targeted the main industry and tried to reduce their energy consumption.
As cement is an energy intensive industry, these first actions were dedicated to improving
the cement production and the cement plants. The second strategy was dedicated
to the building sector, which, from a political point of view, does not involve cement
producers, but rather real estate developers. For buildings, the main problem (or cost) is
the energy consumed during the use of the building. Therefore, this strategy focused on
the improvement of building energy efficiency through better insulation, changing the
energy technical systems from fuel to heat pump, etc.
These two approaches have fundamentally disconnected cement improvement, which

was directed by an industry efficiency approach, and building improvement, which
focused on operation energy. Over the last 10 years, with the development of sustainable
labels for buildings [64], the embodied energy associated with building material
production has been considered in combination with the operation energy but also in
combination with many other sustainability criteria. DGNB, the German sustainability
standard has, for instance, more than 200 indicators, one of them being the embodied
energy in building materials. Recently, some countries have been tempted to reduce
the number of indicators and specifically focus on the combination of embodied and
operation energy to optimise both together, which is typically the approach developed
in the Swiss 2000W society labels, where a total CO2 budget per m2 built is given and
73
has to be allocated between embodied energy, operation energy and the energy used
to commute to work. This is also the approach developed very recently in France with
the new label E+C- (energy positive carbon negative buildings), where embodied and
operation energy are considered together and compared to a global carbon budget.
However, due to this heritage of the two visions, one industry focused, the other real
estate developer focused, the different stakeholders along the complete value chain are
still not involved together along one project.
Cement producers are still focused on reducing CO2 emissions per ton of cement, while
developers will achieve a reduction of CO2/m2 by looking at all of the materials involved
in the construction, not only the concrete, and surely not by looking at which exposition
class the engineering office has specified. This reduction is currently the main barrier,
i.e., determining to involve the stakeholders that are positioned in the middle (or on the
side) of the value chain instead of those at the two opposite ends.
We propose defining specific indicators for the different stakeholders.
For the cement producer, it is important to focus on kg CO2 per ton of clinker, which is
the indicator that is directly related to the energy efficiency of the industrial process. As
mentioned, this indicator is already quite good in Europe, but small improvements are
still possible and need to be pursued. A value of 0.7 tCO2/tclinker could be achieved.
For the concrete producer, the kg cement/m3 is an obvious parameter but depends too
much on the performance of the concrete to be used as such. However, the work compiled
in the UN Environment report on Eco efficient cements [4] shows that we can use the kg
cement/m3/MPa for a given strength of concrete as a good indicator of the environmental
efficiency of the concrete. For instance, for 30 MPa concrete, Figure 29 shows that most
of standard concretes are above 8 kg Cement/m3/MPa (240 kg cement/m3), while it
is possible to reach 5 kg cement/m3/MPa for environmentally efficient concrete. This
indicator is appropriate for the concrete producer as it relies on parameters that the
concrete producer knows, i.e., the amount of cement and the strength. This indicator is
not related to upstream processes, such as the energy efficiency of the cement plant,
nor to downstream processes, such as the final use of the concrete in the building. For
a given concrete strength, it is easy to see for the concrete producer if he is producing a
good or a normal concrete.
74
Figure 29 Estimated binder intensity versus the 28-day compressive strength. The lines
represent concretes with the same amount of total cement. The black line is the lowest
amount currently used, and the blue line represents the trend of low carbon cement that
can be produced [33].
20
18
16
Binder Intensity (kg/m3.MPa)
14
12
10
0
10 30 50 70 90
Compressive Strength (MPa)
At the structural scale, the final material is the amount of concrete we use per square
metre. One can consider the kg concrete/m2, but this does not consider the strength of
the concrete. It is better to use the carbon footprint of the structure and consider the
kg CO2/m2 considering only the structure or all building materials involved. Looking at
the quantity of CO2/m2 in concrete (independent of the limit value) can favour a change
of materials (steel instead of concrete) and thus increase the risk of weakening the
demand for cement and increasing the CO2 output. The second indicator, kg CO2/m2 of
structure, reduces the risk of changing materials, but the target value is dfficult to define
in the case of integrated structural elements such as facades. Finally, the quantity of
CO2 per m2 of building allows a complete assessment. In this case, concrete is one of the
components, and there is less pressure on engineering offices and concrete companies.
The literature also gives us target values for the amount of CO2 emitted by materials
(steel and concrete) in the building and maintaining a building at less than 255 kg CO2/
m2 is possible [65,66] and will be facilitated by the use of BIM (Building Information
Modelling) to do a direct assessment and extract the bill of quantities.
75
In summary, we need different indicators that are simple to measure and are targeted
for the different stakeholders to involve the complete value chain. These indicators are
targeted for 2030 and should be regularly reviewed in line with latest scientific and
technological developments at sectoral level.
• For cement producers: tCO2/tclinker < 0.7-0.75 (Scenario 2 by 2030 – IEA-CSI

roadmap by 2030), which is the direct thermal energy efficiency measure.
• For concrete producers: achieve less than 3.5 kg clinker/m3/MPa< 3.5. for a
standard concrete (30-50 MPa).
• For engineering offices: (kg CO2/m2) structure < 250 kg [66],
• For construction companies: (kgCO2/m2)building < 500 kg at the building scale
[67]
76
77
8. Final remarks
This work has drawn on the following reports:

• IEA-CSI Technology Roadmap, 2018
• The role of cement in the 2050 LOW CARBON ECONOMY by CEMBUREAU, 2013
• The Circular Economy a Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation by Materials
Economics, 2018
• Making Concrete Change: Innovation in Low-carbon Cement and Concrete by
Chatham house, 2018
The main efforts of these reports focus on the cement scale by pushing the development of
breakthrough technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and alternative clinkers.
It is clear that these technologies will lead to very high investments and uncertainties
regarding scale up and societal acceptance. Moreover, this strategy focuses on only one
actor, i.e., the cement producers, and requires huge engagement from public institutions
(European and national) to invest in carbon storage and capture infrastructure.
In our report, we highlight the necessity of involving the complete concrete construction
value chain to spread the pressure along the stakeholder’s chain and reduce investment.
We investigated four technological levers, as follows:
• Reducing the CO2 emissions at the clinker scale by optimising the process;
• Reducing the CO2 emissions at the cement scale by reducing the clinker content in
cement;
• Reducing the CO2 emissions at the concrete scale by reducing the cement in concrete
with a better mix design (including recycling and circularity strategies); and
• Reducing the CO2 emissions at the structural scale by optimising the structure (less
concrete by element) (including recycling and circularity strategies).
Four scenarios have been considered to effectively combine these technologies to reduce
CO2 emissions depending on the investment required and the integration of different
stakeholders.
• A reference scenario: little investment in cement manufacturers to improve kiln
technologies and slightly develop the use of alternative fuels and clinker substitution.
• The Scenario 1: very strong investment for cement producers to equip their plants
with carbon capture and storage technologies as well as the market penetration of
alternative clinkers.
78
• The Scenario 2: a moderate investment distributed among the different actors

allows a significant increase of the use of alternative fuels and recycling of concrete,
in particular, the fines in the clinkerisation process. In addition, optimisation of the
concrete design mix with a better packing of aggregates and better respecting the
standards in force on the quantity of cement in concrete.
• The Scenario 3: identical to scenario 2 with a slightly higher investment at the
level of the structure (in particular the precast industry). In addition to concrete, the
structure is also optimised, and consideration is given to reusing elements.
Scenario 3 gives a CO2 emission reduction of approximately 70% since 1990 by improving
cement production and optimizing concrete and the structure. In this strategy, two main
approaches are highlighted. First, waste management that allows the following:
• the reuse of concrete fines as raw materials for cement manufacture,
• the increase in waste and biomass as fuel sources, and
• recycling concrete as aggregates or elements as such.
The second approach is compliance with good practices, including the following:
• strictly respecting the standards to reduce the amount of cement used and
• optimizing the mix design of concrete and the structure.
However, as discussed in the Chatham House report, pushing technologies at the

concrete scale, such as concrete mix design optimisation, structural optimisation
and recycling/reuse, will potentially have the effect of reducing the cement demand,
which should be taken into consideration by public authorities and avoids significant
competition for the supply of alternative fuels between industrial sectors.
Finally, in order to further reduce CO2 emissions, the use of breakthrough technologies,
such as carbon capture and storage, will be unavoidable. However, the necessary
investment can be considerable reduced if the proposed efforts in scenario 3 are
implemented. In addition, a further reduction of CO2 emissions in this scenario is possible.
The main difficulty is to propose relevant initiatives that will allow better communication
throughout the stakeholder chain.
79
9. Acknowledgement
Thank you for the support of the European Climate Foundation, in particular Rannveig
van Iterson and Simon Wolf for their involvement in the finalisation of this report.
The participants of the two workshops, the reviewers as well as the panel of experts of
the Low-Carbon Cement based materials Initiative (LCCI under UN Environment- http://
www.oneplanetnetwork.org/initiative/low-carbon-cement-based-materials-initiative-
lcci) are warmly thanked for their contribution to this project through their support and
comments. Finally, we would also like to thank the European companies and associations
for sharing their information and helping to shed light on the complexity of the sector.
80
81
10. References
[1] J.M. Allwood, A bright future for UK steel, (n.d.) 16.

[2] IEA, Energy and CO2 emissions in the OECD, 2017. https://www.iea.org/media/
statistics/Energy_and_CO2_Emissions_in_the_OECD.pdf (accessed March 19, 2018).
[3] United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision, (2011). http://
esa.un.org/unup/ (accessed July 1, 2013).
[4] K.L. Scrivener, V.M. John, E.M. Gartner, Eco-efficient cements: Potential,
economically viable solutions for a low-CO2, cement-based materials industry, United
Nations Environment Program, 2016.
[5] IEA-CSI, Technology Roadmap - Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry,
2018.
[6] Statistiques sur la population et l’évolution de la population - Statistics Explained,
(n.d.). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_and_
population_change_statistics/fr (accessed March 21, 2018).
[7] European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs,
European Economic Forecast. Summer 2018 (Interim), (n.d.) 44.
[8] L. WWF, A blueprint for a climate friendly cement industry, 2008. http://
awsassets.panda.org/downloads/englishsummary__lr_pdf.pdf (accessed March 21,
2018).
[9] M. Boyer, J.-P. Ponssard, Economic analysis of the European cement industry,
2013. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00915646 (accessed March 21, 2018).
[10] European Commission, COMMUNICATION DE LA COMMISSION AU PARLEMENT
EUROPÉEN, AU CONSEIL, AU COMITÉ ÉCONOMIQUE ET SOCIAL EUROPÉEN ET AU
COMITÉ DES RÉGIONS Feuille de route vers une économie compétitive à faible intensité
de carbone à l’horizon 2050, 2011. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0112&from=EN (accessed March 19, 2018).
[11] THE EUROPEAN CEMENT ASSOCIATION, The role of CEMENT in
the 2050 LOW CARBON ECONOMY, 2013. https://cembureau.eu/media/1500/
cembureau_2050roadmap_lowcarboneconomy_2013-09-01.pdf (accessed March 21,
2018).
[12] G. Habert, C. Billard, P. Rossi, C. Chen, N. Roussel, Cement production technology
improvement compared to factor 4 objectives, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (2010) 820–826.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.09.031.
[13] GNR Project, (n.d.). https://www.wbcsdcement.org/GNR-2015/index.html
(accessed March 21, 2018).
[14] CSI-ECRA, CSI/ECRA - Technology Papers 2017 Development of State o f the
Art Techniques in Cement Manufacturing: Trying to Look Ahead, (2017) 190.
82
[15] WBSCD Cement Sustainability Initiative, Getting the numbers right project-
Reporting CO2 2013- Excel worksheet, 2013. http://www.wbcsdcement.org/GNR-2013/
index.html.
[16] F. Branger, P. Quirion, Reaping the carbon rent: Abatement and overallocation
profits in the European cement industry, insights from an LMDI decomposition analysis,
Energy Econ. 47 (2015) 189–205. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2014.11.008.
[17] Trends in the development of electricity prices – EU Energy Outlook 2050, Energy
BrainBlog. (2017). https://blog.energybrainpool.com/en/trends-in-the-development-of-
electricity-prices-eu-energy-outlook-2050/ (accessed March 21, 2018).
[18] Eurofer, European Steel Map, (n.d.). http://www.eurofer.org/About%20us/
About%20Steel/EuropeanSteelMap.fhtml (accessed March 21, 2018).
[19] OECD/IEA, WBSCD, Cement Roadmap, 2009. https://www.iea.org/publications/
freepublications/publication/Cement.pdf.
[20] B. Lothenbach, K. Scrivener, R.D. Hooton, Supplementary cementitious materials,
Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (2011) 1244–1256. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.12.001.
[21] K. De Weerdt, M.B. Haha, G. Le Saout, K.O. Kjellsen, H. Justnes, B. Lothenbach,
Hydration mechanisms of ternary Portland cements containing limestone powder and
fly ash, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (2011) 279–291. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.014.
[22] K. Scrivener, Options for the future of cement, Indian Concr. J. (2014).
[23] K.L. Scrivener, J.D. Laffely, A. Favier, Limestone calcined clay cement, Cem. Plant
Environ. Handb. 2nd Ed. (2014) 159.
[24] K. Scrivener, F. Martirena, S. Bishnoi, S. Maity, Calcined clay limestone cements
(LC3), Cem. Concr. Res. (2017). doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.08.017.
[25] M. Schneider, M. Romer, M. Tschudin, H. Bolio, Sustainable cement
production—present and future, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (2011) 642–650. doi:10.1016/j.
cemconres.2011.03.019.
[26] C. Chen, G. Habert, Y. Bouzidi, A. Jullien, Environmental impact of cement
production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation, J.
Clean. Prod. 18 (2010) 478–485. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.014.
[27] C. Müller, Use of cement in concrete according to European standard EN 206-1,
HBRC J. 8 (2012) 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.hbrcj.2012.08.001.
[28] Passer Alexander, Deutsch Richard, Beton-LCA – Wie grün ist grau?, in: 2018.
[29] H.S. Müller, M. Haist, M. Vogel, Assessment of the sustainability potential
of concrete and concrete structures considering their environmental impact,
performance and lifetime, Constr. Build. Mater. 67 (2014) 321–337. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2014.01.039.
[30] P. Purnell, L. Black, Embodied carbon dioxide in concrete: Variation with
common mix design parameters, Cem. Concr. Res. 42 (2012) 874–877. doi:10.1016/j.
83
[31] P. Purnell, The carbon footprint of reinforced concrete, Adv. Cem. Res. 25 (2013)
362–368.
[32] S.A.A.M. Fennis, Design of ecological concrete by particle packing optimization,
Techn. Univ, Delft, 2011.
[33] B.L. Damineli, F.M. Kemeid, P.S. Aguiar, V.M. John, Measuring the eco-
efficiency of cement use, Cem. Concr. Compos. 32 (2010) 555–562. doi:10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2010.07.009.
[34] Proske Tilo, Hainer Stefan, Jakob Mathias, Garrecht Harald, Graubner Carl‐
Alexander, Stahlbetonbauteile aus klima‐ und ressourcenschonendem Ökobeton,
Beton- Stahlbetonbau. 107 (2012) 401–413. doi:10.1002/best.201200002.
[35] C.H. Goodchild, S.Ce.M. MIStructE, R.M. Webster, E. FIStructE, K.S. Elliott, T.
CEng, Economic Concrete Frame Elements to Eurocode 2, (n.d.) 192.
[36] John Orr, Minimising Energy in Construction- Survey Project MEICON,
University of Cambridge and University of Bath, n.d. https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/58f72c9a1b631bc0c1e1b84c/t/5b85fb334fa51a1080348b19/1535507448054/
MEICON+Report+Online.pdf (accessed October 2, 2018).
[37] M.C. Moynihan, J.M. Allwood, Utilization of structural steel in buildings, Proc R
Soc A. 470 (2014) 20140170. doi:10.1098/rspa.2014.0170.
[38] C.F. Dunant, M.P. Drewniok, S. Eleftheriadis, J.M. Cullen, J.M. Allwood, Regularity
and optimisation practice in steel structural frames in real design cases, Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 134 (2018) 294–302. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.009.
[39] J.J. Orr, A. Darby, T.J. Ibell, M. Evernden, M. Otlet, Concrete structures using fabric
formwork, (2017). doi:10.17863/cam.17019.
[40] I. Paya, V. Yepes, F. González-Vidosa, A. Hospitaler, Multiobjective optimization
of concrete frames by simulated annealing, Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 23
(2008) 596–610. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.2008.00561.x.
[41] D. Yeo, R.D. Gabbai, Sustainable design of reinforced concrete structures through
embodied energy optimization, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 2028–2033. doi:10.1016/j.
enbuild.2011.04.014.
[42] De Wolf, Catherine, Optimization in Structures Scenario, (2018).
[43] Shanks William, Cyrille François Dunant, Michał P Drewniok, Richard C Lupton,
André Serrenho, Julian M Allwood, How much cement can we do without? Lessons from
cement material flows in the UK, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Submitted (2018).
[44] Block Research Group, (n.d.). http://block.arch.ethz.ch/brg/ (accessed July 20,
2018).
[45] G. Camarsa, J. Toland, J. Eldridge, LIFE and the circular economy, Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017.
[46] S. Marinković, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, I. Ignjatović, Comparative environmental
assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete, Waste Manag. 30 (2010)
2255–2264. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012.
84
[47] Rapports RECYBETON, RECYBETON. (n.d.). https://www.pnrecybeton.fr/

publications/rapports-recybeton/ (accessed October 1, 2018).
[48] C. Pellegrino, F. Faleschini, Recycled Aggregates for Concrete Production: State-
of-the-Art, in: Sustain. Improv. Concr. Ind., Springer International Publishing, Cham,
2016: pp. 5–34. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28540-5_2.
[49] 貴文野口, 明男小山, 康範鈴木, Japanese Industrial Standards of Recycled
Aggregate and Recycled Concrete using Recycled Aggregate, コンクリート工学. 45
(2007) 5–12. doi:10.3151/coj1975.45.7_5.
[50] M. Moynihan, Material Efficiency in Construction, University of Cambridge, 2014.
[51] E. Gartner, T. Sui, Alternative cement clinkers, Cem. Concr. Res. (2017).
doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.002.
[52] J.L. Provis, Alkali-activated materials, Cem. Concr. Res. (2017). doi:10.1016/j.
[53] E.C. BV, Welcome to EMC Cement BV - Sweden | March 22 - 16:51:37, (n.d.).
http://www.emccement.com/ (accessed March 22, 2018).
[54] M. BenHaha, M. Zajac, Alternative hydraulic binders: challenges and
opportunities, in: 2018.
[55] K. Garbev, G. Beuchle, U. Schweike, D. Merz, O. Dregert, P. Stemmermann,
Preparation of a Novel Cementitious Material from Hydrothermally Synthesized C–S–H
Phases, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 97 (2014) 2298–2307. doi:10.1111/jace.12920.
[56] T. Link, F. Bellmann, H.M. Ludwig, M. Ben Haha, Reactivity and phase composition
of Ca2SiO4 binders made by annealing of alpha-dicalcium silicate hydrate, Cem. Concr.
Res. 67 (2015) 131–137. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.08.009.
[57] U. Dewald, M. Achternbosch, Why more sustainable cements failed so far?
Disruptive innovations and their barriers in a basic industry, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
19 (2016) 15–30. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2015.10.001.
[58] R. Agarwal, S. Ch, rasekaran, M. Sridhar, Imagining construction’s digital future
| McKinsey & Company, (n.d.). https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-
and-infrastructure/our-insights/imagining-constructions-digital-future (accessed March
20, 2018).
[59] Material Economics, The Circular Economy a Powerful Force for Climate
Mitigation, n.d. http://materialeconomics.com/publications/the-circular-economy
(accessed June 21, 2018).
[60] Anonymous, 2050 low-carbon economy, Clim. Action - Eur. Comm. (2016).
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en (accessed July 4, 2018).
[61] Chen Qian, Zhang Shoujian, Developing an RFID-Based Man?Tool
Safety Management System on a Construction Site, ICCREM 2015. (n.d.).
doi:10.1061/9780784479377.028.
[62] B.G. de Soto, A. Rosarius, J. Rieger, Q. Chen, B.T. Adey, Using a Tabu-search
Algorithm and 4D Models to Improve Construction Project Schedules, Procedia Eng. 196
(2017) 698–705. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.236.
85
[63] Johanna Lehne, Felix Preston, Making Concrete Change: Innovation in Low-
carbon Cement and Concrete, Chatham House. (n.d.). https://www.chathamhouse.org//
node/37053 (accessed July 5, 2018).
[64] M. Buyle, J. Braet, A. Audenaert, Life cycle assessment in the construction
sector: A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 26 (2013) 379–388. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2013.05.001.
[65] C. (Catherine E.L. De Wolf, Low carbon pathways for structural design  : embodied
life cycle impacts of building structures, Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
2017. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/111491 (accessed July 17, 2018).
[66] C. De Wolf, F. Pomponi, A. Moncaster, Measuring embodied carbon dioxide
equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of current industry practice, Energy Build.
140 (2017) 68–80. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.075.
[67] Société à 2000 watts, Energiestadt. (n.d.). https://www.local-energy.swiss/fr/
programme/2000-watt-gesellschaft (accessed October 2, 2018).
[68] Jost Lemke, Calcined Clays: Performance evaluation as supplementary
cementitious material, (2016).

86
87
11. ANNEX 1: Model
The equation to calculate the tonne of CO2 per year is as follows:
This can be translated with technologies, as follows:
Dry technologies Alternative fuels Alternative raw materials Carbon capture % SCM substitution
and storage
( )x(1- )x(1- )
tCO2/ tcement= x + CO2
Exposure class Improved packing
(1- )x
% SCM substitution Alternative binders XC3
tCO2/ y = tCO2/tcement x tCO2 x tCO2 x tCement/y x XC5

XC0
-XC4
Optimization Re-use of
(1- )
cement
With:
Dry technologies
Mj/t Clinker
88
Data from CSI-GNR: 25aAGK and 8TGK% for EU 28
VALUE AVERAGE AV. MAX.AV.

KILN TECHNOLOGIES
MJ/tCk 1990 2015 2015
Dry with preheater and precalciner 3541
Dry with preheater without 3664

precalciner
Dry without preheater (long dry kiln) 3831

3960.26 3702.77 3565.6
Mixed 4000
Semi wet 4176
Wet kiln 5505
Further development of these technologies described in the CSI-ECRA technologies

papers[14] can potentially reach 3200 MJ/tCk.
Alternative fuels
tCO2/MJ
Data from Habert et al.[57].
VALUE AVERAGE AV. MAX.AV.

KILN TECHNOLOGIES
tCO2/MJ 1990 2015 2015
Coal 9.60E-05
Petcoke 1.01E-04
9.40E-05 7.60E-05 4.71E-05
Natural gas 5.40E-05
Waste + Biomass 3.50E-05

89

Data from Habert et al.[57].
Limestone Recycling fines
0.53 tCO2/t 0 tCO2/t
% SCM substitution
Data (from Thyssen Krupp [68]).
Calcined clay Other SCM
0.25 tCO2/t c 0 tCO2/t
Hypotheses: Market penetration of calcined clay =18% (adapted for EU from IEA-CSI
roadmap[5])
Demand in cement – Data from CSI-GNR EU 28 : 21TGWcm.
1990 2015 2050
222000000 t 157000000 t 157000000 t
Alternative binders
KILN TECHNOLOGIES MARKET PENETRATION POTENTIAL VALUE

TO REDUCE EMISSIONS
COMPARED TO
2030 2050 PORTLAND CLINKER
Calcium sulfo aluminates 5% 10% 20%
Carbonatable calcium silicate clinker 5% 10% 70%
Alkali activated binders 1% 2% 50%
Magnesium silicate clinkers 0% 0% 100%
Hydrothermal calcium silicate clinkers 1% 3% 15%

90
kg process CO2/t binding material
600
500
Potential comparative
400
process CO2 savings
300 Process CO2 intensity
200 Commercial
100 Demonstration-pilot phase
0 R&D phase
PC clinker Belite CSA BCSA CACS MOMS Alkali-activated
clinker clinker clinker clinker clinker clinker
AVERAGE 520 kgCO2/t alt binders 490 kgCO2/t alt binders
Figure 30 Process CO2 emissions generation intensity for selected cement binding
materials
Average potential value based on the IEA-CSI roadmap [5] (Figure 30) and UN
Environment report.
Improved packing
Data from Damineli et al.[33] and the UNEP Report[4]
2015 2050
8 kgcement/m3/MPa 4 kgcement/m3/MPa
Hypotheses: concerned 50 % of total concrete in a building and concerned 50 % of

market penetration.
Exposure class
XC3
XC0
XC5 XC4
Data from national annexes of EN 206-1.
2015 2050
8 kgcement/m3/MPa 4 kgcement/m3/MPa
Hypotheses: concerned 50 % of total concrete in a building and concerned 50 % of

market penetration.
91
92
12. Definition and glossary
Clinker is a component of cement, which is produced by calcining a mixture of about

80% limestone (which provides calcium) and 20% aluminosilicates.
Cement is a hydraulic binder (which hardens under the action of water), which is
nowadays most often used in the manufacture of blocks, reinforced concrete, paving,
plasters and mortars. Cements are currently classified under the name “CEM” followed
by a Roman numeral from I to VI followed by a capital letter according to their clinker
content and other components (lime, silica fumes, pozzolan, blast furnace slag, etc.).
Concrete is a composite material composed of fine and coarse aggregate bonded

together with a fluid cement (cement paste) that hardens over time.
AAB Alkali activated binders
BIBM European Federation for Precast Concrete
BFS Blast furnace slag
BYF Belite ye’elimite ferrite
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CCSC Carbonatable calcium silicate clinker
CEMBUREAU European Association of cement industries
CSI Cement Sustainable Initiative
ECOBA European Coal Combustion Products Association
ECRA European Cement Research Academy

93
ERMCO European ready mix concrete organisation
EUROSLAG European association of ferrous slag products
FA Fly ash
GNR Getting the number right (database of CSI)
IEA International Energy Agency
IPCC International Panel of Climate Change
LCA Life Cycle Analysis
MOMS Magnesium oxides derived from magnesium silicates
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PC Portland cement
SCM Supplementary cementitious material
UN Environment United Nations Environmental Programme
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development

94
95

AB SP Decarbonisation Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AB SP Decarbonisation Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AB SP Decarbonisation Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR

THE EUROPEAN CEMENT AND

Technology assessment for full decarbonisation

Prof. Karen SCRIVENER is Professor and Head of Laboratory of Construction Materials,

An important message communicated in this report is to show that reduction efforts

Levers for CO2 reduction along the construction value chain

Representation of the cementitious construction value chain used in this report

We identify 10 technologies (kiln improvement, alternative fuels, recycling fines as

Reference scenario is based on the IEA-CSI Roadmap 2018 reference scenario. It

Scenario 1: “Breakthrough technologies” will require massive investment by cement

Scenario 3: “Structural optimisation and circular economy principles”, similar to scenario

Figure 2 CO2 savings by 2050 a) as a function of scenarios and b) as function of

a) CO2 saved by 2050

CO2 emission reduction

Figure 3 How to achieve the 1.5°C and well-below 2°C target?

Summary of the key recommendations

At the clinker scale

Cement producers Introduce financial incentives to

At the cement scale

Cement and concrete Incentive to invest in better grinders

At the concrete and structure scale

Concrete producers, Encourage communication between

• For cement producers: a clinker with less than 0.7 t CO2/tclinker

• For concrete producers: a standard concrete containing less than 3.5 kg

• For structural engineers: a structure containing less than 250 kg CO2/ m2

• For construction companies: a building containing less than 500 kg CO2/m2

Figure 1 EU OECD countries’ CO2 emissions by sector (source:[2])

11% Energy supply

Industry w/o cement

These materials are then incorporated into a multitude of construction products.

2. The European cement and

2.1. World situation and UNEP report

In 2015, a group mandated by UN Environment published the report “Eco-Efficient

Figure 3 Projection of cement demand from the IEA-CSI report[5]

6000 World high-varisbility

4000 Middle East

2014 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

• increasing the substitution of clinker by supplementary cementitious

2.2. The European situation

Figure 4 Projection of cement demand from the IEA-CSI report[5]

100 Estimated capacity

3. Levels of intervention for CO2

4. Technologies applicable at the

4.1. Clinker level

Figure 5 Evolution of cement kiln technologies [13]

Wet /shaft kiln Semi wet/semi dry

Mixed kiln type Dry without precalciner

40%-60% Developed regions

2006 2030 2050

4.2. Cement level

The so called CEM I (ordinary Portland cement) contains 95 % clinker. European

Figure 8 Cement type sold in Europe in 2015 (Source: Cembureau)

CEM III - Blast

Figure 9 Fuel mix forecast in Europe from Energy Brainpool [17]

nuclear lignite hard coal gas hydro wind solar other

Dredging sediments are also a potential resource, as Europe generates approximately

Improving reactivity with efficient grinding and separated

Figure 12 Electrical energy demand for cement production [11]

4.3 Concrete level