cement industry draft standard and results of field tests · pdf fileexcluding heat export ......
TRANSCRIPT
Cement industryDraft standard and results of field testsRob van der MeerNovember 24th, 2014
Composition subgroup 3 - cement
Associations 4 members Measurement expert 1 member Industry 7/8 members ISO representative 1 member (Japan) Chinese representatives 2 members (one meeting)
Secretary Convenor
Target dates WG 33 subgroup cementAction Original date Updated date
Specification of the verification work March 2012 March 2012Start call for tender June 2012 July 2012Evaluation of responses to call for tender August 2012 October 2012 Complete formulation and planning of 1st field test November 2012 April 2013Initial report on outcome of planning and formulation (selected site, methods, supplementary data)
December 2012
1st field test February 2013 May/June 2013Evaluation of 1st field test April 2013 June/July 2013Reporting (interim report) – including requirements for 2nd field test and conclusions for inputs to standard
May 2013 May 2013
2nd field test Septemb. 2013 February 2014
Evaluation 2nd field test December 2013 May/June 2014Review of all verification work programme and conclusions for inputs to standard
February 2014 August 2014
2nd report to Commission May 2014 May 2014
CO2 emissions of cement production
30% fuel energy
Process emissions 60%from calcination of raw meal (limestone) 10% electrical power
indirect emissions
quarryCrusher
cement-clinker
cement
cement mill
raw mill
calci-nation
clinker burning
cementconstituants
crusher fan
filter
rotary kiln
CaCO3 => CaO + CO2
∑ ~ 650 kg CO2/t cement (CSI 2011)
Slide 4 CEN TC264 WG33 / CementRob van der Meer - 24/11/2014
The Cement CO2 and Energy Protocol
CO2 and Energy Accounting and Reporting Standard
Harmonized and transparent methodology for calculating CO2emissions and energy use
Addresses all direct and the main indirect sources of CO2 emissions related to cement manufacturing
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in absolute as well as in specific or product unit-based terms
And….. a global database (GNR)
Changes from CO2 protocol to CEN standard1. Standardization texts
– Definitions, references, other standards2. Changes of definitions to EN 197-1
– Cement, Cement (eq), Cementitious products
– Clinker substitutes -> cement constituents3. Emissions
– Absolute gross– Gross emissions– Net emissions
Excluding on site power export Excluding heat export Excluding other emissions.
4. Field tests5. Uncertainty assessments
Verification tests in the cement industry
11/11/2014Slide 7 CEN TC264 WG33 / Cement
Rob van der Meer -
System Boundaries - Scope of plant tests:Clinker production and Cement production processes
excludedquarries
On-site powergeneration
Raw material preparation
Fuel preparation in the plant
Room heatingMobile transport
Slide 8 CEN TC264 WG33 / CementRob van der Meer - 11/11/2014
Operational boundaries (1/2)Process Step Scope Category Remarks
Quarrying and Transport of Raw Materials to Plant
Quarrying of Raw Materials
Scope 1 Quarries managed by the company Direct Emissions
Scope 2 Crushing managed by the company Indirect Emissions
Scope 3 Quarries not managed by the company Indirect Emissions
Raw Materials Transport Scope 1 Lorries managed by the company Direct Emissions
Scope 2 Belt conveyer managed by the company Indirect Emissions
Scope 3 Lorries/ Belt conveyer not managed by the company Indirect Emissions
Clinker Production
Raw Materials Drying Scope 1 Direct Emissions
Fuels Preparation
Scope 1 Installations managed by the company Direct Emissions
Scope 3 Installations not managed by the company Indirect Emissions
Fuels for Kiln Scope 1 Installations managed by the company
Direct Emissions(“heat transferred to external activities” is required for KPIs calculation)
Calcinations Scope 1Direct Emissions(Calcinations rate of CKD should be considered )
Power Consumption of Clinker Production
Scope 2 Indirect Emissions
Operational boundaries (2/2)Process Step Scope Category Remarks
Cement Production
Drying of MIC Scope 1 Direct EmissionsPower Consumption of Cement Production
Scope 2 Indirect Emissions
Shipping, Room Heating and Transport in Plant
Packaging and Dispatch
Scope 1 Lorries managed by the company Direct Emissions
Scope 2 Belt conveyer managed by the company Indirect Emissions
Scope 3 Lorries/ Belt conveyer not managed by the company Indirect Emissions
Room Heating&Cooling Scope 1 Direct Emissions
Mobile Transport
Scope 1 Lorries managed by the company Direct Emissions
Scope 2 Belt conveyer managed by the company Indirect Emissions
Scope 3 Lorries/ Belt conveyer not managed by the company Direct Emissions
Onsite Power Generation andWaste Heat Recovery Scope 1
Direct Emissions(Power exported to external activities is required for KPIs calculation)
Imported Clinker Scope 3 Indirect Emissions
Examples of alternative fuels
“Complex” plant: CBR-HeidelbergCement Lixhe, Belgium
Visit of local authority and DG ENT, European Commission
Preparatory meeting in Lixhe in April 2013
12
Direct CO2 emissions determined by five methods
Input Mass Balance Output Mass Balance Stack Emissions
A1Simple
LOIraw mealAnalysis
A2DetailedTCraw mealAnalysis
B1Simple
StandardCO2 EF
B2Detailed
CaO, MgOAnalysis
StStack
Velocity,CO2, CO
Two 48h-kiln tests have been conducted in each a plant with simple and one with complex
configuration (mainly regarding raw materials and fuels)
Direct CO2 emission, close agreement of all results, differences < 2.5 % within expanded uncertainties
refe
renc
e
*
simple settingverification dataadditional plant datauncertainty assessmentreference value 1,00uncertainty not assessed*
Input mass balance Input mass balance Stackemissions
Direct CO2 emission, close agreement of all results, differences < 2.5 % within expanded uncertainties
refe
renc
e
Plantstandard method
Kiln feed input scale
control VelocitySRM
verification dataadditional plant datauncertainty assessmentreference value 1,00uncertainty not assessed*
*
All five methods proposed for cement plants by SG 3 are very suitable for determining CO2 emissions.
simple setting
Plant B - Complicated test setting:Alternative raw materials & fuels
4th plant test: + coal grinding + tyres
Input
Output
Stack
FuelsInput
combustion related GHG emissions
process related GHG emissions
Direct CO2 emission, close agreement of 8 results, differences < 2.5 % within expanded uncertainties
refe
renc
e
complicated setting
*
verification dataadditional plant datauncertainty assessmentreference value 1,00uncertainty not assessed*
Input mass balance Input mass balance Stackemissions
Direct CO2 emission, close agreement of 8 results, differences < 2.5 % within expanded uncertainties
refe
renc
e
*Methods proposed for cement plants by SG 3 are well applicable in complicated plant setting with significant share of alternative
raw materials and fuels.Lab experience with raw meal and clinker matrix required!
verification dataadditional plant datauncertainty assessmentreference value 1,00uncertainty not assessed*
complicated setting
Cement plant stack measurements confirmed no relevance of non-CO2 GHG’s (CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, PFCs)
Stack Measurement of CO2, CO and non-CO2 greenhouse gases 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th test
Component mass flow
Result GWP [CO2eq]IPCC AR5
CO2 equivalent emissions [CO2eq]
Relative uncertaintyincluding uncertainty of velocity SRM (pitot tube)
CO2 measured 1 99.4%…99.8% 5.2… 9.5%*
CO measured 1 0.08%…0.15% 12…48%**
CH4 at LOD 28 < 0.01% ≥ 50%
N2O at LOD 265 ≤ 0.02%… ≤ 0.4% ≥ 50%
SF6 not detected 23500 n.a. n.a.
HFC not detected ≥ 140 n.a. n.a.
PFC not detected ≥ 6500 n.a. n.a.
* close to LOD of stack gas velocity** close to LOD of CO measurements
non-
CO
2G
HG
s at LOD< 0.5 %
≥ 99.5%
Objective: The participants will obtain an overview of different
greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting approaches and experiences with their application in the cement sector. The latest developments in monitoring methods and measurements will also be presented and discussed.
Description: In the light of an international agreement on climate change
or a sectorial approach, efficient procedures, their comparability and the verification of GHG emissions will become key elements. The seminar will give an overview of the existing M&R approaches and their application in the cement sector. Examples will include version 3.1 of the CO2 Protocol of the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS, phase III) and reporting in the framework of CDM/JI projects. In addition, technical developments and current European standardisation works in the field of CO2 monitoring will be introduced. The seminar includes a visit to the Kamari plant of TITAN Cement in Elefsina, Greece.
http://www.ecra-online.org/238/
ECRA Seminar: CO2 Monitoring and Reporting: Latest Developments and Experiences, Athens, 12-13 June 2014
New feeding line for tires, Kamari cement plant, in Elefsina near Athens, Greece, www.titan.gr
Option for new seminar on international standard, when published, 2016
10
August 2014scale adjustment
Tara 10 10
December 2014scale adjustment
Tara 10 10
April 2015scale adjustment
Tara 10
10.20 9.97 9.95 10.01 10.15 9.98
0%
-3%
+3%
scalecleaning
+2.0 % -0.5 % +1.5 %average scale error (± 95% confidence interval): +1.0 (±1.5) % => uncertainty U= 2.5 %
Practitioners seminar on scales and dosing technology, including procedures for quality assurance of metering
scalecleaning
Conclusions1. Surprise: High added value of the field tests !
2. Non CO2-Green House Gases are less relevant in cement.
3. Input and output mass balances deliver highly reliable values.Measurements, especially gas volume measurement are less reliable.
4. CO2 standard now available as draftDifferent to CO2 protocol of WBCSD/CSIDifferent to EU ETS Monitoring & Reporting Regulation Different to Chinese standard, Californian system, EPA, etc.
5. CO2 protocol used worldwide: NAM, Japan, China….. = Challenge for draft standard !
6. Missing: Calculation toolDevelopment needed to implement worldwide one uniform system
Biogenic fraction of direct CO2 emissions8 alternative fuels, 5 with biogenic fraction incl. tyres
AdditionalMeasurements:
17.7
±2%
Biogenic fuel selective dissolution analysis and standard factors
for tyres
Stackmeasuremen
t for 2nd
revision
±2%
Both methods for biogenic fraction seem to agree and perform
relatively well.
18.8
±2%
Gas sample14C analysis