Umashankar Choudhary, Plant Unit Head, Muddapur, JK Cement, sheds light on the various aspects of using alternative fuels and raw materials at a cement plant, from sourcing the right materials to maintaining safety parameters.
What types of alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR) does your company use in cement production, and in what proportion? Our company uses almost all kinds of plastic wastes, non-hazardous and hazardous waste and some amount of biomass. The process of using AFR in the kiln started full-fledged at JK Cement in April 2018 after commissioning of a dedicated AFR feeding system. We initially focused on using plastic waste, shredded RDF. Slowly and gradually we increased our capacity, manpower, machinery and then started using hazardous solid AFR. For the processing of hazardous waste, we needed impregnation material like biomass viz rice husk, saw dust, wood chips etc. So, we started utilising them in smaller proportions. And with the experience so far, now we are consuming around 20 per cent to 25 per cent of hazardous solid waste, 40 per cent 50 per cent MSW/RDF waste, and 20 per cent to 25 per cent non-hazardous solid wastes.
What factors do you consider when selecting alternative fuels and raw materials for use in cement production? We started our journey way back in 2015-16 with a starter kit system where the AFR was just begun to be used in our group. Generally we considered using biomass with less moisture like rice husk, saw dust, ground nut husk etc. These biomasses are easy to handle and feed. They need less infrastructure for feeding. But with the growing aspirations and increase in the fuel costs we established a full-fledged AFR feeding system. Hence, the volume and type of the AFR’s used varied from numbers of 3-4 to more than 20 different types of wastes (industrial, MSW/RDF/ MLP’s etc.). There are many factors to consider before selecting the AFR for use in cement production. But the major ones are calorific value, moisture, ash, chloride and sulphur, additionally compatibility test a flash point analysis for the liquid waste streams from the quality point of view.
How do you ensure the quality and safety of alternative fuels and raw materials used in cement production? Safety and quality form the basis of AFR usage across the cement plants. Same is the case in our plant, too. First and foremost, we use only the alternative fuels that are authorised by CPCB/SPCB, the basis for the authorisation are the coprocessing trials taken across different cement kilns in India. The purpose of the trials was to ensure that the waste co-processed safely in terms of safety, quality, environmental norms etc. Even for this waste we do have our process trials and we have got a full-fledged AFR lab at our plant, which confirms the detailed analysis of waste used. The analysis is done prior to taking the waste first time and also regular monitoring of the quality of the AFR is done on every consignment basis. Dedicated laboratory and skilled manpower are engaged for testing the quality of AFR fed, and received and the one that is stored. The safety at AFR is the most important factor to be considered while handling AFR. There is a big risk of fire with the small amount of AFR that we handle. Hence, we have got a full-fledged automatic fire detection and suppression system for the AFR storage area, AFR feeding areas and the AFR shredding systems. There is round the clock monitoring of the storage yard through CCTV cameras. Special kinds of PPEs such as canister masks, goggles, nitrile hand gloves and full body suits are given to the workers engaged in AFR handling.
What is your company’s current policy regarding the use of alternative fuels and raw materials in cement production? JK Cement is working towards a very ambitious journey in co-processing of AFR. We have invested in the AFR journey to a much greater extent compared to most of the cement companies in India. We are targeting for higher TSR up to 60 per cent in the years to come. We have already commissioned a chlorine bypass system (CBS) for enhancing the AFR utilisation capacity. Our CBS system is having two ducts for collecting the inlet gases. This is first-of-its-kind in the world. And we have already reached our mile stone of achieving more than 30 per cent TSR. Now we want to further optimise this and take this journey aggressively forward.
What steps have you taken to minimise the environmental impact of your cement production process, particularly in relation to the use of alternative fuels and raw materials? When we are talking about co-processing of alternative fuels and raw materials, the first thing that comes to mind is that we are helping to minimise greenhouse gases and also to conserve natural resources with utilisation of all kinds of AFRs in the cement kiln. As I mentioned earlier, the wastes that are co-processed are in line with the permissions granted by the Government regulatory bodies (CPCB/SPCB). Apart from this the plant has installed adequate infrastructure with huge capacity sheds with impervious floorings, leachate collection pits and necessary firefighting arrangements to minimise the impacts on the environment. Our systems are operated from CCR and there are least manual interventions at every location. There is continuous monitoring and systematic storage of all the wastes that are to be co-processed in the cement kiln. Further the utilisation of AFR has helped us in reducing the NOx emission to much greater levels. This ensures the emissions are always within the limits which are monitored from CEMS online.
Have you faced any challenges or barriers when using alternative fuels and raw materials in cement production, and if so, how have you overcome them? Definitely, while utilising the alternative fuels and raw materials there are bound to be challenges. Since the material is of not uniform quality we need to have special infrastructure, systems to handle the challenges while dealing with AFR. The major challenges that we face while utilising AFR can be summaries in the following heads as below:
Build up and blockages, refractory issues: Some of the plants having high percentage TSR are facing coating issues on the refractory lining inside the kiln system due to RDF usage. The presence of high content of chlorine and alkalis in RDF, which combined with petcoke sulfur resulting in coating formation. Circulation of volatile salts increases and clogging arises in lower preheater cyclones and riser pipes.
Compatibility of waste with cement quality: Having high content of major oxides in the Waste actually helps sometimes in the cement quality to use them as Lime replacing alternative raw material or corrective alternative raw materials if it is rich in Iron and alumina. Sometimes the material is rich in more than one constituent of cement, in such cases it becomes difficult to design the raw mix and hence detailed study must be done and evaluated based on the raw mix design before utilisation.
Wear and tear of equipment used for waste processing: AFR has different foreign materials like silt, glass, metal pieces so it makes heavy wear and tear of pre-processing equipment like shredder, trommel, belt conveyor etc.
Availability of odour control system at storage sites: Presence of high moisture and organic contaminants result in the nuisance due to odour during handling of AFR material. Presently very few technologies are available to combat this issue of odor control. Few of them are: use of zeolite mesh at the storage sheds, use of odour control liquids that mask the odour molecules, use of odour reducing materials for spraying on stored heaps of waste to eat away organic contents by bacteria etc.
Do you collaborate with other companies or organisations to identify and implement best practices in the use of alternative fuels and raw materials in cement production? We do collaborate with the esteemed organisations like CII and other reputed universities, consultants continuously to get in touch with the best practices followed across the world. And there is active participation of ours at various seminars and conferences to have the most learning to be implemented in our organisation.
How do you see the use of alternative fuels and raw materials in cement production evolving in the future, and what role do you think your company will play in this process? Looking at the present scenario, AFR is the new fuel and fuel of this era. Just like pet coke seemed to be impossible to be used in the cement industry because of its drastic difference in the properties as compared to traditional coal. We can say that, AFR is the new pet coke. There were no pre-processing facilities specially in India. Now after the lead taken by some of the government bodies like at Indore viz Indore model, many startups have come up with the facilities only for pre-processing of the plastic waste. There is deep research and consultation with the cement industries with many catalyst bodies like CII, CMA bringing up the utilisation of plastics waste/ RDF into the cement industries, co-processing has become the most preferred choice to reduce the production cost and conserve the resources at the larger level. JK Cement has been coprocessing the AFR at almost all the integrated cement plants. JK Cement is and will be the pioneer in adapting the new technologies available across the globe to increase the use of alternative fuels and raw materials. This has been demonstrated at all our plants and the path that we are treading is one that very few ambitious leaders like JK Cement choose.
Indian Cement Review (ICR) and Fuller Technologies brought industry, policy and technology leaders together to discuss how cement innovation can drive green construction at scale, writes Rakesh Rao.
India is building at a pace few countries can match. Highways, airports, housing, logistics parks, industrial corridors and urban infrastructure are reshaping the country’s economic geography. But beneath this growth story lies a difficult question: can India continue to build at scale without locking itself into a high-carbon future?
That question formed the core of an online panel discussion titled “Driving Green Construction Through Cement Innovation”, organised by Indian Cement Review (ICR) in association with Fuller Technologies as the Presenting Partner on June 25, 2026. The webinar brought together experts from cement technology, R&D, global industry platforms, building performance policy and international development cooperation to examine how low-carbon cement and material innovation can accelerate India’s green construction transition.
The discussion came at a crucial time. India has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 and reducing the carbon intensity of its economy by 45 per cent by 2030. At the same time, the country’s construction sector is expanding rapidly, driven by urbanisation, infrastructure development, housing demand and industrial growth. Cement, as one of the most widely used construction materials, sits at the heart of this transition. It is indispensable to development, but also central to the challenge of reducing embodied carbon in buildings and infrastructure.
Moderated by Nitika Krishan, Senior Urban Infrastructure and Sustainable Policy Consultant, the panel featured:
Dr Hemantkumar Aiyer, VP and Head R&D, Nuvoco Vistas Corp Ltd;
Devika Wattal, Innovation Lead, Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA);
Dr Sunita Purushottam, MD, GBPN India (Global Buildings Performance Network); and
Vaibhav Rathi, Senior Technical Advisor, GIZ (the German Agency for International Cooperation)
Setting the tone for the discussion, Nitika Krishan underlined the scale of the challenge before the sector. “The question before us is no longer whether we build, but how we build sustainably,” she said. She pointed out that construction accounts for nearly 40 per cent of global energy-related carbon emissions when both operational and embodied carbon are considered. Cement production, she added, remains one of the hardest industrial processes to decarbonise.
For India, this is not merely an environmental issue. It is a development issue, a competitiveness issue and increasingly, a market issue. As one of the world’s largest cement producers and among the fastest-growing construction markets, India’s material choices will influence the carbon trajectory of its built environment for decades. As Krishan observed, sustainability solutions in economies such as India must not remain limited to laboratory success. They must be scalable, commercially viable and practical at national level.
The innovation gap: From technology to market
Experts believe that there is a need to bridge the innovation gaps for making decarbonisation in cement and concrete scalable. Devika Wattal of GCCA, explained, “The starting point must be the core cement manufacturing process itself. The first and foremost is the heart of our process, the heart of cement manufacturing. How do we reduce clinker? That is always a topic where industry is working very intrinsically.”
Clinker reduction remains one of the most important pathways for lowering emissions in cement. Since clinker production is energy-intensive and chemically emits carbon dioxide, reducing the clinker factor through supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), blended cements and new chemistries can have a significant impact. Wattal also noted that carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) will have a role, though it may not be the first lever for all markets.
However, she stressed that innovation cannot stop at technology development. A solution that works in the lab must also be adaptable to industry, scalable in production and acceptable in construction practice. “It is important for that innovation to be adaptable, to be scalable, and so that it can be executed in real time,” she said.
Wattal also called for stronger enabling systems around innovation. These include performance-based standards, product-level embodied carbon databases and clearer frameworks for evaluating green materials. Without these, low-carbon cement products may struggle to compete with conventional materials in procurement and design.
R&D must balance carbon, cost and performance
Bringing in the R&D perspective into the discussion, Dr Hemantkumar Aiyer of Nuvoco Vistas emphasised that low-carbon cement development cannot be treated as a single-variable exercise. Cement must perform in real construction conditions. It must deliver strength, durability, consistency and cost competitiveness, while also reducing carbon.
“The root of understanding and balancing all these aspects lies in materials, and knowing the materials,” he said.
According to Dr Aiyer, R&D teams must understand the variability of raw materials such as fly ash, slag and clinker. Different sources produce different material behaviours. This makes mix optimisation, material characterisation and processing-property relationships critical. When performance is affected, cement manufacturers must understand how strength enhancers, admixtures and other performance chemicals interact with the material system.
He also linked material science with process efficiency. Clinkerisation takes place at extremely high temperatures, around 1,400 to 1,450 degrees Celsius. Any improvement in raw mix design, process control or energy optimisation can, therefore, help reduce emissions and cost. Dr Aiyer pointed to artificial intelligence-based optimisation, Cement 4.0 tools and advanced software as important enablers for real-time process and material control.
“The more you understand the materials, the more you can control it,” he said.
LC3: The promise is proven, the sequencing is not
Limestone calcined clay cement, commonly referred to as LC3, has attracted global attention because it can reduce clinker content significantly by using calcined clay and limestone while maintaining performance in many applications. Kiranmai Sanagavarapu of Fuller Technologies said the technology itself has already moved beyond proof of concept. Fuller Technologies has worked with calcined clay technology for nearly two decades and has seen plants running in France and Ghana. These plants, she said, are meeting local and national specifications, while the economics are beginning to make sense.
“The calciner is performing, the economics is stacking up, it is making business sense to produce,” she said.
But if the technology is viable, why has adoption not scaled faster? For Sanagavarapu, the answer lies in project sequencing. Too often, clay characterisation happens after equipment is specified. This, she warned, is a backward approach because calciner design depends on clay mineralogy, kaolinite content, iron levels, reactivity, moisture and other variables.
“If you don’t know what your deposit looks like before you commit for the equipment, you are, in a way, going blind into designing,” she said.
She also identified permitting and plant integration as major bottlenecks. Environmental clearances, mining permissions and local regulatory approvals must begin early. Similarly, calcined clay must be integrated into existing grinding, blending and logistics systems from the design stage, not treated as an afterthought during commissioning.
India already has IS 18189:2023 standard for LC3, but Sanagavarapu pointed out that the standard is not yet visible enough in procurement documents. “The gap between what is technically being permitted and what the procurement is asking is the single biggest bottleneck,” she said.
In her view, successful scale-up depends on getting the sequence right: clay characterisation first, permitting in parallel, standards aligned with construction, and integration built into plant design.
India’s LC3 journey: Progress, but demand remains thin
Providing details of India’s LC3 commercialisation experience, Vaibhav Rathi of GIZ noted that JK Cement carried out the first commercial production of LC3 at its Rajasthan plant, followed by JK Lakshmi Cement three months later. These initiatives were supported by the International Climate Initiative of the Government of Germany, with IIT Delhi contributing deep institutional knowledge on LC3 research and BIS certification.
Rathi said India’s early experience has produced clear lessons. One of the biggest was the need to build capacity among regulators. While BIS certification existed, State Pollution Control Boards were unfamiliar with the technology and unsure about the approval pathway.
“The capacity building is not just needed amongst the producer and the users of the cement, but also the regulators who are working with this technology for the first time,” he said.
He also highlighted the need for better information on China clay deposits. Since China clay is currently classified as a minor mineral, centralised data on availability, quality and location is limited. If cement manufacturers are to adopt LC3 at scale, stronger mineral intelligence will be important.
The third issue is demand. LC3 has already been used in projects such as Palava City in Mumbai and Noida International Airport, but these remain limited examples. “It is in a chicken and egg situation,” Rathi said. “Cement companies are saying we need more demand, and users are saying there is not enough cement available.”
Public procurement, he suggested, could help break this cycle. If agencies such as CPWD and other public bodies begin testing, accepting and specifying LC3, it could create the market confidence needed for cement companies to invest in production and storage.
Building codes must catch up with innovation
Dr Sunita Purushottam of GBPN India argued that material choices will determine built environment emissions over the long term, but India’s current policy signals remain fragmented. Although LC3 has received BIS recognition, she pointed out that building codes, municipal bylaws, schedules of rates and sustainability codes do not yet provide uniform guidance on low-carbon cement.
“The current cement regulations are largely prescriptive and favouring traditional materials,” she said. This limits the ability of alternative materials to compete on performance, durability and emissions.
Dr Purushottam also raised the issue of taxation. Cement, including LC3, currently falls under the same GST bracket as conventional cement. A differentiated tax structure, she argued, could help accelerate market adoption. “In order for the market to demand LC3, that differentiation in the GST could go a long way,” she said.
She noted that green building certifications such as IGBC and GRIHA are already creating demand for low-carbon materials by assigning points for embodied carbon and sustainable material use. However, she said large-scale adoption will require regulatory mandates, particularly through building codes and state-level notifications.
She also cautioned that low-carbon cement alone does not solve the entire building performance problem. A material may reduce embodied carbon, but the operational carbon of a building depends on thermal performance, design, insulation and energy use. “The energy part has two elements,” she said. “One is the embodied carbon of the material itself, and the other is the operational carbon.”
Collaboration is the bridge between invention and impact
Wattal said GCCA sees innovation as a strategic priority and works through platforms that connect industry with academia and start-ups. “There is no way we will decarbonise our sector without innovation,” she said.
However, she stressed that research must be connected to actual industry challenges. Innovations developed in isolation may fail when they encounter real-world barriers such as raw material variability, plant integration, cost, standards and finance. Start-ups, too, need industry mentorship and scale-up pathways.
Wattal also flagged the importance of finance. Even strong technologies may struggle to attract investment if there is no common understanding of bankability. “We have always put projects into, is this a bankable project? But the definition of a bankable project has never been defined,” she said.
For India, she saw strong potential in its academic and start-up ecosystem, but said the challenge lies in alignment and prioritisation. The country has the research base, industrial capacity and market size. What it now needs is a coordinated route from innovation to deployment.
There is a practical concern for cement manufacturers: how can existing plants be adapted for lower emissions without compromising reliability or commercial viability?
Kiranmai Sanagavarapu addressed, “The reliability risk in calcined clay retrofit is definitely real, but it is almost always self-inflicted. The risk arises when a new process is added to an existing circuit without properly redesigning grinding and blending configurations.”
Existing cement plants, she explained, can take two broad routes. The first is external sourcing of calcined clay combined with mill optimisation. This requires lower capital investment and can potentially move in 12 to 18 months if other conditions are in place. It may reduce emissions by around 20 to 30 per cent. The second route is integrated calcination on site, which requires higher capital expenditure and longer lead times, but provides greater control over quality, supply and emissions reduction potential.
For Sanagavarapu, the principle is simple: low-carbon retrofits must be designed with intent. “Design it with an intent properly from the start. Start in the market conditions where the economics are already working,” she said.
Circularity: The overlooked advantage
According to Vaibhav Rathi, fly ash and slag are already well established in cement and construction (C&D), but construction and demolition waste remains underutilised. “C&D waste is a growing business opportunity which not many have taken up,” he said. India’s continuous construction and demolition activity creates huge volumes of waste, much of which contributes to air pollution, land degradation and material inefficiency. With the right processing and standards, this waste can be converted into useful construction products.
Rathi also pointed out that LC3 has a circular economy dimension that is often overlooked. It can use low-grade kaolin-rich clay left behind after high-grade clay is extracted for other applications. “LC3 is not only a low-carbon solution, but also a circular economy solution,” he said.
At the same time, he cautioned that LC3 in India is not yet cheap because it has not reached scale. Site-specific techno-commercial feasibility studies, supported jointly by development agencies and industry, could help companies assess whether LC3 production makes technical and financial sense at a given location.
Dr Purushottam added that India must address both low-carbon cement and construction waste together. “Both low-carbon cement and C&D waste go hand in hand. India does not have an option but to work on both,” she said.
Dr Aiyer called for policy shifts from both government and industry, including preferential purchasing of sustainable materials, minimum supplementary cementitious material requirements in public and public-private projects, and faster regulatory implementation. “If we can fast-track the regulatory standards and their implementation on the ground, that is the way to go,” he said.
From green ambition to green construction
Cement innovation is no longer only about chemistry. It is about systems. Low-carbon cement will scale only when technology, standards, procurement, finance, regulation, education and construction practice move together.
LC3 and other low-carbon technologies have shown promise. India has early commercial examples, strong research capability and growing market interest. But mainstream adoption will depend on whether demand can be created, regulators can be capacitated, standards can be embedded in procurement, and manufacturers can see a clear business case.
For a country building at India’s scale, the opportunity is enormous. Cement will continue to be central to infrastructure and urban development. The challenge now is to ensure that the cement used in India’s growth story carries a lower carbon burden.
Rakesh Rao
Participate in Cement Expo 2026 and discover how next-gen infrastructure can be built with innovations in cement.
JK Cement gained after being declared preferred bidder for the Gilund Limestone Block in Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, a lease area of 370.96 hectares. The firm saw its shares trade at Rs. 5550.05, up by 28.45 points or 0.52 per cent from the previous close of Rs. 5521.60 on the BSE. The scrip opened at Rs. 5569.15 and touched a high of Rs. 5625.00 and a low of Rs. 5531.00.
The stock recorded turnover of 1742 shares on the counter and the BSE group A stock with face value Rs. 10 has a 52 week high of Rs. 7565.00 on 20-Aug-2025 and a 52 week low of Rs. 4670.05 on 12-Jun-2026. Last one week high and low stood at Rs. 5625.00 and Rs. 5329.00 respectively. The promoters holding in the company stood at 45.66 per cent, while institutions and non-institutions held 40.61 per cent and 13.73 per cent respectively.
The e-auction conducted by the Government of Rajasthan resulted in the company being declared preferred bidder for the mining lease, and the allocation will enable the company to plan phased development of the deposit, subject to regulatory approvals. The Gilund block spans 370.96 hectares and its allocation is intended to support raw material security for the company’s cement operations in the region. The designation follows the government auction process and will allow the company to plan development and integration of the deposit into its supply chain.
The current market capitalisation stands at Rs. 430.38 billion (bn), reflecting market response to the mining news and prevailing valuation levels for the sector. Investors and analysts will watch for formal allotment and related disclosures that can clarify timelines, capital expenditure and expected production profiles. The report is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute investment advice, and market participants are advised to consult advisers before making decisions.
Star Cement has been declared the preferred bidder for the mining lease for Boro Lakhindong West Block following e-auctions conducted by the Government of Assam. The block is located in Boro Lakhindong Village, Umrangso Tehsil, Dima Hasao District, Assam, and extends over an area of 123 hectares. The estimated limestone resource is 207.822 million (mn) tonnes (t), a quantity that will supply raw material for cement production and support the company’s manufacturing operations in the region.
The company is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of cement clinker and cement and distributes products across the north-eastern and eastern states of India. Star Cement operates plants and logistics networks that procure and process limestone to produce clinker for cement, and the addition of Boro Lakhindong is presented as a strategic enhancement of feedstock availability. The preferred bidder status secures rights to the specified lease area under the terms of the auction process.
Financial results for the company in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2026 showed a consolidated net profit rise of 20.24 per cent to Rs 1,481.0 mn on an 11.54 per cent increase in revenue to Rs 11,735.5 mn compared with the corresponding quarter of the previous year. Those results reflected higher sales volumes and revenue growth in the company’s primary markets and are cited in company disclosures accompanying the lease announcement. The reported performance provides context to the company’s ability to pursue and finance new mining lease opportunities.
Market reaction to the declaration was modest, with the scrip rising zero point thirty six per cent to trade at Rs 212 on the BSE. The award of the Boro Lakhindong lease concludes the e-auction process for the west block and assigns operational rights to Star Cement as the preferred bidder, subject to completion of statutory and contractual formalities.
