Concrete
Greener energy has a positive impact on manufacturing
Published
3 years agoon
By
admin
Sameer Kumar Pujari, Senior General Manager, JK Cement, elaborates on the role played by technology, alternative raw materials, cost, infrastructure and local regulations in making cement manufacturing process more energy efficient.
Tell us about the role of energy in the manufacturing of cement? What is the volume of your organisation’s energy consumption?
The role of energy in the manufacturing of cement is significant as it is one of the most energy-intensive industries globally. The production of cement involves several energy-intensive processes, from the extraction and crushing of raw materials to production of clinker and finally converting it into cement.
The production of cement consumes large quantities of energy in the form of thermal and electrical. This requires approximately 3.2 GJ to 5.0 GJ of energy per tonne of clinker produced. As an energy intensive industry, thermal energy used in the cement industry accounts for about 20–25 per cent of the production cost. The typical electrical energy consumption of a modern cement plant is about 70 KWh to 80 KWh per tonne of cement. In the manufacturing process, thermal energy is used mainly during the burning process, while maximum share of electrical energy is used for cement grinding.
Our SEC is approximately 61.8KWH/T cement and specific thermal energy is 3.18 GJ/tonne of cement. We are proud to share that our IU at Muddapur Karnataka and GU at Jhajjar, Haryana, are national leaders in energy and have been awarded by renowned organisations like Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). The source of energy in cement manufacturing is fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) and alternative fuels (biomass/waste material/municipal waste etc.).
Other than above, we also use renewable energy solar/wind, WHRS and grid power to produce cement.
What are the various modes of energy sources used by your organisation for its manufacturing needs?
We use fossil fuels as the energy source for manufacturing needs. This includes coal, oil, and natural gas, which are burned in kilns to generate the heat necessary for the production process. We are also utilising alternative fuels to reduce usage of fossil fuels and promote sustainable practices. These alternative fuels can include RDF, biomass, such as rice/mustard husk or agricultural waste as well as waste materials like shredded tires or sewage sludge. By using these alternative fuels, we are not only progressing towards carbon neutrality but also contributing to waste management efforts.
We are using solar, wind and WHRS, too. We are procuring renewable energy through open access. Our capacity in WHRS is 62 MW, solar is 20 MW and we are progressing towards the goal of green cement by 2030. Our Muddapur, Karnataka, plant has achieved 100 per cent renewable energy uses at zero grid consumption through open access.
Which of the said energy sources yields maximum productivity for the plant and which yields the least?
The productivity of different energy sources for cement plants can vary depending on various factors such as technology being used, availability, cost, infrastructure and local regulations. Here are some examples:
Fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas): Traditionally been the primary energy source for cement production due to their high energy content. However, they contribute significantly to carbon emissions and are considered non-renewable resources.
Biomass: Biomass, such as agricultural residues or dedicated energy crops, can be used as an alternative fuel source in cement production. Its productivity can vary depending on the availability and sustainability of biomass feedstock.
Waste materials: Certain waste materials, such as shredded tires or municipal solid waste, can be used as alternative fuels in cement kilns. The productivity of waste materials as an energy source depends on their calorific value, availability, and proper waste management practices.
Renewable energy sources: Renewable energy sources like solar, wind or geothermal power can be utilised to generate electricity for cement plants. Their productivity depends on factors such as location, resource availability and the ability to integrate them into the plant’s
energy infrastructure.
It is important to note that each cement plant may have unique circumstances and considerations when choosing an energy source. The optimal solution often involves a combination of different energy sources and technologies to achieve maximum productivity while minimising environmental impact.
What are the alternative energy sources that are being adapted by the cement industry and your organisation?
Generally fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum coke and natural gas provide the thermal energy required for the cement industry. With increasing economic benefits in usage of alternative fuel (AF) over conventional fuels gives high thrust on usage of AF. Other factors, which give a push to usage of AF, are limited resources of fossil fuel and environmental concerns. AF covers all non-fossil fuels and waste from other industries including tire-derived fuels, biomass residues, sewage sludge and different commercial wastes. The kiln used in cement manufacturing is able to burn a wide range of materials due to the long exposure time at high temperatures (up to 1400oC), intrinsic ability of clinker to absorb and lock contaminants into the clinker and the alkalinity of the kiln environment. Materials like waste oils, plastics, waste tires and sewage sludge are being adopted as alternative fuels by the cement industries. Biomass waste and spent pot linings produced in aluminium smelters are also identified as potential alternative fuels for the cement industry.
Our organisation uses almost all kinds of plastic wastes, non-hazardous and hazardous waste, and biomass. We have a dedicated AFR feeding system in our plants. We initially focused on using plastic waste, shredded RDF. Slowly and gradually, we increased our capacity and started using hazardous materials also. For the processing of hazardous waste, we needed impregnation material like biomass such as 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 to 50 per cent MSW/RDF waste, and up to 25 per cent non-hazardous solid wastes.
What is the impact of greener energy sources on the productivity and cost of cement manufacturing?
Greener energy has a positive impact on manufacturing, including commercial and technical aspects. Here are some potential impacts:
• Productivity: Greener energy sources have a positive impact on the productivity of cement manufacturing. For example, using alternative fuels like biomass or waste materials can
provide a reliable and consistent source of heat for kilns, ensuring a stable production process. This can help reduce downtime and improve overall productivity.
• Cost: The cost implications of using greener energy sources in cement manufacturing can also vary. In some cases, alternative energy sources may be more cost-effective compared to traditional fossil fuels as AF gives additional revenue to consumers of AF. Additionally, utilising waste materials as alternative fuels can reduce waste disposal costs for cement plants.
• Energy efficiency: Greener energy sources often promote energy efficiency in cement manufacturing. For example, using renewable energy sources like solar or wind power can reduce reliance on fossil fuels and decrease energy consumption. This can result in cost savings and improved overall efficiency.
• Environmental impact: One of the key benefits of greener energy sources in cement manufacturing is the reduction in environmental impact. By transitioning to alternative fuels or renewable energy sources, cement plants can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution associated with traditional fossil fuel combustion. This can contribute to environmental sustainability goals and help meet regulatory requirements.
It is important to note that the specific impact on productivity and cost will depend on the individual circumstances of each cement organisation, including factors such as location, availability of resources, technological capabilities and government policies or incentives.
How does automation and technology help in optimising the use of energy in cement plants?
Automation and technology play a pivotal role in optimising the use of energy in cement plants. We are using VFD, Smart MCC, Sensors, Integrated Load Management System, Energy Monitoring System and Smart Lighting System for effectively optimising the use of energy in our organisation.
Here are some ways which helps to reduce the energy:
• Energy monitoring and control: Automation systems can continuously monitor energy consumption in various parts of the cement plant, such as kilns, mills, and crushers. This real-time data allows operators to identify pilferage processes or equipment and optimise energy usage.
• Process optimisation: Advanced control systems and predictive analytics can optimise the cement manufacturing process to minimise energy consumption. By analysing data from various sensors and instruments, these technologies can identify opportunities for energy savings and automatically adjust parameters to achieve optimal efficiency.
• Energy management systems: Automation systems can integrate with energy management systems to provide a holistic view of energy usage across the entire plant. This allows operators to track energy performance and accordingly set targets, and implement energy-saving measures effectively.
• Load management: Automation systems can optimise the scheduling and sequencing of equipment to ensure a balanced load distribution, reducing peak demand and improving overall energy efficiency. For example, by coordinating the operation of kilns, mills, and other machinery, the system can minimise energy wastage during periods of low demand.
• Energy recovery: Automation technology can facilitate the implementation of energy recovery systems in cement plants. For instance, waste heat from kilns can be captured and used to generate electricity or provide heat for other processes, reducing the reliance on external energy sources.
• Equipment optimisation: Automation systems can monitor the performance of individual equipment and identify inefficiencies or malfunctions that may contribute to excessive energy consumption. By providing real-time alerts and diagnostics, operators can take corrective actions promptly, ensuring optimal equipment performance and energy usage.
Overall, automation and technology enable cement plants to have better visibility, control and optimisation of energy usage. This leads to improved energy efficiency, cost savings and reduced environmental impact.
What are the major challenges your organisation faces in managing the energy needs?
We are facing challenges of imposition of power curtailment from grid mostly at our Rajasthan-based plants:
• Grid disturbances and power outages
• There is high volatile market and heavy fluctuations in fuel sourcing
• Energy cost volatility: Cement production is highly energy-intensive, and the cost of energy can fluctuate significantly. This makes it challenging to plan and budget for energy needs effectively an increase in the prices of fossil fuel
would adversely impact the industry, leading to an increase in production costs, however we focused on driving optimisation of fuel mix, energy efficiency and use of alternative fuel to mitigate this
• Ageing infrastructure: To upgrade or replace the ageing infrastructure/ systems can be expensive and may require significant downtime. However, we have completed the brownfield modernisation of our Nimbahera Line-3, with the kiln now capable of producing 6,500 TPD, against the earlier capacity of 5,000 TPD. The brownfield projects that have been undertaken over the past few years have been delivering greater efficiencies in the form of reduced power and fuel consumption and increased WHR.
Tell us about the compliance and standards followed by you to maintain energy use and efficiency in the organisation.
Some of the key regulations and standards include:
• ISO 50001: This international standard provides a framework for organisations to establish, implement, maintain, and improve an energy management system. We are ISO 50001 certified company and regularly enhance our energy performance, identify energy-saving opportunities and comply with energy management requirements.
• PAT Compliance: PAT is a mechanism for improvements in energy efficiency of energy intensive industries. Specific high energy intensive industries are identified as Designated Consumers (DC) within certain key sectors, who are required to appoint an energy manager, file energy consumption returns every year and conduct mandatory energy audits regularly. The key tasks in the PAT mechanism is to set the methodology for deciding the Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) norms for each designated consumers in the baseline year and in the target years, devise verification process for SEC, finding ways of issuing the Energy Savings Certificates, operationalisation of the trading process for ESCert in addition to the compliance and reconciliation process for ESCert.
To ensure compliance with these regulations and standards, JK Cement regularly monitors our energy consumption, implements energy management systems, conducts energy audits, invests in energy-efficient technologies, and reports the emissions and energy performance to relevant authorities. Additionally, we collaborate with industry associations, research institutions and government agencies to stay
updated on evolving regulations and best practices in energy management.
How often are audits done to ensure optimum use of energy? What is the suggested duration for the same?
• We conduct energy audits every year as a part of energy management practices. This allows us to assess the energy performance, identify
areas for improvement and implement energy-saving measures.
• We have formed internal management teams across our plants where we closely monitor
our energy consumption on a daily basis. We fix our best targets across the locations
and further compare and revise our targets to further optimisation.
What kind of innovations in the area of energy consumption do you wish to see in the cement industry?
Some potential innovations in the area of energy consumption that we may wish to see in the cement industry:
• Alternative fuel sources: Increased utilisation of alternative fuels, such as biomass, waste materials, or renewable energy sources, can reduce reliance on fossil fuels and lower carbon emissions.
• Energy-efficient technologies: The adoption of advanced technologies, such as more efficient kilns, improved heat recovery systems, and optimised grinding processes, can help reduce energy consumption in cement production.
• Carbon capture and utilisation: Implementing carbon capture, storage, and utilisation (CCUS) technologies can help capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from cement plants or utilise them in other industrial processes.
• Process optimisation through AI: Continuous process optimisation through AI data analytics, machine learning, and automation can identify areas of inefficiency and enable real-time adjustments to optimise energy consumption.
• Circular economy practises: Adopting circular economy principles, such as recycling and reusing waste materials or by-products from cement production, can reduce resource consumption and minimise environmental impact.
• Collaborative research and development: Encouraging collaboration between industry stakeholders, researchers and governments can drive innovation in energy-efficient cement production technologies and practices.
• We want to innovate to produce entirely green cement with sustainability and to achieve our net zero target by 2030.
• Cement manufacturing with an alternative of fly ash and lesser water curing requirements also plants with less heat consumption during clinker production such as in LC3 cement.
-Kanika Mathur
Concrete
CarbonStrong Raises Rs 125 Million To Scale Low Carbon Cement Tech
To build capacity of 100,000 tonnes a year
Published
3 days agoon
August 28, 2026By
admin
CarbonStrong has raised Rs 125 million (125 mn) to scale a low carbon cement technology and build commercial production capacity. The startup was founded in 2022 by Harsh Jain and Vikramaditya Singh and has moved from customer trials to plans for industrial supply. The company said its material replaces up to 50 per cent of cement in concrete while reducing costs and improving durability.
CarbonStrong states the product is around 30 per cent cheaper than cement and compatible with existing concrete plants, reducing the need for new equipment and operational disruption. Trials and paid pilots have been conducted in Bengaluru, Hyderabad and Chennai with demonstration projects involving ready-mix firms and precast manufacturers. Compatibility with current workflows forms a central part of the commercial strategy, aiming to ease adoption by builders and contractors.
The funding will support construction of a facility with capacity of up to 100,000 tonnes (100,000 t) a year over the next two years to supply early customers commercially. The firm is also developing materials from steel slag, copper slag and mine tailings to expand its feedstock base, while noting the technical challenge of homogenising different waste streams. Recognition by HCL ClimaForce in 2026 and by the Avaana-Startup India-NITI Aayog AIM Grand Challenge in 2025 has underscored progress.
Industry adoption remains the principal test and will require consistent material performance, supply reliability and competitive economics. CarbonStrong projects the Indian market for cement substitutes could reach Rs 250 billion (250 bn) by 2030 and has set an ambition to produce 10 million tonnes a year by 2035 (10 mn t), a target far above its near term capacity. Moving from pilots to production demands capital, manufacturing discipline and customers willing to specify the material beyond demonstrations. The recent Rs 125 million raise is intended to fund the next phase of scale and to demonstrate that industrial waste can become a dependable input for lower carbon construction.
In a research-backed article, Dr SB Hegde examines why carbon-adjusted profitability and LC3 will decide the next set of winners in cement manufacturing.
The Indian cement industry has achieved world-class operational efficiency through lower specific energy consumption, high plant utilisation and a reduced average clinker factor of approximately 67.5 per cent. These traditional measures of operational excellence remain essential. However, they are no longer sufficient. Carbon now carries a measurable financial cost under India’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) and under European carbon markets. Future leadership will be defined by carbon-adjusted profitability, the ability to generate strong returns while systematically lowering the carbon intensity of every ton sold.
Limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) offers a practical, scalable pathway to achieve this dual objective. By replacing up to 50 per cent of clinker with calcined clay and limestone, LC3 can reduce CO2 emissions by 30–40 per cent while delivering comparable or superior durability performance.
This article examines the technical foundations of LC3, European industrial practices, the emerging Indian carbon market and a concrete roadmap for Indian companies to embed carbon-adjusted metrics and LC3 into daily operations, incentives and commercial strategy.
Limits of traditional operational excellence
For many years, plant performance has been judged primarily by five indicators: specific heat consumption, specific power consumption, kiln and mill utilisation, clinker factor and overall equipment effectiveness. These metrics drove continuous improvement and helped the industry reduce energy use and increase the share of blended cement. Three structural changes have rendered them incomplete as sole measures of success.
First, carbon now carries a real or opportunity cost. Plants that improve volume or lower cash cost while raising or stagnating emissions intensity create a hidden liability that will surface as CCTS trading matures and as green procurement expands.
Second, lower-carbon products such as LC3 and high-performance blended cements are creating differentiated market segments. Customers in infrastructure, real estate and export-oriented construction are beginning to specify embodied-carbon limits.
Third, investors and lenders increasingly treat carbon intensity as a financial risk factor. Traditional KPIs can mask the divergence between short-term cash profit and long-term carbon-adjusted value.
What is carbon-adjusted profitability?
Carbon-adjusted profitability evaluates normal profit after explicit adjustment for carbon performance. A practical expression is:
Carbon-Adjusted EBITDA = Conventional EBITDA – Carbon Cost + Green Premium Income
Carbon cost may be an internal carbon price, the actual cost of purchasing Carbon Credit Certificates under CCTS, or the opportunity cost of high emissions relative to peers. Green premium income arises when customers pay more for verified lower-carbon cement or when the company sells surplus credits. Tracking both conventional and carbon-adjusted profit side-by-side gives management a clearer picture of value creation under evolving market rules.
Table 1. Traditional KPIs versus Carbon-Adjusted Leadership Metrics
Traditional Focus New Leadership Metric Why It Matters
Specific energy consumption Emissions intensity (kg CO2/t cement) Directly linked to future CCTS and CBAM costs
Kiln utilisation Carbon-adjusted contribution margin Reveals true value of incremental volume
Clinker factor Share of lower-carbon products sold (incl. LC3) Measures commercial success of the transition
Power cost per tonne Effective carbon cost per tonne sold Expose hidden liabilities
Absolute EBITDA Carbon-adjusted EBITDA + green premium Aligning profit with future market reality
LC3: Technical foundations and performance advantages
LC3 is a ternary blended cement that typically combines approximately 50 per cent clinker, 30 per cent calcined clay, 15 per cent limestone and 5 per cent gypsum (the classic LC3-50 formulation). The decisive technical advantage is that clay is calcined at 700–850 °C, far below the 1,450 °C required for clinker production. This lower temperature, together with the substantial reduction in clinker content, delivers CO2 reductions of 30–40 per cent relative to ordinary Portland cement (OPC).
Chemistry is synergistic. Calcined kaolinitic clay (metakaolin) reacts with calcium hydroxide from clinker hydration and with limestone to form additional C-A-S-H gel and carboaluminate phases. These phases densify the microstructure, reduce porosity and improve durability.
Field experience shows superior resistance to chloride ingress, sulphate attack and alkali–silica reaction. Early-age strength can match OPC with high-reactivity clays; later-age strengths routinely meet 42.5 and 52.5 grade requirements.
Importantly, LC3 does not require high-purity kaolin. Clays with 40 per cent or even lower kaolinite content can be activated successfully, expanding raw-material availability across India. Calcination can use adapted rotary kilns or dedicated flash calciners, making the technology compatible with existing plant infrastructure and far less capital-intensive than carbon capture.
Economic analyses show that LC3 can be produced at equal or lower cost than OPC in many locations because of reduced energy demand and cheaper clay. Life-cycle assessments consistently report 30–40 per cent lower embodied CO2 per tonne of cement.
Table 2. Comparative profile: OPC versus LC3-50
Parameter OPC LC3-50
Typical clinker content ~95 per cent ~50 per cent
CO2 emissions (relative) Baseline (≈0.85 t CO2/t cement process + fuel) 30–40 per cent lower
Clay calcination temperature Not applicable 700–850 °C
Key hydration products C-S-H, portlandite, ettringite C-A-S-H + carboaluminates
Chloride & sulphate resistance Good Superior
Production cost potential Baseline Equal or lower in most locations
Infrastructure compatibility Existing High (minor adaptations)
In India, commercial adoption has begun in earnest. JK Cement commenced the first commercial production of LC3 in the Indian subcontinent at its Mangrol plant in Rajasthan in 2025 under BIS standard IS 18189.
By early 2026, approximately 2,000 tonnes had been produced and sold, avoiding an estimated 500 tonnes of CO2. JK Lakshmi Cement followed with commercial launch of its Green PRO LC3 grade from the Jaykaypuram plant. As of mid-2026, two producers are supplying LC3 to the market. The first large-scale infrastructure application is the Noida International Airport (Jewar), where LC3 was used in the runway and a building complex, demonstrating full constructability and performance under demanding conditions. These early volumes are still small relative to national cement demand, but they mark the critical transition from pilot to commercial reality. Companies that scale capacity now will be positioned to capture both CCTS credits and emerging green-procurement demand.
Why the shift is accelerating
According to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2026, direct carbon pricing now covers nearly 30 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions and generated more than US$107 billion in public revenue in 2025. The average global carbon price stands at approximately US$21 per tonne, although regional prices vary widely.
In Europe, the EU ETS price has traded near €80–85 per tonen in mid-2026. Free allocation for cement is being withdrawn in parallel with CBAM. European producers therefore face a clear signal: every tonne of avoided CO2 improves both compliance and competitiveness. Holcim has scaled calcined-clay production, including Europe’s first dedicated line at Saint-Pierre-la-Cour (France) and a second line in the Czech Republic (2026). Heidelberg Materials, Cementir (FUTURECEM) and others have commercialised low-clinker calcined-clay blends across multiple markets, showing that carbon-adjusted profitability is already reshaping capital allocation in the world’s most mature carbon market.India’s CCTS is now operational. Binding emission intensity targets apply to 186 cement facilities for FY 2025–26 and FY 2026–27. Average required reductions for integrated plants are modest (around 2.7 per cent by FY 2027), yet the direction is clear.
Trading of Carbon Credit Certificates is expected in the second half of 2026, with early prices likely in the `800–1,500 per tonne range. Plants that outperform targets can sell credits; those that underperform must buy them or face compensation. Cement is well positioned to be a net supplier of credits if clinker factor continues to fall through LC3 and other low-clinker systems.
Way forward for India
India starts from a strong baseline, world-class energy efficiency and a clinker factor already lower than the global average. The next competitive frontier is the deliberate reduction of process emissions through clinker substitution at scale. LC3 is uniquely suited to Indian conditions because suitable clays are widely distributed, the technology fits existing kiln and grinding infrastructure, and the resulting product can meet the performance demands of both infrastructure and building construction.
A practical national pathway contains five interlocking elements:
- Standards and acceptance: Accelerated finalisation and promotion of BIS specifications for calcined-clay and limestone–calcined-clay cements will remove a key barrier to commercial uptake. Alignment with European practice (EN 197-5) can facilitate knowledge transfer and export readiness.
- Supply-chain development: Investment in flash calcination capacity and systematic characterisation of regional clay deposits will secure reliable, low-cost feedstock. Existing rotary kilns can be adapted for initial volumes while dedicated calciners are built.
- Incentive alignment: Part of variable compensation for plant managers, sales teams and senior leadership should be linked to emissions intensity reduction and to the volume of lower-carbon products (including LC3) sold. Without this link, traditional volume and cost targets will continue to dominate behaviour.
- Product-level carbon accounting: Reliable measurement of emissions intensity at the individual cement grade level, supported by third-party verification where required, is essential for both CCTS compliance and credible green claims.
- Demand-side pull: Green public procurement policies that specify maximum embodied-carbon thresholds for major infrastructure projects will create a predictable market for LC3 and other low-carbon cements, accelerating scale and cost reduction.
Companies that treat LC3 as a strategic product line rather than a niche offering will be better positioned to generate surplus Carbon Credit Certificates, capture any emerging green premium, and protect margins as carbon costs rise.
Organisational changes required
Technical capability alone is insufficient. Three organisational shifts are required.
Daily management: Emissions intensity must appear on the same daily and monthly dashboards as heat consumption, power consumption and utilization. Plant reviews should examine both conventional and carbon-adjusted results.
Incentives: A meaningful portion of bonuses for plant heads, technical teams and sales leadership should be tied to lower emissions intensity and successful commercialisation of LC3 and other low-carbon grades.
Commercial approach: Sales teams need clear volume and pricing targets for lower-carbon products, supported by technical service that helps customers specify and place the material correctly. Without commercial pull, excellent technical performance remains under-utilised.
Table 3. Three-stage roadmap to carbon-adjusted profitability
Time Horizon Priority Actions Expected Outcome
Next 12 months Add emissions intensity to plant dashboards; establish internal carbon price; initiate LC3 pilot production and customer trials Visibility and early organisational learning
12–24 months Revise incentive systems; scale LC3 and other low-carbon grades to key accounts; secure third-party verification capability People and sales aligned with carbon goals
24–36 months Embed carbon-adjusted metrics in board reporting and capital allocation; expand calcined-clay capacity Full system integration and competitive advantage
Questions senior leaders should ask
Boards can accelerate the transition by insisting on answers to a short list of questions:
• Is our carbon-adjusted profit improving, stable or declining relative to conventional EBITDA?
• Did recent volume growth improve or worsen our emissions intensity?
• What share of sales already comes from lower-carbon products, including LC3, and what is the trajectory?
• How exposed is our capital expenditure plan to rising carbon costs under CCTS and potential CBAM-related requirements?
• Do our incentive systems still reward only volume and cost, or have they been updated to include carbon performance?
Treating carbon with the same seriousness as energy cost or kiln utilization does not diminish operational excellence; it expands the definition of excellence to match the new competitive reality.
Looking ahead
By 2030 the gap between leading and lagging cement companies will not be decided by who records the lowest specific heat consumption. It will be decided by who delivers the strongest carbon-adjusted profits.
Absolute emissions may still rise as national production grows. That is not the issue. Companies that reduce intensity year after year and successfully sell cleaner products will pull ahead in both domestic and export markets. Those that do not will fall behind, even if their traditional efficiency numbers look strong.
Operational excellence built the Indian cement industry. It remains the foundation. It is no longer the complete picture. Carbon-adjusted profitability is the clearer measure of success.
LC3 is not a distant technology. It is available now. It cuts CO3 by 30–40 per cent, works with existing plants, and is already in commercial production in India. Companies that treat it as a strategic product, not a pilot, will protect their margins and generate tradable credits.
Leaders who act now will place carbon metrics on daily dashboards, link incentives to intensity reduction and LC3 sales, invest in calcined-clay capacity, and build commercial capability to sell lower-carbon products. They will shape the next chapter of the industry.
References
- World Bank. (2026). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2026. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
- International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP). (2026). India Carbon Credit Trading Scheme – Status and Coverage. Berlin: ICAP.
- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change / Bureau of Energy Efficiency. (2025). Greenhouse Gases Emission Intensity Target Rules, 2025. New Delhi: Government of India.
- Scrivener, K., Martirena, F., Bishnoi, S., & Maity, S. (2018). Calcined clay limestone cements (LC3). Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 49–56.
- RMI. (2024). The Business Case for LC3. Rocky Mountain Institute.
- European Commission. (2026). EU Emissions Trading System – Allowance Price Data and Free Allocation Phase-out Schedule. Brussels.
- Holcim. (2025–2026). Scaling Calcined Clay for Sustainable Building – Corporate Updates on European and Latin American Capacity. Zurich: Holcim Ltd.
- LC3 Project / EPFL. (2026). LC3 – A Guide to Best Practices for Scalable, Affordable and Sustainable Low-Carbon Building. Lausanne: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
- Business Today / Industry Reports. (2026). First Large-Scale LC3 Application at Noida International Airport, Jewar. New Delhi.
- NITI Aayog / Industry Analyses. (2026). Roadmap and Baseline Performance Indicators for the Indian Cement Sector. New Delhi.
- Springer / Innovative Infrastructure Solutions. (2026). LC3 Systems: A Review of Chemistry, Performance, Durability and Sustainability toward Market Adoption.
- Cementir Holding / Industry Sources. (2025–2026). FUTURECEM and Related Low-Clinker Technologies in Europe.
- Climate Risk Horizons & Independent Analyses. (2026). Assessment of Emission Intensity Targets under India’s CCTS for Cement and Other Hard-to-Abate Sectors.
- GCCA / TERI. (Various years). Decarbonization Roadmaps for the Indian Cement Industry.
- EN 197-5:2021. Cement – Part 5: Portland-composite cement CEM II/C-M and Composite cement CEM VI. European Committee for Standardization.
Concrete
More Oversight Makes Cement Plants Less Safe
Published
3 days agoon
August 28, 2026By
admin
Dijam Panigrahi makes a counterintuitive but data-backed argument that routing every sensor alert through human approval does not make cement plants safer.
India’s cement industry has spent the last two years wiring kilns, mills and coolers with sensors and automated control systems, and the safety case for doing so is strong on paper. Contract workers still make up the majority of the industry’s workforce, and fatal accidents remain a recurring problem. The Indian National Cement Workers Federation has noted that around 83 per cent of workers in the sector hold precarious positions, a fact that resurfaced after an oxygen cylinder explosion killed three contract workers at a plant in Chhattisgarh.
Industry tallies compiled by IndustriALL found cement plants recorded at least seventeen accidents in one year with 21 workers killed, and ten accidents the following year with nine killed, most of them contract staff. Automated monitoring, in theory, closes that gap. A sensor never gets complacent and never skips a check because a shift is short staffed.
However, plants that respond by routing every anomaly reading to a person for approval are quietly building a system that fails the same way understaffing does. When operators receive dozens of flagged deviations a shift, most of them minor, they learn a simple lesson: the fastest way through the queue is to approve without reading closely. The safety benefit disappears, not because the technology failed, but because the humans supervising it adapted to the volume.
Why alerts get ignored
A study cited by manufacturing technology publisher Applied SmartFactory found more than 95 per cent of alarms in a semiconductor fab were low priority, and only about 4 per cent ever triggered an action, with just 100 out of 5,000 alarms accounting for 70 per cent of all alarm activity. The mechanism is the same whether the trigger is a vibration sensor or an AI model flagging a kiln temperature swing. Once the ratio of noise to signal crosses a threshold, workers stop treating the system as a decision aid and start treating it as a formality to clear.
The scale of AI deployment underway makes this more than a theoretical risk. Stanford’s 2026 AI Index Report found organisational adoption of AI has reached 88 per cent, even as documented AI incidents rose to 362 in 2025, up sharply from 233 the year before, according to analysis of the report. The Index also found only about a third of organisations have adopted a formal governance framework, with NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework cited by 33 per cent and ISO/IEC 42001 cited by 36 per cent.
Most manufacturers are deploying monitoring systems faster than they are building the judgment for when a flagged event actually needs a person’s attention. In India, plants run by JK Cement have begun pairing CCTV feeds with AI to define safe zones around heavy machinery, a promising direction that still depends on operators trusting and reading the alerts the system generates.
A three-tier model for cement plant
The fix is not less monitoring or more monitoring. It is classifying decisions by risk and by novelty, rather than treating human oversight as a single switch that is either on or off. A workable model sorts factory floor events into three tiers.
The first tier, proceed, covers deviations the plant has seen before that fall within known safe bounds, such as a kiln feed rate adjustment within an established range. These should run without a stop for approval, because routing them to a person only trains that person to click through.
The second tier, pause, covers events that are unusual but not yet dangerous, such as a vibration reading trending toward a limit or a fuel blend shifting outside its typical mix. These warrant a brief human check before the system proceeds, giving an operator the chance to apply judgment the model does not yet have.
The third tier, escalate, covers events that are both high risk and unfamiliar, such as a pressure reading combined with a temperature spike that has no close precedent in the plant’s history. These should stop the process entirely and require a decision from someone with the authority to shut down a line.
Who should set the threshold
Where these tiers get drawn matters as much as the framework itself. Threshold setting is frequently handed to the vendor supplying the monitoring software or to a plant’s IT department, both of which understand the technology but not the specific tolerances of a given kiln, mill or line. Operations staff, who know that a particular grinding unit runs hotter under monsoon humidity or that a calciner behaves differently after a refractory reline, are better positioned to calibrate what counts as routine on their own equipment.
Handing threshold ownership to operations does not remove IT or vendors from the process, but it puts the calibration decision closest to the people who live with its consequences on the floor.
Signals that oversight is actually working
A few concrete indicators reveal whether a monitoring setup is functioning as intended or simply providing the appearance of safety. The escalation rate over time is the first: a rate that stays flat or climbs slowly as operations mature is healthy, while one that spikes and then falls sharply often means operators have started overriding the system rather than engaging with it. Time to resolution is the second: escalations that take progressively longer to close suggest fatigue or confusion about ownership, not diligence. The third, and most telling, is how accurate the system’s own uncertainty estimates turn out to be, meaning whether events flagged as high risk actually correlated with real incidents, and whether events waved through stayed incident free. A system whose escalations do not track with actual outcomes trains operators toward the same complacency that unmonitored equipment produces.
None of this argues against automation in Indian cement manufacturing, where a labor structure built on contract work and a track record of serious accidents make better monitoring an urgent need. It argues for treating human oversight as a design problem with three distinct settings, rather than a single
dial turned up whenever a plant wants to look safer on paper.
About the author:
Dijam Panigrahi, Co-founder and COO, GridRaster, is a spatial computing platform for industrial enterprises and manufacturers.
CarbonStrong Raises Rs 125 Million To Scale Low Carbon Cement Tech
Protect Your Margins
More Oversight Makes Cement Plants Less Safe
The biggest gap arises from inconsistent leadership
The Future of Vertical Material Handling
CarbonStrong Raises Rs 125 Million To Scale Low Carbon Cement Tech
Protect Your Margins
More Oversight Makes Cement Plants Less Safe
The biggest gap arises from inconsistent leadership

