Connect with us

Concrete

Science and Application of Grinding Aids

Published

on

Shares

Dr SB Hegde discusses the importance of grinding aids as essential chemical additives that enhance cement grinding efficiency, reduce energy consumption and improve overall cement quality.

Grinding aids are chemical additives used in the manufacturing of cement to improve the grinding efficiency and performance of the material. These additives have become a critical component of the cement industry, playing a significant role in optimising mill output, reducing energy consumption, and enhancing the quality of cement. However, the adoption of grinding aids varies significantly across regions, influenced by cost considerations, regulatory frameworks, and technical awareness.

Despite their utility, grinding aids remain underutilised in certain regions. For instance, Europe has achieved over 80 per cent penetration of grinding aids due to stringent energy efficiency norms and advanced technologies, while India lags at around 30 per cent penetration, primarily due to cost sensitivity and limited technical expertise. Additionally, inconsistent quality and improper dosing often lead to suboptimal performance, underlining the need for stringent quality control and process optimisation.

The global market for grinding aids is expanding, projected to reach $ 1.2 billion by 2030, with a CAGR of 5.5 per cent. In India, the market is currently valued at `500 crore (2024). Innovations in the chemistry of grinding aids and the push for sustainable, bio-based additives are opening new avenues for adoption. Moreover, real-time monitoring and digital integration in cement plants are poised to revolutionise grinding aid applications by ensuring precise dosing and performance optimisation.

This article delves into the science, chemistry, and application of grinding aids, exploring their role in improving milling efficiency, quality control, and concrete performance. It further addresses market dynamics, challenges in adoption, and the path forward for maximising the benefits of grinding aids in cement manufacturing.

Chemistry of Grinding Aids
Grinding aids are chemical compounds specifically designed to improve the efficiency of the cement grinding process. Their effectiveness arises from their ability to modify the physical and chemical interactions between cement particles during grinding, thereby reducing agglomeration and improving the flowability of the material. This section delves into the nomenclature, chemistry, and scientific characteristics of grinding aids, providing an advanced understanding of their role in cement manufacturing.

2.1. Nomenclature and Classification
Grinding aids are generally categorised based on their chemical composition and functional groups. The most common types include:
1. Amine-based Compounds:

  • Triethanolamine (TEA)
  • Diethanolamine (DEA)
  • Monoethanolamine (MEA)

2. Glycol-based Compounds:

  • Ethylene glycol (EG)
  • Diethylene glycol (DEG)
  • Polyethylene glycol (PEG)

3. Other Organic Compounds:

  • Lignosulfonates
  • Hydroxycarboxylic acids (e.g., citric acid)

4. Hybrid Formulations:

  • Combinations of amines and glycols for enhanced performance
  • Additives with functionalised polymers provide multiple benefits, such as improving hydration kinetics and early strength development.

These compounds are often blended with performance enhancers, such as surfactants or dispersants, to achieve desired operational and material properties.

2.2. Chemical Mechanism of Action
Grinding aids operate at the molecular level by modifying surface properties and reducing inter-particle forces. The primary mechanisms include:

1. Reduction of Surface Energy:

  • Cement particles exhibit high surface energy due to fracture during grinding. Grinding aids adsorb onto particle surfaces, reducing their surface energy and preventing agglomeration.

2. Electrostatic Neutralisation:

  • Many grinding aids neutralise electrostatic charges that cause particles to attract each other, thus improving dispersion.

3. Lubrication Effect:

  • Glycol-based grinding aids act as lubricants at the contact points between particles and grinding media, reducing friction and energy consumption.

4. Improved Particle Size Distribution (PSD):

  • Grinding aids influence PSD by stabilising fine particles and preventing the re-agglomeration of smaller fractions, resulting in improved cement quality.

2.3. Scientific Characteristics and Properties
The effectiveness of grinding aids depends on their physicochemical properties and interactions with cement clinker phases.

1. Molecular Weight and Structure:

  • Low molecular weight compounds, such as TEA, are highly effective in reducing agglomeration but may increase water demand in the final cement.
  • High molecular weight compounds, such as PEG, provide additional benefits like workability and slump retention.

2. Hydrophilicity and Hydrophobicity:

  • Hydrophilic compounds, such as DEG, enhance water compatibility, while hydrophobic additives improve the grinding of clinker with high limestone content.

3. pH and Ionic Strength:

  • Most grinding aids function optimally within a specific pH range (typically 7-9) to ensure effective adsorption on clinker particles.
  • Ionic strength plays a critical role in the interaction of grinding aids with calcium ions present in the clinker.

4. Thermal Stability:

  • The thermal decomposition of grinding aids during the grinding process can influence their effectiveness. For example, amine-based compounds degrade at temperatures above 200°C, whereas glycol-based compounds remain stable under similar conditions.

2.4. Advanced Chemical Interactions with Clinker Phases
Grinding aids interact differently with the primary clinker phases—C3S (alite), C2S (belite), C3A (tricalcium aluminate), and C4AF (ferrite).

1. C3S (Alite):

  • Glycol-based compounds enhance the grinding of alite due to their ability to reduce crystalline hardness.
  • TEA has been shown to accelerate the hydration of C3S, improving early strength.

2. C2S (Belite):

  • Grinding aids have limited direct interaction with belite but indirectly improve its grinding efficiency by stabilising the fine particles in the cement mix.

3. C3A (Tricalcium Aluminate):

  • Amine-based grinding aids are highly effective in modifying the hydration kinetics of C3A, thereby influencing setting time and workability.

4. C4AF (Ferrite):

  • Ferrite phases are less reactive, but grinding aids reduce the grinding energy required for these phases, indirectly contributing to overall mill efficiency.

2.5. Examples of Performance Variation
Performance variations of grinding aids depend on clinker composition, mill type, and operating conditions. For instance:

  • A study revealed that the use of TEA in ball mills improved the grinding efficiency by 15 per cent, while the same compound exhibited a 20 per cent improvement in vertical roller mills.
  • Glycol-based aids showed superior performance with clinker containing higher SO3 content, improving Blaine fineness by 10 per cent compared to amine-based aids.
  • Customised formulations combining TEA and PEG reduced specific power consumption by eight per cent in a cement plant in South India.

2.6. Quality Control and Standardisation
To ensure consistent performance, grinding aids undergo rigorous quality control tests, including:

1. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR): Used to identify functional groups and confirm chemical composition.
2. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): Determines the purity and presence of byproducts in grinding aid formulations.
3. Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA): Assesses thermal stability and decomposition characteristics.
4. Surface Area and PSD Analysis: Evaluates the impact of grinding aids on cement particle size distribution and specific surface area.
5. Mill Trials: Performance is validated under real-world conditions by assessing mill output, specific power consumption, and cement quality metrics like Blaine fineness and compressive strength.

Performance Evaluation of Grinding Aids
The performance evaluation of grinding aids is crucial in determining their efficiency and overall contribution to cement manufacturing processes. A systematic assessment involves analysing key performance indicators (KPIs) such as energy consumption, mill output, and particle size distribution, while also evaluating their impact on cement hydration, setting time, and compressive strength. These evaluations, carried out both in laboratories and real-world industrial settings, provide critical insights into the effectiveness of grinding aids.

3.1. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Energy consumption serves as a primary metric for evaluating grinding aids, as their primary objective is to reduce the energy required for grinding. Studies have revealed that grinding aids can lower specific energy consumption by five to 25 per cent, contingent upon factors such as cement type, mill configuration, and operating parameters. For instance, a South Indian cement plant achieved an eight per cent reduction in specific power consumption with a glycol-based grinding aid in a ball mill, equating to considerable cost savings.
Mill output is another essential parameter. Grinding aids enhance material flowability and reduce agglomeration, leading to increased throughput. For example, polycarboxylate ether (PCE)-based grinding aids have been shown to boost mill output in vertical roller mills by 10 to 15 per cent compared to traditional amine-based formulations. This improvement is due to the superior dispersion and grinding efficiency offered by PCE-based formulations.
Particle size distribution (PSD) is significantly impacted by grinding aids, as they help achieve a finer and more uniform grind. This results in improved packing density and reduced voids in the cement matrix. Laboratory tests with triethanolamine (TEA)-based grinding aids have demonstrated a 12 per cent increase in Blaine fineness, alongside a notable reduction in oversize particles (>45 microns).

3.2. Laboratory Testing Methods for Grinding Aids
To comprehensively evaluate grinding aids, laboratory testing under controlled conditions is indispensable. Standardised methods include:
Grinding Efficiency Tests: Laboratory ball mills simulate industrial grinding conditions. The addition of grinding aids is assessed by measuring power draw, material flow rate, and specific residue levels. These tests provide quantifiable data on grinding efficiency improvements.
Hydration Studies: Techniques like isothermal calorimetry and X-ray diffraction (XRD) monitor hydration kinetics and phase formation. Amine-based grinding aids accelerate calcium silicate
hydrate (C-S-H) formation, contributing to early strength development.
Rheology and Flowability Tests: Grinding aids improve flowability, evaluated using rheometers and flowability indices. Glycol-based additives typically enhance flow properties by 15 to 20 per cent, reducing clogging and promoting smoother mill operations.
Compressive Strength Testing: Cement mortars incorporating grinding aids are subjected to compressive strength tests at various curing ages (e.g., 1, 3, 7, and 28 days). TEA-based grinding aids exhibit a 10 to 15 per cent improvement in early compressive strength, while PCE-based formulations deliver balanced strength gains across all curing ages.

3.3. Effect of Grinding Aids on Cement Hydration, Setting Time, and Compressive Strength Development
Grinding aids play a pivotal role in influencing cement hydration. Amine-based formulations, such as TEA and diethanolamine (DEA), enhance alite (C3S) hydration, leading to accelerated setting and early strength gain. However, excessive dosages can retard ettringite formation, thereby delaying setting time.
Glycol-based additives improve particle dispersion, ensuring uniform hydration. This results in enhanced compressive strength development at all ages. For instance, laboratory experiments demonstrated an eight per cent increase in 28-day compressive strength with ethylene glycol-based grinding aids compared to untreated cement.
Polycarboxylate ether-based grinding aids represent a modern advancement, offering dual benefits of improved grinding efficiency and compatibility with chemical admixtures like superplasticisers. This synergy optimises hydration, resulting in superior strength development. Studies have shown a 12 per cent increase in 28-day compressive strength for PCE-based grinding aids in cement containing supplementary materials like fly ash and slag.

3.4. Examples of Performance Variations with Specific Grinding Aids
Performance variations among grinding aids are influenced by their chemical compositions and the specific characteristics of the grinding process.

For example:

  • A North American cement plant achieved a 15 per cent increase in mill throughput and a 10 per cent reduction in specific energy consumption after transitioning from TEA-based to hybrid amine-glycol grinding aids.
  • Comparative trials revealed that diethylene glycol (DEG) is more effective in reducing grinding energy for clinker with high C3A content, while TEA offers superior performance for clinker with low gypsum levels.
  • A European cement manufacturer observed significant quality improvements with PCE-based grinding aids, particularly for blended cements containing up to 30 per cent fly ash. These cements exhibited narrower PSD and enhanced durability characteristics.

Challenges in Grinding Aid Adoption
Grinding aids, despite their proven benefits in enhancing milling efficiency and improving cement quality, face several challenges in widespread adoption. Understanding these challenges requires a detailed analysis of operational, environmental, and regulatory factors at both global and regional levels, including India. This section delves into the barriers to the extensive use of grinding aids, with a focus on technical, logistical, and market-driven aspects.

4.1. Reasons for Limited Popularity in Some Regions and Plants
The limited adoption of grinding aids in certain regions and plants often stems from economic constraints and lack of awareness. In emerging markets, the upfront cost of grinding aids may deter smaller or cost-sensitive cement producers. For example, in India, many mid-sized plants operate on tight profit margins and prioritise short-term cost reductions over long-term efficiency gains. Globally, smaller plants in Africa and Southeast Asia also exhibit lower adoption rates due to financial constraints and limited technical knowledge about the benefits of grinding aids.
Additionally, plant operators may hesitate to incorporate grinding aids due to the perception that these additives increase operational complexity. Variations in clinker composition and grinding equipment across plants often necessitate customised formulations of grinding aids, which can create challenges in consistency and effectiveness. For instance, cement plants using vertical roller mills (VRMs) often require different grinding aid formulations compared to those with ball mills, leading to variability in performance and discouraging adoption.

4.2. Impact of Raw Material Variability on Grinding Aid Effectiveness
The variability of raw materials, including clinker and gypsum, presents a significant challenge to the consistent performance of grinding aids. Differences in chemical composition, mineralogy, and moisture content of raw materials can influence the reactivity and efficacy of grinding aids. For example, clinkers with high levels of alite (C3S) and belite (C2S) require different formulations compared to those with elevated free lime or alkali content.
In India, raw material variability is particularly pronounced due to the use of diverse limestone sources and blended cements containing fly ash, slag, or other supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). A study conducted by a leading Indian cement producer revealed that grinding aids optimised for clinker-based cement exhibited suboptimal performance when used for fly ash-blended cement, resulting in inconsistent strength development and mill throughput.
Globally, similar issues arise in regions where raw material quality is inconsistent. Cement plants in Southeast Asia, for instance, frequently encounter challenges due to high moisture content in limestone and clay, which affects grinding efficiency and necessitates frequent adjustments in grinding aid dosage.

4.3. Concerns Over Operational and Maintenance Issues in Cement Mills
Operational and maintenance challenges in cement mills also contribute to the limited adoption of grinding aids. Excessive use of grinding aids can lead to unwanted side effects, such as excessive coating of grinding media and mill internals, which can reduce grinding efficiency and increase maintenance costs. For example, ethylene glycol-based grinding aids, when used at high dosages, may lead to the formation of sticky residues, necessitating frequent cleaning of mill components.
Furthermore, some plant operators report issues related to the compatibility of grinding aids with chemical admixtures or process conditions. In certain cases, the use of amine-based grinding aids has been linked to increased foaming in water-recirculating systems, leading to operational disruptions and higher water treatment costs.
Additionally, the adoption of grinding aids in plants using VRMs is often hindered by the sensitivity of these mills to operating parameters. Variations in grinding aid dosage or clinker properties can significantly affect mill vibrations and stability, creating operational challenges.

4.4. Environmental and Regulatory Challenges Related to Grinding Aids
Environmental concerns and regulatory restrictions represent another significant barrier to the widespread adoption of grinding aids. Many grinding aids contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are subject to stringent environmental regulations in developed markets such as Europe and North America. For instance, amine-based formulations, including triethanolamine (TEA) and diethanolamine (DEA), are classified as hazardous substances in some regions, limiting their usage.
In India, while environmental regulations are less restrictive, there is growing pressure from policymakers and environmental organisations to minimise the carbon footprint of cement manufacturing. Grinding aid manufacturers face the challenge of developing eco-friendly formulations that meet performance requirements while adhering to environmental standards. This has spurred interest in biodegradable and low-VOC grinding aids, although their higher cost remains a deterrent.
Additionally, regulatory approval processes for new grinding aid formulations can be time-consuming and costly, particularly in regions with strict compliance standards. This limits the introduction of innovative products in markets such as the EU, where REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) compliance is mandatory.

About the author:
Dr SB Hegde, a global cement industry leader with over 30 years of experience, is a Professor at Jain College of Engineering, India, and a Visiting Professor at Pennsylvania State University, USA. Recipient of the ‘Global Visionary’ award, Dr Hegde advises India’s think tank CSTEP on hydrogen usage in cement and consults for major cement companies. He also serves on expert panels of key industry bodies and journals globally.

Concrete

Balancing Rapid Economic Growth and Climate Action

Published

on

By

Shares

Dr Yogendra Kanitkar, VP R&D, and Dr Shirish Kumar Sharma, Assistant Manager R&D, Pi Green Innovations, look at India’s cement industry as it stands at the crossroads of infrastructure expansion and urgent decarbonisation.

The cement industry plays an indispensable role in India’s infrastructure development and economic growth. As the world’s second-largest cement producer after China, India accounts for more than 8 per cent of global cement production, with an output of around 418 million tonnes in 2023–24. It contributes roughly 11 per cent to the input costs of the construction sector, sustains over one million direct jobs, and generates an estimated 20,000 additional downstream jobs for every million tonnes produced. This scale makes cement a critical backbone of the nation’s development. Yet, this vitality comes with a steep environmental price, as cement production contributes nearly 7 per cent of India’s total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
On a global scale, the sector accounts for 8 per cent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, a figure that underscores the urgency of balancing rapid growth with climate responsibility. A unique challenge lies in the dual nature of cement-related emissions: about 60 per cent stem from calcination of limestone in kilns, while the remaining 40 per cent arise from the combustion of fossil fuels to generate the extreme heat of 1,450°C required for clinker production (TERI 2023; GCCA).
This dilemma is compounded by India’s relatively low per capita consumption of cement at about 300kg per year, compared to the global average of 540kg. The data reveals substantial growth potential as India continues to urbanise and industrialise, yet this projected rise in consumption will inevitably add to greenhouse gas emissions unless urgent measures are taken. The sector is also uniquely constrained by being a high-volume, low-margin business with high capital intensity, leaving limited room to absorb additional costs for decarbonisation technologies.
India has nonetheless made notable progress in improving the carbon efficiency of its cement industry. Between 1996 and 2010, the sector reduced its emissions intensity from 1.12 tonnes of CO2 per ton of cement to 0.719 tonnes—making it one of the most energy-efficient globally. Today, Indian cement plants reach thermal efficiency levels of around 725 kcal/kg of clinker and electrical consumption near 75 kWh per tonne of cement, broadly in line with best global practice (World Cement 2025). However, absolute emissions continue to rise with increasing demand, with the sector emitting around 177 MtCO2 in 2023, about 6 per cent of India’s total fossil fuel and industrial emissions. Without decisive interventions, projections suggest that cement manufacturing emissions in India could rise by 250–500 per cent by mid-century, depending on demand growth (Statista; CEEW).
Recognising this threat, the Government of India has brought the sector under compliance obligations of the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS). Cement is one of the designated obligated entities, tasked with meeting aggressive reduction targets over the next two financial years, effectively binding companies to measurable progress toward decarbonisation and creating compliance-driven demand for carbon reduction and trading credits (NITI 2025).
The industry has responded by deploying incremental decarbonisation measures focused on energy efficiency, alternative fuels, and material substitutions. Process optimisation using AI-driven controls and waste heat recovery systems has made many plants among the most efficient worldwide, typically reducing fuel use by 3–8 per cent and cutting emissions by up to 9 per cent. Trials are exploring kiln firing with greener fuels such as hydrogen and natural gas. Limited blends of hydrogen up to 20 per cent are technically feasible, though economics remain unfavourable at present.
Efforts to electrify kilns are gaining international attention. For instance, proprietary technologies have demonstrated the potential of electrified kilns that can reach 1,700°C using renewable electricity, a transformative technology still at the pilot stage. Meanwhile, given that cement manufacturing is also a highly power-intensive industry, several firms are shifting electric grinding operations to renewable energy.
Material substitution represents another key decarbonisation pathway. Blended cements using industrial by-products like fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) can significantly reduce the clinker factor, which currently constitutes about 65 per cent in India. GGBS can replace up to 85 per cent of clinker in specific cement grades, though its future availability may fall as steel plants decarbonise and reduce slag generation. Fly ash from coal-fired power stations remains widely used as a low-carbon substitute, but its supply too will shrink as India expands renewable power. Alternative fuels—ranging from biomass to solid waste—further allow reductions in fossil energy dependency, abating up to 24 per cent of emissions according to pilot projects (TERI; CEEW).
Beyond these, Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) technologies are emerging as a critical lever for achieving deep emission cuts, particularly since process emissions are chemically unavoidable. Post-combustion amine scrubbing using solvents like monoethanolamine (MEA) remains the most mature option, with capture efficiencies between 90–99 per cent demonstrated at pilot scale. However, drawbacks include energy penalties that require 15–30 per cent of plant output for solvent regeneration, as well as costs for retrofitting and long-term corrosion management (Heidelberg Materials 2025). Oxyfuel combustion has been tested internationally, producing concentrated CO2-laden flue gas, though the high cost of pure oxygen production impedes deployment in India.
Calcium looping offers another promising pathway, where calcium oxide sorbents absorb CO2 and can be regenerated, but challenges of sorbent degradation and high calcination energy requirements remain barriers (DNV 2024). Experimental approaches like membrane separation and mineral carbonation are advancing in India, with startups piloting systems to mineralise flue gas streams at captive power plants. Besides point-source capture, innovations such as CO2 curing of concrete blocks already show promise, enhancing strength and reducing lifecycle emissions.
Despite progress, several systemic obstacles hinder the mass deployment of CCUS in India’s cement industry. Technology readiness remains a fundamental issue: apart from MEA-based capture, most technologies are not commercially mature in high-volume cement plants. Furthermore, CCUS is costly. Studies by CEEW estimate that achieving net-zero cement in India would require around US$ 334 billion in capital investments and US$ 3 billion annually in operating costs by 2050, potentially raising cement prices between 19–107 per cent. This is particularly problematic for an industry where companies frequently operate at capacity utilisations of only 65–70 per cent and remain locked in fierce price competition (SOIC; CEEW).
Building out transport and storage infrastructure compounds the difficulty, since many cement plants lie far from suitable geological CO2 storage sites. Moreover, retrofitting capture plants onto operational cement production lines adds technical integration struggles, as capture systems must function reliably under the high-particulate and high-temperature environment of cement kilns.
Overcoming these hurdles requires a multi-pronged approach rooted in policy, finance, and global cooperation. Policy support is vital to bridge the cost gap through instruments like production-linked incentives, preferential green cement procurement, tax credits, and carbon pricing mechanisms. Strategic planning to develop shared CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, ideally in industrial clusters, would significantly lower costs and risks. International coordination can also accelerate adoption.
The Global Cement and Concrete Association’s net-zero roadmap provides a collaborative template, while North–South technology transfer offers developing countries access to proven technologies. Financing mechanisms such as blended finance, green bonds tailored for cement decarbonisation and multilateral risk guarantees will reduce capital barriers.
An integrated value-chain approach will be critical. Coordinated development of industrial clusters allows multiple emitters—cement, steel, and chemicals—to share common CO2 infrastructure, enabling economies of scale and lowering unit capture costs. Public–private partnerships can further pool resources to build this ecosystem. Ultimately, decarbonisation is neither optional nor niche for Indian cement. It is an imperative driven by India’s growth trajectory, environmental sustainability commitments, and changing global markets where carbon intensity will define trade competitiveness.
With compliance obligations already mandated under CCTS, the cement industry must accelerate decarbonisation rapidly over the next two years to meet binding reduction targets. The challenge is to balance industrial development with ambitious climate goals, securing both economic resilience and ecological sustainability. The pathway forward depends on decisive governmental support, cross-sectoral innovation, global solidarity, and forward-looking corporate action. The industry’s future lies in reframing decarbonisation not as a burden but as an investment in competitiveness, climate alignment and social responsibility.

References

  • Infomerics, “Indian Cement Industry Outlook 2024,” Nov 2024.
  • TERI & GCCA India, “Decarbonisation Roadmap for the Indian Cement Industry,” 2023.
  • UN Press Release, GA/EF/3516, “Global Resource Efficiency and Cement.”
  • World Cement, “India in Focus: Energy Efficiency Gains,” 2025.
  • Statista, “CO2 Emissions from Cement Manufacturing 2023.”
  • Heidelberg Materials, Press Release, June 18, 2025.
  • CaptureMap, “Cement Carbon Capture Technologies,” 2024.
  • DNV, “Emerging Carbon Capture Techniques in Cement Plants,” 2024.
  • LEILAC Project, News Releases, 2024–25.
  • PMC (NCBI), “Membrane-Based CO2 Capture in Cement Plants,” 2024.
  • Nature, “Carbon Capture Utilization in Cement and Concrete,” 2024.
  • ACS Industrial Engineering & Chemistry Research, “CCUS Integration in Cement Plants,” 2024.
  • CEEW, “How Can India Decarbonise for a Net-Zero Cement Industry?” (2025).
  • SOIC, “India’s Cement Industry Growth Story,” 2025.
  • MDPI, “Processes: Challenges for CCUS Deployment in Cement,” 2024.
  • NITI Aayog, “CCUS in Indian Cement Sector: Policy Gaps & Way Forward,” 2025.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Dr Yogendra Kanitkar, Vice President R&D, Pi Green Innovations, drives sustainable change through advanced CCUS technologies and its pioneering NetZero Machine, delivering real decarbonisation solutions for hard-to-abate sectors.

Dr Shirish Kumar Sharma, Assitant Manager R&D, Pi Green Innovations, specialises in carbon capture, clean energy, and sustainable technologies to advance impactful CO2 reduction solutions.

Continue Reading

Concrete

Carbon Capture Systems

Published

on

By

Shares

Nathan Ashcroft, Director, Strategic Growth, Business Development, and Low Carbon Solutions – Stantec, explores the challenges and strategic considerations for cement industry as it strides towards Net Zero goals.

The cement industry does not need a reminder that it is among the most carbon-intensive sectors in the world. Roughly 7–8 per cent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are tied to cement production. And unlike many other heavy industries, a large share of these emissions come not from fuel but from the process itself: the calcination of limestone. Efficiency gains, fuel switching, and renewable energy integration can reduce part of the footprint. But they cannot eliminate process emissions.
This is why carbon capture and storage (CCS) has become central to every serious discussion
about cement’s pathway to Net Zero. The industry already understands and accepts this challenge.
The debate is no longer whether CCS will be required—it is about how fast, affordable, and seamlessly it can be integrated into facilities that were never designed for it.

In many ways, CCS represents the ‘last mile’of cement decarbonisation. Once the sector achieves effective capture at scale, the most difficult part of its emissions profile will have been addressed. But getting there requires navigating a complex mix of technical, operational, financial and regulatory considerations.

A unique challenge for cement
Cement plants are built for durability and efficiency, not for future retrofits. Most were not designed with spare land for absorbers, ducting or compression units. Nor with the energy integration needs of capture systems in mind. Retrofitting CCS into these existing layouts presents a series of non-trivial challenges.
Reliability also weighs heavily in the discussion. Cement production runs continuously, and any disruption has significant economic consequences. A CCS retrofit typically requires tie-ins to stacks and gas flows that can only be completed during planned shutdowns. Even once operational, the capture system must demonstrate high availability. Otherwise, producers may face the dual cost of capture downtime and exposure to carbon taxes or penalties, depending on jurisdiction.
Despite these hurdles, cement may actually be better positioned than some other sectors. Flue gas from cement kilns typically has higher CO2 concentrations than gas-fired power plants, which improves capture efficiency. Plants also generate significant waste heat, which can be harnessed to offset the energy requirements of capture units. These advantages give the industry reason to be optimistic, provided integration strategies are carefully planned.

From acceptance to implementation
The cement sector has already acknowledged the inevitability of CCS. The next step is to turn acceptance into a roadmap for action. This involves a shift from general alignment around ‘the need’ toward project-level decisions about technology, layout, partnerships and financing.
The critical questions are no longer about chemistry or capture efficiency. They are about the following:

  • Space and footprint: Where can capture units be located? And how can ducting be routed in crowded plants?
  • Energy balance: How can capture loads be integrated without eroding plant efficiency?
  • Downtime and risk: How will retrofits be staged to avoid prolonged shutdowns?
  • Financing and incentives: How will capital-intensive projects be funded in a sector with
    tight margins?
  • Policy certainty: Will governments provide the clarity and support needed for long-term investment
  • Technology advancement: What are the latest developments?
  • All of these considerations are now shaping the global CCS conversation in cement.

Economics: The central barrier
No discussion of CCS in the cement industry is complete without addressing cost. Capture systems are capital-intensive, with absorbers, regenerators, compressors, and associated balance-of-plant representing a significant investment. Operational costs are dominated by energy consumption, which adds further pressure in competitive markets.
For many producers, the economics may seem prohibitive. But the financial landscape is changing rapidly. Carbon pricing is becoming more widespread and will surely only increase in the future. This makes ‘doing nothing’ an increasingly expensive option. Government incentives—ranging from investment tax credits in North America to direct funding in Europe—are accelerating project viability. Some producers are exploring CO2 utilisation, whether in building materials, synthetic fuels, or industrial applications, as a way to offset costs. This is an area we will see significantly more work in the future.
Perhaps most importantly, the cost of CCS itself is coming down. Advances in novel technologies, solvents, modular system design, and integration strategies are reducing both capital requirements
and operating expenditures. What was once prohibitively expensive is now moving into the range of strategic possibility.
The regulatory and social dimension
CCS is not just a technical or financial challenge. It is also a regulatory and social one. Permitting requirements for capture units, pipelines, and storage sites are complex and vary by jurisdiction. Long-term monitoring obligations also add additional layers of responsibility.
Public trust also matters. Communities near storage sites or pipelines must be confident in the safety and environmental integrity of the system. The cement industry has the advantage of being widely recognised as a provider of essential infrastructure. If producers take a proactive role in transparent engagement and communication, they can help build public acceptance for CCS
more broadly.

Why now is different
The cement industry has seen waves of technology enthusiasm before. Some have matured, while others have faded. What makes CCS different today? The convergence of three forces:
1. Policy pressure: Net Zero commitments and tightening regulations are making CCS less of an option and more of an imperative.
2. Technology maturity: First-generation projects in power and chemicals have provided valuable lessons, reducing risks for new entrants.
3. Cost trajectory: Capture units are becoming smaller, smarter, and more affordable, while infrastructure investment is beginning to scale.
This convergence means CCS is shifting from concept to execution. Globally, projects are moving from pilot to commercial scale, and cement is poised to be among the beneficiaries of this momentum.

A global perspective
Our teams at Stantec recently completed a global scan of CCS technologies, and the findings are encouraging. Across solvents, membranes, and
hybrid systems, innovation pipelines are robust. Modular systems with reduced footprints are
emerging, specifically designed to make retrofits more practical.
Equally important, CCS hubs—where multiple emitters can share transport and storage infrastructure—are beginning to take shape in key regions. These hubs reduce costs, de-risk storage, and provide cement producers with practical pathways to integration.

The path forward
The cement industry has already accepted the challenge of carbon capture. What remains is charting a clear path to implementation. The barriers—space, cost, downtime, policy—are real. But they are not insurmountable. With costs trending downward, technology footprints shrinking, and policy support expanding, CCS is no longer a distant aspiration.
For cement producers, the decision is increasingly about timing and positioning. Those who move early can potentially secure advantages in incentives, stakeholder confidence, and long-term competitiveness. Those who delay may face higher costs and tighter compliance pressures.
Ultimately, the message is clear: CCS is coming to cement. The question is not if but how soon. And once it is integrated, the industry’s biggest challenge—process emissions—will finally have a solution.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Nathan Ashcroft, Director, Strategic Growth, Business Development, and Low Carbon Solutions – Stantec, holds expertise in project management, strategy, energy transition, and extensive international leadership experience.

Continue Reading

Concrete

The Green Revolution

Published

on

By

Shares

MM Rathi, Joint President – Power Management, Shree Cement, discusses the 3Cs – cut emissions, capture carbon and cement innovation – that are currently crucial for India’s cement sector to achieve Net Zero goals.

India’s cement industry is a backbone of growth which stand strong to lead the way towards net zero. From highways and housing to metros and mega cities, cement has powered India’s rise as the world’s second-largest producer with nearly 600 million tonnes annual capacity. Yet this progress comes with challenges: the sector contributes around 5 per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions, while also facing volatile fuel prices, raw material constraints, and rising demand from rapid urbanisation.
This dual role—driving development while battling emissions—makes cement central to India’s Net Zero journey. The industry cannot pause growth, nor can it ignore climate imperatives. As India pursues its net-zero 2070 pledge, cement must lead the way. The answer lies in the 3Cs Revolution—Cut Emissions, Cement Innovation, Capture Carbon. This framework turns challenges into opportunities, ensuring cement continues to build India’s future while aligning with global sustainability goals.

Cut: Reducing emissions, furnace by furnace
Cement production is both energy- and carbon-intensive, but India has steadily emerged as one of the most efficient producers worldwide. A big part of this progress comes from the widespread use of blended cements, which now account for more than 73 per cent of production. By lowering the clinker factor to around 0.65, the industry is able to avoid nearly seven million tonnes of CO2 emissions every year. Alongside this, producers are turning to alternative fuels and raw materials—ranging from biomass and municipal waste to refuse-derived fuels—to replace conventional fossil fuels in kilns.
Efficiency gains also extend to heat and power. With over 500 MW of waste heat recovery systems already installed, individual plants are now able to generate 15–18 MW of electricity directly from hot exhaust gases that would otherwise go to waste. On the renewable front, the sector is targeting about 10 per cent of its power needs from solar and wind by FY26, with a further 4–5 GW of capacity expected by 2030. To ensure that this renewable power is reliable, companies are signing round-the-clock supply contracts that integrate solar and wind with battery energy storage systems (BESS). Grid-scale batteries are also being explored to balance the variability of renewables and keep kiln operations running without interruption.
Even logistics is being reimagined, with a gradual shift away from diesel trucks toward railways, waterways, and CNG-powered fleets, reducing both emissions and supply chain congestion. Taken together, these measures are not only cutting emissions today but also laying the foundation for future breakthroughs such as green hydrogen-fueled kiln operations.

Cement: Innovations that bind
Innovation is transforming the way cement is produced and used, bringing efficiency, strength, and sustainability together. Modern high-efficiency plants now run kilns capable of producing up to 13,500 tonnes of clinker per day. With advanced coolers and pyro systems, they achieve energy use as low as 680 kilocalories per kilogram of heat and just 42 kilowatt-hours of power per tonne of clinker. By capturing waste heat, these plants are also able to generate 30–35 kilowatt-hours of electricity per tonne, bringing the net power requirement down to only 7–12 kilowatt-hours—a major step forward in energy efficiency.
Grinding technology has also taken a leap. Next-generation mills consume about 20 per cent less power while offering more flexible operations, allowing producers to fine-tune processes quickly and reduce energy costs. At the same time, the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) such as fly ash, slag and calcined clays is cutting clinker demand without compromising strength. New formulations like Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3) go even further, reducing emissions by nearly 30 per cent while delivering stronger, more durable concrete.
Digitalisation is playing its part as well. Smart instrumentation, predictive maintenance, and automated monitoring systems are helping plants operate more smoothly, avoid costly breakdowns, and maintain consistent quality while saving energy. Together, these innovations not only reduce emissions but also enhance durability, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, proving that sustainability and performance can go hand in hand.

Carbon: Building a better tomorrow
Even with major efficiency gains, most emissions from cement come from the chemical process of turning limestone into clinker—emissions that cannot be avoided without carbon capture. To address this, the industry is moving forward on several fronts. Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) pilots are underway, aiming to trap CO2 at the source and convert it into useful products such as construction materials and industrial chemicals.
At the same time, companies are embracing circular practices. Rainwater harvesting, wastewater recycling, and the use of alternative raw materials are becoming more common, especially as traditional sources like fly ash become scarcer. Policy and market signals are reinforcing this transition: efficiency mandates, green product labels and emerging carbon markets are pushing producers to accelerate the shift toward low-carbon cements.
Ultimately, large-scale carbon capture will be essential if the sector is to reach true net-zero
cement, turning today’s unavoidable emissions into tomorrow’s opportunities.

The Horizon: What’s next
By 2045, India’s cities are expected to welcome another 250 million residents, a wave of urbanisation that will push cement demand nearly 420 million tonnes by FY27 and keep rising in the decades ahead. The industry is already preparing for this future with a host of forward-looking measures. Trials of electrified kilns are underway to replace fossil fuel-based heating, while electric trucks are being deployed both in mining operations and logistics to reduce transport emissions. Inside the plants, AI-driven systems are optimising energy use and operations, and circular economy models are turning industrial by-products from other sectors into valuable raw materials for cement production. On the energy front, companies are moving toward 100 per cent renewable power, supported by advanced battery storage to ensure reliability around the clock.
This vision goes beyond incremental improvements. The 3Cs Revolution—Cut, Cement, Carbon is about building stronger, smarter, and more sustainable foundations for India’s growth. Once seen as a hard-to-abate emitter, the cement sector is now positioning itself as a cornerstone of India’s climate strategy. By cutting emissions, driving innovations and capturing carbon, it is laying the groundwork for a net-zero future.
India’s cement sector is already among the most energy-efficient in the world, proving that growth and responsibility can go hand in hand. By cutting emissions, embracing innovation, and advancing carbon capture, we are not just securing our net-zero future—we are positioning India as a global leader in sustainable cement.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
MM Rathi, Joint President – Power Management, Shree Cement, comes with extensive expertise in commissioning and managing over 1000 MW of thermal, solar, wind, and waste heat power plants.

Continue Reading

Trending News

SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER

 

Don't miss out on valuable insights and opportunities to connect with like minded professionals.

 


    This will close in 0 seconds