Concrete
Importance of TSR
Published
1 year agoon
By
admin
Procyon Mukherjee discusses the importance of the thermal substitution rate in the use of alternative fuels in the first part of this two-part series.
It was 22nd October 2019, and we were in Wuhan, visiting the world’s largest kiln that was being installed with the design-TSR of 60 per cent, which meant from the inception the system would be ready to take in higher quantity of RDF, largely from the municipal wastes generated at Wuhan. The overall schema included several co-processing units near Wuhan and then the eventual logistics of moving them through barges on the Yangtse river and then through pipelines into the different sections of the kiln and the pre-heater. We were quite astonished to see that it was the municipality of Wuhan who came forward with the entire scheme including logistics that helped the setting up of the plant – essentially a means for incineration of the entire municipal waste of Wuhan.
The rest of the world may not have such a denouement, rather a step-by-step approach of increasing the TSR, with more and more usage of alternate fuels. Thus, in most cases it is an incremental approach, the investments included. It is worthwhile to look at the journey of alternate fuel usage in cement kilns across the world over the last three decades and what are some of the critical investment pathways for increasing TSR.
The first major use of alternative fuels in the cement manufacturing industry emerged during the mid-1980s. The primary goal in substituting fossil fuels was to enable the industry to remain economically competitive, as fuel consumption accounts for almost one-third of the cost of producing clinker. Any positive impact on the environment was considered an added benefit. Since then, there has been increasing sensitivity to the environmental impact of human and industrial activities. Beyond the cost-cutting benefits of alternative fuels, use of these fuels can contribute greatly to the environmentally sound disposal of waste and to the mitigation of greenhouse-gas emissions (GHG).
Therefore, key cement players started to consider alternative fuels as a lever to improve their contribution to sustainable development and as a key component of corporate social responsibility.
The data in the bracket is the current number for TSR. The obvious case in point is the stratospheric increase in TSR rates in Poland. This needs some discussion. The case study on Poland throws some pointers as to how the journey from zero to 88 per cent has been achieved. The notable steps have been:
1. The willingness of Polish cement companies to reduce their operating costs by quickly replicating the alternative fuel experience of international cement groups
2. The enforcement of Polish waste regulations in order to conform to relevant European
Union directives, namely the Waste Framework Directive, the Waste Incineration Directive and the Landfill Directive.
The second one is one of the fundamental reasons to drive the use of alternate fuel. The journey had its humble beginnings with a small state tax imposed on land fill waste (which was collected from the same people who produced the waste) and then the increase of this tax over time, with the transfer of responsibility of waste collection to the land fill operators. Parallelly the ‘extended producer responsibility’ sparked off the implementation of the first waste shredding line to produce refuse-derived fuel (RDF).
In 2005, Germany adopted a ban on the landfilling of recyclable and organic waste, leading to overproduction of RDF. Poland’s shift toward alternative fuel development based on RDF was thus supported by importation of the fuel from Germany for five years, before Germany increased its own waste burning capacity. At that point, the alternative fuel substitution rate in Poland reached 20 percent. In 2008, the state tax was increased sharply, climbing from €4 per tonne in 2007 to about €17 per tonne, with a further doubling announced within the next 10 years. The enforcement of this tax for municipal waste incited waste management companies to invest in alternative solutions.
At that point, shredding line operators were sourcing waste from the industrial sector (obtaining good-quality waste for a low gate fee) as well as from the municipal waste sector, with large cities being the main providers. The extension of sourcing to include municipal waste resulted in a degree of downgrading of RDF quality, but the cement sector continued the effort and pushed the substitution rate to 40 per cent in 2010.
Once the capacity of RDF production lines reached an equilibrium with the alternative fuel capacity of cement plants, the cement companies were able to pressure RDF producers to further improve the fuel quality. To face this new demand, RDF producers had to innovate, improving the quality of the RDF significantly through better sorting and drying sequences (thermal or biological). In parallel, the cement plants developed new tools to improve drying, such as by installing thermal dryers that used the waste heat from the kilns. A new increase to the state tax then put more waste on the market—and at a better price—confirming the trend toward alternative fuel use.
But the crucial area of investment remained how to arrest the pitfalls of high RDF usage in the kilns as there were issues around chlorine, kiln operational stability, enabling the efficient use of diverse and often challenging fuel types, integration of the system with usage of multiple fuels including diverse alternate fuels and monitoring and control. It is in this regard that several specific investments had to be targeted. The lead in this was taken by Germany and followed by all others to see how increase in thermal substitution rates did not come in the way of either impacting the efficiencies or the environment and efforts were directed to create not only a balance but a way to get to 100 per cent of alternate fuel usage, virtually paving the way for 100 per cent TSR.
Some of the most commonly used alternative fuels in the cement industry are biomass, industrial and domestic waste materials, scrap tires, and sewage sludge. The high temperatures, long residence times, and alkaline environment in the cement kiln can prevent the formation of hazardous volatile compounds, making it a suitable option for co-processing waste materials as alternative fuels during cement production. Although the substitution of fossil fuels such as coal and pet coke with alternative fuels can potentially reduce total CO2 emissions from the cement industry, the reduction potentials are often marginal (in the range of 1- 5 per cent for most cases and up to 18 per cent of current CO2 emissions in a few cases) and depend on the source of biogenic emissions. Moreover, due to higher concentrations of sulphur, nitrogen, chlorine, heavy metals, or other volatile matter in some alternative fuels, co-processing can increase emissions of non-CO2 air pollutants of concern in some cases. Thus, an eye on not increasing the emissions (not just CO2 but also SOX and NOX) became a priority. This required investments over time as the RDF usage increased.
Let us see some of these investments in details, like Chlorine By-Pass, Rotating Hot Disc, ID Fan Modification, ESP Fan Modification, etc would be needed the moment the TSR rates would be approaching plus 30 per cent:
1. Chlorine by-pass: This investment is directed at mitigating and protecting a number of
things like:
Managing chlorine build-up
– Alternative fuels like waste-derived fuels often contain high levels of chlorine. This can lead to an accumulation of alkali chlorides in the kiln system.
– Chlorine build-up can cause operational problems, such as the formation of buildups or rings in the kiln and preheater systems, disrupting the material flow and reducing efficiency.
Improving kiln operation stability: High chlorine content can lead to corrosion and fouling of equipment. By removing excess chlorine, the system operates more stably and with fewer maintenance interruptions.
Protecting product quality: Excess chlorine can impact the clinker quality, leading to undesirable properties in the cement. The bypass system helps maintain consistent and high-quality clinker production.
Facilitating use of diverse fuels: Many alternative fuels, such as municipal solid waste, industrial waste, or tires, are economical but contain high chlorine levels. The bypass system enables cement plants to use these fuels without compromising efficiency
or quality.
Reducing environmental impact: Chlorine in the kiln system can lead to the formation of dioxins and furans, which are harmful pollutants. By extracting chlorine from the system, the bypass reduces the risk of these emissions.
How the system works:
The chlorine bypass system extracts a portion of the kiln gas from a specific point (often the kiln inlet) where the alkali chlorides are in a gaseous form. These gases are cooled rapidly to condense and separate the chlorides, which are then collected and disposed of appropriately.
There are eight components of the system:
Gas extraction system
- Function: Extracts a portion of kiln gases from a strategic location, typically near the kiln inlet where volatile alkali chlorides are in gaseous form.
Key components:
– Gas ducts with high-temperature resistance.
– Dampers to control the volume of extracted gas.
Rapid cooling system
- Function: Quickly cools the extracted hot gases to condense alkali chlorides and other volatiles, preventing them from recirculating into the kiln system.
- Key components:
– Water sprays or air quenching systems for
rapid cooling.
– Heat exchangers, if heat recovery is integrated.
Cyclones or bag filters
- Function: Separates condensed alkali chlorides and dust from the cooled gas stream.
- Key components:
– High-efficiency cyclones for coarse particle separation.
– Bag filters or electrostatic precipitators for fine particle removal.
Disposal system for collected byproducts
- Function: Safely manages and disposes of extracted chlorides and dust.
Key components:
– Conveyors or pneumatic transport systems.
– Silos or containment units for storage before disposal.
Bypass gas cooling and conditioning system
- Function: Further conditions the bypass gas before reintegration into the system or venting.
- Key components:
– Cooling towers or gas conditioning towers.
– Water injection systems for temperature control.
Control and automation system
- Function: Monitors and optimises the bypass system to ensure it operates efficiently and safely.
- Key components:
– Sensors for temperature, pressure, and chlorine content.
– Programmable logic controllers (PLCs) for real-time adjustments.
Heat recovery system (optional)
- Function: Captures waste heat from the bypass gases for use in other processes, improving energy efficiency.
- Key components:
– Heat exchangers.
– Steam generators or preheaters.
Integration with main kiln system
- Function: Ensures that the bypass system operates in harmony with the kiln process without disrupting clinker production or fuel efficiency.
- Key components:
– Ducts and valves for gas reintegration or venting.
– Interfaces with kiln control systems.
2. Combustion chamber hot disc
The installation of a combustion chamber (hot disc) in cement kilns for alternate fuel installations serves several critical purposes, enabling the efficient use of diverse and often challenging fuel types. Here’s a breakdown of its key roles:
Efficient combustion of alternative fuels
- The hot disc provides a dedicated zone for the complete combustion of alternate fuels, including those with varying calorific values, moisture content, and particle sizes.
- This ensures that even low-grade or coarse fuels (e.g., tires, municipal solid waste, biomass, or industrial waste) can be burned effectively.
Improved heat transfer
- The combustion chamber is designed to optimise heat generation and transfer, supplying the kiln with the necessary thermal energy.
- It reduces reliance on primary fossil fuels like coal or petcoke, lowering operating costs.
Reduced emissions
- Proper combustion in the hot disc minimises the release of harmful emissions, such as carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and unburned hydrocarbons.
- This helps the cement plant meet environmental regulations and sustainability goal
- Enhanced kiln operation stability
- Burning alternative fuels in the combustion chamber isolates their impact from the main kiln, ensuring stable temperatures and operation within the kiln.
- It minimises disruptions caused by the inconsistent burning behaviour of alternative fuels.
Handling difficult fuels
- The hot disc is specifically designed to process fuels that are challenging to handle in the main kiln or calciner, such as large solid fuels (e.g., tires or large biomass pieces).
- The chamber’s design accommodates prolonged fuel residence time and high temperatures, ensuring complete combustion.
Optimised energy efficiency
- By burning alternate fuels close to the kiln inlet or calciner, the hot disc provides pre-heated gases to the kiln system, improving energy efficiency.
- It contributes to a more uniform temperature profile, enhancing clinker quality.
Increased use of waste-derived fuels
- Many cement plants aim to increase their Thermal Substitution Rate (TSR)—the percentage of energy derived from alternative fuels. The hot disc facilitates this transition by enabling higher volumes and more diverse types of alternate fuels to be used safely and efficiently.
Overall benefits
The hot disc system allows cement plants to:
- Reduce dependency on fossil fuels
- Lower operational costs
- Improve sustainability by using waste as a resource
- Comply with stricter environmental regulations.
Rotating hot disc
- Function: The central component where alternative fuels, such as coarse solids (e.g., tires, plastics, or biomass), are introduced and combusted.
Key features:
- Rotating design for even fuel distribution.
– High-temperature resistance to handle intense combustion conditions.
– Adjustable speed to optimise fuel combustion time and efficiency.
Fuel feed system
- Function: Delivers alternative fuels to the hot disc in a controlled manner.
- Key components:
– Conveyors, pneumatic systems, or screw feeders for fuel transport.
– Chutes or injection systems for precise fuel placement.
– Hoppers or silos for storage of alternate fuels before feeding.

Concrete
Akhoya Gets New 2.2 Km Road Link Under SASCI
Two cement concrete roads opened at Rs 29.1 million (mn) cost
Published
2 hours agoon
July 3, 2026By
admin
Two cement concrete pavement roads covering a total stretch of 2.2 km in Akhoya village were inaugurated on 27th June 2026 by MLA Nuklutoshi Longkumer, who attended as the special guest. The project comprises the one km L Pangersowa Road and the one point two km Longchara Junction to RC Chiten Jamir Memorial Government High School road. A formal programme followed the inauguration at the school auditorium.
A technical report was presented by Er Waloniba of the Urban Engineering Wing-III, Kohima, which stated the project was sanctioned in March 2026 under the Special Assistance to States for Capital Investment scheme for 2025-26 at a sanctioned cost of Rs 29.1 million (mn). The work order was issued to M/s Ensign Construction on thirtieth April 2026 with a stipulated completion period of 12 months. Work commenced on fourth May 2026 and was completed on sixth June 2026, with the contractor and team finishing the tasks in around two months. The project included a single-lane cement concrete pavement with side drains, two slab culverts and breast walls at required locations.
Longkumer acknowledged the Chief Minister, the advisor for urban development, contractors and other stakeholders for the allocation and support, and he commended the contractor for early completion. He noted that cooperation from landowners and the community had been important in resolving land related issues that can otherwise delay developmental works. He emphasised that planned developmental activities carried out with collective effort would enable more projects to be implemented successfully.
The headmaster of RC Chiten Jamir Memorial Government High School, I Chubasenba Longkumer, outlined the school background, noting it was established in 1962, was earlier known as Government High School Changtongya and was renamed in 2014. Local representatives said the improved approach roads would ease access for students, staff, patients and the general public and fulfil a long standing aspiration of residents. A dedicatory prayer was offered by the pastor and the programme concluded with a ribbon cutting attended by village council and town council representatives.
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:
- Kiranmai Sanagavarapu, Director, Low Carbon Solutions, Fuller Technologies;
- 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.
Concrete
JK Cement Declared Preferred Bidder For Gilund Limestone Block
Shares Edge Higher As Company Wins Rajasthan Block
Published
3 days agoon
June 30, 2026By
admin
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.
Akhoya Gets New 2.2 Km Road Link Under SASCI
Green Construction Through Cement Innovation
JK Cement Declared Preferred Bidder For Gilund Limestone Block
Star Cement Named Preferred Bidder For Boro Lakhindong Block
KERC Proposal To Cut Rooftop Solar Export Tariff Raises Concern
Akhoya Gets New 2.2 Km Road Link Under SASCI
Green Construction Through Cement Innovation
JK Cement Declared Preferred Bidder For Gilund Limestone Block
Star Cement Named Preferred Bidder For Boro Lakhindong Block

