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.
