Professor Procyon Mukherjee follows the progress of green cement across Europe and China, as carbon capture, clinker substitution and alternative fuels are converging to redefine what it means to build sustainably at scale.

In the race to decarbonise heavy industry, cement has long been considered the immovable object. Responsible for approximately eight per cent of global CO2 emissions, the sector sits at the uncomfortable intersection of necessity and intractability-essential to infrastructure, yet fundamentally carbon-intensive by design. However, something has shifted. Across Europe and China, green cement is no longer confined to pilot projects and academic optimism. It is entering markets, commanding premiums, and reshaping competitive dynamics. The transformation is not incremental-it is structural. And companies that once competed on cost and scale are now competing on carbon.

Why cement is so hard to decarbonise
Unlike many industries, cement’s emissions are not just about energy-they are embedded in chemistry. Nearly two-thirds of emissions come from calcination, the process of heating limestone to create clinker, the binding agent in cement. These emissions are ‘process emissions,’ meaning they cannot simply be eliminated by switching to renewable energy.
This makes cement one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonise-and explains why progress has historically lagged-behind industries like power or mobility. Yet that constraint has also forced innovation along multiple fronts simultaneously.

Europe: Turning regulation into innovation
Europe has emerged as the global testbed for green cement-not by accident, but by design. Strict carbon pricing under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), combined with subsidies like the EU Innovation Fund, has created a powerful push toward industrial decarbonisation. The result is a wave of first-of-its-kind projects that are now moving from concept to commercialisation.

The Heidelberg breakthrough
Few companies illustrate this shift better than Heidelberg Materials. At its Brevik plant in Norway, the company has launched what is widely considered the world’s first commercial-scale carbon-captured cement, branded as evoZero. The facility captures around 400,000 tonnes of CO2 annually-roughly 50 per cent of plant emissions-and stores it beneath the North Sea.
This is not a laboratory experiment. It is already supplying real construction projects, including infrastructure in Oslo and 3D-printed housing in Germany. Even more telling, early production has effectively been pre-sold, despite higher costs. Demand is not waiting for cost parity-it is being pulled by sustainability commitments across construction and real estate.
Heidelberg is doubling down. Its ‘GeZero’ project in Germany aims to capture 700,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, supported by significant public funding and designed as a replicable blueprint for inland plants.

Productisation of green cement
What is striking in Europe’s cement transition is not just the pace of innovation, but its productisation. A sector long defined by undifferentiated bulk material is now seeing the emergence of branded, strategically distinct green offerings. Heidelberg Materials’ evoZero signals leadership in carbon capture-enabled cement, while Cementir Holding’s FUTURECEM reflects a pragmatic pathway built on clinker substitution and immediate scalability. At the other end of the spectrum, Hoffmann Green Cement Technologies is redefining the category itself with its zero-clinker formulations, challenging the very chemistry of cement.
Meanwhile, incumbents like Holcim and CEMEX are pursuing portfolio strategies through brands such as ECOPlanet and Vertua, embedding low-carbon options across their product lines. The implication is profound: carbon is no longer an invisible externality-it is becoming a core dimension of competition, with companies differentiating not just on cost and scale, but on the technological pathway they choose to decarbonise.

A portfolio approach to decarbonisation
European players are not relying on a single solution. Instead, they are combining four levers:

1. Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) to address unavoidable process emissions
2. Clinker substitution to replace high-carbon clinker with materials like fly ash, slag and calcined clay
3. Alternative fuels to include biomass and waste-derived fuels (often exceeding 80 per cent substitution rates)
4. Circularity to recycle demolition concrete and optimising material use
   No single technology solves cement’s carbon problem. But together, they create a viable pathway to near-zero emissions.

China: Scaling through systems innovation
If Europe is pioneering, China is industrialising. As the world’s largest cement producer-accounting for more than half of global output-China’s role is decisive. While regulatory pressure has historically been lower than in Europe, the country is now accelerating decarbonisation through scale, integration, and system-level innovation.
Integration as a cost advantage
Recent research highlights a uniquely Chinese approach: integrating cement production with adjacent industries such as hydrogen and chemicals. For example, coupling green hydrogen production with carbon capture in cement plants can reduce abatement costs to $41-53 per tonne, significantly lower than standalone solutions. This reflects a broader strategic pattern: rather than treating decarbonisation as a cost centre, Chinese firms are embedding it within industrial ecosystems.

Material innovation at scale
China is also aggressively pursuing clinker substitution and alternative binders, often leveraging industrial by-products such as fly ash and slag. The progress on calcined clay in Europe is also noteworthy. These approaches can reduce emissions without fundamentally altering existing infrastructure-making them easier to scale rapidly. At the same time, pilot projects are exploring breakthrough technologies, including electrochemical processes and novel cement chemistries, though these remain at earlier stages of commercialisation.

The emerging competitive divide
What is becoming clear is that green cement is not just a sustainability story-it is a competitive one.
Three shifts are reshaping the industry:

1. Carbon is becoming a product attribute
   Traditionally, cement was a commodity differentiated mainly by price and logistics. That is changing. Products like evoZero demonstrate that carbon intensity itself can be monetised. Early adopters-developers, governments, and corporates-are willing to pay a premium for low-carbon materials to meet ESG commitments and regulatory requirements.
2. First movers are building structural advantages
   Projects like Brevik or GeZero are capital-intensive and technologically complex. But they create capabilities that are difficult to replicate quickly:
   • Access to CO2 transport and storage infrastructure
   • Expertise in CCUS integration
   • Early relationships with sustainability-focused customers
   This mirrors patterns seen in renewable energy and electric vehicles, where early investments created enduring competitive moats.
3. Policy is shaping market demand
   Public procurement and regulation are becoming decisive demand drivers. Initiatives such as low-carbon building standards, carbon pricing, and coalitions like ConcreteZero are effectively creating guaranteed markets for green cement. In this environment, companies are not just responding to regulation-they are positioning themselves to benefit from it.

The economics challenge: Who pays?
Despite rapid progress, one challenge remains unresolved: Cost.
Carbon capture and advanced materials increase production costs significantly. Projects like Brevik rely heavily on government support, and long-term viability depends on closing the gap between green and conventional cement.
Three mechanisms are emerging to address this:
• Carbon pricing, which penalises high-emission cement
• Green premiums, paid by early adopters
• Subsidies and incentives, to de-risk early investments
Over time, scale and learning effects are expected to reduce costs-just as they did in solar and wind energy. But the transition period will require careful coordination between industry and policy.

What leaders should take away
For executives, whether in construction, infrastructure, or manufacturing-the implications are immediate:
• Supply chains will decarbonise unevenly.
Access to green cement will vary by region and supplier capability.
• Procurement strategies must evolve. Carbon intensity will become as important as cost and reliability.
• Partnerships will matter. Collaboration with suppliers, governments, and technology providers will be essential to secure low-carbon materials.
Most importantly, green cement is no longer a distant innovation-it is entering the mainstream of strategic decision-making.

From constraint to catalyst
For decades, cement has symbolised the limits of industrial decarbonisation-a sector where physics and chemistry seemed to resist change.
Today, it is becoming something else: a proving ground. Europe has shown that regulation can
catalyse innovation. China is demonstrating that scale and integration can drive cost reductions. Companies like Heidelberg are proving that even the hardest-to-abate industries can move from ambition to execution.
The lesson extends far beyond cement. When constraints are fundamental, transformation does not come from a single breakthrough. It comes from orchestrating multiple solutions-technology, policy, and business models-into a coherent system.
Green cement is not yet the norm. But it is no longer the exception. And in a world where infrastructure demand continues to surge, the companies that master this transition will not just reduce emissions, they will define the future of construction itself.

About the author
Professor Procyon Mukherjee, ex-CPO Lafarge-Holcim India, ex-President Hindalco, ex-VP Supply Chain Novelis Europe, has been an industry leader in logistics, procurement, operations and
supply chain management. His career
spans 38 years starting from Philips, Alcan Inc (Indian Aluminum Company), Hindalco, Novelis and Holcim. He authored the book, ‘The Search for Value in Supply Chains’. He serves now as Visiting Professor in SP Jain Global, SIOM and as the Adjunct Professor at SBUP.

Rajat Goswami, Director, Optifuel Enviro, explains how structured sourcing, process optimisation, and robust compliance frameworks are key to unlocking consistent, high TSR AFR adoption in cement plants.

As cement plants push toward higher thermal substitution rates, the challenge is no longer just adopting AFR but integrating it into a structured, scalable operating model. In this conversation, Rajat Goswami, Director, Optifuel Enviro, outlines how cement producers can move beyond fragmented sourcing to build reliable AFR ecosystems, optimise pyro processes, and align technical, commercial, and regulatory strategies for sustained performance.

How can cement plants move from fragmented AFR sourcing to a structured, high-TSR model across both hazardous and non-hazardous waste streams?
To achieve higher and consistent TSR, cement plants need a structured AFR strategy supported by a dedicated business development team. This team should be divided into focused streams-one for high-volume, TSR-positive materials like RDF and biomass, another for low-volume materials with negative cost benefits such as industrial hazardous waste and sludges, and a third for pre-processed AFR from external platforms. Quality-based sourcing is critical, with strict adherence to parameters like calorific value, ash, moisture, chlorine and particle size to ensure stable kiln performance.
From a commercial and operational perspective, companies should shift to long-term contracts of 5-10 years, especially with large waste generators, to ensure supply stability and cost efficiency. Proper AFR processing-shredding, blending, and homogenisation-is essential to convert waste into consistent, kiln-ready fuel. Strengthening pre-processing capabilities, in-house or through partnerships, is key to achieving higher TSR reliably.

What are the most critical technical bottlenecks in utilising diverse AFR materials, and how can they be systematically resolved at the plant level?
Improper AFR feeding is a major cause of kiln disturbances. Plants must invest in advanced feeding systems such as VFD-controlled screw feeders, apron feeders, and elevators for consistent feed. Selecting the correct feeding point-preferably at the calciner-is critical to ensure proper residence time; poor placement can lead to incomplete combustion and frequent CO generation. Layout constraints at preheater towers can be addressed using air-supported or pipe conveyors for efficient installation.
Another challenge is coating and ring formation due to imbalances in alkali, chlorine and sulphur, especially from AFR inputs. Maintaining optimal ratios and conducting hourly hot meal sampling
helps monitor chloride levels and enable corrective action. Blending AFR streams to control chlorine and ensuring consistent feed quality are essential for stable kiln operation.

How do you evaluate and balance calorific value, chemical composition, and risk when integrating hazardous wastes into cement kilns?
AFR evaluation must cover three dimensions: energy contribution, chemical composition, and
safety risk. Energy assessment includes NCV (as received), moisture, and ash content, which affect combustion efficiency. Chemical analysis must monitor
sulphur, chlorine, alkalis, and heavy metals (Hg, Pb, As) within CPCB limits to avoid operational and environmental risks.
Safety evaluation includes storage hazards (flash point above 55°C or suitable systems for volatile materials), emissions risks, and regulatory classification under Hazardous Waste Rules, 2016. A strong evaluation framework includes pre-acceptance lab testing, controlled trial runs with gradual AFR increase, and continuous monitoring of kiln parameters such as free lime, clinker litre weight, coating condition, emissions, and chloride in hot meal.

What role does pyro process optimisation play in enabling higher and more stable AFR substitution rates?
TSR levels above five per cent require strong kiln optimisation, as AFR directly impacts process stability. Key parameters include kiln outlet oxygen control for efficient combustion and minimising coal fluctuations through proper control systems. Stable burning zone temperature and kiln torque are essential to avoid process disruptions.
Flame shape and momentum must be optimised for proper heat transfer, while precise calciner temperature control ensures complete AFR combustion. Stable kiln draft is equally important, indicating continuous raw mix flow in the preheater. Together, these ensure stable operations and enable higher AFR usage without affecting product quality.

How can synthetic gypsum and alternative raw materials be scaled to reduce dependence on natural resources without affecting product quality?
The cement industry is increasingly using synthetic gypsum as a substitute for natural gypsum, with multiple viable sources available. Captive synthetic gypsum plants produce gypsum through the reaction of limestone with high-purity (98 per cent) sulphuric acid, delivering quality equal to or better than natural gypsum. Leading players like Shree Cement and Ambuja Cement use such systems to replace 50 per cent to 100 per cent of natural gypsum, with purity levels adjustable
between 50 per cent and 85 per cent. Another key source is Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) gypsum from power plants using pet coke or high-sulphur coal, where purity typically ranges between 75 per cent to 80 per cent. In addition, chemical or industrial gypsum generated as a by-product from industries such as dyes, specialty chemicals, fertilisers, rolling mills, and water treatment is widely used due to its low cost, although purity varies between 40 per cent to 80 per cent and may include impurities like chemicals and heavy metals.

To use synthetic or chemical gypsum effectively, certain parameters must be ensured:
• Adequate purity, specifically CaSO4•2H2O content
• Low contaminants such as chlorides and organics
• Consistent quality through proper sourcing
and testing
To enhance its usage, cement plants should invest in:
• Drying and blending systems for consistency
• Long-term supply contracts with power plants and waste generators
• Quality monitoring and controlled dosing to maintain performance
Alongside gypsum, the use of Alternative Raw Materials (ARM) is expanding, driven by availability and location. Common ARMs include slag, fly ash, lime sludge, red mud and mine rejects. Fly ash is widely used in PPC cement, typically at 25 per cent to 30 per cent, while slag usage depends on proximity to steel plants. In regions like Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, cement manufacturers use 50 per cent to 55 per cent slag in slag cement. These materials reduce dependence on natural resources while improving sustainability and cost efficiency.

What are the key regulatory and compliance challenges in AFR utilisation, and how can industry navigate them more effectively?
AFR adoption in India is governed by CPCB and SPCBs, presenting challenges such as lengthy approvals for hazardous waste, inter-state movement restrictions, extensive documentation, and strict emission compliance. These factors often slow down scaling efforts.
To navigate this, companies should secure approvals for multiple pre-approved waste categories and promote digital manifest systems for better traceability. Implementing Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) ensures compliance and builds regulator confidence. Proactive engagement with authorities-focused on transparency and collaboration-can significantly accelerate AFR adoption.

What practical roadmap should a cement plant follow to move from zero per cent to 20 per cent+ TSR sustainably?
Cement plants can scale AFR usage in phases. In Phase 1 (zero to five per cent), conduct kiln audits, install basic feeding systems, and start with easy AFR streams like biomass and RDF. Phase 2 (five per cent to 10 per cent) focuses on pre-processing, hazardous AFR trials, and building sourcing contracts.
In Phase 3 (10 per cent to 20 per cent), plants should implement multi-point feeding, enhance pre-processing, expand hazardous AFR usage, and strengthen QA/QC systems. Phase 4 (20 per cent+) involves advanced systems like chlorine bypass, Hot Disc, and pyrolysis, along with large pre-processing facilities, AI-based controls, and strong coordination between sourcing and plant teams to ensure sustained high TSR.

Girish Kumar, Plant Director, Riyadh Cement, outlines a disciplined, phased roadmap for cement plants looking to scale thermal substitution rates without sacrificing kiln performance or clinker quality.

As the cement industry accelerates its shift toward alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR), the gap between ambition and execution remains wide for many plant operators. Girish Kumar, Plant Director, Riyadh Cement, reveals why unstable baseline operations are the primary reason AFR programmes fail, and why scaling thermal substitution rates demands a cultural change as well as an investment in engineering.

How does process stability influence the success of AFR integration in cement plant operations?
As per my experience, process stability is the foundation of successful AFR integration to the clinker manufacturing, the most AFR failure are not because of fuel quality, the real issue is unstable baseline operation. AFR utilisation is only effective when the kiln and preheater systems are already operating in a stable condition. Unstable AFR operation often increases overall cost despite cheaper fuel. Within the process stability, the feasibility of AFR also depends on consistency in chemical and physical properties. Variations in calorific value, moisture, ash, volatile matter, alkalis, sulphur and chlorides directly impact pyro-process stability.
Stable operation enables the plant to absorb these variations through proper control of combustion, heat balance and gas flow. It also requires close alignment with raw mix design, as AFR ash influences key quality parameters such as quality moduli, PSD raw meal and burnability often requiring corrective raw materials. Additionally, improper control of volatile elements (chlorides, sulphur, alkalis) can lead to operational issues such as ring formation, coating instability, build-ups and cyclone blockages.
A stable kiln operation with controlled temperatures, draft, oxygen balance, and consistent feed chemistry creates the operating window required to absorb AFR variability. Without stable baseline operations, AFR becomes a disruption rather than an opportunity, increasing the risk of process disturbances, negatively impacting clinker quality, emissions and overall
plant KPIs.

What are the key operational disciplines required to scale AFR usage without compromising kiln performance and output quality?
As per my experience, scaling AFR usage is less about technology and more about discipline
on the shop floor with strict control of key operational parameters:
a. The AFR introduce in the system calorific value deviation should be less than 200 Kcal/kg of clinker.
b. Maintain higher oxygen levels at the preheater/calciner outlet (in some cases up to ~4 per cent) to ensure complete combustion of alternative fuels.
c. Control the temperature difference (?T) between gas and material in the preheater (typically <5°C) to ensure efficient heat exchange.
d. Optimise gas velocities in the riser duct and cyclones to ensure proper mixing, combustion, and heat transfer from minor to moderate level.
e. Maintain higher momentum at the main burner to stabilise the flame and accommodate variable AFR characteristics and in addition burner position is important to balance the alkalis sulphur cycle.
f. Ensure proper sulfur cycle balance by controlling firing sulfur input and effectively utilising kiln bypass (where available) to prevent build-ups and coating formation.
g. Ensure AFR quality control—particularly TDF/RDF utilisation then TDF size, moisture, and blending with biomass streams—which is critical for achieving higher substitution rates (up to ~50 per cent in calciner systems).
h. Apply proven co-processing strategies such as blending poultry waste and carbon black with coal (e.g., ~10 per cent to 15 per cent each), enabling stable feeding through the coal mill as practiced in regional markets.
i. Calibrated weigh feeders and dosing systems stable and the deviation in SHC < 180-200 Kcal/Kg and Temperature profile of the PH must have deviation of < 5*C.
j. If consider a new project scale, new PC designs with venturi’s are required for maximum heat transfer by venturi and more retention time by more PC height and volume.
These disciplines collectively sustain thermal efficiency, stabilise kiln operation, manage volatile cycles and protect clinker quality despite the inherent variability of AFR.

How can plants transition from opportunistic AFR usage to a structured, high-TSR operating model?
Transitioning from opportunistic AFR use to a structured, high Thermal Substitution Rate (TSR) model requires moving from ad-hoc fuel acceptance to a fully engineered and controlled system. This starts with defining a clear AFR strategy, including long-term fuel sourcing agreements, defined quality specifications, and a stable fuel basket instead of irregular inputs. Plants must then invest in dedicated pre-processing and feeding infrastructure to ensure consistent fuel size, moisture, and calorific value.
On the operational side, kiln systems should be stabilised at low TSR and then gradually ramped up through a controlled, stepwise approach. This must be supported by strict process control, particularly in oxygen management, volatile balance, and burner stability, to avoid operational upsets. Equally important is the development of skilled AFR-focused teams supported by process optimisation and R&D functions, ensuring continuous learning and plant-specific adaptation. Finally, digitalisation and AI-based optimisation tools should be deployed to enable real-time monitoring and decision-making, allowing the plant to manage variability while steadily pushing TSR to higher, stable levels.

What are the most common failure points when implementing AFR, and how can they be mitigated?
Failure point 1: Improper AFR selection and processing Inappropriate selection of AFR or poorly designed pre-processing systems (e.g., inconsistent particle size, high moisture, variable calorific value).
Mitigation:
• Conduct detailed feasibility studies (NCV, moistures, ash, chlorine, sulfur etc).
• Ensure proper pre-processing (remove toxic waste, shredding, drying, homogenisation).
• Prefer engineered solutions from experienced vendors or develop robust in-house systems with clear specifications.

Failure point 2: Lack of skilled operational expertise
Insufficiently trained kiln operators and absence of dedicated AFR/process optimisation teams.
Mitigation:
• Develop specialised AFR-trained operational teams
• Implement continuous training programmes
• Deploy advanced process control (APC) and real-time optimisation tools

Failure point 3: High variability in AFR quality
Significant fluctuations in AFR composition especially, in municipal solid waste (MSW), where high calorific fractions are often removed (as seen in regions like India), leading to low and inconsistent fuel quality.
Mitigation:
• Establish strict quality control protocols and
supplier agreements.
• Install online monitoring systems (e.g., CV analyser’s, moisture sensors).
• Blend multiple AFR streams to stabilise fuel characteristics.
Failure point 4: Process instability in kiln operation
In most plants, AFR failures are not due to one factor, but a combination of technical and organisational gaps. AFR introduction leading to unstable kiln conditions, including coating formation at kiln inlet, thick coating in upper transition zone, volatile cycles (Cl, S, alkalis), boulder formation and snowman formation at cooler.
Mitigation:
• Maintain stable thermal profile and oxygen levels
• Perform detailed volatile balance and adjust raw mix accordingly.
• Optimise burner settings and airflow distribution.
• Control AFR feed rate and feeding location (calciner vs kiln).
• Ensure proper kiln draft and gas velocities.

How do you align people, processes and technology to ensure consistent and reliable AFR utilisation on the ground?
Achieving consistent and reliable AFR utilisation requires strong alignment between people, processes, and technology, supported by a phased and disciplined implementation strategy.
For new plants or greenfield projects, alignment is relatively straightforward. Systems can be designed from the outset for high AFR substitution (50 to 100 per cent) by:
• Selecting suitable AFR streams based on long-term availability and quality.
• Installing properly engineered pre-processing and feeding systems.
• Integrating advanced AI-based process control and optimisation tools.
• Training operators specifically for AFR-based kiln operation.
For existing plants (brownfield transition), the challenge is significantly higher and requires a cautious, stepwise approach:
A) People alignment: Develop skilled, AFR-focused operational teams supported by dedicated process optimisation and R&D functions to ensure continuous improvement, stable operations, and efficient AFR utilisation. Provide continuous training on AFR handling, combustion behaviour and kiln impacts. Build a culture of confidence and accountability, as AFR transition often requires operational ‘courage’ and experience.
B) Process alignment
• Start with low AFR substitution rates and gradually increase to the optimum level.
• Establish strict quality control at the AFR source (moisture, CV, particle size, contaminants).
• Define standard operating procedures (SOPs) for feeding rates, kiln conditions and upset handling
• Continuously monitor and stabilise key parameters (O2, CO, temperatures, draft, volatile cycles).
C) Technology alignment
• Retrofit appropriate feeding and dosing systems for different AFR types.
• Ensure proper pre-processing (shredding, drying, homogenisation).
• Implement advanced control systems (APC/AI) for real-time optimisation.
• Use online analysers and monitoring tools to reduce variability impact.
Therefore, in brownfield plants, the biggest challenge is not technology, it is changing operator confidence and mindset.

What role does digitalisation and data-driven decision-making play in optimising AFR performance in real time?
Digitalisation and data-driven decision-making enable real-time decision-making through AI-based optimisation systems that continuously analyse process data and instantly adjust operating parameters. This helps maintain process stability, optimise combustion, and maximise AFR utilisation despite fuel variability. As a result, plants achieve higher substitution rates, fewer process disturbances, and consistent clinker quality through fast, predictive, and real-time control. Digital systems also help detect early signs of instability, allowing corrective action before it impacts kiln performance.

What would a future-ready cement plant look like with AFR fully embedded into its operational DNA?
The future plant will not adapt to AFR – it will be designed around it.
A future-ready cement plant will be designed to handle a wide spectrum of AFR, including low-calorific fuels (1500–2000 kcal/kg), through advanced pre-processing and flexible feeding systems. It will also integrate emerging fuels such as hydrogen as a supplementary or primary energy source for decarbonisation. An innovative method developed by Korean experts focuses on stabilising RDF quality and reducing calorific value (CV) variability by converting mixed waste streams into engineered fuel beads.
In this approach, materials such as poultry waste, sawdust, carbon black, biomass and sugar molasses are blended and processed into small, uniform beads (typically 4–6 mm). These engineered fuels offer a more consistent net calorific value (NCV) in the range of ~4500–5000 kcal/kg.
This pelletised/bead form improves:
• Fuel homogeneity and handling.
• Long-term storage stability.
• Controlled feeding and dosing.
• More stable combustion in the calciner.
As a result, such engineered AFR significantly reduces process fluctuations and enables higher, more reliable substitution rates compared to conventional RDF. The plant will feature high-efficiency, multi-fuel burners capable of stable combustion of diverse fuels, supported by optimised kiln design. AI-based control systems will enable real-time decision-making and process optimisation, while advanced chemical additives will help manage build-ups and coating formation.
Overall, it will be a highly digitalised, flexible and low-carbon operation capable of maximising AFR and alternative energy utilisation, without compromising performance or product quality.

• Kanika Mathur