Cement: Some Call it "Sustainability Manufacturing" - Volume 1

Why look at cement? Because it is always with us. Statisticians say demand for cement is down when building construction is down, but it is still the most popular building material anywhere - how can we not cement.

"No company will make carbon-neutral cement any time soon." So says the UK "Guardian," in their article, "The unheralded polluter: cement industry comes clean on its impact."

The general public doesn't know about cement; even experts in technology development, and even I didn't know that cement plants are gross polluters. There are two major issues to deal with in rendering the production of cement carbon-neutral. Now, there are two new technologies that address each of these issues.

The two issues of contention in cement production: The need for massive amounts of power but without pollution - problem solved by the technology of Peter Sumaruck of Zero-Amp Tech. Inc. of Waco, Texas, and secondly, by circumventing the chemical changes which take place in cement production - issue solved by Brent Constanz of Calera of Los Gatos, CA.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blconcrete.htm The reason the public believes cement is benign is because for 186 years - since the invention of modern cement - no one imagined the process could ever be clean, but now we are getting closer.

Just how unclean is cement - pollution occurs from the use of coal, natural gas or oil as fuel in a burn of aggregates, silica and lime at 2700 degrees F in large cylindrical steel rotating kilns.

http://www.cement.org/basics/howmade.asp Inside, the extreme heat causes a chemical change to take place. The entire process uses an enormous amount of energy - 6 million Btus for every ton of cement produced. Cement production uses the most energy of all industrial manufacturing processes.

http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=020201b.xml

In cement production, there are two places where CO2 is emitted extensively:

*Place # 1: to power the entire production operation (.6% of total US energy use) which emits a great deal of CO2.

*The second emission of CO2 comes when the chemical process of calcination takes place, converting limestone to lime, thus turning the aggregate into smooth pieces called clinkers. These pieces are ground down and gypsum added. All this is then heated in pyroprocessing at extreme degrees. Research done by Oak Ridge Laboratory shows ton of CO2 is produced per ton of cement.

Other emissions come from the dust generated by cement production - hauling and grinding of materials. Also there is water pollution from cleanup and washout procedures - water can run at pH 12 where high alkalinity is hazardous to fish. Mercury from the fuel used can attach to particulates in the air in emissions and also in the exhaust as a gas. See: earth justice re: mercury toxins

It is also possible that cement can offgas small amounts of formaldehydes into the air.

What can be done: All this builds a discomforting picture, rather than whine, I look for solutions - can anything be done.

1. Relocate cement production to unpopulated areas. Plant (re)building costs are high and towns have a habit of springing up where jobs are provided so that is a disadvantage. Some companies are relocating to other countries where pollution regulations are lax and fines are low. That may be recommended by those who care only for the bottom line, and the outlook of stockholders, not humankind.

2. Use garbage/trash i.e burning old tires and/or hazardous chemicals for the high temperature heating - this has/is being done but only for a small percentage of the total fuel needed. This concept was used for waste disposal (some time ago, coincidentally in Los Gatos), but there has not been enough venture capital to support this as the ultimate waste management universal system. However, it is common practice to obtain methane gas, captured from landfill, for energy.

3. Make sure all motors are running at optimum efficiency. Peter Sumaruck is the only person in America who can achieve 100 % efficiency with motors.

4. Use power that does not generate pollution, to solve the 1^st of the major emissions problems. If you can produce energy without generating pollution, that would remedy the issues of the cost factor and pollution in needing to use extreme heat necessary for cement production.

We have the technology to do this. Right now you can power your home using the power production system invented by Peter Sumaruck. This is a generator that once started, will not stop until you turn it off (30 years is the architectural standard for the life of a building). The power is electric but without batteries. The technology is scalable and could be applied to the larger task of fueling the process of cement production.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/waterfuelmuseum/2009/06/20/peter-sumaruck where Mr. Sumaruck talks about how his invention works and http://www.worldviewopinion.com/blog/energy/_archives/2008/7/19/3800414.html which describes (with pictures) how our government wanted Pete to power the war in Iraq in 2004 with mobile generators (not weapons), but changed its corporate mind and tried to destroy his system. Both Brazil and Japan now have Mr. Sumaruck's technology.

5. Solving the second major issue: The #2 emission producer in the cement-making process occurs with the chemical change of components in the process of calcination and pyroprocessing. Brent Constanz of Calera (the word in Spanish means limekiln) in Los Gatos, CA has developed a way of bubbling CO2 fumes through brackish water and seaweed, as it comes from Dynegy Inc's natural gas-burning power plant in Moss Landing, CA, then capturing the "chalky substance" they then it make into cement. From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704746304574506030258504644.html

Mr. Constanz believes he can capture CO2 before it is released into the atmosphere (some or all of the CO2; this has not been explained), and then use it as a building block for cement. He says one ton of cement captures a ton of CO2. The Calera company also says it eliminated the need to heat limestone, so no more high temperatures.

Apparently, the Calera process does not itself produce energy (he would still need energy to drive his process), and his operation must be placed next to a power plant to utilize its CO2 pollutants. This would be a symbiotic relationship with this other gross polluter. Since he still needs to power his process, that means we are only solving half the problem of cement pollution, one way or another.

There may be other complication to the Calera process - they are limited by their location. It may be a one-location proposition, only and not at other power plants. To make cement this way, one would presumably need to be close to a power plant that emits CO2 so they can hook up. The situation needs a supply of brackish water and seaweed. Fortunately, these factors are present with the Moss Landing site, but can this happen in Kansas. There is an abundance of seaweed worldwide soone could import whatone needs, but freshness could be key to chemical success.

Then, of course you would need a controlled environment for this to take place - you could not run your CO2 through the in situ free-moving tidal flow - there is the complicated question of marine life. I have been down to that water at Moss Landing, and yes it is brackish to the degree that those kayakers would not want to overturn and be doused in the soup. I asked a tour guide, "I understand there's pollution here?" She whispered with a bristle (to save her livelihood), "There's pollution everywhere in the world." Yes, but that doesn't mean there should be.

What is the EPA doing: Why do they allow toxins at Moss Landing. And will Calera add or subtract pollution from or into the water and habitat. Eklhorn Slough, running into Moss Landing could be pristine, and gorgeous with its purple clouds and water finger inlets, but pollution already invades from not only the power plant. Behind Dynegy Inc. are two dairy farms where the cows have a view and can walk down, literally, to the water's edge - a good rain or just plane percolation can't help but effect marine life in the slough. http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/hydrosphere/subsurface_water_groundwater.html

Have you looked at sea otters up close; they have a lifestyle unto themselves, fascinating to observe and worthy of preservation [below, we will talk about the Davenport cement plant, which has worked for the preservation of a certain frog living on their 10,000 acre property; this is a good thing but I would rather save sea otters; they each show their individual personality; they look right up at you; they do not hide under a rock].

What is the real life of a cement plant and how does it fit into a small-town community as an essential industrial component: Just 30 miles up the coast from Moss Landing is the tiny town of Davenport. It is a company town without a company - a cement company. Cement has been produced there for more than 100 years, starting in the boom times of the construction growth of San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake. Cement for the superstructure of the Golden Gate bridge was produced in Davenport.

On Jan. 22, 2010, the Cemex cement plant of Davenport ceased to be. More than 6 months ago, the plant shut down operations and laid off 100 employees due to the economic downturn in the construction industry. That was supposed to be temporary; now the closing is permanent.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_14252749 The final curtains aren't closed on this operation until the State of California and EPA are satisfied that hazardous materials have been removed from the property, and the quarry next door be "returned to their natural state" - that could mean "never."

The international cement giant, Cemex of Monterey, Mexico has owned the Davenport plant, quarries and timberland of 10,000 acres since 2005, when they purchased it from the British RMC for $5.8 billion. Of their 14 plants in the United States, Cemex spokesperson, Jennifer Borgen says, "This California plant is (without saying why) our most expensive to operate."

Davenport has had it's "challenges." Cemex wanted to expand it limestone mining in the quaries on their property, but their bid was held up for "environmental issues." In 2008, cancer-causing chromium 6 was detected in the air. According the the "Santa Cruz Sentinel" Cemex did not pay its cleanup bill of $488,232.00 to Santa Cruz County. Added to this problem, the EPA said this plant was a major emitter of CO2 and a serious source of mercury pollution.

From http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2108663 - "chromium 6 can be eliminated by using more expensive iron ore instead of slag in the process" (iron ore would never be used by either of the two emerging technologies described earlier). Many in the cement production industry believe the new EPA standards will be prohibitively high. Some ask if any cement plant will be able to keep up with increasing standards. In the distant future, will cement production be outsourced to Namibia?

Stewardship - Cemex has tried very hard to be a good "steward" (a word they frequently use), by working with the Davenport community, and with the University of California in an ecology-minded approach to managing the 9,000 acres of Cemex forest property - what will happen now is unsure. Forest and wild fires have been a serious issue in the hills and mountains behind the Davenport plant for the past two summers, engulfing homes close to the city of Santa Cruz. This forest acreage must be managed.

Cemex has worked with the community's water resources, by reusing waste water to "have a zero discharge into the Monterey Bay" which is only feet away from their property. We are not sure how much water was used at the plant on a daily basis, but a green paper http://www.environment-support.org/news/cemex-environmental-excellence-award.html issued by the company states that by using waste water in the plant's cooling system, Cemex reduced their "use of fresh water by more than 200,000 gallons" a month.

In 2008, the Davenport plant received an EPA Energy Star award for energy efficiency after a retrofit of 13 equipment motors, raising the thermal energy efficiency % (they have not been direct in declaring the actual increased efficiency), and saving "2.1 million kilowatt hours annually" for the previous 4 years.

http://www.reliableplant.com/Read.13214/cemex-sustainable-manufacturing Also, the plant was recycling 26,000 tons of kiln dust annually by putting it back in with the aggregate mix, thus reducing some of the needs for new raw materials.

The title of the above Cemex image-builder article is "Cemex Mixes Sustainability Manufacturing with Profitability" but what does that say. The green world, green industries, green technologies are all using and misusing the word "sustainable." Time and progress are redefining this word. Can cement production actually be sustainable" It can if new technology is accepted; f not, readers need to reassess the word, sustainable.

Cemex stated that they employed 121 annually with a payroll of $8 million, making them a leading taxpayer in Santa Cruz County. But it was never a high density employer as would be a tech corporate in Silicon Valley. 121 people in 10,000 acres of space may be considered industrial but of the old school of production, doing an old-fashioned job, a task that still must be done, somehow - make cement.

That was in the past 100 years; those 121 employees are gone now. This is the now, with a vacant building, wire fences and padlocks, and only a few guards on patrol, who frowned at me as I took pictures. Cemex still owns the plant and the adjoining land, and still has certain responsibilities for it "stewardship."

Five miles back down the highway toward Santa Cruz is the county landfill. Maybe Cemex should get into the waste management business, but not as just another landfill. A derelict building is flagrant waste.

If cement plants worldwide are disposing of waste products by burning them at high temperatures, that is already a type of waste management. We know that fuel is no longer needed to power the burn process - via the Sumaruck power production system - The plant is there, the furnace can still fire hot, and landfill (the "dump") is rising - why not give the Davenport plant new work to do. I suggest Cemex consider this potential opportunity.

Volume 2 of "Cement" will offer more opportunities in the cement industry.