Perspectives: Climate Action and EMC Technology

---

As a rule-of-thumb, the more EMC Volcanics are used to replace the Portland cement (OPC) in concrete, the better the performance of the resulting concrete in terms of its long-term durability and chemical resistance. But what are the implications for Net Zero?

Making the case for a net-negative effect. If you're telling yourself this all sounds too good to be true, then you can relax! Let's deal with facts. More specifically, we're talking about over 30-years' establishing a lot of facts to get EMC Technology where it is today, in our getting this right. So, let's consider how EMC Volcanics can deliver a net negative CO2 effect across a project's lifecycle.

It starts with a low CO2-count. Our webpage dedicated to CO2 and Energy Ratings (here) confirms that we can count the amount of CO2 embodied in the cradle-to-factory gate production of EMC Volcanics. This also depends on the CO2 "costs" in getting the raw materials to our machines. All told, across lifecycle zones A1-A3 required for CO2-counting purposes, 'all in' that's ~30kg CO2 per tonne EMC Volcanics shipped from Turkey or Greece, then processed in (say) Liverpool (see here).

...For a low cement dose to hence give a low CO2-rating in concrete. This is where it gets more complicated, because there is no such thing as a single type of concrete. However, another look at our CO2 and Energy Ratings webpage confirms that EMC Volcanics can deliver a concrete at less than 70kg CO2 per cu•m concrete, to serve 95% of the U.K.'s ready mix market (PDF here).

So let's consider the implications of these factors for 95% of the U.K.'s ready-mix market, when placed into the full lifecycle spectrum now incorporated into lifecycle (LCA) regimes:

• Natural CCS during concrete's curing and end-of-life crushing. It's known that as concrete cures, it absorbs (captures) CO2 to then turn it into solids that lock-in CO2 (sequestration) from the air. In lifecycle (LCA) terms, this effect can serve to reduce a project's embodied carbon count in LCA zones occurring after Zone A4 during the lifetime of a construction project. Indeed, Cembureau's own 2050 'roadmap' (PDF) estimates that this CCS effect can annually account for "23% of process CO2 emissions of cement used, which equates to a 8% saving of total CO2 emissions for the cement manufactured". For example, using a CO2 autoclave (see small picture above) increases that CCS rate during curing. It's also known that crushing concrete at its end-life (LCA Zone D) produces a further CCS effect. These factors reduce the overall CO2 'cost' across a project's entire LCA zones (A to D).

• Enhanced natural CCS for high-volcanic concretes. There's also the ability of volcanics (comprising silicates) to yield natural CCS, independent of the usual OPC routes. Again, this effect will occur during the concrete's useful life and also at its end-of-life stage — especially if the volcanic material is crushed to a small particle size as demonstrated in a 2022 study (PDF). An entirely separate 2018 monograph plotted the CO2 uptake in cured concrete samples at various levels of OPC substituted by volcanics (PDF). It stated that, "the CO2 uptake capacity was found to generally increase with the amount of volcanic ash substitution." Extrapolating its linear derivation implies that a 70% substitution of OPC with volcanics, will deliver a CO2 uptake capacity of 35-40% as compared to about 10% by a purely OPC sample. That's more than a threefold increase, minimum!

All these factors placed together means there's the real prospect that, across their full lifecycle (LCA) spectrum A-D, concretes replacing OPC with EMC Volcanics at 70% substitution will deliver a net-negative concrete for 95% of the ready-mix market's needs!

Portland cement production is highly heat-intensive (here). Yet, to avoid catastrophic levels of global warming, by the end of this decade CO2 emissions should fall by half under the Paris Accord...

In 2022, the FT's Climate Council stated the need for electrification (PDF). But surely this is only half the battle won if high energy solutions are not also replaced with low energy ones? 

Let's start here: Consider the 2023 report by the Energy Institute in partnership with KPMG and the consultancy Kearney, which found that fossil fuels continued to make up 82% of the world’s total energy consumption in 2022, in line with 2021, causing CO2 emissions to climb by 0.8% as the world used more energy overall.  

...Renewables met just 7.5% of the world’s energy demand. This represents an increase of nearly 1% over 2021, driven by record growth in wind and solar energy. Solar generation climbed by 25% in 2022 while wind power output grew by 13.5% compared with the year before. However, the renewable energy boom was eclipsed by 2022's modest rise in global energy consumption of 1.1%, compared to a 5.5% increase in 2021, which meant more oil and coal was burnt to meet demand. 

...The Energy Institute warned that stubbornly high energy-related emissions risk derailing the aims of the Paris accord unless urgent action is taken by global governments. 

Heat production is a major challenge: In 2021, the U.S. think-tank Renewable Thermal Collaborative stated (PDF): "There is a significant opportunity to decarbonize the industrial sector by shifting heat production away from carbon-intensive fossil fuels to clean sources such as electrification where low- or zero-carbon electricity is used. Globally, more than 50% of final energy demand is for heating, and about half is for industrial heating. Much of the electrification discussion to date has focused on the transportation and building sectors, with little attention paid to the industrial sector. This report aims to fill some of that void by examining profiles of heat consumption in industrial subsectors and the potential for electrification..."

...Of the 13 sectors then studied, cement production was missing. Why? Because, according to the same U.S. think-tank: "The electrification of some of the high temperature heating processes such as cement ... is especially challenging and requires further R&D." 

Yet, according to the U.S. Federal Energy Information Agency (EIA) in 2023? For U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions to fall to 25-38% of their 2005 levels, 'efficiencies', 'technological advancements' and an 'electrification drive' are absolute requirements under any U.S. growth scenario (see slide below).