Cement Eng

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY
ENERGY BENCHMARKING
SUMMARY REPORT
IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
For more information or to receive additional copies of this publication, contact

Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation
c/o Natural Resources Canada
580 Booth Street, 12th floor
Ottawa ON K1A 0E4
Tel.: 613-995-6839
Fax: 613-992-3161
E-mail: cipec-peeic@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca
Web site: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/cipec
or
Cement Association of Canada
502350 Sparks Street
Ottawa ON K1R 7S8
Tel.: 613-236-9471
Fax: 613-563-4498
E-mail: headquarters@cement.ca
Web site: www.cement.ca
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication
Energy Performance Benchmarking and Best Practices in Canadian Cement
Manufacturing Sector
Text in English and French on inverted pages.
Title added t.p.: Analyse comparative de la consommation d nergie dans
lindustrie canadienne du ciment.
Issued by the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation.
Cat. No. M144-213/2009 (Print) Cat. No. M144-213/2009E-PDF (On-line)
ISBN 978-1-100-50372-1
ISBN 978-1-100-14036-0
1. New hotdisc reactor, the Ecofurnace, at the Ciment Qubec Saint-Basile
plant, Quebec. Photo courtesy of the Cement Association of Canada
2. Concrete components. Photo courtesy of the Cement Association of
Canada.
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2009
CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT
Natural Resources Canadas Office of Energy Efficiency

Leading Canadians to Energy Efficiency at Home, at Work and on the Road
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1
About the Canadian Cement Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2
About Energy Benchmarking and This Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3
Study Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Energy Use in Cement Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Energy Management Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2
Study Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3
Energy Management Practices Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Technical Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2
Study Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3
Technical Practices Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Energy Efficiency Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2
Study Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3
Overall Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4
Electricity Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A: Energy Management Best Practices Detailed Results . . . . . . . . 30

Appendix B: Technical Best Practices Detailed Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix C: Energy Use and Efficiency Detailed Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Critical Areas Influencing Overall Energy Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 1-2 Cement Manufacturing Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2-1 Total Energy for Cement Manufacturing Sector by Process Step, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 2-2 Total Energy for Cement Manufacturing Sector by Energy Source, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 3-1 Energy Management Best Practice Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3-2 Median Energy Management Best Practice Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 4-1 Penetration of Applicable Technical Best Practices by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 4-2 Median Technical Best Practice Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 5-1 Total EEI and Total Energy Intensity by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 5-2 Median Energy Efficiency Scores by Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 5-3 Electricity EEI and Energy Intensity by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A: Energy Management Best Practices Detailed Results

Figure A-1 Implementation of MBPs Commitment by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure A-2 Implementation of MBPs Planning by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure A-3 Implementation of MBPs Organization by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure A-4 Implementation of MBPs Project Development by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure A-5 Implementation of MBPs Financing by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure A-6 Implementation of MBPs Measurement and Reporting by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure A-7 Implementation of MBPs Communication by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix B: Technical Best Practices Detailed Results

Figure B-1 Implementation of TBPs Raw Materials and Fuel Preparation by Plant. . . . . . . . . 34
Figure B-2 Implementation of TBPs Clinker Production by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure B-3 Implementation of TBPs Finish Grinding by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure B-4 Implementation of TBPs Cement and Feedstock by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure B-5 Implementation of TBPs General Measures by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix C: Energy Use and Efficiency Detailed Results

Figure C-1 Raw Meal Preparation EEI by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure C-2 Kiln EEI by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure C-3 Finish Grinding EEI by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Participating Cement Manufacturing Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3-1 Energy Management Best Practice Elements by Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FOREWORD
With support from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the Cement Association of Canada
(CAC) commissioned an energy benchmarking study of Canadas Portland grey cement industry in
2007. The study builds on other sector benchmarking initiatives undertaken by NRCans Office of
Energy Efficiency. This report summarizes the outcomes of the CAC study and is based on a more
comprehensive consultants report that includes detailed recommendations prepared for the CAC.1
This analysis of energy efficiency performance in the cement sector represents a broad and
comprehensive review of energy management practices, technical practices and overall energy
efficiency performance.
Through this study, the CAC developed benchmarks and sophisticated tools that provide a
comprehensive roadmap for facilities and companies to improve energy management practices and
performance. The benchmarking tools will allow the industry to conduct regular self-assessments
of energy performance in a manner consistent with internationally recognized quality management
principles and best practices.
The study determined that the overall energy efficiency of the cement sector was relatively good,
with a median energy efficiency index (EEI) value of 76, compared with a theoretical best practices
plant with a value of 100. The relatively high level of overall energy efficiency is attributed to
facilities and organizations that are already actively engaged in energy management programs.
However, despite overall high EEI, many facilities have a low electricity EEI, and significant
potential for improved electricity use efficiency exists. Benchmarks for EEI, management best
practices (MBPs) and technical best practices (TBPs) that were developed for individual facilities
identified opportunity areas. Even in facilities with an overall high benchmark, opportunities exist
for more energy efficiency improvements and cost savings.
The benchmarking results show that the most significant potential for increased implementation of
energy MBPs is in project planning and development and in measurement and reporting. The
assessment of both the TBPs and energy use efficiency identifies that the fuel and raw materials
preparation and cement and feedstock process steps have significant potential to yield important
energy efficiency benefits for the sector.
The kiln process consumes approximately 90 percent of the energy used in the cement
manufacturing sector. This includes 99 percent of the thermal energy use and more than a third
of total electricity consumed in the manufacturing process. Even a small improvement in kiln
performance will yield substantial energy and cost savings for the individual facility and the entire
industry.
Cement manufacturing facilities showed significant differences in electric energy efficiency. Electric
energy accounts for a substantial portion of energy cost in the cement manufacturing sector, and
improved electric energy efficiency may result in notable cost savings.
Canadian Cement Industry Benchmarking Final Report, Report prepared for Cement Association of Canada by Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. in association
with Ecofys and Cement Etc., Inc., 2008.
The energy use is dominated by coal and petroleum coke consumption, which accounts for more
than 80 percent of the purchased energy. Increasing the proportion of alternative, renewable and
low-carbon energy sources can contribute significantly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
cement manufacturing.
The study demonstrates that relationships exist between a facilitys implementation of energy MBPs
and TBPs and the energy efficiency of its operations. Operations that implemented the most energy
MBPs also implemented the most TBPs. These facilities consume less energy per unit of production
than their peers.
INTRODUCTION
Lafarge Saint-Constant plant, Quebec
INTRODUCTION
1 introduction
1.1 About the Canadian Cement Industry
The Cement Association of Canada (CAC) comprises eight companies that operate 1 white2 and
15 Portland grey cement manufacturing facilities across Canada. The members of the association
produce 98 percent of the cement manufactured in Canada.
Regionally, cement production is concentrated in central Canada. Ontario (50 percent) and Quebec
(17 percent) have more than 65 percent of the industrys capacity. The CAC is allied with the United
States-based Portland Cement Association (PCA) and all CAC members are also members of the
PCA.
The cement industry is a key contributor to Canadas economic and social development. In 2006,
the industry produced more than 14.3 million tonnes (t) of cement with a value of more than
$1.7 billion and provided more than 2000 jobs.3 The industrys total production is more than
16.7 million t when supplementary cementing materials such as fly ash and slag are included.
The cement manufacturing industry realized an 11 percent increase in energy efficiency per tonne
of cement produced between 1990 and 2006 and a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas
(GHG) intensity of 6.4 percent.4 However, the industry recognizes that further energy efficiency
improvements are required to

reduce energy costs and maintain industry competitiveness in a period of ever-increasing

international competition
make further progress in reducing the industrys environmental footprint
1.2 About Energy Benchmarking

and This Summary Report
Energy benchmarking provides a means through which an industry and facilities within that
industry can assess their performance against

recognized best practices

the performance of their sector peers
external competitors in the same industry
energy consumers in other industrial sectors
The Federal White Cement plant in Woodstock, Ontario, is excluded from the benchmarks due to major differences in raw materials and fuels usage between the
manufacturing of Portland white cement and Portland grey cement, which is produced at the balance of the manufacturing sites in Canada.
3
Cement Association of Canada (2008), Canadian Cement Industry 2008 Sustainability Report
4
Ibid.
2
INTRODUCTION
Energy benchmarking can play an important role in supporting improved energy practices by

identifying and communicating best practices

motivating plants that operate below the benchmark to improve to the level of their peers
identifying areas that need improvement in all facilities, including facilities that are the best
performers
The study involved all 15 Portland grey cement manufacturing facilities operated by CAC member
companies (see Table 1.1).
Table 1-1 Participating Cement Manufacturing Facilities
Company
Facility
Ciment Qubec Inc.
Saint-Basile, Quebec
Essroc (Italcementi Group)
Picton, Ontario
Lafarge Canada Ltd.
Brookfield, Nova Scotia

Saint-Constant, Quebec
Bath, Ontario
Woodstock, Ontario
Exshaw, Alberta
Kamloops, British Columbia
Richmond, British Columbia
Lehigh Hanson Canada
Edmonton, Alberta
Delta, British Columbia
Holcim (Canada) Inc.
Joliette, Quebec
Mississauga, Ontario
St Marys Cement Inc.
Bowmanville, Ontario
St. Marys, Ontario
The study analyzed the industrys performance in three critical areas that influence overall energy
use:

management practices
technical practices
energy efficiency performance
The assessment of these three areas presents a broad and holistic view of energy practices in the
cement manufacturing sector.
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-1 Critical areas influencing overall energy use
Energy Use and

Efficiency
Benchmarking
Technical
Best
Practices
EE
TBP
Energy
Managment Practices
Benchmarking
MBP
In addition to this summary report, reports have been produced that document the performance of
each of the 15 facilities against the benchmarks developed as part of the study.
The CAC views this important study as the first step in developing and implementing a
comprehensive action plan to improve energy performance in the sector. Now that benchmarks exist
and current performance has been assessed against those benchmarks, future studies can assess and
report progress in improving energy performance within the Canadian Portland grey cement sector.
1.3 Study Methodology

The study was initiated by developing individual analytical models to assess performance in each of
the three aspects of energy performance:

energy management practices

technical practices
energy efficiency performance
The models were developed by reviewing recognized analytical models for energy management
and technical practices broadly, and for cement manufacturing more specifically. These externally
referenced models were developed by international bodies, standard setting organizations
and government agencies that have responsibilities for energy and energy efficiency in the
manufacturing sectors.
Within each model, energy practices were further assessed across each of the key processes and
activities associated with cement manufacturing (see Figure 1-2):

on-site raw materials preparation and transport

on-site fuel preparation and transport
INTRODUCTION
clinker production (kiln operation)

storage
fi nish grinding
packing and on-site transport to loading terminals
operation of plant-wide support systems (e.g. compressed air systems, heat, lighting)
Source: Holcim (Canada)
Figure 1-2 cement manufacturing process
Quarrying
Raw Materials Preparation
Clinker Production
Cement Grinding and Distribution
Limestone and small amounts

of sand and clay are extracted,
usually from a quarry
located near the cement
manufacturing plant.
The extracted materials are

analyzed, blended with
additional mineral components
depending on the type of
limestone available, and finely
ground for futher processing.
The materials are heated

in a kiln reaching a
temperature of 1,470C.
The heat transforms the
materials into a molten
product called clinker,
which is then rapidly cooled.
The clinker is stored and then finely ground.

Gypsum is added to control setting time,
along with supplementary cementing
materials, such as fly ash or slag, to
obtain a fine powder called cement, with
the desired properties of strength and
chemical resistance.
More than 70 aspects of energy performance in the cement manufacturing sector were analyzed,
including all energy inputs to the cement manufacturing process: electricity, fuel oil, natural gas,
coal, petroleum coke and other alternative fuels.5
Survey instruments were developed to gather the information to assess performance within each
of the three models. The survey instruments and models were tested at two cement manufacturing
facilities. After revisions, the survey instruments were distributed to all 15 cement manufacturing
facilities. Then supervised data collection, review and analysis proceeded. Performance benchmarks
were developed for each indicator, and each facilitys performance was assessed against the
benchmarks.
The performance benchmarks were set at the 75th percentile, which means that for each
performance indicator, 25 percent of the sectors facilities met or exceeded the benchmark. This
approach is consistent with the approach taken by Natural Resources Canadas Office of Energy
Efficiency benchmarking studies and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys ENERGY STAR
for Cement Manufacturing initiative. Draft facility reports were submitted to the facility operators
for review and validation. After data error corrections were made, final performance benchmarks
and the final facility and sector-wide reports were prepared.
Quarrying activities and/or any of the above activities that take place at locations other than the main cement production site were excluded from the analysis.
Also, analysis of only on-site electricity consumption was considered, rather than the total primary energy consumption associated with off-site electricity
generation.
ENERGY USE
IN CEMENT
MANUFACTURING
Holcim Mississauga plant, Ontario
ENERGY USE IN CEMENT MANUFACTURING
Cement manufacturing is an energy-intensive process that consumed more than 61 000 terajoules of
energy in Canada in 2006, of which 95 percent was thermal energy and 5 percent was electric energy.
The kiln process consumes more than 90 percent of the cement manufacturing energy. The
remaining 10 percent is consumed in almost equal amounts by activities related to fuel and raw
materials preparation, grinding of clinker and the blending of materials to prepare the finished
cement product.
Figure 2-1 provides a breakdown of the energy use.
Figure 2-1 Total Energy for Cement Manufacturing Sector by Process Step, 2006
Kiln fuel 86.0%
Kiln electricity 4.0%

Finish grinding 5.0%
Raw materials preparation 4.0%
Other 1.0%
Fuel handling 0.4%
The sum of these energy inputs is about 39 percent of the annual operating costs of a cement
manufacturing facility, making energy the largest cost component. It is important to note that
although electricity accounts for only 13 percent of the energy inputs, it is almost 50 percent of the
energy costs of a typical cement plant.6
The cement industry relies heavily on carbon-intensive fossil fuels. Coal (53 percent)7 and
petroleum coke products (29 percent) account for more than 82 percent of energy consumption
(Figure 2-2). Natural gas (used mostly as a start-up fuel), liquid petroleum products and waste
oil products contribute 4 percent of total energy requirements, while tire-derived fuels and other
alternative energy sources contribute about 2 percent.
Statistics Canada, Annual Survey of Manufacturers (2004).

A comparison of Canadian energy costs on a per-unit basis demonstrated that coal continues to be significantly less expensive than the other forms of energy
used by the cement industry. Natural Resources Canada (2006), Canadas Energy Outlook: The Reference Case 2006. Ottawa, Ont.
Figure 2-2 Total Energy for Cement Manufacturing Sector by Energy Source, 2006
9
Petroleum
(delayed) coke
21.0%
Coal 53.0%
Electricity 13.0%
Sponge coke 8.0%

Natural gas 2.0%
Gasoline, middle distillates,
residual oil and waste oil 2.0%
Biomass 0.1%
LPG and other 0.2%
Solvents 0.2%
Tire derived 1.0%

Fluid coke 0.3%
Key findings from this high-level overview of energy inputs to the cement manufacturing sector
include the following:

Due to the significant quantity of energy consumed by the kiln process, energy efficiency
opportunities in the kiln process have, in theory, the greatest potential to translate into real
energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) and cost savings for the industry. Even minor improvements
in the kiln process can potentially deliver significant energy and cost savings over an annual
operating cycle.
Energy efficiency opportunities in electrically driven systems have the potential to achieve
substantial cost savings for the industry.
Canadas contribution of alternative and renewable energy sources to cement manufacturing lags
behind that of other nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Many countries in the European Union substitute from 30 percent to 83 percent of the energy
sources for cement manufacturing.8 Increasing the proportion of alternative, renewable and
low-carbon energy sources can contribute significantly to reducing GHG emissions from
cement manufacturing.
Cement Association of Canada (2008), Canadian Cement Industry 2008 Sustainability Report. European countries included in this range are Netherlands (83
percent), Switzerland (48 percent), Austria (46 percent), Germany (42 percent), Norway (35 percent), France (34 percent) and Belgium (30 percent).
ENERGY MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
Vertical roller mill, Mississauga, Ontario reduces Holcim (Canada) Inc. greenhouse gas intensity
ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
12
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Energy management the process and practice of treating energy as a strategic resource is an
influential determinant of a plants energy performance. Best practices in energy management
have a high level of commitment, awareness, organization and action.
Typically, plants that exhibit energy management best practices (MPBs)

have broad awareness of the benefits of energy efficiency

collect and use information to manage energy use
integrate energy management into their overall management structure
provide leadership on energy management through dedicated staff and a committed
energy efficiency policy
have an energy management plan for the short- and long-term
3.2 STUDY APPROACH

The Cement Association of Canada study reviewed and analysed existing energy management
models9 and identified 28 MBP areas of relevance to the cement manufacturing sector
(see Table 3-1).
A survey was conducted at every cement manufacturing facility to ascertain the degree to which
the identified best practices are currently employed in the sector. To gain multiple perspectives,
three respondents at each facility were involved in the survey for their facility:

a plant manager or process engineer

a corporate lead on energy issues
a representative of the corporate executive management team
The MBP score was calculated as an average of the three survey results.
The energy management models that contributed significantly to the definition of the competencies were developed by Natural Resources Canadas Office of
Energy Efficiency, United Kingdoms Carbon Trust, United States ENERGY STAR and Australias EPA Victoria and Sustainable Victoria.
Table 3-1 Energy Management Best Practice Elements by Category
13
MBP Categories
MBPs
Commitment
Promotion
Policy
Guidelines and Procedures
Planning
Formal Planning
Support for Planning
Implementation
Organization
Energy champion
Responsibility and accountability
Energy Leader
Energy Team
Project Development
Capacity building
Identification of Opportunities
Energy Management Best Practices
Financing
Commitment
Planning
Integrating energy management with project approval
Measurement and Reporting
Monitoring System
Reporting
Use of Monitoring Results
Communication
Extent
Frequency
Awareness and Participation
3.3 ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES RESULTS

The review of MBPs identified a benchmark value of 65 percent for the cement manufacturing
sector. This means that 25 percent of cement facilities employ at least 65 percent of the identified
energy MBPs, and the remaining facilities employ less than 65 percent of the MBPs (see Figure 3-1).
The results showed that significant potential exists in the cement sector to improve management
practices in support of improving energy efficiency, especially because only two facilities received a
rating greater than 75 percent for management practices implementation.
14
The study showed a strong relationship between the implementation of MBPs and the overall energy
efficiency at the cement facilities. The four plants that ranked the highest in overall energy efficiency
(see Chapter 5) are among the five plants that rated highest in MBP implementation.
Figure 3-1 Energy Management Best Practices Scores
100
90
85
80
MBP implemented (%)
82
71
70
65
65
62
61
60
60
65
57
57
55
50
53
51
51
42
40
30
20
10
P15
P14
Benchmark
Plant
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
0
P1
The survey of MBPs exhibited a fairly narrow range of implementation scores because 70 percent
of the facilities scored between 50 and 65 percent. MBP scores from plants that belong to the
same organizations also tended to cluster together. This fact suggests that corporate-specific
policies and guidelines generally direct the implementation of practices in cement sector facilities.
Benchmarking studies in other industrial sectors have shown that this situation is not always the
case, and that in some cases, overall MBP scores of plants within the same organization differ
significantly.
For individual MBP categories, the analysis of the survey results showed that the cement sector
emphasizes the financing and communication performance aspects of energy management
(Figure 3-2). Consistent with other Canadian industry studies,10 the analysis showed that the
cement sector has the largest improvement potential in energy management practices areas
related to project development, planning and measurement and reporting.
Nova Scotia industry data from Energy Management Potential Analysis and Best Practices Benchmarking in the Nova Scotia Industrial and Manufacturing Sector,
Report by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters in association with Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. and Neill & Gunter Limited (Stantec), 2007.
10
New Brunswick industry data from Energy Performance Benchmarking and Best Practices in the New Brunswick Industrial and Manufacturing Sector, Report by
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters in association with Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. and Neill & Gunter Limited (Stantec), 2006.
Figure 3-2 Median Energy Management Best Practices Scores
15
100
MBP implemented (%)
90
80
70
67
59
60
60
57
53
50
48
44
40
37
30
Overall MBP
Project
development
Measurement
and reporting
Planning
Organization
Commitment
Communication
Financing
20
10
For more details, see Appendix A, page 30.
SOFTWOOD LUMBER MANUFACTURE
TECHNICAL PRACTICES
St Marys Cement Bowmanville plant from the West Side Creek Marsh Conservation Area, Ontario
TECHNICAL PRACTICES
18
4 TECHNICAL PRACTICES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The second aspect of energy performance that was analyzed is the implementation of technical
best practices (TBPs) in cement manufacturing facilities. TBPs are production processes, systems,
activities and equipment that can contribute to improvements in plant energy efficiency (e.g. using
adjustable speed drives on kiln and/or roller mill fans).
4.2 STUDY APPROACH

The Cement Association of Canada study included an extensive review of Canadian and
international literature to identify TBPs applicable to the cement manufacturing sector. The review
identified 39 TBPs that were categorized across the five main cement manufacturing subprocesses:

fuel and raw materials preparation

clinker production
finish grinding
cement and feedstock
general measures
A survey instrument was developed at each facility to assess the applicability of the identified
practices and the degree of implementation (i.e. full, partial or not implemented).
4.3 TECHNICAL PRACTICES RESULTS

The review of TBPs identified a benchmark value of 59 percent for the cement manufacturing sector.
This means that 25 percent of cement facilities employ at least 59 percent of the identified TBPs, and
the remaining facilities employ less than 59 percent of the TBPs (see Figure 4-1).
TECHNICAL PRACTICES
Figure 4-1 Penetration of Applicable Technical Best Practices by Plant
19
100
90
TBP implemented (%)
80
83
83
66
70
63
60
56
56
54
59
54
50
50
47
41
40
41
41
34
27
30
20
P15
P14
P13
P12
P11
P10
Benchmark
Plant
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
10
The results showed that significant potential exists in the cement sector to improve technical
practices in support of improving energy efficiency, especially because only two facilities received a
good rating for technical practices implementation (a rate greater than 75 percent).
The study showed a statistical correlation between the implementation of TBPs and overall energy
efficiency. This means that the energy efficiency of a plant increases when the number of TBPs
implemented at the plant increases. In contrast to the assessment of management practices, the
assessment of technical practices showed a wide spread of implementation scores (70 percent of
the plants have scores between 34 and 63 percent) and an insignificant relationship between TBP
implementation scores among facilities from the same organization.
The benchmarking process demonstrates that the cement sector emphasizes the energy efficiency
practices in the finish grinding process a process that consumes significant quantities of electrical
energy. The study showed, however, that opportunities exist to improve energy efficiency by
employing additional TBPs in process steps associated with fuel and raw materials preparation and
in cement and feedstock composition and handling. The TBPs include improving the transportation
and blending of cement and addressing the use of additives (see Figure 4-2).
TECHNICAL PRACTICES
Figure 4-2 Median Technical Best Practice Scores
20
100
90
80
MBP implemented (%)
70
70
59
60
58
54
50
36
40
33
30
20
10
Process
For more details, see Appendix B, page 34.
All TBP
Cement and
feedstock
Raw materials and

fuel preparation
General measures
Clinker production
0
Finish grinding
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
INDEX
Lafarge Exshaw plant, Alberta
ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDEX
22
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The third aspect of energy performance that was analyzed is the amount of energy used in cement
manufacturing facilities. Assessing the amount of energy used, while considering production and
structural influences, provides a performance indicator of energy efficiency.
5.2 STUDY APPROACH

The Cement Association of Canada study included an extensive review of Canadian and
international literature to identify potential metrics for measuring overall plant and process-specific
energy efficiency. To provide capacity for ongoing in-depth analysis of energy efficiency in the
cement manufacturing sector, an energy efficiency benchmarking tool was developed that evaluates
energy performance at both the plant level and process level.
The tool calculates such indicators as total energy intensity (gigajoule per tonne [GJ/t of cement);
fuel intensity (GJ/t of cement or clinker); electricity intensity (kilowatt hour per tonne of cement);
and an energy efficiency index.
The Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) allows a meaningful direct comparison between plants with
significant structural differences (e.g. wet kiln and dry kiln processes). A theoretical best practice
plant was constructed, normalizing as much as possible for structural differences, and was given an
EEI value of 100.
The energy efficiency was analyzed for

the performance of the entire plant

raw meal preparation process
kiln process
finish grinding process
Energy use and production data at each manufacturing facility were collected and compared with
the theoretical best practices facility. Some facilities performed better than the theoretical best
practices plant and attained an EEI value greater than 100 for some process steps.
5.3 OVERALL RESULTS

Analysis of the results showed that the cement sector facilities are operating relatively efficiently, and
the overall EEI benchmark was established at 82. This means that 25 percent of the plants achieved
at least this relatively high rating. Nine of the 15 facilities achieved a good practices rating of at
least 75 (see Figure 5-1).
Despite this relatively high performance, considerable opportunity exists for improving energy
efficiency because there is a substantial difference between the performance of the lowest performers
and the relatively high industry benchmarks within each process step.
23
When the adjustments for structural differences are ignored, the participating plants have average
total energy intensities of 4.2 GJ/t of cement and 4.5 GJ/t of clinker. The most efficient plant required
only 50 percent as much energy to produce each tonne of clinker as the least efficient plant.
In the cement manufacturing sector, the kiln process uses 90 percent of the energy used and can be
expected to have the largest impact on the plant-level EEI. Although cement plants have a high EEI
benchmark (85) for the kiln process, it is important to prioritize efforts in this area because a small
improvement in the kiln process can potentially result in a large reduction in energy use. The review
of technical best practices (TBPs) showed that significant room for improvement remains in the kiln
process.
The benchmarking analysis indicated that the sectors raw meal preparation processes have the
lowest EEI benchmark, at 76 percent (see Figure 5-2). This process step was also identified as having
a significant potential for increased TBPs implementation.
Figure 5-1 Total EEI and Total Energy Intensity by Plant
100
89
86
82
81
81
9.0
77
Benchmark = 75th percentile

76
76
71
70
70
67
66
64
60
63
8.0
7.0
6.0
P15
P14
P13
0.0
P12
0
P11
1.0
P10
10
P9
2.0
P8
20
P7
3.0
P6
30
P5
4.0
P4
40
P3
5.0
P2
50
P1
Energy efficiency index
80
Energy intensity
90
10.0
90
Plant
EEI
Intensity (GJ/t clinker)
Intensity (GJ/t cement)
Figure 5-2 Median Energy Efficiency Scores by Process
24
120
103
100
80
76
85
82
60
40
20
EEI
Finish
grinding
Kiln
0
Raw meal
preparation
Plant
5.4 ELECTRICITY RESULTS

An assessment of electric energy use showed significant differences between facilities. While the
best performing plant has an electricity EEI of 138 (against a best practice value of 100), the worst
performing facility has an index of 36 (see Figure 5-3).
Electric energy is almost 50 percent of energy costs, but only 13 percent of energy use in the cement
manufacturing sector. Improved electricity management is likely to realize significant cost savings
but have a limited impact on the already high overall energy efficiency indices of the plants.
When the adjustments for structural differences are ignored, the analysis showed that the most
efficient plant, in terms of electricity consumption, consumed only a third of the electricity per
tonne of cement produced in comparison with the least efficient plant.
At the process level, the assessment again identified that the sectors fuel and raw materials
preparation and the cement and feedstock process steps have the greatest opportunities for
improvement.
Figure 5-3 Electricity EEI and Energy Intensity by Plant
25
Electricity energy efficiency index
140
Reported
intensity
138
120
250
Index
200
100
91
90
85
Benchmark
82
80
64
75
74
73
68
66
150
65
60
57
54
53
100
36
40
50
20
Reported electricity energy intensity

(kWh/t cement)
300
160
0
P15
P14
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
Plant
For more details, see Appendix C, page 37.
REFERENCES
Cement bags
REFERENCES
28
REFERENCES
Cement Association of Canada, Canadian Cement Industry 2008 Sustainability Report. 2008.
Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd., Ecofys, Cement Etc., Inc., Canadian Cement Industry
Benchmarking Final Report, Cement Association of Canada. 2008.
Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd., Neill and Gunter, Energy Management Potential Analysis and
Best Practices Benchmarking in the Nova Scotia Industrial and Manufacturing Sector, Canadian
Manufacturers & Exporters, 2007.
Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd., Neill and Gunter, Energy Performance Benchmarking & Best
Practices in New Brunswick Industrial and Manufacturing Sector, Canadian Manufacturers &
Exporters, 2006.
Natural Resources Canada, Canadas Energy Outlook: The Reference Case 2006.
Statistics Canada, Annual Survey of Manufacturers. 2004.
APPENDICES
Cement
APPENDICES
30
APPENDIX A: Energy Management Best Practices Detailed Results

Figure A-1 Implementation of MBPs Commitment by Plant
100
90
MBP implemented (%)
80
80
78
67
70
67
61
59
57
57
57
60
64
54
50
52
52
50
46
40
33
30
20
10
Plant
Benchmark
P15
P14
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
MBP = management best practices
Figure A-2 Implementation of MBPs Planning by Plant
93
89
81
80
67
70
56
60
61
52
50
50
48
30
30
26
26
26
26
P13
P14
P15
30
P12
41
40
P11
90
P10
100
MBP implemented (%)
20
10
Plant
Benchmark
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
0
P1
APPENDICES
Figure A-3 Implementation of MBPs Organization by Plant
31
100
86
90
81
80
69
MBP implemented (%)
70
67
61
58
64
58
60
53
50
47
42
40
42
42
39
36
31
30
20
10
Plant
Benchmark
P15
P14
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
Figure A-4 Implementation of MBPs Project Development by Plant
100
90
80
83
78
74
56
60
52
50
54
48
33
30
30
26
P15
33
P14
33
P13
30
P12
37
P11
37
40
P10
50
20
10
Benchmark
Plant
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
0
P1
MBP implemented (%)
70
APPENDICES
Figure A-5 Implementation of MBPs Financing by Plant
32
100
90
89
89
78
80
78
78
78
MBP implemented (%)
78
70
70
67
67
63
60
59
59
56
56
50
44
40
30
20
Plant
Benchmark
P15
P14
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
10
Benchmark
Figure A-6 Implementation of MBPs Measurement and Reporting by Plant
93
89
81
80
74
70
70
72
70
44
44
40
41
37
37
37
37
P14
50
P13
61
60
P12
90
P11
100
MBP implemented (%)
33
30
20
10
Benchmark
Plant
P15
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
0
P1
APPENDICES
Figure A-7 Implementation of MBPs Communication by Plant
33
100
97
90
85
80
76
70
65
64
68
63
59
60
59
57
56
50
52
50
46
40
33
30
20
10
P15
P14
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
Benchmark
Plant
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
0
P1
MBP implemented (%)
70
APPENDICES
34
APPENDIX B: Technical Best Practices Detailed Results

Figure B-1 Implementation of TBPs Raw Materials and Fuel Preparation by Plant
100
90
83
80
75
67
60
50
42
40
42
42
41
36
42
27
30
25
25
25
20
17
8
10
P14
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
Plant
Benchmark
-0
P15
TBP implemented (%)
70
TBP = technical best practices
Figure B-2 Implementation of TBPs Clinker Production by Plant
100
90
90
85
77
80
68
70
68
64
68
64
59
60
57
54
32
32
32
29
P14
P15
36
40
P13
50
P12
TBP implemented (%)
30
20
10
Plant
Benchmark
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
- 0
P1
APPENDICES
Figure B-3 Implementation of TBPs Finish Grinding by Plant
35
100
90
80
80
80
80
80
70
70
TBP implemented (%)
80
70
70
60
60
60
50
50
50
40
40
40
P15
90
P14
100
30
20
10
Plant
Benchmark
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
Figure B-4 Implementation of TBPs Cement and Feedstock by Plant
100
90
80
83
67
67
67
58
60
50
50
50
40
33
30
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
17
20
10
P15
P14
P13
P12
P11
P10
Benchmark
Plant
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
0
P1
TBP implemented (%)
70
APPENDICES
Figure B-5 Implementation of TBPs General Measures by Plant
36
100
90
80
75
67
70
TBP implemented (%)
67
67
67
67
58
60
58
58
50
50
50
42
40
42
42
42
30
17
20
10
P15
P14
Benchmark
Plant
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
0
P1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX C: Energy Use and Efficiency Detailed Results

Figure C-1 Raw Meal Preparation EEI by Plant
37
120
104
87
77
80
76
73
76
68
60
63
59
55
55
49
46
45
P14
94
P13
100
40
35
20
Plant
Benchmark
P15
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
EEI = energy efficiency index
Figure C-2 Kiln EEI by Plant
100
86
86
85
83
77
85
75
74
70
70
69
69
60
63
61
59
50
40
30
20
10
P12
P11
P10
Benchmark
Plant
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
0
P1
80
P15
89
P14
90
P13
90
APPENDICES
Figure C-3 Finish Grinding EEI by Plant
38
160
140
142
128
120
105 104 102 99
100
103
90
89
88
87
80
79
75
67
66
60
40
17
20
P15
P14
P13
Benchmark
Plant
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
0
P1

Cement Eng

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationcement case studie by the natural resourses canada

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cement Eng

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cement Eng

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY

IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

For more information or to receive additional copies of this publication, contact

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

Natural Resources Canadas Office of Energy Efficiency

About the Canadian Cement Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

About Energy Benchmarking and This Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Energy Use in Cement Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Energy Management Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Energy Management Practices Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Technical Practices Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. Energy Efficiency Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix A: Energy Management Best Practices Detailed Results . . . . . . . . 30

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

Appendix A: Energy Management Best Practices Detailed Results

Appendix B: Technical Best Practices Detailed Results

Appendix C: Energy Use and Efficiency Detailed Results

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

Lafarge Saint-Constant plant, Quebec

reduce energy costs and maintain industry competitiveness in a period of ever-increasing

1.2 About Energy Benchmarking

recognized best practices

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

identifying and communicating best practices

Ciment Qubec Inc.

Essroc (Italcementi Group)

Lafarge Canada Ltd.

Brookfield, Nova Scotia

Lehigh Hanson Canada

Holcim (Canada) Inc.

St Marys Cement Inc.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

Figure 1-1 Critical areas influencing overall energy use

Energy Use and

1.3 Study Methodology

energy management practices

on-site raw materials preparation and transport

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

clinker production (kiln operation)

Source: Holcim (Canada)

Figure 1-2 cement manufacturing process

Raw Materials Preparation

Cement Grinding and Distribution

Limestone and small amounts

The extracted materials are

The materials are heated

The clinker is stored and then finely ground.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

Holcim Mississauga plant, Ontario

ENERGY USE IN CEMENT MANUFACTURING

ENERGY USE IN CEMENT MANUFACTURING

Kiln fuel 86.0%

Kiln electricity 4.0%

Fuel handling 0.4%

Statistics Canada, Annual Survey of Manufacturers (2004).

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT