www.LC3.

ch

LC3: a breakthrough for the cement industry

Asia CemTech Conference
17th June, 2019 – Bangkok
Laurent Grimmeissen
Thailand

1
 www.LC3.ch

Contribution of cement to CO2 emissions

Countries ranked by CO2 emission from cement production
30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

World average
5.00

0.00

%overall CO2 from cement 2

www.LC3.ch

CO2 roadmap
The ambition is to reduce CO2 intensity of cement by 2050

3
 www.LC3.ch

Evolution of Clinker substitution, CSI data

25%

20% 1% 1% 1%
1% 1%
1%
1% 2% 2%
1% 2% 2%

15% 1%
1%
2%
2%
2% 2%
Limestone
2% 4% 4% 4%

2%
2%
3%
4% 4% 4%
4%
Slag
3%
3%
10% 4%
2%
5% 5% 5% 5% Fly ash
2% 5% 5% 5%
1% 4% 5%
1%
4%
4%
Puzzolana
5% 4%
5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% Others
4%
2%
0%
1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

• Almost no progress in last 5 years

• Only 3 substitutes used in quantity
4
 www.LC3.ch

Supplementary cementitious materials

Limestone Fly ash Slag Natural

pozzolan Calcined clay

Non calcined Fly ash generated Slag will decrease Natural pozzolan
limestone does not in coal fired as the sector will availability and
provide additional furnaces. Coal shift from blast reactivity varies
strenght fired power plants furnace to more widely from region
are set to decrease energy efficient
in the future. scrap based
High variable electric arc
quality & max 35% furnace.
5
www.LC3.ch

Availability of SCMs
Only material really potentially available in
viable quantities is calcined clay.

6
 www.LC3.ch

There is no magic solution

▪ Blended with SCMs will be best solution for sustainable cements for
foreseeable future

▪ Only material really potentially available in viable quantities are clay

and limestone.

▪ Blend containing combination of calcined clay and limestone are

particularly interesting: EPFL led LC3 project supported by SDC. Started
2013

▪ Parallel development by Aalborg Portland (Cementir)

www.LC3.ch

What is LC3
LC3 is not just a blended cement like the others

• 50% less clinker

• 35-40% less CO2 vs. OPC
• Similar strength as OPC
• Better chloride resistance
• Alkali Silica Resistant

8
www.LC3.ch

Synergy in LC3 cements

The added synergy from the reaction of calcined clays with limestone
producing carboaluminate phases improves the strength and durability of the
cement.

9
www.LC3.ch

Compressive strength of LC3 versus OPC

LC3 develops ultimate strengths comparable to OPCs

Why can we get such

high replacement levels?
Calcined kaolinite
(metakaolin) is much
more reactive than glassy
SCMs

10
www.LC3.ch

Three basic clay structures

Kaolinite (1:1) Montmorillonite (2:1) Illite (Micas)
(Smectites) (2:1)

Na+, Ca++, H2O

aluminium
silicon

“Metakaolin”, sold as high purity product for paper, ceramic, refractory industries
Requirements for purity, colour, etc, mean expensive 3-4x price cement
Clays containing metakaolin available as wastes
– over or under burden NOT agricultural soil
Much much less expensive
11
www.LC3.ch

Availability of suitable clays,

yellow pink and light green regions, and others

12
www.LC3.ch

Suitable clays presently stockpiled as waste

13
 www.LC3.ch

The Indian experience

Feasibility of non-ceramic grade clay from china Pilot calcination of china clay at Bhuj, India Pilot production of LC3 at commercial cement plant
clay mines at Bhuj India

Building with LC3 and LC3 based building materials Pre-cast products made with LC3 in an industry in Building made with LC3 components at Swiss
in Orchha, India Noida, India Embassy, New Delhi, India

14
www.LC3.ch

Resistivity of LC3 concretes was higher than OPC

Surface resistivity (and also significantly higher than PPC) which
suggests better resistance to corrosion propagation.

15
www.LC3.ch

Chloride ingress

There is a marked
improvement of the
chloride resistance at an
early age irrespective of
the different grades of
concrete, unlike fly ash
based PPC system
which requires additional
curing at higher water-
binder ratios.

16
www.LC3.ch

CO2 reduction using LC3

20%
less
thermal
energy
needs

calcined clay only needs to be heated until 850 °C

thus, only 2’600 MJ per ton of calcined clay is needed
18
www.LC3.ch

LC3: the technical feasibility &

the financial profitability

19
 www.LC3.ch

LC3 CLAY CALCINATION – THE ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF TWO

TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS – FLASH CALCINER WITH CRUSHER DRIER V. ROTARY KILN
Flash Calciner & Crusher/Drier Rotary Kiln & Cooler
www.LC3.ch

3 Scenario’s for producing LC3

Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3:

- In a cement Plant - In a grinding Plant - Greenfield grinding unit
- 1 Mio ton LC3 - 0.4 Mio ton LC3 - 0.4 Mio ton LC3
- 300 ktpa of CC - 124 ktpa CC - 124 ktpa CC
- FC vs. RT - FC vs. RT - FC vs. RT
- Clay <10km vs. 200km - Clay <10km vs. 200km - Clay <10km vs. 200km
- Cash Cost USD 30/t·cem - Cash Cost USD 47/t·cem - Cash Cost USD 47/t·cem

21
 www.LC3.ch

Basic assumptions valid for all 3 scenarios

LC3 = Fuel = Raw materials =

Coal @delivered cost of • limestone @ USD 2.8 /T (poor

compare LC3 vs. CEM I. quality or reject limestone from
USD 80 per ton coal and a
lowest heat value of 26 MJ existing quarry)
• Gypsum cost: USD 20 /T gypsum
/kg. (HFO / diesel not
Cost of clay is assumed at:
economically feasible)
• USD 4.0 /T clay - when located
close to the plant (< 10km)
• USD 17.0 /T clay - when 200 km
from plant

22
www.LC3.ch

CAPEX needed according to scenario

Scenario’s Capacity Flash Calciner Rotary Kiln
scenario scenario
Scenario 1 300 ktpa of USD 10.3 million for the USD 6.6 million for the
Calcined Clay flash calciner turn key rotary kiln turn key

Scenario 2 125 ktpa of USD 8.15 million for the USD 6.1 million for the
Calcined Clay flash calciner turn key & rotary kiln turn key &
Coal mill Coal mill

Scenario 3 125 ktpa of USD 27 million for the flash USD 26 million for the
Calcined Clay calciner, coal mill, and rotary kiln calciner, coal
grinding plant mill, and grinding plant

23
 www.LC3.ch

LC3 cement – A competitive product versus CEM I

At Existing Integrated Plants

Δ 2-7 USD/t benefit - LC3 v. Cem I (Cash Cost USD 30/t·cem)

At Existing and Greenfield Grinding Stations

Δ 10-15 USD/t benefit - LC3 v. Cem I (Cash Cost USD 47/t·cem)

24
www.LC3.ch

Production cost of calcined clay & LC3

25
 www.LC3.ch

Financial Profitability (based on simplified DCF)

IRR (in%)
Payback period (in years)
120%
8.0 98%
100% 87%
6.0 6.0 75%
6.0 80% 71%
4.4 4.4 63%
3.8 55%
3.5 60%
4.0
40% 24%
2.0
1.6 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.0 1.4
22% 17% 17%
20% 9% 9%
0.0 0%
Scenario 1.1. Scenario 1.2. Scenario 2.1. Scenario 2.2. Scenario 3.1. Scenario 3.2. Scenario 1.1. Scenario 1.2.Scenario 2.1.Scenario 2.2.Scenario 3.1.Scenario 3.2.

clay close to plant clay @ 200 km clay close to plant clay @ 200 km from plant

− Producing LC3 versus CEM I is attractive in case of an existing integrated or grinding

plant even if the clay is located as far as 200 km from the plant
− Producing LC3 instead of CEM I out of a greenfield project remains attractive though to
a lesser extent due to the high investment costs required for the grinding plant itself.
However, clay shall be located close to the plant.
− Distance of clay to the production facility is a key driver.

26
www.LC3.ch

Thank you

27