A-1

Appendix A

Andover Technology Partners and RTI International Memos

Andover Technology Partners

May 7, 2010 Electrical Load for Wet Scrubbers

February 26, 2010 Wet Scrubber Cost Algorithms

July 10, 2009 GHG Mitigation Methods for Cement

March 10, 2009 Costs and Performance of Controls – revised from comments

March 10, 2009 NOX, SO2 and CO2 Emissions from Cement Kilns (Emissions Memo) – revised

from comments

RTI

March 31, 2010 ISIS Cement Production Costs

August 31, 2007 Documentation for Portland Cement Kiln Cost Functions (2005)
A-2

This page intentionally left blank.









Andover Technology Partners Page 1

July 10, 2009

To: Ravi Srivastava, Nick Hutson, Samudra Vijay, Elineth Torres

Cc: Clint Burklin

Fm: Jim Staudt

Re: GHG Mitigation Methods for Cement

The greenhouse gas mitigation methods that will be examined in this work are

broken down generally into four categories:

 Energy Efficiency Options – these options will reduce the amount of fossil

fuels used to manufacture cement, either directly through reduction of heat

input at the plant, or indirectly though reduction of electricity demands.

 Supplementary Cementitious Materials – These are materials that can be

used in lieu of manufactured Portland cement in blended cements or concrete,

and therefore do not release the CO2 that is involved in production of Portland

cement. Their use will mitigate the amount of CO2 produced per ton of

concrete used.

 Decarbonated kiln feedstocks – These include materials that do not require

calcining and are a substitute for CaCO3, which is a source of CO2 emissions.

 CO2 Capture and Sequestration – This is technology for capture of the CO2

produced from the kiln that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere.

The captured CO2 would be sequestered.

Andover Technology
Andover Technology Partners Page 2

Energy Efficiency Options

Reduction of energy consumption will reduce the CO2 emissions either directly

through reduction of fossil fuel requirements at the kiln or indirectly, through reduction

of electrical demands. Energy efficiency methods are especially attractive because there

is an economic as well as environmental benefit. Therefore, these methods can often be

justified even absent an environmental motivation. However, an environmental

motivation in addition to economic benefits will increase the likelihood that these “low

hanging fruit” approaches will be utilized.

Energy efficiency improvement options generally entail an up-front capital cost to

install or modify equipment. The up-front investment is recovered over time through the

realized reductions in fuel or electricity costs. Assuming similar year-to-year facility

operation, the energy savings should be similar from year-to-year. Hence, these methods

lend themselves to being represented economically in terms of simple payback, or how

many years of savings it takes to recover the cost of the initial investment. A shorter

payback period (typically represented in years) implies an economically more attractive

energy savings approach – at least from the perspective of the measure of payback

period. Worrell & Galitsky 1developed estimates of the payback period and the energy

savings of several energy saving methods. This report summarizes the capital cost

algorithms that have been developed for the energy efficiency measures that are

described by Worrell & Galitsky.

Summary of Capital Cost Estimation

Capital cost algorithms were developed which estimate capital cost of the energy

efficiency measure in proportion to the capacity of the kiln raised to the 0.60 power as in

Equation E.1. Table 1 provides a tabulation of the scale-up factors to estimate the capital

cost in 2008$ of various energy efficiency measures in the cement industry using

Equation E.1. Equation E.1 is developed based upon the approach described by Peter and

1 Worrell, E., and Galitsky, C. (2008). Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for

cement making an Energy Star guide for energy and plant managers. Berkeley, CA: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Energy Technology Division.
Andover Technology Partners Page 3

Timmerhaus.2The scale-up factors for the energy efficiency measures are grouped

according to their kiln types, wet, long dry, preheater, and precalciner. To obtain the

capital costs, the scale-up factors are to be multiplied with the production capacity of a

cement plant, expressed in tons of cement per year (TPY), raised to the six-tenth power:

Capital Cost ($2008) = Scale-Up Factors * Capacity0.6 E. 1

The scale-up factors were calculated primarily by the payback period method or,

by capital cost (in $/TPY of capacity) when capital cost information was provided by

Worrell and Galitsky with a base year of the cost. In the payback period method, capital

cost was back-calculated from the payback period using fuel and electricity savings

provided by Worrell and Galitsky.

Payback Period Method

To estimate capital cost, and express it in dollars per tons per year of cement

(TPY), recall that Capital cost (CC) divided by the value of the annual savings equal the

payback period (PP) in years. So, if the value of the annual savings (S) is estimated and

multiplied times the payback period it is possible to estimate the capital cost in tons per

year of capacity as.

CC = S * PP E. 2

Savings (expressed in $ per ton of cement) can be estimated by

Fuel Saving (MBtu/ton) * Cost of Fuel ($/MBtu) + Electric Savings

(kWh/ton) * Cost of Electricity ($/kWh) = Savings ($/ton) E. 3

Capital cost will equal

Plant Capacity (in TPYCEMENT) * PP * S E. 4

The payback period in years along with the energy savings (Btu/ton of cement

and kWh/ton of cement) are found in Tables 3 and 4 on pages 47-46 of Worrell and

Galitzky. The body of the Worrell and Galitzky report includes a method description

along with the base year of the estimate and, in a few cases, estimates of capital cost.

Energy costs were estimated from average retail price of delivered coal for

industrial users in the particular year and average cost of electricity for industrial users in

2

Peters, M.S., and Timmerhaus, K.D. (1991). Plant design and economics for chemical engineers (4th ed.)

New York: McGraw-Hill, p 169
Andover Technology Partners Page 4

the particular year of the estimate. The payback calculation yielded capital costs in

dollars per ton per year of cement capacity for the year that the energy savings or the

payback period was determined. Accounting for inflation through the application of a

GDP deflator allowed the scale-up factors to be adjusted to 2008$. The scale up factor

was determined by multiplying the average estimated cost (in $/TPY of cement capacity)

times the average capacity for the applicable type of kiln (wet, dry, preheater, etc.) raised

to the 0.40 power. The average capacity for the kiln type was based upon existing kiln

capacity data in the Cap+Trade workbook used for ISIS. Worrell and Galitzky provided

a table for energy saving methods applicable to wet kilns and another for dry kilns. So,

for most energy saving methods listed for dry kilns the average capacity of all dry

process kilns was used in formulating the scale up factor for dry process kilns. If a

process was applicable to only one type of dry process (ie., long dry), the average

capacity for that particular type of dry process was used in formulating the scale up

factor.

In some cases the body of Worrell and Galitsky provided information on capital

costs, and in these cases alternative capital cost factors were developed and are shown on

Table 1 for comparison. These are also in 2008 $. The Capital Cost Computations

section in the Appendices contains additional information regarding the derivation of the

factors.

There are some cases where the payback period approach was not employed for

technologies listed in Tables 3 and 4 of Worrell and Galitsky. The scale-up factors for

indirect firing for both wet and dry kilns and for raw meal blending for the dry kiln were

computed using reported figures of capital cost in $/ton of cement. In the case of indirect

firing, the scale-up factor was calculated using a single point datum of an actual plant that

installed the system in 1997. For raw meal blending, we used the retrofit cost of

$5.61/ton of cement. The value was calculated from the reported cost of $3.30/ton of raw

materials (Worrell & Galitsky, 2008, p. 22). A conversion factor of 1.7 was applied to

change the cost from $/ton of raw materials to $/ton of cement since this is the rough

ratio of raw materials to final Portland cement product. The Capital Cost Computations

in the Appendices have further details.
Andover Technology Partners Page 5

Table 1. Scale-Up Factors for Use with Equation E.1 Capital Cost Estimation of Energy Efficiency Measure in the Cement Industry for Capital Costs in 2008$

Energy Saving Method

From Payback Calculation From Reported Capital Cost

Capital Cost

Description

Wet

Process

Long Dry Preheater Precalci

ner

Wet

Process

Long

Dry

Preheate

r

Precalci

ner

Raw Materials Preparation

Efficient Transport System Minimum - 392 392 392 787 787 787

Raw Materials Blending Average - 1,181 1,181 1,181 1,181 1,181 1,181

Process Control Vertical Mill Average - 19 19 19

High Efficiency Roller Mill Minimum - 1,352 1,352 1,352 1,458 1,458 1,458

Slurry Blending and Homogenization Maximum 1,546 - - -

Wash Mills with Closed Circuit Classifier Minimum 1,136 - - -

High-Efficiency Classifiers Minimum 553 714 714 714 451 584 584 583

Clinker Making

Energy Management and Control System Average/Maximuma207 220 220 220

Seal Replacement Maximum 6 8 8 8

Combustion System Improvement Average 370 334 334 334 188 244 244 243

Indirect Firing Average 1,986 1,986 1,986 1394 1,802 1,802 1,802

Shell Heat Loss Reduction Average 66 88 88 88 47 60 61 60

Optimize Grate Cooler Average 48 78 78 78

Conversion to Grate Cooler Average 83 101 101 101 38 50 50 49

Heat Recovery for Power Generation Average - 604 - -

Conversion to Semi-Dry Process Kiln Minimum 2,455

Efficient Mill Drives Average 194 30 30 30

Finish Grinding

Energy Management and Process Control Maximum 16 20 20 20

Improved Grinding Media in Ball Mills Average 178 230 230 230

High Pressure Roller Press Minimum 1,515 1,958 1,958 1,958 903 1,166 1,166 1,166

High-Efficiency Classifiers Minimum 389 545 545 545 451 584 584 583

Plant Wide Measures

Preventative Maintenance Maximum 40 51 51 51

High Efficiency Motors Maximum 29 37 37 37

Adjustable Speed Drives Average 158 213 213 213 70 91 91 90

Optimization of Compressed Air Systems Maximum 86 44 44 44

Product Change

Blended Cement Maximum 294 294 294 294

Limestone Portland Cement Maximum 153 153 153 153

aAverage refers to the wet process; maximum refers to the dry processes.
Andover Technology Partners Page 6

The capital costs estimated from Equation E.1 are not necessarily the average

costs for all of the energy efficiency measures shown in Table 1. In some instances, the

capital costs reflect not the average, but the maximum or minimum investment required

based upon the payback period shown. Table 1 notes how each measure’s capital cost is

to be interpreted in the column “Capital Cost Description”. The variation in

interpretation is a result of how the payback period was expressed in Worrell and

Galitzky. The payback period for certain measures indicates either a minimum or a

maximum number of years necessary to pay off an investment. For example, installing

an efficient transport system in a dry process has a payback period greater than 10 years

(Worrell & Galitsky, 2008, p. 47). A scale-up factor based on this 10 year period will

yield the minimum capital requirement for the measure.

For some of the measures listed in Worrell & Galitsky, the scale-up factors are

not available. A few of the measures, such as fuel preparation and efficient lighting, do

not have the payback period necessary for computation of the capital costs. For others,

computations were not performed as cost equations have already been developed in other

reports.3 And, a few measures were applicable only to certain types of kilns.

One source of uncertainty in the data from Worrell & Galitsky is the year in

which the savings and the payback period were evaluated. Worrell & Galitsky did not

always report this consistently. Due to such inconsistencies, the year had to be estimated

in some cases. This has an impact since energy costs were evaluated in a base year and

capital costs were escalated using a GDP deflator. This may explain the differences

between the scale up factors developed from the energy savings payback period method

and those developed from the capital costs provided in Worrell and Galitzky.

A final comment regarding estimates using this data is that it is uncertain how

representative the energy savings and payback period data in Worrell and Galitsky are for

applicable kilns. As a result, when using the cost estimates developed here, it should be

understood that some situations may experience significantly different costs or energy

savings than estimated.

3 Memo J. Staudt to R. Srivatava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: Cost and Performance of Controls – revised from

comments, dated March 10, 2009, pp 34-36
Andover Technology Partners Page 7

Oxygen Enrichment

An energy efficiency technology that is not addressed in Worrell and Galitzky is

oxygen enrichment. This technology has the potential to improve kiln output while

potentially reducing fuel input. This is made possible by the higher heat intensity of the

kiln and reduction of total gas flow for any given level of clinker production. Oxygen

enrichment will require additional electrical energy for the oxygen generation, or

alternatively, purchase of liquid oxygen. For oxygen enrichment, it is possible to use

vacuum swing absorption (VSA) with a molecular sieve rather than cryogenic air

separation because high purity oxygen is not necessary. This has the advantage of a low

pressure system and reduced electrical demand compared to cryogenic air separation.

The technology is limited by:

 Increased thermal load on kiln refractory. – the increased flame temperature will

cause refractory to deteriorate at an accelerated rate. While short term tests have been

performed to higher enrichment rates, it has been reported that the process is limited

to about 23%-25% oxygen concentration (versus 21% for normal air).4

 Increased NOx emissions from elevated flame temperature. – Elevated flame

temperature will elevate NOx emissions. TXI reported 50% increase in NOx

emissions from their wet kilns when using oxygen. But, oxygen lance position can be

optimized. So, this level of NOx increase may not be typical.

Four papers on oxygen enrichment in the US provide information on the

capabilities of oxygen enrichment as it is applied to cement kilns. The results and

citations are shown in Table 2. In each of these cases oxygen enrichment was performed

for the purpose of increasing the kiln capacity because at that time US cement demand far

exceeded domestic supply. In each case kiln capacity was increased. And, in one case a

decrease in fuel use was reported. The other three papers did not report a decrease in fuel

use. However, ECRA has reported that an estimated reduction of 100-200 MJ/tonne of

clinker is achieved with an increase in electric demand of 10-35 kwh/tonne of clinker.

4 European Cement Research Academy, “Development of State of the Art Techniques in Cement

Manufacturing: Trying to Look Ahead (CSI/ECRA Technical Papers), March 2009.
Andover Technology Partners Page 8

The 100-200 MJ/tonne of fuel savings is roughly consistent with the 3-5% fuel savings

reported by the Hercules plant.

Table 2. Oxygen Enrichment at four US cement plants

Plant Kiln

Type

Clinker

increase %

Marginal Clinker increase

Tons/ton O2

Fuel decrease

Midlothian Wet 6.5% Not Reported Not reported

Victorville PC 3.1% 3.5 t/t Not reported

Mojave PC 8.9% 4.4 Not reported

Hercules PH, PC 8-10% 4.7 3-5%

Sources:

Mayes, G., “Oxygen Enrichment at the TXI Midlothian Cement Plant”, Cement Industry Technical

Conference, IEEE/PCA Proceedings, 2001

Shafer, B., “Oxygen Enrichment at California Portland Cement’s Mojave Plant”, Cement Industry Technical

Conference, IEEE/PCA Proceedings, 2001

Gotro, C., “Oxygen Enrichment at CEMEX’s Victorville Plant”, Cement Industry Technical Conference,

IEEE/PCA Proceedings, 2001

Leger, C., Friday, J., “Oxygen Enrichment for Cement Kiln Firing”, Cement Industry Technical Conference,

IEEE/PCA Proceedings, 2001

At Cemex’s Victorville plant, higher total clinker increases were possible than

3.1% (estimated by 40 tpd of oxygen times 3.5 ton clinker/ton oxygen/4550 tpd of

clinker), but at a lower clinker production rate per unit of oxygen (tons of clinker per ton

of oxygen).

Cost of oxygen enrichment will depend upon whether or not a permanent system

is desired or if a temporary system is desired. Liquid oxygen can be delivered on site and

requires little equipment. However, this can cost about $0.30 per pound.5 A pressure

swing absorption system can provide oxygen for a price of $0.05 per pound. California

Portland Cement installed a 95 TPD VSA system at its Mojave plant and they reported

electrical demand of 0.01kwh/scf of oxygen (or 0.01kwh/0.089 lbm of oxygen, or 178

kwh per short ton of oxygen), and this cost (which reportedly represents virtually all of

the variable cost) is reported to be roughly 30% of the operating cost at the Mojave plant.

At 4.4 ton of additional clinker per ton of oxygen, his electrical demand of 178 kwh/short

ton of oxygen translates to about 40 kwh per short ton of clinker. ECRA reported an

5 Remedial and Natural Attenuation Services, Inc. http://www.rnasinc.com/o2zone/productdescriptiom/Cost_Of_Oxygen_Delivery, viewed July 3, 2009
Andover Technology Partners Page 9

electrical demand of 10-35 kwh/tonne of clinker; but, it is unclear whether this is per total

clinker or additional clinker from oxygen addition.

CAPITAL COST

According to the European Cement Research Academy, capital cost is estimated at

between 5 and 10 million euros for an oxygen enrichment system and an operational cost

ranging from 0.5 – 2.3 euros per tonne of clinker based on clinker capacity of 2 million

tonnes/year. Since the report is published in 2009, it is presumed that these are costs in

2009 euros. Using a conversion rate of $1.40/€ (July 3, 2009, Bloomberg), it is possible

to convert to dollars. Using the average cost of 7.5 million euros and a plant size of 2

million tonnes/yr, the cost can be shown to be $4.77/ton per year capacity.

Using the six tenths rule, the capital cost can be estimated to be:

(2 (10)6tonnes/yr x 1.1 ton/tonne)0,4 x 4.77 x TPYCLINKER 0.60

= 1642 * TPYCLINKER ^ 0.6 E.5

Fixed Operating Cost

Fixed operating cost can be assumed to be a fraction of capital cost. For the

moment, we will assume, consistent with many other technologies, $59,200/year plus 4%

of capital cost.

Variable Operating Cost

Since this is predominantly power, it can be estimated as roughly 40 kwh/short

ton of additional clinker times the cost of power, or COSTKWH*40*TPYCLINKER *

O2ENRCLINKER. O2ENRCLINKER is the fraction by which clinker output increases.

Impacts

Clinker output: The average clinker increase from Table 2 is 6.88%, making

O2ENRCLINKER = 0.0688.

Based on the ECRA estimates and the fact that the impacts are probably mainly

realized in the kiln, fuel impacts are estimated at about 0.1 million Btu/ton clinker heat

input reduction for precalciner kilns and about 0.2 million Btu/ton clinker heat input

reduction for other kilns.
Andover Technology Partners Page 10

CO2 from fuel will be reduced in direct proportion to the reduction of fuel as

discussed above. There will be no impact on CO2 from calcination except that increased

clinker output will increase the total CO2 from calcination in proportion to clinker output.

Total CO2 from fuel and from calcination per ton of clinker, however, will drop

somewhat due to the reduction in CO2 from fuel.

Electricity demand will increase by around 20 kwh per ton of clinker (using the

average of the ECRA estimates) or around 40 kwh per ton of clinker (using the data from

Mojave plant).

NOx emissions will increase. TXI reported a 50% increase from a wet kiln. It is

unclear how representative this is. Assuming about half of the fuel is burned in the

calciner in a precalciner kiln, assume about 25% increase in NOx for precalciner kilns

and 50% for others. Hopefully, we can find some data in the future that will give us a

better picture.

Negligible impacts are expected for other emissions.
Andover Technology Partners Page 11

Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs)

Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) are materials that can be used as a

substitute for Portland cement and can be blended into concrete to reduce the amount of

Portland cement that is used. These materials are broadly divided into two types:

cementitious materials; and pozzolans, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Cements and Supplementary Cementitious Materials

Cementitious Pozzolanic (or materials with pozzolanic characteristics)

Hydraulic

Cements

Portland cement

Blended cement

Supplementary

cementitious

materials

GGBF Slag GGBF Slag

Class C fly ash Class C fly ash

Class F fly ash

Natural pozzolans (diatomite, calcined clay, calcined shale,

metakaolin), Silica fume

Portland cement clinker is a manufactured hydraulic cement – which is a cement

that sets and hardens by chemical interaction with water and is capable of doing so

underwater. Hydraulic cement can also be produced by blending Portland cement with

SCMs. For example, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBF slag – also called

Slag Cement) is a cementitious material that can be blended to make hydraulic cement.

Hydraulic cement can also be produced by combination of pozzolans with material

providing calcium hydroxide. Some fly ashes have adequate lime present to be

cementitious.

A pozzolan, in general, is a material that when mixed with calcium hydroxide will

exhibit cementitious properties. Most natural pozzolans are vitreous siliceous materials,

and these are often found in nature in volcanic rock formations. In the United States

these natural pozzolans are found principally west of the Mississippi River. Clays

(especially kaolin) and Shale can also be pozzolanic when calcined. 6 When combined

with calcium hydroxide they form calcium silicates similar to Portland cement. Silica

fume is a man-made pozzolan from silicon production that has limited availability; but, it

6 Actually, kaolin and shale undergo dehydroxilization rather than a release of CO2 when heated, and this

process makes them pozzalonic. So, this is different than what happens when limestone is

calcined.
Andover Technology Partners Page 12

is useful for very high strength cements. Metakaolins are produced by dehydroxilization

of kaolin clays and are mainly used in white cement.

Fly ash from coal combustion is a man-made pozzolan, and it can be blended with

Portland Cement. In fact, it is the SCM that is used in the greatest amounts because it is

available in many locations at a reasonable in price. Fly ash also improves the properties

of the final concrete for some applications, particularly with regard to sulfate resistance

and strength. Some coal fly ashes are pozzolans that also contain sufficient CaO that they

are cementitious.

The advantage of SCMs is that they can be blended into concrete or cement and

reduce the need for Portland cement, and therefore their use can mitigate the

environmental impact of Portland cement manufacturing. The use of these materials will

be limited by availability and the type of end use product that is desired. Of the SCMs

shown, fly ash, blast furnace slag and natural pozzolan, are the most likely to end up in

the final concrete product. Cement manufacturers generally only blend a small amount of

SCMs into their cements to aid with flow or grinding. On the other hand, concrete

suppliers often blend far more significant amounts of SCMs into the concrete that they

supply. As a result, increased use of SCMs in the final concrete will reduce the amount

of manufactured Portland cement necessary to fill the same concrete demand. However,

each of these SCMs impacts the product properties, such that the amount of SCM used

will differ by how the concrete is expected to be used.

The chemical compositions of the three most widely used cement substitutes - fly

ash, blast furnace slag, and natural pozzolanic materials - as compared to clinker are

shown in the ternary phase diagram of Figure 1. The three main mineral constituents are

CaO, SiO2 and Al2O. 7 Control of these three constituents will impact the characteristics

of the cement. The close chemical resemblance of blast furnace slag to Portland cement

is why it is a very useful SCM that can be blended at high rates. Fly ash is not quite as

close in chemical composition to Portland cement as blast furnace slag, and for that

reason fly ash is usually not cementitious unless there is also high CaO present in the fly

7 Claude LOREA – CEMBUREAU, “USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND MATERIALS IN THE

EUROPEAN CEMENT INDUSTRY”, IEA meeting-4 Sept 06-Use of alternative fuels-CL
Andover Technology Partners Page 13

ash (such as class C fly ash). Also, this is why fly ash is generally blended at lower

concentrations than blast furnace slag.

Figure 1. Ternary diagram of mineral constituents in Portland cement

A term that is used to characterize the amount of SCM in a cement is the clinker

ratio (CR), which is the percent of cement produced that is composed of clinker. A CR

of 95% is 100% Portland cement (95% clinker and 5% gypsum). Table 4 shows the CR

for five different cement grades sold by Cembureau (the European Cement Association).

The five cement types referred to in this table are:

Type I: Portland Cement

Type II: Portland Composite Cement

Type III: Blastfurnace slag Cement

Type IV: Pozzolana Cement

Type V: Composite Cement

The different cement types are formulated for various strength, hardening,

hydration or sulfate resistance characteristics.
Andover Technology Partners Page 14

Table 4. Five different cement grades sold by CEMBRAU 8

In the United States Portland cement substitutes are added in very limited

amounts by the cement companies. So, such statistics as those in Table 3 for different

cement types are not available for the United States. These substitutes tend to be added

by the concrete companies when blending the concrete. The reason the blending occurs

to a greater extent by concrete companies than cement companies is likely due to the

market structure in the US, making it less expensive for concrete companies to add these

materials that may be available from local markets. Also, concrete companies can blend

the concrete to meet the specific needs of their market.

8 Claude LOREA – CEMBUREAU, “USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND MATERIALS IN THE

EUROPEAN CEMENT INDUSTRY”, IEA meeting-4 Sept 06-Use of alternative fuels-CL
Andover Technology Partners Page 15

Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (or Slag Cement)

Blast furnace slag is the SCM that most closely resembles Portland cement. For

this reason ground, granulated blast furnace slag (also known as slag cement) is a

cementitious material that can be blended to high rates. Slag cement is a product of the

conversion of iron ore to iron in a blast furnace. It is produced by rapidly cooling the

blast furnace slag with water as it leaves the furnace to form granules. The slag granules

are then dried and ground to make slag cement. Slag cement is frequently substituted for

manufactured cement in ratios of about 50% by weight and potentially higher ratios,

depending upon the application. Growth in the use of slag cement has been nearly 12%

annually over the last ten years, with peak slag cement shipments of 3.6 million metric

tons in 2006. 9There was a slight drop off in 2007 as shown in Figure 2. This was

likely due to the drop off in construction that started in late 2007.

Figure 2. US Slag Cement Shipments

(source: Slag Cement Association)

Cost of Slag Cement – Ground granulated blast furnace slag is reported by USGS

to cost in the range up to about $100/ton (2008$), although prices for slags on average are

less.10 This may not factor in shipping costs, which in some cases might make slag less

9

Slag Cement Association,

http://www.slagcement.org/shared/custompage/custompage.jsp?_event=view&_id=445505_U128801__14

8636

10 http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_&_steel_slag/mcs-2009-fesla.pdf
Andover Technology Partners Page 16

attractive or cause actual price to be less to offset transportation costs. USGS reported

costs for granulated (not necessarily ground granulated) blast furnace slag between $19

and $95, with the average around $80 in 2006.11 Since over 90% of the granulated slag

was reported by USGS to be cementitious (likely slag cement), the average is probably

representative for this application. As a by-product of iron production, blast furnace slag

availability will be impacted by the production levels of the iron industry. As a result, if

demand for iron produced from iron ore drops, slag availability could drop as well.

Benefits of Slag Cement – Use of slag cement will offset the environmental

impacts of the Portland cement it replaces on a one-for-one basis. That is to say that one

ton of slag cement should offset the environmental impacts (NOx, SO2, CO2, PM and

other emissions) of manufacturing one ton of Portland cement (roughly 0.95 ton of

clinker). Slag cement is blended into concrete at levels of around 50%.

11 USGS: 2006 Minerals Yearbook, Slag – Iron and Steel
Andover Technology Partners Page 17

Fly Ash

Fly ash from coal fired power plants is, by far, the most widely used SCM. In the

United States fly ash is generally not blended into the cement at the cement plant, but

added to the concrete during the blending of the concrete. In other countries it may be

mixed with the cement. Two major classes of fly ash are specified in ASTM C 618 on

the basis of their chemical composition; these are designated Class F and Class C. Class F

is fly ash most often (but not always) produced from burning anthracite or bituminous

coal, and Class C is most often (but not always) produced from the burning of

subbituminous coal and lignite (as are found in some of the western states of the United

States). Class C fly ash usually has cementitious properties in addition to pozzolanic

properties due to available free lime, whereas Class F is rarely cementitious when mixed

with water alone. In most states fly ash as an SCM is limited to about 15%-25% of the

concrete, at least for highway purposes. Both fly ashes, if high in quality, are desirable

for blending into concrete due to strength and sulfate resistance characteristics. 12

Fly ash mineral oxide constituents for different fly ash types are compared to

those of Portland Cement and Slag Cement in Table 5. 13 As shown, Class C fly ash has

a much higher CaO content than Class F fly ash, which is why it often has cementitious

properties while type F generally does not. For any given fly ash, actual mineral matter

content could differ significantly from these values.

Table 5. Comparison of Portland Cement, Slag Cement, Class C Fly Ash

and Class F Fly Ash

Source: Slag Cement Association

12 US DOT Federal Highway Administration, www.fwha.dot.gov/infrastruction/materialsgrp/flyash.htm

13 Slag Cement Association, “Slag Cement And Fly Ash”, www.slagcement.org
Andover Technology Partners Page 18

According to the American Coal Ash Association’s 2007 Coal Combustion

Product Production & Use Survey, of about 72 million short tons of ash produced, almost

14 million short tons (19.4%) were used in concrete and concrete products. Another 3.6

million short tons were used in blended cement or as raw feed for clinker production. Of

the total fly ash produced, about 32 million short tons (44.4% of the total) were somehow

beneficially reused. The balance – about 40 million short tons – was not beneficially

reused.

Although this suggests an ample supply of fly ash for increased use in the

concrete or cement industry, usefulness for any particular application is limited by:

 Quality and consistency – for concrete blending the fly ash must meet

fairly stringent quality specifications and have good consistency. The best

quality fly ash generally comes from base loaded power plants that can

closely control conditions. When used as a feed material for a kiln (either

as a fuel or a raw material) fly ash quality is less critical, but is not

unimportant.

 Local market factors – Fly ash is heavy and can only be economically

used in regional markets. As a result, in some regions there may be a

shortage of fly ash while in other regions there might be more than

adequate supply.

Costs of Fly Ash as an SCM - According to Robl, 14 in 1997 the price of high

quality fly ash pozzolan was in the range of $25-$30 per ton while displacing an

equivalent weight of cement at a cost of about $70-$80/ton (all in 1997$). Since these

prices are market based, they likely move in proportion to the price of cement. And, this

does not factor in the cost of transport. According to Robl, in 1997 the cost of

transporting fly ash by pneumatically-loaded trailer truck was roughly $0.10 to $0.13 per

ton per mile. It is likely that these transportation costs are similar for other heavy,

powdery materials, such as cement or ground limestone.

Benefits of Fly Ash as an SCM – Since the fly ash is blended into concrete and

offsets Portland cement, it should reduce the environmental impact of Portland cement

manufacture when used roughly on a one-to-one basis. That is to say that one ton of fly

ash should offset the environmental impacts (NOx, SO2, CO2, PM and other emissions)

14 Robl, T., McCormick, C., “We Are Running Out of Fly Ash: The Nature of Regional Supply Problems”,

3

rd Conference on Unburned Carbon in Fly Ash, Pittsburgh, PA, May 13-14, 1997
Andover Technology Partners Page 19

of manufacturing up to one ton of Portland cement (roughly 0.95 ton of clinker and 0.05

ton of gypsum). At very high replacement rates where it may be necessary to add

additional CaO, some of the benefits may not be on a one-for-one basis. However, fly

ash blending rates are limited, particularly for highway use. Fly ash is blended into

concrete at levels that are limited up to around 15%-25% in the US. So, a reasonable

average to assume is up to 20%. This is a somewhat lower blending rate than in Europe,

as demonstrated in the data of Table 3.
Andover Technology Partners Page 20

Natural Pozzolans

Natural pozzolans are only available in certain locations and are therefore not as

widely used as slag cement or fly ash. Diatomite is one pozzolanic material that is often

used as an SCM. According to USGS, 26% of the 654,000 tons of diatomite, or 170,000

tons, was used for cement applications in 2008. This compares to millions of tons of fly

ash or slag cement that is used. There are 7 diatomite-producing companies with 12

mining areas and 9 processing facilities in California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

15 Other pozzolans include calcined clay and shales. Clay and shale are normally used

(and in large quantities) in the production of Portland cement since calcination will be

performed in the cement kiln. 16

Cost of Natural Pozzolans

Diatomite was reported to cost under $9.00 per ton (FOB plant). Clay and Shale

was reported to cost about $11/ton (FOB plant).17

Benefits of Natural Pozzolans

These materials are not cementitious, and therefore require CaO to be provided by

other materials that provide the CaO. However, the addition of pozzolans should

mitigate the use and impacts of Portland cement on a roughly one-to-one basis. That is to

say that one ton of pozzolan should offset the environmental impacts (NOx, SO2, CO2,

PM and other emissions) of manufacturing one ton of Portland cement (roughly 0.95 ton

of clinker). At very high replacement rates where it may be necessary to supplement

CaO, some of the benefits may not be on a one-for-one basis. Because of their limited

availability and far less use than fly ash or slag cement as an SCM, it may not be useful to

include natural pozzolans in the ISIS model.

15 USGS: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/diatomite/mcs-2009-diato.pdf

16 USGS: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1-2007-clays.pdf

17 USGS: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/mcs-2009-clays.pdf
Andover Technology Partners Page 21

Decarbonated Kiln Feedstocks (DKFs)

Previous work described the use of steelmaking slag as a substitute or additional

material for input to a kiln to produce clinker. Steelmaking slag as a kiln feed reduces the

amount of limestone that must be calcined per ton of clinker produced. This helps to

reduce CO2 emissions per ton of clinker produced by the kiln. Other sources of calcium

that do not require calcining will provide similar benefits as those described for steel slag

when using the CemStar process.

Table 6 shows data collected from the USGS regarding the amounts of materials

that were used in producing clinker and in producing cement in 2005 and 2006. Of all of

the calcareous materials, all require calcination (lime is calcined limestone and marl is

made of clay and calcium carbonate). A number of the siliceous materials can also be a

source of calcium, such as coal ash or slag, and these are highlighted in yellow.

The Costs of Using Decarbonated Kiln Feedstocks - Use of decarbonated kiln

feedstocks requires a relatively modest capital cost that is primarily for material handling

equipment. This is discussed in the description of the CemStar process in a previous

memo.18 The cost of steel slag will vary, as shown in Table 7 which shows the costs of

iron and steel slag reported to USGS in 2005 and 2006. 19 Blast Furnace Slag used as

kiln feed is likely less expensive than Slag cement, and the costs of the air cooled blast

furnace slag and the lower end of the cost of granulated blast furnace slag are probably

most representative for this application.

18 Memo J. Staudt to R. Srivatava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: Cost and Performance of Controls – revised

from comments, dated March 10, 2009, pp 34-36

19 USGS: 2006 Minerals Yearbook, Slag – Iron and Steel
Andover Technology Partners Page 22

TABLE 6
Andover Technology Partners Page 23

TABLE 7

The value of fly ash used as a kiln feed is likely to be significantly less than fly

ash that is blended directly into concrete. To estimate this value, power plant fly ash

revenue data was evaluated. Figure 3 shows a plot of the cumulative percent of plants

that reported fly ash revenue received (in $/ton) at or below a given price. This data was

derived from reported data from the EIA 767 reports for the year 2005 (no later data is

available since DOE changed their reporting requirements) and fuel data from EIA 423

for that year. The median reported fly ash value is about $5=$10/ton or less, regardless

of fuel type, and this is consistent with the estimated cost of slag for this purpose. So,

$5-$10/ton may be a reasonable assumption for kiln additives. As shown, there are a

significant number of facilities that are capable of selling their fly ash at prices well

above the median price of $10/ton. These plants are most likely selling their ash for

blending with concrete.

Use of decarbonated kiln feedstocks will also reduce heat input by reducing the

amount of energy necessary to calcine the feed materials. This should result in energy

savings per unit of clinker produced. How to estimate this will be described in the

following section.
Andover Technology Partners Page 24

Figure 3. Cumulative Percent (by number) of Plants Reporting in 2005 Fly Ash

Revenue Below Value

Developed from EIA Form 767

Benefits of Decarbonated Kiln Feedstocks - Based upon the CaO content of

decarbonated feedstocks, it is possible to estimate the avoided CO2 emissions when

comparing their equivalent CaO content to that of Clinker (the end product) and that of

Limestone. Table 7 shows the amount of CO2 emissions from calcination that is avoided

using these feedstocks. These were calculated based upon the CaO content shown. Table

7 also shows the estimated energy reductions. Having CaO present already will mitigate

energy demands that would be necessary to dissociate CaCO3 from limestone. The

energy associated with dissociation of CaCO3 to CaO is 2.45 million Btu/ton of CaO.20

The reduction in CO2 released from the reduced heat input will be determined by the

particular fuel used. For example, in the case of a kiln burning Rosemont PRB coal,

which produces 187 lbs CO2/million Btu21, use of one ton of steel slag as a kiln feed

20 Hanson, G., “Energy Efficiency Improvement Ideas & Projects for Lime Recovery Kiln Systems”,

Virginia-Carolina & Southeastern TAPPI Local Sections, February 17, 2005, Rock Hill, SC.

21 Memo J. Staudt to R. Srivatava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: NOx, SO2 and CO2 emissions from Cement

Kilns, dated March 10, 2009, Table 3
Andover Technology Partners Page 25

would reduce CO2 from calcination by 0.51 tons and would reduce CO2 from fuel

burning by 297 lbs, or another 0.15 tons, for a total reduction of 0.66 tons. Since one ton

of steel slag is equivalent in CaO to one ton of clinker, these reductions of CO2 per ton of

steel slag will equal the reductions of CO2 per ton of clinker.

From the data in Table 6, it is estimated that 2.8% of total feedstocks to produce

clinker were fly ash in 2006. The limit on the use of fly ash use will be determined by

the mineral content of the fly ash relative to the clinker and the other available feedstocks

at the site. So, it is hard to characterize how high the fly ash addition rate could be

increased. But, the upper limit would likely be less than that of the blending rate for

concretes. So, perhaps up to 10% kiln feed may be used.

CO2 reduction (tons) = CAR * TONSDKF E.6

Where TONSDKF are the tons of the decarbonated kiln feedstock used and CAR

is the CO2 Avoidance Ratio from Table 8.

Table 8. Limestone Equivalence Ration, Clinker Equivalence Ratio, Calcination

CO2 Avoidance Ratio, and Heat Input Reduced for various kiln feedstocks

% CaO

Limestone

Equiv. Ratio1

Clinker Equiv.

Ratio2

Calcination CO2

Avoid Ratio3

Heat input

reduced4

Variable designation %CAO LER CER CAR HIR

Clinker 65% 1.16 1.00 NA NA

Blast Furnace Slag 45% 0.80 0.69 0.35 1.10

Steel Slag 65% 1.16 1.00 0.51 1.59

Class C Fly Ash 25% 0.45 0.38 0.20 0.61

Class F Fly Ash 3% 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.07

Limestone (as CaCO3) 56% 1.00 0.86 0 0

1. tons of limestone (as CaCO3) that provide same CaO as ton of material

2. equiv. ton clinker produced per ton material used based on CaO equivalence

3. Tons of released calcined CO2 avoided per ton of material used in lieu of limestone

4. Million Btu reduced heat input for each ton of material used in lieu of limestone

In a previous memo a parameter called CASUB was used to estimate the amount

of CO2 reduced by DKFs. 22 CASUB can be estimated by dividing the limestone

equivalent of the substituted material divided by the total equivalent limestone (substitute

plus limestone added) to equal:

22 See equation E.4 of Memo J. Staudt to R. Srivatava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: NOx, SO2 and CO2

emissions from Cement Kilns, dated March 10, 2009,
Andover Technology Partners Page 26

CASUB = LER*TONSDKF/

[(LER*TONSDKF) +TONSLIMESTONE* PURLIMESTONE] E. 7

Where LER is the limestone equivalent ratio from Table 8, PURLIMESTONE is

the purity of the limestone as CaCO3, TONSLIMESTONE is the tons of limestone used.

Thie analysis in the previous memo regarding addition of steel slag, or

CEMSTAR,23 did not include the effect of energy savings on CO2 emissions or on energy

costs. CO2 emissions reduction can be determined by:

CO2 avoided from fuel (lbs per ton clinker) =

CASUB*(HIR / CER) * LBCO2MMBTU E.8

Tons CO2 avoided per ton of clinker (calcination and fuel) =

CASUB*[(HIR / 2000*CER) * LBCO2MMBTU + 0.51 * MCLINKER] E.9

Where from Equation E.6,

CASUB = LER*TONSDKF/[(LER*TONSDKF) +TONSLIMESTONE*

PURLIMESTONE]

CO2TOTAL (in short tons) =

MCLINKER*[(LBCO2MMBTU/2000)*(SFC- CASUB*(HIR / CER))

+0.51* (1–CASUB)] E.10

Fuel Cost Reduction – This was previously mentioned. This can be estimated by

Fuel Cost (in $/million Btu) * Heat input reduction (million Btu per ton clinker) = Fuel

Cost (in $/million Btu) CASUB*(HIR / CER) E.11

The value of the fuel savings is determined by multiplying the results of equation

E.10 by the cost of fuel. For example, there will be a fuel cost reduction as a result In the

case of the steel slag, the value of energy savings per unit of clinker produced will be the

CAR * 1.59 million Btu/ton of material *(1.0 ton of material per ton of clinker

produced)* the fuel cost in $/million Btu.

23 Memo J. Staudt to R. Srivatava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: NOx, SO2 and CO2 emissions from Cement

Kilns, dated March 10, 2009. Also note corrections to some equations in this memo that are included in the

Appendices
Andover Technology Partners Page 27

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Carbon capture at a cement plant has not been performed. IEA has performed a

study of carbon capture, primarily focusing on new plants24. This is the most recent and

comprehensive study that I am aware of. The European Cement Research Academy

(ECRA) also undertook a study.25 The two technologies that were examined in greatest

detail are:

 Oxycombustion

 Solvent capture and stripping (Amine-based)

The Oxycombustion approach results in a concentrated CO2 exhaust stream from

the kiln that can be compressed and sequestered. In oxycombustion, nitrogen is removed

from the combustion air that is introduced to the kiln/precalciner with an air separation

unit. This leaves a stream that is high in CO2 after combustion and calcination. To avoid

overheating of materials, CO2 is recirculated to maintain a similar total volume of gas as

in a normal kiln. Because oxycombustion represents a major process modification to the

cement-making process, and it is unclear if the calcination reactions will be effective at

the same temperatures under a high CO2 partial pressure, the IEA study determined that

oxycombustion is best applied to new facilities.

Solvent capture and stripping entails removal of CO2 from the exhaust gas stream,

and re-release in a concentrated form that is subsequently compressed for storage.

Solvent capture, being an “end of pipe” technology, could potentially be retrofit to

existing facilities as well applied to new facilities. Solvents include monoethanolamine

(MEA), MEA with additives to improve performance, and related amine chemicals. The

solvent capture process requires extremely low SO2 and NOx concentrations to avoid

high solvent attrition. So, scrubbers and SCR may be necessary, and are assumed to be

so in the study by IEA. Further, solvent capture and stripping requires substantial steam

requirements to heat the solvent for release of CO2 and regeneration of the solvent. So,

24 IEA Greenhous Gas R&D Programme, “CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry”, Technical Study, Report

Number 2008/3, July 2008.

25 European Cement Research Academy, Technical Report TR 044/2007, “Carbon Capture Technology -

Options and Potentials for the Cement Industry”. 3 July 2007
Andover Technology Partners Page 28

the EIA study assumed that a small combined heat and power (CHP) plant would have to

be provided on site.

Other technologies are under development and may offer advantages to these two

technologies once they are at a more mature state. However, at this point other

technologies are at development stages that are too early to develop reasonable cost and

performance estimates.

The EIA study estimated the capital cost, fixed operating cost, and variable

operating cost of a one million metric ton (tonnes) per year cement plant (910,000 tonnes

per year of clinker) three ways: 1) without carbon capture and storage; 2) with

oxycombustion carbon capture and storage; and 3) with solvent-based carbon capture and

storage. For these three plant conditions, the costs (in million € or €/year) are shown in

Table 9. Based upon these estimates, it is also possible to assume a cost of retrofit of a

Solvent CCS system to an existing one million tonne per year cement plant assuming that

there is a retrofit difficulty factor of 1.3 to account for the additional difficulties

associated with retrofitting an existing facility. This retrofit difficulty factor is typical of

what is used for power plant flue gas desulfurization systems.26 Because CCS has never

actually been applied to a cement kiln, these costs should all be regarded as preliminary.

Table 9. Costs of CCS Cement Plants (all in 2008 €)

Cost/Emissions New Cement Plant Total Cost Retrofit Cost

Base Plant Oxycomb. CCS Solvent CCS Solvent CCS

Capital cost

Million €

263 327 558 383.5

Fixed Operating Cost

Million €/year

19.1 22.8 35.3 16.2

Variable Operating Cost

Million €/year

16.8 21.9 30.9 14.1

CO2 Emitted, tonnes/y 1,256,158 282,853 188,424 188,424

CO2 Captured, tonnes/y 0 465,014 1,067,734 1,067,734

Percent Capture 0% 62% 85% 85%

Percent below Base 0% 73.5% 85% 85%

26 Staudt, J., Khan, S., “Updating Capital Cost of SO2 Control Technologies in the Integrated Planning

Model and the Coal Utility Environmental Cost Model”, EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Power Plant

Air Pollution Control Symposium, The MEGA Symposium, Baltimore, MD, August 28-31, 2006
Andover Technology Partners Page 29

We can develop algorithms from these estimated costs to estimate the cost of CCS

on cement kilns of various sizes. As noted above, the costs are preliminary. So, any

algorithms developed from these costs should be regarded as preliminary as well.

Since these costs are represented in € and are for plants sized in metric tonnes of

cement, we need make some adjustments. Data on page 5 of the EIA report shows a $/€

conversion rate of $161=€107. The costs are for a 910,000 tonne per year of clinker

plant, which is nearly exactly equal to a one million short ton per year of clinker plant.

Table 10 is derived by converting the values shown in Table 9.

Table 10. Costs CCS Cement Plants Based on IEA Study

(2008$ assuming $1.5=€1.0, one million tpy clinker)

variable cost

New Cement Plant Total Cost of

Plant and CCS

Retrofit Cost

CCS only

Base

Plant

Oxycomb.

CCS

Solvent

CCS

Solvent CCS

CAPCO2 Capital cost

Million $

$396 $492 $840 $577

FOCCO2 Fixed Operating Cost

Million $/year

$29 $34 $53 $24

VOCCO2 Variable Operating

Cost

Million $/year

$25 $33 $47 $21

The cost of the base plant does seem high when compared to costs from other

sources and described in a previous memo. 27 So, simply applying a conversion rate to

the cost reported in euros in the IEA study appears to overstate the cost in dollars. For

example, Essroc announced plans to spend $400 million to build a 1.8 million tpy cement

plant (probably about1.6-1.7 million tpy of clinker for about $233/tpy of clinker) in

Virginia28, or under 60% of what is indicated in the data in Table 10. The apparently

high capital cost shown in Table 10 is possibly because the use of the exchange rate to

convert the costs in Table 9 from euros to dollars assumes purchasing power parity

between the costs of cement plants in the EU and the US, and this likely is not actually

true in the case of cement plants because they are not goods that can be traded between

27 Memo J. Staudt to R. Srivatava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: Cost and Performance of Controls – revised

from comments, dated March 10, 2009, pp 34-36

28 Umstead, M., “Cement plant expansion to cost about $400 million”, The Herald Mail, January 25, 2008;

http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=184298&format=html
Andover Technology Partners Page 30

countries cheaply or easily. As a result, the exchange rate between euros and dollars at a

point in time may result in incorrect translation of cost from euros to US $ because the

exchange rate changes very quickly – far faster than the actual price of the cement plant

equipment. So, it may be necessary to revisit these numbers– scale them down perhaps.

But, that is something that should be discussed.

Capital Costs

In any event, capital cost algorithms can be developed in the form of scaling

capacity for a given kiln to the 0.6 power. For new plants, this is straightforward since

the algorithms were based on new plants. Using the capital costs from the above tables

(in million $), designated CAPCO2, the capital cost can be determined by the following:

Capital cost (in million $) = CAPCO2*(1,000,000)^0.4*(TPYCLINKER)^0.6

Capital cost (in million $) = CAPCO2*251*(TPYCLINKER)^0.6 E.12

Where TPYCLINKER is the rated capacity of the kiln in short tons per year.

For retrofit plants, which will only apply to solvent technology, like a wet FGD

system the capital cost is most likely proportional to the gas flow being treated, which

will differ by kiln type for any given kiln capacity. The simplest approach would be to

scale costs to the EGFW. 29 The costs on Table __ that are based on the IEA study

presume a modern precalciner kiln. So the costs should roughly be:

Capital cost (in million $) = CAPCO2*251*(TPYCLINKER*EGFW/44878)^0.6

Capital cost (in million $) = CAPCO2*0.406*(TPYCLINKER*EGFW)^0.6 E.13

Fixed Operating Costs

Fixed operating cost can be scaled in much the same way. For any new kilns,

Fixed Operating Cost (in million $ per year) =

FOCCO2*251*(TPYCLINKER)^0.6 E.14

For retrofit of Solvent technology on an existing kiln,

Fixed Operating Cost (in million $ per year =

FOCCO2*0.406*(TPYCLINKER*EGFW)^0.6 E.15

29 Memo J. Staudt to R. Srivatava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: NOx, SO2 and CO2 emissions from Cement

Kilns, dated March 10, 2009, Table 1
Andover Technology Partners Page 31

Variable Operating Cost

Variable operating cost for oxycombustion should probably be scaled in direct

proportion to the size of the kiln. Since oxycombustion is assumed to be applicable only

to new kilns, kiln type is not likely to differ, and VOC for oxycombustion should be

directly proportional to the size of the kiln.

For Oxycombustion:

VOC (in million $ per year) = VOCCO2 * TPYCLINKER/1,000,000 E.16

For Solvent CCS:

For a new kiln, the total VOC for the plant when a kiln is equipped with solventbased CCS can also be regarded as proportional to the size of the kiln, and Equation E.15

can be used.

For a retrofit of the solvent CCS, another approach is needed for estimating the

VOC associated with the CCS. For the Solvent technology, it is reasonable to assume

that the variable operating costs are roughly in proportion to the CO2 levels being treated.

Recalling from a previous memo:30

CO2FUEL (in Short tons) = (LBCO2MMBTU/2000) * SFC * MCLINKER

And,

CO2CLINKER (in Short tons) = 0.51 * MCLINKER * (1 – CASUB)

So that the annual tpy of uncontrolled CO2 emissions are:

CO2UNCYR =

TPYCLINKER * [LBCO2MMBTU/2000) * SFC + 0.51 * (1 – CASUB)] E.17

With CO2UNCYR expressed in short tons per year. VOC for Solvent capture

should be roughly in proportion to CO2UNCYR. So, that

Variable Operating Costs (in million $/year) = VOCCO2 * CO2UNCYR/(1,256,158*1.1)

Variable Operating Costs (in million $/year) =

VOCCO2 * CO2UNCYR/(1,381,774) E.18

30 Memo J. Staudt to R. Srivatava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: NOx, SO2 and CO2 emissions from Cement

Kilns, dated March 10, 2009,
Andover Technology Partners Page 32

Other effects

Both of the carbon capture approaches have other impacts on emissions and

resource or energy consumption. The cost impacts of the resource or energy

consumption are incorporated into the costs described earlier.

Oxycombustion Impacts –

Oxycombustion requires a substantial increase in electricity consumption over the

base new cement plant. The base cement plant consumes about 80,809 MWh per year

(80.8 KWh/ton of clinker) as compared to about 174,562 million MWh per year (174.6

KWh/ton of clinker) for the oxycombustion plant – or more than doubling of electric

load.

Solvent CCS Impacts –

For solvent CCS systems, the addition of the combined heat and power plant

increases coal usage but results in less net electricity demand due to the on-site

generation.

Table 11 shows the resource use for cement kilns using different carbon capture

methods from the IEA study. For cooling water, seawater used for cooling was combined

with other cooling water.

Other emission impacts

NOx and SO2 emissions are near zero for each of the CO2 capture methods. NOx

and SO2 must be very low for solvent-based systems to work effectively. Therefore,

upstream NOx and SO2 removal – which are incorporated into the cost of the solvent

CCS system - reduce the concentration of NOx and SO2 to very low levels. For

oxycombustion, the NOx and SO2 are condensed into acids during compression of the

CO2-rich exhaust gas.
Andover Technology Partners Page 33

Table 11. Resource Usage of Cement Kiln

(one million tpy clinker)

variable Resource

New Plant Retrofit

CCS only

Base

Plant

Oxycomb.

CCS

Solvent

CCS

Solvent CCS

COALPY Coal or Coke (tpy) 105,000 109,000 356,000 251,000

ELECPY Electricity

(MWh per yr)

80,809 174,562 -22,734 -103,543

H2OPY Process Water

(tpy)

264,000 - 429,000 165,000

H2OCOOLPY Cooling Water

(million tpy)

- 14.3 4.82 4.82

All mass units in short tons, converted from data in EIA Study

Power for solvent CCS is net of cement plant and combined heat and power plant
Andover Technology Partners Page 34

Appendices
Andover Technology Partners Page 35

Capital Cost Algorithmns

The following elucidates the derivation of the scale-up factors used for the

calculation of capital costs for energy saving methods.

Equation E.1

Capital Cost ($2008) = Scale-Up Factors * Capacity0.6 (A1)

is based on the sixth-tenth factor rule for computing capital costs. This rule

appears as follows (Peter & Timmerhaus, 1991, p. 169):

Cost of Equip. a = Cost of Equip. b * (Capac. Equip. a / Capac. Equip. b)0.6 (A2)

where Cost of Equip. a = Cost of Equipment a

Cost of Equip. b = Cost of Equipment b

Capac. Equip. a = Capacity of Equipment a

Capac. Equip. b = Capacity of Equipment b

The scale-up factor is defined as:

Scale-up Factor = Cost of Equip. b / (Capac. Equip. b)0.6 (A3)

This can alternatively be determined by:

Scale-up Factor = ($/annual capacity) * (Base capacity)^0.4 (A4)

Where the Base Capacity is equal to the capacity level that is the basis of the $/annual

capacity estimate.

As indicated in Equation A3, two variables are essential to the calculation of the scale-up

factor: the cost of a base equipment, which is shown as Cost of Equip. b, and the capacity

of this equipment. For the determination of the scale-up factor in Equation 1, the base

capacity is the median or the average capacity of cement kilns in the U.S. These

capacities are organized by kiln types as follows:

Kiln Type Unit Average Capacity

Wet Tons per year 338,740

Long Dry Tons per year 310,064

Preheater Tons per year 498,301

Precalciner Tons per year 1,101,045

All Dry Tons per year 643,039

All Kilns Tons per year 559,440

Note: Determined from Cap+Trade Workbook
Andover Technology Partners Page 36

To calculate the Cost of Equip. b, this project obtains the capital cost of the

equipment in $/ton of cement and multiplies it with the base capacity. To find the capital

cost ($/ton of cement), the project relies on two methods. The primary method is to use

the payback period. The capital cost can be computed from the payback period as shown:

Capital Cost = Payback Period X Total Savings (A5)

where

Capital Cost = $/ton of cement

Payback Period = Time it takes to pay off an investment, year

Total Savings = Fuel Saving + Electricity Saving, $/( ton of cement *

year)

As noted in the Summary section, the payback period along with the savings of fuel and

electricity consumptions are contained in Worrell & Galitsky. The document, however,

expressed the savings for fuel as MMBtu/ton of cement and for electricity as kWhr/ton of

cement (Worrell & Galitsky, 2008, pp. 47-48). Since it is $/ton of cement that is

required, both the fuel and electricity savings have to be adjusted. The fuel was assumed

to be coal. So, the fuel savings were multiplied with the price of coal ($/short ton), its

high heating value (Btu/lb), and various conversion factors to obtain $/ton of cement:

Fuel Savings = Fuel Savingso * Price of Fuel (A6)

(HHV of Fuel) * CF1 * CF2

where

Fuel Savings = Savings in coal consumption, $/ton of cement

Fuel Savingso = Savings in coal consumption, MMBtu/ton of

cement

Price of Fuel = Price of Coal, $/ton of coal

HHV of Fuel = High Heating Value of Coal, Btu/lb

CF1 = Conversion factor1, 2000 lb/ton

CF2 = Conversion factor2, MMBtu/106 Btu

The high heating value (HHV) of coal, Btu/lb, was calculated by multiplying the

average HHV of two coal ranks, bituminous and sub-bituminous coals, with their

proportion:

Average Coal HHV =

Σ [(Average HHV of Coal Rank) * (Proportion of Coal Rank)] (A7)
Andover Technology Partners Page 37

The HHV of the individual coal rank was obtained by averaging its range. For

bituminous coal, the HHV range is 10,500 – 14,000 Btu/lb; for sub-bituminous coal, it is

8,300 – 11, 500 Btu/lb (Kitto & Stultz, 2005, p. 9-6). The proportion of each coal rank

was assumed to be 50% each. As a result of Equation A7, the average coal HHV was

determined to be 11,075 Btu/lb.

The price of coal used is the average delivered coal price to other industrial users.

They are contained in the Coal Annual Report generated by the EIA and in the website

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/backissues.html.

For electricity consumption, to change the savings from kWhr/ton of cement to

$/ton of cement, the former was multiplied with the price of electricity ($/kWhr):

Electricity Saving = Electricity Savingo * Price of electricity (A8)

where

Electricity Saving = Saving in electricity, $/ton of cement

Electricity Savingo = Saving in electricity, kWhr/ton of cement

Price of electricity = Retail price to industrial users, $/kWhr

The price of electricity is the average retail price to industrial users and is found

on the EIA website in two separate tables. One table has the average price of electricity

from 1940 to 2007. (EIA, n.d.). For the latest 2008 data, the project consulted another

table (EIA, 2009).

Note that the prices of electricity and fuel correspond to the year in which the

savings or the payback period was determined. The time period, however, cannot always

be gauged precisely. For some of the measures, it had to be estimated or assumed. This

is because the source document did not always specify a time period for the savings and

the payback period. When dates are missing for all three variables, the project used the

publication year of the source document 2008 for its calculation. In cases where the date

of only one variable is known (i.e. the date of the electricity saving is given, but not for

the fuel savings or the payback period), this one available date is utilized. Furthermore,

the project assumed that the date is applicable to the other two variables as well. In some

instances, there is a surplus of dates. Various years of publication can be given for a
Andover Technology Partners Page 38

single variable. In this situation, the project chose the latest date. The same approach is

adopted when the dates of the variables are not compatible with one another.

Before multiplying the total savings with the payback period in Equation A4, the

project also estimated the value of the individual measure’s savings. The source

document expressed the fuel savings as either an average value or a range of values. If

the savings appeared as a range, the project averaged them. For the payback period,

Worrell & Galitzky listed it in one of four ways: (a) an average, (b) a range (c) a

minimum or (d) a maximum. The project treated the payback period range the same way

as it did the savings. With the minimum and maximum payback period, the project used

them as the minimum or maximum floors for calculations.

As a result of the variation in the expression of the payback period, there is no

consistent interpretation of the capital cost in this project. The interpretation varies

depending on how the cost was calculated from the payback period. If the maximum

payback period was utilized, the capital cost would be the maximum required and

conversely, if the minimum was utilized, the capital cost would be the minimum required.

Besides averaging the data ranges, the project also modified the high and low

values of one energy efficiency measure. According to the source document, the

electricity savings on the process control of a vertical mill was 0.8 – 1 kWhr/ton of raw

material (Worrell & Galitsky, 2008, p. 22). This same figure, however, was also used to

reflect the electricity savings in kWhr/ton of cement (p. 47). To convert the savings to

ton of cement, this project utilized a factor of 1.7. This led to a saving of 1.4-1.7

kWhr/ton of cement.

The factor of 1.7 was derived from the basis that one ton (750 grams) of clinker

can be obtained from 1.53 tons (1150 grams) of dry raw materials (European

Commission, 2001, p. 22). This basis excluded gypsum and moisture. Accounting for

gypsum, which made up about 5% of the cement product, the dry raw material usage

increased to 1.61 tons per ton of cement. After moisture, which was assumed to

constitute approximately 5% of raw materials, was incorporated, the final raw material

requirement grew to roughly 1.7 tons per ton of cement.
Andover Technology Partners Page 39

The application of the 1.7 factor is consistent with how the authors of the source

document treated the savings of other measures of dry processes that are expressed in

kWh/ton of raw materials. As shown in Table A.2, the electricity savings of these

measures increase by a factor of 1.7 when their unit was changed from $/ton of raw

materials to $/ton of cement.

Table A.2

Differences between Values Reported in $/tons of raw materials and $/ton of cement for

Dry Processes

Efficiency

Measure

Reported

Value

Unit Table

Value

Unit

Efficient

Transport

System

1.9 $/tons of raw

materials

3.2 $/ton of cement

Raw Meal

Blending

0.9-2.3 $/tons of raw

materials

1.5-3.9 $/ton of cement

High Efficiency

Roller Mill

6-7 $/tons of raw

materials

10.2-11.9 $/ton of cement

High Efficiency

Classifiers

2.5-3.4 $/tons of raw

materials

4.3-5.8 $/ton of cement

Note: Both the reported and the table values are from Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities

for Cement Making: An Energy Star Guide for Energy and Plant Managers (pp. 21-23, 47-48) by Ernst Worrell and

Christina Galitsky, 2008, Berkeley, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Energy

Technology Division. The energy efficiency measures pertain to raw materials preparation.

The resulting capital cost from Equation A5 is multiplied with the average

capacity of the kilns for both dry and wet processes to generate the cost of the base

equipment:

Cost of Equip. b = Capital Cost ($/ton of cement) * (Capac. of Equip. b) (A9)

where

Cost of Equip. b = Cost of the base equipment, $

Capital Cost = Cost of capital, $/ton of cement

Capac. of Equip. b = Median or average kiln capacity (Table 5), tons per year
Andover Technology Partners Page 40

Once the Cost of Equip. b is known, the scale-up factor can be determined using

Equation A3. The equation, however, will only generate a scale-up factor that is valid for

the time period specified by the savings and/or the payback period. To obtain current

2008 value for the capital outlay, a GDP deflator is incorporated into Equation A3 as

follows:

Scale-up Factor = [Cost of Equip. b / (Capac. Equip. b)0.6 ] * GDP Def.2008 (A10)

GDP Def.Payback/Savings

where

Scale-up Factor = Calculated factor to determine capital cost, $2008/ton of cement

Cost of Equip. b = Cost of base equipment, $

Capac. Equip. b = Average or median kiln capacity, tons per year

GDP Def.2008 = GDP Deflator for the year 2008

GDP Def.Payback/Savings = GDP Deflator of the year payback period or savings were

estimated

The website of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (2009, Table) supplied the data

for the GDP deflator.

The second method for computing capital cost is to directly apply the reported

value of the installation cost ($/ton of cement) from the source document. This was done

only if the payback approach was not feasible. Two scale-up factors were obtained in

this manner. The first was based on a single system installation in California. A plant in

Colton that installed the indirect firing system in 1997 furnished the retrofit cost of $5

million per 680,000 tonnes (Worrell & Galitsky, 2008, p. 26). This translates to a capital

investment of $6.67/ton of cement.

The second pertains to the cost of the raw meal blending measure, which the

source document indicated to be $3.30/ton of raw materials. Since the scale-up factor

requires ton of cement instead of raw materials, the conversion factor of 1.7 was applied.

This generated a value of $5.61/ton of cement. As mentioned previously in this section,

using the conversion factor is an approach consistent with how the authors, Worrell &
Andover Technology Partners Page 41

Galitsky, treated the installed cost of the Raw Material Preparation efficiency measures

of the dry processes.

A number of the measures do not have scale-up factors. For a few of those

measures, such as Fuel Preparation: Roller Mills, and Efficient Lighting, the lack of data,

especially the payback period and the capital cost/ton of cement, prevented the

development of the factors. The project also did not attempt to make any computations

when more precise algorithms are available. For example, the measures of conversion of

one form of kiln into another and the use of secondary fuel, can be obtained from my

previous memo (see footnote 3) to the EPA (2009, pp.6-9, 34-43). And finally, not all

the measures in Worrell & Galitsky are applicable to all the kiln types. Those listed on

Table 1 under the Raw Meal Preparation, for instance, are divided into wet and dry types.

The first four measures pertain to dry processes, and the next two are unique to wet kilns.

.
Andover Technology Partners Page 42

Corrections to equations in Revised Memo.

I discovered errors on equations in the preciously revised memo that were

introduced when I included the effects of the purity of the limestone into some of the

equations. However, in some of the equations where I introduced the purity effects, this

was not correct. The correct equations for the “Cost and Performance of Controls –

revised from comments, dated March 10, 2009 are:

CO2CLINKER (in Short tons)= 0.51 * MCLINKER (in short tons) E.3

And, this can be modified to address substitutes for limestone as follows:

CO2CLINKER (in Short tons)= 0.51 * MCLINKER * (1 – CASUB) E.4

CO2TOTAL (in short tons) =

MCLINKER*[(LBCO2MMBTU/2000)*SFC+0.51* (1–CASUB)] E.11
Andover Technology Partners Page 43

List of Terms

Term Definition

CAPACITYHR

CAP CO2

CAR

CASUB

CC

CER

CO2FUEL

CO2CLINKER

CO2UNCYR

COALPY

COSTKWH

COSTNH3LB

COSTNH3YR

CR

DLI

DSCFM

EGFW

ELECPY

FC

FFi

FOCCO2

H

H2OPY

H2OCOOLPY

HIR

LBCO2MMBTU

LBMCO2MMBTU

LBH20MMBTU

LBMH20MMBTU

LBNOXHR

LBSO2CLINKER

LER

LNB

LWS

MAT

MCLINKER

MCLINKERHR

MKF

MLIMESTONE

MLIMESTONEHR

MSLAG

MSLAGHR

NOXMMBTU

PEC

PP

PURLIMESTONE

Q

S

Clinker capacity of the kiln in tons per hour

Capital Cost Factor for CO2 Control Tech

Calcination CO2 Avoidance Ratio

Calcium Substitution Fraction – fraction of total calcium from material that

does not need to be calcined

Capital Cost

Clinker Equivalence Ratio

Fuel CO2 in pounds that is released from fuel combustion

CO2 produced by calcination during clinker production

Uncontrolled CO2 per year

Coal used per year (in tons)

Cost of Power in $/KWhr

Cost of ammonia in $ per pound

Cost of ammonia in $ per year

CR

Dry Lime Injection

Dry standard cubic feet per minute

Exhaust Gas Flowrate (wet) in standard cubic feet per short ton of clinker

Electricity Used per Year (MWhr)

Fixed Cost

Fuel Fraction of ith component of fuel on a Btu basis

Fixed Operating Cost Factor for CO2 Capture Technology

Burner heat duty in MM Btu/hr

Process Water used per year (tons)

Cooling Water used per year (tons)

Heat Input Reduced

Pounds (mass) of CO2 per MMBtu of fuel input

Pound moles of CO2 per MMBtu of fuel input

Pounds (mass) of H2O per MMBtu of fuel

Pound moles of H2O per MMBtu of fuel

Pounds (mass) of NOx per hour

Lbs of SO2 per ton of clinker

Limestone Equivalence Ratio

Low NOx Burner

Limestone Wet Scrubber

Mixing Air Technology

Mass of clinker in tons

Mass rate of clinker in tons per hour

Mid Kiln Firing

Mass of limestone, tons

Mass rate of limestone, tons/hr

Mass of slag, tons

Mass rate of slag, tons/hr

NOx lb/MMBtu for the kiln

Purchased Equipment Cost

Payback Period

Purity of the limestone at CaCO3

Flow in actual cubic meters per hour

Savings (energy)
Andover Technology Partners Page 44

SCC

SCR

SFC

SCFH

SNCR

TDFPC

TONSDKF

TPY

TPYCEMENT

VC

VOCCO2

Staged Combustion Calciner

Selective Catalytic Reduction

Specific Fuel Consumption in MMBtu per ton of clinker

Standard Cubic Feet per Hour of gas

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction

Tire Derived Fuel Precalciner

Tons of Decarbonated Feedstock

Tons per Year of clinker

Tons per Year of Cement

Variable Cost

Variable Operating Cost of CO2 capture technology














































































RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute

TO: Elineth Torres, U.S. EPA

FROM: Brooks Depro

DATE: March 31, 2010

SUBJECT: ISIS Cement Production Costs

This memorandum documents the data and methods used to develop unit costs ($/short ton) for

raw materials, repair and maintenance, electricity use, and labor. This documentation

accompanies the XL spreadsheet entitled “ISIS_cement_production_costs.xlsx.”

Raw Materials

In Table 1, we report the quantities of raw material inputs, cement production, and the raw

material input ratio for the U.S. cement industry. In 2005, approximately 1.67 metric tons of raw

materials were required to make a short ton of clinker. State-level material prices (approximated

by USGS data for crushed stone) range between $4 and $13 per metric ton (Table 2). To

calculate raw material costs, we multiplied state-level average prices by the material input ratio

(1.67).

Table 1. Raw Material Input Ratios for the U.S. Cement Industry: 2005

Variable Description Short Tons (103)

Raw material inputa160,937

Clinker productionb96,348

Material Input Ratio 1.67

aU.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. 2005 Minerals Yearbook, Cement. Table 6.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

bU.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. 2005 Minerals Yearbook, Cement. Table 3.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 2

Table 2. Raw Material Prices by State: 2005

State

Price of Raw Materials

($/short ton)a

AL $5.96

AK $5.99

AZ $5.22

AR $5.71

CA $7.59

CO $6.21

CT $8.34

DE $6.25

FL $7.87

GA $6.92

HI $12.10

ID $4.87

IL $6.50

IN $4.90

IA $6.60

KS $6.53

KY $6.57

LA $7.42

ME $6.21

MD $7.51

MA $8.34

MI $3.53

MN $7.53

MS $10.80

MO $6.69

MT $4.32

NE $6.44

NV $6.50

NH $7.28

NJ $6.39

NM $6.05

NY $7.66

NC $7.79

ND $4.04

OH $5.28

OK $5.14

OR $5.45

PA $6.05

RI $7.02

SC $6.90

SD $4.17

TN $6.85

TX $5.58

UT $5.06

VT $6.12

VA $8.19

(continued)
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 3

Table 2. Raw Material Costs by Market and State: 2005 (continued)

State

Price of Raw Materials

($/short ton)

WA $6.28

WV $6.22

WI $5.29

WY $5.15

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. 2005 Minerals Yearbook, Crushed Stone

Table 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 4

Repair and Maintenance

Rock Products (1994) magazine reports the 1993 values of annual repair and maintenance costs

by kiln capacity (Table 3). Since more recent repair and maintenance costs are not available, we

adjusted these costs to 2005 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (Chemical

Engineering, 1999 and Lowzoski, 2010).

Table 3. Annual Repair and Maintenance Costs by Kiln Capacity: 2005

Annual Kiln Clinker

Capacity (short tons) 1993 ($/short ton) 2005 ($/short ton)a

<500,000 $9.56 $12.46

500,000 to 750,000 $7.53 $9.81

>750,000 $5.31 $6.92

Sources: Rock Products. 1994. “Cement Plant Operating Cost Study.” Overland Park, KS: Intertec Publishing.

September, p. 19. Chemical Engineering. 1999. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering,January, 154.

Lowzoski, Dorothy. 2010. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering, January, 63.
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 5

Electricity

To reflect the differences in electricity consumption process type and kiln size, we collected

energy consumption (kWh) and clinker production data (Table 4). To calculate electricity costs,

we multiplied state electricity prices (Table 5) by the electricity input ratio (last column of Table

4)

Table 4. Electricity Consumption of U.S. Cement Producers by Process Type: 2005

Process Type

Clinker

Production (Short

tons)

Electricity

Consumption

(1,000 kWh)

Electricity

Input Ratio

(kWh per short

ton)a

Wet Process

≤500,000 ton capacity 3,558,496 515,451 145

>500,000-ton capacity 8,627,124 1,144,757 133

Dry Process

≤500,000-ton capacity 1,723,766 276,358 160

>500,000-ton capacity 75,561,840 10,501,877 139

Precalciner 48,827,792 6,725,423 138

Preheater 17,704,683 2,499,535 141

Source: Portland Cement Association. December 2005. U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2005.

Skokie, IL: PCA’s Economic Research Department.
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 6

Table 5. Electricity Price by Market and State: 2005

State Cents per kWh

AL 4.52

AK 9.29

AZ 5.85

AR 4.74

CA 9.55

CO 5.74

CT 9.40

DE 6.21

FL 6.46

GA 5.28

HI 15.79

ID 3.91

IL 4.61

IN 4.42

IA 4.56

KS 4.85

KY 3.60

LA 6.71

ME 7.28

MD 7.01

MA 9.22

MI 5.32

MN 5.02

MS 5.37

MO 4.54

MT 4.83

NE 4.43

NV 7.71

NH 11.48

NJ 9.76

NM 5.61

NY 8.23

NC 5.04

ND 4.32

OH 5.10

OK 5.11

OR 4.83

PA 6.29

RI 10.01

SC 4.55

SD 4.95

TN 4.73

TX 7.14

UT 4.24

(continued)
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 7

Table 5. Electricity Price by Market and State: 2005 (continued)

State Cents per kWh

VT 7.77

VA 4.46

WA 4.27

WV 3.85

WI 5.39

WY 3.99

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Electric Power Annual 2005. Figure 7-7. Washington, DC:

U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 8

Labor

To calculate labor costs, we grouped labor into two categories:

 Direct or “variable” labor costs ($/short of clinker production): Labor costs that vary

with clinker production levels.

 Other or “fixed” labor costs ($/short ton of clinker capacity): Labor costs that do not vary

with clinker production levels but can be avoided by closing a cement plant.

Direct Labor

To reflect the differences in labor use, we collected direct labor use and clinker production data

(Table 6). To calculate electricity costs, we multiplied state average hourly manufacturing wage

rates1 (Table 7) by the direct input ratio (last column of Table 6). To better account for

additional labor costs, we approximated these costs by adding PCA estimates of plant payroll

taxes ($0.90 per short ton) and fringe ($1.50 per short ton) to the direct labor calculations.

Table 6. Direct Labor Use: 2005

Process Type

Clinker

Production (Short

tons)

Direct Labor

(hours)

Direct Labor

Input Ratio

(hours per

short ton)

Wet Process

≤500,000 ton capacity 3,558,496 1,453,200 0.41

>500,000-ton capacity 8,627,124 2,516,988 0.29

Dry Process

≤500,000-ton capacity 1,723,766 780,390 0.45

>500,000-ton capacity 75,561,840 18,403,466 0.24

Precalciner 48,827,792 11,115,457 0.23

Preheater 17,704,683 5,149,221 0.29

Source: Portland Cement Association. December 2005. U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2005.

Skokie, IL: PCA’s Economic Research Department.

1 BLS only has a complete state-level series for manufacturing. We compared BLS 2005 national earnings data for the

manufacturing ($16.56 per hour) with the cement and concrete products industry ($16.68 per hour) and found they were

comparable (BLS, 2010b). To account for the small differences, we adjusted the manufacturing data by +0.7 percent (column

3, Table 5).
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 9

Table 5. Average Hourly Earnings by Market and State: 2005

State

Manufacturing

Average Hourly Earnings ($/hour)

Estimated Cement Industry

Average Hourly Earnings ($/hour)

AL $14.93 $15.04

AK $14.22 $14.32

AZ $14.55 $14.66

AR $13.71 $13.81

CA $15.70 $15.81

CO $15.91 $16.03

CT $18.96 $19.10

DE $17.74 $17.87

FL $13.89 $13.99

GA $14.56 $14.67

HI $14.34 $14.44

ID $14.96 $15.07

IL $15.84 $15.95

IN $18.14 $18.27

IA $16.25 $16.37

KS $17.14 $17.26

KY $16.65 $16.77

LA $17.30 $17.43

ME $17.28 $17.41

MD $16.98 $17.10

MA $17.66 $17.79

MI $21.50 $21.66

MN $16.63 $16.75

MS $13.53 $13.63

MO $17.42 $17.55

MT $15.62 $15.73

NE $15.44 $15.55

NV $14.98 $15.09

NH $15.87 $15.99

NJ $16.33 $16.45

NM $13.66 $13.76

NY $17.77 $17.90

NC $14.38 $14.48

ND $15.29 $15.40

OH $19.07 $19.21

OK $14.56 $14.67

OR $15.49 $15.60

PA $15.26 $15.37

RI $13.12 $13.22

(continued)
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 10

Table 5. Average Hourly Earnings by Market and State: 2005 (continued)

State

Manufacturing

Average Hourly Earnings ($/hour)

Estimated Cement Industry

Average Hourly Earnings ($/hour)

SC $15.23 $15.34

SD $13.47 $13.57

TN $14.02 $14.12

TX $14.03 $14.13

UT $14.73 $14.84

VT $15.06 $15.17

VA $16.40 $16.52

WA $18.83 $18.97

WV $17.14 $17.26

WI $16.29 $16.41

WY $17.08 $17.20

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010a. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the

Current Employment Statistics survey (State)” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February

11, 2010.

Other Labor

To reflect other labor operating costs, we also added PCA estimates of salaried employee costs

($2.80 per short ton of clinker capacity), and other payroll expenses (SG&A) ($3.20 per short ton

of clinker capacity).
Elineth Torres

March 19, 2010

Page 11

REFERENCES

Chemical Engineering. 1999. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering, January, 154.

Lowzoski, Dorothy. 2010. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering, January, 63.

Portland Cement Association (PCA). December 2005. U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input

Survey 2005. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association Economic Research Department.

Rock Products. 1994. “Cement Plant Operating Cost Study.” Overland Park, KS: Intertec

Publishing. September, p. 19.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. 2005 Minerals Yearbook,

Cement. Tables 3, 4, and 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006b. 2005 Minerals Yearbook,

Crushed Stone. Table 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010a. Employment, Hours, and Earnings

from the Current Employment Statistics survey (State). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor. Accessed February 11, 2010.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010b. “Employment, Hours, and

Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National).” Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 11, 2010.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Electric Power Annual 2005. Figure 7-7.

Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
TO: Keith Barnett, U.S. EPA 

CC: Michael Laney, RTI International

Ravi Srivastava, U.S. EPA

Elineth Torres, U.S. EPA

Samudra Vijay, U.S. EPA

Tom Walton, U.S. EPA

FROM: Brooks Depro, RTI International

Alex Rogozhin, RTI International

Dallas Wood, RTI International

DATE: August 31, 2007

SUBJECT: Draft: Documentation for Portland Cement Kiln Cost Functions (2005)

This memorandum documents how RTI International updated Portland cement average variable 

cost (AVC) functions. The update process currently excludes estimates of fixed operating and 

maintenance (O&M) costs that may be paid by kilns to cover any costs that are not a function of 

overall cement production. These data (expressed in terms of dollars per ton of annual capacity) 

are currently not available.

The following elements are included in the analysis: the peer-reviewed kiln-level average cost 

function method used in the Cement Kiln Dust Rulemaking RIA (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency [EPA], 1998), all the data RTI used in the analysis, and new kiln-level AVC estimates. 

BACKGROUND

Previous economic impact analyses (EPA, 1998) used a kiln-level AVC function developed in a

microeconomic study of kiln use and retirement (Das, 1992). Das describes five variable inputs 

in cement production: raw materials, repair and maintenance, labor, electricity, and fuel. Raw 

materials serve as the kiln feed, repair and maintenance are required for periodic upkeep of the 

kiln, labor is used in the quarry and for packing, electricity is consumed mainly by the auxiliary

equipment, and fuel is largely consumed by the kilns.

The AVC function (expressed in dollars per metric ton of cement) can be written as

AVC = AVMI *Pm + AVRI * Pr + AVLI * w + AVFI *Pf f + AVEI * Pe,

where AVRI, AVLI, AVFI, AVEI, and AVMI are the average variable inputs of materials, repair 

and maintenance, labor, fuel, and electricity, and Pm, Pr, w, Pf, and Pe are the prices of each 

variable input.
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 2

For the emissions trading model, RTI collected data from the Portland Cement Association 

(PCA, 2005) and government statistical publications and updated selected cost function 

parameters. These updates are presented and discussed in this memorandum.

COST FUNCTION UPDATES FOR 2005

Raw Materials

In Table 1, we report the quantities of raw material inputs, cement production, and the raw 

material input ratio for the U.S. cement industry. In 2005, approximately 1.67 metric tons of raw 

materials were required to make a metric ton of cement. 

Table 1. Raw Material Input Ratios for the U.S. Cement Industry: 2005

Metric Tons (103)

Raw material inputa159,700

Cement productionb95,488

Ratio (AVMI) 1.67

aU.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. 2005 Minerals Yearbook, Cement. Table 6. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

bU.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. 2005 Minerals Yearbook, Cement. Table 3. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

State raw material prices for crushed stone range between $4 and $13 per metric ton (Table 2). 

To calculate raw material costs, we multiplied state raw material prices by the raw material input 

ratio (1.67).

Repair and Maintenance

Rock Products (1994) magazine reports the 1993 values of annual repair and maintenance costs 

by kiln capacity (Table 3). Since more recent repair and maintenance costs are not available, we 

adjusted these costs to 2005 dollars using the gross domestic product (GDP) deflator.

Labor

The Portland Cement Association reports labor productivity measures in terms of metric tons of 

cement per employee hour. We used these data to calculate the average variable labor inputs 

(AVLI): a measure of employee hours needed per ton of cement. AVLI estimates are computed 

by taking the inverse of each labor productivity measure. Table 4 shows labor productivity

continues to vary by process type and kiln size. Productivity is higher for dry process kilns 

compared with wet kilns; it is also higher for large-capacity kilns. 
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 3

Table 2. Raw Material Costs by Market and State: 2005

State(s)

Price of Raw Materials 

($/metric ton)a

Cost of Raw Materials 

($/metric ton of cement)

AL $6.57 $10.99

AK $6.60 $11.04

AZ $5.75 $9.62

AR $6.29 $10.52

CA $8.37 $14.00

CO $6.85 $11.46

CT $9.19 $15.37

DE $6.89 $11.52

FL $8.67 $14.50

GA $7.63 $12.76

HI $13.34 $22.31

ID $5.37 $8.98

IL $7.16 $11.97

IN $5.40 $9.03

IA $7.27 $12.16

KS $7.20 $12.04

KY $7.24 $12.11

LA $8.18 $13.68

ME $6.85 $11.46

MD $8.28 $13.85

MA $9.19 $15.37

MI $3.89 $6.51

MN $8.30 $13.88

MS $11.90 $19.90

MO $7.37 $12.33

MT $4.76 $7.96

NE $7.10 $11.87

NV $7.17 $11.99

NH $8.02 $13.41

NJ $7.04 $11.77

NM $6.67 $11.16

NY $8.44 $14.12

NC $8.59 $14.37

ND $4.45 $7.44

OH $5.82 $9.73

OK $5.67 $9.48

OR $6.01 $10.05

PA $6.67 $11.16

RI $7.74 $12.94

SC $7.61 $12.73

SD $4.60 $7.69

TN $7.55 $12.63

TX $6.15 $10.29

UT $5.58 $9.33

VT $6.75 $11.29

VA $9.03 $15.10

WA $6.92 $11.57

(continued)
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 4

Table 2. Raw Material Costs by Market and State: 2005 (continued)

State(s)

Price of Raw Materials 

($/metric ton)a

Cost of Raw Materials 

($/metric ton of cement)

WV $6.86 $11.47

WI $5.83 $9.75

WY $5.68 $9.50

aU.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. 2005 Minerals Yearbook, Crushed Stone. Table 4. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Table 3. Annual Repair and Maintenance Costs by Kiln Capacity: 2005

Kiln Capacity (short tons) 1993 ($/metric ton) 2005 ($/metric ton)a

<500,000 tons $10.54 $15.46

500,000 to 750,000 tons $8.30 $12.17

>750,000 tons $5.85 $8.59

aAdjusted by chained (real) GDP obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

2007. Current-Dollar and “Real” Gross Domestic Product. Available at 

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls.

Table 4. Labor Productivity Measuresfor the U.S. Cement Industry by Process Type and 

Kiln Size: 2005

Process Type Metric Tons per Employee Houra, b

AVLI

(employee hours 

per metric ton)

a

Wet Process 2.16 0.4630

•500,000-ton capacity 1.87 0.5348

>500,000-ton capacity 2.31 0.4329

Dry Process 3.14 0.3185

•500,000-ton capacity 1.93 0.5181

>500,000-ton capacity 3.19 0.3135

Precalciner 3.36 0.2976

Preheater 3.2 0.3125

All Plants 2.96 0.3378

a

Following the Portland Cement Association (PCA, 2005), the metric tons used to measure labor efficiency are an 

equivalent ton measure, composed of 85% clinker production and 15% finished cement production.

b

Portland Cement Association. December 2005. U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2005. Skokie, IL: 

PCA’s Economic Research Department. 
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 5

State average hourly earnings for the durable goods industry are presented in Table 5. To 

calculate labor costs, we multiplied state average hourly earnings by labor hours per metric ton. 

Table 5. Average Hourly Earnings by Market and State: 2005

State

U.S. BLS

Series Report ID Average Hourly Earnings ($)

AL SMU0100000310000006 $15.33

AK SMU0200000300000006 $14.22

AZ SMU0400000310000006 $14.72

AR SMU0500000310000006 $13.98

CA SMU0600000310000006 $16.47

CO SMU0800000310000006 $16.17

CT SMU0900000310000006 $19.57

DE SMU1000000310000006 $23.20

FL SMU1200000310000006 $13.94

GA SMU1300000310000006 $15.96

HI SMU1500000300000006 $14.34

ID SMU1600000300000006 $14.96

IL SMU1700000310000006 $16.35

IN SMU1800000310000006 $18.90

IA SMU1900000310000006 $15.95

KS SMU2000000310000006 $17.82

KY SMU2100000310000006 $17.50

LA SMU2200000310000006 $16.62

ME SMU2300000310000006 $16.77

MD SMU2400000310000006 $18.67

MA SMU2500000310000006 $18.48

MI SMU2600000310000006 $23.07

MN SMU2700000310000006 $16.99

MS SMU2800000310000006 $14.26

MO SMU2900000310000006 $19.12

MT SMU3000000310000006 $14.87

NE SMU3100000310000006 $15.30

NV SMU3200000310000006 $15.29

NH SMU3300000310000006 $15.95

NJ SMU3400000310000006 $17.42

NM SMU3500000300000006 $13.66

NY SMU3600000310000006 $19.02

NC SMU3700000310000006 $15.04

ND SMU3800000310000006 $15.07

OH SMU3900000310000006 $20.62

OK SMU4000000310000006 $15.93

OR SMU4100000310000006 $15.76

PA SMU4200000310000006 $15.59

RI SMU4400000310000006 $13.08

SC SMU4500000310000006 $16.00

SD SMU4600000300000006 $13.47

TN SMU4700000310000006 $14.01

TX SMU4800000310000006 $13.53

(continued)
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 6

Table 5. Average Hourly Earnings by Market and State: 2005 (continued)

State

U.S. BLS

Series Report ID Average Hourly Earnings ($)

UT SMU4900000310000006 $14.71

VT SMU5000000310000006 $15.45

VA SMU5100000310000006 $17.45

WA SMU5300000300000006 $18.83

WV SMU5400000310000006 $16.71

WI SMU5500000310000006 $17.04

WY SMU5600000300000006 $17.08

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. “State and Area Employment, Hours and Earnings 

2005.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Electricity

To reflect the differences in electricity consumption process type and kiln size, we collected 

energy consumption (kWh) and production data (Table 6). We computed electricity consumption 

rates (AVEI) as follows: 

AVEI = kWh/(0.92*Clinker Production + 0.08*Finished Cement Production).

This approach follows the Portland Cement Association’s (PCA, 2005) energy efficiency

measures using “equivalent tons.” This measure is composed of 92% clinker production and 8%

finished cement production.

Table 6. Electricity Consumption of U.S. Cement Producers by Process Type: 2005

Process Type

Clinker 

Production 

(metric tons)

Finished Cement 

Production

(metric tons)

Electricity

Consumption

(1,000 kWh)

AVEI

(kWh per 

metric ton)a

Wet Process 11,054,608 12,150,780 1,660,208 149.0

•500,000-ton capacity 3,228,213 3,563,013 515,451 158.4

>500,000-ton capacity 7,826,395 8,587,767 1,144,757 145.1

Dry Process 70,112,322 77,036,853 10,778,235 152.5

•500,000-ton capacity 1,563,774 1,690,568 276,358 175.6

>500,000-ton capacity 68,548,548 75,346,285 10,501,877 152.0

Precalciner 44,295,828 48,559,311 6,725,423 150.7

Preheater 60,357,246 66,278,745 9,224,958 151.6

All Plants 81,166,930 89,187,633 12,438,443 152.0

a

Following the Portland Cement Association (PCA, 2005), the metric tons used to measure energy efficiency are an 

equivalent ton measure composed of 92% clinker production and 8% finished cement production.

Source: Portland Cement Association. December 2005. U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2005. 

Skokie, IL: PCA’s Economic Research Department. 
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 7

Table 7 presents state electricity prices. To calculate electricity costs, we multiplied these prices 

by AVEI.

Table 7. Electricity Price by Market and State: 2005

State Cents per kWh

AL 4.52

AK 9.29

AZ 5.85

AR 4.74

CA 9.55

CO 5.74

CT 9.40

DE 6.21

FL 6.46

GA 5.28

HI 15.79

ID 3.91

IL 4.61

IN 4.42

IA 4.56

KS 4.85

KY 3.60

LA 6.71

ME 7.28

MD 7.01

MA 9.22

MI 5.32

MN 5.02

MS 5.37

MO 4.54

MT 4.83

NE 4.43

NV 7.71

NH 11.48

NJ 9.76

NM 5.61

NY 8.23

NC 5.04

ND 4.32

OH 5.10

OK 5.11

OR 4.83

PA 6.29

RI 10.01

SC 4.55

SD 4.95

TN 4.73

TX 7.14

UT 4.24

(continued)
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 8

Table 7. Electricity Price by Market and State: 2005 (continued)

State Cents per kWh

VT 7.77

VA 4.46

WA 4.27

WV 3.85

WI 5.39

WY 3.99

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2006a. Electric Power Annual 2005. Figure 7-7. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Energy Information Administration.

Fuel 

Das (1992) represents average variable fuel input rates using the following expression:

AVFI = (1 + constant)Age in 2005 * average variable fuel input of a new kiln.

We used the calibration procedures described from EPA’s 1998 cement study (EPA, 1998) to 

compute a revised average variable primary fuel input of a new kiln. The constant used remains

0.0087, and Table 8 reports the average variable fuel input of a new kiln by its process type and 

its capacity. 

Table 8. Calibrated Average Variable Primary Fuel Input for New Kiln by Process Type: 

2005

Process Type

Average Variable Fuel Input for a New Kiln

(million Btu per metric ton)

Wet Process

•500,000-ton capacity 2.84

>500,000-ton capacity 3.34

Dry Process

•500,000-ton capacity 3.43

>500,000-ton capacity 2.61

Precalciner 2.97

Preheater 3.01

The AEO 2007 reports other industrial coal, natural gas, and residual fuel prices by census 

region (Table 9) (EIA, 2007). For petroleum coke price, we used the procedure outlined in the 

EIA’s State Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates (SEDS): Technical Notes 

Prices and Expenditures Section 4 (EIA, 2006b). In the process described there, the average 

price was calculated by dividing the sum of the value of calcined and uncalcined petroleum coke 

exports by the sum of export quantities. We collected these data from the U.S. International 
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 9

Table 9. Fuel Prices by Census Region, State, and Fuel Type: 2005

Fuel Price ($/million Btu)

Census Region State

Other Industrial 

Coal a

Petroleum 

Cokeb Natural Gasa Residual Oila

East South Central AL $2.47 $1.80 $8.51 $7.81

Pacific AK $2.24 $1.80 $7.46 $7.98

Mountain AZ $1.73 $1.80 $7.71 $7.59

West South Central AR $1.79 $1.80 $7.80 $7.02

Pacific CA $2.24 $1.80 $7.46 $7.98

Mountain CO $1.73 $1.80 $7.71 $7.59

New England CT $3.71 $1.80 $10.47 $7.79

Middle Atlantic DE $2.13 $1.80 $9.65 $8.33

South Atlantic FL $2.83 $1.80 $9.11 $7.93

South Atlantic GA $2.83 $1.80 $9.11 $7.93

Pacific HI $2.24 $1.80 $7.46 $7.98

Mountain ID $1.73 $1.80 $7.71 $7.59

East North Central IL $2.24 $1.80 $8.52 $7.65

East North Central IN $2.24 $1.80 $8.52 $7.65

West North Central IA $1.21 $1.80 $7.86 $7.18

West North Central KS $1.21 $1.80 $7.86 $7.18

East South Central KY $2.47 $1.80 $8.51 $7.81

West South Central LA $1.79 $1.80 $7.80 $7.02

New England ME $3.71 $1.80 $10.47 $7.79

South Atlantic MD $2.83 $1.80 $9.11 $7.93

New England MA $3.71 $1.80 $10.47 $7.79

East North Central MI $2.24 $1.80 $8.52 $7.65

West North Central MN $1.21 $1.80 $7.86 $7.18

East South Central MS $2.47 $1.80 $8.51 $7.81

West North Central MO $1.21 $1.80 $7.86 $7.18

Mountain MT $1.73 $1.80 $7.71 $7.59

West North Central NE $1.21 $1.80 $7.86 $7.18

Mountain NV $1.73 $1.80 $7.71 $7.59

New England NH $3.71 $1.80 $10.47 $7.79

Middle Atlantic NJ $2.13 $1.80 $9.65 $8.33

Mountain NM $1.73 $1.80 $7.71 $7.59

East North Central NY $2.24 $1.80 $8.52 $7.65

South Atlantic NC $2.83 $1.80 $9.11 $7.93

West North Central ND $1.21 $1.80 $7.86 $7.18

East North Central OH $2.24 $1.80 $8.52 $7.65

West South Central OK $1.79 $1.80 $7.80 $7.02

Pacific OR $2.24 $1.80 $7.46 $7.98

Middle Atlantic PA $2.13 $1.80 $9.65 $8.33

New England RI $3.71 $1.80 $10.47 $7.79

South Atlantic SC $2.83 $1.80 $9.11 $7.93

West North Central SD $1.21 $1.80 $7.86 $7.18

East South Central TN $2.47 $1.80 $8.51 $7.81

East South Central TX $2.47 $1.80 $8.51 $7.81

Mountain UT $1.73 $1.80 $7.71 $7.59

(continued)
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 10

Table 9. Fuel Prices by Census Region, State, and Fuel Type: 2005 (continued)

Fuel Price ($/million Btu)

Census Region State

Other Industrial 

Coal a

Petroleum 

Coke b Natural Gas a Residual Oil a

New England VT $3.71 $1.80 $10.47 $7.79

South Atlantic VA $2.83 $1.80 $9.11 $7.93

Pacific WA $2.24 $1.80 $7.46 $7.98

South Atlantic WV $2.83 $1.80 $9.11 $7.93

East North Central WI $2.24 $1.80 $8.52 $7.65

Mountain WY $1.73 $1.80 $7.71 $7.59

aOther industrial coal, natural gas, and residual oil: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2007. Annual Energy 

Outlook 2007. Supplemental Tables 12, 15, and 16. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

For kilns using waste oil as a primary fuel, we used the residual fuel oil price as a proxy.

b

Petroleum coke: Export trade data come from USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb (2007)

<http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp >. HTS codes: 271311 and 271312. The price calculation is 

described in State Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates (SEDS): Technical Notes Prices and 

Expenditures Section 4 (EIA, 2006b). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_prices/notes/pr_petrol.pdf.>.

Trade Commissions Database (USITC, 2007). To convert units to million Btu, we converted 

from metric tons to barrels by multiplying by 5.51, and we converted from barrels to million Btu 

by multiplying by 6.024.

To calculate fuel costs, we used the primary fuel used by the kiln reported by the Portland 

Cement Association (2004) and multiplied fuel prices by the fuel input equation described above.

RESULTS

RTI used the methods described above to revise the kiln-level AVC functions and to reflect the 

cost differences across kiln technologies and kiln size. The new AVC estimates for each kiln in 

the Atlanta and Baltimore/Philadelphia markets are reported in Table 10. We report them in 

reported in dollars per metric ton and dollars per short ton.
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

GA101 Atlanta Lafarge North 

America

Atlanta Plant Atlanta GA 42 C Dry 315 $60 $54

TN101 Atlanta Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Chattanooga Plant Chattanooga TN 5 K Dry-C 771 $38 $35

GA201 Atlanta Cemex Clinchfield Plant Clinchfield GA 6 C Dry-X 705 $48 $43

VA101 Atlanta Titan America LLC Roanoke Plant Cloverdale VA 9 C Dry-C 1,120 $45 $41

SC101 Atlanta Giant Cement 

Holding, Inc.

Harleyville Plant Harleyville SC 53 C Wet 164 $57 $51

SC102 Atlanta Giant Cement 

Holding, Inc.

Harleyville Plant Harleyville SC 49 C Wet 156 $56 $51

SC103 Atlanta Giant Cement 

Holding, Inc.

Harleyville Plant Harleyville SC 45 C Wet 164 $56 $51

SC104 Atlanta Giant Cement 

Holding, Inc.

Harleyville Plant Harleyville SC 33 C Wet 164 $55 $50

SC201 Atlanta Lafarge North 

America

Harleyville Plant Harleyville SC 17 C Dry-C 972 $43 $39

SC401 Atlanta Holcim (US) Inc. Holly Hill Plant Holly Hill SC 2 C Dry-C 1,860 $41 $38

TN201 Atlanta Cemex Knoxville Plant Knoxville TN 27 C Dry-C 667 $45 $41

PA601 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Giant Cement 

Holding, Inc.

Bath Plant Bath PA 49 C Wet 103 $54 $49

PA602 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Giant Cement 

Holding, Inc.

Bath Plant Bath PA 49 C Wet 506 $50 $45

PA801 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Lehigh Cement 

Company

Allentown Plant Blandon PA 40 C Dry 470 $56 $51

PA802 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Lehigh Cement 

Company

Allentown Plant Blandon PA 40 C Dry 470 $56 $51

MD101 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Frederick Plant Buckeystown MD 47 C Wet 155 $62 $57

MD102 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Frederick Plant Buckeystown MD 47 C Wet 155 $62 $57

MD301 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

St. Lawrence 

Cement Company

Hagerstown Plant Hagerstown MD 34 C Dry 513 $52 $48

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

WV101 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Martinsburg Plant Martinsburg WV 50 C Wet 177 $54 $49

WV102 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Martinsburg Plant Martinsburg WV 45 C Wet 177 $54 $49

WV103 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Martinsburg Plant Martinsburg WV 40 C Wet 354 $53 $48

PA501 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Nazareth Plant I Nazareth PA 27 C Dry-X 1,116 $43 $39

PA502 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Nazareth Plant III Nazareth PA 48 C Dry 150 $57 $52

PA503 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Nazareth Plant III Nazareth PA 48 C Dry 155 $57 $52

PA504 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Nazareth Plant III Nazareth PA 56 C Dry 107 $58 $52

PA505 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Nazareth Plant III Nazareth PA 56 C Dry 107 $58 $52

PA201 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Stockertown Plant Stockertown PA 26 K Dry-X 365 $49 $44

PA202 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Stockertown Plant Stockertown PA 12 K Dry-X 543 $45 $40

MD201 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Lehigh Cement 

Company

Union Bridge Union Bridge MD 4 C Dry-C 1,715 $47 $43

PA701 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Lafarge North 

America

Whitehall Plant Whitehall PA 40 C Dry-X 419 $51 $46

PA702 Baltimore/ 

Philadelphia

Lafarge North 

America

Whitehall Plant Whitehall PA 30 C Dry-X 283 $50 $46

MS101 Birmingham Holcim (US) Inc. Artesia Plant Artesia MS 31 C Wet 419 $61 $55

AL301 Birmingham Lafarge North 

America

Roberta Plant Calera AL 3 C Dry-C 1,498 $38 $35

AL101 Birmingham Cemex Demopolis Plant Demopolis AL 28 C Dry-X 821 $41 $38

AL401 Birmingham Lehigh Cement 

Company

Leeds Plant Leeds AL 29 C Dry-X 716 $45 $41

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

AL501 Birmingham National Cement 

Co. of Alabama

Ragland Plant Ragland AL 30 C Dry-C 900 $40 $37

AL201 Birmingham Holcim (US) Inc. Theodore Plant Theodore AL 24 C Dry-C 1,440 $40 $36

IA201 Chicago Lafarge North 

America

Buffalo Plant Buffalo IA 24 C Dry-C 946 $37 $33

IL201 Chicago Cemex Dixon Plant Dixon IL 50 K Dry-X 120 $49 $44

IL202 Chicago Cemex Dixon Plant Dixon IL 50 K Dry-X 120 $49 $44

IL203 Chicago Cemex Dixon Plant Dixon IL 50 K Dry-X 120 $49 $44

IL204 Chicago Cemex Dixon Plant Dixon IL 40 K Dry 184 $53 $48

IN101 Chicago Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Greencastle Plant Greencastle IN 5 C Dry-C 1,190 $37 $33

IL301 Chicago Eagle Materials La Salle Plant La Salle IL 31 K Dry-X 602 $44 $40

IN201 Chicago Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Logansport Plant Logansport IN 43 K Wet 202 $49 $44

IN202 Chicago Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Logansport Plant Logansport IN 43 K Wet 202 $49 $44

IL101 Chicago Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Oglesby Plant Oglesby IL 33 C Dry 569 $44 $40

KY101 Cincinnati Cemex Kosmosdale Plant Louisville KY 5 C Dry-C 1,365 $39 $35

IN402 Cincinnati Lehigh Cement 

Company

Mitchell Plant Mitchell IN 55 C Dry-X 251 $49 $44

IN401 Cincinnati Lehigh Cement 

Company

Mitchell Plant Mitchell IN 45 C Dry-X 251 $48 $44

IN403 Cincinnati Lehigh Cement 

Company

Mitchell Plant Mitchell IN 29 C Dry-X 274 $47 $42

IN301 Cincinnati Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Speed Plant Speed IN 33 C Dry 279 $52 $47

IN302 Cincinnati Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Speed Plant Speed IN 27 C Dry-X 542 $43 $39

OH101 Cincinnati Cemex Fairborn Plant Xenia OH 31 K Dry-X 661 $44 $40

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

OK201 Dallas Holcim (US) Inc. Ada Plant Ada OK 47 C Wet 278 $49 $45

OK202 Dallas Holcim (US) Inc. Ada Plant Ada OK 47 C Wet 278 $49 $45

AR101 Dallas Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Foreman Plant Foreman AR 47 C Wet 246 $49 $44

AR102 Dallas Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Foreman Plant Foreman AR 43 C Wet 246 $48 $44

AR103 Dallas Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Foreman Plant Foreman AR 41 C Wet 339 $48 $44

TX201 Dallas Ash Grove Texas, 

L.P.

Midiothian Plant Midiothian TX 39 C Wet 283 $54 $49

TX202 Dallas Ash Grove Texas, 

L.P.

Midiothian Plant Midiothian TX 36 C Wet 283 $54 $49

TX203 Dallas Ash Grove Texas, 

L.P.

Midiothian Plant Midiothian TX 33 C Wet 283 $54 $49

TX701 Dallas Holcim (US) Inc. Holnam Texas L.P. Midiothian TX 18 C Dry-C 1,036 $42 $38

TX702 Dallas Holcim (US) Inc. Holnam Texas L.P. Midiothian TX 5 C Dry-C 990 $41 $37

TX901 Dallas Texas Industries 

Inc.

Midiothian Plant Midiothian TX 45 C Wet 286 $55 $50

TX902 Dallas Texas Industries 

Inc.

Midiothian Plant Midiothian TX 42 C Wet 286 $54 $49

TX903 Dallas Texas Industries 

Inc.

Midiothian Plant Midiothian TX 38 C Wet 286 $54 $49

TX904 Dallas Texas Industries 

Inc.

Midiothian Plant Midiothian TX 33 C Wet 286 $54 $49

TX905 Dallas Texas Industries 

Inc.

Midiothian Plant Midiothian TX 4 C Dry-C 1,964 $41 $37

OK301 Dallas Lafarge North 

America

Tulsa Plant Tulsa OK 44 C Dry 347 $51 $46

OK302 Dallas Lafarge North 

America

Tulsa Plant Tulsa OK 42 C Dry 341 $51 $46

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

CO201 Denver Holcim (US) Inc. Portland Plant Florence CO 4 C Dry-C 1,631 $39 $35

WY101 Denver Eagle Materials Laramie Plant Laramie WY 9 C Dry 181 $47 $43

WY102 Denver Eagle Materials Laramie Plant Laramie WY 6 C Dry-X 416 $43 $39

CO101 Denver Cemex Lyons Plant Lyons CO 25 C Dry-X 486 $48 $44

SD101 Denver GCC of America, 

Inc.

Dacotah Cement Rapid City SD 50 C Wet 147 $44 $39

SD102 Denver GCC of America, 

Inc.

Dacotah Cement Rapid City SD 48 C Wet 147 $43 $39

SD103 Denver GCC of America, 

Inc.

Dacotah Cement Rapid City SD 10 C Dry-X 557 $36 $33

MI301 Detroit Lafarge North 

America

Alpena Plant Alpena MI 43 C Dry 364 $54 $49

MI302 Detroit Lafarge North 

America

Alpena Plant Alpena MI 40 C Dry 364 $54 $49

MI303 Detroit Lafarge North 

America

Alpena Plant Alpena MI 40 C Dry 364 $54 $49

MI304 Detroit Lafarge North 

America

Alpena Plant Alpena MI 40 C Dry 536 $42 $38

MI305 Detroit Lafarge North 

America

Alpena Plant Alpena MI 40 C Dry 536 $42 $38

MI101 Detroit Cemex Charlevoix Plant Charlevoix MI 26 C Dry-C 1,211 $38 $35

MI201 Detroit Holcim (US) Inc. Dundee Plant Dundee MI 46 C Wet 431 $52 $47

MI202 Detroit Holcim (US) Inc. Dundee Plant Dundee MI 46 C Wet 437 $52 $47

OH201 Detroit Lafarge North 

America

Paulding Plant Paulding OH 49 A Wet 226 $78 $70

OH202 Detroit Lafarge North 

America

Paulding Plant Paulding OH 49 A Wet 228 $78 $70

FL501 Florida Suwannee 

American Cement

Branford FL 2 C Dry-C 682 $49 $45

FL101 Florida Cemex Brooksville Plant Brooksville FL 29 C Dry-X 550 $53 $48

FL102 Florida Cemex Brooksville Plant Brooksville FL 20 C Dry-X 506 $52 $47

FL301 Florida Rinker Materials Brooksville Plant Brooksville FL 18 C Dry-X 605 $52 $47

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

FL601 Florida Titan America LLC Pennsuco Plant Medley FL 1 C Dry-C 1,492 $45 $41

FL401 Florida Rinker Materials Miami Plant Miami FL 5 C Dry-C 928 $46 $41

FL201 Florida Florida Rock 

Industries

Thompson S. Baker 

Plant

Newberry FL 6 C Dry-C 726 $49 $45

KS101 Kansas City Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Chanute Plant Chanute KS 4 C Dry-C 1,308 $37 $34

KS301 Kansas City Lafarge North 

America

Fredonia Plant Fredonia KS 69 A Wet 169 $82 $74

KS302 Kansas City Lafarge North 

America

Fredonia Plant Fredonia KS 49 A Wet 243 $76 $69

KS401 Kansas City Monarch Cement 

Company

Humbolt Plant Humbolt KS 32 C Dry-X 284 $46 $42

KS402 Kansas City Monarch Cement 

Company

Humbolt Plant Humbolt KS 30 C Dry-C 503 $42 $38

KS201 Kansas City Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Independence Plant Independence KS 88 K Dry 82 $58 $53

KS202 Kansas City Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Independence Plant Independence KS 88 K Dry 82 $58 $53

KS203 Kansas City Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Independence Plant Independence KS 88 K Dry 82 $58 $53

KS204 Kansas City Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Independence Plant Independence KS 88 K Dry 82 $58 $53

NE101 Kansas City Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Louisville Plant Louisville NE 29 C Dry-X 338 $44 $40

NE102 Kansas City Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Louisville Plant Louisville NE 23 C Dry-C 507 $40 $36

OK101 Kansas City Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Pryor Plant Pryor OK 45 C Dry 189 $51 $46

OK102 Kansas City Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Pryor Plant Pryor OK 43 C Dry 186 $51 $46

OK103 Kansas City Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Pryor Plant Pryor OK 25 C Dry 250 $50 $45

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

MO501 Kansas City Lafarge North 

America

Sugar Creek Plant Sugar Creek MO 4 C Dry-C 930 $37 $34

CA101 Los Angeles California Portland 

Cement

Colton Plant Colton CA 43 C Dry 340 $66 $60

CA102 Los Angeles California Portland 

Cement

Colton Plant Colton CA 43 C Dry 340 $66 $60

CA801 Los Angeles National Cement 

Co. of California

Lebec Plant Lebec CA 6 K Dry-C 1,033 $48 $43

CA701 Los Angeles Mitsubishi Cement 

Corporation

Cushenbury Plant Lucerne Valley CA 23 C Dry-C 1,543 $50 $45

CA201 Los Angeles California Portland 

Cement

Mojave Plant Mojave CA 24 C Dry-C 1,363 $50 $45

CA1101 Los Angeles Texas Industries 

Inc.

Oro Grande Plant Oro Grande CA 57 C Dry 155 $67 $61

CA1102 Los Angeles Texas Industries 

Inc.

Oro Grande Plant Oro Grande CA 57 C Dry 155 $67 $61

CA1103 Los Angeles Texas Industries 

Inc.

Oro Grande Plant Oro Grande CA 57 C Dry 155 $67 $61

CA1104 Los Angeles Texas Industries 

Inc.

Oro Grande Plant Oro Grande CA 53 C Dry 155 $67 $61

CA1105 Los Angeles Texas Industries 

Inc.

Oro Grande Plant Oro Grande CA 53 C Dry 155 $67 $61

CA1106 Los Angeles Texas Industries 

Inc.

Oro Grande Plant Oro Grande CA 46 C Dry 155 $66 $60

CA1107 Los Angeles Texas Industries 

Inc.

Oro Grande Plant Oro Grande CA 46 C Dry 155 $66 $60

CA601 Los Angeles Lehigh Southwest 

Cement Company

Tehachapi Plant Tehachapi CA 14 C Dry-C 958 $49 $45

CA301 Los Angeles Cemex Victorville Plant Victorville CA 22 C Dry-X 1,046 $51 $47

CA302 Los Angeles Cemex Victorville Plant Victorville CA 4 C Dry-X 1,681 $50 $46

IA101 Minneapolis Holcim (US) Inc. Mason City Plant Mason City IA 39 C Dry 600 $41 $37

IA102 Minneapolis Holcim (US) Inc. Mason City Plant Mason City IA 39 C Dry 371 $50 $45

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

IA301 Minneapolis Lehigh Cement 

Company

Lehigh-Mason City Mason City IA 27 C Dry-C 755 $37 $33

NY301 New York/ 

Boston

St. Lawrence 

Cement Company

Catskill Plant Catskill NY 41 C Wet 580 $57 $52

NY101 New York/ 

Boston

Glens Fall Lehigh 

Cement Co.

Glens Falls Plant Glens Falls NY 32 C Dry-X 586 $55 $50

NY201 New York/ 

Boston

Lafarge North 

America

Ravena Plant Ravena NY 43 C Wet 852 $54 $49

NY202 New York/ 

Boston

Lafarge North 

America

Ravena Plant Ravena NY 43 C Wet 868 $54 $49

ME101 New York/ 

Boston

Dragon Products 

Company

Thomaston Plant Thomaston ME 34 C Wet 392 $62 $56

AZ201 Phoenix Phoenix Cement 

Company

Clarkdale Plant Clarkdale AZ 46 C Dry-C 187 $46 $42

AZ202 Phoenix Phoenix Cement 

Company

Clarkdale Plant Clarkdale AZ 46 C Dry-C 187 $46 $42

AZ203 Phoenix Phoenix Cement 

Company

Clarkdale Plant Clarkdale AZ 44 C Dry-C 191 $46 $42

AZ204 Phoenix Phoenix Cement 

Company

Clarkdale Plant Clarkdale AZ 3 C Dry-C 912 $37 $33

UT101 Phoenix Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Leamington Plant Nephi UT 24 C Dry-C 810 $35 $32

AZ101 Phoenix California Portland 

Cement

Rillito Plant Rillito AZ 56 C Dry 121 $53 $48

AZ102 Phoenix California Portland 

Cement

Rillito Plant Rillito AZ 54 C Dry 121 $52 $48

AZ103 Phoenix California Portland 

Cement

Rillito Plant Rillito AZ 50 C Dry 121 $52 $47

AZ104 Phoenix California Portland 

Cement

Rillito Plant Rillito AZ 3 C Dry-C 969 $37 $33

NM101 Phoenix GCC of America, 

Inc.

Tijeras Plant Tijeras NM 46 C Dry-X 216 $48 $43

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

NM102 Phoenix GCC of America, 

Inc.

Tijeras Plant Tijeras NM 45 C Dry-X 216 $48 $43

PA401 Pittsburgh Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Bessemer Plant Bessemer PA 44 C Wet 225 $54 $49

PA402 Pittsburgh Essroc Cement 

Corp.

Bessemer Plant Bessemer PA 41 C Wet 339 $54 $49

PA101 Pittsburgh Armstrong Cement 

& Sup. Corp.

Cabot Plant Cabot PA 79 C Wet 143 $57 $52

PA102 Pittsburgh Armstrong Cement 

& Sup. Corp.

Cabot Plant Cabot PA 79 C Wet 143 $57 $52

PA301 Pittsburgh Cemex Wampum Plant Wampum PA 47 C Dry 215 $57 $51

PA302 Pittsburgh Cemex Wampum Plant Wampum PA 47 C Dry 205 $57 $51

PA303 Pittsburgh Cemex Wampum Plant Wampum PA 47 C Dry 238 $57 $51

OR101 Salt Lake 

City

Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Durkee Plant Durkee OR 7 C Dry-C 816 $38 $34

ID101 Salt Lake 

City

Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Inkom Plant Inkom ID 77 C Wet 115 $48 $44

ID102 Salt Lake 

City

Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Inkom Plant Inkom ID 54 C Wet 145 $46 $42

MT101 Salt Lake 

City

Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Montana City Plant Montana City MT 42 C Wet 293 $46 $42

UT201 Salt Lake 

City

Holcim (US) Inc. Devil’s Slide Plant Morgan UT 8 C Dry-C 704 $38 $34

MT201 Salt Lake 

City

Holcim (US) Inc. Trident Plant Three Forks MT 32 C Wet 280 $45 $41

TX1201 San Antonio Texas-Lehigh 

Cement Company

Buda Plant Buda TX 27 C Dry-C 1,125 $43 $39

TX501 San Antonio Cemex Balcones Plant New Braunfels TX 25 K Dry-X 1,005 $41 $38

TX1001 San Antonio Texas Industries 

Inc.

Hunter Cement Plant New Braunfels TX 26 C Dry-C 780 $43 $39

TX601 San Antonio Cemex Odessa Plant Odessa TX 47 C Dry 256 $58 $53

TX602 San Antonio Cemex Odessa Plant Odessa TX 26 C Dry-X 285 $51 $46

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

TX101 San Antonio Alamo Cement 

Company

1604 Plant San Antonio TX 24 C Dry-C 821 $43 $39

TX401 San Antonio Capitol 

Aggregates, Ltd.

Capitol Cement 

Division

San Antonio TX 40 C Wet 269 $54 $49

TX402 San Antonio Capitol 

Aggregates, Ltd.

Capitol Cement 

Division

San Antonio TX 22 C Dry-C 599 $46 $42

TX301 San Antonio Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Maryneal Plant Sweetwater TX 34 C Dry-X 153 $52 $47

TX302 San Antonio Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Maryneal Plant Sweetwater TX 34 C Dry-X 153 $52 $47

TX303 San Antonio Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Maryneal Plant Sweetwater TX 34 C Dry-X 162 $52 $47

CA401 San 

Francisco

Hanson 

Permanente 

Cemente

Permanente Plant Cupertino CA 24 C Dry-C 1,497 $50 $45

CA901 San 

Francisco

RMC Pacific 

Materials

Santa Cruz Plant Davenport CA 24 C Dry-C 812 $50 $45

NV101 San 

Francisco

Eagle Materials Nevada Cement Femley NV 41 C Dry 226 $57 $52

NV102 San 

Francisco

Eagle Materials Nevada Cement Femley NV 19 C Dry-X 226 $51 $46

CA501 San 

Francisco

Lehigh Southwest 

Cement Company

Redding Plant Redding CA 24 C Dry-C 592 $54 $49

WA101 Seattle Ash Grove Cement 

Company

Seattle Plant Seattle WA 13 C Dry-C 675 $43 $39

WA201 Seattle Lafarge North 

America

Seattle Plant Seattle WA 38 K Wet 425 $51 $46

MO101 St. Louis Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Cape Girardeau Plant Cape Girardeau MO 24 C Dry-C 1,265 $38 $34

MO401 St. Louis Holcim (US) Inc. Clarksville Plant Clarksville MO 38 C Wet 1,241 $41 $38

MO201 St. Louis Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Festus Plant Festus MO 40 K Dry 592 $44 $40

(continued)
August 31, 2007

Table 10. Average Variable Cost by Kiln: 2005 (continued)

Emissions 

Trading 

Kiln ID

Market 

Name Company Name Plant Name City State

Age in 

2005

Primary 

Fuel IDa Processb

Clinker 

Capacity 

1,000 Metric 

Tons/Year

Average 

Variable Costs 

($/Metric Ton)

Variable 

Costs 

$/Short Ton

MO202 St. Louis Buzzi Unicem 

USA, Inc.

Festus Plant Festus MO 36 K Dry 592 $44 $40

IL401 St. Louis Lafarge North 

America

Joppa Plant Grand Chain IL 42 K Dry 443 $53 $48

IL402 St. Louis Lafarge North 

America

Joppa Plant Grand Chain IL 30 K Dry 612 $42 $38

MO301 St. Louis Continental 

Cement Co., Inc.

Hannibal Plant Hannibal MO 39 C Wet 549 $45 $41

CA1001 White 

Cement

Texas Industries 

Inc.

Crestmore Riverside CA 47 O Dry 51 $96 $87

CA1002 White 

Cement

Texas Industries 

Inc.

Crestmore Riverside CA 45 O Dry 51 $95 $86

TX801 White 

Cement

Lehigh Cement 

Company

Waco Plant Waco TX 37 G Wet 97 $78 $70

PA901 White 

Cement

Lehigh Cement 

Company

York Plant York PA 43 O Wet 112 $79 $72

a

Primary Fuel ID codes are coal (C), coke (K), oil (O), and waste (A).

b

Process codes are preheater (X) and precalciner (C).
Keith Barnett

August 31, 2007

Page 22

REFERENCES

Das, S. 1992. “A Micro-Econometric Model of Capital Utilization and Retirement: The Case of 

the U.S. Cement Industry.” Review of Economic Studies 59(2):277-297. 

Portland Cement Association (PCA). December 2004. U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement 

Industry: Plant Information Summary. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association 

Economic Research Department. 

Portland Cement Association (PCA). December 2005. U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input 

Survey 2005. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association Economic Research Department. 

Rock Products. 1994. “Cement Plant Operating Cost Study.” Overland Park, KS: Intertec 

Publishing. September, p. 19.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2007. Current-Dollar and 

“Real” Gross Domestic Product. Available at 

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. 2005 Minerals Yearbook, 

Cement. Tables 3, 4, and 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2006b. 2005 Minerals Yearbook, 

Crushed Stone. Table 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. “State and Area Employment, 

Hours and Earnings 2005.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006a. Electric Power Annual 2005. Figure 7-7. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006b. State Energy Consumption, Price, and 

Expenditure Estimates (SEDS): Technical Notes Prices and Expenditures Section 4.

Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_prices/notes/pr_petrol.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. Annual Energy Outlook 2007. 

Supplemental Tables 12, 15, and 16. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information 

Administration.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1998. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Cement Kiln 

Dust Rulemaking. Appendix C, p. 12. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/ckd/ckdriafn.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission. 2007. USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb. 

Available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp. HTS codes: 271311 and 

271312.