co2 capture cost estimation as a function of design capacity for some selected cement plants

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 3(8), pp. 0302-0313, 2015

Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.com/ijsres

ISSN: 2322-4983; ©2015; Author(s) retain the copyright of this article

http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsres-2015-p0302-0313

302

Full Length Research Paper

CO2 Capture Cost Estimation As a Function of Design Capacity for Some Selected

Cement Plants

Tsunatu D. Yavini1*; Kaka G. Atiku2; Jang A. Luria1, Mohammed H. Yunusa3

1Chemistry Department, Taraba State University, Jalingo - Taraba, Nigeria

2Chemical Engineering Department, University of Maiduguri, Borno, Nigeria 3Centre for Energy Research and Training, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria – Kaduna, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract. The growing concern over the severe impact on the global climate change of the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere

has resulted in the quest to capture or avoid the release of CO2 at large point sources into Nigeria environment. The study uses

data obtained for various cement plants on design capacity from cement plant production database, Nigeria. The data were

analyzed using the “Generic CO2 Capture Retrofit” spreadsheet developed by SFA Pacific Inc. The results of the analysis

obtained from the models shows that the ranges of the costs of CO2 captured and avoided per tonne CO2 were $27-47 and $34-

60 respectively. With these values on a high side, will help the cement plants to decide whether to adopt the Carbon Credit

option or consider Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). The demand for fossil energy in most of the cement plant appears

to be one of the most significant issues to tackle if the problem of climate change mitigation in Nigeria has to be given serious

attention. In light of the forgoing high costs of CO2 capture and avoided estimate for the cement plants, we recommend that

Nigeria should invest in energy efficient technologies and should utilize less usage of fossil fuels.

Keywords: Carbon Capture, Generic Model, Climate Change, Cement Plant, Fossil Fuels, Mitigation Option.

1. INTRODUCTION

Cement-related greenhouse gas emissions originate

from fossil fuel combustion at cement manufacturing

operations (about 40% of the industry‟s emissions);

transport activities (about 5%) and the combustion of

fossil fuel that is required to make the electricity

consumed by the cement manufacturing operations

(about 5%). The remaining cement – related emissions

(about 50%) originates from the manufacturing

process that converts limestone (CaCO3) into calcium

oxide (CaO), the primary precursor for cement. This

process is chemically impossible to convert CaCO3 to

CaO, and then cement clinker, without generating CO2

which is further emitted to the atmosphere (Battele,

2000).

The challenge is great, and although some

companies reduced emissions by approximately 10%

during the 1990s, the cement industry as a whole has

not significantly reduced emissions over the last

decade. Fortunately, there are numerous opportunities

for the industry to reduce both its emissions and the

associated financial liabilities. Further, the nature of

the challenge has the potentials to spur innovation,

which could lead to new manufacturing processes,

new products, and new business lines. In the face of

the climate challenge, creative and proactive cement

companies have the potential to emerge as leaders in

carbon management across all industries and remain

profitable.

It is therefore recommended that cement

companies establish corporate carbon management

programmes, set company specific and industry-wide

CO2 reduction targets, and initiate long-term process

and product innovation because presently,

approximately 5% of global anthropogenic CO2

emissions originate from the manufacture of cement,

with about 0.7-1.1 tonne of CO2 being emitted for

every tonne of cement produced.

1.1. Nigeria’s GHGs Emissions Trends

The Vision 20:2020 envisages a rapidly growing

economy that will make Nigeria to significantly

increase in its energy production. As its energy

improves, the per capita greenhouse gas emissions

may tend towards those of the developed nations of

the world today. This factor combined with the

continued gas flaring and a large population will

further worsen Nigeria‟s standing as a key emitter of

greenhouse gases globally (FMEA, 2010). Based on

the projections for 2030, a modification introduced

mailto:[email protected]

Tsunatu et al.

CO2 Capture Cost Estimation As a Function of Design Capacity for Some Selected Cement Plants

303

was to use the GHG estimates for 2000 as the baseline

(Obioh, 2003).

The total GHG emission (in CO2 equivalent) for

the three main greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O)

and from the five main sectors (energy, industry,

agriculture, Land Use Change and Forestry – LUCF,

and waste) was about 330,946 Gg CO2e in 2000

(Table 1). The GHG emissions were distributed

unevenly between the three main gases enumerated,

i.e. net CO2 was 214,523 Gg, representing 65% of the

national GHG emissions, methane (CH4) was 109,319

Gg CO2e or 33%; and nitrous oxide (N2O) accounts

for 7,104 Gg (CO2e) or 2% (Figure 1).

The relative exposure of the various parts of

Nigeria to climate change shows that the Southwest is

the least exposed while the most exposed are the

Northeast and Southeast zones (Figure 2). Clearly,

exposure to the challenges of climate change is not a

purely regional phenomenon in terms of North/South

divide. Rather, it is a wholly national phenomenon,

which implies that exposure factors should be

addressed in the various parts of the country. For

example, while rainfall decline and therefore water

supply, is an exposure issue in the northern part while

land management to prevent water loss through

infiltration is crucial in the Southeast (FMEA, 2010).

Table 1: Summary of GHG Emission Status for the Year 2000 (in Gg),(Obioh, 2003) Sector CO2 Emission CH4 N2O CO2e

Energy 115,038 50,508 2,960 168,506

Industry 2,101 - - 2,101

Agriculture - 57,730 2,664 60,394

LUCF 97,384 184 - 97,568

Waste - 897 1,480 2,377

TOTAL 214,523 109,319 7,104 330,946

Table 2: Installed Capacity of Nigeria Cement Industry (RMR&DC, 2001)

Company Plant Location Installed Capacity

(metric tonnes)

Dangote Cement Plc Obajana, Kogi State 10,000,000

Dangote Cement Plc Ibeshe, Ogun State 6,000,000

Dangote Cement Plc Gboko, Benue State 4,500,000

Nigerian Cement Plc Nkalagu, Ebonyi State 600,000

West African Portland Cement Ewekoro,

Shagamu, Ogun State

600,000

1,000,000

Bendel Cement Co. Okpella, Edo State 450,000

Calabar Cement Co Calabar, Cross River 250,000

Cement Company of

Northern Nigeria Plc

Sokoto, Sokoto State

500,000

Ashaka Cement Plc Ashaka, Gombe State 800,000

Benue Cement Co Gboko, Benue State 900,000

Gateway Portland Cement LTD Abeokuta, Ogun State 120,000

1.2. CO2 Capture Opportunities in Nigeria

Despite the fact that the electricity generation,

industrial sector and fossil fuel processing industry

contributes to only 54% of total CO2 emissions during

2000, they are potential stationary sources, well suited

for large scale CO2 capture and storage applications.

Among these, power plants are the clearest contenders

(20 power plants using natural gas and one coal, while

7 using hydroelectric source). But the other energy

intensive industries like oil and gas refining,

hydrogen and ammonia processing, iron and steel

manufacturing and cement production also combust

large quantities of fossil fuels and have significant

CO2 emissions (Jekwu, 2010). With Nigeria emitting

20 billion cubic metres of gas flares annually,

accounting for 13% of the global 150 billion cubic

metres of gas flares every year and making it second

in the world after Russia is a great opportunity for

CO2 capture (Ewah, 2008).


304

Fig. 1: Share of Sector to Total National GHG Emission in 2000 (Obioh, 2003)

Fig. 2: Spatial Variation of Relative Exposure of Landmass to Climate Change over Nigeria (FMEA, 2010)

1.3. Prospect for CO2 Future Emission

World carbon dioxide emissions are expected to

increase by 1.9 per cent annually between 2001 and

2025. Much of the increase in these emissions is

expected to occur in the developing world where

emerging economies, such as China, India, South

Africa, Nigeria, and others, fuel economic

development with fossil energy leading to

industrialization. Developing countries‟ emissions are

expected to grow above the world average at 2.7 per

cent annually between 2001 and 2025 and surpass

emissions of industrialized countries near 2018 (EIA,

2004).

Figure 3 summarizes the World Carbon dioxide

Emissions by regions, 2001 – 2025 (Million Metric

Tons of Carbon Equivalent). Presently, a large chunk

of Nigerian CO2 emissions belongs to the lean CO2

streams from coal/natural gas fired conventional

utilities or from industrial heaters. This poses

challenges in terms of overwhelming capture costs.

1.4. Technology Options for CO2 Capture

A wide range of technologies currently exist for

separation and capture of CO2 from gas streams,

although they have not been designed for cement plant

together with the power plant scale operation for the

Tsunatu et al.


305

generation of electricity for use in the industry,

(Desideri and Corbelli, 1998).

They are based on different physical nad chemical

processes including absorption, adsorption,

membranes and cryogenics (Jeremy, 2000). The

choice of a suitable technology depends on the

characteristics of the flue gas stream, which depends

mainly on the cement plant technology. Future plants

may be designed to capture CO2 before combustion or

they may employ pure oxygen combustion instaed of

air to obtain a concentrated CO2 stream for treatment

(Figure 4).

Fig. 3: World Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region (EIA, 2004)

Table 3: Assumed CO2 Emission factor, flue gas component and load factor for a typical Nigerian Cement Plant

Plant Type CO2 Emission Factor Flue Gas Volumetric Annual Load Factor

Cement 0.52-0.75t CO2/t of clinker 20-25% CO2

75-80% N2

100%

Table 4: Formula of per tonne CO2 Captured and Avoidance Cost for Cement Plant

Unit Capacity kt/yr

$/t CO2 Captured Formula

$/t CO2 Avoided Formula

86.37x - 0.1244

109.27x - 0.1244

Where: x is the plant design capacity expressed in kt/yr.

1.5. Cement Manufacturing Process

The cement-making process can be divided into a few

basic steps:

(a) Mining limestone; (b) Proportioning and

grinding limestone with other „corrective‟ raw

materials; (c) Manufacturing clinker in a kiln at

temperatures of 1,450˚C; (d) Grinding clinker and

other minerals to produce the powder known as

cement; (e) Distributing cement to clients

The raw materials are crushed and milled into fine

powder before entering the preheater and being fed

into a rotary kiln (Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2008). The

fuel used for the firing of the rotary kiln are burned at

the lower end of the kiln so as the temperature may

reach about 1950oC enabling the material to be heated

to about 1450oC. The calcinations process occurs

around 800-1100oC resulting to the decomposition of

CaCO3 into CO2 and CaO before it is finally

converted to clinker as shown with the chemical

reaction below. (Decarbonation, Formation of

3CaO•Al2O3 above 900oC and Melting of fluxing

compounds Al2O3 and Fe2O3)

Heat

CaCO3 → CaO + CO2

The above manufacturing processes are explained

below with the aid of a flow diagram (Figure 5)

Cement production is classified into either “dry” or

“wet” process depending on the moisture content of

the raw feedstock. The wet process allows for easier

control of the chemistry and is better when moist raw

feed stocks are available. However, it has higher

energy requirements due to the need to evaporate the

30% slurry water before heating the raw materials to


306

the necessary temperature for calcinations. The dry

process avoids the needs for water evaporation and is

consequentially much less energy intensive (Bosoaga

et al., 2009).

Fig. 4: Technology Options for Carbon dioxide Separation and Capture (Rubin and Rao, 2002).

Table 5: Estimated CO2 Captured and Avoidance Costs for selected Cement Plants in Nigeria

Cement Plant Installed Capacity

(Metric tonne)

$/tonne CO2 Cost

Captured

$/tonne CO2 Cost

Avoided

Dangote Cenment Plant, Obajana, Kogi State 10,000,000 27.464 34.7457

Dangote Cenment Plant, Ibeshe, Ogun State 6,000,000 29.2658 37.0253

Dangote Cement Plant, Gboko, Benue State 4,500,000 30.3321 38.3744

West African Portland Cement, Shagamu 1,000,000 36.5732 46.2702

Nigerian Cement Plant Nkalagu, Ebonyi State 600,000 38.9727 49.3059

Bendel Cement Plant Okpella, Edo State 450,000 40.3927 51.1024

Calabar Cement Plant, Calabar, C/River 250,000 43.4569 54.9791

Cement Company of Northern Nigeria, Sokoto 500,000 39.8668 50.437

Ashaka Cement Plant, Gombe State 800,000 37.6027 47.5726

Gateway Portland Cement, Abeokuta 120,000 47.6116 60.2353

Tsunatu et al.


307

Figure 5: Cement Manufacturing Preheater Process Flow Diagram (CEMBUREAU, 1999)


308

1.6. Sources of Carbon Dioxide Emission in

Cement Industry

Cement production is both energy and emissions

intensive: 60–130 kg of fuel and 110 kWh of

electricity are required to produce a ton of cement,

leading to emissions of around 900 kg CO2/t (Ba-

Shammakh et al., 2008). The production of cement

releases greenhouse gas emissions both directly and

indirectly: the heating of limestone releases CO2

directly, while the burning of fossil fuels to heat the

kiln indirectly results in CO2 emissions. The direct

emissions of cement occur through a chemical process

called calcination. Calcination occurs when

limestone, which is made of calcium carbonate, is

heated, breaking down into calcium oxide and CO2.

This process accounts for ~50% of all emissions from

cement production (Rubenstein, 2012).

Indirect emissions are produced by burning fossil

fuels to heat the kiln. Kilns are usually heated by

coal, natural gas, or oil, and the combustion of these

fuels produces additional CO2 emissions, just

as they would in producing electricity. This represents

around 40% of cement emissions. Finally, the

electricity used to power additional plant machinery,

and the final transportation of cement, represents

another source of indirect emissions and account for

5-10% of the industry‟s emissions (WRI, 2005).

Table 6: Flue Gas Analysis of a Typical Cement Plant (Simbeck, 2005)

Analysis Weight (%) Volume (%)

N2

CO2

H2O

O2

75.00

6.50

5.20

13.30

75.86

4.19

8.18

11.77

Total 100 100

1.6.1. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Calcination

Process

Process CO2 is formed by calcining, which can be

expressed by the following equation:

CaCO3 CaO + CO2

1 kg = 0.56 kg + 0.44 kg

The share of CaO in clinker amounts to 64%–67%.

The remainder consists of silicon oxides, iron

oxides, and aluminum oxides. Therefore, CO2

emissions from clinker production amount to about

0.5 kg/kg. The specific process CO2 emission per

tonne of cement depends on the ratio of clinker to

cement. This ratio varies normally from 0.5 to

0.95.The amount of clinker produced was estimated in

the key countries in order to calculate process CO2

emissions associated with clinker production. For the

process emissions, a calcination factor of 0.136 Mt of

carbon (MtC)/t of clinker (0.5 Mt of CO2/t of clinker)

(1 Mt of CO2 = 0.27 MtC = 0.27 Tg of C) was applied

to each metric ton of clinker produced (Worrell et al,

2001).

Typically, cement contains the equivalent of about

64.4 percent CaO. Consequently about 1.135 units of

CaCO3 are required to produce 1 unit of cement or 1.6

tonnes of raw materials is needed for 1 tonne of

clinker production. Approximately 50 percent by

weight of CaCO3 is lost as carbon dioxide during the

production. Roughly the industry emits nearly 900 kg

of CO2 for every 1000 kg of cement produced. The

carbon dioxide in the flue gas from cement

production normally ranges from 22 to 28% on a

molar basis (CEMBUREAU, 1998).

1.6.2. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fuel Use

Practically, all fuel is used during pyro-processing:

Fuel is burned in the kiln. The amount of CO2 emitted

during this process is influenced by the type of fuel

used (coal, fuel oil, natural gas, petroleum coke,

alternative fuels). CO2 emission factors (EFCO2) of

fuels are based on emission factors defined by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,

1996). The direct EFCO2 of waste fuels is considered to

be zero, because the input of waste replaces an

equivalent amount of fossil fuel–derived energy, and

the CO2 would probably have been released (in the

short or long term) to the atmosphere without useful

application of the energy content. If the waste is used

in competition with alternative uses, the replacement

of fossil fuel and the avoidance of CO2 emissions

should be considered in more depth (Worrell et al.,

2001).

Tsunatu et al.


309

Figure 6: Estimated CO2 Capture and Avoidance Costs for Cement Plants based on Plant Design Capacity.

Figure 7: Estimated CO2 Capture and Avoidance Costs for Some Selected Cement Plants in Nigeria

1.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Nigerian

Cement Industry

From Table 2, Nigeria will be producing over 25

million metric tonnes of cement annually (Osagie,

2011). From the research reported by Wilson and Law

(2007) it implies that Nigerian cement industry will at

the same time be releasing over 25 million metric

tonnes of carbon dioxide into the environment

annually. The issue presently is the effects of this

local cement manufacturing boom to the environment.

All stakeholders in cement business in this country

comprising the government, the Cement

Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (CMAN) and

others should be mindful of the effects of this boom

on the climate change and global warming. It

gladdens ones heart when Dangote reported that the

plant at Ibeshe had low fuel consumption and the

issue of reducing dust emission was taken seriously. It

was reported that a total of 30mg/Nm3 was the

maximum target of dust to be generated which was

about 10% of the Federal Government requirement of

300mg/Nm3 benchmark for dust emissions. It was also

said that beyond reduction in dust emission using

ultramodern equipment, there were also plans to

recycle and reuse wastes generated. This is a good

development to minimize environmental degradation

and global warming from the nations local cement

production (Okigbo, 2012).

2. METHODOLOGY

This present study adopts the “Generic CO2 Capture

Retrofit” spreadsheet prepared by SFA Pacific, Inc as

the basis for calculating the CO2 Capture Cost for

stationary CO2 sources (Simbeck, 2005). The


310

calculation of these estimates considers three

important variables for imputation:

(i) The flue gas flow rates (ton/hr); (ii) The flue gas

composition (weight share of CO2 in flue gas); (iii)

The annual load factor.

The spreadsheet provides estimates of capture cost

in terms of both CO2 captured and CO2 avoided. CO2

captured is the amount of CO2 captured by the

absorber and kept out of the atmosphere, which is

assumed to be 90% of the CO2 in the flue gas of a

cement plant.

CO2 Captured: This term is used for calculations

involving the amount of CO2 being handled, i.e.

amount of CO2 captured by the absorber and

prevented from entering the atmosphere usually about

90 – 98% of the CO2 in the cement plant‟s flue gas.

CO2 Avoided: The term is basically used for

calculations involving the amount of CO2 withheld

from the atmosphere and therefore eligible for

possible CO2 emissions credit.

The difference between CO2 capture and avoided

costs is due to the energy required for CO2 capture

steam and power (Simback, 2005 and NETL, 2006).

2.1. CO2 Capture Cost for Cement Plant

The estimation capture cost tool adopted was used for

cement plant sources within Nigeria. The result of the

analysis was limited to estimating the capture cost for

the selected cement plants. Table 3 lists the assumed

CO2 emission rate per unit of clinker produced, the

flue gas composition and the annual load factor used

for the CO2 source examined. Table 4 gives the

estimated formula for CO2 captured and avoidance

costs as functions of design capacity for the CO2

sources. The actual flue gas flow rates were unknown,

but were estimated based on plant capacity, the CO2

emissions factor, and the flow gas compositions.

The relationship between CO2 Captured and

Avoidance Costs and Design capacity of the cement

plant are given by the two power functions.

yc = 86.37x - 0.1244

ya = 109.27x - 0.1244

Where: ya is the cost per tonne of CO2 avoided

($/t); yc is the cost per tonne of CO2 captured ($/t); x

is the design capacity of the cement plant (kt)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Results of the model estimates are presented in Table

5. The model fitness text is presented to be R2 =

0.9857 and R2 = 0.9859 for the CO2 cost captured and

avoided respectively. From Figure 6, it would be seen

from the equation, that the fitness are within 0.986,

implying that 98% variation in the amount of CO2

captured or avoided in the model was explained by the

variables in the two equations hence showcasing an

excellent fitting.

The models incorporated all the assumptions such

as natural gas used as the added energy source to

make the power required for CO2 capture; which helps

to avoid the loss of capacity or increase off-site CO2

emission of supplying additional electric power. The

analysis was carried out based on an existing

industrial 2,054 mt/hr flue gas with the compositions

as depicted in Table 6.

The total plant cost (turnkey price), of the plant

were estimated by using a bottom-up cost model, i.e.

the cost of each component was estimated separately

and the results were rolled-up to produce an estimate

for the whole plant (Gulen, 2002). The total plant cost

takes into consideration key inputs such as capital

costs, operating costs, CO2 captured cost and CO2

avoidance costs.

From table 5 and Figure 7, it could be seen that the

cost of CO2 captured per tonne is within the range of

$27-$47 while the cost of CO2 avoided per tonne is

within the range of $34-$60. With these values on a

high side will help the companies to decide on which

way to imbibe i.e. to adopt the Carbon Credit options

which is a basic component for national and

international emissions trading schemes that have

been implemented to prevent or overcome impact of

global warming and to provide a way to reduce

greenhouse emissions on an industrial scale by

reducing total annual emissions. By this, the

implications for 2020; includes:

(i) By 2020, global demand for cement will have

increased by 115 to 180% over 1990 levels. In the

highest growth scenarios, the developed countries

demand increases an estimated 13% with the

remainder of the growth coming from developing

economies. Demand in developing countries grew

55% during the 1990s.

(ii) If the cement industry contributes to the

stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas

concentrations, in accordance with the assumptions

above, this would require reducing the CO2 generated

per tonne of cement by 30 to 40% over 1990 levels,

on average across the entire global industry.

(iii) The industry would need to develop

alternative cement formulations and new technologies

to prepare for future reductions that are far more

challenging, which by 2050 approach 50% reductions

in CO2 generated per tonne of cement over 1990

levels, on average across the industry (WBCSD,

2001).

Hence, opportunities that have existed for CO2

emission reduction in the Cement industry that could

buttress the third point above include:

(a) Fuel switching by use of waste as alternative

fuel

Tsunatu et al.


311

(b) Energy efficiency improvement

(c) Blending of cements by reducing the

clinker/cement ratio using industrial by-products.

Another approach to lowering fuel-related CO2

emissions is to use “alternative fuels”. Coal, oil, gas

are typically considered traditional fuels. “Alternative

fuels” is a term that is widely used to encompass other

fuels not directly derived from fossil fuel sources.

Different companies use the term somewhat

differently, but examples of alternative fuels often

included in this category are:

(a) Waste tires; (b) Biomass; (c) Used solvents; (d)

Sewage sludge; (e) Municipal solid waste; (f)

Petroleum coke; (g) Other wastes.

Some alternative fuels increase onsite CO2

emissions due to their high carbon content. However,

on a life-cycle basis, they may lower CO2 emissions.

3. CONCLUSION

Through the chosen model approach of this study, it

has been shown that CO2 emission in cement

industries in Nigeria either through clinker burning

process, type of fuel used or electrical

consumption/usage in the cement plant based on

increasing cement demand and fossil fuel energy

usage all contributes significantly towards the level of

CO2 emission into Nigerian environment. This paper

assesses the potentials of a new technique (SFA

Pacific Capture Cost Tool) as a new method involving

the use of developed models for CO2 capture and

avoidance cost estimation in the cement industry. The

potential advantage of this method is the very easiness

envisaged in the estimation of CO2 cost merely by

knowing the cement plant operating capacity

compared with the method of calculating the cost by

inculcating all the necessary cost of units involved in

the process. The demand for fossil energy in most of

the cement plant appears to be one of the most

significant issues to tackle if the problem of climate

change mitigation in Nigeria has to be given serious

attention. In light of the forgoing high costs of CO2

capture and avoided estimate for the cement plants,

we recommend that Nigeria should invest in energy

efficient technologies and should utilize less usage of

fossil fuels.

REFERENCES

Ba-Shammakh M, Caruso H, Elkamel A, Croiset E,

Douglas PL (2008). Analysis and Optimization

of Carbon Dioxide Emission Mitigation

Options in the Cement Industry. American

Journal of Environment Sciences, 4(5): 482 –

490.

Battele (2000). Global Energy Technology Strategy:

Addressing Climate Change. Richland

Washington, United States.

Bosoaga A, Masek O, Oakey JE (2009). CO2 Capture

Technologies for Cement Industry. J. Energy

Pro., 1: 133-140. DOI:

10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.020

CEMBUREAU (1998). Cement Production, Trade,

Consumption Data: World Cement Market in

Figures 1931 – 1995. World Statistical Review

N0. 18, CEMBUREAU – The European

Cement Association, Brussels, Belgium.

CEMBUREAU (1999). Best Available Technologies

for the Cement Industry, CEMBUREAU.

Report. The European Cement Association.

D/1999/5457. Brussels, Belgium

http://www.cembureau.be.

Desideri U, Corbell R (1998). CO2 Capture in small

size cogeneration plants: Technical and

Economical considerations, Energy Conversion

and Management, 39 (9): 857 – 865.

Energy Information Administration: (EIA) (2004).

http://www/eia.gov/oiaf/1605/

ggccebro/chapter1.html: Accessed 20/01/2013.

Ewah OI (2008): Nigeria, South Africa worst

Greenhouse gas emitters in Africa: Experts.

Head of Nigerian based International Centre for

Energy, Environment and Development.

Federal Ministry of Environment, (FMEA; (2010).

National Environmental, Economic and

Development Study (NEEDS) for Climate

Change in Nigeria, (Special Climate Change

Unit). Abuja: 14-22

Gulen SC (2002) Combined Cycle Power Plant Total

Installed Cost, General Electric.

Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD (2008). A Life-Cycle

Assessment of Portland Cement Manufacturing:

Comparing the traditional process with

alternative technologies. J. Clean. Prod.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.007.

Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

(1996): Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reference

Manual, IPCC Guidelines for National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

Geneva/London/Paris: IPCC.

Jekwu I (2010). Accessing the Future of Nigeria‟s

Economy: Ignored Threats from the Global

Climate Change Debacle. Developing World

Built Environment Research Unit, De Montfort

University, Leicester U.K.

Jeremy D (2000). Economic Evaluation of Leading

Technology Options for Sequestration of

Carbondixode, M.S. Thesis, MIT, Cambridge,

M.A.

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)

(2006). Carbon Management GIS: CO2 Capture

http://www.cembureau.be/

http://www/eia.gov/oiaf/1605/%20ggccebro/chapter1.html

http://www/eia.gov/oiaf/1605/%20ggccebro/chapter1.html


312

Cost Estimation; Carbon Capture and

Sequestration Technologies Program,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. 1

– 9.

Obioh IB (2003). Trends in Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in Nigeria: 1988-2000. Technical

Report, submitted to NEST/GCSI. Inc.

Okigbo N (2012). The Contribution of the Nigerian

Cement Industry to Global Warming

International Journal of Engineering Science

and Technology (IJEST), 4(11): 1 - 4.

Osagie C (2011). Boosting Nigeria‟s Cement

Manufacturing. This-Day Newspaper of 1st

February, 2011. 40.

RMR & DC (2001). Raw Material Research and

Development Council Technical Brief on Raw

Materials. Abuja.

Rubenstein M (2012). Emission from the Cement

Industry. The Global Network for Climate

Solutions (GNCS FACTSHEETS). The Earth

Institute, Columbia University.

Rubin ES, Rao AB (2002). A Technical, Economic

and Environmental Assessment of Amine –

Based CO2 Capture Technology for Power

Plant Greenhouse Gas Control. Annual

Technical Progress Report. U.S Department of

Energy/Control for Energy and Environmental

Studies, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittburgh.

Simbeck D (2005). Generic Industrial CO2 Capture

for any Large CO2 Flue Gas Stream, Working

Draft. SFA Pacific, Inc, April 13, 2005 Version.

WBCSD-World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (2001). CO2 Emission Monitoring

and Reporting Protocol for the Cement

Industry. Version 1.5, Geneva, Switzerland.

Wilson J, Law S (2007). Global Warming. Magpie

Books London. 18.

Worrell E, Price L, Martin N, Hendriks C, Ozawa –

Meida L. (2001): Carbon Dioxide Emissions

from the Global Cement Industry. Annu. Rev.

Energy Environ., 26(303-29): 12-22.

WRI (2005). Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse

Gas Data and International Climate Policy.

World Resource Institute. 72 – 74.

Tsunatu et al.


313

Engr. Tsunatu Danlami Yavini obtained his first degree from University of Maiduguri in Chemical

Engineering in 2006. He later pursued master degree in Chemical Engineering in Ahmadu Bello

University, Zaria and graduated in 2015 with majors in Petroleum and Gas Processing and Bio-

fuels. Engr. Tsunatu is a lecturer with the Department of Chemistry, Taraba State University,

Jalingo, Nigeria and has published numerous refereed articles in professional journals and

conference proceedings. Engr. Tsunatu‟s field of expertise‟s are in Environmental issues –

Wastewater Treatment, Climate Change for sustainable and cleaner environment, solid waste

management and leachate treatment and Nanotubes.

Luria Abare Jang obtained her first degree at Federal University of Technology, Yola, Nigeria in

1997. She obtained a masters degree, Master of Technology (M.Tech), Industrial Chemistry in the

same university in 2007. Her current research focus are : Solid Waste Management with specific

reference to polystyrene waste; and exploring of natural resources for possible industrial

applications with the sole aim of protecting man and the environment from the adverse effect of

synthetic agents. She has published several scientific articles in professional journals.

Kaka Goni Atiku received his first Degree in Chemical Engineering from University of Maiduguri

in 2009. He worked as Process Engineer at AshakaCem plc (lafarge Nigeria) from 2012-2013 and

later joined the University of Maiduguri as a lecturer in the Department of Chemical Engineering.

His current research area focuses on: Modelling and Simulation of industrial processes,

Environmental issues on safer and cleaner atmosphere.

Mohammed Husseini Yunusa obtained his first degree from the Federal University of Technology

Minna, Nigeria in Chemical Engineering in 2007. He later bagged his master‟s degree in Chemical

Engineering from the prestigious Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria in 2015. His current

research work focuses on Carbon dioxide Capture. He has published scientific articles on

Environmental Engineering Field.

co2 capture cost estimation as a function of design capacity for some selected cement plants

Documents