Cement decarbonization solutions will avoid a further 422 megatonnes of CO2 emissions by 2035
Decarbonization of Cement 2025-2035: Technologies, Market Forecasts, and Players
Market outlook, granular forecasts, company profiles, and benchmarking of CCUS, alternative fuel switching, supplementary cementitious materials, alternative cementitious materials, electric kilns, and new cement production processes
Show All
Description
Contents, Table & Figures List
Pricing
Related Content
Concrete is the second most consumed material on Earth but its key ingredient, cement, is responsible for 7% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. With the global population set to keep rising and developing countries continuing to urbanize, cutting back on construction simply isn't an option. Innovative cement decarbonization technologies must be deployed to lower concrete's carbon footprint.
"Decarbonization of Cement 2025-2035: Technologies, Market Forecasts, and Players" provides a comprehensive outlook of the emerging green cement/green concrete spaces and regulatory landscapes, with an in-depth analysis of the technological, economic, regulatory, and environmental aspects that are set to shape the cement industry over the next 10 years. Cement decarbonization technologies are evaluated, discussing latest advancements, key players, and opportunities and barriers within each area. The report includes 10-year granular forecasts until 2035 for cement decarbonization technologies covering:
- CCUS CO2 capture capacity in the cement sector (segmented by region)
- Amount of supplementary cementitious materials being used in the cement sector and the associated tonnes of CO2 avoided (segmented by fly ash, blast furnace slag, limestone, calcined clay, and natural pozzolans)
- Global cement fuel mix (segmented by fossil fuels, biomass fuels, and waste-based fuels)
- Key economic considerations (CO2 capture costs and savings from displacing clinker with supplementary cementitious materials)
Forty interview-based company profiles are contained, with coverage of over 200 start-ups and key players.
Breakdown of the 10 year IDTechEx cement decarbonization forecasts included in this report. Source: IDTechEx
In this report, IDTechEx benchmarks CCUS, leading supplementary cementitious materials, emerging supplementary cementitious materials, alternative cementitious materials, new cement production processes, (petroleum) waste-derived fuel, biomass-derived fuel, kiln/calciner electrification, hydrogen fuel, and concentrated solar power for the kiln/calciner.
Supplementary cementitious materials have the most important role to play over the coming decade
Repurposing waste materials such as coal fly ash from the energy sector and GBFS (granulated blast furnace slag) from the steel sector as supplementary cementitious materials is already a well-established practice in the cement sector. Primarily motivated by lower cost materials, additional benefits of this practice include lowering cement's carbon footprint. With the biggest role to play in cement sector decarbonization over the coming decade, this report examines how supply, economics, and industry trends will influence the use of supplementary cementitious materials.
Trends in supplementary cementitious materials will change the global average composition of cement over the coming decade. Source: IDTechEx
Record-breaking decade expected for CCUS in the cement sector
The high costs of CCUS have long been a barrier to its deployment in the low-margin construction sector, but many large-scale projects are expected to be constructed this decade. There will be significant regional variation, with Europe expected to lead the charge due to mechanisms such as the Innovation Fund, Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and the Emissions Trading System (ETS). This report provides comprehensive coverage of all aspects of the CCUS value chain in the cement sector from carbon pricing and carbon markets, carbon capture technologies, CO2 transportation, CO2 storage, CO2 utilization, and costs.
Renewable electric industrial heat generation important for decarbonizing many industries
Sectors including cement, steel, alumina, and chemicals/pharmaceuticals require high temperature industrial heat. Traditionally, such high temperatures have required fossil fuels. While biomass-based and waste-based fuels are playing an ever-increasing role, there is commercial interest in hydrogen, renewable electricity, and concentrated solar power as energy sources. This report benchmarks renewable high temperature heat technologies to enable optimal industrial decarbonization.
Innovative areas need further investment
Like many other sectors, cement producers are targeting net-zero by 2050. New cement raw materials, chemistries, and production processes have a vital role to play, but the early-stage nature of some solutions means start-ups require further demonstration and investment. This report provides benchmarking of economic, technical, and environmental factors for cement decarbonization technologies to enable the best investment opportunities to be identified.
Key questions answered in this report:
- Which cement decarbonization technologies are the most promising?
- What is the current scale of cement production using these decarbonization technologies and how will production scale up?
- What is the market outlook for cement decarbonization technologies?
- Which CCUS technologies are best suited for the cement sector?
- What are the key drivers and barriers to cement decarbonization market growth?
- Who are the key players in cement decarbonization?
- What progress will the cement sector make towards net-zero in the coming decade?
Key Aspects
Technology trends & players analysis
- Detailed overview of cement decarbonization technologies: CCUS, leading supplementary cementitious materials, emerging supplementary cementitious materials, alternative cementitious materials, new cement production processes, (petroleum) waste-derived fuel, biomass-derived fuel, kiln/calciner electrification, hydrogen fuel, concentrated solar power for the kiln/calciner
- Benchmarking of cement decarbonization solutions (cost, TRL, decarbonization potential)
- Coverage of over 200 companies (start-ups and leading cement players), including interview-based company profiles
- Drivers and barriers for reaching a net-zero cement sector (including impacts of green premiums and cement standards)
- Regulatory and private sector drivers for low-carbon cement production business case (i.e. CBAM, ETS, procurement, book and claim)
- Analysis of carbon capture technologies in the cement sector
- Analysis of the cement sector within the wider CCUS picture (business model, CO2 utilization, CO2 transportation, CO2 storage)
- Analysis of renewable/electric industrial heat generation technologies for the cement sector (rotodynamic heating, plasma technologies, resistive heating, concentrated solar power)
- Analysis of leading supplementary cementitious materials (coal fly ash, GBFS - blast furnace slag, limestone, calcined clay, natural pozzolans), emerging supplementary cementitious materials, alternative cementitious materials (biocement, geopolymers, calcium silicate cements), and new cement production processes (such as electrochemical cement processing)
Market Forecasts & Analysis:
- 20 year market forecast for global cement production volume
- 10 year market forecast for CO2 emissions avoided by using cement decarbonization technologies
- 10 year market forecast for global cement CO2 emissions and progress towards net-zero
- 10 year market forecast for CCUS deployment in the cement sector by region (Europe, North America, APAC)
- 10 year market forecast for CCUS costs in the cement sector
- 10 year market forecast for percentage distribution of fuels in global cement production
- 10 year market forecast for CO2 emissions avoided by fuel switching in the cement sector
- 10 year market forecast for volumes of supplementary cementitious materials utilized in cement
- 10 year market forecast for CO2 emissions avoided by supplementary cementitious materials in the cement sector
- 10 year market forecast for cost savings from using supplementary cementitious materials in the cement sector
- Clinker-to-cement ratio forecast
| Report Metrics | Details |
|---|---|
| Historic Data | 2000 - 2023 |
| CAGR | Cement decarbonization solutions will avoid a further 422 megatonnes of CO₂ emissions by 2035. This corresponds to a CAGR of 47% compared to 2025. |
| Forecast Period | 2024 - 2035 |
| Forecast Units | CO₂ avoided (Mt), SCMs in cement (Mt), Distribution of alternative fuels (%), Costs (million US$) |
| Regions Covered | Worldwide |
| Segments Covered | Global cement production (production volume, CO₂ emissions), CCUS (CO₂ capture capacity in Europe, North America, APAC, and costs), alternative fuel switching (fossil fuels, biomass fuels, waste fuels, and CO₂ emissions reductions), supplementary cementitious materials (coal fly ash, blast furnace slag, limestone, calcined clay, natural pozzolans, clinker-to-cement ratio, and cost savings) |
Analyst access from IDTechEx
All report purchases include up to 30 minutes telephone time with an expert analyst who will help you link key findings in the report to the business issues you're addressing. This needs to be used within three months of purchasing the report.
Further information
If you have any questions about this report, please do not hesitate to contact our report team at research@IDTechEx.com or call one of our sales managers:
ASIA: +82 10 3896 6219
| 1. | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
| 1.1. | Cement is the main component of concrete |
| 1.2. | Cement demand will continue to increase |
| 1.3. | Technologies for cement decarbonization introduction |
| 1.4. | Cement decarbonization technologies covered in this report |
| 1.5. | Benchmarking cement decarbonization technologies |
| 1.6. | Why is cement production hard to decarbonize? |
| 1.7. | The most favourable decarbonization technologies will vary by region |
| 1.8. | Methods for stimulating demand for low-carbon cement |
| 1.9. | Fossil fuels provide the high temperatures required for cement production |
| 1.10. | Fossil fuel combustion dominates cement production |
| 1.11. | Percentage distribution of fuels in global cement production forecast (2025-2035) |
| 1.12. | Introduction to supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) |
| 1.13. | Overview of major supplementary cementitious materials |
| 1.14. | Supplementary cementitious materials used in cement production - megatonnes per annum of SCMs (2025-2035) |
| 1.15. | Supplementary cementitious materials used in cement production - discussion |
| 1.16. | CCUS will be the most important cement decarbonization technology by 2050 |
| 1.17. | Status of carbon capture in the cement industry |
| 1.18. | Major future CCUS projects in the cement sector (1/2) |
| 1.19. | Major future CCUS projects in the cement sector (2/2) |
| 1.20. | US 45Q tax credits and CCUS |
| 1.21. | CCUS in the cement sector - megatonnes per annum of CO₂ captured (2025-2035) |
| 1.22. | Technologies for cement decarbonization - megatonnes per annum of CO₂ avoided (2025-2035) |
| 1.23. | Technologies for cement decarbonization forecast: Discussion |
| 1.24. | Cement decarbonization - Analyst viewpoint: Value proposition and status |
| 1.25. | Cement decarbonization - Analyst viewpoint: Benchmarking of cement decarbonization technologies |
| 1.26. | Key players in the cement industry |
| 2. | INTRODUCTION |
| 2.1. | Introduction |
| 2.1.1. | Cement is the main component of concrete |
| 2.1.2. | Clinkering manufacturing process |
| 2.1.3. | Cement demand will continue to increase |
| 2.1.4. | Technologies for cement decarbonization introduction |
| 2.1.5. | Cement decarbonization technologies covered in this report |
| 2.1.6. | Benchmarking cement decarbonization technologies |
| 2.1.7. | Why cement decarbonization needs immediate action |
| 2.1.8. | Key players in the cement industry |
| 2.1.9. | Emissions profile of making clinker (kg of CO₂/tonne of clinker) |
| 2.1.10. | Why is cement production hard to decarbonize? |
| 2.1.11. | Current progress: Cement decarbonization |
| 2.1.12. | Cement sector progress towards net-zero |
| 2.1.13. | Which cement decarbonization technology will have the biggest impact? |
| 2.1.14. | The most favourable decarbonization technologies will vary by region |
| 2.1.15. | Cement standards can delay adoption of new materials |
| 2.1.16. | How much will the green premium be for decarbonized cement? |
| 2.2. | Stimulating demand for low-carbon cement |
| 2.2.1. | Methods for stimulating demand for low-carbon cement |
| 2.2.2. | Introduction to carbon pricing and carbon markets |
| 2.2.3. | Compliance carbon pricing mechanisms across the globe |
| 2.2.4. | EU ETS: Cement |
| 2.2.5. | EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) |
| 2.2.6. | EU CBAM: Cement |
| 2.2.7. | Government procurement of low-carbon cement |
| 2.2.8. | US: Cement decarbonization roadmap |
| 2.2.9. | Voluntary demand for green cement: Private sector |
| 2.2.10. | Data centre decarbonization - driving voluntary demand |
| 2.2.11. | Book and claim system for low-carbon cement |
| 2.2.12. | China's plans for cement decarbonization |
| 3. | CCUS |
| 3.1. | Carbon capture in the cement sector |
| 3.1.1. | What is Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS)? |
| 3.1.2. | The CCUS value chain |
| 3.1.3. | CO₂ capture cost for a specific sector depends on CO₂ concentration |
| 3.1.4. | The challenges in CCUS |
| 3.1.5. | CCUS will be the most important cement decarbonization technology by 2050 |
| 3.1.6. | Status of carbon capture in the cement industry |
| 3.1.7. | Largest operational cement sector CCUS project |
| 3.1.8. | Major future CCUS projects in the cement sector (1/2) |
| 3.1.9. | Major future CCUS projects in the cement sector (2/2) |
| 3.1.10. | Post-combustion solvent capture is less disruptive to clinker manufacturing |
| 3.1.11. | Carbon capture technologies demonstrated in the cement sector |
| 3.1.12. | SkyMine® chemical absorption: The largest CCU demonstration in the cement sector |
| 3.1.13. | Algae CO₂ capture from cement plants |
| 3.1.14. | Benchmarking carbon capture technologies in the cement sector |
| 3.1.15. | Cost and technological status of carbon capture in the cement sector |
| 3.1.16. | Which sectors will see the biggest growth in CCUS? |
| 3.1.17. | Major CCUS players |
| 3.1.18. | Mixed performance from CCUS projects |
| 3.1.19. | How much does CCUS cost? |
| 3.1.20. | Enabling large-scale CCUS |
| 3.1.21. | Carbon capture in the cement sector: Key takeaways |
| 3.1.22. | IDTechEx CCUS Portfolio |
| 3.2. | Business models for CCUS |
| 3.2.1. | Development of the CCUS business model |
| 3.2.2. | Government funding support mechanisms for CCUS |
| 3.2.3. | Government ownership of CCUS projects varies across countries |
| 3.2.4. | CCUS business model: Full value chain |
| 3.2.5. | CCUS business model: Networks and hub model |
| 3.2.6. | First cross-border CO₂ T&S project: Northern Lights Longship project |
| 3.2.7. | Emerging CCUS business model: Partial-chain |
| 3.2.8. | Why CO₂ utilization should not be overlooked |
| 3.2.9. | Alternative to carbon pricing: 45Q tax credits |
| 3.2.10. | Carbon pricing and carbon markets |
| 3.2.11. | Compliance carbon pricing mechanisms across the globe |
| 3.2.12. | What is the price of CO₂ in global carbon pricing mechanisms? |
| 3.2.13. | Challenges with carbon pricing |
| 3.2.14. | Can carbon pricing support CCS in the cement sector? |
| 3.2.15. | How high does carbon pricing need to be to support CCS? |
| 3.3. | Introduction to carbon capture technologies |
| 3.3.1. | Main CO₂ capture systems |
| 3.3.2. | Comparison of point-source CO₂ capture systems |
| 3.3.3. | Post-combustion CO₂ capture |
| 3.3.4. | Oxy-fuel combustion CO₂ capture |
| 3.3.5. | CO₂ concentration and partial pressure varies with emission source |
| 3.3.6. | How does CO₂ partial pressure influence cost? |
| 3.3.7. | Main CO₂ capture technologies |
| 3.3.8. | Comparison of CO₂ capture technologies |
| 3.3.9. | When should different carbon capture technologies be used? |
| 3.3.10. | CO₂ recovery rate considerations in cement production |
| 3.4. | Solvents for CO₂ capture |
| 3.4.1. | Solvent-based CO₂ capture |
| 3.4.2. | Chemical absorption solvents |
| 3.4.3. | Amine-based post-combustion CO₂ absorption |
| 3.4.4. | Innovation addressing solvent-based CO₂ capture drawbacks |
| 3.4.5. | When should solvent-based carbon capture be used? |
| 3.4.6. | Innovation in carbon capture solvents |
| 3.4.7. | Chilled ammonia process (CAP) |
| 3.4.8. | Comparison of key chemical solvent-based systems - emerging |
| 3.4.9. | Applicability of chemical absorption solvents capture solvents for post-combustion applications |
| 3.5. | Oxyfuel combustion capture |
| 3.5.1. | Oxy-fuel combustion CO₂ capture |
| 3.5.2. | Oxygen separation technologies for oxy-fuel combustion |
| 3.5.3. | Oxyfuel CCUS projects in the cement industry |
| 3.5.4. | Large-scale oxyfuel CCUS cement projects in the pipeline |
| 3.6. | Novel CO₂ capture technologies |
| 3.6.1. | LEILAC process: Direct CO₂ capture in cement plants |
| 3.6.2. | LEILAC process: Configuration options |
| 3.6.3. | Calcium Looping (CaL) |
| 3.6.4. | Calcium Looping (CaL) configuration options |
| 3.7. | CO₂ transportation |
| 3.7.1. | Introduction to CO₂ transportation |
| 3.7.2. | Overview of CO₂ transportation methods and conditions across all sectors |
| 3.7.3. | CO₂ transportation by pipeline |
| 3.7.4. | CO₂ transportation by ship |
| 3.7.5. | CO₂ transportation by rail and truck |
| 3.7.6. | Purity requirements of CO₂ transportation |
| 3.7.7. | General cost comparison of CO₂ transportation methods |
| 3.7.8. | Cost considerations in CO₂ transport |
| 3.7.9. | CO₂ transport operators |
| 3.7.10. | CO₂ transport and/or storage as a service business model |
| 3.7.11. | Key takeaways |
| 3.8. | CO₂ storage |
| 3.8.1. | CO₂ storage in the cement sector |
| 3.8.2. | The case for carbon dioxide storage or sequestration |
| 3.8.3. | Storage type for geologic CO₂ storage: Saline aquifers |
| 3.8.4. | Storage type for geologic CO₂ storage: Depleted oil and gas fields |
| 3.8.5. | Unconventional storage resources: Coal seams and shale |
| 3.8.6. | Unconventional storage resources: Basalts and ultra-mafic rocks |
| 3.8.7. | Estimates of global CO₂ storage space |
| 3.8.8. | CO₂ storage potential by country |
| 3.8.9. | Permitting and authorization of CO₂ storage |
| 3.8.10. | What is CO₂-EOR? |
| 3.8.11. | What happens to the injected CO₂? |
| 3.8.12. | CO₂-EOR SWOT analysis |
| 3.8.13. | Technology status of CO₂ storage |
| 3.8.14. | The cost of carbon sequestration (1/2) |
| 3.8.15. | The cost of carbon sequestration (2/2) |
| 3.8.16. | Storage-type TRL and operator landscape |
| 3.9. | CO₂ utilization |
| 3.9.1. | Why CO₂ utilization? |
| 3.9.2. | CO₂ utilization pathways |
| 3.9.3. | Emerging applications of CO₂ utilization |
| 3.9.4. | Comparison of emerging CO₂ utilization applications |
| 3.9.5. | Technology Readiness Level (TRL): CO₂U products |
| 3.9.6. | Key players in emerging CO₂ Utilization technologies |
| 3.9.7. | Production of CO₂-derived building materials is growing fast |
| 3.9.8. | Competitive landscape: TRL of players in CO₂U concrete |
| 3.9.9. | Key takeaways in CO₂-derived building materials |
| 4. | ALTERNATIVE FUELS IN THE CEMENT SECTOR |
| 4.1. | Introduction |
| 4.1.1. | Fossil fuels provide the high temperatures required for cement production |
| 4.1.2. | Benchmarking cement high temperature heat technologies |
| 4.1.3. | Using alternatives to fossil fuels only addresses 1/3 of cement's carbon footprint |
| 4.1.4. | Temperature ranges achieved by different energy sources for cement kilns |
| 4.1.5. | Key technology providers in renewable power sources for electric kilns |
| 4.2. | Fuel switching for cement kilns |
| 4.2.1. | Introduction to alternative fuels for cement kilns |
| 4.2.2. | Fossil fuel combustion dominates cement production |
| 4.2.3. | Alternative fuels in cement production by region |
| 4.2.4. | Waste as an alternative fuel in cement production |
| 4.2.5. | Biomass as an alternative fuel in cement production |
| 4.2.6. | When can fuel switching for cement plants be net-zero? |
| 4.2.7. | Major planned fuel switching and CCS projects in the cement sector |
| 4.2.8. | Net-zero by 2050: fuel mix in cement sector |
| 4.2.9. | Cement plants can already run on 100% alternative fuels |
| 4.2.10. | Burner design considerations when fuel switching at cement plants |
| 4.2.11. | Hydrogen as a fuel in cement production |
| 4.2.12. | Status of hydrogen |
| 4.2.13. | Barriers remain for low-carbon hydrogen |
| 4.2.14. | Further info - IDTechEx Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Research Portfolio |
| 4.2.15. | Benchmarking of alternative fuels |
| 4.2.16. | Key takeaways - switching to alternative fuels in the cement sector |
| 4.3. | Technologies for kiln electrification |
| 4.3.1. | Introduction to kiln electrification |
| 4.3.2. | Coolbrook's RotoDynamic Heater |
| 4.3.3. | Economics of cement electrification: Coolbrook case study |
| 4.3.4. | Rotodynamic heating for electrified cement production: SWOT analysis |
| 4.3.5. | Electric arc plasma technologies |
| 4.3.6. | Electric arc furnaces for cement recycling: SWOT analysis |
| 4.3.7. | Resistive heating for kiln electrification (i) |
| 4.3.8. | Resistive heating for kiln electrification (ii) |
| 4.3.9. | Microwave and induction heating for kiln electrification |
| 4.3.10. | Kiln electrification enables cheaper carbon capture |
| 4.3.11. | Initial focus is on electrifying calciner |
| 4.3.12. | Comparing conventional cement production with CCUS to electrified cement production with CCUS |
| 4.3.13. | Electrochemical cement processing |
| 4.3.14. | Benchmarking kiln electrification technologies for cement production |
| 4.3.15. | Kiln electrification: Key takeaways |
| 4.4. | Concentrated solar power for cement production |
| 4.4.1. | Concentrated solar power (CSP) |
| 4.4.2. | Synhelion: CSP in cement production technology |
| 4.4.3. | Process flow diagram: solar-driven clinker production |
| 4.4.4. | State-of-the-art technologies in CSP for cement pyroprocesses |
| 4.4.5. | Concentrated solar power (CSP) in cement production: Key takeaways |
| 5. | EMERGING CEMENT RAW MATERIALS, CHEMISTRIES AND PRODUCTION PROCESSES |
| 5.1. | Introduction |
| 5.1.1. | Introduction to alternative cement raw materials, chemistries, and production processes |
| 5.1.2. | Cement standards can delay adoption of new cement materials/chemistries/production processes |
| 5.1.3. | Innovation landscape for low-carbon cement and concrete |
| 5.2. | Supplementary cementitious materials - clinker substitutes |
| 5.2.1. | Main supplementary cementitious materials |
| 5.2.2. | Introduction to supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) |
| 5.2.3. | How common are SCMs currently: Global clinker-to-cement ratio |
| 5.2.4. | Overview of major supplementary cementitious materials |
| 5.2.5. | Economics of major low-carbon cement blends |
| 5.2.6. | Which SCMs are most used today? |
| 5.2.7. | Which SCMs will dominate by 2050? |
| 5.2.8. | Portland limestone cement (PLC) |
| 5.2.9. | Fly ash blended cement |
| 5.2.10. | Slag cement (GGBFS/GBFS cement) |
| 5.2.11. | Natural pozzolans blended cement |
| 5.2.12. | Limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) |
| 5.2.13. | Overview of operational clay calcination kiln projects |
| 5.2.14. | Overview of future clay calcination kiln projects |
| 5.2.15. | Technologies for clay calcination: Rotary kiln or flash calciner |
| 5.2.16. | Alternatives methods of clay activation: Mechanochemical |
| 5.2.17. | Key takeaways main supplementary cementitious materials |
| 5.2.18. | Alternative supplementary cementitious materials |
| 5.2.19. | Emerging alternative supplementary cementitious materials |
| 5.2.20. | Silica fume blended cement |
| 5.2.21. | Burnt oil shale as an SCM |
| 5.2.22. | Emerging coal fly ash SCMs |
| 5.2.23. | Mine tailings and biomass ashes as SCMs |
| 5.2.24. | Waste glass and zeolites as SCMs |
| 5.2.25. | Recycled concrete as an SCM |
| 5.2.26. | CO₂ utilization enables supplementary cementitious materials through accelerated carbonation |
| 5.2.27. | Key players in alternative supplementary cementitious materials |
| 5.3. | Alternative cementitious materials (non-Portland cements) |
| 5.3.1. | Introduction to alternative binders |
| 5.3.2. | Benchmarking main alternative cementitious materials |
| 5.3.3. | Production scale of alternative cement chemistries (tonnes per annum) |
| 5.3.4. | Calcium sulphoaluminate cements |
| 5.3.5. | Belite-rich Portland cement |
| 5.3.6. | Geopolymers and alkali-activated binders |
| 5.3.7. | Alkali activators |
| 5.3.8. | Commercial players in alkali-activated concrete |
| 5.3.9. | Vaterite cement (calcium carbonate cement): Fortera |
| 5.3.10. | CO₂ utilization enables alternative cementitious materials through mineralization |
| 5.3.11. | Microbial biocement (calcium carbonate cement) |
| 5.3.12. | New calcium silicate cements start-ups |
| 5.3.13. | Key players in alternative cementitious materials |
| 5.4. | Alternative cement production processes for ordinary Portland cement |
| 5.4.1. | Making ordinary Portland cement from alternative raw materials and/or production processes |
| 5.4.2. | Alternative production processes for Portland cement |
| 5.4.3. | LEILAC process: Indirect calcination |
| 5.5. | Other additives for concrete decarbonization |
| 5.5.1. | Strength enhancers and grinding aids |
| 5.5.2. | CO₂ as a performance enhancing additive |
| 6. | MARKET FORECASTS |
| 6.1. | Introduction |
| 6.1.1. | Breakdown of IDTechEx cement decarbonization forecast |
| 6.1.2. | Global cement forecast 2000-2045 (million tonnes per annum of cement) |
| 6.1.3. | Global cement forecast 2000-2045: Discussion |
| 6.2. | Overall cement decarbonization market forecast |
| 6.2.1. | Technologies for cement decarbonization - megatonnes per annum of CO₂ avoided (2025-2035) |
| 6.2.2. | Technologies for cement decarbonization forecast: discussion |
| 6.2.3. | Cement sector progress towards net-zero forecast (2025-2035) |
| 6.2.4. | Cement sector progress towards net-zero - discussion |
| 6.3. | CCUS for cement decarbonization forecast |
| 6.3.1. | CCUS in the cement sector - megatonnes per annum of CO₂ captured (2025-2035) |
| 6.3.2. | CCUS for cement decarbonization forecast: Discussion (1/2) |
| 6.3.3. | CCUS for cement decarbonization forecast: Discussion (2/2) |
| 6.3.4. | CCUS in the cement sector - million US$ in expected CCUS costs (2025-2035) |
| 6.4. | Alternative fuels in the cement sector forecast |
| 6.4.1. | Percentage distribution of fuels in global cement production (2025-2035) |
| 6.4.2. | Fuel switching in the cement sector - megatonnes per annum of CO₂ avoided (2025-2035) |
| 6.4.3. | Fuel switching in the cement sector forecast: discussion |
| 6.5. | Supplementary cementitious materials forecast |
| 6.5.1. | Supplementary cementitious materials used in cement production - megatonnes per annum of SCMs (2025-2035) |
| 6.5.2. | Supplementary cementitious materials forecast - discussion (1/3) |
| 6.5.3. | Supplementary cementitious materials forecast - discussion (2/3) |
| 6.5.4. | Supplementary cementitious materials forecast - discussion (3/3) |
| 6.5.5. | Supplementary cementitious materials used in cement production - megatonnes per annum of CO₂ avoided (2025-2035) |
| 6.5.6. | Supplementary cementitious materials used in cement production - million US$ from raw material savings (2025-2035) |
| 6.5.7. | Clinker-to-cement ratio breakdowns: 2024 and 2035 |
| 7. | COMPANY PROFILES |
| 7.1. | 1414 Degrees |
| 7.2. | Airco Process Technology |
| 7.3. | Aker Carbon Capture |
| 7.4. | Antora Energy |
| 7.5. | Ardent |
| 7.6. | Biomason |
| 7.7. | Bright Renewables: Carbon Capture |
| 7.8. | C-Capture |
| 7.9. | Cambridge Electric Cement |
| 7.10. | Capsol Technologies |
| 7.11. | CarbiCrete |
| 7.12. | Carbonaide |
| 7.13. | CarbonCure |
| 7.14. | Chiyoda: CCUS |
| 7.15. | Coolbrook |
| 7.16. | Electrified Thermal Solutions |
| 7.17. | Fluor: Carbon Capture |
| 7.18. | FuelCell Energy |
| 7.19. | Giammarco Vetrocoke |
| 7.20. | Greenore |
| 7.21. | Honeywell UOP: CO₂ Solutions |
| 7.22. | Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: KM CDR Process |
| 7.23. | MTR (Membrane Technology and Research) |
| 7.24. | NovoMOF |
| 7.25. | Nuada: MOF-Based Carbon Capture |
| 7.26. | Orchestra Scientific: MOF-Based Carbon Separation |
| 7.27. | Paebbl |
| 7.28. | Pentair: Carbon Capture |
| 7.29. | Pyrowave |
| 7.30. | Rondo Energy |
| 7.31. | Saipem: Bluenzyme |
| 7.32. | SaltX |
| 7.33. | Seratech |
| 7.34. | Solidia Technologies |
| 7.35. | Sumitomo SHI FW: Carbon Capture |
| 7.36. | Svante: MOF-Based Carbon Capture |
| 7.37. | Synhelion |
Ordering Information
Decarbonization of Cement 2025-2035: Technologies, Market Forecasts, and Players
£€$元¥
Electronic (1-5 users)
£5,650.00
Electronic (6-10 users)
£8,050.00
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (1-5 users)
£6,450.00
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (6-10 users)
£8,850.00
Electronic (1-5 users)
€6,400.00
Electronic (6-10 users)
€9,100.00
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (1-5 users)
€7,310.00
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (6-10 users)
€10,010.00
Electronic (1-5 users)
$7,000.00
Electronic (6-10 users)
$10,000.00
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (1-5 users)
$7,975.00
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (6-10 users)
$10,975.00
Electronic (1-5 users)
元50,000.00
Electronic (6-10 users)
元72,000.00
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (1-5 users)
元58,000.00
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (6-10 users)
元80,000.00
Electronic (1-5 users)
¥990,000
Electronic (6-10 users)
¥1,406,000
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (1-5 users)
¥1,140,000
Electronic and 1 Hardcopy (6-10 users)
¥1,556,000
Click here to enquire about additional licenses.
If you are a reseller/distributor please contact us before ordering.
お問合せ、見積および請求書が必要な方はm.murakoshi@idtechex.com までご連絡ください。
Report Statistics
| Slides | 308 |
|---|---|
| Companies | 37 |
| Forecasts to | 2035 |
| Published | Nov 2024 |
| ISBN | 9781835700778 |
Preview Content
 Sample pages
|
|
|