Publication: Environmental benefits of the integrated alternative technologies of the portland cement production: A case study in Thailand
7
0
Issued Date
2017
Resource Type
File Type
application/pdf
ISSN
1258281
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85039898640
Rights Holder(s)
มหาวิทยาลัยศรีนครินทรวิโรฒ
Bibliographic Citation
Engineering Journal. Vol 21, No.7 (2017), p.15-27
Suggested Citation
Khongprom P., Suwanmanee U. Environmental benefits of the integrated alternative technologies of the portland cement production: A case study in Thailand. Engineering Journal. Vol 21, No.7 (2017), p.15-27. doi:10.4186/ej.2017.21.7.15 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/3968
Author(s)
Abstract
Under the 2012?2050, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) have developed a roadmap for the reduction of energy and carbon intensities in cement production. The aim of this research is to study and evaluate the energy consumption (EN), global warming potential (GWP) impact, and economic assessment of Portland cement production. It was found that the total EN and GWP of conventional process were 3.29 GJ per ton of Portland cement and 0.76 ton CO2 equivalent per ton of Portland cement, respectively. The total cost was 1,346 THB per ton of Portland cement. The largest contribution was from fossil fuels used and the limestone calcination in clinker production which produced the total EN of 83.63% and the total GWP of 91.36%, and the total cost of 63%. In addition, the production of Portland cement was environmentally improved by using low carbon fuels, increasing of alternative fuels to fossil fuels ratio, and increasing of pozzolan to cement ratio. The results showed that all improvements significantly reduce the total EN, GWP, and the total cost. When the using of low carbon fuels, the increasing of alternative fuels to fossil fuels ratio, and the increasing of pozzolan to cement ratio, the EN, GWP, and the total cost were decreased by 1.68%, 18.33%, and 4.39% of the total EN and by 25.35%, 3.06%, and 10.45% of the total GWP, and by 4.6%, 4.12%, and 10.64% of the total cost, respectively. © 2017, Chulalongkorn University. All rights reserved.