Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The cement industry is among the largest contributors to global CO 2 emissions, highlighting the need for effective decarbonization strategies. This study evaluates three integrated pathways for low-carbon cement production by coupling carbon capture with electrochemical CO 2 reduction to produce formic acid, while simultaneously generating hydrogen and oxygen as valuable by-products. The process heat demand is supplied using coal and/or hydrogen under conventional air-fired and oxy-combustion configurations, with partial utilization of the generated hydrogen and oxygen, whereas electricity demand is met through a hybrid renewable energy system. The proposed pathways are comprehensively assessed through techno-economic and environmental analyses under a wide range of assumptions, including variations in capital and operating costs, electricity prices, carbon intensity, feedstock and product prices, carbon credits, and electrochemical reaction performance. The results demonstrate that the integrated systems can achieve cradle-to-gate carbon emissions avoidance of 45.2–49.9%, while revenues from formic acid, hydrogen, and oxygen can partially offset operational costs, resulting in CO 2 avoidance costs of 16.2–54.97 $/tCO 2 e. Furthermore, the integrated scenarios supplied by the hybrid photovoltaic-wind energy configuration achieve revenue-inclusive levelized costs of heat of 5.9–39.7 $/MWh. Economic performance improves further under higher carbon-credit and product prices, and lower system costs. These findings demonstrate the potential of renewable-powered carbon capture and utilization to reduce cement sector emissions while generating valuable coproducts, thereby supporting progress toward economically viable net-zero cement production.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oumbarech et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: