4.7 Article

Industrial production of recycled cement: energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission estimation

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 8778-8789

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20887-7

关键词

Energy consumption; Carbon dioxide emissions; Recycled cement; Clinker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study estimates the energy consumption and carbon emissions associated with a novel process for producing cement by recycling used concrete and mortars. Comparisons with traditional Portland cement production show higher energy consumption but lower carbon dioxide emissions. Optimizing the production process could potentially lead to greater benefits.
The urge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in particular carbon dioxide, is a global problem, not only in spatial terms but also in terms of the scope of activities and sectors involved. Nevertheless, some sectors/industries are more critical due to their overall contribution to the problem, which is the case of the Portland cement industry. The present research estimates the energy consumption and carbon emissions associated with a novel process for producing cement by recycling used concrete and mortars. The novel process assessed resorts to the magnetic separation of the cement paste from the aggregates, followed by the thermal reactivation of the cement paste. Comparing the recycled cement production with the clinker production, higher energy consumption (over 9000 MJ/t compared with roughly 4000 MJ/t for Portland cement) and lower carbon dioxide emissions (average 730 kg CO2/t compared with more than 800 kg CO2/t for Portland cement) were estimated. However, the potential benefits in an industrial application are potentially much higher with the optimization of the production process. In particular, improvements in the washing and drying of the material prior to the magnetic separation will be critical since most of the energy is consumed in the process of drying.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据