Recent Development On The Uses of Alternative Fuels in Cement Manufacturing Process

JFUE 8774 No.
of Pages 16, Model 5G

20 December 2014
Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

1
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel
2 Review article
6
4 Recent development on the uses of alternative fuels in cement
7
5 manufacturing process
8 Q1 Azad Rahman ⇑, M.G. Rasul, M.M.K. Khan, S. Sharma
9 School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD 4702, Australia
10
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
1 4
2 2
13 Article history: Cement manufacturing is one of the leading energy consuming and heavy pollutant processes which is 25
14 Q2 Received 31 October 2013 accountable for CO2, NOX, SO2 emissions and some heavy metal discharge from the pre-calciner kiln sys- 26
15 Received in revised form 5 December 2014 tem. In past few decades there has been an enormous amount of researches to reduce the energy and 27
16 Accepted 10 December 2014
environmental cost by using alternative fuel and raw material. In recent years utilisation of alternative 28
17 Available online xxxx
fuels in cement manufacturing has gained a wide attention due to its effectiveness in substituting the 29
thermal energy requirement from fossil fuels and reducing the pollutant emission. Alkaline environment, 30
18 Q3 Keywords:
high temperature and long residence time allow rotary kiln to burn a wide range of waste and hazardous 31
19 Cement
20 Alternative fuel
material. Recent development on the usage of alternative fuels in cement industry is presented in this 32
21 Kiln paper and many of the research articles relevant to this study is reviewed and discussed. Studies on 33
22 Emission the impact of alternative fuels on environmental emission have also been included in this review. This 34
23 paper provides a thorough understanding and status of alternative fuels and their usage in cement indus- 35
try and highlights their positive impact on environment. This study offers a guideline for planning and 36
implementing alternative fuel usage in cement industry around the world, particularly in Australia. 37
The paper revealed that meat and bone meal (MBM) could be the best alternative fuel option for Australia 38
with a substitution rate of 40%. 39
Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 40
41
42
43
44 Contents
45 1. Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
46 2. Cement manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
47 2.1. Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
48 2.2. Raw material preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
49 2.3. Preheating and precalcining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
50 2.4. Kiln. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
51 2.5. Clinker cooling and final grinding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
52 2.6. Storage and transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
53 3. Alternative fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
54 3.1. Advantages and disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
55 3.2. Criteria of alternative fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
56 3.3. Usage of alternative fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
57 4. Classification of alternative fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
58 4.1. Used tyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
59 4.2. MSW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
60 4.3. Spent pot liner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
61 4.4. MBM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
62 4.5. Plastic waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.rahman2@cqu.edu.au (A. Rahman), m.rasul@cqu.edu.au (M.G. Rasul), m.khan@cqu.edu.au (M.M.K. Khan), s.sharma2@cqu.edu.au (S. Sharma).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.12.029
0016-2361/Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article in press as: Rahman A et al. Recent development on the uses of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing process. Fuel (2014),
JFUE 8774 No. of Pages 16, Model 5G
20 December 2014
2 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
63 4.6. Sewage sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

64 4.7. Solvent and spent oil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
65 4.8. Agricultural biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
66 4.9. Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
67 5. Discussion and recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
68 5.1. Availability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
69 5.2. Substitution rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
70 5.3. Emission factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
71 5.4. Storage handling and installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
72 5.5. Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
73 5.6. Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
74 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
75 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
76
77
78 1. Introductions waste fuels such as tyres also became well established and 127
accepted as an alternate fuel in the industry [11]. 128
79 The production of cement consumes large quantities of raw mate- A wide range of alternative fuel sources can be used in cement 129
80 rials and energy (thermal and electricity). The manufacturing process industries. Cement rotary kiln is able to burn a wide range of mate- 130
81 is very complex, involving a large number of raw materials (with rials due to the long residence times at high temperatures, intrinsic 131
82 varying material properties), pyroprocessing techniques, and a vari- ability for clinker to absorb and lock contaminants such as heavy 132
83 ety of fuel sources. This process requires approximately 3.2–6.3 GJ metals into the clinker and the alkaline environment of the kiln. 133
84 of energy and 1.7 tons of raw materials (mainly limestone) per ton Materials like waste oils, plastics, waste tyres and sewage sludge 134
85 (t) of clinker produced [1,2]. Being an energy intensive industry, ther- (SS) are often offered as alternative fuels for the cement industry. 135
86 mal energy accounts for about 20–25% of the cement production cost Meat and bone meal (MBM) is another potential alternative fuel 136
87 [3]. The typical electrical energy consumption of a modern cement for cement industry which is produced from the slaughterhouse 137
88 plant is about 110–120 kW h per tonne of cement. In the process ther- residues [12]. Apart from this, agricultural biomass, industrial 138
89 mal energy is used mainly during the burning, while maximum share waste and spent pot linings [13], are recently identified alternative 139
90 of electrical energy is used for cement grinding [3]. fuels for cement industry. 140
91 Generally fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum coke (petcoke) and Beside the economical benefit environmental advantage can be 141
92 natural gas provide the thermal energy required for cement indus- archived by substituting alternative fuels in the cement industry 142
93 try. Due to environmental concerns, many researchers tried differ- through the reduction of waste disposal sites. Main concern of 143
94 ent alternative operating option for coal fired plant. To reduce the using alternative fuel in cement industry is the pollutant emission. 144
95 emission from coal fired plant different CO2 capture technology Cement industry is accountable for the 5–6% releases of all carbon 145
96 can be adopted. Among them oxy-fuel combustion could be a viable dioxide generated by human activities, which causes about 4% of 146
97 option for cement industry. In oxy-fuel combustion technique pri- global warming [14]. Emission of CO, NOX, and SO2 from the 147
98 mary fuel coal is burnt in oxygen rather than air with recycled flue cement industry contributes severe greenhouse and acid rain 148
99 gas [4,5]. Oxy-fuel combustion could potentially reduce the NOX effects [15]. Heavy metal emission from the cement industry is 149
100 emission [4,6,7]. But it could also present some problem regarding another environmental concern and need to be controlled by 150
101 the quality of the clinker since the carbon content of the fly-ash appropriate measures. It is necessary to consider the environmen- 151
102 may increase in this process. An increase of SO2 in the flue gas is also tal impact prior to adaptation and implementation of any 152
103 reported [4]. ECO-Scrub technology is another option which is a alternative fuel. 153
104 combination of partial oxy-fuel combustion and post combustion The objective of this study was to review the available literature 154
105 capture [7]. ECO-Scrub technology has been studied for large scale on different types of alternative fuel used in cement industry and 155
106 boiler and similar results of reduced NOX emission was reported their possible impact on the environment. Generally alternative 156
107 [8]. These CO2 capture technology are only good to reduce the emis- fuels are selected for cement manufacturing on the basis of their 157
108 sion of CO2 and NOX but cannot ensure the quality of clinker and availability in a particular region hence most of the studies were 158
109 reduction of some heavy metal emission. Utilisation of alternative based on the type of waste and fuel available locally. Major alterna- 159
110 fuel offers cement manufacturer a better option to reduce the emis- tive fuels in cement industry have been included in this review 160
111 sion as well as to reduce the usage of fossil fuel. Increasing fossil fuel along with their level of application internationally, efficiency, bar- 161
112 price is another reason for the cement producers to lean towards the rier and the environmental impacts. A brief comparison of these 162
113 alternative fuel to achieve the most economic and environment fuels has been summarized which could be useful for experts in 163
114 friendly fuel mix. In this perspective, the term ‘‘alternative fuels’’ alternative fuels, cement producers and other researcher. On the 164
115 stands for all non-fossil fuels and waste from other industries basis of the comparison, meat and bone meal (MBM) is suggested 165
116 including tyre-derived fuels, biomass residues, sewage sludge and to be best alternative fuel option for Australia while municipal solid 166
117 different commercial and industrial wastes [9]. waste (MSW) could be the second best option due to their 167
118 At the beginning of the 1950s scrap tyres were used in Germany availability. 168
119 for the first time as a secondary energy source in the cement indus-
120 try [10]. The two worldwide economic recessions during 1980–
121 1982 and 1990–1991, directed many cement manufacturer to 2. Cement manufacturing process 169
122 reduce their operational cost. As fuel cost covered a major part of
123 production cost, the use of alternative fuel became attractive for The main process routes for the manufacture of cement vary 170
124 achieving economic benefits. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a with respect to equipment design, method of operation and fuel 171
125 number of hazardous waste fuels were burnt in cement plants at consumption [16]. The four basic processes can be classified as 172
126 US and Europe. Over the years, the burning of non-hazardous follows: 173
20 December 2014
A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3
Limestone Homogenizaon Clinker

quarrying silo Dust store
Classificaon Separaon
Prehomo-
Cement
genizaon
mills
Crushing
Raw mill
Preheang of
Rotary Kiln
raw meal in
cyclones
Cement in bulk
Bagged
cement
Fig. 1. Cement manufacturing process [12].
174 Dry process: Dry raw meal is fed to a cyclone preheater or pre- 2.2. Raw material preparation 218
175 calciner kiln.
176 Semi-dry process: Dry raw meal is pelletised with water and fed After intermediate storage and pre-homogenisation, the raw 219
177 to a traveling grate preheater prior to the rotary kiln. materials are dried and ground together in defined and well-con- 220
178 Semi-wet process: Raw slurry is first dewatered in filter pro- trolled proportions in a raw mill to produce a raw meal for the 221
179 cesses. The resulting filter cake is either extruded into pellets dry process. Raw meal is stored and further homogenized in raw 222
180 and fed to a traveling grate preheater or fed directly to a filter meal silos to achieve and maintain the required uniform chemical 223
181 cake drier for (dry) raw meal production prior to a preheater/ composition before entering the kiln system [17]. 224
182 precalciner kiln.
183 Wet process: The raw slurry is fed directly to a long rotary kiln 2.3. Preheating and precalcining 225
184 equipped with an internal drying/preheating system [17].
185 Preheating is adopted only in dry production process. Here the 226
186 Cement companies have tended to phase out older, less efficient blended raw meal is passed through the pre-heater tower which 227
187 wet and long dry kilns and replaced them with new kilns that use consists of a series of vertical cyclone, through which the raw 228
188 more efficient processes and technologies such as pre-heating, pre- material is passed from the top to bottom. Hot air is driven from 229
189 calcining. New installations have come on stream in emerging the bottom by a precalciner to pre heat the meal about 1000– 230
190 markets, with high efficiency and high clinker–blending factors 1200 °C [20]. To pump more heat into the pre treatment phase, 231
191 [18]. In 2012–13, pre-calciner kilns accounted for over 90% of total additional fuel is burnt in precalciner with air from the clinker 232
192 clinker production in the Australian cement industry. Vertical shaft cooling stage. 233
193 kilns are still used in some parts of the world, predominately in
194 China, to produce cement. A shaft kiln essentially consists of a large 2.4. Kiln 234
195 drum set vertically with a packed mixture of raw material and fuel
196 traveling down through it under gravity [19]. In next stage raw materials enter in the huge rotating furnace 235
197 The basic chemistry of the cement manufacturing process called a kiln. The rotary kiln is an inclined steel tube with a length 236
198 begins with calcination, the decomposition of calcium carbonate to diameter ratio between 10 and 40. The slight inclination (2.5– 237
199 (CaCO3) at about 900 °C to leave calcium oxide (CaO, lime) and lib- 4.5%) together with the slow counter-current rotation (0.5–4.5 rev- 238
200 erate gaseous carbon dioxide (CO2). This is followed by the clinker- olutions per minute) allow for a material transport sufficiently long 239
201 ing process in which the calcium oxide reacts at high temperature to achieve the thermal conversion processes required [17]. Gases 240
202 (typically 1400–1500 °C) with silica, alumina and ferrous oxide to and solids flow in opposite directions through the kiln, providing 241
203 form the silicates, aluminates and ferrites of calcium which com- for more efficient heat transfer. The raw meal is fed at the upper 242
204 prise the clinker. The clinker is subsequently ground together with or cold end of the rotary kiln, and the slope and rotation cause 243
205 gypsum and other additives to produce cement. A schematic dia- the meal to move toward the lower or hot end. The kiln is fired 244
206 gram of cement manufacturing is given in Fig. 1 [12] which con- at the hot end, usually with coal or petroleum coke as the primary 245
207 tains the processes from initial quarrying through to the fuel. As the meal moves through the kiln and is heated, it under- 246
208 shipment of the final product. Cement manufacturing in a pre- goes drying and pyro-processing reactions which causes chemical 247
209 heater–precalciner kiln system basically includes the following and physical changes to form the clinker, consisting of lumps of 248
210 steps. fused, incombustible material. 249
211 2.1. Quarry 2.5. Clinker cooling and final grinding 250
212 Natural raw materials such as limestone/chalk, marl, and clay/ The clinker leaves the hot end of the kiln at a temperature of 251
213 shale are extracted from quarries which, in most cases, are located about 1400 °C. It falls into a clinker cooler, typically a moving grate 252
214 close to the cement plant. After extraction, these raw materials are through which cooling air is blown. The clinker is ground with gyp- 253
215 crushed at the quarry site and transported to the cement plant for sum and other additives, usually in a ball mill, to produce the final 254
216 intermediate storage, homogenisation and further preparation product – cement. The different cement types have to be stored 255
217 [17]. separately in cement silos prior to bagging and dispatch. 256
20 December 2014
257 2.6. Storage and transportation traditional fuels by alternative fuels inherently requires invest- 317
ment costs associated with adjustment or replacement of a burner, 318
258 The cement is conveyed from the finish cement mill to large, implementation of alternative fuel delivery systems, new fuel 319
259 vertical storage silos in the pack house or shipping department. storage facilities, and fuel distribution systems [26]. 320
260 Usually processed cement is transported in bulk through a heavy
261 trucks, rails and barge. Only a small amount of cement is bagged 3.2. Criteria of alternative fuels 321
262 and sent for retail sale using transport methods that are sometimes
263 same as bulk transport [20]. By far there are no selection criteria for the alternative fuels in 322
cement industry. The specific criteria that a material must meet in 323
order to be considered as a fuel are typically set by the cement 324
264 3. Alternative fuels
producers according to their own standards. The following criteria 325
are example of few standards [27,3]: 326
265 Most natural and artificial materials have some energy value
266 which could be utilised by the cement industry to meet the
Physical state of the fuel (solid, liquid, gaseous). 327
267 requirement of the thermal energy. The use of alternative fuels
Content of circulating elements (Na, K, Cl, S). 328
268 for cement clinker production is certainly of high importance for
Toxicity (organic compounds, heavy metals). 329
269 the cement manufacturer as well as for the environment. Alterna-
Composition and content of ash and content of volatiles. 330
270 tive fuel utilisation in cement industry takes places on a commer-
Calorific value – over 14.0 MJ/kg. 331
271 cial basis during the mid of 1980s. Over these years usage has
Chlorine content – less than 0.2% and sulphur content – less 332
272 increased and almost 100% alternative fuel firing at the precalciner
than 2.5%. 333
273 stage was very quickly achieved [21]. Utilisation of alternative
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) content – less than 50 ppm, 334
274 fuels in cement kilns is still progressing. In some kilns up to
heavy-metals content – less than 2500 ppm [out of which: mer- 335
275 100% substitution rates have been reported, while the others are
cury (Hg) less than 10 ppm, and total cadmium (Cd), thallium 336
276 facing some barriers such as environmental, social and quality
(Tl) and mercury (Hg) less than 100 ppm]. 337
277 issues. In any case, alternative fuel utilisation requires the adapta-
Physical properties (scrap size, density, homogeneity). 338
278 tion of the combustion process. Modern multi-channel burners and
Grinding properties. 339
279 thermograph systems allow to control alternative fuel feed rate
Moisture content. 340
280 and the flame shape to optimize the burning behaviour of the fuels
Proportioning technology. 341
281 [21].
The emissions released. 342
282 In order to choose the most suitable alternative fuel several
The cement quality and its compatibility with the environment 343
283 facts other than the energy value must be considered. Generally
must not decrease. 344
284 the cement producers choose the alternative fuel on basis of price
Alternative fuels must be economically viable. 345
285 and availability. But it is also necessary to know the composition of
Availability. 346
286 the fuel including the fixed carbon, moisture and volatiles con-
347
287 tents. All kinds of varieties from liquid to solids, powdered or as
The production of clinker requires an even combustion of fuels 348
288 big lumps need to be considered when dealing with alternative
to maintain consistent heating of the raw materials. Considering 349
289 fuels. It requires a flexible fuel feeding whether they are fed
these requirements, the fuels must be processed and conditioned 350
290 directly into the burning zone in the kiln itself or into the pre-heat-
to have the following characteristics [28]: 351
291 ing system [12]. Thus the fuel material should be cost effective
292 easy to handle, easy to store, longer storage life; else modifying
Even particle size distribution. 352
293 the design of the manufacturing plant may discourage the usage
High and uniform calorific value. 353
294 of such fuel because it may not be cost effective.
Free of detrimental contents like some metals, glass, and 354
minerals. 355
295 3.1. Advantages and disadvantages Low moisture content. 356
357
296 Alternative fuels are cheaper than the fossil fuels which lead the 358
297 cement industries to use them in optimal proportion. The maxi- 3.3. Usage of alternative fuel 359
298 mum benefit can be achieved when the alternative fuel is used
299 with minimal preparation [22]. The significant advantage of alter- The cement manufacturing industry is under increasing pres- 360
300 native fuel substitution is the utilisation and preservation of non- sure from the environmental protection agencies to reduce the 361
301 renewable energy sources, conservation of environment and emissions. The usage of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing 362
302 reduction of waste disposal sites [23]. Alternative fuels can also not only helps to reduce the emission but also has significant 363
303 supplement the raw material requirement in cement production.
304 For instance, the steel belts in tyres may be used to replace a por-
305 tion of the iron required in the raw materials [12].
306 Switching from conventional fuels to alternatives fuels presents Table 1
307 several challenges as they have different characteristics compared Usage of alternative fuels in different countries.
308 to the conventional fuels. Poor heat distribution, unstable precal- Country or region % Country or %
309 ciner operation, blockages in the preheater cyclones, build-ups in Substitution region Substitution
310 the kiln riser ducts, higher SO2, NOx, and CO emissions, and dusty Australia (2013) 7.8 Germany (2010) 53.6
311 kilns are some of the major challenges which need to be addressed Japan (2012) 15.5 EU (2012) 18
312 [24]. One potential constraint on the implementation of alternative Sweden (2011) 45 Poland (2010) 45
313 fuels is the final clinker composition since the combustion Switzerland (2012) (only 41 Spain (2011) 22.4
Holciem)
314 by-products are incorporated into clinker. If even one of these Netherlands (2011) 85 Belgium (2011) 60
315 compounds/elements affects the quality of the cement, the very Canada (2008) 11.3 USA (2004) 8
316 benefits derived may disappear [25]. The replacement of
20 December 2014
Table 2
Percentage of different type of waste used as alternative fuel [38].
Waste type used as alternative fuel (%) Holcim group Cemex group Heidelberg group Italcementi group Lafarge group
(2011) (2011) (2011) (2011) (2011)
Waste oil 5 3.7 8.5 22.1
Solvent and liquid waste 11 4.7 21.9
Tyres 10 16 11.6 14.9 19.7
Impregnated sawdust 6
Plastic 9 26.4 4.7 33.1
Industrial and household waste (solid) 65 13.8
Industrial waste and other fossil based fuel 30
MBM 2 4 6.1 15.7
Agricultural waste 9 10 4.2 11.1
Wood chip and other biomass 15 5 24.5 25.1
Sewage sludge 2 4.2 1.7
RDF 7.8
Other alternative fuel 14.6
Table 3
Alternative fuel options for the cement industry [12].
Liquid waste Industrial chemical wastes, waste solvents, used oils, paint waste, oil sludge, distillation residues, wax suspensions, tar, petrochemical waste, asphalt
fuels slurry
Solid waste Used tyre, paper waste, plastic residues, spent cell liner (SPL), meat and bone meal (MBM), sewage sludge, municipal solid waste (MSW), agricultural
fuels biomass (green waste, wood waste, nut shells, rice husk, etc.), refuse derived fuel (RDF), rubber residues, pulp sludge, battery cases, oil-bearing soils
Gaseous waste Landfill gas, pyrolysis gas
364 ecological benefits of conserving non-renewable resources [23]. Table 4

365 The substitution rate of fossil fuel by alternative fuels varies from Ultimate analysis of tyres and coal by percentage of weight [43].
366 country to country. Most of the European countries are way ahead Fuel type Passenger tyres Truck tyres TDF Bituminous coal
367 in the usage percentage of alternative fuels than the rest of the Heating value (kJ/kg) 36,774 34,743 36,414 31,475
368 world. The substitution rate of different countries collected from
Weight percentage (wt.%)
369 different source is given in Table 1 [29–37]. Carbon 89.48 89.65 89.51 75.8
370 World’s leading cement producers are currently using alterna- Hydrogen 7.61 7.50 7.59 5.1
371 tive fuels in a large extent and pursuing to increase it even more Oxygen <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 8.2
372 by 2020. Conventional fossil fuel substitution rate and the percent- Nitrogen 0.27 0.25 0.27 1.5
Sulphur 1.88 2.09 1.92 1.6
373 age of different alternative fuels usage by different cement produc- Chlorine 0.07 0.06 0.07 Not listed
374 tion group are available in their sustainable development reports. Ash 3.9 5.5 4.2 7.8
375 Table 2 summarizes the percentage of different wastes which are
376 currently being used as alternative fuels in five selected leading
377 cement producer groups [38]. Cemex group are currently using
378 industrial and household waste as the primary source of their Table 5
Waste generation in selected countries in 2005 [55].
379 alternative fuels. Heidelberg, Holcim and Italcementi group are
380 using range of alternative fuels but Lafarge group is utilising only Countries Total amount of MSW generation MSW generation rate (kg/
381 four types of alternative fuels, namely waste tyre, industrial liquid (1000 tonnes) capita/day)
382 waste, industrial and household solid waste and Agricultural Bio- USA 222,863 2.05
383 mass. It is also found from Table 2 that most common alternative France 33,963 1.48
Germany 49,563 1.64
384 fuel used is tyres which are utilised by most of the manufacturing Denmark 3900 2.03
385 Q4 group [38] (see Table 4). Switzerland 4855 1.78
Poland 9354 0.68
Portugal 5009 1.29
386 4. Classification of alternative fuel
Hungary 4632 1.26
Mexico 36,088 0.93
387 A wide range of materials can be considered as viable alterna- Japan 51,607 1.10
388 tive fuels in cement industry. Mokrzycki and Uliasz-Bocheńczyk Korea 18,252 1.04
389 [27] have categorized alternative fuels based on their physical China 212,100 0.98
390 and chemical properties. Table 3 shows a number of alternative
391 fuels that have been successfully burned in cement kilns accord-
392 ing to their physical state [12]. The major alternative fuels 4.1. Used tyre 401
393 according to their uses in cement industry have been discussed
394 along with their application rate, efficiency, barrier and the End life tyre is a waste from automobile industry and generally 402
395 environmental impacts. The chemical composition of the disposed off in landfills or stockpiles. Landfilling or stockpiling 403
396 alternative fuels is an important factor which needs to be consid- tyres have potential environmental, safety and health hazards like 404
397 ered before engaging any of those alternative fuels in cement rodent and insect infestation. In mid 80s tyre became very popular 405
398 manufacturing process. The available data from literature are to the cement manufacturer as alternative fuel to cope with the 406
399 presented as comprehensive form to enable researchers to have increasing fossil fuel costs. High carbon content, high heating value 407
400 a better understanding and to compare. of 35.6 MJ/kg [39] and low moisture content make tyre derived fuel 408
20 December 2014

Air emissions:
1 kg dust
1 ton of scrap Co-incineration in
100 kg CO
tyre s cement kiln 7 kg NOx
140 kg SO2
Fig. 2. Air emission data for burning tyre [48].
Table 6
Typical composition of MSW by material [61].
Material Percentage by weight Percentage by volume

Pulp and paperboard 37.5 37.0
Glass 6.7 2.3
Ferrous metals 6.3 8.8
Aluminium 1.4 3.1
Plastics 8.3 18.3
Rubber and leather 2.4 5.8
Textiles 2.8 5.4
Wood 6.3 5.9
Food wastes 6.7 2.7
Yard wastes 17.9 9.2
Other 3.7 1.5
will be increased if 1 ton of scrap tyres are co-incinerated with the 448
traditional fossil fuel. Fig. 3 represents a schematic diagram of pro- 449
Fig. 3. Tyre as alternative fuel in cement manufacturing [49]. cess involving in cement industry while using tyre as alternative 450
fuel [49]. The diagram indicates the saving of coal and iron miner- 451
409 (TDF) one of the most used alternative fuels in cement industry als as input materials. 452
410 around the world. Tyre derived fuel (TDF) costs are significantly Contrasting results are also available in terms of metal and 453
411 lower than natural gas costs and the overall unit cost of tyre dioxin & furan emissions. In real plant scenario, Conesa et al. [50] 454
412 derived fuel is even less than the coal. Using whole tyres as fuel showed that dioxin and furan emissions increased while using 455
413 one will receive a tipping fee for collecting the whole scrap tyres scrape tyre as alternative fuel. By contrast, Carrasco et al. [45] 456
414 which will help offset the transportation costs [40]. Reinforced found that using scrap tyres in cement kilns reduced the amount 457
415 wires of tyres can be consumed as a replacement of raw material of dioxins and furans emitted. However, Prisciandaro et al. [44] 458
416 containing iron [39] when the whole tyre is used as alternative reported that the emissions of dioxins & furans remained 459
417 fuel. Puertas and Blanco-Varela [41] reported that there exist no unchanged (and well below the limit). CO emissions in most cases 460
418 significant differences in the chemical composition of the clinker are found higher (average 35% higher) [51] when TDF is used. HCl 461
419 manufactured by using TDF as opposed to fossil fuel. Different form emission was also found to be higher than normal [45]. It is found 462
420 of tyre, from whole to fine grained, can be used in cement kiln as the emission of Zinc, which is added to tyres during rubber com- 463
421 alternative fuel. The fine grained tyre (crumb) can be fed along pounding to control the rate of vulcanization, has the potential to 464
422 with powdered coal directly but removal of the steel from tyre to increase [52]. 465
423 produce crumb is costly. Tyre chip can be fed mechanically and
424 the feed rate can be controlled. Down side of tyre chip is the cost 4.2. MSW 466
425 and the steel wires which cause trouble during handling. Whole
426 tyres do not require any processing cost in addition to the acquisi- Municipal solid waste (MSW) constitutes a complex and very 467
427 tion costs. Transportation, storage and management of whole tyres variable fuel due to their heterogeneous composition [53]. Its 468
428 require more logistical care and more manual labour and difficult physical or chemical properties cannot be determined reliably 469
429 to automate [42]. The compositions of tyres vary depending upon [54]. Still the availability of the MSW makes it one of the most 470
430 the source and levels of bracing material within the tyre or tyre desirable alternative fuels in cement manufacturing. Table 6 sum- 471
431 chips. Ultimate analysis on weight percentage of passenger car tyre marizes the MSW generation rate from different countries [55]. 472
432 and Truck tyres in comparison with bituminous coal are given in Refuse derived fuel (RDF) is the homogenous portion of MSW 473
433 Table 5 [43]. It is found that heating values of tyre are higher than and preferred as alternative fuel due to their high calorific value 474
434 bituminous coal. low moisture content. In late 80s Dorn [56] presented a research 475
435 Though the use of scrap tyres in cement kilns reduces fossil fuel work indicating the pros and cons of using municipal waste as 476
436 consumption, it was intensively studied for its environmental alternative fuel in cement industry. At that point it was really dif- 477
437 impact. Contradictory results exist for SO2 and NOx emissions ficult to predict the future trend of energy utilisation in cement 478
438 while using TDF in cement manufacturing. Prisciandaro et al. industry and it was predicted that RDF may not be a feasible option 479
439 [44] reported that SO2 and NOx emissions increase in an Italian as alternative fuel due to uncertain supply of waste. Over the time 480
440 cement plant while replacing TDF up to 20% of fossil fuel. In con- as the world population grows the excess amount of MSW become 481
441 trast Carrasco et al. [45] found a decrease in NOx emissions but an environmental concern and cement industry seize that opportu- 482
442 an increase in SO2 while studying Canadian cement factory that nity to replace coal by the alternative fuel MSW. In 1990 Haley [57] 483
443 used combination of coal and scrap tyres. Schrama et al. [46] and presented a cost benefit analysis of burning RDF in a cement kiln 484
444 Lemarchand [47] reported that the emission of NOx decreased which encouraged the cement producer even more to choose 485
445 when whole tyres are used as alternative fuel. A schematic data RDF as alternative fuel. 486
446 of air emission while burning 1 ton of scrap tyre is shown in Cement kilns is potentially the best option over incineration of 487
447 Fig. 2 [48]. The figure states the amount of pollutant emission that MSW in thermal power plant and co-combustion in a biomass 488
20 December 2014
Table 7
Chemical composition of coal and MSW [58].
Component MSW dry solids % RDF dry solids %

Carbon 34.88 47.1
Hydrogen 4.65 7.1
Nitrogen 1.02 0.7
Sulphur 0.15 0.24
Chlorine 1.02 0.6
Oxygen 23.11 29.4
Moisture 31.2 15
VM 64.83 82.06
Ash 35.17 10.9
Heating value 15.4 MJ/kg 21.2 MJ/kg
489 combustor [58]. During incineration of MSW toxins and heavy

490 metals are produced which can leach into the water supply and
491 soil. With energy recovery in cement manufacturing, these sub-
492 stances are partially transferred to the clinker [59]. Diversion from
493 landfill is another aspect of using MSW in cement industry. A
494 major concern of using MSW in cement kiln is the varying heating
495 value and moisture content due to the heterogeneous composition
496 of MSW. Depending on these MSW can be substituted up to 30% of
497 the fuel mix in cement manufacturing [53,60]. Generally MSW
498 contains various component including plastic, paper rubber, wood
499 and textile. Table 7 [61] shows a typical composition of MSW
500 regarding different material by weight percentage and volume
501 percentage.
502 Refuse derived fuel (RDF) can be produced from MSW through a
503 number of processes consisting [62]:
504 Separation at source.

505 Sorting or mechanical separation.
506 Size reduction (shredding, chipping and milling). Fig. 4. RDF manufacturing flow diagram [53].
507 Separation and screening.
508 Blending.
MSW as alternative fuel has a positive effect on greenhouse gas 540
509 Drying and palletising.
formation over traditional schemes. The formation of conventional 541
510 Packaging.
gaseous pollutants, such as sulphur and chlorine are well retained 542
511 Storage.
by the alkaline environment of cement kiln [64]. The generation of 543
512
nitrogen oxides can be reduced by lowering flame temperatures 544
513 The municipal solid waste is initially screened to remove the
and decreasing excess air. 545
514 recyclable fraction such as metals, the inert fractions such as glass
515 and separate the fine wet decomposable fraction (e.g. food and gar-
516 den waste). Then MSW can be dried and pelletised to form dense 4.3. Spent pot liner 546
517 RDF. A flow diagram of RDF manufacturing is given in Fig. 4 [53].
518 MSW typically has a calorific value of 8–11 MJ/kg, while the calo- Spent pot lining (SPL) is a solid waste produced from aluminium 547
519 rific value of RDF ranges from 15 to 20 MJ/kg [42]. Typical chemical industry during the manufacture of aluminium metal in electrolytic 548
520 composition of MSW and RDF is presented in Table 8 [58]. Gener- cells. In the process of aluminium production, alumina is dissolved 549
521 ally belt conveyer and pneumatic channel is used to feed MSW or in Cryolite in electrolytic cells which consist of steel shells lined 550
522 RDF directly to the burning zone. A schematic diagram of RDF feed- with carbon. A schematic figure of a single electrolysis cell is given 551
523 ing system is illustrated in Fig. 5 [63]. in Fig. 6 [68]. A number of pots, usually more than 100, are arranged 552
524 From environmental point of view, SOx emissions increase
525 when MSW is utilised in cement kiln in contrast with the other dis-
Table 8
526 posal option of MSW [58]. Still the emission of SOx is way below Proximate and ultimate analysis of two types of sludge [93].
527 the environmental regulation limit. On contrary, Genon and Brizio
528 [64] reported that the nitrogen and sulphur contents are lower in Sludge A Sludge B
529 MSW than the fossil fuels, meaning less emission of NOX and Proximate analysis (dry, wt.%)
530 SO2. The use of MSW implies a reduction of the use of fossil fuels Moisture 0.2 0.6
VM 47.3 70.8
531 which leads to a net reduction in CO2 and CO emissions in compar- Ash 20.2 23.0
532 ison to fossil fuel combustion [27,64–66]. Poor incineration and FC 32.3 5.6
533 MSW components containing chlorine may lead to highly toxic Ultimate analysis (wt.%)
534 dioxin and furan emissions [67]. Actually chlorine content in C 52.5 54.8
535 MSW is higher than fossil fuel which might be the reason for H 6.4 7.8
536 higher dioxin and furan emissions [64]. The study by Mokrzyckia N 9.2 8.7
S 0.8 0.1
537 et al. [27] shows that the quality of the MSW can affect the HCl
Oa 31.1 28.6
538 emission. Among the heavy metal, an increase in mercury emis-
a
539 sions has been reported in MSW [64]. Overall the substitution of By difference.
20 December 2014
Fig. 5. RDF feeding system into kiln [63].
553 in series to form a potline. The lining of the cell is composed of which 90% was recycled mainly as valuable raw material and an 577
554 carbon, which is backed by insulation and contained within a steel alternative fuel source in the manufacture of cement, steel, and 578
555 container called a potshell. The carbon portion of the lining serves other products [75]. The heating value of SPL ranges from 8 MJ/ 579
556 as the cathode for the electrolysis process. After a certain period kg to 25.2 MJ/kg [13,68] which is ideal for precalciner as well as 580
557 the cell lining become impregnated with fluoride-containing salts. cement kiln. SPL can be fed into the kiln as fine grounded powder. 581
558 Then the cell is taken off-line and the cathode lining material is SPL contains small amount of cyanide and a few heavy metals, pri- 582
559 removed from the potshell by mechanized digging equipment. This marily lead and chromium. Sodium and fluoride are also found in 583
560 spent cathodic material is referred to as spent pot lining (SPL). The the composition of SPL in small amount. Scant literatures were 584
561 life cycle of a cathode typically varies from about 3–10 years [69]. found regarding the environmental impact of SPL while using it 585
562 Prior to 1988 two cement kilns utilised SPL as a fuel and their as fuel in cement kiln. A test study showed that almost 99.9% of 586
563 stack emissions testing indicated that the cyanides were destroyed the cyanide contained in the SPL is destroyed when it is used as 587
564 and very little of the fluoride was emitted [70]. But some problem a supplemental fuel in a cement kiln [76]. Reduction of NOX and 588
565 was identified with the feed system as SPL is a very hard material CO2 emission was reported while using SPL in cement plant com- 589
566 compared to coal. In 1988 SPL was classified as a hazardous mate- pared to fossil fuel, coal [13]. SPL would also supply raw materials 590
567 rial which ended the usage of SPL as alternative fuel [71]. Several such as silica, alumina and ferrous components during cement pro- 591
568 research work have been carried out to identify a proper detoxify- duction [13]. Due to high fluorine content and high pH value (11.18 592
569 ing method for SPL, but currently only one is in full commercial on average), safe handling and transportation could be an issue 593
570 operation [72]. That opened up the opportunity to use SPL in [69]. SPL is highly water reactive and it can generate ammonia, 594
571 cement kiln and the cement producer seized that. methane, hydrogen and heat on contact with humid air [77]. The 595
572 In 2010, U.S.-generated SPL was recycled up to 79% in cement finer the material is ground for injecting it into a cement kiln, 596
573 kilns [73]. 7449 tonnes of spent pot lining (SPL) were recycled in the greater the potential for hazardous gas release. So, extra pre- 597
574 Australia in the year 2009 and most of them were used in cement cautions are required when handling SPL. 598
575 manufacturing as alternative fuel [74]. Canada generated a
576 combined 17,400 metric tons of SPL in three smelters in 2010, of 4.4. MBM 599
In 1994 European Union banned both the use of meat and bone 600
meal (MBM) as cattle feed and the land filling due to the BSE 601
pathogens (publicly known as mad cow disease). This ban 602
increased the interest in using MBM as fuel in cement industry 603
to ensure that any living organism is thermally destroyed and its 604
energy potential is utilised [24]. Now a day’s most cement produc- 605
ers started using MBM in a large extent (Table 2). In France about 606
45% of the annual productions of MBM were burnt in cement 607
plants [78]. The availability of MBM is higher than most of the 608
other alternative fuel commonly used in cement kiln [79]. The 609
feeding rates of MBM in cement kilns vary from country to country. 610
For example, in Spain the limit is 15% of the energy needed in the 611
kilns, but there is no limit in Switzerland [80]. 612
MBM has calorific value (lower heating value, LHV) of 14.47 MJ/ 613
kg [81] which is almost half of the coal. The high content of calcium 614
in MBM offers the advantage of reducing SO2 emission as it could 615
act to retain most of SO2 formed during MBM combustion [24]. 616
Fig. 6. Schematic sketch of electrolysis cell [68]. Presence of excess amount of calcium can produce free lime while 617
20 December 2014
618 burning in cement kiln which may affect the clinker quality [82]. and confine the ash in the clinker. In 2006, the Swiss cement indus- 680
619 Another potential barrier of using MBM in cement industry as fuel try used 54,964 tons of dried sewage sludge, which is 22% of the 681
620 is the moisture content which is about 70%. Pre-treatment is total used tonnage of alternative fuels. In Germany around 682
621 required to reduce that, increasing the processing cost. 200,000 tons of dewatered municipal sewage sludge and around 683
622 MBM is generally fed in the kiln burner and an additional 40,000 tons of dried municipal sewage was used as alternative fuel 684
623 amount of air may be required if it is used in precalciner riser in 2006 [91]. Werther and Ogada [92] suggested that the maxi- 685
624 [42]. Approximately 5–10% more air is needed for combustion if mum sewage sludge feed rate should not be more than 5% of the 686
625 MBM is fed to the burning zone [39]. Compared with coal, MBM clinker production capacity of the cement plant. The wet sewage 687
626 has lower fixed carbon and higher chlorine. Due to higher chlorine sludge is better for blending into wet process slurries and use in 688
627 content there is a potential of build-up and blockages occurring in wet process kilns. In the dry cement process the sludge must be 689
628 preheater units [24]. This will reduce the efficiency of the plant. As dried to reduce the moisture content below 1% before firing. The 690
629 the nitrogen content in the MBM is about 7–8 times higher than range of different elements on the sewage sludge and its calorific 691
630 that in coal one would expect that NOX emissions would increase. value depends on the characteristics of the source and the treat- 692
631 But it was observed that NOX decreases with increasing MBM con- ment process of the sludge. Proximate and ultimate analyses of 693
632 tent in coal-MBM blend [83]. In contrast Denafas et al. [84] men- two different types of sewage sludge are listed in Table 8 [93]. 694
633 tioned that the emission of nitrogen oxides increases during While the heating value of different type of dried sludge are given 695
634 incineration of MBM using heavy fuel oil. Abad et al. [85] reported in Table 9 [94]. 696
635 that, co-incineration of meat and bone meal has no impact on A study by U.S. Environmental Agency in 2008 [88] showed that 697
636 dioxin and furan emissions. NOX emissions are reduced while using sewage sludge compared 698
with the fossil fuels while Cartmell et al. [95] reported an incre- 699
637 4.5. Plastic waste ment of SO2 emissions. The level of mercury (Hg) is high in sewage 700
sludge which comes from the cleaning process at the sewage plant 701
638 Plastic waste is considered as one of the most readily available and from the source [42]. To use sewage sludge in cement industry, 702
639 potential candidates for alternative fuel in cement industry due to the suggested maximum mercury content is 0.5 mg/kg [96]. Con- 703
640 their worldwide production and high calorific value 29–40 MJ/kg esa et al. [50] affirmed that there was no correlation between sew- 704
641 [51]. Plastic wastes are available as municipal waste as well as age sludge using rate and heavy metal emissions. But Cartmell 705
642 industrial waste. The only concern of using it is the chlorine con- et al. [95] reported earlier that sewage sludge causes an increase 706
643 tent which is mainly found in PVC. According to Al-Salem et al. in heavy metal emissions compared to fossil fuels. More studies 707
644 [86,87] the accepted particle size for the incineration process is are needed to establish the reliability of these findings. 708
645 10 10 10 cm and a shredder is needed when larger parts are
646 offered in the kiln. Isolation of materials from plastic waste and 4.7. Solvent and spent oil 709
647 retrofitting require additional capital and labour costs. The mate-
648 rial preparation can be done in on-site or off-site. Plastic can be Waste oil is a hazardous waste that originates from automotive, 710
649 conveyed either to the kiln or to the precalciner through a belt- railway, marine, farm and industrial sources. In European Union 711
650 conveyer. countries approximately 1.07 million tons of waste oil is used by 712
651 Mathematical modelling showed that usage of polyethylene cement kilns as alternative fuel [19]. Solvent and spent oil from dif- 713
652 and polystyrene plastics as alternative fuel reduced the emission ferent industries generally have high calorific value and those can 714
653 of the CO2, which is approximately 1.0 ton of CO2 per ton of coal be used in cement kiln as alternative fuel with minimal processing 715
654 replacement [42,19]. If the chlorine content of plastic waste cost [97]. The range of calorific values of solvent and spent oil is 716
655 exceeds 0.7% then it may impact on the quality of the clinker between 29 MJ/kg and 36 MJ/kg and the variation occur due to 717
656 [88]. Emission of HCl, dioxins and furans can be increased by the the ratio of different chemical in it [97]. Generally pre-treatment 718
657 presence of chlorine under specific conditions [89]. NOX emission, is not required for spent solvent and used oil. Both types of fuel 719
658 while burning plastic waste, may depend on the nitrogen content can be fed through the main burner or the calciner using a fuel 720
659 of the plastic and some other facts such as the flame temperature oil firing system. Un-blended waste oil can also be used to start- 721
660 and air quantity [87]. Emission of volatile metals like mercury and up the process of the main burner. Cement plants established in 722
661 thallium have the potential to increase and however by using ESPs the vicinity of industrial area can make the solvent and spent oil 723
662 in the dust stream that could be removed [42]. Strazza et al. [90] a readily available fuel with minimum transportation cost. 724
663 investigated the co-incineration of plastic waste in an Italian Australian industries purchase in excess of 500 million liters of 725
664 cement plant by using life cycle assessment tool. They have consid- oil annually [98]. Some of this oil can be recycled into new prod- 726
665 ered five parameter to assess environmental impact which are glo- ucts through filtration and treatment; however there is a portion 727
666 bal warming potential (GWP) in 100 years (for CO2), ozone- which cannot be reused. Used oil becomes unusable if it is exposed 728
667 depleting potential (ODP) in 20 years (for CFC), acidifying potential to other substances such as water, dirt or chemicals used in con- 729
668 (for SO2), ozone-creating potential (POCP) and oxygen consump- junction with the oil to improve performance. The unusable por- 730
669 tion potential (EP). Strazza et al. [90] affirmed the positive effect tion often contains trace amounts of lead, cadmium, arsenic, 731
670 of the using plastic waste by reporting relative reduction in every
671 impact category. Shortage of research article on the complete envi-
672 ronmental impact assessment of using plastic waste as alternative Table 9
Typical heating values for several types of sewage sludge [94].
673 fuel indicates that this field has not been well studied.
Type of sludge Heating value of dried sludge
674 4.6. Sewage sludge (MJ/kg of DS)
Range Typical
675 A large amount of sewage sludge is produced worldwide during Raw sludge 23–29 25.5
676 wastewater treatment. Landfill, agricultural use as organic fertil- Activated sludge 16–23 21
677 iser and soil conditioner are the main conventional methods of Anaerobically digested primary sludge 9–13 11
Raw chemically precipitated primary sludge 14–18 16
678 disposal, which are not environmental friendly [24]. Alternative
Biological filter sludge 16–23 19.5
679 disposal option for sewage sludge is to incinerate it in cement kiln
20 December 2014
Table 10 et al. [101] found a reduction in heavy metal emissions when 756
Elementary composition and heating value of waste solvent and heavy fuel oil waste solvents were mixed with fossil fuel. 757
[100,101].
Composition Waste solvent [100] Heavy fuel oil [101] 4.8. Agricultural biomass 758
H2O 16.5 (wt.%) –
C 47.7 (wt.%) 84 (wt.%) The use of agricultural biomass as an alternative fuel in cement 759
H 8.2 (wt.%) – manufacturing is not a common practice seen around the world. 760
O and rest 23.1 (wt.%) 14.73 (wt.%) Mainly the rural developing countries like India, Thailand, Malay- 761
N 1.0 (wt.%) 0.44 (wt.%)
sia are known to use biomass for thermal energy generation [24]. 762
S 0.7 (wt.%) 0.83 (wt.%)
P 0.06 (wt.%) Traces Rice husk, corn stover, hazelnut shells, coconut husks, coffee pods, 763
Cl 2.4 (wt.%) 20 (g/t) and palm nut shells are among the many varieties of biomass 764
Br 2500 (ppm) – currently being burnt in cement kilns [19]. The heating value of 765
I 130 (ppm) –
the biomass is variable and lies between 14 and 21 MJ/kg [103]. 766
Fe 85 (ppm) –
Co 4.1 (ppm) –
Similarly the moisture content ranges from 6% to 12% [104]. As 767
Ni 4.6 (ppm) 15 (g/t) agricultural biomass have lower heating values than heavy fuel 768
Cu 6.2 (ppm) 3 (g/t) oil, adjustment to the excess air and burner design may be 769
Zn 57 (ppm) 0.9 (g/t) required. Sometime to make high dense fuel from low-density bio- 770
As – 0.8 (g/t)
mass, high pressure and temperature need to be applied. Fig. 7, 771
Cd – 2 (g/t)
Cr – 1 (g/t) presents the activities to produce high dense fuel from agricultural 772
Hg – 0.006 (g/t) and process residues [105]. A 20% substitution rate of agricultural 773
Pb – 3.5 (g/t) biomass residues for fossil fuel is suggested for cement kilns which 774
Net calorific value (MJ/kg) 21.7 40.4 would not require a major capital investment [106]. Numerous lit- 775
eratures regarding the chemical composition and combustion 776
characteristics indicates extensive study on different agricultural 777
biomasses. Table 11 [104,106–111] represents the proximate and 778
732 dioxins, benzenes and polycyclic aromatics [98] all of which are
ultimate analysis of different agricultural biomasses which are cur- 779
733 highly toxic materials to humans, animals and plants. Burning of
rently used in cement industry as alternative fuels. 780
734 the non recyclable used oil is an effective means of disposal as
Biomass is a CO2 neutral fuel as it consumes CO2 from the atmo- 781
735 the temperatures of the kiln is high enough to burn all organic
sphere during its growth which is almost same with the amount of 782
736 materials and any remaining non organic compounds are chemi-
CO2 released during its combustion [110]. Co-firing biomass fuels 783
737 cally trapped in the clinker [99]. Compositions of waste solvent
with coal has the capability of reducing both NOX and SOX levels 784
738 and heavy oil are available in the literature and a typical composi-
[19,110]. Experiments shows, using biomass implies low SO2 emis- 785
739 tion is shown in Table 10 [100,101]. Heavy fuel oils are more con-
sions, low dioxin and furan emissions, and very low heavy metal 786
740 taminated with heavy metals, sulphur, phosphorus and total
emissions [112]. Availability of biomass is one of the major con- 787
741 halogens depending on the source of origin. Storing used oil for a
cerns of using it as fuel since most of the agricultural residues 788
742 long period may present some problem due to the potential envi-
are not available all year round. High fluctuation of calorific value 789
743 ronmental hazards. Storage of oil particularly light and volatile oils
is another obstacle in substantial usage of agricultural biomass as 790
744 increases the risk of fires or explosions although these can be con-
fuel [24]. Co-firing biomass with coal prevents the formation of 791
745 trolled through a suitable storage option. Another problem which
alkaline and chlorine compounds on the furnaces [106]. Hence 792
746 arises from storage is emission of volatile organic compound
chlorine content in some biomass (such as wheat straw and rice 793
747 (VOC) [97].
husks) is not a major problem. 794
748 Solvent and waste oil contain less minerals compared to petco-
749 kes and coal hence an additional raw meal is needed to maintain 4.9. Others 795
750 the quality of the cement [97]. One study shows a reduction of
751 nitrogen oxides while using spent solvents compared to fossil fuels Apart from the above-mentioned wastes there are varieties of 796
752 [101]. Reduction of CO2 emission was also reported while using other alternative fuels which can be found in the literature. 797
753 solvents and paint sludge as alternative fuel [97]. The literature Amongst them, carpet waste [113,114], automobile shredder 798
754 is inconclusive with respect to the changes in SO2 emission. Mlakar residue [115,116], waste wood [117], poultry litter [118], liquefied 799
755 et al. [102] reported a reduction in mercury emissions while Seyler natural gas [119], fluff, textile waste, paper residue, packing boxes, 800
Fig. 7. Schematic flow diagram for processing agro-industrial residue [105].
20 December 2014
Table 11
Proximate and ultimate analysis of the agricultural biomass.
Rice husk Switch Coffee Corn stover Coconut Wheat Olive husk Soya husk Sugarcane Almond
[106] grass [107] husk [108] [104,106] shell [109] straw [104] [104] [109] baggasse [110] hell [111]
Proximate analysis (wt.%)
Moisture 9.96 15 10 35 4.4 8.5 9.2 6.3 – 9.7
Ash 20.6 7.63 2.4 3.25 3.1 13.5 3.6 5.1 11.27 3.36
Volatile matter 54.7 65.19 78.5 54.6 70.5 63 70.3 70 – 66.9
Fixed carbon 15 12.19 19.1 7.15 22 23.5 26.1 19 14.95 20
Ultimate analysis on dry basis (wt.%)
C 34.9 39.68 47.5 42.5 51.2 45.5 50 45.4 44.8 51.6
H 5.46 4.95 6.4 5.04 5.6 5.1 6.2 6.7 5.35 8.5
N 0.11 0.65 – 0.75 0 1.8 1.6 0.9 0.38 1.08
S – 0.16 – 0.18 0.1 – – 0.1 0.01 –
O 38.9 31.77 43.7 42.6 43.1 34.1 42.2 46.9 39.55 38.82
Calorific value MJ/kg 13.5 10.39 18.39 10.7 14 17 19 – 17.3 29.86
Table 12
Proximate, ultimate and ash analysis of different alternative fuels.
Description Coal Used tyre MBM Sewage sludge SPL MSW Plastic waste Waste oil Biomass (rice husk)
[12] [43] [83] [93] [123] [58,124] [125] (ECOFLUIDa) [44] [106,126]
Proximate analysis
Moisture (ar) 3.0 0.62 6.8 0.2 0.6 31.2 0.01 9.1 9.96
Ash 11.1 4.78 34.4 20.2 71.0 35.17 0.45 2.37 20.61
Volatile matter 35.9 66.64 32.7 47.3 4.1 64.83 98.80 54.68
Fixed carbon 53.0 27.96 26.1 32.3 24.3 – 0.74 15.02
Ultimate analysis
Moisture 3.0 0.62 6.8 0.2 0.6 31.2 0.01 9.1 9.96
Ash 11.1 4.78 34.4 20.2 71.0 35.17 0.45 2.37 20.61
Carbon 70.6 83.87 35.3 52.5 26.2 34.88 84.65 68.3 34.94
Hydrogen 4.3 7.09 4.9 6.4 0.3 4.65 13.71 10.5 5.46
Nitrogen 1.2 0.24 8.4 9.2 0.6 1.02 0.65 4.4 0.11
Sulphur 1.3 1.23 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.15 0.01 0.04 –
Oxygen (by 11.8 2.17 31.1 1.2 23.11 0.95 4.69 38.86
difference)
Chlorine 0.07 0.149 0.26 1.02 0.03 0.6 –
Elemental mineral analysis (oxide form)
Calcium (CaO in 0.18 0.378 10.6 15.5 2.6 36.6 0.55
ash)
Iron (Fe2O3 in ash) 0.31 0.321 0.03 8.7 2.8 4.7 0.16
P (P2O5 in ash) 0.016 6.4 24.3 <0.1 1.5 0.50
Na (Na2O in ash) 0.05 0.55 0.4 26.6 1.8 1.12
Al (Al2O3 in ash) 1.07 0.02 12.7 39.9 15.6 0.15
K (K2O in ash) 0.12 0.26 9.7 0.8 1.3 3.68
Si (SiO2 in ash) 2.0 0.15 26.3 13.6 15.1 87.2
Mg (MgO in ash) 0.08 0.25 1.9 0.4 2.0 0.35
Lead (PbO in ash) 0.0065
Zinc (ZnO in Ash) 1.52
Mn (MnO) <0.1
V (V2O5) <0.1
As (mg/kg) 8.0
Chromium 0.0097 <0.1
(Cr2O3)
Fluorine 0.0010
Cadmium (mg/kg) 0.0006
Heating value
LHV (MJ/kg) 27.4 13.06 9.29 15.4 29–40 [62] 25.9 13.5
HHV (MJ/kg) 28.4 37.8 14.19 25.5 [94] 9.36
a
ECOFLUID: mixture of different organic waste oils.
801 livestock manure, oil soaked rags, are few to name. Unfortunately has reviewed and discussed different alternative fuels which are 809
802 not much information regarding their usages and impacts are currently being used in cement industry. Researchers have studied 810
803 available and there is a need for more research to justify their the impact of using alternative fuels on the cement quality as well 811
804 candidature. as on the environment from emission standpoint. This paper sum- 812
marizes most of the research efforts made towards the uses of 813
alternative fuels in recent years. Chemical composition of the 814
805 5. Discussion and recommendation
alternative fuel is one of the factors which influence the cement 815
806 The use of wastes in cement kiln is a useful alternative to land- manufacturer to choose a particular alternative fuel for their plant. 816
807 fill. For few alternative fuels like waste oil and plastic, burning in Table 12 summarizes the information regarding the proximate, 817
808 kiln is less desirable option over recycling or reusing. This paper ultimate and ash analysis of different alternative fuels along with 818
20 December 2014
819 the reference case coal. Those analyses are an early indicator for substitution by any alternative fuel. In real scenario the substitu- 857
820 the performance of the alternative fuels regarding emission. For tion rate is lower than that for SPL and sewage sludge due to their 858
821 instance an alternative fuel containing more sulphur is likely to chlorine content. Scant literatures are available to study a blend of 859
822 emit more SOX during the combustion. As the combustion residue different alternative fuel in the kiln system and none identify the 860
823 of alternative fuels stays with the clinker, ash analyses of alterna- optimal blending ratio. It is difficult to determine a correct propor- 861
824 tive fuels are important to identify any adverse effect on the tion due to variable composition of alternative fuels depending on 862
825 clinker. Table 12 also summarizes the energy content of different the source. Extensive research is needed to draw conclusion about 863
826 alternative fuel which will be helpful to calculate the replacement the perfect blend of alternative fuels. 864
827 ratio over coal in terms of heating value.
5.3. Emission factor 865
828 5.1. Availability

The great concern of using alternative fuel is the environmental 866
829 Generally the availability of the alternative fuels is high and impact and a large amount of research work is directed toward 867
830 cement manufacturer prefers locally available alternative fuel to this. It is found that four major categories of emission were tar- 868
831 reduce the cost of accruing. The availability of some alternative geted by the researchers which are NOX, CO2, SO2 and heavy metal 869
832 fuels is low not because for their low production but for other suit- emission. The information regarding emission collected in this 870
833 able disposal option available for them such as recycle and reuse. review has been summarized in Table 13 with some other selection 871
834 In terms of availability used tyre and MSW are the best option criteria of alternative fuels. The emission data presented in Table 13 872
835 for cement industry as their number of production increases day are with respect to the reference case of only coal burning facility. 873
836 by day. SPL and plastic waste also have very high production rate It is found from the review that with very few exceptions all alter- 874
837 but not that much utilised in cement industry as alternative fuel. native fuels are capable to reduce the emission compare to coal. 875
838 Among the studied alternative fuel only the agricultural biomasses CO2 emission from cement industry is one of the major environ- 876
839 do not have a continuous supply due to the fact that a particular mental concerns and Table 13 indicates that all prime alternative 877
840 crop is not cultivated all around the year. MBM is one of the emerg- fuels can reduce it up to some extent. It is found from literature 878
841 ing alternative fuels in cement industry and their availability that used oil and spent solvent could reduce 2.02 ton of CO2 by 879
842 increases due to the restriction of their usage in other sector such replacing 1 ton of coal in the burning zone [97]. Literature sug- 880
843 as cattle feed. gested that CO2 release may decrease about 1.16 kg per kg of 881
RDF used [64]. A decrease of 15%, 12% and 10% of CO2 are also 882
844 5.2. Substitution rate reported in the literature for plastic waste, MBM and used tyre 883
respectively [65,83,127]. NOX emission is found to have the similar 884
845 Numerous researches suggest that none of the alternative fuel results like CO2 for all alternative fuel. There is a potential chance 885
846 solely could fulfil the entire thermal requirement of cement man- of increasing SO2 emission for the case of used tyre, MSW and sew- 886
847 ufacturing. But a blend of different alternative fuel can achieve the age sludge. There are some research gaps regarding the pollutant 887
848 goal. In fact most of the cement manufacturer are using different emission from cement manufacturing system while using alterna- 888
849 ratio of alternative fuels to minimize their production cost tive fuel. Environmental impact for a blend of alternative fuels are 889
850 (Table 2). Cemex UK’s South Ferriby cement plant in Lincolnshire also absent in literature and need to be done to maximize the 890
851 has replaced 100% of the fuel by alternative fuel which is a blend usage of alternative fuel simultaneously. 891
852 of industrial liquid waste (paint, solvent, etc.) and Climafuel, which
853 is made from household residue and commercial waste [120]. It is 5.4. Storage handling and installation 892
854 revealed form the review that MBM can replace 40% of fossil fuel in
855 the kiln [82] while waste tyre and MSW can do the same up to 30% Form review it is found that apart from MSW and sewage 893
856 [121,53]. By the rule of thumb, researchers suggested for a 20% sludge the installation and operating cost of the alternative fuels 894
Table 13
Q7 Comparison of different alternative fuels.
Alternative fuels
Criteria Used tyre Spent pot MSW MBM Dried sewage sludge Biomass (rice husk, Plastic Used oils and spent
linear wheat residue) waste solvent
Calorific value (MJ/kg) 35.6 [32] 9.29 [123] 15.4 [58] 14.47 [81] 15.28 [132] 14–21 [103] 29–40 [62] 43–45 [135]
Moisture content % 0.62 [43] 0.6 [123] 31.2 [58] 6 [81] Variable 6–12 [104] Variable <3 [135]
Availability High [88] High [76] High [58] Moderate High [91] Moderate [24] High [133] Moderate [19]
[130]
NOx emission Unchanged Reduced Reduced [64] Reduced Reduced [88] Reduced [19,110] Unchanged Reduced [101]
[46,47] [13] [83] [87]
CO2 emission Reduced Reduced Reduced [64,65] Reduced Reduced [63] 0.88 Reduced [110] Reduced Reduced [97] 2.02
10% [127] [13] 1.61 kg/kg RDF 12% [83] ton/ton coal replaced 15% [65] ton/ton coal replaced
SO2 emission Increase ND Increased [58] Reduced Increased [95] Reduced [19,110] Reduced ND
[44,45] [83] [90]
Heavy metal emission Reduced ND Increased [64] ND Unchanged [50] Reduced [112] Increased Reduced [101]
[50] [42]
Maximum substitution 30% [121] 8% [68] 30% [53] 40% [82] 5% [63] 20% [106] ND ND
rate (of total fuel)
Storage requirement Moderate High [77] Moderate [63] Moderate High [63] Low [106] Moderate Moderate [97]
[128] [131] [134]
Effects on clinker quality Unchanged Unchanged Low [67] Low [82] Low [92] ND Moderate Low [97]
[41] [70,76] [88]
Installation cost Low [40] Low [77] High [63,129] Moderate High [63] Low [106] Moderate Low [97]
[131] [134]
⁄
ND: not detected.
20 December 2014
895 are relatively low. Heterogeneous nature of MSW and high mois- for alternatives is obtained. The entries of final weight coefficients 957
896 ture content of sewage sludge incur more cost for shorting and vector reflect the relative importance (value) of each alternative 958
897 drying respectively. Storage requirement are high for SPL, MSW with respect to the goal stated at the top of hierarchy which can 959
898 and sewage sludge compare to the other alternative fuels. Extra be used for particular needs and interests [122]. 960
899 caution need to be taken for those as there might be explosion haz- The guide line to give preference a particular alternative fuel 961
900 ard (SPL) and odour problem. Used oil and spent solvent also have over the others may vary depending on the region, time frame 962
901 the potential of fire and explosion, hence additional measure need and local environmental regulations. In Australia the selection of 963
902 to be taken for safe storage. alternative fuels may vary from state to state due to the versatility 964
of nature and local government rules. Unfortunately Australia does 965
903 5.5. Comparison not have national air emission standards. Environment protection 966
authorities in different state set such standards. From the emission 967
904 From the review, it is revealed that used tyre and biomass could point of view most of the alternative fuels discussed in this paper 968
905 be the most attractive alternative fuel to the cement producer due are suitable to use in Australia. Currently the share of alternative 969
906 to their low operational cost and high substitution rate. Solvent fuel for energy production in Australian cement industry is only 970
907 and used oil have the highest calorific value among the alternative 7.8%. Used tyre is dominantly used in Australia as alternative fuel 971
908 fuels and they can be introduced in the burning zone without pro- along with SPL, used oils, dewatered sludge, solvent based fuel, 972
909 cessing. On the other hand MSW, MBM and sewage sludge need to and some other agricultural biomass like wood cheap and rice hull. 973
910 be processed to meet the requirement of the cement kiln. TDF has Based on this review MBM could be a potential candidate of alter- 974
911 been widely used in cement industry for a long period of time. Lit- native fuel in Australia. Australian meat industry is well establish 975
912 erature reports, TDF usage more than 30% of the kiln fuel may alter and the slaughterhouse residue are converted to MBM and cur- 976
913 the chemistry of the cements and affect hardening process rently is being used as cattle and poultry feed. MBM could replace 977
914 adversely. From the emission standpoint, agricultural biomass 40% of fossil fuel and the calcium content of MBM may reduce the 978
915 could be the best option but due to the unavailability of a particu- amount of raw feed. Along with that the emission factor associated 979
916 lar agricultural biomass all around the year restrict their usage. The with MBM combustion are comparatively low. MBM can be fed in 980
917 usage of SPL is restricted due to high florin content. SPL is relatively the kiln with the existing alternative fuel insertion facility which 981
918 new in cement industry as alternative fuel and its impact on envi- implies low installation cost. Apart from MBM, municipal solid 982
919 ronment has not been studied extensively yet. Availability of MSW waste could be another potential alternative fuel in Australia as 983
920 and MBM are high and their environmental impacts are compara- they are currently being landfill. But the processing cost for MSW 984
921 tively low. Still the processing costs are very high in the case of could be little bit higher than MBM. 985
922 MBM and MSW. High moisture content is also an issue for using
923 MBM and MSW in large scale. Among the discussed alternative fuel
924 sewage sludge has the lowest calorific value but the ash derived 6. Conclusion 986
925 from the sludge substitute raw material which is an additional
926 advantage. In this review several alternative fuels that are being currently 987
927 In spite of numerous researches to identify the potential bene- used in cement manufacturing, have been discussed. These fuels 988
928 fits and barrier of using different alternative fuel, none of those have been critically analysed on the ground of their calorific values, 989
929 studies indicate which fuel is better than the others. This is only advantages, disadvantages, greenhouse gas emissions and environ- 990
930 because there are lots of criteria which need to be considered from mental impact. As the most used alternative fuel, used tyre has 991
931 different perspective. Table 13 shows different criteria of the alter- been studied by numerous researchers. On the other hand, scant 992
932 native fuels that have been discussed in this review. On the ground literature was found regarding the usage and impact of SPL in 993
933 of environmental, economical and social impact many other crite- cement manufacturing as alternative fuel. Solvent based fuel and 994
934 ria can be added to this table. Table 13 indicates there are few plastic waste has higher energy content than classical fossil fuel 995
935 regions which are not yet revealed by the researchers. but research on maximum substitution rate by these alternative 996
fuels are not adequate. MBM is suggested as the most suitable 997
936 5.6. Recommendation alternative fuel option for Australia beside the current practice. 998
Municipal solid waste (MSW) was also found as the most easily 999
937 It is really difficult to claim a particular alternative fuel to be the achievable alternative fuel option in Australia. Further analyses 1000
938 best amongst the discussed candidates. The reason being these are are recommended using multi-criteria decision making approach. 1001
939 neither tailor made nor factory produced where constituents types
940 and their quantities could be controlled. In regards to calorific val-
941 ues plastic waste is the best option but presence of dioxins and fur- References 1002
942 ans emissions pose some restrictions on their usage. Solvent and
943 spent oil also has high calorific value and it reduces the green [1] van Oss HG, Padovani AC. Cement manufacture and the environment, Part I: Q5 1003
944 house gas emission. Still recycling and reusing of solvent and spent chemistry and technology. J Ind Ecol 2002;6(1):89–105. 1004
[2] van Oss HG, Padovani AC. Cement manufacture and the environment, Part II: 1005
945 oil is preferred over the incineration in cement kiln. environmental challenges and opportunities. J Ind Ecol 2003;7(1):93–126. 1006
946 Authors suggest that multi-criteria analysis for decision making [3] Madlool NA, Saidur R, Hossain MS, Rahim NA. A critical review on energy use 1007
947 using AHP Fuzzy logic can be applied in accordance with the and savings in the cement industries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 1008
2011;15(4):2042–60. 1009
948 criteria given in Table 13 in order to identify the best alternative [4] Wall T, Liu Y, Spero C, Elliott L, Khare S, Rathnam R, et al. An overview on 1010
949 fuel. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) converts a complex prob- oxyfuel coal combustion—state of the art research and technology 1011
950 lem into a hierarchy with goal (objective) at the top of the hierar- development. Chem Eng Res Des 2009;87:1003–16. 1012
[5] Buhre BJP, Elliott LK, Sheng CD, Gupta RP, Wall TF. Oxy-fuel combustion 1013
951 chy and decision alternatives at the bottom of the hierarchy. This 1014
technology for coal-fired power generation. Prog Energy Combust Sci
952 method uses the outranking principle to rank the alternatives. It 2005;3:283–307. 1015
953 performs a pair-wise comparison of alternatives in order to rank [6] Al-Abbas AH, Naser J, Dodds D. CFD modelling of air-fired and oxy-fuel 1016
combustion in a large-scale furnace at Loy Yang A brown coal power station. 1017
954 them by using the scale of 1–9 to assess the intensity of preference
Fuel 2012;102:646–65. 1018
955 between two elements. The method computes and aggregates their [7] Numerical modelling of oxy fuel combustion, the effect of radiative and Q6 1019
956 eigenvectors until the composite final vector of weight coefficients convective heat transfer and burnout. Fuel, 2015; 139(0): 268–284. 1020
20 December 2014
1021 [8] Nikolopoulos N, Nikolopoulos A, Karampinis E, Grammelis P, Kakaras E. [40] Smith CB, Martin L. Lesser known energy sources: a study of biogas and 1106
1022 Numerical investigation of the oxy-fuel combustion in large scale boilers tire based fuel. Cogeneration Distributed Generation J 2008;23(2): 1107
1023 adopting the ECO-Scrub technology. Fuel 2011;90(1):198–214. 35–72. 1108
1024 [9] Nielsen AR, Aniol RW, Larsen MB, Glarborg P, Dam-Johansen K. Mixing large [41] Puertas F, Blanco-Varela MT. Use of alternative fuels in cement manufacture. 1109
1025 and small particles in a pilot scale rotary kiln. Powder Technol 2011;210(3): Effect on clinker and cement characteristics and properties. Materiales de 1110
1026 273–80. Construccion 2004;54(274):51–64. 1111
1027 [10] Lechtenberg D. Alternative fuels – history and outlook. Global Fuels Mag [42] Ariyaratne WKH. Alternative fuels in cement kilns – characterization and 1112
1028 2008:28–30. experiments, MSc. Thesis, Telemark University College, Norway; 2009. 1113
1029 [11] Gossman D. Alternative fuel and economic downturns. World Cem 2009; [43] Karell MA, Blumenthal MH. Air regulatory impacts of the use of tire-derived 1114
1030 75–78 <http://gcisolutions.com/WCT_mar09_75-80.pdf>. fuel. Environ Prog 2001;20(2):80–6. 1115
1031 [12] Kaantee U, Zevenhoven R, Backman R, Hupa M. Cement manufacturing using [44] Prisciandaro M, Mazziotti G, Veglio F. Effect of burning supplementary waste 1116
1032 alternative fuels and the advantages of process modelling. Fuel Process fuels on the pollutant emissions by cement plants: a statistical analysis of 1117
1033 Technol 2004;85(4):293–301. process data. Resour Conserv Recycl 2003;39(2):161–84. 1118
1034 [13] Lechtenberg D. Spent cell linings from the aluminium smelting process as an [45] Carrasco F, Bredin N, Heitz M. Gaseous contaminant emissions as affected by 1119
1035 alternative fuel and raw material for cement production. Global Cem Mag burning scrap tires in cement manufacturing. J Environ Qual 2002;31(5): 1120
1036 2009:36–7. 1484–90. 1121
1037 [14] Rodrigues FA, Joekes I. Cement industry: sustainability, challenges and [46] Schrama H, Blumenthal M, Weatherhead EC. A survey of tire burning 1122
1038 perspectives. Environ Chem Lett 2011;9:151–66. technology for the cement industry. In: IEEE cement industry technical 1123
1039 [15] Zhang Y, Cao S, Shao S, Chen Y, Liu S, Zhang S. Aspen plus-based simulation of conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 4–9, 1995. 1124
1040 a cement calciner and optimization analysis of air pollutants emission. Clean [47] Lemarchand D. Burning issues. Int Cem Rev 2000:65–7. 1125
1041 Techn Environ Policy 2011;13(3):459–68. tė I, Karaliu
[48] Silvestravičiu naitė I. Comparison of end-of-life tyre treatment 1126
1042 [16] European Commission. Reference document on the best available techniques technologies: life cycle inventory analysis. Environ Res, Eng Manage 2006;35(1): 1127
1043 in the cement and lime manufacturing industries. BAT Reference Document 52–60. 1128
1044 (BREF). European IPPC Bureau, Seville, Spain; 2001. [49] Corti A, Lombardi L. End life tyres: alternative final disposal processes 1129
1045 [17] CEMBUREAU, Best available techniques for the cement industry, CEMBUREAU compared by LCA. Energy 2004;29:2089–108. 1130
1046 – the European Cement Association; 1999. p. 15–43 [chapter 3]. [50] Conesa JA, Gálvez A, Mateos F, Martín-Gullón I, Font R. Organic and inorganic 1131
1047 [18] Klee H, Hunziker R, Meer RV, Westaway R. Getting the numbers right: a pollutants from cement kiln stack feeding alternative fuels. J Hazard Mater 1132
1048 database of energy performance and carbon dioxide emissions for the cement 2008;158(2–3):585–92. 1133
1049 industry. Greenhouse Gas Meas Manage 2011;1(2):109–18. [51] Pegg MJ, Amyotte PR, Fels M, Cumming CRR, Poushay JC. An assessment of the 1134
1050 [19] Murray A, Price L. Use of alternative fuels in cement manufacture: analysis of use of tires as an alternative fuel, minister of environment and labour, Nova 1135
1051 fuel characteristics and feasibility for use in the chinese cement sector. Ernest Scotia environment and labour, environmental monitoring and compliance 1136
1052 Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-525E, June; 2008. report, April 2007. 1137
1053 [20] Lakshmikanth R. Impacts of cement manufacturing; 2011 <http://www. [52] Clark C, Meardon K, Russell D. Burning tires for fuel and tire pyrolysis: air 1138
1054 eco.neterect.co.in>. implications EPA-450/3-91-024; 1991 <http://www.p2pays.org/ref/18/ 1139
1055 [21] Schneider M, Romer M, Tschudin M, Bolio H. Sustainable cement 17171.pdf>. 1140
1056 production—present and future. Cem Concr Res 2011;41(7):642–50. [53] Kara M, Günay E, Tabak Y, Durgut U, Yildiz S, Enç V. Development of refuse 1141
1057 [22] Wellington M, Dhanjal S. Optimising alternative fuel firing. In: 21st AFCM derived fuel for cement factories in turkey. Combust Sci Technol 1142
1058 technical symposium and exhibition in Bangkok, March 4–7, 2008 <http:// 2010;183(3):203–19. 1143
1059 www.fct-actech.com/documents/20081219%20AFCM%202008- [54] Carrasco F, Llauró X, Poch M. A methodological approach to knowledge-based 1144
1060 FCT%20Conference%20paper.pdf>. control and its application to a municipal solid waste incineration plant. 1145
1061 [23] Trezza MA, Scian AN. Burning wastes as an industrial resource: their effect on Combust Sci Technol 2006;178(4):685–705. 1146
1062 Portland cement clinker. Cem Concr Res 2000;30(1):137–44. [55] Zhang DQ, Tan SK, Gersberg RM. Municipal solid waste management in 1147
1063 [24] Chinyama MPM. Alternative fuels in cement manufacturing. In: Manzanera China: status, problems and challenges. J Environ Manage 2010;91(8): 1148
1064 M, editor. Alternative fuel. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011. 1623–33. 1149
1065 [25] Akkapeddi S. Alternative solid fuels for the production of Portland cement, [56] Dorn JD. Use of waste and recycled material in the cement industry. IEEE 1150
1066 MSc. Thesis, Auburn University, Alabama, December, 2008 <http:// Trans Ind Appl 1977;IA-13(6):576–80. 1151
1067 etd.auburn.edu/etd/bitstream/handle/10415/1432/ [57] Haley CAC. Energy recovery from burning municipal solid wastes: a review. 1152
1068 Akkapeddi_Srikanth_27.pdf?sequence=1>. Resour Conserv Recycl 1990;4(1990):77–103. 1153
1069 [26] Greco C, Picciotti G, Greco RB, Ferreira GM. Fuel selection and use. Chap. 2.5 in [58] Garg A, Smith R, Hill D, Longhurst PJ, Pollard SJT, Simms NJ. An integrated 1154
1070 innovations in Portland cement manufacturing. Skokie, Illinois: Portland appraisal of energy recovery options in the United Kingdom using solid 1155
1071 Cement Association; 2004. recovered fuel derived from municipal solid waste. Waste Manage 1156
1072 [27] Mokrzyckia E, Uliasz-Bocheńczyk A, Sarna M. Use of alternative fuels in the 2009;29(8): 1157
1073 polish cement industry. Appl Energy 2003;74(1–2):101–11. 2289–97. 1158
1074 [28] Willitsch DF, Sturm G, Wurst F, Prey T. Alternative fuels in the cement- [59] Genon G, Brizio E. Scenarios for RDF utilisation: reuse in technological plants 1159
1075 industry. Report of PMT-Zyklontechnik GmbH, Krems, Austria, 2002 or energy production. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 2007;102:961–71. 1160
1076 (currently known as a TEC advanced process technologies GmbH) <http:// [60] Lockwood FC, Ou JJ. Review: burning refuse-derived fuel in a rotary 1161
1077 www.coprocem.com/documents/alternative-fuels-in-cement-industry.pdf>. cement kiln. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part A: J Power Energy 1993;207: 1162
1078 [29] WBCSD Report. Guidelines for the selection and use of fuels and raw 65–70. 1163
1079 materials in the cement manufacturing process, fuels and raw materials. [61] Ruth LA. Energy from municipal solid waste: a comparison with coal 1164
1080 December 2005 <www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/tf2_guidelines.pdf> [viewed combustion technology. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1998;24(6):545–64. 1165
1081 12.10.11]. [62] European commission (EC) – directorate general environment. Refuse derived 1166
1082 [30] VDZ Activity Report 2009–2012 <http://www.vdz-online.de/fileadmin/ fuel, current practice and perspectives. Final Report, WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and 1167
1083 gruppen/vdz/3LiteraturRecherche/TaeB09-12/EN/VDZ_Activity_Report_09- Eunomia; 2003 <http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/ 1168
1084 12.pdf [access 04.11.14]. rdf.pdf>. 1169
1085 [31] CIF industry report 2013 <http://www.cement.org.au/Portals/0/Documents/ [63] Hasanbeigi A, Lu H, Williams C, Price L. International best practices for pre- 1170
1086 CIF%20Publications/2013%20CIF%20Industry%20Report%20(Med%20Res).pdf> processing and co-processing municipal solid waste and sewage sludge in the 1171
1087 [access 04.11.14]. cement industry, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1172
1088 [32] Japan cement association report 2013. Use of waste and by-product <http:// LBNL-5581E, July 2012. 1173
1089 www.jcassoc.or.jp/cement/2eng/e_01d.html> [access 05.11.14]. [64] Genon G, Brizio E. Perspectives and limits for cement kilns as a destination for 1174
1090 [33] European recovered fuel organisation, fuels from waste SRF development. In: RDF. Waste Manage 2008;28(11):2375–85. 1175
1091 6th CEWEP congress 6–7 September 2012 Würzburg <http://www.cewep.eu/ [65] Hashimoto S, Fujita T, Geng Y, Nagasawa E. Realizing CO2 emission reduction 1176
1092 m_1000>. through industrial symbiosis: a cement production case study for Kawasaki. 1177
1093 [34] Global cement report 2011, Sweden, pp 340. Resour Conserv Recycl 2010;54(10):704–10. 1178
1094 [35] European commission report. Energy efficiency and CO2 reduction in the [66] Cheung WH, Choy KKH, Hui DCW, Porter JF, McKay G. Use of municipal solid 1179
1095 cement industry. waste for integrated cement production. Dev Chem Eng Mineral Process 1180
1096 [36] Oficemen report 2012. The cement industry recovers fuel <https:// 2006;14(1–2):193–202. 1181
1097 www.oficemen.com/reportajePag.asp?id_rep=1115> [access 12.11.14]. [67] Choy KKH, Ko DCK, Cheung WH, Fung JSC, Hui DCW, Porter JF, et al. Municipal 1182
1098 [37] Peter Edwards. Cement in Belgium and the Netherlands. Global Cement solid waste utilization for integrated cement processing with waste 1183
1099 Magazine; 2012 [07.03.12]. minimization a pilot scale proposal. Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Saf 1184
1100 [38] Rahman A, Rasul MG, Khan MMK, Sharma S. Impact of alternative fuels on the Environ Prot 2004;82(B3):200–7. 1185
1101 cement manufacturing plant performance: an overview. Procedia Eng [68] Mikša D, Homšak M, Samec N. Spent potlining utilisation possibilities. Waste 1186
1102 2013;56:393–400. Manage Res 2003;21:467–73. 1187
1103 [39] Kaantee U, Zevonhoven R, Backman R, Hupa M. Cement manufacturing using [69] Silveira BI, Dantas AE, Blasquez JE, Santos RKP. Characterization of inorganic 1188
1104 alternative fuels and the advantages of process modelling. In: Proc. of R’2002 fraction of spent pot liners: evaluation of the cyanides and fluorides content. J 1189
1105 recovery recycling re-integration, Geneva, Switzerland, February 12–15, 2002. Hazard Mater 2002;89(2–3):177–83. 1190
20 December 2014
1191 [70] Massad EG. Energy resource vs. buried waste: spent potliner in a cement kiln. [100] Seyler C, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbühler K. Life cycle inventory for thermal 1277
1192 In: Proceedings of international conference on pollution prevention: clean treatment of waste solvent from chemical industry: a multi-input allocation 1278
1193 technology and clean products, Washington DC June 10–13, 1990. P. model. J Cleaner Prod 2005;13(13–14):1211–24. 1279
1194 405–7. [101] Seyler C, Hellweg S, Monteil M, Hungerbühler K. Life cycle inventory for use 1280
1195 [71] Constans DL. Primary aluminum production wastes spent aluminum potliner, of waste solvent as fuel substitute in the cement industry a multi-input 1281
1196 K088, GCI Tech Notes, vol. 4, No. 09; 1998 <http://gcisolutions.com/ allocation model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2005;10(2):120–30. 1282
1197 GCINotes998.html> [viewed 01.03.12]. [102] Mlakar TL, Horvat M, Vuk T, Stergaršek A, Kotnik J, Tratnik J, et al. Mercury 1283
1198 [72] Pong TK, Adrien RJ, Besida J, O’donnell TA, Wood DG. Spent potlining – a species, mass flows and processes in a cement plant. Fuel 1284
1199 hazardous waste made safe. Trans IChemE 2000;78(Part B):204–8. 2010;89(8):1936–45. 1285
1200 [73] Alcoa: worldwide: sustainability: sustainability of operations: [103] Chuah TG, Wan Azlina AGK, Robiah Y, Omar R. Biomass as the renewable 1286
1201 environmental: emissions & waste; 2012 <http://www.alcoa.com/ energy sources in Malaysia: an overview. Int J Green Energy 2006;3(3): 1287
1202 sustainability/en/info_page/operations_env_emissions.asp> [viewed 323–46. 1288
1203 01.03.12]. [104] Demirbas A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. Fuel 1289
1204 [74] Alcoa in Australia: environment: environmental management: waste; 2012 1997;76(5):431–4. 1290
1205 <http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/info_page/environ_waste.asp> [viewed [105] Seboka Y, Getahun MA, Haile-Meskel Y. Biomass energy for cement 1291
1206 01.03.12]. production: opportunities in Ethiopia, CDM capacity development in 1292
1207 [75] Alcoa: worldwide: sustainability: sustainability approach: case studies; 2011 eastern and southern Africa, United Nations Development Programme; 2009. 1293
1208 <http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/case_studies/ [106] Demirbas A. Sustainable cofiring of biomass with coal. Energy Convers 1294
1209 2011_Canadian_Smelters.asp> [viewed 01.03.12]. Manage 2003;44(9):1465–79. 1295
1210 [76] Kohnen RL. Disposal options for spent potliner, ERAtech Publications; 2012 [107] Tillman DA. Biomass cofiring: the technology, the experience, the combustion 1296
1211 <http://www.eratech.com/papers/DisposalSPL.html> [viewed 01.03.12]. consequences. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;19(6):365–84. 1297
1212 [77] Gossman D. New developments in treatment options for spent aluminum [108] Suarez JA, Luengo CA. Coffee husk briquettes: a new renewable energy 1298
1213 potliner. GCI tech notes, vol. 11. Gossman Consulting, Inc. Publication; 2006. source. Energy Sources 2003;25(10):961–7. 1299
1214 10A. [109] Werther J, Saenger M. Combustion of agricultural residues. Prog Energy 1300
1215 [78] Deydier E, Guilet R, Sarda S, Sharrock P. Physical and chemical characteristics Combust Sci 2000;26(1):1–27. 1301
1216 of crude meat and bone meal combustion residue: ‘‘waste or raw material?’’. J [110] Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M. Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel 1302
1217 Hazard Mater 2005;121(1–3):141–8. blends. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2001;27(2):171–214. 1303
1218 _
[79] Kowalski Z, Krupa-Zuczek K. A model of the meat waste management. Pol J [111] Skodras G, Grammelis P, Basinas P, Kakaras E, Sakellaropoulos G. Pyrolysis 1304
1219 Chem Technol 2007;9(4):91–7. and combustion characteristics of biomass and waste-derived feedstock. Ind 1305
1220 [80] Conesa JA, Fullana A, Font R. Dioxin production during the thermal treatment Eng Chem Res 2006;45(11):3791–9. 1306
1221 of meat and bone meal residues. Chemosphere 2005;59(1):85–90. [112] Royo J, Canalis P, Sebastian F, Gomez F. Environmental feasibility of biomass 1307
1222 [81] Senneca O. Characterisation of meat and bone mill for coal co-firing. Fuel cofiring in the cement industry-results of the tests carried out at the Cemex 1308
1223 2008;87(15–16):3262–70. company plant located in Morata de Jalón (Spain). In: 15th European biomass 1309
1224 [82] Ariyaratne WKH, Melaaen MC, Eine K, Tokheim LA. Meat and bone meal as a Conference and Exhibition, Berlin, May 2007. 1310
1225 renewable energy source in cement kilns: investigation of optimum feeding [113] Realff, Matthew J. Carpet as an alternative fuel in cement kilns. Technical 1311
1226 rate. In: International conference on renewable energies and power quality report, DOE/CH/11239-Final, Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, 1312
1227 (ICREPQ’11), Spain, April 2010. GA; 2007. 1313
1228 [83] Gulyurtlu I, Boavida D, Abelha P, Lopes MH, Cabrita I. Co-combustion of coal [114] Stephanie Konopa L, James Mulholland A, Matthew Realff J, Paul Lemieux M. 1314
1229 and meat and bone meal. Fuel 2005;84(17):2137–48. Emissions from carpet combustion in a pilot-scale rotary kiln: comparison 1315
1230 [84] Denafas G, Buinevičius K, Urniežaitė I, Puškorius R, Rekašius J. Meat and bone with coal and particle-board combustion. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 1316
1231 meal incineration in terms of industrial and energetic infrastructure in 2008;58:1070–6. 1317
1232 Lithuania: energetic and environmental aspects. Environ Res, Eng Manage [115] Cossua R, Fioreb S, Laia T, Mancinic G, Ruffinob B, Viottid P, Zanetti MC. Italian 1318
1233 2004;30(4):36–48. experience on automotive shredder residue: characterization and 1319
1234 [85] Abad E, MartÍnez K, Caixach J, Rivera J. Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin/ management, CRETE 2012. In: 3rd International conference on industrial 1320
1235 polychlorinated dibenzofuran releases into the atmosphere from the use of and hazardous waste material; 2012. 1321
1236 secondary fuels in cement kilns during clinker formation. Environ Sci Technol [116] Boughton B. Evaluation of shredder residue as cement manufacturing 1322
1237 2004;38(18):4734–8. feedstock. Report of the California department of toxic substances control, 1323
1238 [86] Al-Salem SM, Lettieri P, Baeyens J. Recycling and recovery routes of plastic March 2006. 1324
1239 solid waste (PSW): a review. Waste Manage 2009;29(10):2625–43. [117] Kurt Mackes H, Charles Lightburn R. Evaluating the use of green wood chips 1325
1240 [87] Al-Salem SM, Lettieri P, Baeyens J. The valorization of plastic solid waste processed from small-diameter trees as an alternate fuel for making cement. 1326
1241 (PSW) by primary to quaternary routes: from re-use to energy and chemicals. Forest Prod J 2003;53(4):42–7. 1327
1242 Prog Energy Combust Sci 2010;36(1):103–29. [118] Hains, Bryant T. Experimental study of renewable energy implementation in 1328
1243 [88] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Trends in beneficial use of alternative cement kilns through industrial-scale downdraft gasification of poultry litter, 1329
1244 fuels and raw materials cement sector; 2008 <http://www.epa.gov/sectors/ MSc Thesis, Auburn University; 2011. 1330
1245 pdf/cement-sector-report.pdf>. [119] Bernatik A, Senovsky P, Pitt M. LNG as a potential alternative fuel – safety and 1331
1246 [89] Karstensen KH. Formation, release and control of dioxins in cement kilns. security of storage facilities. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2011;24:19–24. 1332
1247 Chemosphere 2008;70(4):543–60. [120] Cemex News, UK cement plant set 100% AF record, global cement magazine, 1333
1248 [90] Strazza C, Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Del Borghi M. Resource productivity April 2011. pp. 57. 1334
1249 enhancement as means for promoting cleaner production: analysis of co- [121] Pipilikaki P, Katsioti M, Papageorgiou D, Fragoulis D, Chaniotakis E. Use of tire 1335
1250 incineration in cement plants through a life cycle approach. J Cleaner Prod derived fuel in clinker burning. Cement Concr Compos 2005;27:843–7. 1336
1251 2011;19(14):1615–21. [122] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Application of multi-criteria decision making 1337
1252 [91] Lechtenberg D. Dried sewage sludge as an alternative fuel. Global Cem Mag to sustainable energy planning: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 1338
1253 2011:36–9. 2004;8(4):365–81. 1339
1254 [92] Werther J, Ogada T. Sewage sludge combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci [123] Vick SC, von Steiger H. Beneficial recycling of metal refining waste via 1340
1255 1999;25(1):55–116. gasification. In: Conference on gasification technologies 2001, San Francisco, 1341
1256 [93] Ninomiya Y, Zhang L, Sakano T, Kanaoka C, Masui M. Transformation of California, October 7–10, 2001. 1342
1257 mineral and emission of particulate matters during co-combustion of coal [124] Kikuchi R. Recycling of municipal solid waste for cement production: pilot- 1343
1258 with sewage sludge. Fuel 2004;83(6):751–64. scale test for transforming incineration ash of solid waste into cement 1344
1259 [94] Fytili D, Zabaniotou A. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of clinker. Resour Conserv Recycl 2001;31(2):137–47. 1345
1260 old and new methods—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12(1): [125] Feng Z, Zhao J, Rockwell J, Bailey D, Huffman G. Direct liquefaction of waste 1346
1261 116–40. plastics and coliquefaction of coal-plastic mixtures. Fuel Process Technol 1347
1262 [95] Cartmell E, Gostelow P, Riddell-Black D, Simms N, Oakey J, Morris J, et al. 1996;49:17–30. 1348
1263 Biosolids-a fuel or a waste? an integrated appraisal of five co-combustion [126] Zhang MH, Lastra R, Malhotra VM. Rice-husk ash paste and concrete: some 1349
1264 scenarios with policy analysis. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40(3):649–58. aspects of hydration and the microstructure of the interfacial zone between 1350
1265 [96] Zabaniotou A, Theofilou C. Green energy at cement kiln in cyprus—use of the aggregate and paste. Cem Concr Res 1996;26(6):963–77. 1351
1266 sewage sludge as a conventional fuel substitute. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [127] Courtemanche B, Levendis YA. A laboratory study on the NO, NO2, SO2, CO 1352
1267 2008;12:531–41. and CO2 emissions from the combustion of pulverized coal, municipal waste 1353
1268 [97] de Vos S, Görtzen J, Mulder E, Ligthart T, Hesseling W. LCA of thermal plastics and tires. Fuel 1998;77(3):183–96. 1354
1269 treatment of waste streams in cement kilns in Belgium, TNO report [128] Amari T, Themelis NJ, Wernick IK. Resource recovery from used rubber tires. 1355
1270 I&T-A R 2007/036, Netherland Organisation for Applied Scientific Research; Resour Policy 1999;25(3):179–88. 1356
1271 2007. [129] Schneider DR, Bogdan Z. Analysis of a sustainable system for energy recovery 1357
1272 [98] Australian government department of sustainability, environment, water, from municipal waste in Croatia. Manage Environ Qual: Int J 2011;22(1): 1358
1273 population and communities; 2011 <http://www.environment.gov.au/ 105–20. 1359
1274 settlements/waste/tyres/index.html> [viewed 16.10.11]. [130] Arvanitoyannis IS, Ladas D. Meat waste treatment methods and potential 1360
1275 [99] Bhatty JI. Effect of minor elements onclinker and cement performance: a uses. Int J Food Sci Technol 2008;43:543–59. 1361
1276 laboratory analysis. Concr Thinking 2006;130(15):31–4. [131] Lagan Cement News, April 2005 www.lagancement.com [accessed 16.10.11]. 1362
20 December 2014
1363 [132] Aranda Usón A, Ferreira G, López-Sabirón AM, Sastresa EL, De Guinoa AS. [134] Central pollution control board report, website material on plastic waste 1369
1364 Characterisation and environmental analysis of sewage sludge as secondary management, June 2013 <http://www.cpcb.nic.in/divisionsofheadoffice/pcp/ 1370
1365 fuel for cement manufacturing. Chem Eng Trans 2012;29:457–62. management_plasticwaste.pdf> [accessed 12.11.14]. 1371
1366 [133] U.S. environmental protection agency, wastes – resource conservation – [135] Technology guide ALF-Cemind, waste (used) oil co-processed as alternative 1372
1367 common wastes & materials: plastic; 2014 <http://www.epa.gov/osw/ fuel in cement production process, <http://www.alf-cemind.com/cd/ 1373
1368 conserve/materials/plastics.htm> [accessed 12.11.14]. AF_and_ARM_used_oils.htm> [accessed 14.10.14]. 1374
1375

Recent Development On The Uses of Alternative Fuels in Cement Manufacturing Process

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Recent Development On The Uses of Alternative Fuels in Cement Manufacturing Process

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

JFUE 8774 No.

of Pages 16, Model 5G

Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

2 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

63 4.6. Sewage sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

Limestone Homogenizaon Clinker

Fig. 1. Cement manufacturing process [12].

4 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5

364 ecological beneﬁts of conserving non-renewable resources [23]. Table 4

6 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. Air emission data for burning tyre [48].

Material Percentage by weight Percentage by volume

A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7

Component MSW dry solids % RDF dry solids %

489 combustor [58]. During incineration of MSW toxins and heavy

504  Separation at source.

8 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 5. RDF feeding system into kiln [63].

A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 9

10 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 7. Schematic ﬂow diagram for processing agro-industrial residue [105].

A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 11

12 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

828 5.1. Availability

A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 13

14 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 15

16 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

504 Separation at source.