Development of AIM/End-use Models for Selecting Low

Carbon Technology in Indonesia’s Cement Industry

F W Kurniawati 1,2
1 Center Research and Energy Policy, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia
2
Chemical Engineering Department, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia
E-mail: fitriawahyuk@gmail.com

Abstract. Growing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and increasing global demand for
cement are general drivers for managing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the cement
industry. Concerning with this issue, Indonesia's commitment towards the direction of low-
carbon development and future climate resilience to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the aim
of this study is a quantitative evaluation that conducted to analyze the effectiveness of
emissions mitigation on potential energy saving and carbon emission reduction using the
bottom-up AIM/end-use energy model in 2010-2050. This tool is used to select the optimum
technology in detail with the minimum cost approach. Several energy models have been
proposed previously to quantify carbon emission. However, a separate analysis of emissions
from energy usage and IPPU (Industrial Process and Product Use) has never been done. The
energy model is built under the baseline scenario and the following relevant mitigation
scenario options were investigated: (i) adjusted the production structure, by increasing alternate
material efficiency with co-processing route and additives route (CM1 scenario), (ii)
maximized energy efficiency, by promoting low carbon technology that is unimplemented
early in modeling years in Indonesia will be included in the energy model for future reference
(CM2 scenario), (iii) carbon emissions reduction through substitution of fossil fuels to low
emission fuels in electricity and fuel preparation (CM3 scenario). The expected results from
the AIM/end-use energy model of Indonesia's cement industry are to provide the most
optimum mitigation options in terms of emission reduction and costs.

1. Introduction
Today, International energy agency [1] reported that global energy demand grew by 2.1% in 2017.
The growth in global energy demand was concentrated in Asia that contributed more than 40% of total
global energy demand due to high economic growth. Overall, Asian economies accounted for two of
the global increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. High energy demand could lead to a climb in
future energy related emissions that contributing to significant global climate change. The major
contributors for GHG emissions account for 81% are CO 2 emission. Concerning with this issue,
Indonesia has served an Indonesia’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which set ambitious
goals to reduce GHG emissions by 26% toward the business as usual scenario by 2030 [2]. Farther
emissions reductions of 41% are expected with international support. Consequently, how to deal with
global climate change and alleviate of CO 2 emission has been an urgent problem for main sector such
as industry, power, forestry and agriculture.
In 2017, Global world energy-related CO 2 emissions were 32.5 GtCO 2 and cement industries
accounted for 8% of global energy use and 15% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2016 [2].
The major contributors for greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, specifically CO2 emission in cement
industry comes from both energy use and IPPU (Industrial Process and Product Use) from calcination
process. According to national GHG inventory Indonesia in industrial sector, the cement industry
accounts for 23.94 GgCO2e or 55.49% of the total industrial emissions by IPPU sector. In addition,
direct GHG emissions from energy use in cement industry about 39.15 MtCO 2e or 27% of the total
industrial emissions. Thus, rapidly growing cement industries without mitigation action will be lead
environmental problem.
Current studies has taken several measures to reduce its energy consumption and CO 2 emissions in
cement Industry [3]–[7]. These studies revealed that production is the main key to reduce carbon
emissions whereas energy efficiency was the primary matter reducing energy uses. The quantitative
studies was directed to analyze the effectiveness of emissions mitigation in the cement industry
through diverse energy optimization models. Several energy modelling approaches based on the
system integration method have been used to forecast future trends in energy demand and CO2
emissions, and to assess strategies for energy-saving and emissions reduction. Hasanbeigi et al. 2013
that use bottom–up perspective and include detailed technological representations ECSC and FCSC
(Energy and Fuel Conservation Supply Curve[4]). LEAP (Long-range Energy Alternative Planning
System[8]) is bottom-up accounting model that full modelling chain from economic activity, without
to analyze policies related to cost. Other bottom-up models include the Model for Analysis of Energy
Demand (MAED) model, developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However,
the literature mentioned above only focuses on one aspect of energy saving and emission reduction
measures that range is limited to national scale. Wen et al 2015 evaluate the potential for energy-
saving and CO2 emissions 2010-2020 (short-term) in China’s cement industry. A model was
developed based on the Asian-Pacific Integrated Model (AIM) which the scenario were simulate the
potential for energy saving and emissions reduction by technology promotion, such as elimination of
vertical kiln, small dry kiln and restricted technologies without co-processing production [5]. Results
showed that technology promotion and industrial structure adjustment are the main measures that can
lead to energy savings. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to analyze the effectiveness of
emissions mitigation on potential energy saving and carbon emission reduction in Indonesia’s cement
industry by applying AIM/end-use model. A model simulated in the long-term (2010 to 2050) which
the scenario by technology promotion and co-processing production.

2. Methodology
2.1. AIM/End-use Model
Developed by Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), the AIM/end-use model is
based on a cost minimization linear programming approach. AIM/end-use was built on GAMS
(General Algebraic Modeling System) optimization modeling interface as a technologically detailed
linear optimization that selects the optimal technology at a minimum total system cost over a set of
constraints [9]. This paper used the AIM/end-use model to evaluate the technology promotion process
and forecast the potential for energy saving and CO 2 emission reduction for Indonesian cement sector.
For this study, the operational framework of this model including four steps: develop the structure of
Indonesia’s cement industry, selection technology for energy saving and carbon emission reduction,
scenario design, and development of AIM/End-use models.

2.2. Structure of AIM/end-use model in Cement Industry

AIM/end-use model can be used to simulate flows of energy and materials in an economy, from
supply of primary energy and materials to conversion into secondary energy and materials, and finally
to the delivery of various types of energy to satisfaction of end-use services through the detailed
representation of technologies [10]. Fig. 1 shows the structure of the AIM/end-use model for cement
industry. Simulating using AIM/end-use model following processes [11] first evaluates and determine
future demand of cement according to socioeconomic factor and then determined technologies based
on the database of energy and technologies, service technologies can be compared and considered
exactly. Since the types of technologies are selected, energy consumption and CO 2 emissions can be
estimated. On this basis, we can further answer the questions of what technology pathways are
required to achieve environmental targets, as well as the potential for emission reduction and
abatement costs under a combination of different technologies.

Figure 1. Structure of the AIM/end-use model

2.3. System boundary
The Indonesian cement industry have a complex process that begins with mining and grinding raw
material that include lime stone and clay, to a fine powder called raw meal. Raw meal is heated to a
sintering temperatures as high as 1450°C in a cement kiln[12]. In this process, the chemical bonds of
the materials are broken down then they are recombined into new compounds which the result called
clinker. The Clinker is ground to a fine powder in a cement mill and mixed with supporting material as
fly ash, slag and waste-derived to create cement[13]. The system boundary of Indonesian cement
production process described in the AIM/end-use model as shown in fig.2. The dry process route is
comprised of the following processes: (i) raw material preparation (quarrying, mining, drying,
crushing, grinding, pre-blending), (ii) clinker firing (preheater/pre-calciners, clinker cooler) (iii) fuel
grinding, (iv) product and feedstock changes (blending, grinding, finishing), and (v) energy conversion
devices for on-site electricity production, (vi) final product manufacturing. All energy used for each
process step, include motors, fans, pumps and other equipment should be included in the energy use
entered for each step. In this research, the total CO 2 emissions produced in the process within the
system boundary were calculated, while electricity purchased, slag, waste-derived produced from the
iron and steel industry and power plant were not counted because emissions were generated in another
place.
 Figure 2. Structure of Indonesia’s cement industry in the AIM/end-use mode

2.4. Objective functions

The objective function minimizes the total cost as shown in equation (1). The total cost comprises total
annualized initial investment cost (only for recruitments in that year), total operating cost, and total
cost of energy and emission tax in that year[14].

   
TC    C l ,i  rl ,i   gl0,i 
  g  1     E
k ,i l ,i k ,l ,i   X l ,i   i
m
 Qim   min
i  l  k  (1) m 

2.5. Constraint conditions

1) Emissions constraints
The emissions quantity of gas CO 2 in the cement industry must not exceed its allowable
maximum emission limit which setting emissions constraints expressed by equation (2).

(2)

Where indicates Allowable maximum limit on emissions of the MG th group of gases m in

the MQ group of sectors and regions i
th

2) Energy supply constraints

The total quantity of supply of energy its allowable maximum energy supply quantity or fall
below its allowable minimum energy supply quantity that each value expressed by equation
(3) and equation (4).

 
Q e
k ,i      (1  l ,i )  Ek ,l , p ,i  X l , p ,i   EME

max
,k (3)
iYME  iYME j ( l , p )W j 
 
 Qke,i  i    (1  l ,i )  Ek ,l , p ,i  X l , p ,i   EME ,k
YME  j ( l , p )W j
min
(4)
iYME 
th
where EME , k indicates the allowable maximum supply quantity of energy type k in the ME
max

group of sectors and regions i , and EME ,k means the allowable minimum supply quantity of
min

energy type k in the ME th group of sectors and regions i

3) Total operating capacity constraints

 The total operating quantity of combination a device must not exceed its operating quantity by
the stock of a device, expressed by equation (5).
X l ,i   1   l ,i   S l ,i (5)
Where l ,i means the operating allowance rate of a device l in a sector and region i , and Sl ,i
means the stock of a device l in a sector and region i
4) Total steel demand and-supply balance constraints
Final service demand quantity in the iron and steel must be equal the total service demand by
multiplying the quantity of total service output supplied by all devices, expressed by equation
(6).

D j ,i  1   j , i   A l, j  X l .i
(6)
lW j

where Al , j ,i indicates supply output of service j per unit operation of a device l in a sector and
region i ,  j ,i means service efficiency improvement rate of service j in sector and region i ,
and D j ,i means the total service demand quantity of service j in a sector and region i
5) Internal energy and internal service balance constraints
The amount of input raw material energy in the next stage must be equal to the intermediate
products in the previous stage, expressed by equation (7)
 
iYMR jJ INT
D j,i   
iYMR kK INT
Qke,i

   

 1   j ,i
  
  Al , j  X l ,i      (1  l ,i )  Ek ,l  X l ,i 　
(7)
iYMR jJ INT  lW j  
iYMR k K INT  l  

Where Qie,k means the demand of internal energy k and D j ,i means the supply of internal service
j
6) Device share ratio constraints on service output
Device share ratio of service output of its device l to the total service output of all devices
regarding service j must not exceed the maximum limit or below the minimum limit,
expressed by equation (8) and equation (9)

lmax
, j ,i  
( l  , p  )Wi , j
Al , j ,i  X l , p,i  Al , j ,i   X l , p ,i
p
(8)
lmin
, j ,i  
( l  , p  )Wi , j
Al , j ,i  X l , p,i  Al , j ,i   X l , p ,i
p
(9)
where lmax
, j ,i indicates the maximum share rate of service
j of a device l to the total service
output of all devices in a sector and region i , and l , j ,i means the minimum share rate of
min

service j of a device l to the total service output of all devices in a sector and region i
7) Share ratio constraints on service output for group of devices
share ratio of service output of its group of devices to the total service output of all devices
regarding service j must not exceed the maximum limit nmax or fall below the minimum
limit nmin , expressed by equation (10) and equation (11) respectively.
 
nmax     A l ', j  X l '.i     Al , j  X l ,i
 ( i , j )G lU (10)
 l 'W j
( i , j )Gn  n n

 
nmin     Al ', j  X l '.i     Al , j  X l ,i (11)

( i , j )Gn  l 'W j
 (i , j )G lU
 n n

where nmax means the maximum share rate of service j of a group of devices in the n th
constraint to the total service output of all devices in a sector and region i , and nmin means the
minimum share rate of service j of a group of devices in the n th constraint to the total service
output of all devices in a sector and region i
 8) Stock quantity balance
Stock Sl ,i of a device l in a sector and region i in the simulation year t is calculated by
adding the remained stock that existed in the base year and recruitment quantity and deducing
quantity of device l retired regardless of its life time.

 t t0 
Sl ,i  Sl0,i  e Tl
 rl ,i  wl ,i (11)

where Sl0,i means the stock of a device l in a sector and region i in the base year t0 , rl ,i is the
recruitment quantity of a device l in a sector and region i , wl ,i is the quantity of a device l
retired regardless of its life time in a sector and region i , and Tl is the life of device l

2.6. Low carbon technologies for Indonesia’s cement industry

To analyze energy saving and emissions reduction in Indonesia’s cement industry, in this study
selected 33 technologies included in the main process in the cement production (quarrying, mining,
grinding, crushing, final grinding, blending, drying, kiln, and energy conversion devices)[4]–[6], [12],
[15]. Technology selection process based on the least cost-optimum ability to reduce emissions and
save energy at the minimum total system cost over a set of constraints. Among the low carbon
technologies selected, there is two types of technology namely technology retrofitting and substitution.
Technology retrofitting means modified the technology to improve the energy efficiency of an existing
technology. While technology substitution means the replacement of an existing technology by a new
technology at the end of the service life of an existing technology or for meeting with the increase of
energy service demands[5]. The selected technologies related energy savings, lifetime and cost
estimation are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Screened technologies, related energy saving potential and cost estimation

Capital Cost Lifetime

Process Technology Fuel Saving Electricity Saving
($/t product) (Year)
Efficient Roller mill for Grinding - 1.23 kWh/t 0.19 -
Installation of Variable frequency drive and
Fuel Preparation - 0.16 kWh/t 0.027 -
replacement coal mill bag dust collector’s fan
Replacement of separator in coal Mill circuit
- 0.26 kWh/t 0.011 -
with an efficient grit separator
Slurry Blending and Homogenizing (Wet
0.3-0.5 kWh/t 0.5-0.9 kWh/t 10
Process)
Wash Mill with Closed Circuit (Wet Process) - 8.5-11.9 kWh/t >10
Efficient Transport systems for Raw materials
0.035 GJ/t 3.13 kWh/t 0.47 10
preparation (Dry Process)

Raw Materials Raw Meal Process Control for Vertical Mills

0.016 GJ/t 1.41 kWh/t 0.52 10
Preparation (Dry Process)
Use of Roller Mills (Dry Process) 0.08 GJ/t 10.2-11.9 kWh/t 5.3 -
High-efficiency Classifiers/separator (Dry
0.057 GJ/t 5.08 kWh/t 3.5 -
Process)

Raw Meal Blending System (Dry Process) 0.03 GJ/t 2.66 kWh/t 5.85 -

Energy Management and Process control

0.176 GJ/t 2.35 kWh/t 1.00 10
System (All Clinker)
Adjustable Speed Drive for Kiln Fan (All
Clinker Production 0.05 GJ/t 4.95 kWh/t 0.23 10
Clinker)
Increasing Number of Preheater Stages in
0.09 GJ/t - 2.54 10
Rotary Kilns
Kiln Combustion system 0.24 GJ/t - 1.00 10
Installation or upgrading of a preheater to
0.35 GJ/t - 18 -
preheater/precalciner
Low Temperature Heat Recovery for power
0.25 GJ/t 24.73 kWh/t 12.83 -
generation
Table 1. (contined)
 High Temperature Heat Recovery for power
0.21 GJ/t 17.84 kWh/t 3.3 -
generation
Low Pressure Drop Cyclones for Suspensions
0.04 GJ/t 3.28 kWh/t 2.7 -
Preheater
Efficient Kiln Drives 0.006 GJ/t 0.55 kWh/t 0.22 -
Replacing Vertical Shaft Kilns with New
2.4 GJ/t - 28-41 -
Suspension Preheater/Precalciner (NSP) Kilns
Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) 0.03 GJ/t - 5.54 10
Process Control and Management in Grinding
0.04 GJ/t 3.24 kWh/t 0.5 -
Mills for finish Grinding
Vertical Roller Mill for Finish Grinding 0.2 GJ/t 17 kWh/t 5 10
Cement Grinding High Pressure (Hydraulic) Roller Press 0.18 GJ/t 16 kWh/t 5 -
Horizontal Roller Mill for finish grinding 0.05 GJ/t 4 kWh/t 2 10
Improved Grinding Media 0.05 GJ/t 4 kWh/t 0.7 10
Replacement of Cement mill vent fan - 0.11 kWh/t 0.007
Changing Product and feedstock: Blended
2.19 GJ/t - 0.72
Cement
Product Changing Product and feedstock:
changes 0.49 GJ/t - 1.1
Use waste-derived Fuels
Changing Product and feedstock:
0.19 GJ/t - 0.4
Use of steel slag in kiln
High-Efficiency Motors and Drives 0.03 GJ/t 3 kWh/t 0.22 -
Entire Process Adjustable or Variable speed Drives 0.09 GJ/t 7 kWh/t 1.00 -
High-Efficiency Fans 0.134 kWh/t - 1.43 -
Scenario design

2.7. Scenario description

In this paper used three scenarios to predicting and simulating the potential for energy savings and
emissions reductions by AIM/end-use model [16]. Scenario setting in the AIM/end-use model is
important to achieve that desired target. The scenarios are defined as:
(1) BAU scenario: we assumed no further energy saving and emissions reduction policy measures
will be implemented during the scenario period. Industry technical structure, product structure,
and the technology popularizing rate will be maintained same as baseline year.
(2) CM1 scenario: adjusted the production structure, by increasing material efficiency with the
waste-derived in clinker production (co-processing) and blending additives in finish grinding.
(3) CM2 scenario: refers to maximized energy efficiency, by promoting low carbon technology
that is unimplemented early in modeling years in Indonesia will be included in the energy
model for future reference
(4) CM3 scenario: carbon emissions reduction through substitution of fossil fuels to low emission
fuels

2.8. Parameter setting

This paper sets 2010 as the base year consider reliable data of the cement industry was available. The
planning horizon is developed in 10-year time interval extending to 2050 as the target year. Other
parameters used in AIM/end-use model include technical and energy parameters. The energy
parameter considers emissions factor for various energy sources that use in cement production process
and the electricity emission factor. Specific technical parameters including lifetime, equipment fixed
investment cost, operations and maintenance cost, energy input per unit production, and the amount of
technology used in the base year. The technology in this study mainly refers to that for production,
energy saving, and emissions reduction.

3. Result and discussion

The AIM/end-use model structure of cement industry in Indonesia has been generalized as shown in
fig.3. In this model, the production technology process based on the scenario that has been designed to
reduce CO2 emission and energy saving. The improvements in overall energy intensity and reduce CO 2
emission of cement production can be mostly attributed to increased use of alternating material, the
breakthrough of low carbon technologies, and substitution of fossil fuels to low emission fuels.
Adjusting the production structure through increased material efficiency with the alternating material
used considered to be one of the most promising mitigation options in the cement industry. There are
two route to adjusting cement production. The First route alternate material as a raw material (co-
processing) and the other as additives in final grinding. Cement process CO 2 emissions mainly come
from calcination of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3) and magnesium carbonate (MgCO3), so that using the
first route can reduce CO2 emissions in clinker making. The use of alternative raw materials also has
numerous benefits, including a reduced need for quarrying and an improved environmental footprint of
such activities. Besides this, those substitutions do not have negative impacts on production process
emissions, or on the environmental and technical quality of the final product [17]. The second route,
alternate material used in blended cements as additives component. In this case using additives
depends on that are available, as well as the Indonesia’s environmental regulation in force. Therefore,
it's important to determine the optimum amount alternate material used in clinker.
Furthermore CO2 mitigation measures, several low carbon technology options need to be developed
and implemented in the cement sector as shown in fig.3. Low carbon technology that used in this
model included existing technologies, efficient technologies, and advanced technologies. The existing
technology represents the process technology that is currently used in Indonesia’s cement industry.
Efficient technologies represent modified the technology to improve the energy efficiency of an
existing technology. While advanced technologies mean the updated version of current technologies
such as a newly developed clinker like new suspension pre-heaters or pre-calciners (NSP kilns) that
specific energy consumptions are 20% lower than that of vertical kilns. The new technology seem to
offer the best prospects due to eliminating the necessary emissions from material preparation
(limestone) making process to produce cement. It is assumed that those technologies have not been
applied in the early years of modeling will be gradually included in the model for future reference to
replacing the conventional blast furnace iron making process.
In the cement industry energy system, the largest proportion of electricity sources is supplied by
electricity purchased. On the other hand, domestic electricity production is still dominated by coal
which produces large amounts of CO2 emissions as the value of electricity emission factor is
increasing year by year. Therefore, carbon reduction can be done by increasing the use of biomass to
produced on-site electricity as well as fuel preparation that used in fuel preparation.
.

Figure 3. Model structure of cement industry in Indonesia

4. Conclusions
This paper develops and examines the structure of AIM/end-use model in the Indonesian cement
industry to select combinations of low carbon technologies and mitigation options that can achieve the
most optimal energy savings and CO2 emissions reductions.
.
References
[1] International Energy Agency, Scenarios & Strategies To 2050. 2010.
[2] U.S. EIA, “Annual Energy Outlook 2018 with projections to 2050,” Annu. Energy Outlook
2018 with Proj. to 2050, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1–64, 2018.
[3] R. Kajaste and M. Hurme, “Cement industry greenhouse gas emissions e management options
and abatement cost,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 112, pp. 4041–4052, 2016.
[4] A. Hasanbeigi, W. Morrow, E. Masanet, J. Sathaye, and T. Xu, “Energy efficiency
improvement and CO 2 emission reduction opportunities in the cement industry in China,”
Energy Policy, vol. 57, pp. 287–297, 2013.
[5] Z. Wen, M. Chen, and F. Meng, “Evaluation of energy saving potential in China ’ s cement
industry using the Asian-Paci fi c Integrated Model and the technology promotion policy
analysis,” Energy Policy, vol. 77, pp. 227–237, 2015.
[6] J. Xu, T. Fleiter, Y. Fan, and W. Eichhammer, “CO 2 emissions reduction potential in China ’ s
cement industry compared to IEA ’ s Cement Technology Roadmap up to 2050,” Appl. Energy,
vol. 130, pp. 592–602, 2014.
[7] J. Ke, N. Zheng, D. Fridley, L. Price, and N. Zhou, “Potential energy savings and CO 2
emissions reduction of China ’ s cement industry,” Energy Policy, vol. 45, pp. 739–751, 2012.
[8] B. J. Van Ruijven, D. P. Van Vuuren, W. Boskaljon, M. L. Neelis, D. Saygin, and M. K. Patel,
“Resources , Conservation and Recycling Long-term model-based projections of energy use
and CO 2 emissions from the global steel and cement industries,” "Resources, Conserv.
Recycl., vol. 112, pp. 15–36, 2016.
[9] Z. Wen, F. Meng, and M. Chen, “Estimates of the potential for energy conservation and CO 2
emissions mitigation based on Asian-Paci fi c Integrated Model ( AIM ): the case of the iron
and steel industry in China,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 65, pp. 120–130, 2014.
[10] N. Strachan, S. Pye, and R. Kannan, “The iterative contribution and relevance of modelling to
UK energy policy,” vol. 37, pp. 850–860, 2009.
[11] I. W. Paper, “Two-level Mathematical Programming for Analyzing Subsidy Options to Reduce
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions,” no. November, 1996.
[12] M. B. Ali, R. Saidur, and M. S. Hossain, “A review on emission analysis in cement industries,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 2252–2261, 2011.
[13] U. Parlikar, P. S. Bundela, R. Baidya, S. K. Ghosh, and S. K. Ghosh, “Effect of Variation in the
Chemical Constituents of Wastes on the Co-processing Performance of the Cement Kilns,”
Procedia Environ. Sci., vol. 35, pp. 506–512, 2016.
[14] I. Model, “AIM Enduse Model Manual,” 2015.
[15] A. Hasanbeigi, C. Menke, and L. Price, “The CO 2 abatement cost curve for the Thailand
cement industry,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 18, no. 15, pp. 1509–1518, 2010.
[16] P. Chunark and B. Limmeechokchai, Energy Saving Potential and CO2Mitigation Assessment
Using the Asia-Pacific Integrated Model/Enduse in Thailand Energy Sectors, vol. 79. Elsevier
B.V., 2015.
[17] F.N Stanford, “Advances and challenges for the co-processing in Latin American
cement industry,” Procedia materials science, vol. 9. pp. 571–577, 2015.