Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Environmental Systems

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-environmental-systems

A life cycle assessment of clinker and cement production in Ethiopia

Micheal G. Wolde a, Dilip Khatiwada b, *, Getachew Bekele c, Björn Palm b
a
School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
b
Department of Energy Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvägen 68, SE – 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden
c
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Cement production is a major consumer of energy and the largest source of industrial CO2 emissions. This study
Cement and clinker production aims to perform an environmental life cycle assessment of clinker and cement production in Ethiopia, using
Environmental concerns ReCiPe impact assessment method. Inventory data (material, energy, and transportation) is collected from seven
Life cycle assessment
major Ethiopian cement industries. The midpoint analysis identified nine hotspot environmental concerns: global
Cement industries
Ethiopia
warming, ozone formation (human health and terrestrial ecosystem), particulate matter formation, terrestrial
(acidification and ecotoxicity), freshwater eutrophication, human carcinogenic toxicity, and fossil resource
scarcity. Human health emerged as the most significantly affected endpoint damage category by the midpoint
impacts. Among the process stages included in clinker system boundary, clinker production phase (kiln emis­
sions) is a significant contributor to the total score of the hotspot impacts, ranging from 60.7% to 91.8%. The
clinker system is responsible for over 81.03% of the overall environmental burden of cement. The sensitivity
analysis reveals that a 5% change in kiln energy consumption and transportation burden could lead to a
reduction in hotspot impacts ranging from 1.8% to 5%. To foster reliability of this study, uncertainty analysis is
also conducted. Overall, the findings indicate the need to enhance environmental sustainability in Ethiopian
cement production.

cement (EPA, 2022). The clinker is produced in a kiln through a

1. Introduction
Global cement demand is rising due to infrastructure expansion and
upgrades. According to US geological survey report, global cement
production exceeded 4300 million tonnes (Mt) in 2021(USGS, 2021)
(see Fig. S1). Production is projected to increase by 12–23% by 2050
compared to 2014 levels. The increase is driven by the world’s growing
urban population that is expected to reach 6.5 billion in 2050. In Africa
(e.g., Ethiopia, Nigeria, and South Africa) and several Asia Pacific re­
gions (e.g., India), cement production is projected to double or triple by
2050. The infrastructure expansions in these developing regions is the
main driver behind the anticipated production increase (IEA, 2018).
However, it is paramount to mention that cement production is an
emission, energy, and resource-intensive sector with significant envi­
ronmental impacts (Stafford et al., 2016b; Thwe et al., 2021).
Cement manufacturing begins with extraction of raw materials such
as limestone, clay, silica sand, chalk, and shale. These raw material
constituents are used to produce clinker, an intermediate product
(Stafford et al., 2016b). Clinker is then ground with additives (gypsum,
fine limestone, and pozzolanic materials) to form the finished product,
heat-intensive process called pyro-processing, which involves calcina­
tion and sintering. In advanced dry process cement manufacturing,
calcination can occur in a pre-calciner vessel and the upper zone of the
rotary kiln, and sintering occurs in the lower zone (EPA, 2022). In
addition to the rotary kiln type, some developing countries, including
Ethiopia, still uses the vertical shaft kiln (VSK) technology for clinker
production, although it is being phased out due to its high thermal en­
ergy consumption, low production capacity, and poor cement quality
(see Table S1) (Tesema and Worrell, 2015).
The cement industry is the second-largest source of direct CO2
emissions and the third-largest energy consumer in the industrial sector
(IEA, 2018). The heat required for the pyro-processing (clinker pro­
duction phase) is obtained primarily by combusting fossil fuels (mainly,
coal) (Ige et al., 2022). Efforts are underway to decrease the dependence
on fossil fuels in clinker production phase by co-firing alternative fuels
(AFs) such as biomass and RDF (World Bank, 2017). In a typical modern
dry-process-based cement plant, 2.9–4.6 GJ of thermal energy is
consumed per tonne (t) of clinker. In pyro-processing, the calcination
reaction, which involves the chemical decomposition of CaCO3 (lime­
stone) to CaO (lime) and CO2, occurs at about 900 ◦ C temperature; while

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mickfeke@gmail.com (M.G. Wolde), dilip.khatiwada@energy.kth.se, dilipk@kth.se, dilipkhatiwada@gmail.com (D. Khatiwada).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100180
Received 31 January 2024; Received in revised form 14 March 2024; Accepted 18 March 2024
Available online 26 March 2024
2666-7894/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.G. Wolde et al.
List of acronyms and abbreviations
AF Alternative Fuel
CRGE Climate Resilient Green Economy
EMEP/EEA European Monitoring and Evaluation Program/
European Environment Agency
GW Global Warming
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IEA International Energy Agency
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
NMVOC Non Methane Volatile Organic Compound
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
PLC Portland Limestone Cement
PPC Portland Pozzolana Cement
PCDD/Fs Polychlorinated dibenzo-furans
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
US EPA The United States Environmental Protection Agency
VSK Vertical Shaft Kiln
1,4-DCB 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
the sintering process, the reaction of CaO with silica, alumina, and
ferrous oxides to form mineral components of clinker, occurs at a tem­
perature ranging from 1450 ◦ C to 1510 ◦ C (EPA, 2022; IEA, 2018). The
calcination reaction alone is responsible for approximately 60% of the
CO2 emissions generated during cement manufacturing, while the
combustion of kiln fuels accounts for about 30% of CO2 emissions. The
remaining emissions originate from activities such as raw material
extraction, transportation, and electricity consumption (Bashmakov
et al., 2022; IEA, 2018). In 2022, the cement sector is responsible for
around 27% (2.42 Gt) of the global total direct industrial CO2 emissions
(IEA, 2023). In addition to thermal energy, a substantial amount of
electrical energy is consumed for raw material preparation, with con­
sumption of approximately 110 kWh/t of cement (Madlool et al., 2013).
Overall, the cement sector accounts for 7% (10.7 Exa-joules) of global
industrial energy consumption (IEA, 2018).
In addition to CO2 emissions, cement production also releases
various atmospheric emissions. These include N2O, CH4, SO2, NOx, and
NMVOV and PM, as well as small fractions of hazardous substances
(such as PCB, Benzo(a) pyrene, and PCDD/Fs) and a wide range of
volatile and semi-volatile heavy metals (Hg, Cd, Se, Pb, As, Cu, etc.)
(Çankaya and Pekey, 2019; Ige et al., 2021). These atmospheric emis­
sions contributes to various environmental burdens, including global
warming, ozone formation, particulate matter formation, and terrestrial
acidifications. Raw material extraction also contributes to resource
depletion and land degradation (Thwe et al., 2021). Furthermore,
cement production is also associated with indirect environmental im­
pacts arising from pollutants emitted from auxiliary activities (back­
ground systems) such as transportation, fossil fuel production, and
electricity generation (Stafford et al., 2016b).
Cement manufacturing is currently under close scrutiny because of
its substantial GHG emissions and related environmental impacts and
energy use (Ige et al., 2022). The International Energy Agency (IEA) and
the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), in
collaboration on cement sustainability initiative, have discussed stra­
tegies to lessen environmental impacts by 2050. These initiatives
particularly focuses on tackling CO2 emission by reconfiguration of
cement production process with technologies (IEA, 2018). Conducting
an environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of clinker and cement
production is a fundamental step in influencing cement sustainability
2
Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180
initiative. LCA is a proven technique for comprehensively evaluating
environmental performance of a product over its entire life cycle. LCA
provides scientific-evidence that supports organizational
decision-making and policy-making regrading environmental impacts
(Chen et al., 2015; Ige et al., 2021).
The LCA method has been widely applied for assessing environ­
mental impact of clinker and cement production (e.g., Huntzinger and
Eatmon (2009); Stafford et al. (2016b) Tun et al. (2020); Petroche and
Ramirez (2022)) (see, Table 1). LCA studies have been employed to:
compare environmental performance of different clinker kiln technolo­
gies such as dry process (rotary kiln), semi dry process (Lepol kiln), and
VSK (e.g., Chen et al. (2015); Moretti and Caro (2017)), and evaluate
alternative production measures (fuel and clinker substitutions), and
best available technologies (e.g., Valderrama et al. (2012); Çankaya and
Pekey (2019); Palermo et al. (2022)). LCA studies across Africa (Ige
et al., 2021; Olagunju, 2021 Makhlouf et al., 2023), Asia (Chen et al.,
2015; Thwe et al., 2021) and other regions identify clinker production
phase as the primary cause of environmental impacts. One exception is a
study by Stafford et al. (2016b) that reported transportation (road) as
the dominant factor. Direct comparison between LCA studies can be
challenging due to variations in impact assessment methods. Recently,
Rhaouti et al. (2023) compared environmental performance of blended
cement types after harmonizing impact assessment results of LCA studies
using a conversion factor. Most studies employed the cradle-to-gate
system boundary, with the exception of Petroche and Ramirez (2022).
The versatility of cement presents a challenge for conducting a
cradle-to-grave life cycle analysis. Specifically, it is difficult to obtain
comprehensive data on end-use applications of cement in construction
projects (Chen et al., 2010).
While most LCA studies have considered main emissions from clinker
and cement production, very few LCA studies have analyzed environ­
mental impact of minor pollutants, such as hazardous and heavy metal
emissions (Chen et al., 2010; Hong and Li, 2011). These minor pollutants
may have the potential to impair plant and human health functions (Ige
et al., 2021). Additionally, as highlighted by Rhaouti et al. (2023), many
LCA studies have not addressed the influence of inventory data uncer­
tainty on impact assessment results, with exception being the work of
Çankaya and Pekey (2019), Chen et al. (2010), Hong and Li (2011).
Quantifying uncertainties is crucial for their correct interpretation and
influencing decision-making regarding environment.
In Ethiopia, few studies have attempted to address the environmental
performance of clinker and cement production. A recent LCA study,
based on data modeled from a single plant, evaluated the environmental
performance of clinker and cement production (Beressa and Vijaya
Saradhi, 2021). However, the comprehensiveness of this study is limited
as it excludes the potential environmental impacts of PM, criteria
energy-related pollutants (SO2, CO, NMVOCs, and heavy metals), and
indirect emissions associated with fuel and electricity production stages.
Similarly, Beketie et al. (2021) conducted an environmental study in
similar cement plant, focusing on emissions (PM and trace gases)
dispersion in the atmosphere. While the findings of Beketie et al. (2021)
provide valuable insight into PMs concentration and its impact on res­
piratory health in the surrounding community, their study lacks a
broader LCA perspective. Furthermore, both studies focuses on a single
cement plant and are not representative of the different cement pro­
duction technologies currently existing in Ethiopia (see Table S1).
Ethiopia’s cement sector is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the
economy (MOI, 2015). Installed production capacity has increased
significantly, from 9.4 Mt to 19.4 Mt, between 2013 and 2021. With
more than 16 operational companies, it is also one of the largest in the
East African cement market (AsokoInsight, 2023). Ethiopian cement
plants relies on fossil fuels for clinker production, and on the national
electricity grid. Ethiopia’s electricity is generated from renewable en­
ergy sources (hydropower (90%) and wind (8%)) and thermal fuel
sources (2%) (ITA, 2022a). Ethiopian cement sector consumes a signif­
icant amount of thermal and electricity energy. This reliance on fossil
M.G. Wolde et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180

Table 1
Previous clinker and cement LCA studies.
LCA scope Functional Unit Impact assessment method Indicator type Paper

Cradle-to- 20 bags OPC (1 bag ~ 100 lb) Eco-Indicator 95 Midpoint Huntzinger and Eatmon
gate (2009)
1 tonne of cement (blended and OPC) IPCC climate change 100 years (2001), CExD, and Characterization Boesch and Hellweg (2010)
factors developed by the CML method
1 kg of clinker IPCC climate change 100 years (2001), CExD, and Characterization Valderrama et al. (2012)
factors developed by the CML method
1 tonne of clinker and cement International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) García-Gusano et al. (2015)
(blended cement and OPC)
1 kg of OPC ReCiPe Midpoint/ Olagunju (2021)
1 ton of OPC Impact 2002+ Endpoint Chen et al. (2015)
Global Warming and CExD Midpoint Makhlouf et al. (2023)
1 tonne of OPC Eco-Indicator 99 Mbohwa and Moyo (2008)
Characterization factors developed by the CML method Stafford et al. (2016a)
ReCiPe Midpoint/ (Thwe et al., 2021; Tun
Endpoint et al., 2020)
ReCiPe Midpoint Stafford et al. (2016b)
ReCiPe Ige et al. (2022)
1 tonne of blended cement ReCiPe Palermo et al. (2022)
1 Mg of clinker and cement (blended Characterization factors from EN 15804:2012+A1:2013/Eco-Indicator Moretti and Caro (2017)
cement and OPC) 99/CML
1 ton of clinker CML/Eco-Indicator 99 Georgiopoulou and
Lyberatos (2018)
1 ton of clinker and cement (blended IPCC climate change 100 years (2007), CExD Beressa and Vijaya Saradhi
cement and OPC) (2021)
Impact 2002+ Midpoint/ Çankaya and Pekey (2019)
Cradle-to- 1 ton of clinker and cement (blended ReCiPe Endpoint Petroche and Ramirez
grave and OPC) (2022)
1 m3 of ready-mixed concrete

OPC: Ordinary Portland Cement, CExD: Cumulative Energy Demand, CML: Centrum voor Milieuwetenschappen Leiden, IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.

fuels, particularly coal, has led to a substantial increase in carbon
emissions, rising from 2.6 Mt in 2013 to 6.3 Mt in 2018 (Mossie et al.,
2021). Ethiopia’s growth and transformation plan, which prioritize
urban, industrial, and infrastructure development, positions the cement
industry as vital sector (MPD, 2021). Currently, there are ongoing new
construction projects for increasing domestic capacity (Global Cement,
2021). With the anticipated expansion of domestic production in
Ethiopia, it is expected that the environmental burdens will intensify. A
comprehensive LCA study is imperative to identify the most critical
environmental issues.
The current research aims is to bridge the knowledge gap in the
Ethiopian cement sector regarding comprehensive environmental LCA
assessment. The scope of this study is cradle-to-gate and covers seven
cement plants. To the best of our knowledge, there is a limited body of
research on clinker and cement LCA studies in the East African region
(for detail further explore LCA studies in Table 1); hence, this study also
contributes to the environmental impact evaluation of clinker and
cement production in the region. The main objectives of this study are
to.
preserved, i.e., human health, ecosystem, and resources (Huijbregts
et al., 2016). To foster reliability of this study, sensitivity and uncer­
tainty analyses are included. Sensitivity analysis measures the magni­
tude to which changes in main production system parameters influence
environmental impacts. On the other hand, uncertainty analysis quan­
tifies the uncertainties associated within impact assessment results,
which arises from estimations of emission and inherent variations in the
input or collected data. The scientific evidence gained from this study
can inform the revision of policies related to environmental impacts, as
well as energy efficiency. Additionally, the results of this study can also
be used as input data in evaluating the environmental impact of a spe­
cific construction project that utilize Ethiopian cement for concrete
production.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2; pre­
sents the description of the materials and methods; Section 3 provides
the LCA results for clinker and cement production, including sensitivity
and uncertainty analyses; Section 4 briefly discusses the findings of this
study in comparison with similar studies, as well as policy recommen­
dation and future outlooks; Section 5 concludes the study.

• evaluate the cradle-to-gate environmental impacts of cement and
clinker production,
• determine hotspot environmental issues and their significant influ­
encing factors,
• perform sensitivity and uncertainty analyses on the impact assess­
ment results.
This study considers the relevant process and energy-related emis­
sions (including hazardous and heavy metal emissions) from raw ma­
terial extraction to clinker and cement manufacturing, as well as indirect
emissions from auxiliary activities such as transportation, electricity,
and fossil fuel production. The study compares eighteen midpoint and
three endpoint impact results for the two most common cement types
(PPC (blended) and OPC), thereby contributing to the advancement of
cement LCA studies. The inclusion of endpoint analysis allows better
understanding of the effect of midpoint impacts on areas that need to be
2. Material and methods
ISO 14040, the present standard for a LCA study, describes the
principles and framework for LCA. These include goal and scope defi­
nitions, LCI, LCIA, and interpretation of the results of either LCI analysis
or LCIA (ISO, 2006). This study is accomplished following these four
core phases. In addition to the core phases, sensitivity analysis and un­
certainty analysis are conducted. This section discusses the description
of the four phases’.
2.1. Goal and scope definition
This LCA study assesses the environmental impact of clinker and
cement production in Ethiopia. The scope is a cradle-to-gate system,
which means that it excludes the usage and disposal stages of cement.
The scope is constrained due to practical difficulties in obtaining

3
M.G. Wolde et al.
complete data for the use (concrete) and disposal phases of cement.
Fig. 1 depicts the system boundaries of this LCA study. Two systems are
analyzed: clinker and cement. The studied system covers 70% of the
Ethiopia’s cement production capacity. The system boundary for clinker
includes five modules: raw material preparation (including extraction),
transportation, fossil fuel production, electricity, and clinker production
phase (rotary kiln/VSK and clinker cooling). The system boundary for
cement includes four modules: clinker cradle-to-gate system, cement
additives extraction, transportation, and electricity. In this study,
cement plant infrastructures and facilities are excluded since they have a
negligible environmental impact (Thwe et al., 2021). The two
mass-based functional units are 1 t of clinker and 1 t of PPC or OPC
(depending on the cement type produced).
2.2. Life cycle inventory and data sources
Table S2 shows a brief summary of the inventory data sources of this
study. The relevant inventories are compiled from seven cement plant
databases of the year 2020. These databases contains information on
raw materials, energy types and amounts, and the material composition
of clinker and cement products. After a careful review of each plant
database, an interview is conducted with key personnel of the com­
panies. The interviews further verified the accuracy and completeness of
the inventory data used in this study. Additionally, fuel calorific values,
fuel energy sources, and fuel and material transport data are gathered
during the interview. However, atmospheric emission databases is not
available from the companies.
The cement companies in Ethiopia primarily utilize the real-time
emissions data from their continuous monitoring system for only
adjusting the kiln conditions. However, this data is not stored for long-
term purposes. Due to confidentiality issues, companies are unwilling to
permit access to record the real-time emission data from the control
board and measurement reports on heavy metal emissions of individual
clinker kilns. Furthermore, environmental auditing reports containing
real emissions data from the cement sector, compiled by relevant
stakeholders, are also not available (Ministry of Environment and For­
est, 2015). Therefore, in this study, atmospheric emissions are estimated
using emission factors provided by standard guidelines (IPCC, EME­
P/EEA, and U.S. EPA) for cement manufacturing (see, section 2.2.4).
Fig. 1. Cradle-to-gate system boundary for the LCA of clinker and cement production in Ethiopia (author’s diagram).
4
Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180
Following these guidelines, the gathered data on the type and amount of
fuel, as well as cement production technologies, are utilized to estimate
the atmospheric emissions. For the background systems, i.e., raw ma­
terial extraction (limestone, clay, silica sand, etc.), electricity and fossil
fuel production, and transport, the most appropriate Ecoinvent LCI
database (Version 3) is used in this study (see, Table S3).
2.2.1. Production scenarios and calculation of inventory flows
In this study, the inventory values of the seven cement plants are
aggregated under four production scenarios to simplify results presen­
tation and interpretation. The scenarios are created based on technology
and the capacity to produce clinker (see, Table 2). First, the seven plants’
inventory flow is normalized to functional units in Microsoft Excel.
Second, the weighted average is calculated to construct the LCI of the
four production scenarios. The LCI results for each scenarios is sum­
marized and presented in Table S4, supplementary material.
2.2.2. Raw material and product flows
Limestone, clay, basalt, and silica sand are the primary raw materials
used in the production of Ethiopian clinker. PPC is produced in all
production scenarios, while OPC is produced only in the moderate and
large scenarios. PPC was the dominant product with an 80% production
share in 2020. Portland Limestone Cement (PLC) is not considered in the
analysis due to its low production volume (0.9%). Table 3 shows a short
summary of material and products used in the production scenarios.
Water is another important resource in the production of clinker and
cement. Most of the cement plants pump up water from wells located at
their production site. Typically, the water is used for raw material
Table 2
The four production scenarios.
Production Kiln Technology Daily clinker production capacity
Scenario (in tonne)
Small Dry process rotary kiln 500–2000
Moderate (Qty. 6) 2000–4000
Large >4000
VSK Shaft kiln (Qty. 1) 1000
VSK: Vertical Shaft kiln.
M.G. Wolde et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180

Table 3 • CLP = quantity of clinker produced in tonne

Material consumption in the four production scenarios.
Material consumption (in tonne) To make 1 tonne Clinker In 2020, the thermal fuel mix for clinker consisted of 52.44% local
coal, 42.07% imported coal, 1.06% petroleum coke, 0.36% heavy fuel
Clinker composition
oil (HFO), and 0.04% carbon black. TEC ranges between 3.55 and 5.75
Raw meal (limestone, clay, silica sand, and Basalt) 1.55 to 1.68 GJ/t of clinker. Diesel fuel and chemicals (explosives) are also consumed
Cement composition To make 1 tonne cement in the process of extracting raw materials (in quarries, conveying, and
PPC OPC crushing equipment).
Clinker 0.65 to 0.79 0.93 to 0.94
Pumicea 0.12 to 0.27 – 2.2.4. Emissions
Rhyolitea 0.18 –
The atmospheric emission inventory contains the most critical at­
Limestone fillera – 0.02
Gypsum 0.04 to 0.07 0.05 to 0.06
mospheric pollutants derived from cement industry sites (see Table S4),
a
as well as indirect emissions from background systems (see Table S3).
clinker substitute materials, PPC: Portland Pozzolana Cement, OPC: Ordi­ Emissions from limestone decomposition/calcination (i.e., CO2) are
nary Portland Cement.
estimated using the Tier 2 equation of IPCC (IPCC, 2006a). Emissions
from the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., CO2, CH4, N2O, NOx, CO,
preparation, cement equipment cooling, domestic services, and fire NMVOC, SO2, PM, PCB, Benzo(a) pyrene, Benzo (b) fluoranthene, and
services. Generally, in cement plants, the circulation efficiency of the heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Se, and Zn)) in pyro-process are
cooling water reaches 99%, and the wastewater from domestic service is computed using the Tier 1 equation of IPCC and EMEP/EPA (EME­
treated to meet the required standard before discharged (Li et al., 2014). P/EEA, 2019; IPCC, 2006b), whereas PMs emission from limestone
In this way, the overall water demand and associated environmental crushing and raw meal (grinding) and finish grinding (cement prepa­
impact are reduced in cement industry. The aforementioned water usage ration) is estimated based on USA-EPA guideline for cement raw mate­
and wastewater treatment scenario is applicable in Ethiopian cement rial and product processing (EPA, 2022)
industry.
2.2.5. Transportation
2.2.3. Energy flows For the transportation of imported fossil fuel, both road and ship
The electricity consumption for the LCA of clinker and cement is transport modes are used. While for raw materials and locally supplied
calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. fossil fuel (coal) only road mode is used. The distance covered by the
( ) ECKS road transport ranges from 1.5 km to 900 km, while sea transport ex­
ECclinker = ECrmp × RMC + (ECFP × FFC) + (1) tends beyond 900 km. In this study, the transport process estimate is
ClP
expressed as quantity, in terms of tkm (tonne-kilometer). This represents
ECcement =
ECGP
(2) the transportation of one tonne fuel or material over a distance of 1 km
CMP (see, Table S4).

Where (in equations (1) and (2)).

2.3. Life cycle impact assessment method

• ECclinker = electricity consumption in kWh per tonne of clinker

In addition to addressing a wide range of environmental impacts, it is
• ECcement = electricity consumption in kWh per tonne of cement
important that the chosen impact assessment method to be accepted by
• ECrmp = electricity consumption in kWh per tonne of raw meal
both researchers and practitioners. Therefore, in this study, the well-
(proportionally mixed raw materials for clinker production)
known ReCiPe impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint
• ECks = electricity consumption from kiln system in kWh
level is employed (see Table S5). The method smoothly harmonized
• ECGP = electricity consumption from finish grinding and packaging
eighteen midpoint and three endpoint impacts in a consistent frame­
system in kWh
work (Huijbregts et al., 2016). This method also uses a global scale
• ECFP = electricity consumption in kwh per tonne of fossil fuel
factors for normalization and weighting steps. In this study, SimaPro
prepared
9.2.0.2 is used, as it is the most widely applied software tool (Thwe et al.,
• RMC = conversion factor for (raw meal per clinker)
2021) for LCA study. The tool contains the ReCiPe method and the
• FFC = conversion factor for (fossil fuel per clinker)
Ecoinvent LCI database (version 3).
• CLP = quantity of clinker produced in tonne
• CMP = quantity of cement produced in tonne
2.4. Interpretation of life cycle results

For LCA clinker, the EC ranges between 76.91 and 96.4 kWh/t of
The midpoint results (characterization and normalization) and
clinker. On average, 50.9 kWh of electricity is consumed per tonne of
endpoint results (weighting) are carefully scrutinized and interpreted
PPC/OPC in the LCA of cement.
for all production scenarios. In addition to that, contribution analysis,
The thermal energy consumption (TEC) for the LCA of clinker is
comparison analysis, and sensitivity and uncertainty analyses results are
calculated using Eq. (3). TEC for the LCA of cement is not calculated
interpreted. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses are performed to
since the clinker system is an input for the LCA of cement, according to
adequately support the conclusions drawn from the LCA study. In this
this study system boundary.
study, the collected data lacks uncertainty ranges, such as standard
∑K
FEj deviations. Hence, the uncertainty ranges for the inventory data are
TECclinker = (3) defined based on secondary sources (i.e. from published database, such
CLP
as (Kellenberger et al. (2007)). Then, a Monte Carlo simulation, built in
j=1

SimaPro software, is used to assess the uncertainties in impact results.

Where.
The simulation is performed with a 95% confidence level and termi­
nated after 1000 iterations, i.e., the statistical distribution of the impact
• Subscript j = signifies the applied fossil fuel type in kiln,
results around their mean value is determined using coefficient of
• TECclinker = thermal energy consumption in GJ per tonne of clinker
variation (CV). CV is defined as the ratio between the standard deviation
• FE = amount of fossil fuel type combusted in tonne
and the mean. Higher CV values indicate larger uncertainties. Both the

5
M.G. Wolde et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180

sensitivity and uncertainty analyses are performed only for LCA of
clinker; this is due to the fact that clinker system is the most energy- and
emission-intensive process.
3. Results and analysis
This section presents the analysis of the LCIA results for clinker
(section 3.1) and cement (section 3.2) production. Environmental im­
pacts resulting from Ethiopia’s clinker and cement production have
regional, local, or global effects. GW and ozone depletion have impli­
cations on the global climate; mineral and fuel resource scarcity can
have both global and regional scale environmental effects; eutrophica­
tion, acidification, particulates matter formation, ecotoxicity, and land
use can have regional and local scale environmental effects.
In the supplemental material, additional results are provided in the
form of tables and graphs. This results include process stages contribu­
tion, normalization, and uncertainty.
3.1. LCA results of clinker production
3.1.1. Midpoint results analysis for clinker
Table 4 presents the midpoint characterization results (impact
scores) per tonne of clinker for each production scenario. Fig. 2 presents
the contribution of process stages (modules) to impact categories in each
scenarios. For all scenarios, the clinker production stage contributes
significantly to various environmental impacts, including global
warming, ozone depletion, ozone formation (human health and terres­
trial ecosystem), and fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial
acidification, and human non-carcinogenic toxicity. These findings are
consistent with previous studies (Moretti and Caro, 2017; Petroche and
Ramirez, 2022). Transportation contribution is observed in most of the
impact categories, with its contribution being dominant in ecotoxicity
impacts across all production scenarios. Additionally, in
small-to-moderate scenarios, its highest contribution is observed in
ionization radiation and human carcinogenic toxicity. This is due to the
fact that the transport distance to source fossil fuels (road and sea) and
raw materials (road) varies from 1.5 to more than 900 km in Ethiopia’s
clinker production. Similar findings are reported by Chen et al. (2015)
and Stafford et al. (2016b). The contribution of fossil fuel production is
observed in most of the impact categories. In Small-and large production
scenarios, its highest contribution is observed in fossil fuel scarcity,
eutrophication, land use, and water consumption. In the VSK scenario,
in addition to those impact categories, ozone depletion and ionization
radiation are also significantly influenced by fossil fuel production. This
is manly attributed to the large use of petroleum coke compared to coal
in VSK scenario. Petroche and Ramirez (2022) and Stafford et al.
(2016b, 2016a) considered fuel production stage in their analysis and
reported similar findings.
In all production scenarios, raw material preparation (which in­
cludes raw material extraction) dominantly contributes to the mineral
resource scarcity and slightly to other impact categories. In this study,
electricity has a negligible effect across all impact categories due to
Ethiopia’s electricity mix, which is primarily composed of hydropower
sources (98%) (ITA, 2022). Regarding electricity, similar findings were
reported by Stafford et al. (2016b), Tun et al. (2020), and Petroche and
Ramirez (2022), where hydropower dominates the electricity mix. Other
processes, which in this study represent the acquisition of miscellaneous
input materials (refractories and lubricating oil), also have a minor in­
fluence on most impact categories.
The VSK production scenario has the highest contribution to the total
score across all impact categories except marine eutrophication (ME),
ranging from 27% to 60% (see Table 4). This is because the VSK scenario
uses less coal compared to other scenarios (see Table S4), resulting in a
lower contribution to the total score of ME (21%). The VSK scenario
exhibits higher environmental burden due to several contributing fac­
tors. Firstly, its high thermal intensity (5.75 GJ/t of clinker) leads to
elevated kiln emissions. Secondly, the high consumption of raw material
(limestone, clay, and basalt, 1.68 t) per a tonne of clinker and the use of
outdated kiln technology (vertical shaft kiln) further contribute to its
high environmental burden.
The small production scenario has the second-highest contribution to
the total score across most impact categories, mainly, due to its rela­
tively higher coal consumption compared to moderate and large sce­
narios (see Table S4). Large and moderate scenarios contribute
comparably to the total score in most impact categories. These scenarios
exhibit the lowest environmental burden due to their advanced kiln
technology, i.e., rotary kilns equipped with 5–6 stage pre-heaters and in-
line pre-calciner vessels. These technological stacks have improved
thermal energy efficiency, which in turn reduces environmental impact.
Normalization is carried out with the aim of identifying the hotspot/
dominant midpoint impacts, (see Fig. S3 in supplementary material).
Furthermore, Table S7 presents the process stage that significantly
contribute to the hotspot impacts across all production scenarios. In all
production scenarios, global warming, ozone formation (human health
and terrestrial ecosystem), fine particulate matter formation, freshwater
eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity, human carcinogenic toxicity, and
fossil resource scarcity impact categories emerge as dominant. The
prevalence of the GW impact category is primarily attributed to the

Table 4
Midpoint impact scores per tonne of clinker for each production scenario (Small, Moderate, Large, and VSK-Vertical Shaft Kiln). For each impact category, the total
score represents the sum of the impact scores from all production scenarios. The percentage in parenthesis indicates the contribution of each production scenario to the
total score.
Midpoint Impact Category (Unit) Small Moderate Large VSK Total Score

Global Warming (kg CO2-eq) 978 (24%) 928 (23%) 915 (22.6%) 1224 (30.3%) 4045
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion (kg CFC11-eq) 1.08E-04 (20%) 1.23E-04 (23%) 1.38E-04 (26%) 1.66E-04 (31%) 5.34E-04
Ionizing Radiation (kBq Co-60-eq) 3.19E-01 (9%) 2.38E-01 (7%) 8.69E-01 (24%) 2.13E+00 (60%) 3.55E+00
Ozone Formation, Human Health (kg NOx-eq) 1.25E+00 (20%) 1.1E+00 (18%) 1.1E+00 (18%) 2.79E+00 (45%) 6.25E+00
Fine Particulate Matter Formation (kg PM2.5-eq) 8.54E-01 (26%) 7.62E-01 (23%) 7.13E-01 (21%) 9.94E-01 (30%) 3.32E+00
Ozone Formation, Terrestrial Ecosystem (kg NOx-eq) 1.26E+00 (26%) 1.1E+00 (18%) 1.12E+00 (18%) 2.81E+00 (45%) 6.30E+00
Terrestrial Acidification (kg SO2-eq) 1.35E+00 (23%) 1.2E+00 (21%) 1.2E+00 (21%) 2.02E+00 (35%) 5.76E+00
Freshwater Eutrophication (kg P-eq) 3.85E-02 (23%) 3.73E-02 (23%) 4.03E-02 (24%) 4.93E-02 (30%) 1.65E-01
Marine Eutrophication (kg N-eq) 4.63E-04 (28%) 4.2E-04 (25%) 4.3E-04 (26%) 3.48E-04 (21%) 1.66E-03
Terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 7.97E+02 (28%) 5.95E+02 (21%) 6.54E+02 (23%) 8.44E+02 (29%) 2.89E+03
Freshwater ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 1.29E-01 (23%) 1E-01 (18%) 1.39E-01 (25%) 1.98E-01 (35%) 5.67E-01
Marine ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 6E-01 (25%) 4.54E-01 (19%) 5.73E-01 (23%) 8.2E-01 (34%) 2.45E+00
Human Carcinogenic toxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 8.63E-01 (25%) 7.78E-01 (22%) 8.19E-01 (23%) 1.04E+00 (30%) 3.50E+00
Human Non-Carcinogenic toxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 3.4E+01 (27%) 2.88E+01 (23%) 2.86E+01 (23%) 3.33E+01 (27%) 1.25E+02
Land Use (m2a crop-eq) 4.41E+00 (23%) 3.89E+00 (20%) 4.97E+00 (26%) 5.72E+00 (30%) 1.90E+01
Mineral Resource Scarcity (kg Cu-eq) 2.67E+01 (22%) 2.85E+01 (24%) 3.00E+01 (25%) 3.35E+01 (28%) 1.19E+02
Fossil Resource Scarcity (kg oil-eq) 1.19E+02 (23%) 1.03E+02 (20%) 1.3E+02 (25%) 1.77E+02 (33%) 5.29E+02
Water Consumption (m3) 2.18E-01 (22%) 1.88E-01 (19%) 2.11E-01 (22%) 3.63E-01 (37%) 9.81E-01

6
M.G. Wolde et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180

Fig. 2. Contribution of process stages (in %) to midpoint impacts in each production scenarios (small (a), moderate (b), large (c), and VSK-Vertical Shaft Kiln (d)) for
clinker LCA.

7
M.G. Wolde et al.
decomposition of limestone (CaCO3) and burning of fossil fuels in kiln.
This processes result in significant GHG emissions. In all production
scenarios, CO2 emissions contribution to GW ranges from 95% to 98%,
methane (CH4) contributes 1.6% to 4%, followed by nitrous oxide (N2O)
at 0.2% to 0.3%. Ozone formation (human health and terrestrial
ecosystem) becomes a relevant impact category due to the releases of
NOx and NMVOCs from the combustion fossil fuels and transportation.
NOx emissions highly contribute (97.6–98.8%) to ozone formation
throughout the production scenarios.
Freshwater eutrophication occurs due to accumulation of phos­
phorus or nitrogen compounds and oxygen depletion condition in the
aquatic ecosystem. The depletion is measured as biological oxygen de­
mand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD)). Fossil fuel produc­
tion, particularly coal-washing and petroleum refinery operation,
substantially contributes to these emissions and conditions. Phosphate
contributes 83–90% in small-to-large production scenarios and only
28.6% in VSK scenario. In the VSK scenario, petroleum coke production
at the supply contributes 35.8% and 35.5% to COD and BOD conditions,
respectively. Fine particulate matter formation is influenced by primary
aerosols with diameters of 2.5 μm and above and secondary aerosols
(SO2 and NOx) released during clinker production. In all production
scenarios, PM2.5 contributes 20–54.7%, SO2 contributes 28.5–50%, and
NOx contributes 16.8–30.6% to fine PM formation.
Terrestrial acidification occurs due to emissions (SO2 and NOx) from
clinker production and transportation, as well as NH3 emissions gener­
ated from blasting processes during fossil fuel production (i.e., coal
mining operation) and raw material extraction. Terrestrial ecotoxicity is
primarily caused by heavy metal emissions (Cu, Sb, Zn, Hg, and Pb) from
transportation and somehow clinker production phase. Copper (Cu)
emissions from all production scenarios are the major contributor
(52–56%) to terrestrial ecotoxicity, followed by Antimony (Sb:
12.5–15.3%) and Zinc (Zn: 12.6–18.6%). Human carcinogenic toxicity
(HT) is mainly attributed to the chromium VI burden generated from
transportation, petroleum refinery operation, and coal washing. Other
substances such as Ni, As, Benzo(a) pyrene, and formaldehyde (emitted
from clinker production and other stages) contribute to HT to a lesser
extent. In this study, the predominant use of coal in clinker production is
the main contributor to fossil resource scarcity.
3.1.2. Endpoint results analysis for clinker
The endpoint results (weighting scores) for clinker LCA are shown in
Table 5. Compared to other production scenarios, the VSK scenario
presents the highest score in all damage categories due to its high
thermal energy intensity and associated emissions and material resource
consumption. The small production scenario ranks second in terms of
contributing to the damage categories, followed by moderate and large
scenarios. The moderate scenario shows the lowest score in the resource
category, which can be attributed to its relatively lower consumption
fossil fuels and material resources (see Table S4). In terms of process
contribution, clinker production is prevalent in the human and
ecosystem damage categories. The raw material extraction and fossil
fuel production steps mainly contribute to the resource damage
Table 5
Endpoint results (weighting scores) in all production scenarios (Small, Moder­
ate, Large, and VSK-Vertical Shaft Kiln) for clinker LCA. The result shows the
impact of each production scenario to damage category (endpoint), expressed in
Points (Pt).
Damage category Unit Small Moderate Large VSK Total Score
Human Health Pt 24.3 22.5 21.8 29.6 98.2
Ecossytem 0.882 0.828 0.822 1.17 3.702
Resource 0.148 0.133 0.228 0.413 0.922
Total 25.3 23.5 22.9 31.2 102.9
Note: Pt (Point) is a dimensionless unit of measurement used in SimaPro to
express environmental damage (Sustainability, 2023).
8
Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180
category. The electricity consumed does not make a significant contri­
bution to any of the damage categories.
3.1.3. Sensitivity analysis for hotspot clinker midpoint impacts
In this study, kiln thermal energy consumption (or heat demand in
clinker production) and transportation burden, and electricity are
identified as main parameters for the sensitivity analysis. These pa­
rameters are selected due to their importance in the clinker system. As
discussed earlier, the amount of thermal energy consumption (TEC)
directly influences the atmospheric emission levels of the kilns. More­
over, a change in TEC indirectly influences the fuel transportation
burden in this study. To conduct the sensitivity analysis, a 5% decrease is
modeled in TEC and fuel transportation (FT). The result indicates a
decrease of 2%–5% in the hotspot midpoint impacts (see, Table 6). In
contrast, if the electrical input is switched from the Ethiopian grid,
where 98% of the electricity is produced using renewable energy sour­
ces, to the Kenya grid, where 80% of the electricity is produced using
renewable energy, the hotspot midpoint impacts increases by 1.4%–
15.3% (ITA, 2022a, 2022b).
3.1.4. Uncertainty analysis of clinker midpoint impact results
The uncertainty analysis provides insights into how the in­
consistencies within the LCI database can affect the final impact
assessment results. Table S9 in the supplementary material briefly
summarizes the results after Monte Carlo iterations for each production
scenario. Based on the CV values, fine PM formation, water consump­
tion, and mineral resource depletion impacts exhibit a higher degree of
uncertainty across all production scenarios. This suggests that the results
obtained from these impacts may not be adequate to inform policy de­
cisions regarding environmental regulations. On the other hand, global
warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, ionizing radiation, terrestrial
ecotoxicity, and land use impacts show a lower degree of uncertainty.
The remaining impact categories exhibit a moderate degree of
uncertainty.
3.2. LCA results of cement production
3.2.1. Midpoint results analysis for cement
Table S8 in the supplementary material presents the midpoint
characterization results (impact scores) per tonne of cement (OPC and
PPC) for each production scenario. It also includes the total score per
impact category (i.e., the sum of impact scores from all production
scenarios). Fig. 3 shows the percentage contribution of each production
scenarios to the total score. Since clinker is a core input in the produc­
tion of cement, the hotspot midpoint impacts identified during the
clinker LCA are also evident in the cement LCA (Fig. S4). Among the four
modules considered in cement LCA, the clinker cradle-to-gate system,
encompassing five modules (see Section 2.1), significantly contribute to
the overall environmental burden of cement production (see, Table 7).
The remaining modules (i.e., cement additives extraction, trans­
portation, and electricity) have a minimal contribution. This finding
accords with previous studies (Moretti and Caro, 2017; Petroche and
Ramirez, 2022).
In PPC production, the VSK production scenario present the highest
environmental burden across most impact categories due to its high
energy consumption and clinker content (see Table S8). The small pro­
duction scenario has a relatively high environmental burden, followed
by the large scenario. The moderate scenario has the lowest environ­
mental burden for PPC production. In OPC production, the large and
moderate scenarios have a similar environmental burden almost in all
impact categories. When comparing PPC and OPC in large and moderate
scenarios, PPC generates a lower environmental burden (see Fig. S2).
This is mainly due to the use of clinker substitutes (Pumice and Rhyolite)
in PPC production (see Table 3). However, it is important to mention
that extraction of these substitute materials impose environmental im­
pacts related to land and water use. Overall, the clinker content remains
M.G. Wolde et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180

Table 6
Sensitivity analysis of identified parameters in all production scenarios (Small, Moderate, Large, and VSK-Vertical Shaft Kiln) for clinker LCA.
Hotspot Midpoint Impacts Changes (% change from baseline values, see Table 4)

Small Moderate Large VSK

Reduction of TEC & Grid Reduction of TEC & Grid Reduction of TEC & Grid Reduction of TEC & Grid
FT by 5% change FT by 5% change FT by 5% change FT by 5% change

Global Warming − 2.3 +1.4 − 2 +1.8 − 2 +1.8 − 2.8 +1.4

Ozone formation, Human − 4.2 +3.5 − 4.3 +5 − 4 +4.8 − 4.5 +2
Health
Fine Particulate Matter − 4.7 +3.2 − 4.7 +4.4 − 4.6 +4.6 − 4.6 3.4
Formation
Ozone Formation, − 4.2 +3.6 − 4.3 +5 − 4 +4.8 − 4.5 +2
Terrestrial Ecosystem
Terrestrial Acidification − 4.6 +6.6 − 4.6 +8.5 − 4.5 +8.3 − 4.6 +5.2
Freshwater Eutrophication − 4.8 +3.6 − 5 +4.6 − 4.8 +4.2 − 4.8 +3.6
Terrestrial ecotoxicity − 4.8 +6 − 4.8 +9.4 − 4.7 +8.5 − 5 +7
Human carcinogenic − 3.7 +11.6 − 3.8 +15.3 − 3.5 +14.4 − 4 +12
toxicity
Fossil Resource Scarcity − 4.8 +3 − 5 +4.4 − 4.8 +3.5 − 4.8 +2.7

TEC: thermal energy consumption, FT: Fuel Transportation.

Fig. 3. Contribution of the four production scenarios (Small, Moderate, Large, and VSK-Vertical Shaft Kiln) to the total score per impact category (in %). See Table S8
for details on the total score (represents sum of impact scores from all scenarios, expressed per tonne of cement (OPC-Ordinary Portland Cement and PPC-Portland
Pozzolana Cement)).

9
M.G. Wolde et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180

Table 7
Contribution of process stages/production subsystem to the overall environmental burden of cement in each production scenario at midpoint analysis.
Cement Production Clinker cradle-to-gate system Cement Additives extraction Transportation of cement additives Electricity for grinding and
type Scenario (%) (%) (%) packaging (%)

PPC Large 86.23 6.04 7.26 0.47

Moderate 81.03 11.22 7.21 0.55
Small 91.13 5.16 3.27 0.45
VSK 91.91 3.26 4.52 0.32
OPC Large 99.34 0.1 0.11 0.45
Moderate 97.9 0.25 1.3 0.55

PPC: Portland Pozzolana Cement, OPC: Ordinary Portland Cement).

Table 8
Endpoint results (weighting scores) in all production scenarios (Small, Moderate, Large, and VSK-Vertical Shaft Kiln) for cement LCA. The result shows the impact of
each production scenario to damage category (endpoint), expressed in Points (Pt).
Damage category Unit PPC OPC

Small Moderate Large VSK Total Score Moderate Large Total Score

Human Health Pt 17.9 15.1 15.1 23.7 71.8 21 20.5 41.5

Ecosystem 0.654 0.559 0.576 0.936 2.725 0.772 0.774 1.546
Resource 0.116 0.104 0.168 0.337 0.725 0.126 0.215 0.341
Total 18.6 15.7 15.9 24.9 75.25 21.9 21.5 43.4

PPC: Portland Pozzolana Cement, OPC: Ordinary Portland Cement.

Note: Pt (Point) is a dimensionless unit of measurement used in SimaPro to express environmental damage (Sustainability, 2023).

the key factor influencing the environmental impact of cement pro­
duction, followed by fuel energy consumption.
3.2.2. Endpoint results analysis for cement
The endpoint results for cement LCA are shown in Table 8. The
cement endpoint results mirrors the pattern observed for clinker (see
Section 3.1.2). In case of PPC production, VSK production scenario
shows the highest contribution to damage categories due to higher
clinker and thermal energy consumption. In case of OPC production,
both large and moderate scenarios presents a comparable effect on
damage categories, with the exception of resource category. The large
scenario contributes significantly to the resource category due to slightly
higher clinker use in OPC production. When comparing OPC and PPC in
the larger and moderate scenarios, OPC production results in higher
environmental damage. Overall, cement production presents significant
environmental impact on human health, followed by ecosystem quality

Table 9
Results comparison between this study and similar studies for cement LCA. All values are expressed per functional unit (1 tonne of cement). The range values under
the” current study” column are results from the studied production scenarios (Small, Moderate, Large, and VSK-Vertical Shaft Kiln).
Midpoint Impact Category (Unit) Current Study Literature reviewed

PPC OPC Blended cement (includes PPC) OPC

Global Warming (kg CO2-eq) 614–974 860–864 452–850E,T, US/E,B12

850–1440M12,T,S,P, US/E, SA
2160B12
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion (kg CFC11-eq) 8.5E-05 – 1.34E-04 1.3E-04 – 1.15E-04 2.94E-06 – 3.12E-05E,T 1.94E-07 – 2.54E-04SA,B12,M12,T
Ionizing Radiation (kBq Co-60-eq) 0.227–1.73 0.231–0.819 3.17–4.09B12 18.62M12
Ozone Formation, Human Health (kg NOx-eq) 0.78–2.25 1.04 0.61–1.48E,S,B12 1.38–2.88M12
Ozone Formation, Terrestrial Ecosystems (kg NOx-eq) 0.79–2.27 1.05 11.8B12
Fine Particulate Matter Formation (kg PM2.5-eq) 0.5–0.8 0.67–0.71 0.53–0.67E,T,B12 0.034–3.32B12,T,M12
Terrestrial Acidification (kg SO2-eq) 0.82–1.62 1.11–1.13 1.14–7.34E,T;B12 2.44E-03 – 8.2SA,B12,T,M12
Freshwater Eutrophication (kg P-eq) 0.025–0.039 0.03–0.04 0.0039–0.095E,T,B12 0.012–0.28B12,M12
Marine Eutrophication (kg N-eq) 2.91E-04-3.48E-04 3.97E-04 – 4.09E-04 1.96E-03 – 0.06E,B12 0.218–0.416B12,M12,E
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 519–786 575–618 2380–2943T 0.08–0.19B12,M12
514–730B12 196–229M12
2888–2921T
Freshwater Ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 0.09–0.18 0.1–0.13 2.27–2.79B12 0.0032–0.0036M12
3.6–6.1B12,M12
Marine Ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 0.4–0.74 0.44–0.54 3.35–4.18B12 3.94–6.03B12,M12
0.092–0.104M12
Human Carcinogenic Toxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 0.66–0.92 0.77–0.8 46US/E 254–269B12,M12
2.87–3.78B12 1.25E-06 – 0.897S,M12
Human Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) 21.7–28.7 27–27.3 84.6–100B12 10.1–99.6M12
Land Use (m2a crop-eq) 4.99–6.39 3.7–4.96 0.99–1.54B12 12.68–18.44M12
Water Consumption (m3) 0.288–0.441 0.181–0.202 2.82–3.3B12 0.19–1.87M12
Mineral Resource Scarcity (kg Cu-eq) 23–28.9 27–28.4 1.17–1.55B12 26.8–32.3M12
Fossil Resource Scarcity (kg oil-eq) 71–142 96.5–122.5 23–60.46E,B12 76.4–237M12,E
736B12

PPC: Portland Pozzolana Cement, OPC: Ordinary Portland Cement.

Note: The units/labeling substances used to measure/characterize environmental impacts in the reviewed literatures vary in some cases. These difference
are highlighted in the comparison analysis discussion, and for exact information, the reviewed papers should be referred: US/E (Boesch and Hellweg, 2010);
E
(Petroche and Ramirez, 2022); T (Çankaya and Pekey, 2019); M12(Thwe et al., 2021; Tun et al., 2020); P(Stafford et al., 2016a); B12(Palermo et al., 2022; Stafford et al.,
2016b); S(García-Gusano et al., 2015); SA(Ige et al., 2022).

10
M.G. Wolde et al.
deterioration and resource depletion. This finding is compatible with the
findings of Chen et al. (2015) and (Tun et al. (2020).
4. Discussion
4.1. Comparison of LCA results of cement with similar studies
Comparisons of LCA results of cement is also needed to enhance the
credibility of this study. In this section, the study solely discusses the
possible reasons for similarities or variations between this study and
others study’s findings. A summary of LCA result comparison is provided
in Table 9. For the blended cement products (which includes PPC), the
results from similar studies are compiled without accounting for the
specific percentage of the clinker substitute materials. This is because of
the variation in the types and proportions of clinker substitutes (such as
natural pozzolana, blast furnace slag, and fly ash) within the cement LCA
studies (Rhaouti et al., 2023).
In this study, the GW potential for PPC ranges from 614 to 974 kg
CO2-eq/t, while for OPC it ranges from 853 to 864 kg CO2-eq/t. Ac­
cording to literature, the GW potential for blended cement fluctuate
from 452 to 850 kg CO2-eq/t, and for OPC, from 850 to 1440 kg CO2-eq/
t. Some studies reported an extreme value of GW potential. For instance,
Stafford et al. (2016b) obtained a value of 2160 kg CO2-eq/t of OPC,
which is significantly higher due to the extensive use of road transport in
the production system. GW potential is also influenced by factors such as
fuel types, materials (limestone/clinker) consumed, and electricity mix
(coal, hydropower, etc.) (Petroche and Ramirez, 2022; Stafford et al.,
2016a). In this study, the VSK production scenario is responsible for the
higher upper bound value of cement GW potential. This can be attrib­
uted to its higher clinker and energy consumption during cement
production.
The stratospheric ozone depletion (SD) values for PPC are higher
than reported in the literature, while for OPC the values fall within the
reported literature range (see Table 9). The VSK production scenarios
significantly contributes to the elevated SD value in PPC. Previous
studies on LCA of OPC (e.g., Ige et al. (2022)) identified electricity
(generation dominated by coal) as major contributor to SD impact.
However, in this study, clinker production (i.e., fossil fuel burning) stage
significantly contribute to the SD impact of cement production, followed
by fossil fuel production and raw material preparation (diesel fuel
burning) stages. Therefore, emissions during fuel burning and extraction
process are the main parameters for SD impact in various studies.
The ionizing radiation (IR) values for PPC are close to those reported
in the literature. However, for OPC, it is difficult to directly compare the
IR values due to differences in the measurement metric (or labeling
substance) used between the reviewed literatures and this study. In case
of PPC, the upper bound values (2.25/2.27 kg NOx-eq/t of cement) for
ozone formation (human health and terrestrial ecosystem) considerably
exceed literature values (1.48 kg NOx-eq/t of cement). This is mainly
due to the impact of VSK production scenario. For OPC, the values in this
study are lower than those found in the literature. Ozone formation (OF)
is also heavily influenced by the fuel types used in clinker production
and electricity mix. For instance, in the reviewed studies (e.g., Petroche
and Ramirez (2022)), the coal-fired power plant further amplified the
OF values due to additional NOx emissions. On the other hand, Stafford
et al. (2016b) reported extremely high OF values due to road transport
emissions.
The fine PM formation values obtained in this study for PPC are in
line with those reported in the reviewed literature. While, the PM for­
mation results for OPC in this study exhibits a wider variability
compared to literature reviewed (see Table 9). This observation col­
laborates with this study’s finding on the uncertainties of PM emissions
(see Section 3.1.4). However, the result variation may not exclusively
originate from PM emissions inconsistencies; they could also derived
from difference in pollution mitigation technologies employed by
cement industries, as highlighted by Hong and Li (2011). The terrestrial
11
Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180
acidification (TA) values obtained in this study are lower compared to
the literature values. The lower TA value is attributed to the dominance
of hydropower in Ethiopia’s electricity mix, which avoids atmospheric
depositions that would otherwise occur with coal-fired power plant (Ige
et al., 2022).
The values for freshwater eutrophication (FE) obtained in this study
fall within the range reported in the literature. The Marine eutrophica­
tion (ME) values for both PPC and OPC in this study are significantly
lower than those reported in the literature (see Table 9). FE and ME
values are influenced by fuel types (i.e., there production) and trans­
portation burden. In Ethiopia, coal is the predominant fuel used in
clinker production (except VSK production scenario), and its production
at supply contributes both to FE and ME values in this study. Petroche
and Ramirez (2022) observed high FE potential and minimal ME po­
tential due to using petroleum coke as the main fuel for clinker pro­
duction, this is also evident in this study for VSK scenario. Conversely,
Stafford et al. (2016b) reported a significant influence of transportation
on both FE and ME, while fuel production contribution was relatively
low in their study.
Significant differences in ecotoxicity impact scores are observed
between this study and those reviewed in the literature (see Table 9).
These impacts are primarily influenced by heavy metal emissions from
background systems (transportation and fuel production) and, to a lesser
extent, by clinker production in this study. As in this study, most of the
reviewed studies (see Table 9) sourced heavy metal concentrations data
for background systems directly from the LCI databases (e.g., Ecoin­
vent). Thus, several explanations can be assumed for the significant
variations observed in ecotoxicity impact results. Firstly, there may be
inconsistent heavy metal emissions data within the LCI databases for
background systems. Secondly, there is variation in terms of impact
labeling substances within the impact assessment methods, and inherent
uncertainties exist within the impact methods. Finally, the studies might
have either neglected heavy metal emissions from clinker production
stage (kiln system) entirely or considered only a limited items of them.
Similarly, there is a noticeable level of result uncertainty in human
carcinogenic/non-carcinogenic toxicity impact scores.
For land use (LU) impact category, the results for PPC in this study
closely align with the values obtained by Palermo et al. (2022), where
the same version of the ReCiPe method was used in their study. How­
ever, direct comparison of LU impact scores between this study and
those reported by Thwe et al. (2021) for OPC is difficult due to difference
in impact measurement metric.
The water consumption (WC) impact scores obtained in this study
are lower compared to those found in the literatures (see Table 9). In this
study, the primary contributors to WC impact are fossil fuel production
and raw material extraction. On other hand, in the reviewed studies, WC
impact is primarily influenced by wet-process clinker production tech­
nology and electricity consumption. The differences in process stage
contribution, along with the uncertainties in WC data of this study (see
Section 3.1.4) might contribute to the observed variation in results. The
mineral resource scarcity (MS) values for OPC are consistent with the
literature reported (Thwe et al., 2021; Tun et al., 2020). However, for
PPC, the MS values significantly deviate from the literature reported
(Stafford et al., 2016b). This variation could be attributed to the dif­
ference in the type and proportion of clinker substitute materials be­
tween this study and reviewed studies. The fossil resource scarcity (FS)
scores in this study for PPC range from 71 to 142 kg oil-eq/t, and for OPC
it ranges from 96.5 to 122.5 kg oil-eq/t. However, Stafford et al. (2016b)
reported significantly higher value (736 kg oil-eq/t) for OPC due to the
extensive use of fossil fuel in transportation (road). If FS value for VSK
production scenario is excluded from the comparison, the FS values of
this study fall within the range found in literature (see Table S8,
Table 9).
In summary, the variations in results observed between this study
and reviewed studies stems from inconsistence of inventory data, ma­
terial composition, impact assessment methods (and labeling
M.G. Wolde et al.
substances), and differences in production technology and fuel types
used in cement industries.
4.2. Policy recommendation and future outlook
This study identifies the hotspot environmental concerns, including
midpoint and endpoint impacts, arising from the production of clinker
and cement in Ethiopia. These findings establish foundation for
anchoring sustainability in cement sector and guiding future decision-
making towards a more environmentally responsible industry. For
instance, this study reveals that energy (fossil fuel) related emissions
during clinker production significantly contribute to atmospheric
emission-related midpoint impacts. Additionally, fossil fuel production
at supply significantly contributes to aquatic system eutrophication and
fossil fuel depletion.
Ethiopia’s climate resilient green economy (CRGE) strategy projects
a significant increase in cement production, reaching 65 Mt by 2030.
This strategy also aims to limit the nation’s GHG emissions at 150 Mt
CO2-eq by 2030 (FDRE, 2015, 2011). Extrapolating the current result
suggests that without mitigation measures, the GW potential of cement
production could reach 42 Mt of CO2-eq by 2030. This translates to a
concerning issue where cement production contributes to nearly 28% of
the country’s GHG emissions in 2030. To reduce GHG emissions from
the cement sector, the CRGE strategy has prioritized two measures:
alternative fuels (AF) and energy efficiency measures. Implementing
these measures is estimated to have a mitigation potential of approxi­
mately 9.2 Mt CO2-eq by 2030 (FDRE, 2015). This implies a significant
reduction of 22% in the extrapolated GHG emissions. Previous studies,
such as the one by the World Bank (2017), have identified potential
low-carbon AF sources (biomass, RDF, and used tires) for the Ethiopian
cement industry. However, despite this promising potential,
co-processing of AFs in Ethiopian cement kilns is not currently recog­
nized. Furthermore, the Ethiopian cement industry average thermal
(4.13 GJ/t of clinker) and electrical energy (129 kWh/t of cement) is
higher than the energy use targets set in cement sustainable initiative for
2030 (IEA, 2018). This initiative suggests a target of 3.3 GJ/t of clinker
and 87 kWh/t of cement.
Development of a supportive and coordinated environmental and
energy policy framework, as well as enforcement of existing policies, is
crucial for enabling the implementations of abatement measures rec­
ommended in CRGE strategy and also in cement sustainability initiative
(e.g., clinker substitution, on-site heat recovery for power generation).
In the meantime, a quick interventions and policy actions are currently
needed: to phase out outdated kiln technologies (VSK production sce­
nario), enforce energy audits, and promote the upgrade of small pro­
duction scenario to moderate and large scale operations. To effectively
support Ethiopia’s transition to sustainable clinker and cement pro­
duction, assessing the environmental performance of a wider range of
cement-specific abatement measures and identifying factors that hinder
or promote implementation of these measures are also mandatory.
5. Conclusion
The present study carries out a cradle-to-gate LCA for clinker and
cement production in Ethiopia, to provide a comprehensive environ­
mental profile. Four production scenarios are studied, categorized based
on kiln technology and production size (clinker). The VSK scenario ex­
hibits the highest environmental burden (27–60%) compared to the
others due to its reliance on older technology, which leads to increased
energy consumption and higher emissions. Emissions from the clinker
production phase, particularly the kiln system, substantially contribute
to most of the atmospheric emission-dependent midpoint impacts
throughout the production scenarios. Emissions from other process
stages (raw material preparation, fossil fuel production, and trans­
portation) also contribute slightly to these impacts. In clinker LCA, CO2
emissions from all process stage contribute 95%–98% to global
12
Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180
warming. PM2.5 emissions contribute between 20% and 54.7% to fine
PM formation, and NOx emissions contribute between 97.6% and 98.5%
to ozone formation (human and terrestrial ecosystem).
Across all production scenarios, the raw material preparation stage is
responsible for 99% of mineral resource scarcity in clinker LCA. The
fossil fuel production stage effect is observed on fossil fuel scarcity,
eutrophication, and water consumption impact categories. Trans­
portation is a major contributor to ecotoxicity (43.2–63.3%) and human
carcinogenic toxicity (33–39%) impacts. The contribution of electricity
to all impact categories is negligible. This study midpoint analysis
identifies nine hotspot environmental concerns out of eighteen impact
categories, including, global warming, ozone formation (human health
and terrestrial ecosystem), fine particulate matter formation, freshwater
eutrophication, terrestrial (ecotoxicity and acidification), human carci­
nogenic toxicity, and fossil fuel scarcity. Endpoint analysis further re­
veals that the most critical aspects is the damage on human health.
Mitigation measures primarily should focus on these hotspot midpoint
impacts. This ultimately limit Ethiopian clinker and cement production
damage on human health.
To further increase the reliability of this study, sensitivity and un­
certainty analyses are conducted. The sensitivity analysis shows that a
slight 5% decrease in kiln fuel energy consumption and transportation
burden reduces the environmental load of the identified hotspot im­
pacts. This findings suggests that substituting fossil fuels with locally
sourced, low carbon-index AFs could be an effective strategy for
lowering the environmental burden of Ethiopian clinker and cement
production. Conversely, a hypothetical scenario where Ethiopian elec­
tricity (98% renewable) is substituted with Kenyan electricity (80%
renewable) would increase the environmental load from hotspot im­
pacts. This highlights the significant role of Ethiopian electricity grid in
mitigating environmental burdens. In addition to fossil fuel substitution,
this study also suggests that implementation of energy-efficient tech­
nologies (e.g., switching VSK to multistage preheater and pre-calciner
equipped rotary kiln) and lowering clinker content in cement can lead
to a more sustainable cement production.
The uncertainty analysis on impact assessment results reveals low (e.
g., global warming (3.59–5.64%), terrestrial ecotoxicity (3.49–6.18%))
and moderate (e.g., human carcinogenic toxicity (6.2–7.74%)) degree of
uncertainties for most clinker midpoint impacts. However, fine PM
formation (22.07–33.43%), water consumption (26.48–54.06%), and
mineral resource scarcity (16.06–17.96%) impacts exhibit higher degree
of uncertainty. This reduces the pertinence of the final impact assess­
ment result. Most of the cement midpoint impact assessment results are
comparable with the results of similar studies, with the exception of
ecotoxicity and human toxicity impact categories (see Table 9). Incon­
sistent inventories of heavy metals and impact labeling substances could
explain the large variations observed in ecotoxicity and human toxicity
impact assessment results across studies.
To mitigate the hotspot environmental impacts, a coordinated policy
framewrok that integrates both environment and energy aspects is
needed. In the future work, this study will continue to assess the po­
tential for environmental improvements through alternative production
measures and identify the barrier and driver factors that affect envi­
ronmental and energy efficiency improvement measures in Ethiopian
context. The latter is important for critical informing policy reforms.
Funding
The work was supported by SIDA- Ethiopian Bilateral programme
(contribution No: AAU 51080124).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Micheal G. Wolde: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal Analysis, Software, Validation, Data Curation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Dilip Khatiwada:
M.G. Wolde et al.
Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing –
review & editing, Visualization, Supervision. Getachew Bekele:
Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
Project administration, Funding acquisition. Björn Palm: Conceptuali­
zation, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project
administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to cement factory experts in Ethiopia for
providing on-site data and allowing interviews and visits. Micheal
Getachew gratefully acknowledges the support from the ITM School,
Department of Energy Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Sweden. Micheal Getachew also would like to express sincere gratitude
to Dr. Yilma Tadesse from the School of Mechanical and Industrial En­
gineering, AAiT, AAU, Ethiopia, for the support provided during data
collection.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100180.
The following supplementary materials are available online:
Table S1. List of cement industries in Ethiopia in 2020; Table S2. In­
ventory data sources; Table S3. Processes taken from the SimaPro
9.4.0.1 software Ecoinvent database; Table S4. Summary life cycle in­
ventory values for LCA of clinker and cement; Table S5. Relationship of
midpoint indicator and endpoint indicator in ReCiPe method; Table S6.
Midpoint results for LCA of clinker production in each production sce­
nario per process stages; Table S7. Process stages contribution to the
total score of hotspot impacts (across all production scenarios) for
clinker LCA; Table S8. Midpoint impact scores per tonne of cement (PPC
and OPC) for each production scenario; Table S9. The summary of un­
certainty of midpoint impact results for clinker LCA in all production
scenarios; Fig. S1. Global cement production trend; Fig. S2. Comparison
between PPC and OPC production midpoint impact results; Fig. S3.
Normalized midpoint impact results in all production scenarios for
clinker LCA; Fig. S4. Normalized midpoint impact results for cement in
the production scenarios.
References
AsokoInsight, 2023. Ethiopia’s cement market. URL. https://www.asokoinsight.com/c
ontent/market-insights/ethiopia-cement-market.
Bashmakov, I.A., Nilsson, L.J., Acquaye, A., Bataille, C., Cullen, J.M., de la Rue du
Can, S., Fischedick, M., Geng, Y., Tanaka, K., 2022. Industry (contribution of
working Group III to the Sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
climate change). In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC, UK
and New York.
Beketie, K.T., Angessa, A.T., Zeleke, T.T., Ayal, D.Y., 2021. Impact of cement factory
emission on air quality and human health around Mugher and the surrounding
villages, Central Ethiopia. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 15, 347–361. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11869-021-01109-4.
Beressa, L., Vijaya Saradhi, B., 2021. Life cycle assessment of Ethiopian cement
manufacturing: a potential improvement on the Use of fossil fuel in Mugher cement
factory. App. Envi. Res. 43, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.35762/AER.2021.43.4.8.
Boesch, M.E., Hellweg, S., 2010. Identifying improvement potentials in cement
production with life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 9143–9149.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es100771k.
13
Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180
Çankaya, S., Pekey, B., 2019. A comparative life cycle assessment for sustainable cement
production in Turkey. J. Environ. Manag. 249, 109362 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.109362.
Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A., 2010. Environmental impact of cement
production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation.
J. Clean. Prod. 18, 478–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.014.
Chen, W., Hong, J., Xu, C., 2015. Pollutants generated by cement production in China,
their impacts, and the potential for environmental improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 103,
61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.048.
EMEP/EEA, 2019. Manufacturing Industries and Construction (Combustion) (EMEP/EEA
Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2019).
EPA, 2022. Portland Cement Manufacturing. USA.
FDRE, 2015. Ethiopia’s climate-resilient-green economy: green economy strategy.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Ministry of Water and Energy, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
FDRE, 2011. Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient-Green Economy: Green Economy Strategy.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
García-Gusano, D., Herrera, I., Garraín, D., Lechón, Y., Cabal, H., 2015. Life cycle
assessment of the Spanish cement industry: implementation of environmental-
friendly solutions. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 17, 59–73. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10098-014-0757-0.
Georgiopoulou, M., Lyberatos, G., 2018. Life cycle assessment of the use of alternative
fuels in cement kilns: a case study. J. Environ. Manag. 216, 224–234. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.017.
Global Cement, 2021. New 7000t/day Cement Plant Nears Commissioning in Ethiopia.
Hong, J., Li, X., 2011. Environmental assessment of sewage sludge as secondary raw
material in cement production – a case study in China. Waste Management 31,
1364–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.12.020.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M.D.
M., Hollander, A., van Zelm, R., 2016. A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level (No. RIVM 2016-0104). National Institute
for Public Health and the Environment.
Huntzinger, D.N., Eatmon, T.D., 2009. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement
manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies.
J. Clean. Prod. 17, 668–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.007.
IEA, 2023. Tracking Industry. International Energy Agency, Paris. Available at [https://
www.iea.org/energy-system/industry].
IEA, 2018. Technology Roadmap - Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry. Paris.
Available at [https://www.iea.org/reports/technology-roadmap-low-carbon-
transition-in-the-cement-industry].
Ige, O.E., Olanrewaju, O.A., Duffy, K.J., Collins, O.C., 2022. Environmental impact
analysis of Portland cement (CEM1) using the midpoint method. Energies 15.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072708.
Ige, O.E., Olanrewaju, O.A., Duffy, K.J., Obiora, C., 2021. A review of the effectiveness of
Life Cycle Assessment for gauging environmental impacts from cement production.
J. Clean. Prod. 324, 129213 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129213.
IPCC, 2006a. MINERAL INDUSTRY EMISSIONS (IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories).
IPCC, 2006b. STATIONARY COMBUSTION (IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories).
ISO, 2006. Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
Framework.
ITA, 2022. Ethiopia - country Commercial Guide [ URL. https://www.trade.gov/count
ry-commercial-guides/ethiopia-energy#:~:text=Approximately%2090%25%20of%
20the%20installed,wind%20and%20thermal%20sources%2C%20respectively.
Kellenberger, D., Althaus, H.-J., Künniger, T., Martin, L., Thalmann, P., Jungbluth, N.,
2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Building Products (No. Data v2.0 No 7). Swiss Center
for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf. CH.
Li, C., Nie, Z., Cui, S., Gong, X., Wang, Z., Meng, X., 2014. The life cycle inventory study
of cement manufacture in China. J. Clean. Prod. 72, 204–211. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.048.
Madlool, N.A., Saidur, R., Rahim, N.A., Kamalisarvestani, M., 2013. An overview of
energy savings measures for cement industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19,
18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.046.
Makhlouf, A., Kardache, R., Chaabia, R., Drouiche, A., Brahmi, B., 2023. Environmental
impact assessment of the Algerian cement industry: a case study with life cycle
assessment methodology. In: Kallel, A., Barbieri, M., Rodrigo-Comino, J.,
Chaminé, H.I., Merkel, B., Chenchouni, H., Knight, J., Panda, S., Khélifi, N.,
Benim, A.C., Grab, S., El-Askary, H., Banerjee, S., Hadji, R., Eshagh, M. (Eds.),
Selected Studies in Environmental Geosciences and Hydrogeosciences. Springer,
Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 83–85.
Mbohwa, C., Moyo, S., 2008. Life Cycle Assessment of the Cement Industry in Zimbabwe.
Ministry of Environment and Forest, 2015. Ethiopia’s Second National Communication
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
(National Communication (NC)). Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ethiopia.
MOI, 2015. Ethiopian cement industry development strategy: 2015-2015. Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Ministry of Industry.
Moretti, L., Caro, S., 2017. Critical analysis of the life cycle assessment of the Italian
cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.03.136.
Mossie, A.T., Wolde, M.G., Beyene, G.B., Palm, B., Khatiwada, D., 2021. A comparative
study of the energy and environmental performance of cement industries in Ethiopia
and Sweden. In: 2021 International Conference on Electrical, Computer,
Communications and Mechatronics Engineering (ICECCME), pp. 1–5. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICECCME52200.2021.9591148.
M.G. Wolde et al.
MPD, 2021. Ten years development plan: a pathway to prosperity (2021-2030). Fedral
Democartic Repuplic of Ethiopia: Planning and Development.
Olagunju, B.D., 2021. Life Cycle Assessment of the Production of Cement: a South African
Case Study.
Palermo, G.C., Castelo Branco, D.A., Fiorini, A.C.O., de Freitas, M.A.V., 2022.
Comparative life cycle assessment of three 2030 scenarios of the Brazilian cement
industry. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194, 153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-
09822-y.
Petroche, D.M., Ramirez, A.D., 2022a. The environmental profile of clinker, cement, and
concrete: a life cycle perspective study based on Ecuadorian data. Buildings 12, 311.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030311.
Rhaouti, Y., Taha, Y., Benzaazoua, M., 2023. Assessment of the environmental
performance of blended cements from a life cycle perspective: a systematic review.
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 36, 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.12.010.
Stafford, F.N., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., Labrincha, J.A., Hotza, D., 2016a. Life cycle
assessment of the production of Portland cement: a Southern Europe case study.
J. Clean. Prod. 126, 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.110.
Stafford, F.N., Raupp-Pereira, F., Labrincha, J.A., Hotza, D., 2016b. Life cycle assessment
of the production of cement: a Brazilian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1293–1299.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.050.
Sustainability, Pr, 2023. SimaPro Tutorial 6.
14
Cleaner Environmental Systems 13 (2024) 100180
Tesema, G., Worrell, E., 2015. Energy efficiency improvement potentials for the cement
industry in Ethiopia. Energy 93, 2042–2052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2015.10.057.
Thwe, E., Khatiwada, D., Gasparatos, A., 2021. Life cycle assessment of a cement plant in
Naypyitaw, Myanmar. Cleaner Environmental Systems 2, 100007. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cesys.2020.100007.
Tun, T.Z., Bonnet, S., Gheewala, S.H., 2020. Life cycle assessment of Portland cement
production in Myanmar. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 2106–2121. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-020-01818-5.
USGS, 2021. Cement Statistics and Information (Mineral Commodity Summaries). U.S.
Geological Survey.
Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J.L., Gasol, C.M., Guillem, M., Josa, A., 2012.
Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: a life-cycle
assessment study. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2011.11.055.
World Bank, 2017. Use of Alternative Fuels in the Cement Sector in Ethiopia, Energy
Study. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/29334.
ITA, 2022b. Kenya - Country Commercial Guide. International Trade Administration U.S.
Department of Commerce. Available at [https://www.trade.gov/country-
commercial-guides/kenya-energy-electrical-power-systems].