Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
In partial fulfillment
Master of Science
Hakob G. Avetisyan
November 2008
by
HAKOB G. AVETISYAN
Ben J. Stuart
Dennis Irwin
ABSTRACT
major contributors to environmental pollution and the area that requires implementation
of more efficient sustainability practices. Thus, this research defines the concept of
sustainability for the cement industry at the project and operation levels. Commonly used
sustainability practices also were investigated in order to determine why they are being
used, how they are being used, and what the potential benefits of their use are for firms in
cement industry. The research will benefit members of the cement producing industry by
providing them with information that will allow them to make more informed decisions
methods of material and energy balance calculations and the economic analysis of the
(LCC). The economic-mathematical model developed in this research is useful both for
existing cement plants and for those that will be constructed in the future. The model
Approved: _____________________________________________________________
Ben J. Stuart
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Stuart, Dr. Crist, Dr. Kim, and
Dr. Lskavyan for their help, understanding, and encouragement during the thesis
research. I wish to especially thank my research advisor, Dr. Stuart, for his insightful and
valuable contribution to my thesis. Also, I would like to thank Lehigh Cement Company
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 4
Phase Four:........................................................................................................................ 28
6. Chapter Six: Methods for Energy and Material Balance .......................................... 112
Appendices:..................................................................................................................... 204
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 7.15 Capacities of Producing Units and Corresponding Production Costs......... 161
Table 8.1 Case Study I Results before Sensitivity Analysis ............................................ 173
Table 8.2 Case Study I Results after Sensitivity Analysis ............................................... 173
Table 8.3 Case Study I Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis............................. 174
Table 8.4 Case Study I Total Production after Sensitivity Analysis ............................... 174
Table 8.5 Case Study II Results before Sensitivity Analysis ........................................... 180
Table 8.6 Case Study II Results after Sensitivity Analysis .............................................. 180
Table 8.7 Case Study II Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis ........................... 181
Table 8.8 Case Study II Total Production after Sensitivity Analysis .............................. 181
Table 8.9 Case Study III Results before Sensitivity Analysis .......................................... 187
Table 8.10 Case Study III Results after Sensitivity Analysis .......................................... 187
Table 8.11 Case Study III Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis ........................ 188
Table 8.12 Case Study III Total Production after Sensitivity Analysis........................... 188
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 4.1 Prediction of Emissions and Expected Market Share of Low-Clinker Cement.
........................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions over Primary Energy Inputs for Different Industry
Sectors (tones of carbon dioxide/107 kcal) ....................................................................... 42
Figure 4.3 Nitric Oxide Emissions over Primary Energy Inputs for Different Industry
Sectors (kilograms of nitric oxide/107 kcal) ..................................................................... 43
Figure 4.4 Production Trends in Cement Industry............................................................ 47
Figure 4.5 Simplified Mass Balance Diagram .................................................................. 52
Figure 5.1 Waste Sources as Fuel Supply for Cement Industry. ...................................... 74
Figure 5.2 Cement Plant with Three Producing Lines.................................................... 107
Figure 5.3 Basic Components of GAMS. ....................................................................... 108
Figure 5.4 Variable Types and its Allowed Range ......................................................... 111
Figure 6.1 Component Ratio of Energy Consumption. .................................................. 113
Figure 6.2 Component Ratio of Energy Consumption in Cement Production. .............. 115
Figure 6.3 Quarry, which has High Content of Calcium, Silicon, Aluminum, and Iron. 118
Figure 6.4 Proportioning, Blending and Grinding of Limestone, Clay and Sand. ......... 118
Figure 6.5 Preheater Tower and Hot Gases. ................................................................... 119
Figure 6.6 Kiln with Ready Mix in it and Final Product from the Kiln: Clinker. .......... 119
Figure 6.7 Cooler and Final Grinder. .............................................................................. 120
Figure 6.8 Bagging and Use of Cement in Concrete. ..................................................... 120
Figure 6.9 Differences between Dry and Wet Processes. ............................................... 122
Figure 6.10 Simplified Mass Balance Diagram. ............................................................. 124
Figure 6.11 Energy Flow Diagram of the Raw Mill. ...................................................... 130
Figure 6.12 Energy Flow Diagram of the Kiln System. ................................................. 131
Figure 6.13 Exergy Flow Diagram of the Kiln System. ................................................. 132
Figure 6.14 Mass Flow Rates of Different Streams into the System. ............................. 134
Figure 6.15 Sankey Diagram for the System. ................................................................. 136
15
Figure 8.1 Production of Producing Units before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study I) .. 175
Figure 8.2 Production of Producing Units after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study I)..... 175
Figure 8.3 Total Cement Production before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study I) .......... 176
Figure 8.4 Total Cement Production after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study I) ............. 176
Figure 8.5 Production of Producing Units before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study II) 182
Figure 8.6 Production of Producing Units after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study II) ... 182
Figure 8.7 Total Cement Production before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study II) ......... 183
Figure 8.8 Total Cement Production after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study II) ............ 183
Figure 8.9 Production of Producing Units before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study III) 189
Figure 8.10 Production of Producing Units after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study III) 189
Figure 8.11 Total Cement Production before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study III)...... 190
Figure 8.12 Total Cement Production after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study III) ........ 190
Sustainable Development has been previously defined in many ways, and one
definition characterizes it as development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World
embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental, and
2001). The Triple Bottom Line - economic, environmental, and social values, in design
and construction includes approaches such as: Design for the Environment, Context
waste and spoils, optimizing asset efficiency, and pursuing the highest level of LEED
especially in the area of materials if designers take into consideration the selection of
materials that could be reused or that use fewer resources during their production, or the
are helping to reduce energy consumption during construction and operation or the use of
producing less waste and also recycling more waste. Pollution reduction could involve
having less toxic materials in the products used in production and technological changes
reducing noise and spatial pollution. As a possible but at the same time expensive way of
lowering the pollution is that during the deconstruction of projects materials removed
from structures should be recycled or reused when a structure is demolished at the end of
The following sections include the problem statement, the main objectives, the
purpose of the research, the scope of the research, objectives of the research, research
4. Research Justification
sustainability practices they have used to the U.S. cement industry. The research provides
members of the engineering and construction industry with information on why industrial
18
sustainability practices are being implemented on cement production and it also provides
tools to assist engineers in their decision making processes regarding the implementation
sustainable practices.
There have been numerous research projects that have summarized sustainability
practices that are used for building construction projects including residential,
commercial, and institutional construction projects. Therefore, the scope of this research
developed for LCC subject to different constraints to serve as a tool for decision makers
in the cement industry when they are deciding whether to implement sustainability
practices in their industry. The sustainable practices that were investigated in the research
19
project, address the application of sustainability processes not only in the United States
cement facilities.
with current information that will help increase their understanding of sustainability
practices in cement industry. The members of engineering and construction firms that
design and that are involved in using cement products would benefit the most from the
proposed research, since the research provides information on how to determine whether
production is developed during the research along with suggestions on how to validate the
use and benefits of the recommended practices. The research focuses on methods of
material and energy balance calculations and the economic analysis of the cement
The economic-mathematical model developed in this research is useful both for existing
cement plants and for those that will be constructed in the future. The model calculates
the optimal amount of cement production within the projected period that provides
minimum LCC. The model developed in this study is a decision making tool for decision
makers in cement industry. The results of the model are extremely useful for sustainable
20
each producing line, based on their efficiencies and various resource and emissions
constraints. The outcome of the research also provides information on how much cement
should be imported to satisfy the consumption of the area, where the main producer of
cement is located. Recommendations for further research in the area of sustainability for
cement production are developed to further validate the use of sustainable practices for
from an environmental, economic and a social impact perspective. This section discusses
the objectives of the research, the purpose of the research, and the scope of the research. It
also provides a literature review and the research methodology. This research was
practices.
construction projects, and previous research does not provide complete information
combined in one study. This research will investigate projects to determine strategies that
This research is organized in the following order: Chapter Two defines the
problem, Chapter Three explains the methodology of the approach to find the appropriate
solution and recommendations for cement industry, Chapter Four presents the literature
review of existing research, Chapter Five gives explanations of concepts, approaches and
methodologies of sustainable design and operation for the cement industry and for the
economic-mathematical model developed for this research, Chapter Six presents the
methods for energy and material balance, Chapter Seven presents the economic analysis
of LCC using economic-mathematical model developed for this research, Chapter Eight
illustrates the results from the data analysis, Chapter Nine presents conclusions and
and definitions of terms used in the research. Appendix C presents the Programming
Code for LCC analysis. Appendix D illustrates the Energy and Material Balance data and
figures. Appendix E contains data for cement, and Appendix F presents the output of the
1. Background
3. Driving Forces
2.2 Background
many people, but it is particularly of interest to members of firms that are polluting the
environment. Industrial construction projects generate pollution and the members of the
cement industry would benefit from information about how to improve their business
practices and incorporate sustainability concepts during both the design stage as well as
during the operation period of cement production. It is difficult for members of the
practices, to determine the social and environmental benefits, and to determine whether
they will have a positive effect on reputation management, since existing research does
not provide detailed and complete information, which will consider all aspects of
Accordingly the environmental, economic and social impacts from the mistakes or from
23
much bigger than from smaller projects. Therefore, one of the major tasks for people
involved in design and in operation of projects is to make sure that the design and
operation procedures of a project satisfy the existing standards for environmental issues as
well.
This research defines the concept of sustainability for the industrial construction
industry at the design and operation level. It concentrates on the industrial segment of
cement production. Commonly used sustainability practices also are investigated in order
to determine why they are being used, how they are being used, and what the potential
benefits of their use are for firms in cement industry. This research will benefit members
of the cement producing industry by providing them with information that will allow
sustainable practices on projects. The research focuses on material and energy balances
and the economic analysis of the cement production using the economic-mathematical
One of the major driving forces for incorporating sustainability practices into a
corporate strategy of firms has been Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Another
force that is increasing the use of sustainability practices is the Dow Jones Global
especially in the area of materials, if designers take into consideration the selection of
materials that could be reused or that use fewer resources during their production, or the
are helping to reduce energy consumption during construction and operation or the use of
producing less waste and recycling more waste. Pollution reduction could involve having
less toxic materials in the products used in production and technological changes
sustainability practices used in the design and operation of cement producing facilities in
information that will help increase their understanding of sustainability practices. The
main purpose of this research is to investigate existing research and develop tools that
help to determine the applicability of the sustainability practices, which have been used
in the U.S. and foreign cement industries. The results of the research provide valuable
are being implemented on projects and also provide tools, which can be used by
The specific focus areas that are investigated during the research project are the
following:
d) Resource efficiency
e) Energy balance
f) Material balance
In order to accomplish the goals of the research the following phases are
performed:
Phase One:
A literature review
Selecting applicable information from the data gathered that could be used
for the proposed research as new ideas for sustainable development on the
cement industry.
on future projects.
Phase Two:
Information is collected and methods on energy balance in cement
for the cement production is the process energy balance. This type of
energy balance is taking into account only the energy equilibrium of the
process. It is the amount of energy required in the process for making final
raw material, with the units that are efficiently used for the production of
Phase Three:
Information is collected and methods on material balance in cement
balance in cement industry together with the energy balance, since those
Phase Four:
The industrial sustainability practices used in other countries for cement
industry is the appropriate selection of the plant type, such as dry or wet
For example, Japanese cement producers are switching from wet to dry
technology. They explain this by the lower design and construction cost of
a plant that operates with wet technology. Despite such findings, in the
technology.
Phase Five:
All of the data collected in Phases 1-4 are analyzed to determine, which
practices.
Phase Six:
A mathematical model is developed, which minimizes the LCC of the
cement producing facility. This model is a good tool for decision makers,
Phase Seven:
The programming code is developed to run the proposed economic-
mathematical model.
Phase Eight:
Outline of the thesis is prepared.
29
Phase Nine:
The mathematical model is used for various case study analyses. Data
collected from existing sources are used to calculate LCC for different
case studies, showing how much each kiln should produce to provide
minimum possible LCC. The model could also be used to analyze the
time.
Phase Ten:
Data are analyzed and the information collected is organized into specific
production.
cycle cost savings, labeling systems for energy requirements for producing
industry.
Government requirements/regulations.
Environmental considerations.
Phase Eleven:
The first draft of the thesis is written.
30
Phase Twelve:
The first draft of the thesis is edited.
Phase Thirteen:
Second draft of the thesis is written.
Phase Fourteen:
The second draft is edited.
Phase Fifteen:
Subsequent drafts of the thesis are written.
Phase Sixteen:
The thesis is submitted to the Deans office.
Phase Seventeen:
Thesis is defended.
Phase Eighteen:
The thesis is submitted to the Deans office.
Phase Nineteen:
The final draft of the thesis is submitted to Graduate Studies.
31
There are a number of sources that provide information about sustainable practices
for building construction, including the ones that were published by the Chartered
Kingdom, (CIOB, 2004), the U.S. Green Building Council (http://www.usgbc.org/), and
particularly in cement producing facilities. Some of the cement producing facilities use
similar approaches. There are also many companies, which produce cement, and already
current impacts, formulate targets for development, and communicate with customers,
issues (Andrews and Slater, 2002, p. 86). Many of these reports are formulated according
(GRI) and released in June of 2000 (Andrews and Slater, 2002, p. 86). According to
that incorporates sustainability processes. Many of the companies that are actively
of money on the Sustainable Cement Project. They spent $4 million on the process
itself. In particular, they mention that the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) sponsored the two-year initiative and trying to determine how
the cement industry can operate more sustainable, underline key sustainable development
issues of the cement industry, report the present performance of the cement industry
(Klee and WBCSD, 2007). The 11 companies that funded the project are Cemex
Italcementi (Italy), Lafarge (France), RMC (UK), Siam Cement (Thailand), Taiheiyo
(Japan), Votorantim (Brazil), Titan (Greece) (Howard Klee and World Business Council
companies are producing approximately 33% of the cement in the world. The research
safety issues.
More than 2,000 companies worldwide, including over one-third of the 250
largest companies, as noted by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), have issued
for the Mining and Minerals Industry by Azapagic (2004), discusses the importance of
having a sustainable mining and mineral industry, where specific indicators for metallic,
construction, and industrial minerals are developed, but may also be suitable for some
energy minerals. The research outlines economic, environmental, social and integrated
indicators that could be used to detect hot spots and report sustainability and
sustainable mining and mineral industry, are similar to the indicators proposed by the
35
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) that allows having identical corporate reports and
mining is one of the areas that supply materials used as filler for cement and energy
5% to global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Therefore, the cement industry should be one
of the target sectors for CO2 emission mitigation strategies. The dominating portion of
CO2 emissions comes from limestone calcinations, combustion of fuels in the kiln, and
electricity generation required for cement production (Worrell et al., 2001). This article
discusses the overall CO2 emissions from cement production that also account for process
and energy-related emissions. According to the authors, only process emissions are
available. Their estimates show that in 1994 total carbon emissions from cement
manufacture was 307 million metric tons of carbon (MtC). In particular, 160 MtC out of
the mentioned 307 MtC were from process carbon emissions, and 147 MtC from energy
use in the cement industry. In 1994, the top 10 cement producing countries generated
63% of world carbon emissions generated by cement industry. The emissions abatement
more efficient processes, use of low carbon fuels, possible use of waste fuels, extensive
use of additives in cement production, alternative cements, and CO2 emissions reduction
from flue gases coming from clinker kilns (Worrell et al., 2001).
36
With the conventional Portland cement process, relatively high volumes of CO2,
NOx and SOx are being generated. Despite this the blended cements are more practical
and meet current requirements through incorporating various mineral mixes, industrial
by-products and wastes, hence partially substituting clinker, rising bulk production and
level of year 2000, Portland cement share in the market will be reduced significantly (up
to 25%) by the year of 2015 (Arikan, 2004, p. 1125). In his paper Arikan presents a
figure, which illustrates forecasts of emissions and expected share of low-clinker cement
drastically justifying the construction of new cement producing facilities, which, in turn,
create a need for additional power plants that will supply energy to cement producers.
From the ecological perspective, the use of high performance cement is more desirable,
since it uses about 50% less clinker compared to traditional cement (Arikan, 2004).
Construction states that as a first step all members of the construction industry, who
Materials: Choose, use, re-use and/or recycle materials during the design,
manufacture, construction or maintenance of a structure.
Pollution: Produce less toxic materials to reduce water and spatial pollution.
being studied through a framework that integrates different processes, economic and
environmental constraints, and health and safety considerations (Basu and Zyl, 2006, p.
299).
Basu and van Zyl (2006) have conducted research that provides a comprehensive
industry. This research focuses on two concepts: industrial ecology (IE) and cleaner
production, which provides a review for environmental management practices in the area
of mining and minerals industry. The impact of the construction sector on the
environment occurs in all of the stages of construction, from the mining of raw materials
(quarry, operation and cement production) to the construction of buildings (noise, dust,
and the generation of hazardous materials), as well as to the operation of facilities (the
38
disposal of wastewater, energy consumption, and toxic emissions) (Basu and van Zyl,
2006).
Increasing energy demand requires improved standards and regulations for the
projects during the planning stage, including the selection of more environmentally
friendly materials and technologies, the use of construction processes that utilize less
Basu and van Zil (2006), there are numerous studies that examine the possibilities of
improving the efficiency of cement production and minimizing toxic emissions generated
which presents a table that calibrated data on cement production for the cement industry
Table 4.1 shows the production, consumption, and average prices for cement in
In this study construction sites that are close to residential neighborhoods disturb
local residents and they are potential sources of noise pollution, especially during
machinery) that emits toxic particulate into the atmosphere and that also causes noise
pollution. The highest sound levels are emitted by trucks, pile drivers, and rock drilling
and blasting (up to 100 dBA measured 15 meters away) (Lebanon State of the
Table 4.2 shows the average noise levels for each construction phase. During the
early construction phases, such as the excavation and erection phases, more particulates
are emitted than in the later stages (Lebanon State of the Environment Report, 2001).
40
construction during different phases. It is taken from The Environment in France, the
French Institute for Environment (IFEN, 1999). This table represents all types of
material.
41
Table 4.3 shows that potential pollution from cement production is going to air,
soil and land cover, due to the type of pollution and there is no pollution going to water.
In the research article by Amano and Ebihara (2005) sixteen industrial categories
are included in an evaluation that uses data from numerous sources to determine the
environmental intensity in local regions as well as in industrial sectors. These sources are
the national physical distribution census, national and regional input-output tables, the
comprehensive energy statistics for Japan for the year 1995. Categories used for
evaluation cover agriculture, mining, food, fiber, pulp, chemical, coal and petrol, cement,
42
steel, metal, non-ferrous metals, construction, energy supply, transport, service, and
pollutions include: carbon dioxide, nitric and sulfuric oxides, along with suspended
particulate matter emissions for forty seven Japanese regions. Some of the results of their
research are presented in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 (Amano and Ebihara, 2005).
Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 shows the results of Amanos study including some of
the construction materials that are used in the construction industry. The cement industry
generates the most CO2 emissions per primary energy input of any of the industry
According to Al-Muhaisen (2002), in the cement industry the second largest cost
component after the energy cost is maintenance expenses, representing about 20-25% of
the total cost. Based on this information, he conducted a case study on a Jordanian
cement plant. The author found that the cement facility faces challenges in decreasing
organizations all over the world. This is one of the many reasons for having low
ignored mostly in the project stage and during procurement. In the Middle East this is the
management systems in 1998 (they also have ISO 9002 certification). Al-Muhaisen
performance against a standard. According to Al-Muhaisen (2002), there are three types
of benchmarking processes:
44
1. Internal benchmarking
2. Industry benchmarking
3. Best-practice benchmarking
wide standards and construct charts to check how standards are being satisfied.
comparing it with those in other companies within the same industrial sector.
types. Such comparison is explained by measuring the best-practices going with leaders
in industry.
almost all subsystems. The author concluded that one of the factors that helped the
JCF/Fuhais plant was ISO 9002 certification and related maintenance documentation that
1. Low productivity.
3. Absence of planners that need to plan the work order such as what kind of
resources should be used and what are the required materials and equipment.
45
Cement kiln dust (CKD) is periodically recycled and used in the kilns. It is worth
mentioning that blended cements and the cement paste for concrete could potentially use
fly ash as well as granulated blast furnace slag generated during cement production. At
present, cement is not being recycled directly, but some concrete is being recycled as
levels of carbon dioxide emissions. In this type of industry emissions reducing policies
are designed to decrease carbon dioxide emissions per ton of cement produced, assuming
of non-carbonate additives of calcium oxide in the kiln raw materials, and by partial
2006). Oss states that many foreign countries are ahead of the United States in the use of
SCM. Since the clinker manufacturing (kiln) technological phase of cement production is
energy-intensive and is not required by SCM, their utilization lowers the marginal
producers to gain more profits by increasing their production. This, in turn, creates
enabling the use of economically efficient high volume mineral additives or industrial by-
products. The environmental advantages of high performance cement are higher strength,
improved durability, less pollution and lower energy use at the stage of clinker
production, and the decreasing landfill area necessary for industrial by-products (Arikan,
2004).
Figure 4.4 shows that compared to previous decades the world cement production
has increased considerably between 1985 and 1995. The graph also shows that for the
same period the increase in cement production has been almost linear in Africa, India,
North America, Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. For other regions the
increase in cement production, within the period of 1985-1995, can be separated into two
parts, five years each. This shows that these countries start making their input into the
world cement production more intensively beginning from 1990, compared to the case if
they continued to increase their production more linearly, like in previous five years.
47
In the report by van Oss (2006) the world cement production and capacity are
presented. Table 4.4 presents the results for cement production and clinker capacity (van
Oss, 2006):
Table 4.4 World Cement Production and Capacity (Data in thousand metric tons)
e
Estimated.
Source: Hendrik G. van Oss (2006)
48
The article by Hodges (2005) suggests that designers should consider both Life-
Cycle Cost (LCC) as well as Total Cost of Ownerships (TCO) in assessing green
alternatives. Only with the selection of sustainable construction and repair materials will
long-term decisions have a positive impact on the bottom line. Unless the durability, and
a materials effect on TCO are verified, the specification and installation of green
materials is not sufficient for building green and long lasting structures (Hodges, 2005).
should also be evaluated because it provides a better evaluation method for making the
right selection among alternatives based on their life cycle costs (Hodges, 2005).
both the durability of materials and service life need to be included in the overall strategy
strategies that incorporate LCC and TCO estimates, and implementation of strategies by
facility managers that are involved in all stages of the building life cycle. The emphasis
has always been on reducing the initial capital investment cost of facilities by
determining methods for lowering costs while still providing a quality facility.
Stakeholders should consider that sustainable practices could also lead to lower operation
and maintenance costs even if they are more expensive to implement during construction
(Hodges, 2005).
49
A report for the U.S. Geological Survey, by van Oss (2006), mentions that in
2005 more than 93 million tons of Portland cement and approximately 5 million tons of
masonry cement used in U.S. were produced at 113 plants in 37 States. Also, there were 2
plants in Puerto Rico Part that produced part of the mentioned quantities of cement. In
2005, the sales prices increased significantly. The value of cement production, was
approximately $8 billion, which is not including cement produced in Puerto Rico. The
total value of cement production was about $10 billion including imports from Puerto
Rico. 25% of the total cement sold was the imported cement and the clinker for cement
production (Hendrik G. van Oss, 2006). According to Oss, the main product, clinker, in
cement production was produced at 107 domestic plants that have annual aggregate
capacity of 103 million tons. Approximately 50% of cement produced in the U.S. comes
from California, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Alabama (Hendrik G. van
Oss, 2006). Oss also mentions that 75% of total cement production consumed by
other users (Hendrik G. van Oss, 2006). In his report Oss presented Salient Statistics for
Table 4.5 Salient Statistics - United States (Data in thousand metric tons)
e
Estimated.
1
Portland plus masonry cement unless otherwise noted. Excludes Puerto Rico.
2
Includes cement made from imported clinker.
3
Production of cement (including from imported clinker) + imports (excluding clinker) exports changes
in stocks.
4
Defined as imports (revised to include clinker) exports + adjustments for Government (nil) and industry
stock changes.
Source: Hendrik G. van Oss (2006)
Oss also points out an important issue that plays a significant role in the cost
structure of cement. The price of fossil fuel is one of the major components in the cost of
cement. In some cement producing companies expensive fossil fuels are replaced by
burning waste materials in kilns as low-cost substitutes. Moreover, the cement kilns can
serve as an effective way of destroying wastes (Hendrik G. van Oss, 2006). The tendency
of using waste materials as substitutes for expensive fuel positively affects the use of
The next section discusses energy and material balances in the cement industry.
conducted a study investigating mass balance in the construction industry. The study
found that in the U.K. 275M tons of built infrastructure are being created out of 420M
51
tons of resources annually. Thus, it produced about 150M tons of waste, which is the total
for the construction and operation stages of projects. Moreover, 90M tons out of 150M
tons of waste were generated by construction activities and the remaining 60M tons came
from product manufacture. The results of the research led to the conclusion that both the
uneven nature of the industry and the lack of professionals who formulate strategies for
the construction industry were the most significant factors that negatively affect
Several studies have been conducted on the operation of cement plants suggesting
various methods for analyzing the operation of these plants and their supplemental
A report prepared by Semen Andalas for the Asian Development Bank (2006)
discusses the issue of material and energy balances during the operation period of a
cement plant. The author also presented simplified mass balance diagrams for the cement
production. The diagram also includes a power plant that is designed for supplying the
Andalas also presented a project implementation schedule for the design as well
as for operation of cement plants and power plants necessary to supply energy to cement
facilities.
In the research conducted by Utlu et al. (2006) the authors state that to produce
raw materials in cement plants clinker and rotary kilns are being used. Using actual
operational data from a cement plant in Turkey, they conducted energy and exergy
analysis for a raw mill (RM), with the capacity of 82.9 ton-material hourly, and raw
thermodynamic method used for engineering process evaluations. They found that energy
and exergy efficiencies are 84.3% and 25.2%, respectively (Utlu et al., 2006).
work during processes that could bring systems into equilibrium (Utlu et al., 2006).
53
The main reason for using exergy analysis is to find out the causes and to estimate
efficiently.
The mass balance equation suggested by Utlu can be expressed in the form (Utlu
et al., 2006):
m& in
= m& out
where:
m is the mass flow rate. Subscripts in and out stand for inlet and outlet,
respectively.
E& in
= E& out
where:
E& out is the rate of net energy transfer out by heat, work and mass,
Q& = Q& net ,in = Q& in Q& out is the rate of net heat input,
W& = W& net ,out W&out W&in is the rate of net work output,
which is equal to the sum of the internal energy of the same system plus the product of its
system.
Using this approach Utlu conducted a case study based on data from an existing
Although Utlu uses enthalpy for energy balance calculations, Taylor mentions
that the enthalpy change of Portland cement clinker cannot be calculated with high
precision, mainly because of uncertainties, which are associated with the clay minerals
sustainable design and operation about the cement industry and the economic-
effectiveness. National research states that the sustainable design approach should not
add more than 2% to the cost of any structure. If done thoughtfully the sustainable design
may add no cost. The research also states that the sooner the sustainability is
are not an innovation, but the use of those materials in various places could be an
innovation. These materials are in use in all stages of design and construction, operation
structures, since mostly these companies are those that have an engineering and economic
sustainable approaches in design and operation. Individuals all around the world are
56
making decisions for use of materials and technologies that will have impact on future
generations.
A number of studies state that the wet process of cement manufacturing is moving
out of use, since at the beginning it is not expensive to build a plant for wet technology,
but later on it is very energy extensive in comparison to dry process. For sustainable
future it is very important to make right selection of materials during the design stage,
since some materials can be environmentally friendly, but at the same time have very
short life.
Concrete is one of the oldest construction materials in the world. Even though it is
techniques keep it on the top of sustainable design and construction. The cement industry
Concrete is the main component in construction along with metals and other material.
Since concrete is mostly prepared for individual projects, there is actually very little
waste. After serving its purpose, the concrete structure can be demolished and the
material can be crushed and recycled as addition for concrete used in other projects,
where applicable. From environmental point of view the future of concrete is certain,
from production and use of raw materials and nonrenewable resources/products as well as
wastes.
Like other industries, in cement industry companies are reporting about current
conditions and trends for minimization of Environmental footprint. The Canadian cement
According to their report, the grey cement industry decreased from 2003 to 2006, in
Also, they stated that from 1990 to 2006 Canadas cement producers improved
the energy efficiency of their manufacturing operations. The improvement was 11% per
their production was 6.4% per ton of cement (Cement Association of Canada, 2008).
reporting company. This means that the reporting of cement companies should provide
information about all relevant emission components, which include (Geisinger, E., 2005):
Total direct CO2 emissions of the reporting unit (conventional kiln fuels,
If applicable acquired emission rights, and resulting net emissions from those
rights;
voluntary reporting:
quarrying.
since 1975 has improved its energy efficiencies by about 33 percent. Currently, the
cement industry is making its contribution to production of CO2 by producing less than
Institute, 2007). It is well below from other sources such as electricity generating plants
with 33% and transportation with 27%. United States Department of Energy stated that
cement production now is responsible only for 0.33 percent of energy consumed in the
United States. The concrete industry along with cement industry were one of the first
groups that started taking care of climate change (Canadian Precast/Prestressed Concrete
59
Institute, 2007). In 1990s, the cement industry significantly strengthened its dedication to
improving its production processes by generating minimum emissions and reducing the
use of raw materials and the energy consumption. Cement producers worked together
with EPA and the agencys Climate Wise Program to find better solutions for emission
minimization. As a result, they developed a method for measuring the amount of carbon
dioxide emissions. Then, the U.S cement industry implemented a voluntary program to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions from producton. According to this process, the level of
carbon dioxide emissions generated from cement production had be minimized by 2020,
and the amount of abatement was 10% per ton lower than the 1990 baseline emissions
level. For this purpose, the cement industry selected tree focus areas (Canadian
manufacturing process and also minimize the amount of natural resources used
in process. A good example of this could be the use of crushed limestone and
Finding new places for cement applications that will increase energy efficiency
as well as durability. The U.S. cement industry made similar efforts all over the
industry.
60
direct and indirect effects on the environment. To reduce the impacts on the environment
the Cement Sustainability Initiative was proposed in 1999. In 2004, Ash Grove Cement
Company was the first U.S.-based cement producing firm that joined Cement
this context, the role of sustainability is to find balance between economic, social, and
The involvement of Ash Grove Cement Company in this Initiative was focused on
Environmental stewardship
Economic prosperity
Social responsibility.
abatement practices and also other environmental impacts, which are related to the
operations of Ash Grove. For this company the environmental stewardship also includes
The economic prosperity assures that everyone who has relationship with Ash
plant communities. This action aims to provide the employee with a better life through
implementation of practices for improved health, safety and also general job satisfaction.
61
have been using formal environmental management systems (EMS). This identifies their
key environmental impacts, set improvement targets, and regularly monitors progress
toward these targets. Many of Canadian cement producing plants have EMS. Some of
consuming only 0.33 percent of total U.S. energy, which is far below from other
industries like steel and wood. From emissions point of view the industry is producing
below 1.5 percent of U.S. total carbon dioxide emissions, which is also less than that of
the power sector and transportation industries. But the fact that it is far below from other
industries does not make it insignificant pollutant, and it is important to develop more
certification system, which is mandatory for buildings. The certification process is based
on crediting procedure. When project collects at least 26 credits, it could get permission
for construction. Total credits provided by LEED are 64 from all categories together.
There are 5 additional credits for Innovation and Design category. This system could also
be implemented in the cement industry. The same approaches, but more developed for
62
the cement industry should be considered in design of a new cement plants and in
Sustainable Sites 14
Water Efficiency 5
Certified 26 32
Silver 33 38
Gold 39 51
Platinum 52 69
Since the cement industry is very energy intensive and a big contributor to spatial
building reuse. The idea of building reuse is sufficient for cement industry if old
plants are demolished and some used parts of those structures could be reused for new
plants, and by that may minimize capital investments, workforce used in construction and
time.
63
According to LEED, in some cases local codes can be used for energy if they are
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standard. The ASHRAE standards are very cost-
effective and are designed not only for concrete structures. There are minimum
requirements for mass as well as for non-mass components. Mass and non-mass
components are walls and floors and other similar sections. Mass components are
thermal mass can reduce heating and ventilating needs. It will also minimize required air-
There are many consulting firms in engineering area, which have the
savings. They use computer programs like DOE2 and EnergyPlus, which are useful for
capturing the thermal mass effects of concrete. LEED is granting points for this category,
and the number of points granted depends on structure and climate, fuel costs and
requirements of the standard. Points 1 to 10 are granted for cost savings in energy equal
to 10.5% to 42% for new buildings and from 3.5% to 35% for existing structures. Using
concrete walls, which are designed to satisfy minimum code requirements, could earn
from 1 to 3 points.
64
Building Reuse:
This credit is awarded if big sections of a building are left in place during
renovation works. Building Reuse credit could be granted when renovating structures are
made from concrete walls. If after renovation works 75% of the existing structure is not
removed from its place it can bring 1 point, and if 95% is left in place it will bring 2
points.
To minimize the toxicity from a cement plant in Indonesia it was proposed to burn
60% of fuel in calciner below 1000 Co. The latter is the temperature above which NOx is
being generated. Thus, this will significantly minimize the amount of NOx emissions.
The process will keep NOx emissions very low, which will be lower compared to
Lafarges emissions, one of the biggest cement producing companies in the world, and
Cement Association of Canada (2008) stated that cement kilns require flame
temperatures of 1,900C to 2,000C, which is much higher than the majority of other
NOx generation. To prevent additional pollution Canadian cement plants started using
coal as a primary fuel in the last ten years. Since coal burns at lower temperatures than
natural gas, it decreases the amount of NOx emissions. They also reduced NOx emissions
by arranging the types and proportions of alternative fuels and fossil fuels burned in the
In the cement production SO2 is mostly generated from coal combustion. The
coal, used in the kiln as a fuel, contains some amount of sulfur depending on the
65
geographic area. For example, Ohio coal quarries contain very high concentrations of
sulfur dioxide, and that is making it non-usable for many local power plants, which are
not equipped with expensive advanced emissions reducing technologies. However, SO2
emissions are normally low in cement production and a large portion of SO2 is always
absorbed by lime, which forms calcium sulfate. This calcium sulfate is discharged with
clinker and kiln dust. In the power plants with circulating fluidized bed, limestone is
added to coal dust in order to absorb SO2. This method is helping to absorb as much as
process in cement manufacture for SO2 released from fuels in the manufacturing process.
In 2004, the Canadian cement industry produced 41,545 tons of SO2, which is equivalent
Social and community impacts are one of the important issues for industries.
There are some companies, which provide annual reports about their involvement in lives
of neighborhood of their production and about improvements and effects in those areas.
One of the practices already existing is the St. Marys Cement companys donation
for the provincially significant coastal wetlands of the Bowmanville Westside Creek
Marsh in Ontario that helped to create 80 hectares of new waterfront parklands. Local
services, including an information kiosk, hiking trail and viewing mounds. St. Marys
Cement Company helped in extensive restoration of the park to provide better habitat for
66
many wildlife species. As stated by St. Marys Cement Company, they will continue
monitoring the wetland to further evaluate the ecosystem over the next ten years. Up to
now, already 52,000 aquatic plants have been planted by hand. They also have invested
9.4 million dollars for configuration of the Westside Marsh project (Cement Association
of Canada, 2008).
mentioned that the success of their business and the license for future operation depend
on public support, which has direct or indirect connection to their industry like all their
industrys social and community involvement. As stated St. Marys Cement Company
about Holcim (US) Inc., the idea is again life quality improvement for the members of
their workforce.
Holcim (US) Inc. believes that active involvement in the life of communities is
very important for their success and for their business. They are trying to be a greatly
trusted partner in each community. Holcim (US) Inc. is willing to work with all its
stakeholders to create and improve relationships of trust and respect (Holcim (US) Inc.,
2001).
To accomplish these objectives, they focus on the following three main areas:
67
Based on the communities needs Holcim (US) Inc. is deciding the range of its
Holcim (U.S.) Inc. is the first company that founded the Community Advisory
discussions of plant problems and its operation. As a result of these forums, the
committee members developed methods both for operation and for decision making
processes (Holcim (U.S.) Inc., 2001). People at Holcim strongly believe that CACs give
information to the company about local community concerns (Holcim (U.S.) Inc., 2001).
Cement and concrete manufacturers are trying to reduce the use of virgin material
in the production process. The reduction process is not an easy task, since the
manufacturers need to maintain superior quality. Cement industry reduced the use of
Material that had been recycled from the operation of iron industry.
68
Fly ash produced from combustion of coal, mostly in electric power facilities.
(ASTM C 150). The addition of ground limestone is significantly reducing the emissions
emissions of carbon dioxide by 2.6 % per ton of cement produced. This is reducing 2.5
million tons of carbon dioxide annually. This amount of pollution will be reduced only
due to U.S. cement industry. If implemented internationally, the climate change will
definitely benefit from this action. The cement industry is recycling almost all byproducts
produced by its own activities. The U.S. cement industry reuses about 75 % of produced
cement kiln dust. It is about 8 million tons annually, which is going back directly into the
kiln. The use of kiln dust is reducing the need for limestone, as well as for other raw
materials and energy (Portland Cement Association, 2008). As already mentioned, the
LEED is granting this credit for diverting construction and demolition waste from
landfill disposal. Concrete is a widely used material in construction and is often trampled
and reused in road bases and construction fills. This practice should be used in
construction of new cement plants, where the massive foundations of heavy structures
such as silos, supports for kilns, etc. can be built using used materials. In industrial
construction there is always need for massive bases. Also, demolished waste from
69
structures is a good material for this type of works. The credit will bring 1 point in case if
50% of the structure and waste from demolition is reused. It will bring 2 points if 75% of
Recycled Content:
LEED requires use of materials that have recycled content to grant this credit. If
more than 10% of total amount of materials used in the construction of project is
consumer recycled content constitutes one point credit will be awarded. From this point
of view cementitious materials, for instance fly ash, silica fume and slag cement are
Regional Materials:
The credit for regional materials is supporting the utilization of local materials in
aggregates such as sand and gravel as well as cement and complementary cementitious
materials are typically manufactured within or extracted within 500 mills (Portland
Cement Association, 2008). This credit could be used in industrial sector, but it should be
modified. Particularly, in the cement producing plant quarry should be close and big
enough to guarantee efficient production with minimal expenses for at least 20 years
(Portland Cement Association, 2008). Cement plants can operate up to 50 years if they
odorous and irritating materials, which could also be harmful. Credit could be used in
completely eliminating the use of paints and coatings in the interior of a structure,
concrete walls and ceilings. This credit is bringing 1 point if paints and coatings satisfy
the specified criteria (Portland Cement Association, 2008). Although there is not much
places in cement plant, where the paint and coatings are used, it could be minimized or
eliminated at all, where it is applicable, by the help of periodic maintenance and cleaning,
which minimize corrosion of areas where paint and coating played at least protecting role
not being used for esthetic purposes. The areas that are covered just for esthetic purposes
could stay without any paint or cover and esthetic satisfaction could be gained by paying
more attention to quality control during construction making smooth and clean surfaces
in most cases. Another solution could be the use of environmentally friendly paints and
coatings with natural bases, but this will definitely add big amount of money to
For the resource efficiency purposes CEMBUREAU stated that cement industry
in Europe improved the energy efficiency and thus also reduced CO2 emissions.
are associations such as the national cement industry, cement companies of the European
CEMBUREAU also mentions that what they have done is already close to the technical
Using certain types of wastes as alternative fuels for cement kilns. This
valorizes those wastes, which could otherwise be land filled and result in
industries for the equivalent CO2 emissions. This means trade of emission
credits that could perfectly work for cement industry, and, at the same
time, will enable cement plants to increase their production under fixed
Use certain types of wastes as raw material or filler necessary for clinker
production.
Using blast furnace slag, fly ash from power stations, natural pozzolana
clinker necessary for each ton of cement produced. Also, CO2 emissions
are decreasing.
5. Improved products:
About 1,500 to 1,700 metric tons of raw material is necessary to produce 1,000
metric tons of cement (Andalas S., 2006). Cement production generates considerably
high levels of waste. A number of sources state that carbon dioxide emissions from
cement manufacture are almost equal to the quantity of produced cement, including
carbon dioxide emissions generated by power plants that supply electricity to cement
plants. There is also another form of pollution emitted into the environment - air pollution
caused by dust and other gaseous emissions such as NOx and SO2 (Andalas S., 2006).
The latter are considered two major air pollutants. The levels of other pollutants such as
metals and their compounds, hydrogen chloride, and hydrofluoric acid are much lower,
and, therefore, these are not considered as serious problem (Andalas S., 2006).
73
the amount of kiln dust by adopting measures, which are represented below (Andalas S.,
2006):
Dust:
using the exhaust gas coming out from the preheater as a drying medium in
the raw mill, and using hot gas coming out from the cooler in the kiln and
calciner;
dropping;
using water spraying equipment in all dust generating areas, which are
The Cement Association of Canada (2006) stated that particulate matter emissions
are not only from cement grinding and raw material processing activities, but also come
from fuel combustion. Dust reduction is one of the first environmental goals for the
cement industry. Currently, all Canadian cement plants are equipped with high efficiency
capturing particulate matter. In 2004, the Canadian cement industry produced 4,370 tons
74
of total particulate matter that is equivalent to 0.27 kg per ton of cement (Cement
energy use will result in less pollution and production of byproducts and waste by power
plants. Energy use usually accounts for 30-40% of cement production costs. However,
because of the nature of the cement manufacturing process, energy and raw materials can
be recovered and the waste can be reused from materials that most probably would end
up in a landfill or incinerator.
Figure 5.1 shows possible sources of alternative fuels from other industrial and
public sectors that can be used in cement industry (Cement Association of Canada, 2006).
In order to minimize the waste from both cement production and other industries,
about half of Canadian cement plants started reducing their consumption of fossil fuels
by using alternative fuels. These alternative fuels are by-products and wastes from other
industries, which include waste solvents, scrap tires and used oil, oily rags and filters,
spent pot liner, and asphalt shingles (Cement Association of Canada, 2006).
5.2.7 Sustainable Practices and Why They are Implemented in the Cement Industry.
been using sustainable practices for several years, while others have not made any
changes in their technologies, justifying such behavior by difficulties associated with the
As mentioned by the Energy Conservation Center (ECC) (1994), the dry long
cement kilns are largely in use in the Near and Middle East. This is explained by fewer
rain falls and larger amounts of alkaline components in raw material. In Southeast Asia,
Central and South America, and North America, the wet process long cement kilns are
mostly used for cement manufacture (ECC, 1994). Despite this, PCA states that the
cement industry has increased efficiency through big investments in plants that operate
with dry process. According to PCA, since 1974 in the United States the quantity of wet
process cement kilns has dropped to 52, which previously was 234. Currently, 83% of the
cement produced in the United States is based on dry technology. Switching from wet to
dry process is taking place also in other countries, which is mainly due to energy
availability.
76
industry initiative, which encourages sustainable production of cement. CMS has been
announced in June 2004. According to David Shepherd, AIA, LEED AP, director of
sustainable development for PCA, the CMS Program is a common way among cement
producers to formally adopt principles and performance measures, and also prepare report
Andy OHare, the vice president of regulatory affairs for PCA, mentioned that the
way, nobody will be willing to listen to producer (PCA, 2008). OHare made his
members and government agencies. He mentioned that the goal was to manufacture a
product that would have high quality, but manufactured in a sustainable way.
CMS Program is voluntary based and approved by the PCA Board of Directors.
This program is encouraging the cement industry to become involved in the integration of
improve the safety and health of not only own employees, but also neighbors and
customers who are somehow involved in the cement production and distribution
processes.
77
environment.
safely use of wastes as raw materials, alternative fuels and also product fillings.
PCA developed the CMS Program along with the Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. CMS program has similar approaches like
planners work with cement and other industries to develop strategies for improvement
and measurement and create tools for reporting. It also encourages the improvement and
Being a part of Climate VISION program, U.S. cement industry proposed a three-
Energy Efficiency
Product Improvements
New Applications
with cement industry members to easily follow up with the progress of their voluntary
based programs.
78
Another product of the sustainable effort of cement industry is the Energy Star
Focus on Energy Efficiency in cement production. The program is able to recognize the
energy-efficiency of cement plants and label them with the ENERGY STAR label (PCA,
2008).
In 2004, six cement plants received awards from the PCA and Cement Americas
The facilities that minimize the impact of their activities on the environment
beyond the limitations, which are stated in the laws and regulations as well as permits and
requirements for environmental safety are getting this award (PCA, 2008).
minimized air pollutants as well as stormwater runoff. In general, cement plants are not
polluting water, but because of high levels of rainfall in this particular area more than 25
million gallons of local stormwater are being processed in this plant every year. Most of
79
this rain stormwater is recycled at the Lafarges Seattle cement producing plant. This
plant is also using materials and wastes from other industries in order to satisfy about
30% of their need of raw feed. The plant received ISO-14000 certification by installing
an environmental management system (EMS). Also, this plant was recognized by the
City of Seattle for its energy efficiency contributions. Moreover, Lafarges Seattle plant
Plants are being awarded for this category if they make efforts for protection and
In 2003, Lehighs Mason City plant developed land stewardship activities in two
aspects. The initial activity was the remediation of former cement kiln dust pile. That
particular area was investigated and engineered, and, then, the construction of new plants
was initiated. This action would prevent possible leaching to existing wetland. Second
activity was the recovery of a dew pond. The dew pond, as mentioned by PCA, had been
Outreach
This facility is located in Fredonia, which was awarded for outstanding outreach
in 2003. The plant discussed its plans and activities with the members of community and
local government sectors. Employee Green Team, which is a group within the plant,
Innovation
This plant developed a technology that enables the steel slag cab to be injected
into the feeder of mid-kiln. This process reduces NOx and CO2 emissions for each unit of
clinker produced. Moreover, the facility achieved additional NOx emission reductions of
Energy Efficiency
which are more efficient and can contribute to climate change improvement through
and management. To increase the efficiency of energy use the plant installed highly
greenhouse gas emissions. Mitsubishi is also a member of the EPA ENERGY STAR
listed categories are being awarded under this category (PCA, 2008).
enabled the plant to recieve the best overall award. The plant made its big contribution
not only to environmental performance and land stewardship, but also to innovation,
In 2000, the PCA initiated a program to renew its environment and energy
strategic plan, which was designed for environmental improvement in the U.S. cement
industry. The awards program by PCA and Cement Americas magazine is open for all
cement producing plants in North America. The companies that recieve awards are
selected based on judge evaluations. Judges who are responsible for evaluations are
independent groups. These groups are Cement Americas magazine, PCA, World
Resources Institute, the Cement Association of Canada, the World Wildlife Fund, and the
In 2008, the Cement Association of Canada (CAC) released its second report
Canadian cement industry. The report shows commitment of cement industry in Canada
of Canada, 2008).
CACs members are eight companies, which represent cement and clinker producing
the Pacific coast. By working together, CAC members promote sustainable development
of the cement industry. The CAC accomplishes the following objectives (Cement
The Canadian cement industry has a big role in Canadas social and economic
development. Report mentioned that the industry manufactured more than 14.3
million tons of cement, which is worth $1.7 billion in 2006, and created more than
From 2003 to 2006, the industry increased its total production by 10%, at the
efficiency of operations by 11% per ton of cement being produced, and, at the
same time, they reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 6.4% each ton of cement
cement, and through increased use of alternative energy sources to reduce fossil
In Appendix E (see Figure E.1 and Figure E.2) the 2006 and 2008 edition data
sustainability practice to reduce noise in limestone quarries, which comes from blasting
km underground. Explosives have been used for material extraction. There are villages
close to quarry and the explosions are expanding into surrounding areas. A new
extraction method has been proposed by the quarry manager. The new method suggests
using a shovel, which will replace 15-20% of drilling and blasting activities (Brodkom,
In Italy the visual impact was studied on a computer through digital terrain
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) was developed for a site to obtain a 20-
year permit to work. Because of high visual impact of the quarry, planned to mine
400,000 tons per year with some impact on the landscape, the EIA was developed, being
one of the first studies of environmental impact implemented in Italy. It was one of the
first studies in this kind because of digital terrain modeling on computer. (Brodkom, F.,
2000, p. 33).
In the Netherlands a study was conducted to investigate the new life of a quarry
A major cement company had been changing the landscape in the St-Pietersberg
quarry near Maastricht beginning from 1926. Research was also conducted for fauna and
flora. In 1967, the company made a careful and unique assessment of St. Pietersberg.
After conducting the assessment, these areas remained outside the concession. In the
plan, prepared together with local authorities, the accent was changed from recreation to
conservation. Currently, there are limestone grasslands close to the quarrys slopes,
which have previously been excavated. In addition to its achievements, the company has
played an important role in the natural, cultural and living environment of these areas by
The other chapters of this research also discuss the sustainability practices
Government and its requirements can be a positive or negative driving force for
the cement industry or for any other business. The government can support the
describing the steps they need to complete. If companies present unclear and time
wasting policies or if they discourage already implemented practices, they will definitely
face barriers. Usually the regulatory issues become important when handling or storage
of materials and alternative fuels become hazardous. Other regulations may be required
for process modification and changes to transportation routes. Lower emissions can also
active engagement with the government is desirable, which helps setting practical
policies. This also resolves issues of individual project implementation. Some regional
examples, which are presented below, demonstrate the value of these principles (World
In Thailand, the government controls the use of waste materials if those are in
large quantities. Cement companies in Thailand have started using waste paints, solvents,
and other wastes that contain energy. The collection and transportation of these wastes
are regulated by the government, and as a result of these regulations cement companies
are not able to get as much of these waste materials as they are able and willing to use.
Such regulation has negative impact on the cement industry. Siam Cement, a Thailand
based company, established strong goals for using alternative fuels, which are presented
Improve the reputation of the cement industry by help of diversion and disposition
Siam Company also states that in the long run the promotion to establish other
waste management companies will lead to more competition and increase in fuel supply.
In the cement industry the companies are working together with the government to
improve existing policies and regulations (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 2002).
Siam City Cement offers trainings for individuals to improve their waste project
use of waste materials as alternative fuels. In recent years, a progress has been made in
increasing the use of blended and slag cements. Currently, it accounts for about 90% of
that the co-processing of fuels is beneficial for both cement industry and other businesses.
The cement industry in Brazil recognizes that not much is done to make this situation and
information available to the regulatory community. It also states that agencies are not
updated and there is need of motivation to be creative. From the policy and politics
viewpoints there is a need of change from command and control to more collaborative
87
critical and beneficial for both parties (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 2002).
develop a technology and a plan for eliminating the fly ash that is generated from coal
burning. In Indian quarries coal has high ash content, which is between 24-50%. But it
has relatively low content of sulfur (0.5%) and chlorine. The latter made the ash usable in
cement production. Due to high content of ash in the Indian coal, the rule required
establishment of an official relationship between the cement industry and electric power
industries the government expected to increase the supply of cement through blending
and effective use of materials that most probably would be dumped, landfilled, or used as
opinion on this practice is supporting the use of animal by-products as good substitutes
for fossil fuels. To achieve such resolution the industry and the government worked
together very long and hard, making the solution of environmental problems mutually
beneficial. There are also other European countries, including Germany, The
Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom that have set specific guidance for
governments positions and requirements for alternative fuel resources. In contrast, Italy
88
created legal barriers at least for some alternative materials and made the laws unclear,
As already mentioned, the legal barriers are the most important constraints in IE
implementation. In countries outside Europe the relationship between drivers and barriers
is likewise deep. According to PCA data, in 2000 55% of U.S. cement producing plants
used alternative fuels in their practices. Even though the plants are using alternative fuels,
the process of granting a permit to a plant is controlled by state agencies. The permission
for the use of alternative fuels is not permanent and could be for couple of months in
regulations of some states and 18 months in others. There were a few cases when the
process of permitting took four years. Despite the existence of good opportunities for
alternative materials in a particular area, some companies often choose traditional fuel, by
that creating artificial barriers (World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
2002).
support the use of alternative fuels, technical barriers are the main reason that prevent
wide use of these materials (World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
2002).
The current ASTM standards permit the use of blended cements. Before using
large amounts of alternative materials, potential users need some kind of demonstration
to feel more comfortable with these products (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 2002).
89
Burning the food in cement kilns that is not usable for feeding became a practical
panic for their food safety. Medical experts thought that the reason for disease could be
the consumption of infected beef. The sales of beef dropped in France, and the
government prohibited the use of the meat. This was a welcomed solution, but another
question arose about using the existing 910,000 tons of meat-and-bone. Later, they
decided to burn it (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002). The
best place to burn meat-and-bone products was cement factories, which were trying to
find better alternatives to high cost fossil fuels for years. Benoit Kessler, the quality and
environmental manager of one of the cement factories owned by Lafarge, stated that
meat-and-bone were not a very good fuel, but those could be used for fueling the cement
kilns (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002). This particular
cement plant was the first one in France that adapted its kiln burner to use animal waste.
Currently 12% of the factorys fuel consists of this waste material. The plants savings
are $1.3 million a year from this practice alone (World Business Council for Sustainable
ecological damage. The tests measuring the emissions from this process found that
nothing was left of any organic material if burned at 3,500 F. The results indicate that
there will be no smoke or smell, no pollution and greenhouse gases will be produced by
the cement industry when such alternative material is used. Fourteen French cement
90
plants are equipped with modern accessories to burn animal waste. In 2001, plants in
France consumed nearly 220,000 tons of animal waste (World Business Council for
Cement Industry Initiatives and Industrial Ecology, which is optimizing and minimizing
organizations in, which a cement company uses or provides materials and energy
carriers that cannot be reused or recycled by the generating process and, which
otherwise would have no or little economic value as co-products. The cement companys
use or provision of these materials must correspond to the creation of system level net
Like other industries, the cement industry considers internal economic factors
capital investments are required to make plant modifications. The solution between
The recognized drivers for industrial ecology in cement industry are the following
their cost reductions through alternative fuels and raw materials (or extending
disposal systems for industrial waste are lacking or the disposal capacity in
groups in the planning and evaluation process for the fuel or raw material change
Barriers to IE implementation, apart from the absence of the above listed drivers,
include:
burning causes or could cause environmental or health impacts in the local area
products that are made with AFR or, which incorporate AFR residuals
industry have been achieved not only because of requirements, but also through
In France, fossil fuel CO2 emissions were reduced by 25% between 1990 and
2000. At the same time CO2 emissions for each ton of cement reduced by
approximately 10%.
In Germany, specific fuel energy use was reduced by 20% between 1987 and
2005.
In The Netherlands, the energy efficiency index reduced by 21% from 1989 to
2000.
coming from:
CO2 emissions related to energy production, and also CO2 emissions from processing
The Kyoto Protocol, which was proposed for emission minimization all over the world,
The Kyoto Protocol supports the countries that emit less and allows them to sell
the remaining credits to countries that might exceed their limits. This approach means
that most countries will be interested in reducing emissions and going further than
required by commitments.
contribution to cleaner environment Holcim (U.S.) uses four key performance indicators
(KPI).
94
Clinker factor
this factor means fuel reduction required for each ton of cement being manufactured. By
using waste materials instead of the clinker, the amount of raw materials required for
This indicator is about the thermal energy used for each ton of clinker. It is in
functional relationship with the technology used in the manufacturing process. Therefore,
it is important to improve the thermal energy efficiency by investing in modern and more
efficient plants.
and common practice. Substitution of fossil fuels is reducing fuel carbon dioxide
emissions, costs, and resource consumption. The cement industry provides a service to
society by using generated wastes from different activities that are difficult to dispose.
CKD is separated from the cement manufacturing process when there is need to
reduce the sodium and potassium content in cement, and the amount of chlorine in the
process of cement manufacture. In most cases cement kiln dust can be reused, but it is not
applicable in some regions if the alkali concentrations are required to be low by cement
standards.
below:
improvement.
Set and communicate goals for specific performance indicators for the
corporation, the local company, and individuals that reflect a true sustainable IE
focus and work to align the various responsible groups to achieve success.
Provide operating companies and facilities with the necessary information and
and locally and identify, which organizations to work with to remove barriers.
potential IE partners.
expanding into the collection, processing, and delivery of waste materials where a
business case can be made and where the local infrastructure is an implementation
barrier.
objective basis for creating policies to support IE development and for evaluating
IE opportunities.
96
opportunity for the company, plant workers, and the communities and other
relevant and applicable (World Business World Business Council for Sustainable
Environmental issues related to the U.S. and foreign cement industries are also
agreements, and emissions trading. They mention that Principles for the CO2 Protocol
has been initiated as a tool to satisfy the above listed different reporting purposes.
Examples include:
Geisinger states that reporting to national Green House Gas inventories should be
According to Geisinger, reporting for CO2 compliance and taxation schemes have
Another study developed for a plant in Indonesia states that the combustion of
coal and the calcination of raw materials in cement production, especially limestone,
generate CO2. Calculations show that the raw materials will generate about 1.27 MMTPA
for a corresponding amount of 1.6 MMTPA of cement produced, based on the carbon
content of the coal in that area. CO2 emissions will be released to the atmosphere, since
CO2 capturing technologies are not economically preferable for the plant (Andalas S.,
2006).
Cement Association of Canada states that the cement industry in Canada treats the
issues of climate protection and CO2 management very seriously. In accordance with the
WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiatives Cement CO2 Protocol all cement plants in
Canada are measuring and reporting CO2 emissions. The industry is also willing to work
more with governments to meet national GHG objectives, and now they are working with
Canada, 2008).
improved its kiln efficiency by 12%. It also reduced GHG emissions from each ton of
Issues about carbon footprint of a cement industry and the ways of its
minimization implemented in the United States, Canada and in other countries are also
probably, it will not be mild. Unfortunately, the adverse influence of sub-prime resets and
home foreclosures, high energy prices and declining confidence will worsen during the
coming year, which will eventually have adverse influence on cement industry (Sullivan,
2008). Many economists expect a mild recession for 2008. For the most part,
aggressive monetary and fiscal policy actions are expected to result in a dramatic
improvement in GDP growth during the second half of 2008. As a result of these policy
actions, the recession is expected to be mild and short - limited to the first and second
and cement consumption are expected to experience a significant decline this year,
projected to grow by 63 million before 2030, compared to 2007 levels. The United
States 2007 population is estimated at almost 301 million, which, according to BOC, is
projected to reach 363.5 million by 2030, and the increase will be 21% over 2007 levels.
Sullivan mentioned that Portland cement consumption is expected to increase about 43%
by 2030, reaching 183 million metric tons, which is increase of 55 million metric tons
compared to previous peak level in 2005. From economic point of view this numbers
mean good future for cement industry in long run, rather than forecasted short term
declines in near future. In the report by Sullivan the Portland Cement Association (PCA)
99
expects the sustained moderate economic and population growth together to stimulate the
consumption increase. Strong growth in future for U.S. cement consumption explains the
$6 billion investment that is now underway, which will bring 25 million metric ton
further large-scale investment in cement supply must materialize to feed the United
import terminals, or both. Such decisions are likely to be made in the context of climate
change legislation, sustained high energy costs, and moderate-to-robust economic growth
among the worlds transitional and emerging economies, which may imply high
According to BOC, the growth of population is not equal over the areas in the
United States. Some of the states such as District of Columbia, West Virginia, North
Dakota and Iowa, will be exceptions, but some others for example California, Texas, and
Florida will have 47% of total U.S. population growth by 2030. In southern as well as in
western regions of the United States population increase is expected to be about 81%.
2030, the state populations of Arizona and Nevada are expected to rise by more than
70%. Floridas population will increase by nearly 60%. Ten other states are expected to
grow by more than 25% - all located in the southern or western regions of the United
States. In contrast, the populations of the northeast, Great Lakes, north central and south
central regions are each expected to grow by roughly 10% or less (Sullivan, 2008). This
100
data are very important for planning the optimal construction place of new cement plants,
minimizing transportation costs per unit of cement for consumers and even maximizing
the consumption.
The U.S. cement production consists of 115 cement plants located in 36 states.
The largest company produces 13% of the total cement in the country. The top five
(PCA), foreign companies owned about 81% of the U.S. cement industry in 2005. This
means that the lion share of money is not staying in the states. In 2005, the total value of
consumption in the cement industry was $13 billion, and only $10.53 billion was from
local consumption.
extremely capital intensive projects. According to British Geological Survey, in the U.K.
construction of a new cement plant costs about 10 million for each 100,000 tons per
year of cement produced. Therefore, large plants cost over 100 million. In some plants
the capital investments can add several million pounds a year (British Geological Survey,
2005).
The overview of cement consumption data for the last several years shows that
the peak was in 2005. Data are presented in the Appendix E (see Figure E.3). According
to PCA 2005 report, the United States used a record high amount of Portland cement,
which was 121.3 million metric tons. This is even higher than previous increases. There
101
were also other factors helping to this increase, such as dropped mortgage rates that
(PCA, 2005):
14% of the cement produced in local plants was shipped to concrete product
manufacturers,
construction. In the U.S. about two-thirds of total use of cement occurs within six
months. The process is lasting between May and October and this seasonal consumption
of cement results in large swing at cement plants during a year. This is a problem in
Cement industry is not only seasonal, but also regional. The cost of shipping is
very high and it increases the value. It makes customers to purchase cement from nearby
mainly by trucks, which is the most expensive option. Transportation of 35,000 tons of
cement by truck for 300 km is more expensive than transportation of the same amount of
102
cement by barge across the Atlantic Ocean (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 2002).
PCA states that in 2005, which was the peak, utilization rate of cement production
in U.S. cement manufacuring plants reached to 91.5%. Domestic production was not able
to produce enough cement to satisfy United States cement consumption. The difference
between consumption and production should be satisfied by cement import, and in 2005
it was 33.7 million metric tons. This number is for combined cement and clinker imports.
The imported cement comes mostly from four major producers in the world. According
to PCA, in 2005 approximately 52% of imported cement and clinker was shipped from
China, Canada, Thailand, and Greece. More data about imported cement to the United
States is presented in the Appendix E (see Figure E.4). Even though the local production
is not satisfying the domestic consumption, the United States is a cement exporter. But
those are really small if compared to the total amount. Cement exports from the United
States hardly go above 1% of the total cement production. PCA mentioned that in 2005
The way the plants are designed affects the cement price. According to PCA, the
cement industry has increased its efficiency by making new investments in plants, which
use dry process of production rather than more energy-intensive wet process. Japan
employs similar approach by making gradual change from wet to dry process. Starting
from 1974, in the United States the quantity of wet process kilns decreased from 234 to
103
52. 83% of the cement presently manufactured in the United States is processed by dry
technology.
To reduce the cost of cement, cement producers use alternative fuels from waste
materials. Many companies all over the world already have the practice of using waste
material. The use of waste material not only reduces the cost of produced cement, but
their kilns, so they started using animal waste as well as alternative fuel. For these
companies the use of animal waste reduced the use of fossil fuels by about 12 to 13
percent.
Use of alternative fuels in cement production is cost efficient, but not free of
charge. Production of waste fuels is less expensive, but again not free. Although the raw
material for secondary fuels is available at no cost, production of such fuels still requires
Tunisia. The price is about U.S. $5055 per ton resulted from painstaking,
always necessary, non fuel mass release (metals, stones, hazardous materials, etc.),
homogenizing, storage, transportation and eventually feeding in the cement plant. The
investment for each cement plant was calculated based on theoretical substitution rate,
which is 15% or about 1 million, designed for feed and conveying equipment in plants.
Tunisian government subsidized natural gas used in cement industry, and that subsidy is
covering 90% of energy need. Thus, the use of secondary fuel can not be considered as an
Currently, Russia produces about 60 million tones of cement per year, and they
also use alternative fuels in cement kilns. This is not a big amount if compared to China,
which is the major producer of cement and also major polluter of the environment
through CO2 emissions. The difference between Russian and Chinese productions is 17
times. In Russia, the cement price is two hundred dollars per ton, which is one of the
Italian cement company Cementir SpA will make an investment for about 60 million
Euros equivalent to $95.66 million for construction of a new cement plant in China
(Chinadaily, 2008). The cement plant is planned to have annual capacity of 600,000 tons
Various mathematical models have been developed for industrial purposes, which
have also been used in the cement industry. As mentioned by Gabel (2001), in 1998
Carnahan and Thurston developed Trade-off Modeling method in order to design the
and quality are the main problems in the production of any good. The method developed
by Carnahan and Thurston incorporates statistical process control with Life Cycle
investigate the product quality and the environmental impact from a life cycle point of
view. Then the collected data is used to formulate constraints for a multi-attribute
105
objective function. As mentioned by Gabel, this modeling method has been used for a
Gabel, the methodology used by Marano and Rogers integrates process performance,
economics and life cycle inventory data to synthesize process systems. As mentioned by
Gabel, their model is based on life cycle analysis, and utilizes linear programming for
formulation and optimization of the non-linear problem. Gabel also discusses the model
created by Spengler et al. in 1998, which uses a different approach. Their method was
used in iron and steel industries. Spengler et al. developed their model using ASPEN
PLUS, which is a commercially available program that enables generating mass and
1993 (Gabel, 2001). This model was developed for optimization of integrated material
flows and energy systems. As mentioned by Gabel, the model was called MIMES/Waste.
It was created for systems, which can be described by their material and energy balances,
details of phase transitions. Chemical reactions were omitted, making the model useful
also for the cement industry. As described by Gabel, MIMES concentrates on the linkage
between different processes, rather than on the details of properties of individual devices.
Another simulation model, described in Gabels research, was designed for the
management of organic waste in urban areas. It had been created by Dalemo in 1997, and
called ORWARE. This model is able to calculate energy and plant nutrient flows. It is
also able to evaluate the amount of emissions into air, water and soil (Gabel, 2001). After
106
the analysis, the results of simulation are being translated into environmental effects by
According to Gustavsson, the main steps for the system analysis of projects are:
2. Problem formulation.
3. Modeling.
Almost in all modeling problems the initial steps include data and information
collection and organization. Then the model of the considered system is developed. In
this case it is based on Life Cycle Cost analysis in the cement industry. In this research
set of mathematical expressions, which approximate the behavior of the observed system.
applicable to both exiting and future plants. It is a good decision making tool, which
enables calculating the amount of cement produced under different constraints, while
maintaining minimum total costs during the considered period. For example, if the
cement manufacturing plant has two or more producing lines (see Figure 5.2) the model
developed in this study will tell how much cement should be produced by each line to
107
satisfy the demand and various constraints, whilst providing minimum life cycle cost.
The model will also determine the amount of cement that should be imported to satisfy
the deficit.
This model is also useful for future plants, since the analysis will determine the
optimal number of producing lines that will provide minimum life cycle cost under
5.5.1 Introduction
The modeling system used in this research is General Algebraic Modeling System
(GAMS). GAMS is exclusively designed for modeling linear, nonlinear and mixed
integer optimization problems. This system is particularly useful for large and complex
modeling problems like the model developed in this research. It is also caring for long
especially useful for handling large and complex problems. GAMS models and solves the
108
problems in a very efficient and compact way. Users of GAMS can change the
formulation of a model very quickly without any difficulty; also it is allowing changing
working in GAMS.
1. GAMS model is like a group of statements written in the GAMS Language. And
the only governing rule is that any entry of the model can not be included in other
2. GAMS enables users to put statements in almost any style that is preferable for
the user. The statement can contain multiple lines or embedded blank lines. In the
model, multiple statements per line are aslo allowed (Rosenthal, R. E., 2008).
3. GAMS also allows using upper and lowercase letters, since compiler does not
separately. There are at least two ways to insert the documentation into a model in
comment line.
statements.
5. Another important note is that the names of entities in the model should start with
a letter.
The GAMS model allows three fundamentally different formats for entering the
Lists
Tables
Direct assignments
110
There are also recommendations provided for more effective data entry in GAMS
(Rosenthal, R. E., 2008). Below are presented some of those important recommendations:
1. The list of domain elements as well as their respective parameter values are
allowed to be entered mostly in any format. The restrictions are that the entire list
2. There is no need to include semicolon to separate the name, domain, text, which
3. The GAMS has an important feature named domain checking. This feature
verifies that in the list each domain element is a member of the proper set
4. For all factors the value zero is the default rate. Thuse, it is only required to input
5.5.4 Variables
expressed model must be declared with a Variables statement (Rosenthal, R. E., 2008).
Each variable is given a name, a domain if appropriate, and text if preferred. Each
optimization model in GAMS should have one variable, which will be the quantity to be
111
optimized (Rosenthal, R. E., 2008). After having variable declared it should be assigned a
5.5.5 Equations
It is important to remember that the phrase Equation in GAMS has a very broad
definition. It covers both equality and inequality relationships. Another important point is
that in GAMS statements one and more relationships can be referred with a single name.
112
This chapter discusses the practices for energy conservation and the methods for
control software, and then it broadens into the hardware. Hardware includs equipment
and process improvements. Energy conservation efforts should be devided into the
1994):
Good housekeeping
Equipment improvement
Process improvement
overcoming the growing problems of energy crisis. Developing countries are paying
attention to their awareness for the inefficient power generation as well as in energy
usage. Unfortunately, there are limited information sources available about the optimal
Portland cement is one of the most commonly used cement types in construction.
Component raw materials for cement are Calcium carbonate (lime), Silica, Aluminum
and Iron oxide. There are over 35 different types of cement. The first production of
113
Portland cement was in England in the 19th century. Since then, many technological
steel, paper and petrochemical industries. In Portland cement production the percentage
of energy cost is varying between 20 to 30%, according to the report for United Nations
Conservation in Cement Industry, 1994). If the cost of energy is reduced, the cost of
plant operators. Figure 6.1 below shows the component ratio of fuel and electricity
Ninety percent and even more of fuel is burned by kilns for clinker. 40% of
electricity is used for finish grinding of product. 30% of electricity is used for processing
the raw material. This number also includes the clinker burning. In this particular mill,
Clinker burning.
Finish grinding.
The processing of cement production can be classified into dry and wet processes.
diameter of about 20 mm, which is less than one inch, by a crusher. After crushing, the
presented in Figure 6.2. Then some amount of water is added to the crushed mix. The
mixture is made extra finer in a combined tube mill that has a diameter of 2 to 3.5 m
(6.56 to 9.84 feet) and a length of 10 to 14 m (32.8 to 45.93 feet) into slurry that has 35 to
40% water content. After this process the slurry is stored in a special storage tank.
Storage tankes can have a capacity of several hundred tons. The slurry later is
homogenized by addition of corrective materials. Later, the stored and corrected slurry is
sent to a rotary kiln, where the process of clinker burning takes place. The slurry is much
easier to mix in the wet process. The high content of water is making this process easier,
but, later, lots of energy is required for clinker burning because of the need for water
evaporation.
115
In the dry process, the clinker burning process is different - crushed materials are
first dried in a rotary drier. Driers usually have a diameter of 2m (6.56 feet) and a length
of about 20m (65.61 feet). Dried material is mixed by an automatic scale, grounded and
then stored in storage tanks. Later, the stored mass is additionally mixed to make it more
uniform and sent to a rotary kiln for clinker burning. These procedures are implemented
by taking into accout the properties of raw materials used in manufacture, fuel costs and
conditions of geographic location. In case of the wet process, the costs of plant
construction are much lower and the production is easier than in dry process kilns. But
the dry process is consuming less energy. As stated earlier, energy is making about 40%
of the cost of the cement. Dry process is also lowering the operating cost.
As mentioned by The Energy Conservation Center (ECC) (1994), the dry long
kiln is used mainly in the Near and Middle East. This is explained by less rain falls and
large amounts of alkaline components in raw material. In Southeast Asia, Central and
South America, and North America, the long kiln with wet process is used for cement
The British Geological Survey (BGS) states that during the last years there has
been a switch from inefficient wet process to more energy efficient dry process.
According to BGS, in Europe about 78% of cement production is based on dry process
European production now uses wet process kilns (British Geological Survey, 2005).
Some of the actual and forecasted data from BGS on energy use reductions are presented
in Table 6.1.
The most widely used type of cement is Portland cement as it has all the
necessary requirements for all purposes. The types of Portland cement and the production
of cement in general are described below. Dry and wet processes and the differences
Portland cement has eight types, which are recognized by ASTM C 150, Standard
Specification for Portland Cement. Types of Portland cement are presented below:
These types are general purpose cements that are proper for all purposes.
These types of cements contain tricalcium aluminate (C3A) less than 8%. The
cement.
Type III and IIIA are very similar to Type I by their chemical and physical
structure. Difference is that they are grounded finer in order to guarantee higher
early strengths.
Type IV
This type is widely used in massive structures from concrete. It has property to
minimize the amount as well as the rate of heat generated from hydration. The
Type V
Type V contains less than 5% of C3A for resistance in high sulfate conditions.
Manufacturing of the cement starts at the quarry (see Figure 6.3). Location of the
cement plant is selected by availability and size of quarry. If the quarry is not big enough
After being crashed in the quarry, the minerals limestone, clay and sand are
shipped to the cement plant. Then the minerals are proportioned, blended and grinded
process is helping to reduce the energy used for clinker making, since the components
necessary for clinker production are entering to the kiln already preheated. The heat for
preheater tower is generated from kiln operation, which is captured and directed to
Preheated ready mix goes to the kiln, where the clinker is being produced through
Next step is cooling the clinker. The cooler is designed to collect the heat from
hot clinker and direct it to preheater tower. After being cooled, the clinker goes to the
grinder, where small amount of gypsum is added to produce the final product (see Figure
6.7). Clinker could also be stored for long periods of time, which is not possible to do for
ready cement.
After grinding the mix of gypsum and clinker, the cement is produced and
To reduce the moisture content of minerals below 1%, which is required for dry
process, the raw materials are dried in a combined drying and grinding plant. Drying of
materials is reached by using exhaust gases coming from the kiln that may be
supplemented by secondary hot furnaces during rainy season, when minerals are much
wetter than in normal weather. The raw grinded mix is homogenized in a large silos.
for making the dry process practicable. The blended and homogenized raw mix is then
fed into dry kiln with air suspension preheater. In the suspension preheater, partial
calcination of the raw mix starts taking place. Dry process is mostly limited to the use of
air suspension preheater. Dry process provides maximum benefits as the heat
consumption is an important issue. Development of the dry process, using air suspension
calcination of the raw mix before its entry to the kiln. The advantage of this process is
that the fuel consumption is lowest trough existing technologies. The fuel use in this
process is in the range of 750-950 Kcal/Kg of clinker. The power consumption for dry
India, 2004).
During the wet process, the raw mix is fed into the kiln in the form of slurry that
may contain water up to 30 to 40%. In the wet process, the kiln is a very long tube in
comparison to dry process, and the slurry that is easy to blend and homogenize due to the
122
water, is directly being fed into the kiln. Currently, the only reason that wet process could
moisture content. The amount of moisture in mineral sometimes can be even more than
12%, like, for example, in chalk and in marl. The use of wet process is also essential
when relatively poor grade limestone needs to be enriched through the beneficiation
process. In this process, water is required as a process media. Until 1950, most of the
cement processing kilns were wet kilns due to the ease of blending and homogenizing the
components of the raw mix. In the wet process, the fuel consumption for cement
manufacure is the highest in existing processes and it is in the range of 1300 to 1600
kWh/ton of cement (Cement Industry, India, 2004). Differences of dry and wet processes
minimizes the fuel consumption of process compared to the wet process, but at the same
time it increases the power consumption, which is making it not preferable. In semi-
controlled amount of water in a modulating pan, or, alternatively, by removing the water
from slurry using filter press. These nodules later feed on to a moving grate, where the
raw mix gets partially calcined. The partially calcined raw meal is fed to a rotary kiln for
complete calcining in the form of nodules. This process causes many operational and
capacity problems. As already mentioned, the fuel consumption improves to about 900-
1100 Kcal/Kg of clinker and the power consumption increases to 115-120 Kwh/ton of
In the variety of energy balances the appropriate one for cement production is
process energy balance. This method takes into consideration only the process energy.
This energy is required for the process of converting the input materials into final
manufacturing process of cement. It compares each unit of energy that enters the system
for processing of raw material, and the units that are actually used efficiently for the
In his book, Taylor (1997) presented the Cement Chemistry method for mass
possible to calculate a mass-balance table showing how all oxide components, both major
and minor, are distributed among the major and minor phases (Taylor, 2008, p. 104).
there exist 67% of CaO, 22% of SiO2, 5% Al2O3, 3% Fe2O3 and 3% other components,
which normally contain four major phases. These phases are called alite, belite, aluminate
and ferrite.
Bogue calculations mostly applied to cement clinker, rather than to cement, but
those can be adjusted for cement. This is a very commonly used method to calculate mass
In Bogue calculations, it is assumed that the four main clinker minerals are very
Cement clinker is made by combining lime and silica, and also lime with alumina and
iron. There is always some amount of lime after chemical processes that remains
uncombined. That amount needs to be subtracted from the total lime content before
starting calculations. Normally clinker analysis gives the amount for uncombined free
phase mineral. Therefore, the content of iron fixes the amount of ferrite in the clinker.
Next, the aluminate content is fixed by the total alumina content of the clinker.
Then, it is assumed that all silica is present as belite. Afterwards, the calculations
determine how much lime is required to form belite from the total silica of the clinker. As
a result of these processes, there will be a surplus of lime, which is allocated to the belite,
The above procedure of allocating the oxides can practically be reduced to the
following equations for Bogue calculations. In these equations the oxides represent the
126
weight percentages of the oxides in the clinker. Explanations of notations for four phases
C3S = 4.0710CaO-7.6024SiO2-1.4297Fe2O3-6.7187Al2O3
C2S = 8.6024SiO2+1.0785Fe2O3+5.0683Al2O3-3.0710CaO
C3A = 2.6504Al2O3-1.6920Fe2O3
C4AF = 3.0432Fe2O3
Data from the analysis of clinker are presented in the Table 6.2
The data from the clinker analysis are used in the following calculations:
This is the figure that was used for CaO in the calculation.
C3S = 4.0710CaO-7.6024SiO2-1.4297Fe2O3-6.7187Al2O3
C2S = 8.6024SiO2+1.1Fe2O3+5.0683Al2O3-3.0710CaO
C3A = 2.6504Al2O3-1.6920Fe2O3
C4AF = 3.0432Fe2O3
Therefore:
So:
C3S = 64.7%
C2S = 12.9%
C3A = 9.0%
C4AF = 8.5%
It should be mentioned that the Bogue calculation does not give very accurate
numbers for the four main clinker phases (Understanding Cement, 1990). The example of
http://www.understanding-cement.com/bogue.html.
Other researchers also conducted studies for energy and mass balances for cement
manufacture. As previously mentioned, Utlu conducted a study for energy and mass
128
balances in the cement industry. Particularly, in his results and discussions he states that
the mass balance in the raw mill (RM) is conceived on the law of conservation, and
m& = m&
in out
m& in =m& la + m& g + m& l + m& c + m& p + m& lm + m& cm + m& pm + m& bs + m& gd
The mass balance of the RM investigated by Utlu et al. is presented in Table 6.3
Utlu also analyzed the energy balance in the cement industry, and for energy
It should be assumed that the system is in a steady state, and in steady flow
process.
129
The Kinetic energy as well as potential energy changes if input and output
It should be assumed that there is no heat transfer to the system from the
outside.
Based on above mentioned assumptions and using actual operational data from
existing plant, Utlu calculated the energy balance of the raw mill. The complete energy
As mentioned by Utlu, the total energy input to the farine system is 749.39 kJ/kg.
Utlu mentions the gas as a main heat source with given total heat of 117.62 kJ/ kg. The
In his article Utlu also calculated enthalpy, entropy and exergy balances, and the
results of those analyses are presented in the Appendix D (see Table D.1, Table D.2,
Table D.3).
According to Utlu, the values of energy efficiency for the raw mill are 84.3%,
Another conclusion, presented by Utlu, is that heat losses, coming out especially
at the beginning of the process, are because of the efficiency of the system. The heat
losses will decrease if appropriate actions of protection are taken in the raw mill. If
precautions are taken at the rotary kiln, less fuel will be consumed, which is one of the
Rasul et al. (2005) conducted a research based on the data from the Indonesian
Portland cement plant. They present a simple model to evaluate the thermal performance
of the cement industry. Rasul et al. develop the model based on the mass, energy as well
131
as exergy balances. The data obtained from industry indicate that the burning efficiency
was 52.07%, cooler efficiency was 47.75%, and heat recovery efficiency was 51.2%.
There is high loss at the cooler of 19%, and it is mostly due to the convection and
In their model they discuss energy balance for the kiln system separately from the
cooler system, and the flowcharts for clinker product and mass balance calculations are
presented in the Appendix D (see Figure D.2, Figure D.3). The flowcharts of mass,
energy and exergy used in Rasuls study are presented in Error! Reference source not
Figure 6.12 shows the energy flow diagram (in kJ/kg), as well as breakdown of
energy consumption (in %), of the kiln system. Specific thermal energy requirement of
the cement plant was 3581.49 kJ/ kg of clinker out of, which 3436.9 kJ/kg (96%) was
combustion heat of coal and 144.6 kJ/kg (4%) was total sensible heat (Rasul et al., 2005,
p. 2960).
Figure 6.13 shows the exergy flow diagram (in kJ/kg), as well as breakdown of
exergy flow (in %), of the kiln system. The sources of exergy inputs were fuel, raw meal
and air. The second law efficiency and the irreversibility of the system were determined
as 57.07% and 19.70% respectively. The loss of exergy in the combustion was due to the
They mention that the energy required per ton of cement is 4 GJ. They use the data from
existing plant in India with production capacity of 1Mt per annum. They find that 35% of
input energy is lost with waste heat streams. If we compare the results of Utlu, who
mentioned that 85% of input energy is used efficiently, we can see the efficiency
differences between the plants. The energy used for cement production is primarily
connected to environmental pollution and for these two plants the difference of efficiency
is 10% percent, which is a very big difference for plants producing the same product. The
Pradesh, India. Schematic representation of the plant is presented in the Appendix D (see
Figure D.4). The production technology of the plant is dry processing. Production per
day is 3,800 ton and specific energy use is 3.7 GJ per ton. Although this plant is not so
efficient, Khurana et al. state that this plant is one of the most energy efficient plants in
the country, and it is suitable for the case study. Energy balance study is conducted for
Appendix D (see Figure D.4). The selected section includes the pyroprocessing unit. The
pyroprocessing unit includes the preheater, the calciner, the kiln and the clinker cooler.
Khurana et al. (2002) perform some mass balance over the system, using the
stream data.
Calcination reactions
C + O2 CO2
4H + O2 2H2O
S + O2 SO2
Stoichiometric calculations are used to reach the flow rate of the remaining
oxygen and carbon dioxide gives the flow rate of the exhaust gases. The composition and
the flow rate of the raw feed are estimated from the clinker composition and the
Table 6.5.
135
Table 6.5 Energy Balance for Maihar CementUnit 2, Madhya Pradesh, India
The results of energy balance for entire system for Maihar CementUnit 2 plant
are also presented as Sankey diagram in Figure 6.15. Sankey diagrams are a specific type
of flow diagram, where the widths of the arrows drown by scale proportionally to the
affecting the life cycle cost of cement production are recognized. Sensitivity anaysis of
In life cycle cost models the goal is to minimize the life cycle cost (LCC) of the
considered facility, while satisfying the forecasted demand and various constraints. The
main decision variables represent the optimal production of cement by each producing
unit within the plant. The objective function of the linear model for cement production
T
n
LCC(Z) = K 0 + E it (Z t ) + St + IMPt * t min (1)
t =1 i =1
E it (Z t ) = e i * c it (2)
St = s * x t (3)
IMPt = p * q t (4)
-t
Z = (Z1 , Z 2 ,..., Z t , ..., ZT ) , t = (1 + ) , x0 = 0, xT = 0
where,
cement producing plant at the beginning of the considered period. Since these expenses
occur in the first year of the projection period they are not discounted;
Eit(Zt) represents the total operation and maintenance costs for each cement
IMPt represents the penalty costs for importing cement from other producers at
time t, which are assumed to be higher (by 20-30%) than that from own plant;
interval of time;
xt represents annual cement inventory that is stored at the end of t interval of time.
It should be noted that both at the beginning and at the end of the considered period no
time;
coefficient of discounting;
ei represents the unit costs of cement production, which vary across producing
units. This can be explained by numerous factors related to the productivity, efficiency of
The breakdown of unit costs considered in this model can be presented as:
shipment distance from the source to the cement producing plant through
4. Cement production costs, which include all the above mentioned costs plus
2. Input Constraint
3. Energy Constraint
4. Emissions Constraint
The total amount of cement produced and stored during the previous period in the
c
i =1
ik + x k -1 + q k C min k + x k (5)
where,
140
Cmink is the minimum required cement production at each k interval of time, which
The input requirement is calculated for each time interval and is described by the
input constraint. At each k interval of time the total demand for input j is defined as a sum
of the input requirements by producing units, which can not exceed the maximum
c
i =1
ik * m ij M kj (6)
where,
At each k interval of time the electric and thermal energy demand is defined as a
sum of the energy requirements of all cement producing units. It follows that the energy
requirement should not exceed the maximum available amount of energy supply in each k
interval of time:
n
c
i =1
ik l ik L k (7)
where,
lik represents energy requirement for producing one unit of cement by production
time.
model, emissions constraints are used to limit air pollution. In particular, at each k
interval of time the total amount of emissions of gas g is defined as a sum of the
emissions from producing units. The latter can not exceed the maximum permitted level
c
i =1
ik * y ig Ykg (8)
where,
producing one unit of cement by production unit i at the beginning of k interval of time.
Cement producing units located in the plant have limited annual production
capacities. This is also considered in the model by including capacity constraints for each
k interval of time:
q t * C min k (10)
where,
To perform the economic analysis, the data were collected from different sources.
Then, the averages were calculated and used for case studies.
county prepared in 2006, the authors mention about the average capital investment for
cement dry process plant to be approximately $133/ton. To calculate the cost of a plant
with an average producing line capacity, it is necessary to multiply the production with
the approximate average capital investment per ton. In the United States, the cement kiln
average capacity is 532,000 tons annually, based on the data from PCA Annual
Yearbook 2007. Data presented in USGS report state that in 2002 the production of a
clinker was 418,000 tons/year and the corresponding amount of cement produced was
468,000 tons/year. Since the kiln capacity is 418,000 metric tons in 2002, and the cement
producing capacity is 468,000 metric tons, then the addition to clinker to make cement
will be 1.12%, which should not exceed 5%. Therefore, to get the average quantity of
cement for the corresponding kiln capacity, the amount of clinker is increased by 1.12%.
based on above mentioned assumptions. Since these numbers are approximate averages,
those could be rounded before using in the economic analysis. The numbers used in the
In the United States, the average cost of producing one ton of Portland cement is
$71.5, according to the data provided by Lehigh Cement Company. The economic-
mathematical model is developed for 5 producing lines. There may be some plants, which
exceed the accepted number of kilns for the analysis, but the majority of plants have less
than 5 kilns.
The storage cost of one ton of cement in Flat storage terminal is U.S. $7.0, in
Dome terminal is U.S. $5.50, and in Silo terminal is U.S. $5.0, according to Cement
Distribution Consultants (2008). One ton of Portland cement, in average requires 152
Yearbook 2007. Other energy sources are also necessary for cement production.
According to PCA Annual Yearbook 2007, the following fuels were used in the United
The most widely used fuels are Coal and Coke. These two fuels together are
75.7% of the total fuels used in the U.S. cement industry (PCA, 2007).
144
also differ from one plant to another. Production of one ton of Portland cement requires
from 1,500kg to 1,700kg of raw material. For the case study, the proportion of raw
material is selected based on Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust: Cement Industry
The list of raw materials necessary for the production of one ton of Portland
Limestone 1,348.48 kg
Shale 73.28 kg
Clay 59.36 kg
Sand 41.28 kg
Marl 30.4 kg
Ash 23.04 kg
Gypsum 6.4 kg
Bauxite 1.76 kg
Slag 1.12 kg
Other 1.6 kg
145
to 1,700 kg input of raw material. The rest of the material is considered a by-product and
goes to the atmosphere as emissions. Those emissions vary from plant to plant, and from
and local government agencies are setting emission limits. It is mandatory for all plants to
comply with regulations, and get permits to pollute the environment. The regulation of
emission limits is strict and requires all plants to operate within those limits or stop their
operation. There are some types of emissions, which have no limitations in the United
States, but are recognized as significant polluters by other countries. A good example is
Clean Power Act and Clean Air Act. The bills suggest annual minimization of the amount
of carbon dioxide, but unfortunately those suggestions are not playing significant roles in
Agency Greenhouse Gas R and D Programme (2004), the average CO2 emission
associated with the production of one ton of cement is 0.81ton. The worlds largest
emitter, China, is emitting 0.88 kg CO2 per kg of cement, but the most carbon intensive
cement producing region is India (0.93 kg CO2/kg), then North America (0.89 kg
CO2/kg). As previously mentioned, there is no cap for carbon dioxide, but companies in
cement industry are trying to minimize their emission levels voluntarily. There are
companies, which are far below from the average amount of emissions. According to
improved operation efficiency to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions from 763 pounds
146
per ton in 1990, which is equivalent to 347 kilograms of CO2 per ton of cement, to
655lb/ton in 2006. Lafarge also announced that its goal is to reach 610lb/ton of cement by
2010.
PCA mentioned that carbon emissions from cement production are 1.5% of the
United States total carbon emissions. In the case study, the number, derived from the total
amount of carbon dioxide in the Clean Air Act initiative, serves as a constraint of carbon
carbon dioxide of this initiative can be seen for the power sector in Table 7.1. According
to the Energy Information Administration, in 2007 the total U.S. emissions were 5,984
Table 7.1 Carbon Dioxide Cap by Clean Air Act and Clear Skies Act
Carbon Dioxide Cap by Clean Air Act and Clear Skies Act
Emissions Clean Air Act Clear Skies Act
2,332 million metric tons
CO2(636 million metric tons
Carbon Dioxide carbon equivalent) in 2009
No cap
(CO2) 2,244 million metric tons
CO2(612 million metric tons
carbon equivalent) in 2013
For the case study we calculate the tendency of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions,
based on this data. This can be done by substituting the amount of carbon dioxide for the
years given in the initiative with the total amount of carbon dioxide for the United States.
The reduction rate of emissions is assumed to be linear for the considered period of time.
147
Prevention and Abatement for Cement Industry (WBCSD, 2004), the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development states the limit for NOx to be equal to 2.4kg per
ton, which is equal to 0.0024ton NOx per ton of cement produced. Currently, there are
plants with varying control of NOx emissions, ranging from 2.8lb to 3.2lb per ton. If there
is no control, NOx emissions associated with the production of ton of cement are 4.2lb,
according to PCA report (PCA, 2006) about Assessment of NOx Emissions Reduction
(2004) declared the limit for NOx - 600 mg/ Nm3 equal to 2.4 kg/ton, which is equivalent
to 5.286lb/ton. Another limit for NOx was proposed by EPA in 2003, which is close to
the limit adopted by the World Bank in 2003, and republished by WBCSD in 2004, equal
There are also state regulations for some pollutants. The state regulations for
a) During the period from May 1 through September 30, 2009, and for each year
thereafter, the owner or operator of a Portland cement kiln may not operate a
Portland cement kiln in a manner that results in NOx emissions in excess of the
cement kiln for the period from May 1 through September 30, 2009, and for each
148
year thereafter by: 3.44 pounds of NOx per ton of clinker produced for long dry-
Regulations vary from state to state. For example, NOx regulations in the State of
California (Amended June 6, 1986) require (South Coast Air Quality Management
District, 1986):
(b) Requirements
1. No person shall operate a gray cement kiln unless such kiln is equipped with a
approved by the Executive Officer whenever the kiln is operating. Such records as
well as heat input and clinker production records shall be maintained at the
facility for at least two (2) years and shall be available to and in a manner and
2. No person shall operate a gray cement kiln capable of discharging nitrogen oxides
into the atmosphere unless such discharge of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere
(A) 11.6 lb/ton of clinker produced when averaged over any 24 consecutive hour
period, and
(B) 6.4 lb/ton of clinker produced when averaged over any 30 consecutive day
period.
Particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) are another form of emissions associated with the
Limits for this pollution are stated by World Business Council for Sustainable
Another limit for this pollution in California (Adopted February 7, 1986) requires
(b) Requirements:
No person shall operate a cement kiln and clinker cooler capable of discharging
particulate matter into the atmosphere unless such discharge of particulate matter into the
atmosphere from such cement kiln and clinker cooler when combined is limited to no
more than:
0.40 pound per ton of kiln feed for kiln feed rates less than 75 tons per
August 17, 1971 are regulated to limit PM emissions from Portland cement kilns to 0.15
kg/Mg (0.30 lb/ton) of feed (dry basis), and to limit PM emissions from clinker coolers to
0.050 kg/Mg (0.10 lb/ton) of feed (dry basis) (Environmental Protection Agency, 2005).
The total of these limits is 0.4lb/ton, which is the same as Californias limit.
SO2 emission associated with the production of cement is 2.58kg per ton of
Another number for SO2 associated with the production of cement, provided by
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2004) has specific limit
for this pollution as well, which is 400 mg/Nm3 equal to 1.6 kg/ton, which, in its turn, is
equivalent to 3.524lb/ton.
Although the amount of Mercury from the cement production is considered not
significant, the latest regulations already take it into account, and define requirements for
existing and new plants. Based on data from WBCSD (2004), the amount of Mercury
generated from the production of one ton of cement ranges from 0.01mg/Nm3 to
report also states the limit for mercury to be 0.12mg/Nm3 equivalent to 0.001lb/ton of
cement produced.
All data used in the case study analysis are from above mentioned ranges. The
The case studies were conducted based on the market behavior of the U.S cement
industry during the last several years. The cement production for the benchmark year
2009 was selected to be close to that of 2006 (94,693,000 tons of clinker), being equal to
forecast that for coming years the demand of cement will not continue to rise, and, even,
most probably will decrease. The production capacity of a hypothetical cement plant was
selected to be 2,140,000 tons per year. Based on this number and using annual percentage
changes for corresponding years, the cement production was calculated. The results are
Analyses were conducted for all years between 2010 and 2020. Therefore,
benchmarking values (numbers for 2009 in Table 7.2 and Table 7.3) were not included
in computations. CO2 emission limits were calculated based on the Clean Air Act
initiative and 2007 PCA report, which stated that CO2 emissions from the cement
industry were 1.5% of total U.S. CO2 emissions. The results of these computations are
For Case Study I, the capacities of the production lines were selected to be close
to average kiln capacity in the United States, which is presented in Table 7.4.
The capital cost associated with the total capacity of the hypothetical plant is
calculated based on the aforementioned data and the total capacity, which is presented in
Table 7.5.
153
Sensitivity analyses of the results were also conducted. For that purpose the
demand was increased by 5% from 2010 to 2020, which is presented in Table 7.6.
For the case studies the material proportions were selected from the above
Table 7.8. In the first column of these two tables number 4 represents the
reference value of the line from which numbers are derived for other production lines.
154
Percentage change describes the change of material usage for every producing unit,
Table 7.7 Calculated Material Proportion for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement
Table 7.8 Calculated Material Proportion for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement
The same approach was used for calculation of the energy use for other producing
units, again based on the reference number, which is number 4 in the first column. Values
are presented in
155
Table 7.9. The selection of fuel types is based on 2007 PCA report, illustrating
the most widely used fuel types in the cement production. Producing unit number 4 is the
Table 7.9 (continued on following page)Calculated Energy Use for Production ofPortlan
To be consistent in calculations, the same approach was used for calculating the
emissions from other producing units, again based on the reference number, which is
number 4 in the first column. Values are presented in Table 7.10. Producing unit number
4 is the reference value, which is again from the above mentioned data.
Table 7.10 Calculated Emissions from Production of One Ton of Portland Cement
SO2 emissions are calculated, but, unfortunately, the amount of SO2 emissions
from cement production exceed the limit for this type of emission, and the optimal
solution becomes infeasible. The model accounts for this type of pollution as well, but the
constraint for SO2 is turned off. After having improved technologies, this can also be
The computer code is written in a way that it considers all production inputs as constraints. In most
countries the raw material is not considered as a scarce input for the cement production, but there
are some regions in the world that have scarcity of one or more types of raw material. The model can
also be used for those cases, helping to make more informed decisions. For the case studies, the total
amount of material used is calculated by multiplying the average amounts of materials, necessary for
the production of one ton of Portland cement, by the total production for particular year, and, then,
are increased by 20% not to act as constraints. These numbers are presented in
Table 7.12.
The 20% increase is not a fixed number and was selected only to increase the
The limits for pollutants are calculated through multiplying the allowable amount
of pollution per ton of Portland cement by the total cement production in a particular
year.
To maintain consistency in data calculations, the total values for SO2 are also
The production costs are selected close to the number provided by Lehigh Cement
Company, which provided $71.5 per ton of cement produced. Capacities with
corresponding production costs for Case Study I are presented in Table 7.15.
161
e1 - unit OandM costs for 1st cement producing unit ($ per ton)
e2 - unit OandM costs for 2nd cement producing unit ($ per ton)
e3 - unit OandM costs for 3rd cement producing unit ($ per ton)
e4 - unit OandM costs for 4th cement producing unit ($ per ton)
e5 - unit OandM costs for 5th cement producing unit ($ per ton)
co1 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1
co2 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2
co3 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3
co4 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4
co5 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5
no1 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1
no2 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2
no3 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3
166
no4 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4
no5 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5
so1 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1
so2 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2
so3 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3
so4 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4
so5 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5
me1 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1
me2 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2
me3 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3
me4 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4
me5 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5
This section presents the results of case studies and their differences. It also
cement plants.
8.2 Results
In this research three case studies were investigated. Case Study I is for a cement
plant with 5 production lines. In the model those lines are described as producing units.
The output of the developed economic-mathematical model gives detailed data for each
producing unit in the solution output, which also includes information about calculations
in the model. Complete outputs of the model for each case study are presented in the
Appendix F, under subsections called Case Study I (number of production lines is 5),
Case Study II (number of production lines is 4), Case Study III (number of
production lines is 3). Data are extracted from those outputs and are discussed below.
The results of Case Study I are summarized in tables and graphs under this
subsection. Numerical values of these graphs are presented in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2.
Since the initial information used in this model is partially stochastic, it is useful
to see how sensitive the original optimal solution is to the various parameters of the
model. This is usually implemented by changing the value of the parameter from its
initial estimate to other possibilities in the range of likely values. The optimal solution
can be reliable only when it is justified by the results of sensitivity analysis. Moreover,
169
sometimes the constraints of a problem are resulting from management policy decisions,
which need to be reviewed after estimating their potential impact. Thus, it is very
important to check the optimal solution of the linear model by sensitivity analysis. For
the cement plant with 5 production lines, the results are also presented in Figure 8.1 and
Figure 8.2.
In Figure 8.1 the production of each producing unit is presented graphically. The
change of production in each unit can be seen from the graph, and conclusions can be
made. The production of the first producing unit, called cem1.L, is steady under Case
Study I. cem1.L should operate at its maximum capacity, equal to 400,000 tons each
year, from 2010 to 2014. Then, the output of the unit is decreasing to 315,462.4 tons a
year, after which it experiences a small increase. Beginning from 2017, the production of
cem1.L decreases. Then there is steady state for one year that turns to producing
The second producing unit, called cem2.L, starts from a low level. To satisfy
the minimum LCC condition, it should start from 69,433 tons in 2010. Then there will be
need to decrease the production of this unit until 2012. During the next year it will
produce approximately half of its capacity, and then will work by its full capacity until
the end of the projected period by producing 450,000 tons each year. After conducting
the sensitivity analysis, the operation schedule of the production unit changed, resulting
to 176,905 tons production for the first year. Then, in 2011, it should produce slightly
less compared to the previous year, but after 2011, it should work with its maximum
capacity.
170
The analysis revealed an interesting behavior for the producing unit called
cem3.L. This production line is satisfying all of the constraints within the projected
period of 2010-2020. The behavior of this unit is changing when its parameters are being
changed in the model. It should start and continue to produce cement with its maximum
The producing line, called cem4.L, has only one year decrease in its maximum
production capacity. In 2013, it should produce 391,786.7 tons. But before and after 2013
it should continue to work with its maximum capacity. Sensitivity analysis illustrated a
change in the schedule of this line as well. It will be necessary to decrease the production
of this unit in 2012, if there is an increase in the demand. In that case the unit will be
required to produce 279,443.4 tons in 2012. After conducting the sensitivity analysis, we
see that the unit should continue to work by its maximum capacity before and after 2012.
According to the analysis, the producing unit, called cem5.L, will be required to
work with its maximum production capacity from 2010 to 2013, equal to 600,000 tons
per year. Then, in 2014, it should produce 70,049.7 tons of cement. The year of 2014 will
be the last year for this unit to produce cement. A close look at the values of production
and demand reveals that for each year there is a deficit. The gap should be filled by
imported cement. This import can be both from overseas and from neighboring
producers. In the case studies the import is assumed to be 20% more expensive than the
own production of cement. Also, there is a limit on the amount of imported cement. It
cannot exceed 30% of the total demand in any year of the considered period. The
numbers in Table 8.1 show that beginning from 2015 the gap between demand and
171
production should be satisfied by the import. From Figure 8.1 we see that the increase in
imports is not linear but steady. After the sensitivity analysis, the cement import is also
changed. Both the quantity and the start year are changed.
As previously mentioned, the model is a good decision making tool. It is not only
providing the necessary production of each producing unit, but also tells how much
cement should be stored in storages each year. Storage issue is another problem for
cement plants, since determining the optimal size of the storage is very important, giving
information to decision makers about the optimal time and the optimal amount of
investments. In the case studies the storage capacity is assumed to be 60,000 tons. Table
8.1 shows that the need for storage starts in 2013. But after 2014 there is no need for
storage. Since the construction of storages is expensive, the owners will delay the
investment for storage for two years. Then, in 2012, they can start building the storage to
have it ready for the next period. Table 8.1 shows that after 2014 there is no need for
storage for the rest of the projected period. Therefore, the storage can be deconstructed
and moved to another facility for similar purposes. But the results of the sensitivity
analysis show that after increasing the demand, the optimal solution requires having
storage also from 2012 to 2013. So the decision maker will have better understanding of
the situation and will be prepared for possible increase in demand. In summary, the
storage will be required from 2012 to 2014. Figure 8.3 and Figure 8.4 illustrate the total
production of the plant. Figure 8.3 presents the data before the sensitivity analysis, and
Figure 8.4 shows the total production after the sensitivity analysis. The results are
different before and after the sensitivity analysis not only for each production unit, but
172
also for the total production. Data for the total production before and after the sensitivity
analysis are also presented in Table 8.3 and Table 8.4. The results of the sensitivity
analysis show that in Case Study I the most sensitive production units are cem2.L,
cem4.L, cem5.L, while cem1.L and cem3.L are the least sensitive units.
The model also gives the unit production cost in todays dollar value. The norm
considering the time factor is equal to 0.012, which represents a discount rate of 1.2%.
The most important result of this model is the amount of LCC. For this analysis the LCC
is $1,926,334,906, which represents the investment plus operation and maintenance costs
for the projected period of time. This number represents the LCC of the hypothetical
plant before the sensitivity analysis. After the sensitivity analysis the LCC is
$2,014,992,896. The increase in LCC is normal, since the demand has been increased by
5% for the sensitivity analysis, so more expenses are necessary to satisfy the increased
demand.
173
Total prod. 2,149,433 2,121,797 2,105,338 2,139,988 2,000,050 1,845,462 1,845,841 1,849,333 1,777,669 1,780,118 1,746,219
700000
600000
500000 cem1.L
cem2.L
400000 cem3.L
cem4.L
300000 cem5.L
store.
200000 impcem.
100000
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.1 Production of Producing Units before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study I)
700000
600000
500000 sens-cem1.L
sens-cem2.L
400000 sens-cem3.L
sens-cem4.L
300000 sens-cem5.L
sens-store.
200000 sens-impcem.
100000
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.2 Production of Producing Units after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study I)
176
2266500
2166500
2066500
1866500
1766500
1666500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.3 Total Cement Production before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study I)
2366500
2266500
2166500
2066500
sens-total prod.
1966500
1866500
1766500
1666500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.4 Total Cement Production after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study I)
177
conducted. In this case study we have four production units to satisfy the same forcasted
demand. In the model a modification is done just by turning off one of the units. The
capital investment, the number of production units, the production capacities and the
production costs of producing units are the only data that changed.
The results for Case Study II are summarized in graphs and in tables. Numerical
values of these graphs are presented in Table 8.5 and Table 8.6. For the cement plant
with 4 production lines the results are also presented in Figure 8.5 and Figure 8.6.
Figure 8.5 presents the production of each producing unit. The first producing
unit, called cem1.L, has steady production with the maximum capacity equal to
500,000 tons until 2013. Then it is decreasing to 5,402.353 tons in 2014. In this particular
case the year of 2014 should be the last year for this unit to operate. After the sensitivity
analysis, the numbers have been changed for this producing unit. Decrease in production
should start one year earlier being equal to 159,581.2 tons in 2013, and, then, 5,402.353
tons in 2014. It should produce 500,000 tons annually from 2010 to 2012.
The second producing unit, called cem2.L, starts with its maximum capacity in
the first year, and, then, decreases its production to 271,797 tons. In 2014, it should
produce 334,868 tons. Before and after 2014 its production should be equal to its
maximum capacity. The sensitivity analysis shows that there should be decrease of
production in 2011, being equal to 377,887 tons. Before and after 2011 it should produce
The producing line, called cem4.L, has low start equal to 299,433 tons in 2010.
In 2011, it should produce 650,000 tons. Then it decreases its production to 255,338 tons
in 2012. In 2013, it should continue its operation with 605,120 tons, and the rest of the
projected period it should operate with its maximum capacity. After the sensitivity
analysis, the production of this unit changed. It will need to start with 406,905 tons in
According to the analysis, the producing unit, called cem5.L, will be required
to work with its maximum production capacity from 2010 to 2014, equal to 700,000 tons
per year. Then, it will have decreasing production beginning from 2015 until the end of
the period. After the sensitivity analysis, the operation schedule of this line has changed,
The numbers in Table 8.5 show that from 2015 the gap between the demand and
which can be seen from Figure 8.5. After the sensitivity analysis, the need for cement
The storage capacity is selected to be 60,000 tons. From Table 8.5 it is clear that
the need for storage starts in 2013. But after 2014 there is no need for a storage.
Like in previous example, the results indicate the need for storage from 2012 to
2014. The results of the sensitivity analysis show that in 2012 the required storage
capacity is not equal to its maximum number. So the decision makers can invest in the
storage construction gradually. In Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.8 the total production of the
plant is presented. Figure 8.7 presents the data before the sensitivity analysis, and Figure
179
8.8 shows the total production after the sensitivity analysis. The results are different
before and after the sensitivity analysis not only for each production unit, but also for the
total production. The data for the total production before and after the sensitivity analysis
are also presented in Table 8.7 and Table 8.8. The results of the sensitivity analysis show
that in this case study all production units are extremely sensitive.
Like Case Study I, in this case also the model gives the unit production cost in
todays dollar value, which can be found in the Appendix F. The norm considering the
time factor is again assumed to be equal to 0.012, which represents a discount rate of
1.2%. In Case Study II the LCC is $1,923,364,931, which represents the investment plus
operation and maintenance costs for the projected period of time. This number is the LCC
of the hypothetical plant before the sensitivity analysis. After the sensitivity analysis, the
LCC is $2,011,931,949. As in Case Study I, in this case also there is some increase in
LCC. As previously mentioned, this increase is normal, since the demand increased by
5% for the sensitivity analysis, and more expenses are necessary to satisfy the increased
demand.
180
Total prod. 2,149,433 2,121,797 2,105,338 2,139,988 2,005,402 1,850,347 1,850,728 1,854,240 1,782,153 1,784,615 1,750,516
800000
700000
600000
cem1.L
500000
cem2.L
cem4.L
400000
cem5.L
store.
300000
impcem.
200000
100000
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.5 Production of Producing Units before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study II)
800000
700000
600000
sens-cem1.L
500000
sens-cem2.L
sens-cem4.L
400000
sens-cem5.L
sens-store.
300000
sens-impcem.
200000
100000
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.6 Production of Producing Units after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study II)
183
2266500
2166500
2066500
1866500
1766500
1666500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.7 Total Cement Production before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study II)
2366500
2266500
2166500
2066500
sens-total prod.
1966500
1866500
1766500
1666500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.8 Total Cement Production after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study II)
184
To compare the results and make some conclusions and recommendations Case
Study III is conducted. In this case study simulations are done for three production units.
Again, like in Case Study II the model is modified just by turning off two out of five
units. The capital investment, the number of production units, and the production
capacities are the only data that changed. The production costs of producing units are the
The results for Case Study III are summarized in graphs and in tables, like in the
preceding two case studies. Numerical values of these graphs are presented in Table 8.9
and Table 8.10. For cement plant with 3 production lines the results are also presented in
Figure 8.9 shows the production of each producing unit. The first producing unit,
called cem1.L, should work with its maximum capacity, equal to 825,000 tons each
year during the first four years. Then. it is decreasing until the end of the projected
period, and eventually decreases to 97,718.82 tons in 2020. After the sensitivity analysis,
the demand is increased, and, therefore, this unit operates with its maximum capacity for
the first three years, and, then, decreases its production until the end of the projected
period.
The second producing unit, called cem2.L, starts with about half of its
maximum capacity. Then its production should decrease in 2011 and in 2012. After this
decrease it should increase in 2013 to 572,685.8 tons. In 2014, it should continue to work
with its maximum capacity. After the sensitivity analysis, the production schedule for this
185
unit is changed to 606,905 tons for the first year, and, then, there is a small decrease.
According to the analysis, the producing unit, called cem5.L, will be required to
work with its maximum production capacity during the projected period of time. It will
experience a one time decrease in production in 2013 equal to 742,302.2 tons. The
sensitivity analysis moved the decrease to 2012, making the unit to produce 612,530.2
The numbers in Table 8.9 show that from 2015 the gap between demand and
production of cement should be satisfied by imported cement. Figure 8.9 shows that the
increase in import is not linear but steady. After the sensitivity analysis, the need for
cement import has also changed. Both the investment and the time are changed, which
The storage capacity for this case study is again selected to be 60,000 tons. Table
8.9 shows that the need for storage starts in 2013. But after 2014 there is no need for a
storage. The results of the sensitivity analysis show that the optimal solution requiries
In Figure 8.11 and Figure 8.12 the total production of the plant is presented.
Figure 8.11 presents the data before the sensitivity analysis, and Figure 8.12 shows the
total production after the sensitivity analysis. The results are different before and after the
sensitivity analysis not only for each production unit, but also for the total production.
The data for the total production before and after the sensitivity analysis are also
186
presented in Table 8.11 and Table 8.12. The results of the sensitivity analysis show that
Unit production costs in todays dollar value can be found in the Appendix F, and,
again, the norm considering the time factor is assumed to be equal to 0.012, which
represents a discount rate of 1.2%. In Case Study III the LCC is $1,920,062,000, which
again represents the investment plus operation and maintenance costs for the projected
period of time. This number is the LCC of the hypothetical plant before the sensitivity
Table 8.11 Case Study III Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis
Total prod. 2,149,433 2,121,797 2,105,338 2,139,988 2,001,138 1,846,962 1,847,341 1,850,833 1,779,169 1,781,618 1,747,719
Table 8.12 Case Study III Total Production after Sensitivity Analysis
900000
800000
700000
600000
cem1.L
500000 cem2.L
cem5.L
400000 store.
impcem.
300000
200000
100000
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.9 Production of Producing Units before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study III)
900000
800000
700000
600000
sens-cem1.L
500000 sens-cem2.L
sens-cem5.L
400000 sens-store.
sens-impcem.
300000
200000
100000
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.10 Production of Producing Units after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study III)
190
2266500
2166500
2066500
1866500
1766500
1666500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.11 Total Cement Production before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study III)
2366500
2266500
2166500
2066500
sens-total prod.
1966500
1866500
1766500
1666500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 8.12 Total Cement Production after Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study III)
191
economic analysis.
The following conclusions and recommendations are made based on the results of
this research:
1. Formulation of the optimal strategy for the cement production industry helps to
and geography of each country, make the selection of the optimal cement
production plan more complex. The optimal development strategy of the cement
industry will serve as a foundation for finding the optimal production plan in any
There are two risks associated with the optimal cement production strategy:
long-term deficit. If the shortage continues for a long time, the cement
will reduce the firm profits and can negatively affect its reputation,
The nature of this dual risk is asymmetric. The reputation of the firm
maintain the risk at a reasonable level, the dynamics of factors, which negatively
affect the forecasted demand for cement, should be carefully analyzed. The
checked annually either to confirm the initial production plan, or to make changes
in investment projects.
2. It is suggested to use linear programming for such decision making problems, and
3. In this research three case studies were investigated. The output of developed
4. In Case Study I the analysis shows that the LCC of the hypothetical plant before
the sensitivity analysis is $1,926,334,906. After the sensitivity analysis the LCC is
5. In Case Study II the LCC is $1,923,364,931, which represents the investment plus
operation and maintenance costs for the projected period of time. This number is
the LCC of the hypothetical plant before the sensitivity analysis. The LCC after
the sensitivity analysis is $2,011,931,949. As in Case Study I, in this case also the
6. In Case Study III the LCC of the hypothetical plant is $1,920,062,000 before the
sensitivity analysis, which again represents the investment plus operation and
maintenance costs for the projected period of time. After the sensitivity analysis
$1,920,062,000.
7. The comparison of the results shows that savings from selecting Case Study II
instead of Case Study I, to satisfy the same demand of the market, are equal to
$2,969,975 for the projected period of time. After the sensitivity analysis
simulation, demand increases in all case studies, and the savings become much
This result shows that it is much better to have production units of Case Study II,
rather than production units of Case Study I. From the results of the sensitivity
analysis it is clear that the choice of the production units of Case Study II over the
Therefore, it is preferable to have demand increase not only from the point of
view of producing more and having more profits, but also having more savings
8. After comparing the resuls of Case Study II and Case Study III, the savings are
$3,302,931, and $3,237,949 after the sensitivity analysis. In this case the increase
units of Case Study III over the production units of Case Study II, if there is no
increase in demand. This will save $64,982 compared to the increasing demand
scenario.
9. If we compare the results of Case Study I and Case Study III, we can see that
savings are $6,272,906, and after the sensitivity analysis those become
$6,298,896. In this case, if demand increases the savings will also increase by
$25,990. Therefore, the choice of the production units of Case Study III over the
10. The comparison of all the results reveals that the most saving occur if the
production units of Case Study III are selected over the production units of Case
The model can be used also by the members of the cement industry involved in
policy making. By using the model, they will have a better understanding of how
12. The model is also a good decision making tool for storage issues, since its output
13. For future research it is recommended to develop a model that will be able to
account also for energy and material balances in the LCC analysis of the cement
production.
196
REFERENCES:
76.
the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 6(3-4), 639-
662.
Basu, A. J. & Dirk, J. (2006). Industrial ecology framework for achieving cleaner
14(2), 299-304.
British Geological Survey. (2005). Cement raw materials. Retrieved Mar. 20, 2008, from
http://www.mineralsuk.com/britmin/mp5_cement_latest.pdf
197
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/steel/non-energy-extractive-
industry/good_env_practice_eu_extractive_industry.htm
http://www.cpci.ca/?sc=sustainability&pn=cement
Convergence within the Cement Industry. Retrieved Feb. 23, 2008, from
http://www.cembureau.be/
9ec7bbd630126852566c40052107b/cda31926e3e601228525740b006f526b/$FIL
E/Canadian%20Cement%20Industry%202008%20Sustainability%20Report.pdf
http://www.cement.ca/cement.nsf/eee9ec7bbd630126852566c40052107b/86b42c
bc7dd8547e8525713a006da286/$FILE/2006%20Sustainability%20Report.pdf
versus investment payback period and R.O.I. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from
http://www.cementdistribution.com/table/build_your_own_import_terminal_table
_1.html
198
Cement Industry. (2004). Manufacturing process. Retrieved Apr. 22, 2008, from
http://www.energymanagertraining.com/cement/cement_01_process.htm
Chinadaily. (2008). Italian cement firm to build plant in China. Retrieved Apr. 20, 2008,
from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-04/17/content_6624632.htm
Energy Information Administration. (2008). U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html
Report, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.6. Retrieved June
Report, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.6. Retrieved June
AIR/2003/July/Day-30/a19279.htm
from http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s1119.htm
ERG, Inc. (2006). Assessment of NOx emissions reduction strategies for cement kilns -
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/agreements/BSA/
CEMENT_FINAL_REPORT_70514_final.pdf
University of Technology.
Geisinger, E. (2005). Cement Sustainability Initiative. Retrieved Feb. 25, 2008, from
http://www.wbcsdcement.org/climate.asp
Global Nation Blog. (2007). Cementing our future. Retrieved May 20, 2008, from
http://www.global-nation.com/blog/2007/11/07/cementing-our-future/
Habisch, A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility across Europe. New York: Springer.
Holcim (US) Inc.. (2001). Social Responsibility. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from
http://www.holcim.us/USA/EN/id/57129/mod/gnm50/page/editorial.html
Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from the Cement Industry. Retrieved Apr. 25,
Klee, H. (2008). The $4 Million Report From the Cement Industry That Says: Toxic
www.cementkiln.com/DARThe4MillionReportFromTheCementIndustry.htm
KPMG and UNEP. (2006). Carrots and Sticks for Starters: Current Trends and
docs/Public-UNEP-KPMG-Report-FIN.pdf
Lechtenberg, D. (2008). Tunisia: Waste management and the cement industry. Retrieved
lechtenberg.pdf
(Ed.), Lebanon State of the Environment Report (p. 51-64). Lebanon: Ministry of
Environment/LEDO.
NOx Emissions Reduction Strategies for Cement Kilns Ellis County. Retrieved
/air/sip/agreements/BSA/PCA_Comments-Final_Cement_Kiln_Report.PDF
Portland Cement Association. (2006). Economics of the U.S. Cement Industry. Retrieved
Portland Cement Association. (2007). PCA Annual Yearbook 2007. Retrieved May 11,
Portland Cement Association. (2008). Cement Plants Take Steps to Go Green. Retrieved
Portland Cement Association. (2008). Green in Practice 101 - LEED 2.2 Credits with
http://www.concretethinker.com/papers.aspx?docid=314
Rasul, M. G., Widiato, W., & Mohanty, B. (2005). Assessment of the thermal
http://www.gams.com/docs/gams/Tutorial.pdf
Shaleen, K. G., Rangan, B., & Uday, G. (2002). Energy balance and cogeneration for a
South Coast Air Quality Management District. (1986). RULE 1112 - Emissions of Oxides
http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SC/CURHTML/R1112.HTM
South Coast Air Quality Management District. (1986). RULE 1112.1 - Emissions of
http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SC/CURHTML/R1112-1.HTM
Sullivan, E. (2008). Long-Term Cement Consumption Outlook. Retrieved Apr. 20, 2008,
from http://www.cement.org/econ/pdf/Long-TermFlashwinter2007nonmember
.pdf
202
Sullivan, E. (2008). U.S. Cement and Construction Forecast: 2008 Spring Preliminary.
USForenonmember.pdf
sustainability%20.pdf?ref=74
The Energy Conservation Center (ECC), Japan. (1994). Output of a Seminar on Energy
http://www.unido.org/userfiles/PuffK/cement.pdf
The Environmental Quality Board. (2008). Control of NOx Emissions from Cement Kilns.
16/730.html
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, (2006). Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust:
Utlu, Z., Hepbasli , A., & Oktay, Z. (2006). Energy and exergy analyses of a raw mill in a
van Oss, H. G. (2006). Cement. In. USGS (Ed.), Mineral Commodity Summaries (p. 44-
Viridis, TRL , CIRIA. (2008). Mass Balance of the Construction Industry to Improve
/content/main.asp?pid=259
203
/wssd/docs/further_resources/related_initiatives/WBCSD/WBCSD-cement.pdf
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2002). The Cement Sustainability
http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/agenda_summary.pdf%20
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2002). Industrial Ecology in the
http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/Q9STRLkJliURVchtjiuF/final_report9.pdf
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2004). Pollution Prevention and
http://www.wbcsd.org/web/projects/cement/tf4/PPACI.pdf
Worrell, E., Martin, N., & Hendriks, C. (2001). Carbon dioxide emissions from the global
cement industry. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 26(8), 303-329.
204
APPENDICES:
A.Appendix A. Abbreviations
IE Industrial Ecology
CP Carbon Footprint
205
B.Appendix B. Definitions
This list contains explanations of concepts, phrases, words used in this research.
development that will allow meeting the needs of the present and at the same time will
not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World
term values with shareholders by approving opportunities and managing risks derived by
The Triple Bottom Line - economic, environmental, and social values, in design
and construction includes approaches such as: Design for the Environment, Context
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification for projects (Carnegie Mellon,
2004).
May easilly recognize all activities, which have a wider impact on the society.
206
Will easily manage the economic, social, environmental and human rights
(http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/definitions.html).
(http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/definitions.html).
/curriculum/greenbuildingplan/Green%20Building%20Plan%20p12.htm).
(http://www.archivaladvisor.org /shtml/glossary.shtml).
207
and regulations, which will improve the quality of environment and life conditions in
Lebanon (http://www.moe.gov.lb/Corporate/The+ministry/History.htm).
air, noise, waste, fauna and flora statement, along with land management, marine and
coastal environment. Also it focuses on assessment of the natural and technological risks.
(http://www.eugris.info/displayresource.asp?ResourceID=420&Cat= web%20links).
208
compare costs for development and investment, operation and acquisition, and support
Comparison of concepts
Selection of contractors
Control of programs
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a calculation that evaluates the sum of all costs
of owning an asset. For example, a company may want to know the TCO of owning,
financedirector.com/glossary/total-cost-of-ownership.html).
This is the total amount of greenhouse gases, which is being produced from direct
and indirect human activities. It is almost always expressed in equivalent tons of carbon
Glossary
Blended hydraulic cements This products are made by the blending supplementary
cementing materials with Portland cement (Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
Cementitious material All materials that have binding performance can be used to
Concrete This is a mix of Portland cement, water, fine and coarse aggregrates (Cement
Clinker This is the main content of cement produced in cement kiln by pyroprocessing
Direct and Indirect CO2 Emissions Direct emissions are those emissions, which are
produced from sources that are in facility (Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
Energy Intensity The amount of the energy consumption per unit of production
Gigajoule (GJ) Unit of energy. It is equal to 109 joules. One GJ is approximately equal
to 950,000 BTUs and also to 278 kWh of electricity (Cement Association of Canada,
2008, p. 27).
210
Granulating Facility This is a facility that takes molten slag, which is a by-product of
pig iron production, and mixes it with water or cold air to form granules (Cement
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Are gases released to atmosphere that contribute to the
Grinding Facility A facility that is designed to reduce the particle size of rock-like
2008, p. 27).
211
sets i years of the considered period (time intervals) /2010, 2011, 2012,
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020/
j demand and resource components /Cement, Cement1, Lime, Shale, Clay,
Sand, Marl, Ashc, Iron, Gyps, Baux, Mill, Diatom, Elec, Coal, Coke,
Wstfuel, CO2, NOx, SO2, PM, Merc/;
table
data(i,j) predicted demand input and emissions for cement producing plant
Cement Cement1 Lime Shale Clay Sand Marl Ashc Iron Gyps
Baux Mill Diatom Elec Coal Coke Wstfuel CO2 NOx SO2 PM
Merc
2010 2149433 2256905 3512942331 190902656 154639488 107539051 79195425
60021796 26676354 16672721 4584998 4168180 3751362 395977126 6893388631909
2279213073602 1085029426397 2004681 5159 3439 430 0.98
2011 2121797 2227887 3467775741 188448183 152651258 106156400 78177194
59250084 26333371 16458357 4526048 4114589 3703130 390885970 6804758978866
2249908782967 1071078989720 1943388 5092 3395 424 0.96
2012 2105338 2210605 3440874975 186986324 151467088 105332907 77570746
58790460 26129093 16330683 4490938 4082671 3674404 387853729 6751972050498
2232455442720 1062770250192 1878838 5053 3369 421 0.96
2013 2079988 2183987 3399443753 184734841 149643288 104064605 76636724
58082570 25814476 16134047 4436863 4033512 3630161 383183622 6670672248600
2205574676052 1049973542777 1786644 4992 3328 416 0.94
2014 2040959 2143007 3335657065 181268502 146835402 102111951 75198724
56992717 25330096 15831310 4353610 3957828 3562045 375993618 6545504687300
2164189581240 1030271986040 1655592 4898 3266 408 0.93
2015 2015477 2116251 3294011118 179005350 145002151 100837075 74259861
56281158 25013848 15633655 4299255 3908414 3517572 371299307 6463783534514
2137169500150 1017408957381 1524543 4837 3225 403 0.92
2016 2087488 2191863 3411702620 185401020 150182923 104439876 76913087
58292024 25907566 16192229 4452863 4048057 3643251 384565435 6694727622153
2213528285636 1053759893665 1524865 5010 3340 417 0.95
212
scalars
K capital investment for cement producing plant ($) / 284620000 /
e1 unit OandM costs for 1st cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.69 /
e2 unit OandM costs for 2nd cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.93 /
e3 unit OandM costs for 3rd cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.83 /
e4 unit OandM costs for 4th cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.90 /
e5 unit OandM costs for 5th cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.83 /
Lm1 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1388.93 /
Lm2 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1375.45 /
Lm3 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1361.96 /
Lm4 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1348.48 /
Lm5 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1335.00 /
Sh1 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 75.48 /
Sh2 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 74.75 /
Sh3 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 74.01 /
Sh4 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 73.28 /
Sh5 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 72.55 /
Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
Cl2 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 60.55 /
Cl3 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 59.95 /
Cl4 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 59.36 /
Cl5 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 58.77 /
Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
Sa2 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 42.11 /
Sa3 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 41.69 /
Sa4 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 41.28 /
213
Sa5 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 40.87 /
Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
Ma2 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 31.01 /
Ma3 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 30.70 /
Ma4 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 30.40 /
Ma5 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 30.10 /
As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
As2 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 23.50 /
As3 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 23.27 /
As4 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 23.04 /
As5 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 22.81 /
Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
Ir2 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 10.44 /
Ir3 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 10.34 /
Ir4 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 10.24 /
Ir5 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 10.24 /
Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
Gy2 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 6.53 /
Gy3 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 6.46 /
Gy4 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 6.40 /
Gy5 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 6.34 /
Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
Ba2 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.80 /
Ba3 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.78 /
Ba4 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.76 /
Ba5 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.74 /
Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
Mi2 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.63 /
Mi3 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.62 /
Mi4 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.60 /
Mi5 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.58 /
Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
Di2 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.47 /
Di3 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.45 /
Di4 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.44 /
Di5 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.43 /
214
Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
Col2 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 2699022 /
Col3 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 2672561 /
Col4 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 2646100 /
Col5 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 2619639 /
Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
Cok2 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 892398 /
Cok3 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 883649 /
Cok4 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 874900 /
Cok5 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 866151 /
Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995 /
Wst2 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 424830 /
Wst3 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 420665 /
Wst4 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 416500 /
Wst5 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 412335 /
el1 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 150.48 /
el2 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 155.04 /
el3 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 153.52 /
el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
el5 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 156.56 /
co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
co2 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.80 /
co3 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.83 /
co4 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.83 /
co5 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.845 /
no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.00136 /
no2 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.00139 /
no3 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.00139 /
no4 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.00137 /
no5 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.00140 /
so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.00266 /
so2 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.00263 /
so3 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.00260 /
so4 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.00258 /
so5 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.00289 /
pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.00015 /
pm2 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.00015 /
215
pm3 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.00015 /
pm4 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.00015 /
pm5 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.00015 /
me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
me2 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00000004 /
me3 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00000004 /
me4 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00000004 /
me5 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00000004 /
*prices of cement imported from other producers are assumed to be higher than
*that of own production
pencem coefficient adjusting the price of imported cement /1.2/
Maximp maximum import as a percentage of cement demand in period i /0.3/;
parameters
rho(i) discounting factor;
rho(i) = (1 + p)**(-(ord(i)-1));
variables
LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
cem2(i) annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
cem3(i) annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
cem4(i) annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
cem5(i) annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
cost2(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i ($ per ton)
216
*cement stored in the beginning and in the end of the considered period is zero
store.l('2010')=0;
store.l('2020')=0;
*Storage limit
store.up(i)= 60000;
*Select the number of units in the plant
*cem1.fx(i)=0; e1=0;
*cem2.fx(i)=0; e2=0;
*cem3.fx(i)=0; e3=0;
*cem4.fx(i)=0; e4=0;
*cem5.fx(i)=0; e5=0;
equations
Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
Dem(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp1(i,j) input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp2(i,j) input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp3(i,j) input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp4(i,j) input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp5(i,j) input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp6(i,j) input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp7(i,j) input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp8(i,j) input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp9(i,j) input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp10(i,j) input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp11(i,j) input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Elecbal(i,j) electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Energy1(i,j) coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Energy2(i,j) coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Energy3(i,j) wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Emission_CO2(i,j) CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Emission_NOx(i,j) NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
*Emission_SO2(i,j) SO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Emission_PM(i,j) PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Emission_Mer(i,j) Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Capacity1(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
Capacity2(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
Capacity3(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
217
*Diatom
Inp11(i,'Diatom').. cem1(i)*Di1 + cem2(i)*Di2 + cem3(i)*Di3 + cem4(i)*Di4 +
cem5(i)*Di5 =L= data(i,'Diatom');
cost1.l(i) = rho(i)*e1;
219
cost2.l(i) = rho(i)*e2;
cost3.l(i) = rho(i)*e3;
cost4.l(i) = rho(i)*e4;
cost5.l(i) = rho(i)*e5;
equation
Dem1(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i;
*Adjusted Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
Dem1(i,'Cement1').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)
+ impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement1') + store(i);
Capacity5, Import/;
*Emission_SO2,
solve cement_plant_sens_analysis minimizing LCC using lp;
Based on the notation below four phases of clinker are specified as follows:
D.1 Alite:
and the SiO2 to S. The compound thus becomes C3S (Understanding Cement,
1990).
D.2 Belite:
Cement, 1990).
43 Sh1 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 75.48 /
44 Sh2 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 74.75 /
45 Sh3 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 74.01 /
46 Sh4 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 73.28 /
47 Sh5 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 72.55 /
48
49 Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
50 Cl2 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 60.55 /
51 Cl3 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 59.95 /
52 Cl4 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 59.36 /
53 Cl5 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 58.77 /
54
55 Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
56 Sa2 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 42.11 /
57 Sa3 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 41.69 /
58 Sa4 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 41.28 /
59 Sa5 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 40.87 /
60
61 Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
62 Ma2 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 31.01 /
63 Ma3 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 30.70 /
64 Ma4 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 30.40 /
65 Ma5 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 30.10 /
66
67 As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
68 As2 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 23.50 /
69 As3 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 23.27 /
70 As4 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 23.04 /
71 As5 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 22.81 /
72
73 Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
74 Ir2 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 10.44 /
75 Ir3 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 10.34 /
76 Ir4 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 10.24 /
77 Ir5 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 10.24 /
78
79 Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
80 Gy2 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 6.53 /
81 Gy3 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 6.46 /
82 Gy4 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 6.40 /
83 Gy5 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 6.34 /
84
85 Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
86 Ba2 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.80 /
232
87 Ba3 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.78 /
88 Ba4 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.76 /
89 Ba5 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.74 /
90
91 Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
92 Mi2 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.63 /
93 Mi3 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.62 /
94 Mi4 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.60 /
95 Mi5 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.58 /
96
97 Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
98 Di2 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.47 /
99 Di3 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.45 /
100 Di4 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.44 /
101 Di5 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.43 /
102
103 Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
104 Col2 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 2699022 /
105 Col3 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 2672561 /
106 Col4 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 2646100 /
107 Col5 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 2619639 /
108
109 Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
110 Cok2 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 892398 /
111 Cok3 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 883649 /
112 Cok4 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 874900 /
113 Cok5 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 866151 /
114
115 Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995
/
116 Wst2 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 424830
/
117 Wst3 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 420665
/
118 Wst4 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 416500
/
119 Wst5 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 412335
/
120
121 el1 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 150.48
/
122 el2 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 155.04 /
123 el3 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 153.52 /
124 el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
233
125 el5 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 156.56 /
126
127 co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
128 co2 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.80 /
129 co3 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.83 /
130 co4 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.83 /
131 co5 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.845 /
132
133 no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00136 /
134 no2 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00139 /
135 no3 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00139 /
136 no4 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00137 /
137 no5 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00140 /
138
139 so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00266 /
140 so2 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00263 /
141 so3 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00260 /
142 so4 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00258 /
143 so5 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00289 /
144
145 pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00015 /
146 pm2 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00015 /
147 pm3 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00015 /
148 pm4 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00015 /
149 pm5 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00015 /
150
151 me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
234
152 me2 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00000004 /
153 me3 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00000004 /
154 me4 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00000004 /
155 me5 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00000004 /
156
157 Maxcap1 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1 /400000/
158 Maxcap2 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 2 /450000/
159 Maxcap3 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 3 /530000/
160 Maxcap4 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 4 /550000/
161 Maxcap5 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 5 /600000/
162
163 s unit costs of cement inventory storage ($ per ton) /5/
164 p norm considering the time factor / 0.012 /
165
166 *prices of cement imported from other producers are assumed to be higher than
167 *that of own production
168 pencem coefficient adjusting the price of imported cement /1.2/
169 Maximp maximum import as a percentage of cement demand in period i /0.3/;
170
171 parameters
172 rho(i) discounting factor;
173 rho(i) = (1 + p)**(-(ord(i)-1));
174
175 variables
176 LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
177 cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
178 cem2(i) annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
179 cem3(i) annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
180 cem4(i) annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
181 cem5(i) annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
182 impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
183 store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
184 cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
185 cost2(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i ($ per ton)
186 cost3(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i ($ per ton)
187 cost4(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i ($ per ton)
188 cost5(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i ($ per ton);
189
190 positive variables cem1, cem2, cem3, cem4, cem5, impcem, store;
191
235
192 *cement stored in the beginning and in the end of the considered period is zero
193 store.l('2010')=0;
194 store.l('2020')=0;
195 *Storage limit
196 store.up(i)= 60000;
197 *Select the number of units in the plant
198 *cem1.fx(i)=0; e1=0;
199 *cem2.fx(i)=0; e2=0;
200 *cem3.fx(i)=0; e3=0;
201 *cem4.fx(i)=0; e4=0;
202 *cem5.fx(i)=0; e5=0;
203
204 equations
205 Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
206 Dem(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
207 Inp1(i,j) input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
208 Inp2(i,j) input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
209 Inp3(i,j) input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
210 Inp4(i,j) input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
211 Inp5(i,j) input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
212 Inp6(i,j) input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
213 Inp7(i,j) input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
214 Inp8(i,j) input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
215 Inp9(i,j) input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
216 Inp10(i,j) input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
217 Inp11(i,j) input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
218 Elecbal(i,j) electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
219 Energy1(i,j) coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
220 Energy2(i,j) coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
221 Energy3(i,j) wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
222 Emission_CO2(i,j) CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
223 Emission_NOx(i,j) NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
224 *Emission_SO2(i,j) SO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
225 Emission_PM(i,j) PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
226 Emission_Mer(i,j) Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
227 Capacity1(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
228 Capacity2(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
229 Capacity3(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
230 Capacity4(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
236
231 Capacity5(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
232 Import(i,j) maximum available import of cement from other producers in period
i;
233
234 *Objective function minimizing total expenses
235 Object.. LCC =E= K + sum(i,rho(i)*[e1*cem1(i) + e2*cem2(i) + e3*cem3(i) +
e4*cem4(i)
236 + e5*cem5(i) + s*store(i) + pencem*(max[e1,e2,e3,e4,e5])*impcem(i)]);
237
238 *1.Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
239 Dem(i,'Cement').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)
240 + impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement') + store(i);
241
242 *2.Input1 Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
243 *Lime
244 Inp1(i,'Lime').. cem1(i)*Lm1 + cem2(i)*Lm2 + cem3(i)*Lm3 + cem4(i)*Lm4 +
245 cem5(i)*Lm5 =L= data(i,'Lime');
246 *Shale
247 Inp2(i,'Shale').. cem1(i)*Sh1 + cem2(i)*Sh2 + cem3(i)*Sh3 + cem4(i)*Sh4 +
248 cem5(i)*Sh5 =L= data(i,'Shale');
249 *Clay
250 Inp3(i,'Clay').. cem1(i)*Cl1 + cem2(i)*Cl2 + cem3(i)*Cl3 + cem4(i)*Cl4 +
251 cem5(i)*Cl5 =L= data(i,'Clay');
252 *Sand
253 Inp4(i,'Sand').. cem1(i)*Sa1 + cem2(i)*Sa2 + cem3(i)*Sa3 + cem4(i)*Sa4 +
254 cem5(i)*Sa5 =L= data(i,'Sand');
255 *Marl
256 Inp5(i,'Marl').. cem1(i)*Ma1 + cem2(i)*Ma2 + cem3(i)*Ma3 + cem4(i)*Ma4 +
257 cem5(i)*Ma5 =L= data(i,'Marl');
258 *Ashc
259 Inp6(i,'Ashc').. cem1(i)*As1 + cem2(i)*As2 + cem3(i)*As3 + cem4(i)*As4 +
260 cem5(i)*As5 =L= data(i,'Ashc');
261 *Iron
262 Inp7(i,'Iron').. cem1(i)*Ir1 + cem2(i)*Ir2 + cem3(i)*Ir3 + cem4(i)*Ir4 +
263 cem5(i)*Ir5 =L= data(i,'Iron');
264 *Gyps
265 Inp8(i,'Gyps').. cem1(i)*Gy1 + cem2(i)*Gy2 + cem3(i)*Gy3 + cem4(i)*Gy4 +
266 cem5(i)*Gy5 =L= data(i,'Gyps');
267 *Baux
268 Inp9(i,'Baux').. cem1(i)*Ba1 + cem2(i)*Ba2 + cem3(i)*Ba3 + cem4(i)*Ba4 +
269 cem5(i)*Ba5 =L= data(i,'Baux');
270 *Mill
271 Inp10(i,'Mill').. cem1(i)*Mi1 + cem2(i)*Mi2 + cem3(i)*Mi3 + cem4(i)*Mi4 +
272 cem5(i)*Mi5 =L= data(i,'Mill');
237
273 *Diatom
274 Inp11(i,'Diatom').. cem1(i)*Di1 + cem2(i)*Di2 + cem3(i)*Di3 + cem4(i)*Di4 +
275 cem5(i)*Di5 =L= data(i,'Diatom');
276
277 *3a.Balance of Electricity - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
278 Elecbal(i,'Elec').. cem1(i)*el1 + cem2(i)*el2 + cem3(i)*el3 + cem4(i)*el4 +
279 cem5(i)*el5 =L= data(i,'Elec');
280
281 *3b.Balance of Energy - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
282 *Coal
283 Energy1(i,'Coal').. cem1(i)*Col1 + cem2(i)*Col2 + cem3(i)*Col3 + cem4(i)*Col4
+
284 cem5(i)*Col5 =L= data(i,'Coal');
285 *Coke
286 Energy2(i,'Coke').. cem1(i)*Cok1 + cem2(i)*Cok2 + cem3(i)*Cok3 +
cem4(i)*Cok4 +
287 cem5(i)*Cok5 =L= data(i,'Coke');
288 *Wstfuel
289 Energy3(i,'Wstfuel')..cem1(i)*Wst1 + cem2(i)*Wst2 + cem3(i)*Wst3 +
cem4(i)*Wst4 +
290 cem5(i)*Wst5 =L= data(i,'Wstfuel');
291
292 *4. Emissions constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
293 Emission_CO2(i,'CO2').. cem1(i)*co1 + cem2(i)*co2 + cem3(i)*co3 +
cem4(i)*co4 +
294 cem5(i)*co5 =L= data(i,'CO2');
295 Emission_NOx(i,'NOx').. cem1(i)*no1 + cem2(i)*no2 + cem3(i)*no3 +
cem4(i)*no4 +
296 cem5(i)*no5 =L= data(i,'NOx');
297 *Emission_SO2(i,'SO2').. cem1(i)*so1 + cem2(i)*so2 + cem3(i)*so3 +
cem4(i)*so4 +
298 * cem5(i)*so5 =L= data(i,'SO2');
299 Emission_PM(i,'PM').. cem1(i)*pm1 + cem2(i)*pm2 + cem3(i)*pm3 +
cem4(i)*pm4 +
300 cem5(i)*pm5 =L= data(i,'PM');
301 Emission_Mer(i,'Merc').. cem1(i)*me1 + cem2(i)*me2 + cem3(i)*me3 +
cem4(i)*me4 +
302 cem5(i)*me5 =L= data(i,'Merc');
303
304 *5.Capacity and Import Constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
305 Capacity1(i).. cem1(i) =L= Maxcap1;
306 Capacity2(i).. cem2(i) =L= Maxcap2;
307 Capacity3(i).. cem3(i) =L= Maxcap3;
308 Capacity4(i).. cem4(i) =L= Maxcap4;
238
---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
- 69.3030931941137*cem1(2013) - 68.4813173854879*cem1(2014) -
67.6692859540394*cem1(2015)
- 66.8668833537939*cem1(2016) - 66.0739954088872*cem1(2017) -
65.2905092973194*cem1(2018)
- 64.5163135349006*cem1(2019) - 63.7512979593879*cem1(2020) -
72.0652173913044*cem2(2010)
- 71.2106891218423*cem2(2011) - 70.3662935986583*cem2(2012) -
69.531910670611*cem2(2013)
- 68.7074216112757*cem2(2014) - 67.8927091020511*cem2(2015) -
67.0876572154655*cem2(2016)
- 66.2921513986813*cem2(2017) - 65.506078457195*cem2(2018) -
64.7293265387302*cem2(2019)
- 63.9617851173224*cem2(2020) - 71.9664031620553*cem3(2010) -
71.1130466028215*cem3(2011)
- 70.2698088960687*cem3(2012) - 69.4365700554038*cem3(2013) -
68.6132115171974*cem3(2014)
- 67.7996161237129*cem3(2015) - 66.9956681064356*cem3(2016) -
66.2012530696004*cem3(2017)
- 65.4162579739135*cem3(2018) - 64.6405711204679*cem3(2019) -
63.8740821348497*cem3(2020)
- 72.0355731225296*cem4(2010) - 71.181396366136*cem4(2011) -
70.3373481878814*cem4(2012)
241
- 69.5033084860489*cem4(2013) - 68.6791585830522*cem4(2014) -
67.8647812085496*cem4(2015)
- 67.0600604827565*cem4(2016) - 66.2648818999571*cem4(2017) -
65.4791323122105*cem4(2018)
- 64.7026999132515*cem4(2019) - 63.9354742225806*cem4(2020) -
71.9664031620553*cem5(2010)
- 71.1130466028215*cem5(2011) - 70.2698088960687*cem5(2012) -
69.4365700554038*cem5(2013)
- 68.6132115171974*cem5(2014) - 67.7996161237129*cem5(2015) -
66.9956681064356*cem5(2016)
- 66.2012530696004*cem5(2017) - 65.4162579739135*cem5(2018) -
64.6405711204679*cem5(2019)
- 63.8740821348497*cem5(2020) - 86.4782608695652*impcem(2010) -
85.4528269462107*impcem(2011)
- 84.43955231839*impcem(2012) - 83.4382928047332*impcem(2013) -
82.4489059335308*impcem(2014)
- 81.4712509224613*impcem(2015) - 80.5051886585586*impcem(2016) -
79.5505816784176*impcem(2017)
- 78.607294148634*impcem(2018) - 77.6751918464763*impcem(2019) -
76.7541421407868*impcem(2020)
- 4.94071146245059*store(2010) - 4.88212595103814*store(2011) -
4.82423512948432*store(2012)
- 4.76703076036*store(2013) - 4.71050470391305*store(2014) -
4.65464891691013*store(2015)
- 4.59945545149222*store(2016) - 4.54491645404369*store(2017) -
4.4910241640748*store(2018)
---- Dem =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
242
---- Inp1 =L= input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
244
---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
26129093 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Elecbal =L= electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy1 =L= coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy2 =L= coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy3 =L= wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Emission_CO2 =L= CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
249
---- Emission_PM =L= PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
250
---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 0, +INF, 0)
1 Object
cem1(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.8281 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)
cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.9763 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
253
1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)
cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.1347 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
254
1 Capacity1(2012)
cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)
cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
255
1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)
cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)
cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
256
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)
cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
257
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)
cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
258
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)
cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)
cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
259
59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)
cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
260
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)
cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)
cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
261
156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1 Import(2010,Cement)
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1 Import(2011,Cement)
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1 Import(2012,Cement)
store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 0)
-4.9407 Object
-1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 0)
262
-4.8821 Object
-1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 0)
-4.8242 Object
-1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1 Dem(2013,Cement)
MODEL STATISTICS
SOLVE SUMMARY
---- EQU Dem demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
268
---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE LCC.L = 1.926335E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.828, 2011 70.976, 2012 70.135, 2013 69.303, 2014 68.481, 2015
67.669, 2016 66.867
2017 66.074, 2018 65.291, 2019 64.516, 2020 63.751
---- 322 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962
---- 322 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.966, 2011 71.113, 2012 70.270, 2013 69.437, 2014 68.613, 2015
67.800, 2016 66.996
2017 66.201, 2018 65.416, 2019 64.641, 2020 63.874
280
---- 322 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935
---- 322 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.966, 2011 71.113, 2012 70.270, 2013 69.437, 2014 68.613, 2015
67.800, 2016 66.996
2017 66.201, 2018 65.416, 2019 64.641, 2020 63.874
281
---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
- 69.3030931941137*cem1(2013) - 68.4813173854879*cem1(2014) -
67.6692859540394*cem1(2015)
- 66.8668833537939*cem1(2016) - 66.0739954088872*cem1(2017) -
65.2905092973194*cem1(2018)
- 64.5163135349006*cem1(2019) - 63.7512979593879*cem1(2020) -
72.0652173913044*cem2(2010)
- 71.2106891218423*cem2(2011) - 70.3662935986583*cem2(2012) -
69.531910670611*cem2(2013)
- 68.7074216112757*cem2(2014) - 67.8927091020511*cem2(2015) -
67.0876572154655*cem2(2016)
- 66.2921513986813*cem2(2017) - 65.506078457195*cem2(2018) -
64.7293265387302*cem2(2019)
- 63.9617851173224*cem2(2020) - 71.9664031620553*cem3(2010) -
71.1130466028215*cem3(2011)
- 70.2698088960687*cem3(2012) - 69.4365700554038*cem3(2013) -
68.6132115171974*cem3(2014)
- 67.7996161237129*cem3(2015) - 66.9956681064356*cem3(2016) -
66.2012530696004*cem3(2017)
- 65.4162579739135*cem3(2018) - 64.6405711204679*cem3(2019) -
63.8740821348497*cem3(2020)
- 72.0355731225296*cem4(2010) - 71.181396366136*cem4(2011) -
70.3373481878814*cem4(2012)
282
- 69.5033084860489*cem4(2013) - 68.6791585830522*cem4(2014) -
67.8647812085496*cem4(2015)
- 67.0600604827565*cem4(2016) - 66.2648818999571*cem4(2017) -
65.4791323122105*cem4(2018)
- 64.7026999132515*cem4(2019) - 63.9354742225806*cem4(2020) -
71.9664031620553*cem5(2010)
- 71.1130466028215*cem5(2011) - 70.2698088960687*cem5(2012) -
69.4365700554038*cem5(2013)
- 68.6132115171974*cem5(2014) - 67.7996161237129*cem5(2015) -
66.9956681064356*cem5(2016)
- 66.2012530696004*cem5(2017) - 65.4162579739135*cem5(2018) -
64.6405711204679*cem5(2019)
- 63.8740821348497*cem5(2020) - 86.4782608695652*impcem(2010) -
85.4528269462107*impcem(2011)
- 84.43955231839*impcem(2012) - 83.4382928047332*impcem(2013) -
82.4489059335308*impcem(2014)
- 81.4712509224613*impcem(2015) - 80.5051886585586*impcem(2016) -
79.5505816784176*impcem(2017)
- 78.607294148634*impcem(2018) - 77.6751918464763*impcem(2019) -
76.7541421407868*impcem(2020)
- 4.94071146245059*store(2010) - 4.88212595103814*store(2011) -
4.82423512948432*store(2012)
- 4.76703076036*store(2013) - 4.71050470391305*store(2014) -
4.65464891691013*store(2015)
- 4.59945545149222*store(2016) - 4.54491645404369*store(2017) -
4.4910241640748*store(2018)
---- Dem1 =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
283
---- Inp1 =L= input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
285
---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 13837197.49)
(LHS = 13656734.41)
(LHS = 13549257.14)
---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 3804379.4)
(LHS = 3754634.6)
(LHS = 3725008.4)
---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 3459775.79)
(LHS = 3414729.11)
(LHS = 3387900.94)
---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Elecbal =L= electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy1 =L= coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy2 =L= coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy3 =L= wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_CO2 =L= CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_PM =L= PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
291
---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 1926334905.52643, +INF, 0)
1 Object
cem1(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 400000, +INF, 0)
-71.8281 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)
cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 400000, +INF, 0)
-70.9763 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
294
1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)
cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 400000, +INF, 0)
-70.1347 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
295
1 Capacity1(2012)
cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 69432.9999999999, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)
cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 41796.9999999994, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
296
1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)
cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 25337.9999999998, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)
cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 530000, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
297
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)
cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 530000, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
298
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 530000, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)
cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 550000, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
299
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)
cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 550000, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)
cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 550000, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
300
59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)
cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 600000, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
301
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)
cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 600000, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)
cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 600000, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
302
156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.4130434782609)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Import(2010,Cement)
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.2421378243685)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Import(2011,Cement)
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.0732587197317)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Import(2012,Cement)
store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.7952397319127)
-4.9407 Object
-1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.72652147422205)
303
-4.8821 Object
-1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 4.8958931358741)
-4.8242 Object
-1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2013,Cement1)
MODEL STATISTICS
SOLVE SUMMARY
---- EQU Dem1 demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
309
---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
---- 363 VARIABLE LCC.L = 2.014993E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)
---- 363 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)
---- 363 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(ton)
---- 363 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(ton)
---- 363 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(ton)
---- 363 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(ton)
---- 363 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
---- 363 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)
---- 363 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.828, 2011 70.976, 2012 70.135, 2013 69.303, 2014 68.481, 2015
67.669, 2016 66.867
2017 66.074, 2018 65.291, 2019 64.516, 2020 63.751
---- 363 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962
---- 363 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.966, 2011 71.113, 2012 70.270, 2013 69.437, 2014 68.613, 2015
67.800, 2016 66.996
2017 66.201, 2018 65.416, 2019 64.641, 2020 63.874
321
---- 363 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935
---- 363 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.966, 2011 71.113, 2012 70.270, 2013 69.437, 2014 68.613, 2015
67.800, 2016 66.996
2017 66.201, 2018 65.416, 2019 64.641, 2020 63.874
45 Sh3 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 74.01 /
46 Sh4 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 73.28 /
47 Sh5 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 72.55 /
48
49 Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
50 Cl2 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 60.55 /
51 Cl3 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 59.95 /
52 Cl4 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 59.36 /
53 Cl5 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 58.77 /
54
55 Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
56 Sa2 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 42.11 /
57 Sa3 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 41.69 /
58 Sa4 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 41.28 /
59 Sa5 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 40.87 /
60
61 Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
62 Ma2 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 31.01 /
63 Ma3 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 30.70 /
64 Ma4 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 30.40 /
65 Ma5 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 30.10 /
66
67 As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
68 As2 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 23.50 /
69 As3 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 23.27 /
70 As4 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 23.04 /
71 As5 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 22.81 /
72
73 Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
74 Ir2 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 10.44 /
75 Ir3 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 10.34 /
76 Ir4 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 10.24 /
77 Ir5 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 10.24 /
78
79 Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
80 Gy2 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 6.53 /
81 Gy3 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 6.46 /
82 Gy4 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 6.40 /
83 Gy5 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 6.34 /
84
85 Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
86 Ba2 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.80 /
87 Ba3 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.78 /
88 Ba4 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.76 /
325
89 Ba5 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.74 /
90
91 Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
92 Mi2 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.63 /
93 Mi3 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.62 /
94 Mi4 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.60 /
95 Mi5 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.58 /
96
97 Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
98 Di2 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.47 /
99 Di3 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.45 /
100 Di4 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.44 /
101 Di5 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.43 /
102
103 Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
104 Col2 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 2699022 /
105 Col3 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 2672561 /
106 Col4 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 2646100 /
107 Col5 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 2619639 /
108
109 Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
110 Cok2 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 892398 /
111 Cok3 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 883649 /
112 Cok4 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 874900 /
113 Cok5 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 866151 /
114
115 Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995
/
116 Wst2 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 424830
/
117 Wst3 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 420665
/
118 Wst4 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 416500
/
119 Wst5 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 412335
/
120
121 el1 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 150.48
/
122 el2 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 155.04 /
123 el3 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 153.52 /
124 el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
125 el5 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 156.56 /
126
326
127 co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
128 co2 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.80 /
129 co3 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.83 /
130 co4 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.83 /
131 co5 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.845 /
132
133 no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00136 /
134 no2 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00139 /
135 no3 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00139 /
136 no4 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00137 /
137 no5 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00140 /
138
139 so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00266 /
140 so2 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00263 /
141 so3 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00260 /
142 so4 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00258 /
143 so5 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00289 /
144
145 pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00015 /
146 pm2 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00015 /
147 pm3 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00015 /
148 pm4 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00015 /
149 pm5 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00015 /
150
151 me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
152 me2 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00000004 /
327
153 me3 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00000004 /
154 me4 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00000004 /
155 me5 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00000004 /
156
157 Maxcap1 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1 /500000/
158 Maxcap2 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 2 /650000/
159 Maxcap3 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 3 /530000/
160 Maxcap4 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 4 /650000/
161 Maxcap5 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 5 /700000/
162
163 s unit costs of cement inventory storage ($ per ton) /5/
164 p norm considering the time factor / 0.012 /
165
166 *prices of cement imported from other producers are assumed to be higher than
167 *that of own production
168 pencem coefficient adjusting the price of imported cement /1.2/
169 Maximp maximum import as a percentage of cement demand in period i /0.3/;
170
171 parameters
172 rho(i) discounting factor;
173 rho(i) = (1 + p)**(-(ord(i)-1));
174
175 variables
176 LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
177 cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
178 cem2(i) annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
179 cem3(i) annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
180 cem4(i) annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
181 cem5(i) annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
182 impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
183 store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
184 cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
185 cost2(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i ($ per ton)
186 cost3(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i ($ per ton)
187 cost4(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i ($ per ton)
188 cost5(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i ($ per ton);
189
190 positive variables cem1, cem2, cem3, cem4, cem5, impcem, store;
191
192 *cement stored in the beginning and in the end of the considered period is zero
193 store.l('2010')=0;
328
194 store.l('2020')=0;
195 *Storage limit
196 store.up(i)= 60000;
197 *Select the number of units in the plant
198 *cem1.fx(i)=0; e1=0;
199 *cem2.fx(i)=0; e2=0;
200 cem3.fx(i)=0; e3=0;
201 *cem4.fx(i)=0; e4=0;
202 *cem5.fx(i)=0; e5=0;
203
204 equations
205 Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
206 Dem(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
207 Inp1(i,j) input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
208 Inp2(i,j) input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
209 Inp3(i,j) input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
210 Inp4(i,j) input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
211 Inp5(i,j) input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
212 Inp6(i,j) input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
213 Inp7(i,j) input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
214 Inp8(i,j) input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
215 Inp9(i,j) input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
216 Inp10(i,j) input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
217 Inp11(i,j) input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
218 Elecbal(i,j) electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
219 Energy1(i,j) coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
220 Energy2(i,j) coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
221 Energy3(i,j) wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
222 Emission_CO2(i,j) CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
223 Emission_NOx(i,j) NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
224 *Emission_SO2(i,j) SO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
225 Emission_PM(i,j) PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
226 Emission_Mer(i,j) Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
227 Capacity1(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
228 Capacity2(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
229 Capacity3(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
230 Capacity4(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
231 Capacity5(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
329
232 Import(i,j) maximum available import of cement from other producers in period
i;
233
234 *Objective function minimizing total expenses
235 Object.. LCC =E= K + sum(i,rho(i)*[e1*cem1(i) + e2*cem2(i) + e3*cem3(i) +
e4*cem4(i)
236 + e5*cem5(i) + s*store(i) + pencem*(max[e1,e2,e3,e4,e5])*impcem(i)]);
237
238 *1.Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
239 Dem(i,'Cement').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)
240 + impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement') + store(i);
241
242 *2.Input1 Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
243 *Lime
244 Inp1(i,'Lime').. cem1(i)*Lm1 + cem2(i)*Lm2 + cem3(i)*Lm3 + cem4(i)*Lm4 +
245 cem5(i)*Lm5 =L= data(i,'Lime');
246 *Shale
247 Inp2(i,'Shale').. cem1(i)*Sh1 + cem2(i)*Sh2 + cem3(i)*Sh3 + cem4(i)*Sh4 +
248 cem5(i)*Sh5 =L= data(i,'Shale');
249 *Clay
250 Inp3(i,'Clay').. cem1(i)*Cl1 + cem2(i)*Cl2 + cem3(i)*Cl3 + cem4(i)*Cl4 +
251 cem5(i)*Cl5 =L= data(i,'Clay');
252 *Sand
253 Inp4(i,'Sand').. cem1(i)*Sa1 + cem2(i)*Sa2 + cem3(i)*Sa3 + cem4(i)*Sa4 +
254 cem5(i)*Sa5 =L= data(i,'Sand');
255 *Marl
256 Inp5(i,'Marl').. cem1(i)*Ma1 + cem2(i)*Ma2 + cem3(i)*Ma3 + cem4(i)*Ma4 +
257 cem5(i)*Ma5 =L= data(i,'Marl');
258 *Ashc
259 Inp6(i,'Ashc').. cem1(i)*As1 + cem2(i)*As2 + cem3(i)*As3 + cem4(i)*As4 +
260 cem5(i)*As5 =L= data(i,'Ashc');
261 *Iron
262 Inp7(i,'Iron').. cem1(i)*Ir1 + cem2(i)*Ir2 + cem3(i)*Ir3 + cem4(i)*Ir4 +
263 cem5(i)*Ir5 =L= data(i,'Iron');
264 *Gyps
265 Inp8(i,'Gyps').. cem1(i)*Gy1 + cem2(i)*Gy2 + cem3(i)*Gy3 + cem4(i)*Gy4 +
266 cem5(i)*Gy5 =L= data(i,'Gyps');
267 *Baux
268 Inp9(i,'Baux').. cem1(i)*Ba1 + cem2(i)*Ba2 + cem3(i)*Ba3 + cem4(i)*Ba4 +
269 cem5(i)*Ba5 =L= data(i,'Baux');
270 *Mill
271 Inp10(i,'Mill').. cem1(i)*Mi1 + cem2(i)*Mi2 + cem3(i)*Mi3 + cem4(i)*Mi4 +
272 cem5(i)*Mi5 =L= data(i,'Mill');
273 *Diatom
330
310
311 Import(i,'Cement').. impcem(i) =L= Maximp*data(i,'Cement');
312
313 model cement_plant /all/;
314 solve cement_plant minimizing LCC using lp;
315
316 cost1.l(i) = rho(i)*e1;
317 cost2.l(i) = rho(i)*e2;
318 cost3.l(i) = rho(i)*e3;
319 cost4.l(i) = rho(i)*e4;
320 cost5.l(i) = rho(i)*e5;
321
322 display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,
323 cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
324
325 *execute_unload "result1.gdx" cem1.l;
326 *execute_unload "result2.gdx" cem2.l;
327 *execute_unload "result3.gdx" cem3.l;
328 *execute_unload "result4.gdx" cem4.l;
329 *execute_unload "result5.gdx" cem5.l;
330 *execute_unload "store.gdx" store.l;
331 *execute_unload "import.gdx" impcem.l;
332
333 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l'
334 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
335 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
336 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
337 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l'
338 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
339 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
340 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
341 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
342 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
343 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l'
344 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
345 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l'
346 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
347
348 *Sensitivity analysis - increasing the demand for cement by 5% for 2010-2020
349
350 equation
351 Dem1(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i;
352 *Adjusted Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of
time
332
---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
- 69.4556381784452*cem1(2013) - 68.6320535360131*cem1(2014) -
67.8182347193805*cem1(2015)
- 67.0140659282416*cem1(2016) - 66.2194327354166*cem1(2017) -
65.4342220705698*cem1(2018)
- 64.6583222041203*cem1(2019) - 63.8916227313442*cem1(2020) -
72.0652173913044*cem2(2010)
- 71.2106891218423*cem2(2011) - 70.3662935986583*cem2(2012) -
69.531910670611*cem2(2013)
- 68.7074216112757*cem2(2014) - 67.8927091020511*cem2(2015) -
67.0876572154655*cem2(2016)
- 66.2921513986813*cem2(2017) - 65.506078457195*cem2(2018) -
64.7293265387302*cem2(2019)
- 63.9617851173224*cem2(2020) - 72.0652173913044*cem4(2010) -
71.2106891218423*cem4(2011)
- 70.3662935986583*cem4(2012) - 69.531910670611*cem4(2013) -
68.7074216112757*cem4(2014)
- 67.8927091020511*cem4(2015) - 67.0876572154655*cem4(2016) -
66.2921513986813*cem4(2017)
- 65.506078457195*cem4(2018) - 64.7293265387302*cem4(2019) -
63.9617851173224*cem4(2020)
- 72.0355731225296*cem5(2010) - 71.181396366136*cem5(2011) -
70.3373481878814*cem5(2012)
334
- 69.5033084860489*cem5(2013) - 68.6791585830522*cem5(2014) -
67.8647812085496*cem5(2015)
- 67.0600604827565*cem5(2016) - 66.2648818999571*cem5(2017) -
65.4791323122105*cem5(2018)
- 64.7026999132515*cem5(2019) - 63.9354742225806*cem5(2020) -
86.4782608695652*impcem(2010)
- 85.4528269462107*impcem(2011) - 84.43955231839*impcem(2012) -
83.4382928047332*impcem(2013)
- 82.4489059335308*impcem(2014) - 81.4712509224613*impcem(2015) -
80.5051886585586*impcem(2016)
- 79.5505816784176*impcem(2017) - 78.607294148634*impcem(2018) -
77.6751918464763*impcem(2019)
- 76.7541421407868*impcem(2020) - 4.94071146245059*store(2010) -
4.88212595103814*store(2011)
- 4.82423512948432*store(2012) - 4.76703076036*store(2013) -
4.71050470391305*store(2014)
- 4.65464891691013*store(2015) - 4.59945545149222*store(2016) -
4.54491645404369*store(2017)
- 4.4910241640748*store(2018) - 4.43777091311739*store(2019) -
4.38514912363378*store(2020) =E= 332500000 ;
---- Dem =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp1 =L= input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
336
---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
77570746 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Elecbal =L= electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy1 =L= coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy2 =L= coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy3 =L= wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Emission_CO2 =L= CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_PM =L= PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 0, +INF, 0)
1 Object
cem1(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.9862 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)
cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
346
1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)
cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
347
1 Capacity1(2012)
cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)
cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
348
1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)
cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)
cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
349
1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)
cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
350
cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)
cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
351
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)
cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)
cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
352
23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)
cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)
353
cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)
cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
354
412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1 Import(2010,Cement)
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1 Import(2011,Cement)
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1 Import(2012,Cement)
store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 0)
-4.9407 Object
-1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 0)
-4.8821 Object
-1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
355
store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 0)
-4.8242 Object
-1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1 Dem(2013,Cement)
MODEL STATISTICS
SOLVE SUMMARY
---- EQU Dem demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
361
---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3663
2013 . . . -69.5319
2014 . . . -68.8233
2015 . . . -68.1063
2016 . . . -67.2987
2017 . . . -66.5007
2018 . . . -65.7122
2019 . . . -64.9330
2020 . . . -64.1630
---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE LCC.L = 1.923365E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 322 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(ton)
372
---- 322 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.986, 2011 71.133, 2012 70.289, 2013 69.456, 2014 68.632, 2015
67.818, 2016 67.014
2017 66.219, 2018 65.434, 2019 64.658, 2020 63.892
---- 322 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962
---- 322 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 322 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
373
---- 322 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935
374
---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
- 69.4556381784452*cem1(2013) - 68.6320535360131*cem1(2014) -
67.8182347193805*cem1(2015)
- 67.0140659282416*cem1(2016) - 66.2194327354166*cem1(2017) -
65.4342220705698*cem1(2018)
- 64.6583222041203*cem1(2019) - 63.8916227313442*cem1(2020) -
72.0652173913044*cem2(2010)
- 71.2106891218423*cem2(2011) - 70.3662935986583*cem2(2012) -
69.531910670611*cem2(2013)
- 68.7074216112757*cem2(2014) - 67.8927091020511*cem2(2015) -
67.0876572154655*cem2(2016)
- 66.2921513986813*cem2(2017) - 65.506078457195*cem2(2018) -
64.7293265387302*cem2(2019)
- 63.9617851173224*cem2(2020) - 72.0652173913044*cem4(2010) -
71.2106891218423*cem4(2011)
- 70.3662935986583*cem4(2012) - 69.531910670611*cem4(2013) -
68.7074216112757*cem4(2014)
- 67.8927091020511*cem4(2015) - 67.0876572154655*cem4(2016) -
66.2921513986813*cem4(2017)
- 65.506078457195*cem4(2018) - 64.7293265387302*cem4(2019) -
63.9617851173224*cem4(2020)
- 72.0355731225296*cem5(2010) - 71.181396366136*cem5(2011) -
70.3373481878814*cem5(2012)
375
- 69.5033084860489*cem5(2013) - 68.6791585830522*cem5(2014) -
67.8647812085496*cem5(2015)
- 67.0600604827565*cem5(2016) - 66.2648818999571*cem5(2017) -
65.4791323122105*cem5(2018)
- 64.7026999132515*cem5(2019) - 63.9354742225806*cem5(2020) -
86.4782608695652*impcem(2010)
- 85.4528269462107*impcem(2011) - 84.43955231839*impcem(2012) -
83.4382928047332*impcem(2013)
- 82.4489059335308*impcem(2014) - 81.4712509224613*impcem(2015) -
80.5051886585586*impcem(2016)
- 79.5505816784176*impcem(2017) - 78.607294148634*impcem(2018) -
77.6751918464763*impcem(2019)
- 76.7541421407868*impcem(2020) - 4.94071146245059*store(2010) -
4.88212595103814*store(2011)
- 4.82423512948432*store(2012) - 4.76703076036*store(2013) -
4.71050470391305*store(2014)
- 4.65464891691013*store(2015) - 4.59945545149222*store(2016) -
4.54491645404369*store(2017)
- 4.4910241640748*store(2018) - 4.43777091311739*store(2019) -
4.38514912363378*store(2020) =E= 332500000 ;
(LHS = 332500000)
---- Dem1 =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp1 =L= input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
377
---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 13893871.2)
(LHS = 13667834.41)
(LHS = 13611663.2)
---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 3820002.08)
(LHS = 3756234.6)
(LHS = 3742394.88)
---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 3469592.8)
(LHS = 3414029.11)
(LHS = 3399040.8)
---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Elecbal =L= electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy1 =L= coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy2 =L= coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy3 =L= wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_CO2 =L= CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_PM =L= PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 1923364930.76885, +INF, 0)
1 Object
cem1(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 500000, +INF, 0)
-71.9862 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)
cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 500000, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
387
1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)
cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 500000, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
388
1 Capacity1(2012)
cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 650000, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)
cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 271796.999999999, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
389
1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)
cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 650000, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)
cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -72.0652173913043)
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
390
1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)
cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -71.2106891218423)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
391
cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -70.3662935986583)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)
cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 299433, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
392
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)
cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 650000, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)
cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 255338, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
393
23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)
cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 700000, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)
394
cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 700000, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)
cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 700000, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
395
412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.4130434782609)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Import(2010,Cement)
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.2421378243685)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Import(2011,Cement)
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.0732587197317)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Import(2012,Cement)
store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.79523973191269)
-4.9407 Object
-1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.72652147422205)
-4.8821 Object
-1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
396
store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.65861805753165)
-4.8242 Object
-1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2013,Cement1)
MODEL STATISTICS
SOLVE SUMMARY
---- EQU Dem1 demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
402
---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3821
2013 . . . -69.6492
2014 . . . -68.9572
2015 . . . -68.1063
2016 . . . -67.2987
2017 . . . -66.5007
2018 . . . -65.7122
2019 . . . -64.9330
2020 . . . -64.1630
---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE LCC.L = 2.011932E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)
---- 365 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 365 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(ton)
413
---- 365 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.986, 2011 71.133, 2012 70.289, 2013 69.456, 2014 68.632, 2015
67.818, 2016 67.014
2017 66.219, 2018 65.434, 2019 64.658, 2020 63.892
---- 365 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962
---- 365 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 365 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)
414
2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962
---- 365 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935
45 Sh3 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 74.01 /
46 Sh4 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 73.28 /
47 Sh5 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 72.55 /
48
49 Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
50 Cl2 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 60.55 /
51 Cl3 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 59.95 /
52 Cl4 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 59.36 /
53 Cl5 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 58.77 /
54
55 Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
56 Sa2 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 42.11 /
57 Sa3 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 41.69 /
58 Sa4 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 41.28 /
59 Sa5 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 40.87 /
60
61 Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
62 Ma2 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 31.01 /
63 Ma3 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 30.70 /
64 Ma4 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 30.40 /
65 Ma5 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 30.10 /
66
67 As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
68 As2 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 23.50 /
69 As3 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 23.27 /
70 As4 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 23.04 /
71 As5 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 22.81 /
72
73 Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
74 Ir2 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 10.44 /
75 Ir3 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 10.34 /
76 Ir4 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 10.24 /
77 Ir5 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 10.24 /
78
79 Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
80 Gy2 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 6.53 /
81 Gy3 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 6.46 /
82 Gy4 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 6.40 /
83 Gy5 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 6.34 /
84
85 Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
86 Ba2 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.80 /
87 Ba3 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.78 /
88 Ba4 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.76 /
418
89 Ba5 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.74 /
90
91 Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
92 Mi2 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.63 /
93 Mi3 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.62 /
94 Mi4 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.60 /
95 Mi5 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.58 /
96
97 Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
98 Di2 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.47 /
99 Di3 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.45 /
100 Di4 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.44 /
101 Di5 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.43 /
102
103 Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
104 Col2 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 2699022 /
105 Col3 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 2672561 /
106 Col4 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 2646100 /
107 Col5 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 2619639 /
108
109 Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
110 Cok2 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 892398 /
111 Cok3 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 883649 /
112 Cok4 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 874900 /
113 Cok5 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 866151 /
114
115 Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995
/
116 Wst2 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 424830
/
117 Wst3 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 420665
/
118 Wst4 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 416500
/
119 Wst5 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 412335
/
120
121 el1 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 150.48
/
122 el2 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 155.04 /
123 el3 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 153.52 /
124 el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
125 el5 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 156.56 /
126
419
127 co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
128 co2 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.80 /
129 co3 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.83 /
130 co4 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.83 /
131 co5 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.845 /
132
133 no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00136 /
134 no2 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00139 /
135 no3 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00139 /
136 no4 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00137 /
137 no5 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00140 /
138
139 so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00266 /
140 so2 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00263 /
141 so3 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00260 /
142 so4 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00258 /
143 so5 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00289 /
144
145 pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00015 /
146 pm2 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00015 /
147 pm3 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00015 /
148 pm4 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00015 /
149 pm5 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00015 /
150
151 me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
152 me2 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00000004 /
420
153 me3 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00000004 /
154 me4 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00000004 /
155 me5 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00000004 /
156
157 Maxcap1 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1 /825000/
158 Maxcap2 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 2 /825000/
159 Maxcap3 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 3 /530000/
160 Maxcap4 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 4 /650000/
161 Maxcap5 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 5 /825000/
162
163 s unit costs of cement inventory storage ($ per ton) /5/
164 p norm considering the time factor / 0.012 /
165
166 *prices of cement imported from other producers are assumed to be higher than
167 *that of own production
168 pencem coefficient adjusting the price of imported cement /1.2/
169 Maximp maximum import as a percentage of cement demand in period i /0.3/;
170
171 parameters
172 rho(i) discounting factor;
173 rho(i) = (1 + p)**(-(ord(i)-1));
174
175 variables
176 LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
177 cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
178 cem2(i) annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
179 cem3(i) annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
180 cem4(i) annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
181 cem5(i) annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
182 impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
183 store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
184 cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
185 cost2(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i ($ per ton)
186 cost3(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i ($ per ton)
187 cost4(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i ($ per ton)
188 cost5(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i ($ per ton);
189
190 positive variables cem1, cem2, cem3, cem4, cem5, impcem, store;
191
192 *cement stored in the beginning and in the end of the considered period is zero
193 store.l('2010')=0;
421
194 store.l('2020')=0;
195 *Storage limit
196 store.up(i)= 60000;
197 *Select the number of units in the plant
198 *cem1.fx(i)=0; e1=0;
199 *cem2.fx(i)=0; e2=0;
200 cem3.fx(i)=0; e3=0;
201 cem4.fx(i)=0; e4=0;
202 *cem5.fx(i)=0; e5=0;
203
204 equations
205 Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
206 Dem(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
207 Inp1(i,j) input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
208 Inp2(i,j) input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
209 Inp3(i,j) input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
210 Inp4(i,j) input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
211 Inp5(i,j) input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
212 Inp6(i,j) input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
213 Inp7(i,j) input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
214 Inp8(i,j) input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
215 Inp9(i,j) input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
216 Inp10(i,j) input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
217 Inp11(i,j) input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
218 Elecbal(i,j) electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
219 Energy1(i,j) coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
220 Energy2(i,j) coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
221 Energy3(i,j) wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
222 Emission_CO2(i,j) CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
223 Emission_NOx(i,j) NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
224 *Emission_SO2(i,j) SO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
225 Emission_PM(i,j) PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
226 Emission_Mer(i,j) Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
227 Capacity1(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
228 Capacity2(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
229 Capacity3(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
230 Capacity4(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
231 Capacity5(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
422
232 Import(i,j) maximum available import of cement from other producers in period
i;
233
234 *Objective function minimizing total expenses
235 Object.. LCC =E= K + sum(i,rho(i)*[e1*cem1(i) + e2*cem2(i) + e3*cem3(i) +
e4*cem4(i)
236 + e5*cem5(i) + s*store(i) + pencem*(max[e1,e2,e3,e4,e5])*impcem(i)]);
237
238 *1.Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
239 Dem(i,'Cement').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)
240 + impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement') + store(i);
241
242 *2.Input1 Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
243 *Lime
244 Inp1(i,'Lime').. cem1(i)*Lm1 + cem2(i)*Lm2 + cem3(i)*Lm3 + cem4(i)*Lm4 +
245 cem5(i)*Lm5 =L= data(i,'Lime');
246 *Shale
247 Inp2(i,'Shale').. cem1(i)*Sh1 + cem2(i)*Sh2 + cem3(i)*Sh3 + cem4(i)*Sh4 +
248 cem5(i)*Sh5 =L= data(i,'Shale');
249 *Clay
250 Inp3(i,'Clay').. cem1(i)*Cl1 + cem2(i)*Cl2 + cem3(i)*Cl3 + cem4(i)*Cl4 +
251 cem5(i)*Cl5 =L= data(i,'Clay');
252 *Sand
253 Inp4(i,'Sand').. cem1(i)*Sa1 + cem2(i)*Sa2 + cem3(i)*Sa3 + cem4(i)*Sa4 +
254 cem5(i)*Sa5 =L= data(i,'Sand');
255 *Marl
256 Inp5(i,'Marl').. cem1(i)*Ma1 + cem2(i)*Ma2 + cem3(i)*Ma3 + cem4(i)*Ma4 +
257 cem5(i)*Ma5 =L= data(i,'Marl');
258 *Ashc
259 Inp6(i,'Ashc').. cem1(i)*As1 + cem2(i)*As2 + cem3(i)*As3 + cem4(i)*As4 +
260 cem5(i)*As5 =L= data(i,'Ashc');
261 *Iron
262 Inp7(i,'Iron').. cem1(i)*Ir1 + cem2(i)*Ir2 + cem3(i)*Ir3 + cem4(i)*Ir4 +
263 cem5(i)*Ir5 =L= data(i,'Iron');
264 *Gyps
265 Inp8(i,'Gyps').. cem1(i)*Gy1 + cem2(i)*Gy2 + cem3(i)*Gy3 + cem4(i)*Gy4 +
266 cem5(i)*Gy5 =L= data(i,'Gyps');
267 *Baux
268 Inp9(i,'Baux').. cem1(i)*Ba1 + cem2(i)*Ba2 + cem3(i)*Ba3 + cem4(i)*Ba4 +
269 cem5(i)*Ba5 =L= data(i,'Baux');
270 *Mill
271 Inp10(i,'Mill').. cem1(i)*Mi1 + cem2(i)*Mi2 + cem3(i)*Mi3 + cem4(i)*Mi4 +
272 cem5(i)*Mi5 =L= data(i,'Mill');
273 *Diatom
423
310
311 Import(i,'Cement').. impcem(i) =L= Maximp*data(i,'Cement');
312
313 model cement_plant /all/;
314 solve cement_plant minimizing LCC using lp;
315
316 cost1.l(i) = rho(i)*e1;
317 cost2.l(i) = rho(i)*e2;
318 cost3.l(i) = rho(i)*e3;
319 cost4.l(i) = rho(i)*e4;
320 cost5.l(i) = rho(i)*e5;
321
322 display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,
323 cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
324
325 execute_unload "result1.gdx" cem1.l;
326 execute_unload "result2.gdx" cem2.l;
327 execute_unload "result3.gdx" cem3.l;
328 execute_unload "result4.gdx" cem4.l;
329 execute_unload "result5.gdx" cem5.l;
330 execute_unload "store.gdx" store.l;
331 execute_unload "import.gdx" impcem.l;
332
333 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l'
334 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
335 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
336 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
337 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l'
338 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
339 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
340 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
341 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
342 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
343 execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l'
344 execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
345 execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l'
346 execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
347
348 *Sensitivity analysis - increasing the demand for cement by 5% for 2010-2020
349
350 equation
351 Dem1(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i;
352 *Adjusted Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of
time
425
---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
- 69.4556381784452*cem1(2013) - 68.6320535360131*cem1(2014) -
67.8182347193805*cem1(2015)
- 67.0140659282416*cem1(2016) - 66.2194327354166*cem1(2017) -
65.4342220705698*cem1(2018)
- 64.6583222041203*cem1(2019) - 63.8916227313442*cem1(2020) -
72.0652173913044*cem2(2010)
- 71.2106891218423*cem2(2011) - 70.3662935986583*cem2(2012) -
69.531910670611*cem2(2013)
- 68.7074216112757*cem2(2014) - 67.8927091020511*cem2(2015) -
67.0876572154655*cem2(2016)
- 66.2921513986813*cem2(2017) - 65.506078457195*cem2(2018) -
64.7293265387302*cem2(2019)
- 63.9617851173224*cem2(2020) - 72.0355731225296*cem5(2010) -
71.181396366136*cem5(2011)
- 70.3373481878814*cem5(2012) - 69.5033084860489*cem5(2013) -
68.6791585830522*cem5(2014)
- 67.8647812085496*cem5(2015) - 67.0600604827565*cem5(2016) -
66.2648818999571*cem5(2017)
- 65.4791323122105*cem5(2018) - 64.7026999132515*cem5(2019) -
63.9354742225806*cem5(2020)
- 86.4782608695652*impcem(2010) - 85.4528269462107*impcem(2011) -
84.43955231839*impcem(2012)
427
- 83.4382928047332*impcem(2013) - 82.4489059335308*impcem(2014) -
81.4712509224613*impcem(2015)
- 80.5051886585586*impcem(2016) - 79.5505816784176*impcem(2017) -
78.607294148634*impcem(2018)
- 77.6751918464763*impcem(2019) - 76.7541421407868*impcem(2020) -
4.94071146245059*store(2010)
- 4.88212595103814*store(2011) - 4.82423512948432*store(2012) -
4.76703076036*store(2013)
- 4.71050470391305*store(2014) - 4.65464891691013*store(2015) -
4.59945545149222*store(2016)
- 4.54491645404369*store(2017) - 4.4910241640748*store(2018) -
4.43777091311739*store(2019)
---- Dem =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp1 =L= input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
428
---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
151467088 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
(LHS = 0)
---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Elecbal =L= electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy1 =L= coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy2 =L= coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy3 =L= wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Emission_CO2 =L= CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_PM =L= PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 0, +INF, 0)
1 Object
cem1(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.9862 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)
cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
439
1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)
cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
440
1 Capacity1(2012)
cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)
cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
441
1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)
cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)
cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
442
1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)
cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
443
cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)
cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
444
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)
cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)
cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
445
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)
cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)
cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
446
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)
cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
447
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1 Import(2010,Cement)
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1 Import(2011,Cement)
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1 Import(2012,Cement)
store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 0)
-4.9407 Object
-1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 0)
-4.8821 Object
-1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 0)
448
-4.8242 Object
-1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1 Dem(2013,Cement)
MODEL STATISTICS
SOLVE SUMMARY
---- EQU Dem demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
454
---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3663
2013 . . . -69.5128
2014 . . . -68.8233
2015 . . . -68.1395
2016 . . . -67.3315
2017 . . . -66.5331
2018 . . . -65.7442
2019 . . . -64.9646
2020 . . . -64.1943
---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3663
2013 . . . -69.5128
462
2014 . . . -68.8233
2015 . . . -68.1395
2016 . . . -67.3315
2017 . . . -66.5331
2018 . . . -65.7442
2019 . . . -64.9646
2020 . . . -64.1943
---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE LCC.L = 1.920062E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 322 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 322 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(ton)
465
---- 322 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)
---- 322 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.986, 2011 71.133, 2012 70.289, 2013 69.456, 2014 68.632, 2015
67.818, 2016 67.014
2017 66.219, 2018 65.434, 2019 64.658, 2020 63.892
---- 322 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962
---- 322 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 322 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
466
---- 322 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935
467
---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
- 69.4556381784452*cem1(2013) - 68.6320535360131*cem1(2014) -
67.8182347193805*cem1(2015)
- 67.0140659282416*cem1(2016) - 66.2194327354166*cem1(2017) -
65.4342220705698*cem1(2018)
- 64.6583222041203*cem1(2019) - 63.8916227313442*cem1(2020) -
72.0652173913044*cem2(2010)
- 71.2106891218423*cem2(2011) - 70.3662935986583*cem2(2012) -
69.531910670611*cem2(2013)
- 68.7074216112757*cem2(2014) - 67.8927091020511*cem2(2015) -
67.0876572154655*cem2(2016)
- 66.2921513986813*cem2(2017) - 65.506078457195*cem2(2018) -
64.7293265387302*cem2(2019)
- 63.9617851173224*cem2(2020) - 72.0355731225296*cem5(2010) -
71.181396366136*cem5(2011)
- 70.3373481878814*cem5(2012) - 69.5033084860489*cem5(2013) -
68.6791585830522*cem5(2014)
- 67.8647812085496*cem5(2015) - 67.0600604827565*cem5(2016) -
66.2648818999571*cem5(2017)
- 65.4791323122105*cem5(2018) - 64.7026999132515*cem5(2019) -
63.9354742225806*cem5(2020)
- 86.4782608695652*impcem(2010) - 85.4528269462107*impcem(2011) -
84.43955231839*impcem(2012)
468
- 83.4382928047332*impcem(2013) - 82.4489059335308*impcem(2014) -
81.4712509224613*impcem(2015)
- 80.5051886585586*impcem(2016) - 79.5505816784176*impcem(2017) -
78.607294148634*impcem(2018)
- 77.6751918464763*impcem(2019) - 76.7541421407868*impcem(2020) -
4.94071146245059*store(2010)
- 4.88212595103814*store(2011) - 4.82423512948432*store(2012) -
4.76703076036*store(2013)
- 4.71050470391305*store(2014) - 4.65464891691013*store(2015) -
4.59945545149222*store(2016)
- 4.54491645404369*store(2017) - 4.4910241640748*store(2018) -
4.43777091311739*store(2019)
---- Dem1 =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp1 =L= input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 13928547.49)
(LHS = 13748084.41)
(LHS = 13640607.14)
472
---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 3827729.4)
(LHS = 3777984.6)
(LHS = 3748358.4)
---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
(LHS = 3478825.79)
(LHS = 3433779.11)
(LHS = 3406950.94)
---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Elecbal =L= electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy1 =L= coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy2 =L= coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Energy3 =L= wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_CO2 =L= CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Emission_PM =L= PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
476
---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 1920061725.94147, +INF, 0)
1 Object
cem1(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-71.9862 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)
cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
480
1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)
cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
481
1 Capacity1(2012)
cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 499433, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)
cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 471797, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
482
1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)
cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 455338, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)
cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -72.0652173913043)
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
483
1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)
cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -71.2106891218423)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
484
cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -70.3662935986583)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)
cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -72.0652173913043)
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
485
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)
cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -71.2106891218423)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)
cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -70.3662935986583)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
486
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)
cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)
cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
487
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)
cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
488
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.4130434782609)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Import(2010,Cement)
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.2421378243685)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Import(2011,Cement)
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.0732587197317)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Import(2012,Cement)
store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.7952397319127)
-4.9407 Object
-1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.72652147422205)
-4.8821 Object
-1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.15013477642643)
489
-4.8242 Object
-1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2013,Cement1)
MODEL STATISTICS
SOLVE SUMMARY
---- EQU Dem1 demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
495
---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3821
2013 . . . -69.6492
2014 . . . -68.9572
2015 . . . -68.1395
2016 . . . -67.3315
2017 . . . -66.5331
2018 . . . -65.7442
2019 . . . -64.9646
2020 . . . -64.1943
---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3821
2013 . . . -69.6492
503
2014 . . . -68.9572
2015 . . . -68.1395
2016 . . . -67.3315
2017 . . . -66.5331
2018 . . . -65.7442
2019 . . . -64.9646
2020 . . . -64.1943
---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE LCC.L = 2.008694E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)
---- 365 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 365 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 365 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(ton)
506
---- 365 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)
---- 365 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 71.986, 2011 71.133, 2012 70.289, 2013 69.456, 2014 68.632, 2015
67.818, 2016 67.014
2017 66.219, 2018 65.434, 2019 64.658, 2020 63.892
---- 365 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962
---- 365 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
---- 365 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
507
---- 365 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)
2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935
Serv
DN: cn=TAD Services,
o=Ohio University,
ou=Graduate Studies,
email=etd@ohio.edu,
c=US
ices
Date: 2008.10.14
14:10:16 -04'00'