Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 452–458

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

An environmental sustainability assessment of China’s cement

industry based on emergy
Xiaohong Zhang a,∗ , Jianming Shen a , Yanqing Wang a , Yan Qi a , Wenjie Liao b , Wei Shui C ,
Li Li b , Hui Qi a , Xiaoyu Yu a
a
College of Environmental Sciences, Sichuan Agricultural University-Chengdu Campus, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, PR China
b
Institute of New Energy and Low-Carbon Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, PR China
C
College of Environment and Resources, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As one of important building materials, the sustainability of cement production is widely concerned in
Received 28 December 2015 the world. This research evaluated the sustainability of China’s cement industry in 2010 using emergy
Received in revised form 23 August 2016 analysis. Several emergy based indicators were adopted to describe the comprehensive performance of
Accepted 25 August 2016
this system from different angles, including Percentage of renewability (%R), Unit emergy value (UEV),
Emergy yield ratio (EYR), Emergy exchange ratio (EER), Environmental load ratio (ELR) and Emergy sus-
Keywords:
tainable index (ESI). The research results show that (1) Mineral resources have absolute contribution to
China’s cement industry
China’s cement production; (2) Coal is the main energy source for China’s cement industry; (3) China’s
Emergy analysis
Resource efficiency
cement industry has relatively weak competition ability due to relatively high ratio of purchased inputs;
Environmental load (4) China’s other industries have benefited greatly from this industry by exchanges; (5) China’s cement
Comprehensive performance industry cannot keep sustainable in the long run due to its high environmental load; (6) the UEV of Chi-
nese cement in 2010 is 3.64E15 sej/t (based on the emergy baseline 15.83E24 sej/yr). Finally, the related
policy implications are proposed from four aspects, including (1) Accelerating the adjustment of process
structure and technical innovation; (2) Promoting the substitution of raw materials or fuels; (3) Raising
the price of cement products; (4) Decreasing the export of cement products.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the physic-chemical reactions involving the raw material calcina-

As one of basic building materials, cement has played an impor-
tant role during the course of fast urbanization. China’s cement
output has ranked first in the world since 1985, accounting for
60% of the world’s cement production in 2012 (Global Cement,
2013). China’s cement output had increased by 2.03 times from
0.73 billion tons in 2002 to 2.21 billion tons in 2012 (National
Bureau of Statistics of China, 2003, 2013), with an annual growth
rate of 11.7% in this period. Cement production consumes large
quantities of raw materials and energy (heat and electricity). Its
manufacturing process is very complex (Huntzinger and Eatmon,
2009; Van Oss and Padovani, 2002, 2003), involving a number of
materials, pyroprocessing techniques, and fuel sources (e.g., coal,
petroleum, coke, natural gas, fuel oil, biomass, or different types
of wastes). The main emissions of cement production are atmo-
spheric pollutants from the kiln system, and they are derived from
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zxh19701102@126.com (X. Zhang).
tion (decarbonisation of limestone) and fuel combustion (Nadal
et al., 2009). The cement industry has caused quantities of air emis-
sions due to high fossil energy consumption. Pang et al. (2013)
reported that the total coal and electricity consumption of Chinese
cement industry in 2009 was 186.62 million tons and 1.38 billion
kWh, respectively, which resulted in the atmospheric emissions
of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulates at
0.89 million, 1.69 million and 3.58 million tons, respectively (Mao
et al., 2012; Ministry of Environmental Protection of PRC, 2010).
Carbon dioxides (CO2 ) emissions from Chinese cement industry
accounted for 15% of national emissions and 5%–8% of global emis-
sions (Jiang et al., 2012; Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009; Scrivener
and Kirkpatrick, 2008). Besides, the cement industry is also a signifi-
cant emission source of other hazardous compounds (Wang, 2013;
Lei et al., 2011), such as carbon monoxide (CO) and heavy met-
als. For China’s cement industry, the key factors that contribute to
overall environmental burden are the direct emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOx), particulates, and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) into the atmo-
sphere, as well as the use of coal during cement production (Chen
et al., 2015).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.046
1470-160X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Zhang et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 452–458
China’s cement industry has the absolute contribution to the
world cement output (Global Cement, 2013), and thus the related
resource and environmental issues have also become increasingly
serious (Pang et al., 2013; Wang, 2013; Jiang et al., 2012; Mao et al.,
2012; Lei et al., 2011; Ministry of Environmental Protection of PRC,
2010; Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009; Scrivener and Kirkpatrick,
2008). Therefore, the sustainability of cement production has been
concerned widely. Many scholars have investigated this issue using
different methods, such as life cycle assessment (LCA) (Chen et al.,
2015; Valderrama et al., 2012; Josa et al., 2004), material flow anal-
ysis (MFA) (Wang et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2015;
Vargas and Halog, 2015; Woodward and Duffy, 2011), energy anal-
ysis (EA) (Wen et al., 2015; García-Gusano et al., 2015; Sui et al.,
2014; Atmaca and Yumrutas, 2014; Xu et al., 2012; Hasanbeigi
et al., 2010a,b; Mandal, 2010; Utlu et al., 2006; Camdali et al.,
2004), economic evaluation (EE) (Wang et al., 2015; Uwasu et al.,
2014; Li et al., 2013; Hasanbeigi et al., 2010a,b), LCA and EE
(Reza et al., 2013), etc. Therein, LCA has become a key method-
ology to evaluate the environmental performance of products,
services and processes; however, this method still has some flaws,
derived from the assumptions made in the definition of the system
(Galvez-Martos and Schoenberger, 2014), its environmental impact
allocation (Sayagh et al., 2010) and the weights’ decision by expert
scoring. MFA ignores the differences among diverse kinds of mate-
rials due to their various characteristics, and thus its results could
deviate from the practical situation to some degree. EA overlooks
the differences among energy sources due to diverse formation
processes and different ability to do work. EE method ignores natu-
ral contribution to economy. Due to these flaws, decision-making,
based on these methods, could adversely affect resources conserva-
tion and environmental protection to some degree. Emergy analysis
(EmA), founded by Odum (1988, 1996), assesses one system based
on a common measure, i.e. solar eMergy joules. It considers natu-
ral contribution to economic activity, and it also distinguishes the
differences among different products and service. Therefore, this
method establishes an organic connection between human eco-
nomic system and the environment. The results from EmA can
provide more integrated information for decision-makers. Due to
the obvious advantages over other methods, EmA has been widely
used to evaluate comprehensive performances of systems with dif-
ferent scales, including production systems (Pan et al., 2016a,b;
Zeng et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2012; Li et al., 2011a,b; Lu et al., 2010;
Lu and Campbell, 2009; Zhang et al., 2009; Pulselli et al., 2008a;
Bastianoni and Marchettini, 1996), cities (Zucaro et al., 2014; Zhang
et al., 2011; Pulselli et al., 2008b), nations (Hu et al., 2014; Lou
and Ulgiati, 2013; Zhang et al., 2012; Ulgiati et al., 2011), and
the world as a whole (Campbell et al., 2014; Odum et al., 2000;
Brown and Ulgiati, 1999). As far as cement production is concerned,
several scholars have explored its environmental sustainability
using EmA (Pulselli et al., 2008a; Buranakam, 1998; Haukoos, 1995;
Roudebush, 1992). However, the emergy related researches on Chi-
nese cement industry is lacking in the public literature. As the
largest cement producer and consumer in the world, the sustain-
ability of Chinese cement industry should be concerned. In recent
years, many Chinese scholars have evaluated diverse ecological
economic systems using EmA; however, the unit emergy value of
cement adopted in their works often came from other countries or
regions, which could reduce the accuracy of their research results
to some degree.
This research concentrates on China’s cement industry, and it
aims to (1) assessing the comprehensive performance of China’s
cement industry so as to provide some beneficial suggestions for
the policy-makers, and (2) providing the unit emergy value (UEV)
of China’s cement for the emergy related researches in China in the
future.
453
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Research object
Since common Portland cement accounts for approximately 98%
of China’s total cement output (Xu, 2013), this work chose 1 ton
common Portland cement production (The percent of clinker is
70%.) as its function unit to reflect the national average level. All
inputs and outputs were based on this functional unit. The analy-
sis boundary of this work started from raw materials and energy
sources mining, and ended at the gate of the cement factories.
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Emergy analysis
Emergy is the available energy of one kind required directly
and indirectly to make a product or service (Odum, 1996, 1988),
and its unit is emjoule. At present, emergy is expressed as solar
emergy, and its unit is solar emjoules (sej) (Jorgensen et al., 2004).
The theory of EmA is rooted in thermodynamics and general sys-
tems ecology (Brown and Bardi, 2001). So EmA aims to describe the
relationships between human-made systems and the biosphere.
This method assigns a value to products and services by convert-
ing them into equivalents of one common form of energy (solar
energy joule), which can act as the common denominator. In doing
so, different types of resources (energy, matter or currency), can be
measured and compared to each other (Liu et al., 2015).
Within the framework of EmA, the quality of energy sources and
any other resource is measured by the inputs of energy, materials
and information required to make it (Brown et al., 2011). More spe-
cially, the emergy of different products is assessed by multiplying
mass quantities (kg) or energy quantities (J) or currency ($) by a
unit emergy value (transformity or specific emergy or emergy to
money ratio). A unit emergy is the solar emergy required directly
or indirectly to make 1 J or kilogram of a product or service or 1 US$.
When a process is evaluated, previously calculated unit emergy val-
ues can be used to determine the emergy (sej) of commonly used
products or services (Pulselli et al., 2007).
Following the recommendations of Odum (2000), all transfor-
mities calculated prior to 2000 have been multiplied by a factor
1.68 to account for the increase in global emergy base of reference
from 9.44E24 sej/yr to 15.83E24 sej/yr. And then the total emergy
driving the system can be determined by adding up the emergy
of all inflows, and is assigned to the product or service delivered
(Campbell et al., 2005; Brown and Ulgiati, 2001). After all the flows
in study have been quantified, a set of indicators can be estab-
lished to assess the environmental performance of the system itself
(Ulgiati and Brown, 2002).
2.2.2. Energy flow of Chinese cement production
As shown in Fig. 1, the main inputs include renewable resources
(fresh water), nonrenewable inputs (limestone, clay, sandstone and
gypsum), and purchased inputs (coal, petroleum, natural gas and
labor & service). The outputs are cement products.
2.2.3. The corresponding emergy based indicators
The emergy based indicators adopted in this study were
depicted as follows.
(1) Percentage of renewability (%R): It is the ratio of renewable
inputs to total inputs in terms of emergy, and describes the
renewability of a system. Generally the higher the ratio, the
more sustainable the system in study is.
(2) Unit emergy value (UEV, sej/t): UEV is defined as the equivalent
solar emergy required by per unit of product. And this indica-
454 X. Zhang et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 452–458

Fig. 1. Energy system diagram of China’s cement production system.

Table 1
Emergy analysis table of Chinese cement industry in 2010 (Per ton common cement product).

Item Basic data Unit emergy values Emergy (sej/yr) Percent (%)

Inputs 3.64E + 15 100.00

Renewable inputs 2.41E + 13 0.65
1. Fresh water 3.69E02 kg 6.52E10sej/kg 2.41E + 13 0.65
Nonrenewable inputs 3.46E + 15 82.20
2. Limestone 1.6E03 kg 1.68E12 sej/kg 2.69E + 15 73.85
3. Clay 1.3E02 kg 1.68E12 sej/kg 2.18E + 14 6.00
4. Sandstone 0.339 kg 1.68E12 sej/kg 5.70E + 11 0.02
5. Gypsum 50. 5 kg 1.68E12 sej/kg 8.48E + 13 2.33
Purchased inputs 17.15
6. Coal 5.05E09 J 8.64E4 sej/J 4.36E + 14 11.99
7. Petroleum 3.45E08 J 9.3E04 sej/J 3.21E + 13 0.88
8. Natural gas 1.83E04 J 7.29E04 sej/J 1.33E + 09 0.00
9. Labor & services 2.65 E01 US$ 5.88E12 sej/US$ 1.56E + 14 4.28
Output
10. Products 1t 3.64E + 15 sej/t
11. Economic output 4.09E01 US$ 8.90E + 13 sej/US$

Note: All these unit emergy values were adjusted to the emergy baseline 15.83E24 sej/yr.
1. Basic data came from Ref. (Jiang and Wang, 2010), and unit emergy value came from Ref. (Buenfil, 2001).
2-5. These basic data came from Ref. (Jiang and Wang, 2010), and their unit emergy values came from Ref. (Odum, 1996).
6. Energy = mass (kg)*energy content per kilogram. Here, mass = 1.92E02 kg (Jiang and Wang, 2010), and energy content per kilogram = 2.63E07 J/kg (Department of Energy
Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics of PRC, 2012). It should be noted that electricity power in China is mainly composed of thermal electricity, which is basically generated
using coal. Therefore, here electricity use in cement life cycle is expressed by coal consumption.
7. Energy = mass (kg)*energy content per kilogram. Here, mass = 8.25 kg (Jiang and Wang, 2010), and energy content per kilogram = 4.18E07 J/kg (Department of Energy
Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics of PRC, 2012).
8. Energy = volume (m3 )*energy content per cubic metre. Here, volume = 4.70E–04 m3 (Jiang and Wang, 2010), and energy content per cubic metre = 3.89E07 J/m3 (Department
of Energy Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics of PRC, 2012).
9. Labor & services include per unit investment and per unit operation cost. Therein, per unit investment = the total investment/(the total cement output*the life cycle*
average exchange rate between RMB and US$). According to Ref. (China Cement Association, 2012), the total investment and the total cement output were 6.14E11 Yuan
and 1.88E09 tons respectively, and average exchange rate between RMB and US$ was 6.77yuan/US$ in 2010 (Sina Blog, 2012). In addition, the life cycle of cement project is
assumed to be 20 years. Per unit operation cost = the total operation expense/(the total cement output*average exchange rate between RMB and US$ in 2010). According to
Ref. (China Cement Association, 2012), the total operation expense was 3.06E11 Yuan in 2010.
10. It is a basic unit in this study.
11. The economic output = the average price (Yuan)/average exchange rate (Yuan/US$). Here the average price was 2.77E02 Yuan (China Cement Association, 2012).

tor is inversely related to the efficiency of a production system
(Brown et al., 2012).
(3) Emergy yield ratio (EYR): EYR is the ratio of the total emergy
required divided by the purchased emergy, and it expresses
a sort of ‘gain’ or ‘multiplier effect’ of the system itself. For
instance, an EYR of 5:1 suggests that the emergy of the yield
is 5 times greater than that (previously) invested in acquiring
it. And by expressing how much overall emergy is ultimately
required in support of its output, this indicator characterizes
the donor-side intensity of the system in study (Brown et al.,
2012). It measures competition ability and economic benefit
of an industrial process (Ulgiati and Brown, 2002). The higher
the value of EYR, the stronger the competition ability is, which
means the better economic benefit of the industrial process.
And this also shows the lower cost of this system due to the
lower purchased inputs.
(4) Emergy exchange ratio (EER): it is the ratio of emergy of com-
modity to that of money paid for it, and measures the rate of
emergy benefit for purchasers (Lan et al., 2002). Specifically
speaking, the purchasers earn emergy when EER > 1, they keep
 X. Zhang et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 452–458
Table 2
Indicator values of China’s cement production system.
Indicators’ symbol Indicator values
%R 0.65
UEV 3.64E15 sej/t
EYR 5.83
EER 15.14
ELR 150.53
ESI 0.039
the same emergy when EER = 1, and they will lose emergy when
EER < 1.
(5) Environmental load ratio (ELR): ELR is the ratio of sum of non-
renewable and purchased emergy to the renewable emergy,
and shows the load of an industrial system on the local envi-
ronment. And the environmental load could be derived from
excess exploitation of local non-renewable resources and/or
investment from outside, and pollution emissions. It must be
emphasized that EYR evaluates the imported-local emergy flow
balance, while ELR is sensitive to the renewable–nonrenewable
flows balance. According to Ref. (Cao and Feng, 2007), low val-
ues of ELR (nearly 2) indicate low environmental load; when
ELR > 10, there is a high environmental load; when 3 < ELR < 10,
the load is considered moderate.
(6) Emergy sustainability index (ESI): it is the ratio of the EYR to
the ELR, and reflects the ability of a system in providing desired
products or services with a minimum environmental load and
a maximum profit. According to Cao and Feng (2007), ESI < 1
means that systems are not sustainable in the long run; systems
presenting 1 < ESI < 5 may have a sustainable contribution to the
economy in the medium period; systems with ESI > 5 can be
considered sustainable in the long term.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Emergy flows
As shown in Table 1, renewable inputs, nonrenewable inputs
and purchased inputs contribute 0.65%, 82.20% and 17.15%, respec-
tively, to the total emergy inputs. Therein, the renewable inputs are
composed of fresh water; nonrenewable inputs mainly come from
limestone (77.74%); purchased inputs are mainly derived from coal
(12.59%). Compared to Ref. (Pulselli et al., 2008a), China’s cement
industry has higher share of renewable inputs, lower share of non-
renewable inputs and higher share of purchased inputs; however,
the two processes still have some similar characteristics, i.e. lime-
stone is the largest contributor to the total inputs, and coal based
energy sources contribute the most to the purchased inputs.
3.2. Emergy based indicators
The related emergy based indicator values were provided in
Table 2.
(1) Percentage of renewability (%R): this ratio is 0.65. And it reflects
the absolute contribution of nonrenewable inputs to China’s
cement production, which is one of main characteristics of high
energy-consumption industries. This mainly lies in its great
dependence on mineral resources (especially limestone) and
fossil energy sources (especially coal).
(2) UEV: this indicator is 3.64E15 sej/t. When ignoring purchased
labor and services, this indicator value decreases to 3.48E15
sej/t. Therefore, this means cement production mainly trans-
forms mineral resources into cement products, and human
activity has small contribution to this process. Compared to
some developed countries, the resources efficiency of Chinese
455
cement industry is close to that of USA in 1995 (Conventional
cement product: 3.39E15 sej/t, cement product with coal fly
ash reuse: 3.76E15 sej/t, the original values by Buranakam
(1998) were multiplied by 1.68 following the recommenda-
tion of Odum (2000)), but it is still lower than that of Italy
(3.04E15 sej/t, based on the baseline 15.83E24 sej/yr) (Pulselli
et al., 2008a).
(3) EYR: It is 5.83, i.e. the emergy of the yield is 5.83 times greater
than that (previously) invested in acquiring it, and this shows
that the local environment provides a lot of free products
and services for China’s cement industry (Brown et al., 2012).
Compared to that of USA (EYR = 6.83 for conventional cement
product, EYR = 7.86 for cement product with coal fly ash reuse
(Buranakam, 1998)) and Italy (6.47) (Pulselli et al., 2008a),
China’s cement industry still has lower competition ability
mainly due to its higher purchased inputs.
(4) EER: this indicator is 15.14, which means that other pur-
chasers will benefit greatly from China’s cement industry when
they buy this product. In other words, emergy received by
China’s cement industry in the form of money isn’t enough to
match the environmental work employed for producing it. And
this situation could accelerate the exhaustion of the related
raw materials (especially limestone) and other fossil energy
sources.
(5) ELR: this indicator arrives at 150.53. According to Ref. (Cao and
Feng, 2007), China’s cement industry has a high environmental
load due to large amount of mineral resources and fossil energy
sources consumption.
(6) ESI: this index is only 0.039. According to Ref. (Cao and Feng,
2007), this industry is not sustainable in the long run, which is
mainly derived from its high environmental load.
Based on the abovementioned research results, the main find-
ings can be summarized as follows:
(1) Mineral resources have absolute contributions to the formation
of China’s cement product;
(2) Compared to some developed countries, China’s cement indus-
try has relatively weak competition ability;
(3) Other industries have benefited this industry greatly through
earning emergy from it, and this could accelerate the related
mineral resources exhaustion;
(4) China’s cement industry cannot keep sustainable development
in the long run.
3.3. One issue needed to be clarified
Here it should be noted that opinions concerning this index ESI
vary due to some uncertainties (Bastianoni et al., 2007). In view
of the objectives of the emergy based indicator system — among
others to show at a glance the sustainability level of a system —
an aggregation has been made from parameters into indicators
and from indicators into one single figure for the ESI. One of the
objectives for aggregation is easy to compare through combin-
ing different parameters. Meanwhile, considering the complicated
interactions between parameters or indicators, here we adopt the
division aggregation method with equal weight coefficients. How-
ever, if one accepts the definition that has been used for the ESI, the
two indicators EYR and ELR are equally essential for assessing the
sustainability level of a system—no matter whatever they are. The
objective of a system is (or should be) to approach higher sustain-
ability level. This requires that each indicator should achieve the
relatively ideal value. So there are no trade-offs between two (or
more) parameters or indicators (Dietz and Neumayer, 2007). How-
ever, aggregation can smooth out some detailed information and
then lead to ambiguity. The only solution to this problem is that one
456 X. Zhang et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 452–458
should look at the aggregated figures as well as at the underlying
reasons (Zhang et al., 2016).
4. The policy implications
Based on the main findings, the following policy implications
are proposed:
(1) Accelerating process structure adjustment and technological
innovation. The relatively low yield rate and high environmen-
tal load reflect the backward technical level of China’s cement
industry to some degree. In order to improve the comprehen-
sive performance, China’s cement industry should continuously
adjust its process structure through eliminating outdated pro-
duction processes and promoting technological innovation,
such as the dry rotary kiln process with a multi-stage preheater
and a cement calciner as an alternative to shaft kiln cement pro-
duction technology (Mikulcic et al., 2016), further reforming
the existing technologies, introducing international advanced
technologies (Price et al., 2009), etc. In doing so, this industry
can achieve energy conservation and raise energy efficiency.
Generally the level of energy consumption of China’s cement
industry was higher than that of some developed countries
(Department of Energy Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics
of PRC, 2012; Hasanbeigi et al., 2010a,b). Price et al. (2009)
reported that approximately 12% and 23% energy will be saved
by using advanced technologies at home and abroad. Further-
more, significant environmental benefit can be also attained.
More than 8.7%, 4.3%, and 10.2% of the total environmental
benefit for the respiratory inorganics, global warming and non-
renewable energy categories can be achieved by improving
energy recovery and energy efficiency (Chen et al., 2015).
(2) Promoting substitutions of raw materials and fuels. Due to
great dependence on mineral resources (especially limestone),
the exhaustion of these resources could hinder the sustainable
development of China’s cement industry in the future. Opti-
mum application of alternative materials (e.g., industrial waste
and industrial byproduct) is an efficient method to reduce the
potential environmental burden. Potential CO2 emission reduc-
tion and energy conservation by using alternative materials
(e.g., ash, calcium carbide residue) to reduce limestone con-
sumption have been widely investigated (Hasanbeigi et al.,
2012; Fairbairn et al., 2010). Hong and Li (2011) carried out
a research on a cement production system with sewage sludge
as one of alternative fuels. Josa et al. (2004) pointed out that
the energy consumption of cement production can be reduced
greatly by using maximum amounts of clinker alternatives,
i.e. GGBFS (Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag), fly ashes
and other cementitious or pozzolanic materials. Environmental
burdens can be also reduced by such substitutions. Meanwhile,
higher levels of technologies and increased shares of alterna-
tive fuels could also obtain lower emission levels and reduce
the consumption of nonrenewable energy sources.
(3) Raising the price of cement products. According to the study
result, the emergy received in terms of money cannot match the
environmental work employed for producing China’s cement.
Therefore, properly raising the price is helpful to conserve
mineral resources, and it can also collect fund for pollution pre-
vention and treatment and technological innovation for this
industry. This countermeasure needs the following two sup-
porting measures. Firstly, it is necessary for this industry to
compress its excess production capacity so as to avoid vicious
competition within the industry. This work should be carried
out with the supervision of China’s government so as to be
smoothly pushed forward. Secondary, the cement price should
include the cost of mineral resources consumption and environ-
mental protection, which still needs to be evaluated carefully in
the future. In doing so, the economic benefit of Chinese cement
industry could be improved; meanwhile, the pollution (espe-
cially air pollution), derived from this industry, will be well
controlled due to more environmental investment. And this is
helpful for the local governments to achieve goals of air emis-
sions reduction.
(4) Reducing cement export. Although cement export can bring
about economic benefit for China in the short period, this will
lead to quantities of net loss of wealth in terms of emergy and
the related secondary ecological and environmental problems
in the future. As a type of energy-intensive product, a large
amount of cement export has aggravated the exhaustion of
China’s mineral resources and fossil energy sources, and also
incurred the related air pollution (especially widely spreading
fog and haze weather in recent years.). Therefore, decreasing
cement export is useful to alleviate the potential environmental
burden. In 2012, the amount of cement export decreased to 9.24
million tons from 2009 (China Economic Information Network,
2013), which indicates that approximately 2.66E06 kg PM2.5
eq, 5.02E09 kg CO2 eq and 2.45E10 MJ primary energy were
reduced in the respiratory inorganics, global warming, and non-
renewable energy categories, respectively. China can further
reduce cement export in the future. To this end, China’s govern-
ment can take the following two measures, viz. cancelling the
export tax rebate and levying the higher environmental taxes
on cement export. The two measures can increase the cost of
those cement enterprises with cement export, and then impel
them to reduce or stop cement export and further enhance
technical and management levels. Although the economic out-
put of this industry may be influenced in the short period, the
serious situation of mineral resources exhaustion and air pol-
lution could be mitigated to some degree, which will benefit
local residents’ health and prolong service life of non renew-
able resources in the long run. Meanwhile, they can enhance
the competition ability of China’s cement industry in the future.
5. Conclusion
This work explored the environmental sustainability of China’s
cement industry using EmA. The main conclusions are summa-
rized as follows. (1) Formation of China’s cement products basically
depend on mineral resources inputs (especially limestone); (2) Coal
is the main energy source for this industry; (3) China’s cement
industry has relatively low yield rate; (4) Other industries benefit
this industry greatly by commodity exchanges; (5) China’s cement
industry cannot keep sustainable development in the long run due
to its high environmental load; (6) the unit emergy value of China’s
cement in 2010 is 3.64E15 sej/t (based on the emergy baseline
15.83E24 sej/yr).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Academic and technical leaders
training funds in Sichuan Province (03109102), the Dual Support
Plan of Sichuan Agricultural University (03570312, 03571248),
and the Key Project of the Research Program of Sichuan Province
(2014NZ0045).
References
Atmaca, A., Yumrutas, R., 2014. Analysis of the parameters affecting energy
consumption of a rotary kiln in cement industry. Appl. Therm. Eng. 66,
435–444.
Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N., 1996. Ethanol production from biomass: analysis of
process efficiency and sustainability. Biomass Bioenergy 11, 411–418.
 X. Zhang et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 452–458
Bastianoni, S., Pulselli, F.M., Castellini, C., Granai, C., Dal Bosco, A., Brunetti, M.,
2007. Emergy evaluation and the management of systems towards
sustainability: a response to Sholto Maud. Agriculture. Ecosyst. Environ. 120,
472–474.
Brown, M.T., Bardi, E., 2001. Folio #3. Emergy of Ecosystems. Handbook of Emergy
Evaluation. A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation. Center for
Environmental Policy. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 1999. Emergy evaluation of the biosphere and natural
capital. Ambio 28, 486–492.
Brown, M., Ulgiati, S., 2001. Emergy measures of carrying capacity to evaluate
economic investment. Popul. Environ. 22, 471–501.
Brown, M.T., Protano, G., Ulgiati, S., 2011. Assessing geobiosphere work of
generating global reserves of coal, crude oil, and natural gas. Ecol. Modell. 222,
879–887.
Brown, M.T., Raugei, M., Ulgiati, S., 2012. On boundaries and ‘investments’ in
Emergy Synthesis and LCA: A case study on thermal vs. photovoltaic
electricity. Ecol. Indic. 15, 227–235.
Buenfil, A.A., 2001. Emergy Evaluation of Water. University of Florida PhD
Dissertation, USA.
Buranakam, V., 1998. Evaluation of Recycling and Reuse of Building Materials Using
the Emergy Analysis Method. University of Florida PhD Dissertation, USA.
Camdali, U., Erisen, A., Celen, F., 2004. Energy and exergy analyses in a rotary
burner with pre-calcinations in cement production. Energy Convers. Manage.
45, 3017–3031.
Campbell, D.E., Brandt-Williams, S.L., Meisch, M.E.A., 2005. Environmental
Accounting Using Emergy: Evaluation of the State of West Virginia. United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Narragansett, RI, USA.
Campbell, D.E., Lu, H., Lin, B.-L., 2014. Emergy evaluations of the global
biogeochemical cycles of six biologically active elements and two compounds.
Ecol. Modell. 271, 32–51.
Cao, C., Feng, X., 2007. Distribution of emergy indices and its application. Energy
Fuels 21, 1717–1723.
Chen, W., Hong, J., Xu, C., 2015. Pollutants generated by cement production in
China, their impacts, and the potential for environmental improvement. J.
Clean. Prod. 103, 61–69.
China Cement Association, 2012. China Cement Almanac 2011. China Building
Material Industrial Press, Beijing, China, pp. 449–487 (in Chinese).
2013. China Economic Information Network, Cement Industry Analysis in China,
the Fourth Quarter of 2012, http://www.cei.gov.cn/d/search/highSearch.action
(in Chinese, accessed 12.10.2015).
Department of Energy Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics of PRC, 2012. China
Energy Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press, Beijing, China, pp. 2012 (in
Chinese).
Dietz, S., Neumayer, E., 2007. Weak and strong sustainability in the SSEA: concepts
and measurement. Ecol. Econ. 61, 617–626.
Fairbairn, E.M.R., Americano, B.B., Cordeiro, G.C., Paula, Y.P., Toledo Filho, R.D.,
Silvoso, M.M., 2010. Cement replacement by sugar cane bagasse ash: CO2
emissions reduction and potential for carbon credits. J. Environ. Manage. 91,
1864–1871.
Galvez-Martos, J.-L., Schoenberger, H., 2014. An analysis of the use of life cycle
assessment for waste co-incineration in cement kilns. Resources. Conserv.
Recycl. 86, 118–131.
Gao, T., Shen, L., Shen, M., Liu, L., Chen, F., 2016. Analysis of material flow and
consumption in cement production Process. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 553–565.
García-Gusano, D., Cabal, H., Lechon, Y., 2015. Long-term behaviour of CO2
emissions from cement production in Spain: scenario analysis using an energy
optimization model. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 101–111.
Global Cement, 2013. Top 75 Global Cement Companies, http://www.
globalcement. com/magazine/articles/822-top-75-
global cement%20companies. (accessed: 01.20.15.).
Hasanbeigi, A., Menke, C., Therdyothin, A., 2010a. The use of conservation supply
curves in energy policy and economic analysis: the case study of Thai cement
industry. Energy Policy 38, 392–405.
Hasanbeigi, A., Price, L., Lu, H., Lan, W., 2010b. Analysis of energy-efficiency
opportunities for the cement industry in Shandong Province, China: a case
study of 16 cement plants. Energy 35, 3461–3473.
Hasanbeigi, A., Morrow, W., Masanet, E., Sathaye, J., Xu, T., 2012. Assessment of
Energy Efficiency Improvement and CO2 Emission Reduction Potentials in the
Cement Industry in China. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley,
CA.
Haukoos, D.S., 1995. Sustainable Architecture and Its Relationship to Industrial
Building. University of Florida Master thesis, USA.
Hong, J., Li, X., 2011. Environmental assessment of sewage sludge as secondary raw
material in cement production −a case study in China. Waste Manage. 31,
1364–1371.
Hu, H., Zhang, X.H., Lin, L.L., 2014. The interactions between China’s economic
growth, energy production and consumption and the related air emissions
during 2000–2011. Ecol. Indic. 46, 38–51.
Hu, D., Guo, Z., Wang, Z., Xiao, Q., 2015. Metabolism analysis and
eco-environmental impact assessment of two typical cement production
systems in Chinese enterprises. Ecol. Inf. 26, 70–77.
Huntzinger, D.N., Eatmon, T.D., 2009. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement
manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative
technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 668–675.
Jiang, R., Wang, H.T., 2010. Life-cycle assessment of Chinese cement industry.
Chem. Eng. Equip. 4, 183–187 (in Chinese).
457
Jiang, X.Q., Kang, Y.B., Liu, Q., Zhao, M., 2012. Analysis on carbon dioxide emission
trend and reduction path of cement industry in China in 2020. Energy Environ.
34 (17–21), 36 (in Chinese).
Jorgensen, S.E., Odum, H.T., Brown, M.T., 2004. Emergy and exergy stored in
genetic information. Ecol. Model. 178, 11–16.
Josa, A., Aguado, A., Heino, A., Byars, E., Cardim, A., 2004. Comparative analysis of
available life cycle inventories of cement in the EU. Cem. Concr. Res. 34,
1313–1320.
Lan, S.F., Qin, P., Lu, H.F., 2002. Emergy Synthesis of Ecological Economic Systems.
Chemical Industry Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).
Lei, Y., Zhang, Q., Nielsen, C., He, K., 2011. An inventory of primary air pollutants
and CO2 emissions from cement production in China, 1990–2020. Atmos.
Environ. 45, 147–154.
Li, D., Zhu, J., Hui, E.C.M., Leung, B.Y.P., Li, Q., 2011a. An emergy analysis-based
methodology for eco-efficiency evaluation of building manufacturing. Ecol.
Indic. 11, 1419–1425.
Li, L., Lu, H., Ren, H., Kang, W., Chen, F., 2011b. Emergy evaluations of three
aquaculture systems on wetlands surrounding the Pearl River Estuary, China.
Ecol. Indic. 11, 526–534.
Li, J., Tharakan, P., Macdonald, D., Liang, X., 2013. Technological, economic and
financial prospects of carbon dioxide capture in the cement industry. Energy
Policy 61, 1377–1387.
Liu, Z., Geng, Y., Wang, H., Sun, L., Ma, Z., Tian, X., Yu, X., 2015. Emergy-based
comparative analysis of energy intensity in different industrial systems.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 18687–18698.
Lou, B., Ulgiati, S., 2013. Identifying the environmental support and constraints to
the Chinese economic growth—an application of the emergy accounting
method. Energy Policy 55, 217–233.
Lu, H., Campbell, D.E., 2009. Ecological and economic dynamics of the Shunde
agricultural system under China’s small city development strategy. J. Environ.
Manage. 90, 2589–2600.
Lu, H., Bai, Y., Ren, H., Campbell, D.E., 2010. Integrated emergy, energy and
economic evaluation of rice and vegetable production systems in alluvial
paddy fields: implications for agricultural policy in China. J. Environ. Manage.
91, 2727–2735.
Lu, H., Lin, B.-L., Campbell, D.E., Sagisaka, M., Ren, H., 2012. Biofuel vs.
biodiversity?: Integrated emergy and economic cost-benefit evaluation of
rice-ethanol production in Japan. Energy 46, 442–450.
Mandal, S.K., 2010. Do undesirable output and environmental regulation matter in
energy efficiency analysis? Evidence from Indian Cement Industry. Energy
Policy 38, 6076–6083.
Mao, Z.W., Yang, R.S., Gan, H., 2012. Study on denitrification technology in cement
kiln. China Cem. 5, 56–58 (in Chinese).
Mikulcic, H., Cabezas, H., Vujanovic, M., Duic, N., 2016. Environmental assessment
of different cement manufacturing processes based on Emergy and Ecological
Footprint analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 130, 213–221.
Ministry of Environmental Protection of, P.R.C., 2010. Bulletin on the
Environmental Condition of China in 2009, Available site: http://www.gov.cn/
gzdt/2010-06/04/content 1620569. htm (in Chinese) (accessed 12.24.15.).
Nadal, M., Schuhmacher, M., Domingo, J.L., 2009. Costebenefit analysis of using
sewage sludge as alternative fuel in a cement plant: a case study. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 16, 322–328.
National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2003. China Statistical Yearbook 2002,
Available site: http://www.stats.gov.cn/yearbook2001/indexC.htm (in Chinese,
accessed 2015.08.20).
National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2013. China Statistical Yearbook 2012,
Available site: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2012/indexch.htm (in
Chinese, accessed 2015.08.20).
Odum, H.T., Brown, M.T., Williams, S.B., 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation:A
Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of Folios. Folio
No. 1-Introduction and Global Budget. Center for Environmental Policy,
Environmental Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, USA, pp.16.
Available site: http://www.emergysystems.org/folios.php (accessed 12.18.14.).
Odum, H.T., 1988. Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science 242,
1132–1139.
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting Emergy and Environmental Decision
Making. Wiley, New York, NJ, USA.
Odum, H.T., 2000. Emergy of Global Processes. Folio #2: Handbook of Emergy
Evaluation: A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series
of Folios. Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL., USA, pp. 28. Available site: www.emergysystems.org/folios.php (accessed
08.05.14.).
Pan, H., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Qi, Y., Wu, J., Lin, L., Peng, H., Qi, H., Yu, X., Zhang, Y.,
2016a. Emergy evaluation of an industrial park in Sichuan Province, China: a
modified emergy approach and its application. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 105–118.
Pan, H., Zhang, X., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., Lin, L., Yang, G., Deng, S., Li, L., Yu, X., Qi, H.,
Peng, H., 2016b. Sustainability evaluation of a steel production system in China
based on emergy. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1498–1509.
Pang, J., Shi, Y.C., Feng, X.Z., Liu, J., Sun, W.L., 2013. Analysis on impacts and
coabatement effects of implementing the low carbon cement standard.
Progress. Inquisit. Mutat. Clim. 9, 275–283 (in Chinese).
Price, L., Hasanbeigi, A., Lu, H.Y., Wang, L., 2009. Analysis of Energy-efficiency
Opportunities for the Cement Industry in Shandong Province China. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
458 X. Zhang et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 452–458
Pulselli, R.M., Simoncini, E., Pulselli, F.M., Bastianoni, S., 2007. Emergy analysis of
building manufacturing, maintenance and use: embuilding indices to evaluate
housing sustainability. Energy Build. 39, 620–628.
Pulselli, R.M., Simoncini, E., Ridolfi, R., Bastianoni, S., 2008a. Specific emergy of
cement and concrete: an energy-based appraisal of building materials and
their transport. Ecol. Indic. 8, 647–656.
Pulselli, R.M., Pulselli, F.M., Rustici, M., 2008b. Emergy accounting of the province
of Siena: towards a thermodynamic geography for regional studies. J. Environ.
Manage. 86, 342–353.
Reza, B., Soltani, A., Ruparathna, R., Sadiq, R., Hewage, K., 2013. Environmental and
economic aspects of production and utilization of RDF as alternative fuel in
cement plants: a case study of MetroVancouver Waste Management.
Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 81, 105–114.
Roudebush, W.H., 1992. Environmental Value Engineering (EVE): A System for
Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Building Environment Alternatives.
University of Florida PhD Dissertation, USA.
Sayagh, S., Ventura, A., Hoang, T., Franç ois, D., Jullien, A., 2010. Sensitivity of the
LCA allocationprocedure for BFS recycled into pavement structures. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 54, 348–358.
Scrivener, K.L., Kirkpatrick, R.J., 2008. Innovation in use and research on
cementitious material. Cem. Concr. Res. 38, 128–136.
Sina Blog, 2012. The average exchange rate of RMB to US$ from 1952-2011,
Available site: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog 9993c39d01011qjg.html (in
Chinese), (accessed: 09.14.13.).
Sui, X., Zhang, Y., Shao, S., Zhang, S., 2014. Exergetic life cycle assessment of cement
production process with waste heat power generation. Energy Convers.
Manage. 88, 684–692.
Ulgiati, S., Brown, M.T., 2002. Quantifying the environmental support for dilution
and abatement of process emissions: the case of electricity production. J.
Clean. Prod. 10, 335–348.
Ulgiati, S., Ascione, M., Zucaro, A., Campanell, L., 2011. Emergy-based complexity
measures in natural and social systems. Ecol. Indic. 11, 1185–1190.
Utlu, Z., Sogut, Z., Hepbasli, A., Oktay, Z., 2006. Energy and exergy analyses of a raw
mill in a cement production. Appl. Therm. Eng. 26, 2479–2489.
Uwasu, M., Hara, K., Yabar, H., 2014. World cement production and environmental
implications. Environ. Dev. 10, 36–47.
Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J.L., Gasol, C.M., Guillem, M., Josa, A., 2012.
Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: a
life-cycle assessment study. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 60–67.
Van Oss, H.G., Padovani, A.C., 2002. Cement manufacture and the environment,
part 1: chemistry and technology. J. Ind. Ecol. 6, 89–105.
Van Oss, H.G., Padovani, A.C., 2003. Cement manufacture and the environment,
part II: environmental challenges and opportunities. J. Ind. Ecol. 7, 93–127.
Vargas, J., Halog, A., 2015. Effective carbon emission reductions from using
upgraded fly ash in the cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 948–959.
Wang, H., Xu, J., Yang, X., Miao, Z., Yu, C., 2015. Organic Rankine cycle saves energy
and reduces gas emissions for cement production. Energy 86, 59–73.
Wang, W., Jiang, D., Chen, D., Chen, Z., Zhou, W., Zhu, B., 2016. A Material Flow
Analysis (MFA)-based potential analysis of eco-efficiency indicators of China’s
cement and cement-based materials industry. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 787–796.
Wang, X.S., 2013. Magnetic properties and heavy metal pollution of soils in the
vicinity of a cement plant, Xuzhou (China). J. Appl. Geophys. 98, 73–78.
Wen, Z., Chen, M., Meng, F., 2015. Evaluation of energy saving potential in China’s
cement industry using the Asian-Pacific Integrated Model and the technology
promotion policy analysis. Energy Policy 77, 227–237.
Woodward, R., Duffy, N., 2011. Cement and concrete flow analysis in a rapidly
expanding economy: ireland as a case study. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 55,
448–455.
Xu, J.-H., Fleiter, T., Eichhammer, W., Fan, Y., 2012. Energy consumptionandCO2
emissions inChina’scement industry: a perspective from LMDI decomposition
analysis. Energy Policy 50, 821–832.
Xu, X.N., 2013. Life Cycle Assessment of Cement in China. Dalian University of
Technology Master Degree Thesis (in Chinese).
Zeng, X., Lu, H., Campbell, D.E., Ren, H., 2013. Integrated emergy and economic
evaluation of tea production chains in Anxi, China. Ecol. Eng. 60, 354–362.
Zhang, X.H., Jiang, W.J., Deng, S.H., Peng, K., 2009. Emergy evaluation of the
sustainability of Chinese steel production during 1998–2004. J. Clean. Prod. 17,
1030–1038.
Zhang, Y., Yang, Z.F., Liu, G.Y., Yu, X.Y., 2011. Emergy analysis of the urban
metabolism of Beijing. Ecol. Modell. 222, 2377–2384.
Zhang, X.-H., Hu, H., Han, J., Deng, S.-H., Xiao, H., Peng, H., Li, Y.-W., Shen, F., Yang,
X.-Y., Wu, J., Zhang, Y.-Z., Qi, H., 2012. Several novel indicators being applied to
analyze the relationships between Chinese economic growth, energy
consumption and its impact of emissions. Ecol. Indic. 15 (1), 52–62.
Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Qi, Y., Wu, J., Liao, W., Shui, W., Zhang, Y., Deng, S., Peng, H., Yu,
X., Qi, H., 2016. Evaluating the trends of China’s ecological civilization
construction using a novel indicator system. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 910–923.
Zucaro, A., Ripa, M., Mellino, S., Ascione, M., Ulgiati, S., 2014. Urban resource use
and environmental performance indicators: an application of decomposition
analysis. Ecol. Indic. 47, 16–25.