Ohiou1225820445 PDF

Sustainable Design and Operation of the Cement Industry
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Hakob G. Avetisyan
November 2008
2009 Hakob G. Avetisyan. All Rights Reserved.

2
This thesis titled
Sustainable Design and Operation of the Cement Industry
by
HAKOB G. AVETISYAN
has been approved for
the Department of Civil Engineering
and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by
Ben J. Stuart
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
Dennis Irwin
Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

3
ABSTRACT
AVETISYAN, HAKOB G., M.S., November 2008, Civil Engineering
Sustainable Design and Operation of the Cement Industry (507 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Ben J. Stuart
The world consumption of cement is rising at an increasing rate creating
significant levels of pollution. Therefore, cement production is considered one of the
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
on whether to implement sustainability practices in projects. The research focuses on
methods of material and energy balance calculations and the economic analysis of the
cement production, using the economic-mathematical model of Life Cycle-Cost analysis
(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
calculates the optimal production of cement that provides minimum LCC.
Approved: _____________________________________________________________
Ben J. Stuart
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering

4
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
for providing me with cement data.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 12
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 14
1. Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................... 16
1.1 Chapter Organization ...................................................................................... 17
1.2 Purpose of the Research .................................................................................. 17
1.3 Scope of the Research ..................................................................................... 18
1.4 Objectives of the Research.............................................................................. 19
1.5 Research Justification ..................................................................................... 20
1.6 Order of Research Chapters ............................................................................ 21
2. Chapter Two: Problem Definition .............................................................................. 22
2.2 Background ..................................................................................................... 22
2.3 Importance of this Research............................................................................ 23
2.4 Driving Forces ................................................................................................ 23
2.5 Benefits of the Research ................................................................................. 24
3. Chapter Three: Methodology ...................................................................................... 26
3.2 Specific Focus Areas....................................................................................... 26

6
3.3 Phases of the Research .................................................................................... 26
Phase One: ........................................................................................................................ 26
Phase Two: ........................................................................................................................ 27
Phase Three: ...................................................................................................................... 27
Phase Four:........................................................................................................................ 28
Phase Five: ........................................................................................................................ 28
Phase Six: .......................................................................................................................... 28
Phase Seven: ..................................................................................................................... 28
Phase Eight: ...................................................................................................................... 28
Phase Nine: ....................................................................................................................... 29
Phase Ten: ......................................................................................................................... 29
Phase Eleven: .................................................................................................................... 29
Phase Twelve: ................................................................................................................... 30
Phase Thirteen: .................................................................................................................. 30
Phase Fourteen: ................................................................................................................. 30
Phase Fifteen: .................................................................................................................... 30
Phase Sixteen: ................................................................................................................... 30
Phase Seventeen: ............................................................................................................... 30
Phase Eighteen: ................................................................................................................. 30
Phase Nineteen: ................................................................................................................. 30
4. Chapter Four: Literature Review ................................................................................ 31

7
4.2 Sustainability Reporting ................................................................................. 32
4.3 Pollution and Waste Management .................................................................. 35
4.4 Energy and Material Efficiency ...................................................................... 41
4.5 Economic Considerations ............................................................................... 45
4.6 Energy and Material Balance .......................................................................... 50
5. Chapter Five: Sustainable Design and Operation ....................................................... 55
5.2 Sustainable Design and Operation .................................................................. 55
5.2.1 Environmental Footprint of Cement Industry ............................. 57
5.2.2 Environmental Impact of Production Operations ........................ 58
5.2.3 Less Toxicity in Pollution or Generate Less Pollution................ 61
5.2.4 Social and Community Impact of Cement Industry .................... 65
5.2.5 Resource Efficiency .................................................................... 67
5.2.6 Produce Less Waste..................................................................... 72
5.2.7 Sustainable Practices and Why They are Implemented in the
Cement Industry. .................................................................................. 75
5.2.8 Government Requirements .......................................................... 85
5.2.9 Environmental Considerations. ................................................... 90
5.2.10 Carbon Footprint (CF) ............................................................... 96
5.3 Economic Situation in the Cement Industry ................................................... 98
5.3.1 Cement Consumption ................................................................ 100
5.3.2 Filling the Gap between Production and Consumption............. 102

8
5.4 Economic-Mathematical Models .................................................................. 104
5.5 General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS)............................................. 107
5.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 107
5.5.2 Structure of the GAMS.............................................................. 108
5.5.3 Data Entry.................................................................................. 109
5.5.4 Variables .................................................................................... 110
5.5.5 Equations ................................................................................... 111
6. Chapter Six: Methods for Energy and Material Balance .......................................... 112
6.1 Chapter Organization .................................................................................... 112
6.2 Energy Conservation ..................................................................................... 112
6.3 Cement Manufacturing: Dry and Wet Processes .......................................... 117
6.3.1 Types of Portland Cement ......................................................... 117
6.3.2 Cement Manufacturing .............................................................. 118
6.3.3 Dry Process................................................................................ 121
6.3.4 Wet Process ............................................................................... 121
6.3.5 Semi-wet/Semi-dry Process ...................................................... 123
6.4 Process Energy and Material Balance........................................................... 123
6.4.1 Bogue Calculations.................................................................... 126
6.4.2 Worked Example of a Bogue Calculation: ................................ 126
7. Chapter Seven: Economic Analysis .......................................................................... 137
7.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis .............................................................................. 137

9
7.2.1 Cement Demand Constraint ...................................................... 139
7.2.2 Input Constraint ......................................................................... 140
7.2.3 Energy Constraint ...................................................................... 140
7.2.4 Emissions Constraint ................................................................. 141
7.2.5 Capacity and Import Constraints ............................................... 141
7.3 Data for Case Studies .................................................................................... 142
8. Chapter Eight: Results of THE Economic Analysis ................................................. 168
8.2 Results ........................................................................................................... 168
8.2.1 Case Study I............................................................................... 168
8.2.2 Case Study II (Alternative I) ..................................................... 177
8.2.3 Case Study III (Alternative II)................................................... 184
9. Chapter Nine: Conclusions and Recomendations ..................................................... 191
9.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 191
References: ...................................................................................................................... 196
Appendices:..................................................................................................................... 204
A. Appendix A. Abbreviations ................................................................ 204
B. Appendix B. Definitions..................................................................... 205
B.1 Sustainable Development ............................................................ 205
B.2 Corporate Sustainability .............................................................. 205
B.3 Triple Bottom Line ...................................................................... 205

10
B.4 CSR Corporate Social Responsibility ....................................... 205
B.5 DJGSI Dow Jones Global Sustainability Index ........................ 206
B.6 SRI Social Responsibility Investment ...................................... 206
B.7 LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ......... 206
B.8 ISO International Standardization Organization ...................... 206
B.9 CIOB Chartered Institute of Building....................................... 207
B.10 GRI Global Reporting Initiative ............................................. 207
B.11 IE Industrial Ecology .............................................................. 207
B.12 LEDO Lebanese Environment and Department Observatory 207
B.13 IFEN French Institute for Environment .................................. 207
B.14 LCC Life-Cycle Cost .............................................................. 208
B.15 TCO Total Cost of Ownership ................................................ 208
B.16 CF Carbon Footprint ............................................................... 208
Glossary .............................................................................................. 209
C. Appendix C. Life Cycle Cost Analysis .............................................. 211
Computer Code for Economic-Mathematical Model of Life Cycle Cost
analysis ............................................................................................... 211
D. Appendix D. Energy and Material Balance........................................ 221
D.1 Alite: ............................................................................................ 221
D.2 Belite: .......................................................................................... 221
D.3 Tricalcium Aluminate:................................................................. 221
D.4 Tetracalcium Aluminoferrite: ...................................................... 221

11
E. Appendix E. Cement Data .................................................................. 225
F. Appendix F. Output of Case Study Analysis ..................................... 229
Case Study I (number of production lines is 5) .................................. 229
Case Study II (number of production lines is 4) ................................ 322
Case Study III (number of production lines is 3) ............................... 415

12
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.1 Cement Production for Six Countries ............................................................... 39

Table 4.2 Noise Levels for Five General Phases in Construction .................................... 40
Table 4.3 Environmental Impacts of Construction ........................................................... 41
Table 4.4 World Cement Production and Capacity (Data in thousand metric tons) ....... 47
Table 4.5 Salient Statistics - United States (Data in thousand metric tons) ..................... 50
Table 4.6 Mass and Energy Balance ................................................................................ 54
Table 6.1 Energy Use Reduction from 2002 to 2010 ...................................................... 116
Table 6.2 Data from Clinker Analysis ............................................................................ 126
Table 6.3 Mass Balance of the Raw Mill ........................................................................ 128
Table 6.4 Mass and Energy Balance .............................................................................. 129
Table 6.5 Energy Balance for Maihar CementUnit 2, Madhya Pradesh, India ......... 135
Table 7.1 Carbon Dioxide Cap by Clean Air Act and Clear Skies Act .......................... 146
Table 7.2 Cement Production for 2009-2020 ................................................................. 151
Table 7.3 Calculated CO2 Emissions for Case Study ..................................................... 152
Table 7.4 Production Line Capacities ............................................................................ 152
Table 7.5 Capital Cost and Total Capacity .................................................................... 153
Table 7.6 5% Increase of Cement Demand .................................................................... 153
Table 7.7 Calculated Material Proportion for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement
......................................................................................................................................... 154
......................................................................................................................................... 154
Table 7.9 Calculated Energy Use for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement ....... 156
Table 7.10 Calculated Emissions from Production of One Ton of Portland Cement..... 156
Table 7.11 Raw Materials with 20% Increase ................................................................ 158
Table 7.12 Raw Materials with 20% Increase ................................................................ 159
Table 7.13 Calculated Energy with 20% Increase ......................................................... 159
Table 7.14 Calculated Emission Limits for Hypothetical Plant ..................................... 160
13
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
Table D.1 Enthalpy Balance of the Raw Mill ................................................................. 222

Table D.2 Entropy Balance of Raw Mill......................................................................... 222
Table D.3 Exergy Balance in the Raw Mill .................................................................... 222
14
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
Figure D.1 Notation for Cement Content 221

Figure D.2 Flowchart for Clinker Product Calculation... 223
Figure D.3 Flowchart Showing the Principles of Mass Balance. 223
Figure D.4 Schematic of the Maihar Cement Plant. 224
Figure E.1 Status of 15 Canadian Cement Plants in 2006... 225

Figure E.2 Status of 15 Canadian Cement Plants in 2005 and 2007... 226
Figure E.3 Consumption of Portland Cement in the United States. 227
Figure E.4 United States Cement and Clinker Imports by Country of Origin.228
16
1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
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
Commission on Environment and Development, 1986) and Corporate Sustainability has
been defined as a business approach that creates long-term shareholder value by
embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental, and
social developments (International Foundation for Sustainable and Harmonious Earth,
2001). The Triple Bottom Line - economic, environmental, and social values, in design
and construction includes approaches such as: Design for the Environment, Context
Sensitive Designs, Value Engineering, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, and Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification for projects. Sustainable
construction techniques include implementing a sustainable design, meeting or exceeding
sustainable design standards, developing methods to minimize and reuse construction
waste and spoils, optimizing asset efficiency, and pursuing the highest level of LEED
certification possible (Carnegie Mellon, 2004).
Using sustainability practices in cement production could benefit projects,
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
transportation stage, or that could be recycled, or in fuel choice. Sustainability practices
are helping to reduce energy consumption during construction and operation or the use of
renewable energy alternative technologies during the construction and operation of

17
projects. In the area of waste management sustainability considerations include
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
its useful life.
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
justification, and the order of research chapters.
1.1 Chapter Organization
This chapter includes:
1. Purpose of the Research
2. Scope of the Research
3. Objectives of the Research
4. Research Justification
5. Order of Research Chapters
1.2 Purpose of the Research
The main purpose of this research is investigation of existing research and
projects that address sustainability practices to determine the applicability of the
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
of sustainable practices on cement production, such as recommendations and the
economic-mathematical model for LCC analysis.
The research is conducted in order to:
1. Provide information on sustainability practices to cement producing
companies so thay may make more informed decisions on whether to
implement sustainable practices on projects.
2. Provide information on economic impact of implementing sustainable
practices during the operation of cement facilities.
3. Determine the social and environmental benefits of implementing
sustainable practices.
1.3 Scope of the Research
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
will be limited to: construction of cement producing facilities, technological operations in
cement production and Life Cycle-Cost analysis. The economic-mathematical model is
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
but also in foreign countries.
The research concentrates on the sustainability issues related to the operation of
cement facilities.
1.4 Objectives of the Research
The objectives of the research are investigation of sustainability as it relates to
cement production in order to provide members of scientific and industrial communities
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
they will have a positive impact on sustainable development of firms, reputation
management, and on the environment. A list of sustainable practices related to cement
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
production using the economic-mathematical model of Life Cycle-Cost analysis (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 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
development of plants, as they indicate the amount of cement necessary to produce by
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
the cement industry.
1.5 Research Justification
In large-scale construction projects sustainability practices need to be investigated
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
conducted in order to provide information to members of the cement industry on how to
make more informed decisions on whether to implement sustainable practices on
projects, and how to determine the economic impact of implementing sustainable
practices.
The research is unique, since it addresses cement industry as a part of industrial
construction projects, and previous research does not provide complete information
combined in one study. This research will investigate projects to determine strategies that
could improve the sustainability practices on cement industry.

21
1.6 Order of Research Chapters
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
recommendations, References, Appendices. Appendices A and B include abbreviations
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
analysis of case studies.

22
2. CHAPTER TWO: PROBLEM DEFINITION
1. Background
2. Importance of this Research
3. Driving Forces
4. Benefits of the Research
2.2 Background
The implementation of sustainability practices is a subject that is of interest to
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
cement industry to make more informed decisions on whether to implement sustainable
practices on projects, to determine the economic impact of implementing sustainable
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
operation in this area.
Construction projects, especially in the area of industrial construction, contain
various activities that are larger in scale in comparison to building construction.
Accordingly the environmental, economic and social impacts from the mistakes or from
23
inappropriate design of those structures or construction processes and operation will be
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.
2.3 Importance of this Research
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
them to make more informed decisions on whether to implement sustainability practices
in construction projects and to be able to determine the economic effects of implementing
sustainable practices on projects. The research focuses on material and energy balances
and the economic analysis of the cement production using the economic-mathematical
model of Life Cycle-Cost analysis.
2.4 Driving Forces
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
Sustainability Index (DJGSI), which is driving the application of sustainability practices

24
in Social Responsibility Investment (SRI) communities (Andre Habisch, 2005, p. 293-
294). The ability of a firm to secure investments, or receive preferential treatment on
bids, could be affected by environmental and social credibility.
2.5 Benefits of the Research
The use of sustainability practices in cement production could benefit projects,
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
transportation stage, or that could be recycled, or in fuel choice. Sustainability practices
are helping to reduce energy consumption during construction and operation or the use of
renewable energy alternative technologies during the construction and operation of
projects. In the area of waste management sustainability considerations include
producing less waste and 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 mentioned above, the objectives of this research are to investigate
sustainability practices used in the design and operation of cement producing facilities in
order to provide members of scientific and industrial communities with current
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
information to members of the cement industry on why industrial sustainability practices

25
are being implemented on projects and also provide tools, which can be used by
engineers in their decision making processes regarding the implementation of sustainable
practices on projects. The research is being conducted in order to provide information on
sustainability practices to cement producing companies, determine the social and
environmental benefits of implementing sustainable practices, and provide economic
tools for decision making process.

26
3. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
1. Specific Focus Areas
2. Phases of the Research
3.2 Specific Focus Areas
The specific focus areas that are investigated during the research project are the
following:
a) Environmental footprint of cement industry
b) Environmental impact of production operations
c) Social and community impact of cement industry
d) Resource efficiency
e) Energy balance
f) Material balance
g) Produce less waste
h) Less toxicity in pollution or generate less pollution.
3.3 Phases of the Research
In order to accomplish the goals of the research the following phases are
performed:
Phase One:
A literature review
A literature review is conducted through the following steps:
Locating information about cement production.

27
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.
Use information from existing sustainability practices as examples of
incentives for encouraging wider use of already used sustainable practices
on future projects.
Phase Two:
Information is collected and methods on energy balance in cement
production are analyzed.
From dfferent types of energy balances the most appropriate one
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
product from input materials. This is also considered as an indication of
the process efficiency used in manufacturing of cement from input
materials. It compares unit of input energy, which is used to process the
raw material, with the units that are efficiently used for the production of
the final product.
Phase Three:
Information is collected and methods on material balance in cement
production are analyzed. It is usually recommended to study the material
balance in cement industry together with the energy balance, since those
are closely related to each other.

28
Phase Four:
The industrial sustainability practices used in other countries for cement
production are analyzed. Key approach for sustainability in cement
industry is the appropriate selection of the plant type, such as dry or wet
production. This depends on geological area, where plant should operate.
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
long run it is efficient to have a plant that operates based on dry
technology.
Phase Five:
All of the data collected in Phases 1-4 are analyzed to determine, which
sustainability practices are applicable to the cement production industry
and recommendations are developed for implementation of those
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,
since it helps them to calculate the cement production of each unit by
satisfying resource and other constraints and maintaining minimum LCC.
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
construction of cement plant, providing information for the number of
kilns necessary to achieve minimum possible LCC over a given period of
time.
Phase Ten:
Data are analyzed and the information collected is organized into specific
focus areas. The focus areas include:
Energy balance - practices to increase energy efficiency in the cement
production.
Material balance - evaluation techniques for sustainable materials - life
cycle cost savings, labeling systems for energy requirements for producing
materials, and recycling potential.
Sustainable practices and why they are implemented in the cement
industry.
Government requirements/regulations.
Environmental considerations.
Carbon Footprint (CP).
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
4. CHAPTER FOUR: LITERATURE REVIEW
This section provides the summary of current literature addressing sustainability
practices in the cement industry.
The chapter includes:
1. Sustainability Reporting: (Environmental footprint of cement industry, Social and
community impact of projects).
2. Pollution and Waste Management: (Environmental impact of production
operations, Produce less waste, Less toxicity in pollution or generate less
pollution, Reduce noise and spatial pollution).
3. Energy and Material Efficiency: (Resource efficiency - Reduce energy
consumption during construction).
4. Economic Considerations: (Sustainable design, Material cradle to grave
ecological costs (Materials - reuse or recycle, reduce energy use during
manufacturing and transporting) after the effects of not considering sustainability
during construction long-term effects).
5. Energy and Material Balance: (Energy balance, Material balance).
There are a number of sources that provide information about sustainable practices
for building construction, including the ones that were published by the Chartered
Institute of Building (CIOB) Sustainability and the Construction Industry-United
Kingdom, (CIOB, 2004), the U.S. Green Building Council (http://www.usgbc.org/), and
the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Performance of Building

32
Guidelines (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/). Some of the results from their research
are presented in the next sections.
4.2 Sustainability Reporting
Sustainability reporting is a method of determining, making publicly available
and being fully responsible for organizational performance of sustainable development
(Global Reporting Initiative, 2006c).
The benefits of a company from sustainability reporting are better financial
performance, enhanced stakeholder relationships, improved risk management, as well as
improved investor relations as mentioned by KPMG (Klynveld, Peat, Marwick,
Goerdeler (KPMG), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), 2006).
These important approaches could be applied in industrial construction area,
particularly in cement producing facilities. Some of the cement producing facilities use
similar approaches. There are also many companies, which produce cement, and already
have sustainability reporting practices. Sustainability Reporting is performed on a
voluntary basis. Sustainability Reporting is a reporting system on environmental
performance or on a broader range of sustainability issues. It helps companies to quantify
current impacts, formulate targets for development, and communicate with customers,
communities, governments, financial markets, and other stakeholders about sustainability
issues (Andrews and Slater, 2002, p. 86). Many of these reports are formulated according
to the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines presented by the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI) and released in June of 2000 (Andrews and Slater, 2002, p. 86). According to
Andrews and Slater, sustainability reporting should be part of a long-term commitment

33
that incorporates sustainability processes. Many of the companies that are actively
engaged in sustainability reporting have many years of experience in environmental
reporting (Andrews and Slater, 2002, p. 86).
According to Howard Klee and World Business Council for Sustainable
Development in Switzerland, 11 cement producing companies have spent large amounts
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
(Mexico), Cimpor (Portugal), Heidelberg Cement (Germany), Holcim (Switzerland),
Italcementi (Italy), Lafarge (France), RMC (UK), Siam Cement (Thailand), Taiheiyo
(Japan), Votorantim (Brazil), Titan (Greece) (Howard Klee and World Business Council
for Sustainable Development in Switzerland, 2007). The aforementioned cement
companies are producing approximately 33% of the cement in the world. The research
project was focused on (Klee and WBCSD, 2007):
Resource productivity improved by more efficient practices in mining,
use of energy, recycle and reuse of manufacturing wastes.
Climate protection management of CO2 abatement, reduction of dust
from quarry processes, SOx and NOx, as well as other pollutants.

34
Ecological stewardship is dealing with resource conservation, quarry
management and closure.
Employee well being consideration to employee occupational health and
safety issues.
Community well-being development of better exchange of ideas and
engagement practices in neighboring areas (World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2002, p. 4-5).
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
numerous environmental or social reports (Andrews and Slater, 2002, p. 89).
Sustainability reporting, as mentioned previously by Andrews and Slater, is performed by
companies as a response to stakeholder concerns, and it is a part of strategy that includes
adopting sustainable business practices, or developing business practices that are
integrated with environmental management (Andrews and Slater, 2002, p. 89).
A study called Developing a Framework for Sustainable Development Indicators
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
stakeholder involvement. The indicators developed within the framework of having a
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
cross-comparisons (Azapagic, 2004). From the viewpoint of cement industry members,
mining is one of the areas that supply materials used as filler for cement and energy
sources, such as coal, necessary for cement production.
4.3 Pollution and Waste Management
According to Worrell et al. (2001), the cement industry contributes approximately
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
strategies, discussed in Worrell et al., incorporate improvement of energy efficiency, new
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
conserving energy (Worrell et al., 2001).
As mentioned by Arikan, if CO2 emissions frozen by EC and USA equal to the
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
in market (Arikan, 2004).
As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the market share of low-clinker cement is increasing
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).
Source: Arikan, 2004, Building and Environment, vol. 39

Figure 4.1 Prediction of Emissions and Expected Market Share of Low-Clinker Cement.
37
The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) in their report on Sustainability and
Construction states that as a first step all members of the construction industry, who
wish to move toward sustainability as a business opportunity, must consider their
operations in the following four key areas (CIOB, 2004, p. 2):
Energy: Reduce energy consumption, be more energy efficient and use

renewable energy as well as alternative technologies.
Materials: Choose, use, re-use and/or recycle materials during the design,
manufacture, construction or maintenance of a structure.
Waste: Produce as little waste as possible and recycle more.
Pollution: Produce less toxic materials to reduce water and spatial pollution.
Sustainable industrial ecology is another area being explored by members of the
manufacturing, construction, and processing industries. Optimal resource consumption is
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
review of environmental management practices in the area of mining and minerals
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
cement industry, and sustainability practices should be incorporated into construction
projects during the planning stage, including the selection of more environmentally
friendly materials and technologies, the use of construction processes that utilize less
toxic materials, consume less energy and produce less waste.
Cement is being used in all types of construction projects, and, as mentioned by
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
by the cement industry (Basu and van Zyl, 2006).
The Ministry of Environment/LEDO (Lebanese Environment and Development
Observatory) in Lebanon prepared the Lebanon State of the Environment Report,
which presents a table that calibrated data on cement production for the cement industry
in six countries (Lebanon State of the Environment Report, 2001).
Table 4.1 shows the production, consumption, and average prices for cement in
six Middle Eastern countries.

39
Table 4.1 Cement Production for Six Countries
Cement Production for Six Countries
Source: Lebanon State of the Environment Report, 2001
In this study construction sites that are close to residential neighborhoods disturb
local residents and they are potential sources of noise pollution, especially during
periodic construction activity (sometimes up to months or even years). Another type of
disturbance caused by construction sites is additional traffic (trucks and heavy
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
Environment Report, 2001).
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
Table 4.2 Noise Levels for Five General Phases in Construction
Noise Levels for Five General Phases in Construction

Noise level (dBA)
Phase
15 meters 30meters
Ground cleaning 83 77
Excavation 85 79
Foundation 86 80
Erection 82 76
Finishing 83 77
Source: CDR/TEAM, 2000
Table 4.3 provides the description of some of the environmental impacts of
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
construction such as industrial, transportation, and building construction. Cement
production is mentioned under environmental impacts from manufacturing building
material.
41
Table 4.3 Environmental Impacts of Construction
Environmental Impacts of Construction
Source: French Institute for Environment (IFEN, 1999)
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.
4.4 Energy and Material Efficiency
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
commercial aspects. As mentioned by Amano and Ebihara, the important environmental
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
segments studied in this research.
Source: Amano and Ebihara, 2005

Figure 4.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions over Primary Energy Inputs for Different Industry
Sectors (tones of carbon dioxide/107 kcal)
43
Source: Amano and Ebihara, 2005

Figure 4.3 Nitric Oxide Emissions over Primary Energy Inputs for Different Industry
Sectors (kilograms of nitric oxide/107 kcal)
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
both energy and maintenance costs.
Al-Muhaisen mentions that in most cases maintenance is ignored by many
organizations all over the world. This is one of the many reasons for having low
maintenance productivity with increasing costs. According to the author, maintenance is
ignored mostly in the project stage and during procurement. In the Middle East this is the
first cement company that received ISO 14001 certification in environmental
management systems in 1998 (they also have ISO 9002 certification). Al-Muhaisen
argues that auditing or benchmarking is an important procedure for assessing
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
Internal benchmarking: Here the multiple-plant organizations define company-
wide standards and construct charts to check how standards are being satisfied.
Industry benchmarking: In this case companies assess their performance by
comparing it with those in other companies within the same industrial sector.
Best-practice benchmarking: Under this category of benchmarking the company
performance should be measured against other organizations without considering their
types. Such comparison is explained by measuring the best-practices going with leaders
in industry.
The research by Al-Muhaisen addresses 14 key maintenance areas covering
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
supported the company mostly in the area of work-order system.
Al-Muhaisen also mentions some factors that negatively affect sustainable
development (Al-Muhaisen, 2002):
1. Low productivity.
2. Absence of a written maintenance policy.
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
4. People involved in the production have no prior arrangements and, therefore,
they do not know in advance what they need to do.
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
aggregate for cement production (Hendrik G. van Oss, 2006).
The cement industry is affected by many environmental issues, particularly high
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
installation of fuel-efficient kiln technologies. This could be done by partial replacement
of non-carbonate additives of calcium oxide in the kiln raw materials, and by partial
replacement of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) (Hendrik G. van Oss,
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
economic as well as environmental costs of the cement in concrete production (Hendrik
G. van Oss, 2006).
4.5 Economic Considerations
In recent years world cement consumption has increased drastically enabling
producers to gain more profits by increasing their production. This, in turn, creates
incentives for technological development in the cement industry.

46
According to Arikan (2004), the manufacturing of High Volume Mineral
Additive Cement, therefore High Performance Cement, raises the compressive
strength of regular cement. It also increases the durability of cement-based materials
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
Source: Arikan, 2004, Building and Environment, vol. 39.

Figure 4.4 Production Trends in Cement Industry
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)
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).
In addition to evaluating the durability of materials the service life of materials
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).
According to Hodges, green and sustainable do not automatically mean long
lasting. Sustainable design processes do not always consider material durability. To
incorporate sustainable practices in cost-effective facility management, the evaluation of
both the durability of materials and service life need to be included in the overall strategy
of an organization. The integration of these objectives should be based on an in-depth
understanding of an organizations overall strategies, the development of sustainable
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
producers of ready-mixed concrete, 14% by manufacturers of concrete product, 6% by
contractors (generally by road paving), 3% by dealers of building materials, and 2% by
other users (Hendrik G. van Oss, 2006). In his report Oss presented Salient Statistics for
United States, which is also presented in Table 4.5:

50
Table 4.5 Salient Statistics - United States (Data in thousand metric tons)
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
waste fuels (Hendrik G. van Oss, 2006).
The next section discusses energy and material balances in the cement industry.
4.6 Energy and Material Balance
The Transportation Research Foundation in the United Kingdom (U.K.)
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
productivity (TRL, 2008).
Several studies have been conducted on the operation of cement plants suggesting
various methods for analyzing the operation of these plants and their supplemental
facilities such as power plants.
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
cement plant. The aforementioned diagrams are presented in Figure 4.5.

52
Source: Semen Andalas 2006

Figure 4.5 Simplified Mass Balance Diagram
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
materials preparation unit. It should be mentioned that the exergy analysis is a
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).
Exergy of the system in thermodynamics is defined as the possible maximum
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
the degree of the imperfection of thermal or chemical processes quantitatively.
Exergy analysis is used in industrial ecology to be able to use energy more
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.
According to authors, general energy balance can also be expressed as:
E& in
= E& out
Q& + m& in * hin = W& + m& out * hout
where:
E& in is the rate of net energy transfer in,
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,
h is the specific enthalpy.

54
In thermodynamics the term enthalpy is explained as a function of a system,
which is equal to the sum of the internal energy of the same system plus the product of its
volume multiplied by the pressure generated from surrounding environment of the
system.
Using this approach Utlu conducted a case study based on data from an existing
cement plant. The results are presented in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Mass and Energy Balance
Mass and Energy Balance
Source: Utlu et al. (2006)
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
existing in raw material (Taylor, 1997).

55
5. CHAPTER FIVE: SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND OPERATION
This chapter contains explanations of concepts, approaches and methodologies of
sustainable design and operation about the cement industry and the economic-
mathematical model developed for this research.
5.2 Sustainable Design and Operation
Sustainable design and operation is a result of following factors mostly important
in all industries and particularly for cement industry.
One of the important issues in sustainable design and operation is cost
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
implemented into a project, the more likely it can be achieved cost-effectively.
Currently the design of structures has numerous options when it considers
sustainable design and construction. Environmentally friendly materials and technologies
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
or maintenance of structures. Big companies are supporting implementation of green
structures, since mostly these companies are those that have an engineering and economic
potential for innovations and implementation of projects. Government is rewarding
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.
Sustainable design of industrial sector such as cement manufacturing plant should
not be limited only by selection of environmentally friendly materials but also
technology, which is going to be used in operation stage of a plant.
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
considered one of the oldest materials in construction, modern technologies and
techniques keep it on the top of sustainable design and construction. The cement industry
makes R&D investments in improvement of the efficiency of cement production process.
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,
which means that future of cement industry is also obvious.

57
5.2.1 Environmental Footprint of Cement Industry
The environmental footprint of industries is the impact of a company resulted
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
industry is continuously reporting about the reductions of its environmental footprint.
According to their report, the grey cement industry decreased from 2003 to 2006, in
contrast to 10% increase in total production (Cement Association of Canada, 2008):
the amount of SO2 emissions by 14% of total
the amount of NOX emissions by 23% of total.
Also, they stated that from 1990 to 2006 Canadas cement producers improved
the energy efficiency of their manufacturing operations. The improvement was 11% per
ton of cement. Correspondingly, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions intensity of
their production was 6.4% per ton of cement (Cement Association of Canada, 2008).
According to Geisinger, E. (2005), Corporate Environmental Reporting is a
voluntary based activity. The purpose of voluntary environmental reporting is to provide
interested parties with an adequately accurate condition of environmental footprint of the
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,
calcination, non-kiln fuels, alternative kiln fuels);

58
If applicable acquired emission rights, and resulting net emissions from those
rights;
Main indirect emissions (consumption of electricity, and bought clinker).
Reporting should be in absolute units such Mt CO2/year and in specific units
like kg*CO2/t for cementitious materials. It is mentioned that reporting of net
emissions alone by omitting gross emissions is not acceptable. In particular,
cement companies should include the following types of activities in their
voluntary reporting:
Information about clinker production, including raw material
quarrying.
Information about grinding of clinker, additives and cement
substitutes such as slag.
5.2.2 Environmental Impact of Production Operations
The cement industry has experinced large improvements in technologies, and
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
1.5 percent of U.S. total emissions of CO2 (Canadian Precast/Prestressed Concrete
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
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 2007):
Implement new technologies and equipment in order to have better energy
efficiency in the process of the cement production.
Develop product formulation in order to reduce consumption of energy in
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
industrial by-products such as fly ash in cement.
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
world. Establishment of the global protocol is a good example of this. It was
designed to measure the greenhouse gas emissions generated by cement
industry.
60
In the cement industry the environmental impact of production operations has
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
Sustainability Initiative of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. In
this context, the role of sustainability is to find balance between economic, social, and
environmental impacts of industrial operations.
The involvement of Ash Grove Cement Company in this Initiative was focused on
three broad areas:
Environmental stewardship
Economic prosperity
Social responsibility.
The purpose of environmental stewardship is to incorporate the emissions
abatement practices and also other environmental impacts, which are related to the
operations of Ash Grove. For this company the environmental stewardship also includes
environmentally friendly practices of land use as well as right consideration of issues
about climate protection.
The economic prosperity assures that everyone who has relationship with Ash
Grove should experience sustainable economic wealth.
In case of Ash Grove the social responsibility is focusing on employees as well as
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
As mentioned by Cement Association of Canada (2006), cement plants in Canada
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
them are based on ISO 14001, which is an internationally recognized environmental
management standard (Cement Association of Canada, 2006).
Other environmental impacts that result from production operations represent
pollution of environment through byproducts of the cement industry.
5.2.3 Less Toxicity in Pollution or Generate Less Pollution
According to Portland Cement Association, domestic cement production is
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
sustainable ways of design for cement production.
In order to minimize the pollution from structures, LEED developed a
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
renovation procedures of existing plants.
Credit categories with corresponding credits are presented below:
Credit Category Points Available
Sustainable Sites 14
Water Efficiency 5
Energy and Atmosphere 17
Materials and Resources 13
Indoor Environmental Quality 15
Innovation and Design Process 5
LEED granted following levels according to cumulative credits earned.
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
pollution, the aforementioned crediting system could be implemented in this industry as
well. For example, minimum energy performance, optimize energy performance,
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
Minimum Energy Performance:
According to LEED, in some cases local codes can be used for energy if they are
equivalent or exceed the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
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
generally constructed from concrete. If structures are designed properly, incorporation of
thermal mass can reduce heating and ventilating needs. It will also minimize required air-
conditioning equipment capacities. The reduction of equipment capacities necessary for
particular structure could lead to cost savings in energy and in construction.
Optimize Energy Performance:
There are many consulting firms in engineering area, which have the
qualifications to perform energy simulations for whole structure to determine energy
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
national guideline (Andalas S., 2006).
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
industrial processes. As mentioned above, high temperatures are resulting in additional
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
kiln (Cement Association of Canada, 2008).
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
95% of the SO2 (Andalas S., 2006).
Cement Association of Canada (2008) also mentioned about a self-scrubbing
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
to 2.58 kg per ton of cement (Cement Association of Canada, 2008).
5.2.4 Social and Community Impact of Cement Industry
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
organizations and the Ministry of Natural Resources financially supported visitor
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).
Realizing the importance of a business success, St. Marys Cement Company
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
stakeholders. The community of their stakeholders include employees, clients, suppliers,
local non-profit organisations, communities, shareholders, government or local
regulators, as well as society (Cement Association of Canada, 2008).
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the traditional way of reporting the
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.
Community Involvement Holcim (US) Inc.:
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
Make a contribution to the provision of future education for society.
Support communitys sustainable development.
Build infrastructure for livable communities.
Based on the communities needs Holcim (US) Inc. is deciding the range of its
involvement in community lives (Holcim (US) Inc., 2001).
Community Advisory Committees of Holcim (U.S.) Inc.:
Holcim (U.S.) Inc. is the first company that founded the Community Advisory
Committee (CAC) many years ago (Holcim (U.S.) Inc., 2001).
By community involvement Holcim (U.S.) Inc. means public involvement in
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).
5.2.5 Resource Efficiency
Maintaining Quality While Adding Efficiencies:
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
virgin materials by consuming industrial byproducts as substitutes in the production
process of cement. Substitutes include (Portland Cement Association, 2008):
Foundry sand, which is a byproduct of metal casting.
Material that had been recycled from the operation of iron industry.
68
Fly ash produced from combustion of coal, mostly in electric power facilities.
Lime sludge, which is a waste from paper recycling.
The cement industry is proposing to permit the use of up to 5% ground limestone
and make corresponding changes in U.S. Portland cement manufacturing standards
(ASTM C 150). The addition of ground limestone is significantly reducing the emissions
from cement production. It provides environmental benefits, which are reduction of
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 accrediting system grants credits also for:
Construction Waste Management:
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
demolition waste is recycled (Portland Cement Association, 2008).
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
generated from summation of post-consumer recycled content and one-half of pre-
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
considered as pre-consumer. Use of recycled concrete and slag as aggregate is qualified
as post-consumer (Portland Cement Association, 2008).
Regional Materials:
The credit for regional materials is supporting the utilization of local materials in
construction and accordingly reducing distances of transportation. Building construction
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
have regular maintenance.

70
Low-Emitting Materials: Paints and Coatings:
This credit is awarded by LEED to reduce indoor air contaminants. It includes
odorous and irritating materials, which could also be harmful. Credit could be used in
cement plants without modification as well. It is supporting the idea of minimizing or
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
construction and maintenance of a plant.
For the resource efficiency purposes CEMBUREAU stated that cement industry
in Europe improved the energy efficiency and thus also reduced CO2 emissions.
CEMBUREAU is the European Cement Association, founded in Brussels, it is the
association that represents cement industries in Europe. The members of CEMBUREAU
are associations such as the national cement industry, cement companies of the European
Union countries as well as the European Economic Area (EEA) countries.

71
CEMBUREAU also mentions that what they have done is already close to the technical
limit of what is possible to do through technical improvements.
The way they achieved this goal is presented by CEMBUREAU, which is
described below as a way of sustainability in the cement industry in Europe.
1. Improving producing processes:
Improving the efficiency of energy in kilns.
Switching from less efficient and energy-intensive wet process to dry as
well as to semi-dry processes.
Updating a plant in order to reduce electricity consumption, which reduces
corresponding amount of CO2 emissions from power plants.
2. Concentrating production in the most efficient plants.
3. Valorizing wastes in the production process:
Using certain types of wastes as alternative fuels for cement kilns. This
valorizes those wastes, which could otherwise be land filled and result in
greenhouse gas emissions. A key idea, introduced by CEMBUREAU, can
also benefit cement industries located in other countries. According to
CEMBUREAU, the waste used as alternative fuel in cement kilns can be
considered CO2 neutral. Some governments already give credits to cement
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
environmental restrictions in certain area, while generating less pollution.

72
Use certain types of wastes as raw material or filler necessary for clinker
production.
4. Optimizing cement composition:
Using blast furnace slag, fly ash from power stations, natural pozzolana
and limestone as components of cement. This reduces the amount of
clinker necessary for each ton of cement produced. Also, CO2 emissions
are decreasing.
5. Improved products:
Increasing strength performance to optimize cement use.
5.2.6 Produce Less Waste
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
CO, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, volatile organic compounds,
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
According to a study developed in Indonesia, existing cement industry can control
the amount of kiln dust by adopting measures, which are represented below (Andalas S.,
2006):
Dust:
Dust emissions could be controlled by (Andalas S., 2006):
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;
using equipment, which has low dust-generation;
using inside plant transport systems for material transportation;
using dust absorption hoods as well as air draft deducting equipment;
using best management practices from other plants to minimize material
dropping;
using closed circular silos to store dusty materials;
using water spraying equipment in all dust generating areas, which are
stockpiles of raw materials and roads (Andalas S., 2006).
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
electrostatic precipitators. These electrostatic precipitators are 99.98% efficient at
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
Association of Canada, 2006).
Since the cement industry is considered energy-intensive, the minimization of
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).
Source: Cement Association of Canada. (2006).

Figure 5.1 Waste Sources as Fuel Supply for Cement Industry.
75
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.
Cement producers worldwide implement sustainability practices, but the
exchange of information between world industries is insufficient. Some countries have
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
accomplishment of similar goals.
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
Cement Manufacturing Sustainability Program
Cement Manufacturing Sustainability (CMS) Program is a part of the cement
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
protocols, designed to be guide for business practices in an environmentally friendly and
responsible manner (PCA, 2008).
Andy OHare, the vice president of regulatory affairs for PCA, mentioned that the
product itself could be sustainable, but if it is produced in an environmentally unfriendly
way, nobody will be willing to listen to producer (PCA, 2008). OHare made his
contribution to the development of the CMS Program by cooperating with industry
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
economic, environmental, and social aspects of cement production. Producers, who
voluntarily continue environmentally friendly practices, make improvement in seven
specified areas, which are listed below (PCA, 2008):
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
reduce or, if possible, eliminate the discharge of polluting substances to the
environment.
manage wastes in an environmentally friendly manner.
improve efficiency in energy use as well as in resource conservation.
safely use of wastes as raw materials, alternative fuels and also product fillings.
develop more environmentally friendly mining operations.
have participation in lawmaking, regulations and in other applicable areas to
develop effective environmental regulations and laws.
PCA developed the CMS Program along with the Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. CMS program has similar approaches like
the governments Climate VISION program. The governments Climate VISION
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
implementation of environmentally friendly technologies (PCA, 2008).
Being a part of Climate VISION program, U.S. cement industry proposed a three-
part strategy (PCA, 2008):
Energy Efficiency
Product Improvements
New Applications
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy work together
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
magazine for their progressive environmental improvements. The awards recognize
plants in six categories, which are represented below (PCA, 2008):
Environmental Performance: Lafarge North America, Inc., Seattle, Wash.
Land Stewardship - Lehigh Cement Company, Mason City, Iowa.
Outreach - Lafarge North America, Inc., Fredonia, Kan.
Innovation - Lafarge North America, Inc., Paulding, Ohio.
Energy Efficiency - Mitsubishi Cement Corp., Lucerne, Calif.
Overall Environmental Excellence - Lafarge North America, Inc., Alpena, Mich.
Environmental Performance Award
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).
Lafarge North America Inc. Seattle, Wash
Lafarges Seattle cement producing plant achieved exceptional control and
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
received an award under Innovation category (PCA, 2008).
Land Stewardship Award
Plants are being awarded for this category if they make efforts for protection and
development of neighboring lands through landscaping, species protection and quarry
remediation (PCA, 2008).
Lehigh Cement Company Mason City, Iowa
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
drained also in the past (PCA, 2008).
Outreach
To be awarded under this category, facility should improve relations with
community, employee, and government through voluntary efforts, communication,
contributions, partnerships, as well as through other acceptable measures (PCA, 2008).

80
Lafarge North America Inc. Fredonia, Kan.
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,
manages environmental projects and develops wildlife inventories (PCA, 2008).
Innovation
If companies develop and apply innovative technologies and techniques, which
will significantly improve environmental protection or energy efficiency, they will
receive awards under this category (PCA, 2008).
Lafarge North America Inc. Paulding, Ohio
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
11% through injecting limestone into the mid-kiln (PCA, 2008).
Energy Efficiency
This category is focused on energy planning and applications of technologies,
which are more efficient and can contribute to climate change improvement through
minimizing the energy use (PCA, 2008).
Mitsubishi Cement Corp. Lucerne Valley, California
Mitsubishis Cement plant made its contribution to planning, energy efficiency,
and management. To increase the efficiency of energy use the plant installed highly
efficient fans and preheater exhaust ducts. As a result, it achieved 8% reduction of

81
greenhouse gas emissions. Mitsubishi is also a member of the EPA ENERGY STAR
program and California Large Energy Users Association (PCA, 2008).
Overall Environmental Excellence
Facilities that demonstrate outstanding achievements in several or all of the above
listed categories are being awarded under this category (PCA, 2008).
Lafarge North America Inc. Alpena, Mich. Plant
This facility, located in Alpena, had achievements in several categories that
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,
outreach and energy efficiency (PCA, 2008).
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
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (PCA, 2008).
In 2008, the Cement Association of Canada (CAC) released its second report
about improvements in environmental, social, and economic performance of the
Canadian cement industry. The report shows commitment of cement industry in Canada
to publicly report progress about implementation of the Cement Sustainability Initiative

82
proposed by World Business Council for Sustainable Development (Cement Association
of Canada, 2008).
The Cement Association of Canada represents the Canadian cement industry.
CACs members are eight companies, which represent cement and clinker producing
facilities, grinding/granulating facilities, and supplying terminals from Atlantic Canada to
the Pacific coast. By working together, CAC members promote sustainable development
of the cement industry. The CAC accomplishes the following objectives (Cement
Association of Canada, 2008):
Support for regulations that encourage competitiveness of local cement industry;
Establish new market opportunities for Canadian cement products;
Improve social, economic, and environmental importance of the cement industry
and its products.
The sustainability statement presented by Canadian cement industry states that:
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
2000 high-quality work places (Cement Association of Canada, 2006).
The Canadian cement industry is willing to reduce its environmental footprint.
From 2003 to 2006, the industry increased its total production by 10%, at the
same time it reduced:
9 SO2 emissions by 14%,
9 NOx emissions by 23%.

83
From 1990 to 2006, Canadian cement manufacturers increased the energy
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
produced (Cement Association of Canada, 2006).
The industry is planning further reductions through supplementary cementing
materials to minimize the amount of clinker required for the manufacture of
cement, and through increased use of alternative energy sources to reduce fossil
fuel consumption (Cement Association of Canada, 2006).
In Appendix E (see Figure E.1 and Figure E.2) the 2006 and 2008 edition data
for CAC sustainability reporting are presented.
In Belgium the cement industry developed and implemented another form of
sustainability practice to reduce noise in limestone quarries, which comes from blasting
and hydraulic shovels.
Gaurain-Ramecroix Quarry (Belgium) Limestone for cement
The quarry of limestone is operating in a lenght of 0.75 km and in depth of 0.23
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,
F., 2000, p. 25).
In Italy the visual impact was studied on a computer through digital terrain
modeling for quarries of raw material necessary in cement production.

84
Siniscola Quarry (Sardegna Italy) Raw material for cement
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
and its surroundings.
St-Pietersberg Quarry (The Netherlands) Limestone for cement
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
creating a well-frequented forest and by investing financial resources in the construction
of a playground and a small animal zoo (Brodkom, F., 2000, p. 60).
The other chapters of this research also discuss the sustainability practices
implemented in the United States and in foreign countries.

85
5.2.8 Government Requirements
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
responsible use of wastes, if cement companies develop policies and regulations,
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
reduce regulatory limitations resulting from practices in Industrial Ecology. Usually
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
Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002).
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
below (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002):

86
Have a net fuel with no cost;
Reduce the overall cost of a ton of clinker produced;
Improve the reputation of the cement industry by help of diversion and disposition
of waste materials from other fields of industries.
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
managment skills (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002).
In Brazil, the practice of Industrial Ecology is still underdeveloped, especially the
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
production in Brazil. The primary barrier of having underdeveloped IE practice is the
lack of new environmental regulatory authority with changing technologies and
promising business practices. The question is to demonstrate the environmental agency
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
approaches. Developing countries should realize that it is important to recognize that
increased communication and sharing of information with governmental regulators is
critical and beneficial for both parties (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 2002).
Recent governmental requirements in India require the electric power plants to
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
utilities to exchange alternative raw materials. By formalization of relationships between
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
a fill (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002).
In France, the use of acceptable alternative materials and the governments
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,
which is discouraging IE (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002).
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).
Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and stakeholder groups
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
solution in France. As mentioned by WBCSD report, in 2002 France was in a public
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
Development, 2002, p. 20).
The government in France solves environmental problems at a price that is less
than half of what it would be charged by commercial incinerators. In addition, there is no
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
Sustainable Development, 2002).
5.2.9 Environmental Considerations.
Environmental considerations in cement industry are widely cooperating with
Cement Industry Initiatives and Industrial Ecology, which is optimizing and minimizing
the use of materials and available resources.
Industrial Ecology is a business relationship among a set of partner
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
benefits (economic, social, and environmental) as well as benefits to the cement
company (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002, p. 11).
Like other industries, the cement industry considers internal economic factors
related to environmental issues in the decision-making process. Economics may create a
barrier in implementation of environmentally friendly practices, particularly when large
capital investments are required to make plant modifications. The solution between
barriers and incentives is one of the greatest difficulties.
The recognized drivers for industrial ecology in cement industry are the following
(World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002):

91
Financial Incentives: companies have a strong financial reason to investigate
their cost reductions through alternative fuels and raw materials (or extending
clinker capacity to delay capital investment),
Government Support: government policy, regulations and implementation that
either actively promote or do not discourage the practice,
Waste Management Infrastructure Deficiencies: the collection, transport, and
disposal systems for industrial waste are lacking or the disposal capacity in
landfills or incinerators is limited, and
Community Engagement: inclusion of environmental and public health activist
groups in the planning and evaluation process for the fuel or raw material change
is consistent with the company policy or governments have required or
encouraged their involvement.
Barriers to IE implementation, apart from the absence of the above listed drivers,
include:
Perception of IE as Waste Disposal: the notion that IE is simply an alternative
waste disposal mechanism with little or no social benefits
Environmental or Human Health Damage: evidence or perception that waste
burning causes or could cause environmental or health impacts in the local area
Lack of Awareness of Market Opportunities: inability to identify and capitalize
on sources of waste in the region that could be usefully processed

92
Resistance to Products Manufactured From or Containing Alternative Fuel
and Raw materials (AFR): purchasers determination not to specify or buy
products that are made with AFR or, which incorporate AFR residuals
Business Operational Issues: adverse influences on product quality or output
associated with use of AFR (World Business Council for Sustainable
According to CEMBUREAU, emission reductions in the European cement
industry have been achieved not only because of requirements, but also through
Voluntary Agreements. Some examples of commitments are presented below:
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.
CEMBUREAU states about other possibilities and benefits to the environment
coming from:
Use of alternative fuels
CO2 Emissions Cut.
Societys Waste Problem Reduced.
Energy Resources Conserved.

93
Use of other cement constituents
Industrial by-products and natural materials used in cement production reduce
CO2 emissions related to energy production, and also CO2 emissions from processing
each ton of cement.
Use of voluntary agreements
Voluntary based agreements are effective tools in encouraging the cement
industry to develop emission reduction technologies.
Increased technology transfer
Cement manufacturing technologies in Europe are amongst the energy efficient
technologies in the world. Implementation of modern technologies in cement
manufacturing will significantly reduce global emissions. By offering emission credits to
investing companies the investments for technology development could be encouraged.
The Kyoto Protocol, which was proposed for emission minimization all over the world,
supports this initiative.
Participation in a system of emission trading
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.
To monitor the eco-efficiency in clinker manufacturing process and have its
contribution to cleaner environment Holcim (U.S.) uses four key performance indicators
(KPI).
94
Clinker factor
This factor is the amount of clinker in cement expressed in percents. Lowering
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
cement production is reduced.
Thermal energy efficiency of clinker production
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.
Thermal substitution rate
Substituting fossil fuels by alternative fuels derived from waste is an acceptable
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.
Cement kiln dust disposal rate
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.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2002) provides specific

95
recommendations in order to improve sustainable industrial ecosystems, which are listed
below:
Develop an integrated IE component of corporate strategy and show how this
systematic approach has supported the identification of specific areas of
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
tools to fully evaluate and implement the attractive opportunities.
Obtain a more complete picture of the full range of IE opportunities regionally
and locally and identify, which organizations to work with to remove barriers.
Consider collaborations with broker organizations acting to help introduce
potential IE partners.
Build strong ecosystems by engaging with multiple partners and establishing
working relationships at various levels in the partnering companies. Consider
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.
Establish dialogue with local and national level governments to create an
objective basis for creating policies to support IE development and for evaluating
IE opportunities.
96
Condition and educate the marketplace if the results of an IE implementation will
change the product characteristics or composition.
Conduct or support research to characterize the risks and benefits of an IE
opportunity for the company, plant workers, and the communities and other
components of society affected. Do not rely on generic data unless it is clearly
relevant and applicable (World Business World Business Council for Sustainable
Environmental issues related to the U.S. and foreign cement industries are also
discussed in other chapters of this research.
5.2.10 Carbon Footprint (CF)
According to Geisinger (2005), monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions has
multiple goals, which include internal management of environmental performance,
reporting for taxation schemes, public environmental reporting, voluntary or negotiated
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
compatible with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines
as well. Therefore, it should cover all CO2 emissions.
According to Geisinger, reporting for CO2 compliance and taxation schemes have
varying report requirements. This depends on local conventions. The protocol
permits reporting of gross and net emissions.

97
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
the Government of Canada to create CO2 reduction targets (Cement Association of
Canada, 2008).
The energy used in cement production is a significant cost component. Cement
companies continuously try to improve the energy efficiency with consequent
improvements in CO2 emissions. From 1990 to 2002, cement industry in Canada
improved its kiln efficiency by 12%. It also reduced GHG emissions from each ton of
product by 7.1% (Cement Association of Canada, 2008).
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
presented and discussed in other chapters of this research.

98
5.3 Economic Situation in the Cement Industry
According to Sullivan (2008), a recession in future is unavoidable, and, most
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
quarters of 2008. Portland Cement Association is not as optimistic. Construction activity
and cement consumption are expected to experience a significant decline this year,
followed by a more moderate decline in 2009 (Sullivan, 2008).
According to Bureau of Census (BOC), the population of the United States is
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.
Although the consumption of cement is expected to decline in near future,
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
capacity expansion. If PCAs long-term cement consumption projections are accurate,
further large-scale investment in cement supply must materialize to feed the United
States expected future consumption either by further investment in domestic plants,
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
international freight rates (Sullivan, 2008).
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%.
Dynamic regional population expansions are best measured by the percent
growth in population. While United States population is expected to increase 21% by
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
companies together produce around 56%. According to Portland Cement Association
(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.
In the United Kingdom as well as in other countries cement plants represent
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).
5.3.1 Cement Consumption
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
accelerated the housing demand to a record high level.
The cement production is distributed among users at the following proportions
(PCA, 2005):
73% of total cement shipments were used by ready-mix concrete operators.
14% of the cement produced in local plants was shipped to concrete product
manufacturers,
6% was shipped to contractors,
3% was shipped to building material dealers.
There is also another fact - cement consumption is seasonal due to seasonal
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
achieving continuous production, because the properties of cement can be negatively
affected if stored for a long period of time.
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
plants and distributers, if available. According to PCA, in the United States
approximately 98% of cement is shipped to consumers through land transportation,
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).
5.3.2 Filling the Gap between Production and Consumption
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
exported cement was only 844,689 metric tons.
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
also deceases environmental pollution. In France, cement producing companies modified
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
some investments. A good example could be the production of secondary fuels in
Tunisia. The price is about U.S. $5055 per ton resulted from painstaking,
sorting/separating of the calorific rich content, additional comminution, which is not
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
economically efficient solution.

104
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
highest prices for cement in the world (Chinadaily, 2008).
Although China is one of the major producers of cement, it is continuing to grow.
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
of white cement. It will start to produce cement in 2009 (Chinadaily, 2008).
5.4 Economic-Mathematical Models
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
products and manufacturing processes. Trade-offs between pollution, manufacturing cost
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
Assessment in a multi-objective design optimization formulation. The first step is to
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
floor tile manufacturer and also applicable to cement (Gabel, 2001).
A similar model was developed by Marano and Rogers in 1999. According to
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
energy balances (Gabel, 2001).
For the purposes of waste minimization Sundberg created an interesting model in
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
help of methodology developed for life cycle assessment.
According to Gustavsson, the main steps for the system analysis of projects are:
1. Problem discussion with necessary explanations.
2. Problem formulation.
3. Modeling.
4. Validation of the model using sensitivity analysis or other tests, if required.
5. Solving the problem with validated model.
6. Evaluation of the results.
7. Presentation of the results.
8. Using the results.
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
the economic-mathematical model of the cement industry is formulated. It represents a
set of mathematical expressions, which approximate the behavior of the observed system.
The economic-mathematical model developed in this research is unique, since it is
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.
Source: PCA, 2008.

Figure 5.2 Cement Plant with Three Producing Lines.
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
various constraints in a given period of time.
5.5 General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS)
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
and time-consuming details of the specific machine or system. As already mentioned, it is
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
from one solver to another.
5.5.2 Structure of the GAMS
The basic modeling components in GAMS are presented in Figure 5.3.
Source: Rosenthal, R. E., 2008

Figure 5.3 Basic Components of GAMS.
Below are some important recommendations that should be followed while
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
statement or referenced before it is defined to exist (Rosenthal, R. E., 2008).

109
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
distinguish between those.
4. Documentation is very important for the usefulness of mathematical models. It is
recommended to have it included in the model itself instead of being written up
separately. There are at least two ways to insert the documentation into a model in
GAMS (Rosenthal, R. E., 2008):
If the line starts with an asterisk in column 1, GAMS will accept it as a
comment line.
Also, documentary part of the model can be included in specific GAMS
statements.
5. Another important note is that the names of entities in the model should start with
a letter.
5.5.3 Data Entry
The GAMS model allows three fundamentally different formats for entering the
data (Rosenthal, R. E., 2008). The three formats are:
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
should be enclosed in slashes. It is also required that the element-value pairs
should be separated by commas or otherwise being entered on separate lines
(Rosenthal, R. E., 2008).
2. There is no need to include semicolon to separate the name, domain, text, which
are preceding the element-value list.
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
only nonzero entries in the list of element-value (Rosenthal, R. E., 2008).
5. In GAMS models scalar is considered as a parameter, which has no domain
5.5.4 Variables
As mentioned in GAMS documentation, the decision variables of a GAMS-
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
type. Types of variables are presented in Figure 5.4.
Source: Rosenthal, R. E., 2008

Figure 5.4 Variable Types and its Allowed Range
The variable, which was selected as quantity to be optimized, should be scalar.
Also, it can be a free type variable, as presented in Figure 5.4.
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
6. CHAPTER SIX: METHODS FOR ENERGY AND MATERIAL BALANCE
This chapter discusses the practices for energy conservation and the methods for
energy and material balance calculations.
6.2 Energy Conservation
In industrial sectors energy conservation begins from operation and process
control software, and then it broadens into the hardware. Hardware includs equipment
and process improvements. Energy conservation efforts should be devided into the
following three steps (Output of a Seminar on Energy Conservation in Cement Industry,
1994):
Good housekeeping
Equipment improvement
Process improvement
The energy conservation is an important step that should be taken towards
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
consumption of energy (Output of a Seminar on Energy Conservation in Cement
Industry, 1994, p.1).
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
improvements occurred to minimize the energy consumption in cement production. The
cement industry is considered as one of the most energy-intensive industries, next to
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
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) (Output of a Seminar on Energy
Conservation in Cement Industry, 1994). If the cost of energy is reduced, the cost of
cement manufacturing will also decrease, resulting in increase of profits. To minimize
energy consumption, energy saving practices and technologies must be distributed to
government as well as to industrial managers. It should also be given to engineers and
plant operators. Figure 6.1 below shows the component ratio of fuel and electricity
consumption of cement industry in Japan.
Source: The Energy Conservation Center (ECC), Japan. (1994)

Figure 6.1 Component Ratio of Energy Consumption.
114
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,
electricity is consumed mainly by final grinding and clinker burning processes.
The production of cement can be divided into the following processes:
Processing of raw material.
Clinker burning.
Finish grinding.
The processing of cement production can be classified into dry and wet processes.
In the wet process, the required proportion of raw materials is crushed to a
diameter of about 20 mm, which is less than one inch, by a crusher. After crushing, the
mix is weighed at a corresponding ratio by an automatic weighing system. The process is
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.
Source: The Energy Conservation Center (ECC), Japan. (1994)

Figure 6.2 Component Ratio of Energy Consumption in Cement Production.
116
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
production (ECC, 1994).
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
kilns. Only 16% of production is based on semi-dry/semi-wet kilns, and about 6% of
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.
Table 6.1 Energy Use Reduction from 2002 to 2010
Energy Use Reduction from 2002 to 2010
Source: British Geological Survey, 2005

117
6.3 Cement Manufacturing: Dry and Wet Processes
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
between those processes are illustrated in this section.
6.3.1 Types of Portland Cement
Portland cement has eight types, which are recognized by ASTM C 150, Standard
Specification for Portland Cement. Types of Portland cement are presented below:
Type I - Type IA*
These types are general purpose cements that are proper for all purposes.
Type II - Type IIA*
These types of cements contain tricalcium aluminate (C3A) less than 8%. The
content of tricalcium aluminate (C3A) is minimizing sulfate resistance of
cement.
Type III - Type IIIA*
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
chances of shrinkage cracking processes will be minimized as well.

118
Type V
Type V contains less than 5% of C3A for resistance in high sulfate conditions.
6.3.2 Cement Manufacturing
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
to supply minerals to plants for at least 15 to 20 years, it is considered not reasonable.
Source: PCA, 2008.

Figure 6.3 Quarry, which has High Content of Calcium, Silicon, Aluminum, and Iron.
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
(see Figure 6.4).
Source: PCA, 2008.

Figure 6.4 Proportioning, Blending and Grinding of Limestone, Clay and Sand.
119
When the mix of components is grinded, it goes to preheater tower. This
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
preheater tower (see Figure 6.5).
Source: PCA, 2008.

Figure 6.5 Preheater Tower and Hot Gases.
Preheated ready mix goes to the kiln, where the clinker is being produced through
heating the mix (see Figure 6.6).
Source: PCA, 2008.

Figure 6.6 Kiln with Ready Mix in it and Final Product from the Kiln: Clinker.
120
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.
Source: PCA, 2008.

Figure 6.7 Cooler and Final Grinder.
After grinding the mix of gypsum and clinker, the cement is produced and
bagged, then shipped to consumers (see Figure 6.8).
Source: PCA, 2008.

Figure 6.8 Bagging and Use of Cement in Concrete.
121
6.3.3 Dry Process
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.
Development of appropriate blending and homogenizing systems, in general, is crucial
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
preheaters, is being integrated with precalcinators. Precalcinators ensure complete
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
processing technology is in the range of 120-125 kWh/ton of cement (Cement Industry,
India, 2004).
6.3.4 Wet Process
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
be selected as manufacturing technology is when raw materials have natural high
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
Kcal/Kg of clinker. Power consumption in manufacture process is about 110-115
kWh/ton of cement (Cement Industry, India, 2004). Differences of dry and wet processes
are presented in Figure 6.9.
Source: CEMBUREAU, 2006.

Figure 6.9 Differences between Dry and Wet Processes.
123
6.3.5 Semi-wet/Semi-dry Process
The semi-wet/semi-dry process is not a widely applicable technology. It
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-
wet/semi-dry process powdered raw mix is changed into nodules, by addition of a
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
cement (Cement Industry, India, 2004).
6.4 Process Energy and Material Balance
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
product. This is also an indication of the efficiency of the procedures used in
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
production of final product.
Flowchart of material and energy balance is presented in Figure 6.10.

124
Source: Semen Andalas 2006

Figure 6.10 Simplified Mass Balance Diagram.
In his book, Taylor (1997) presented the Cement Chemistry method for mass
balance calculations as a by-product of the modified Bogue calculations. It is readily
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).
As presented in Taylors book, the composition of clinker is different. In general,
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
balances in the cement industry.

125
In Bogue calculations, it is assumed that the four main clinker minerals are very
clean and pure with compositions of (Understanding Cement, 1990):
Alite: C3S, or tricalcium silicate
Belite: C2S, or dicalcium silicate
Aluminate phase: C3A, or tricalcium aluminate
Ferrite phase: C4AF, or tetracalcium aluminoferrite
These compositions are approximations of actual composition of minerals.
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
lime (Understanding Cement, 1990).
According to the assumed mineral compositions, iron is contained only in ferrite
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.
But the content of alumina in ferrite phase should be subtracted.
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,
converting some of it to alite (Understanding Cement, 1990).
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
in clinker are presented in the Appendix D (see Figure D.1).
6.4.1 Bogue Calculations
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
Table 6.2 Data from Clinker Analysis
Data from Clinker Analysis

Clinker analysis.
SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO K2O Na2O SO3 LOI IR Total
21.5 5.2 2.8 66.6 1.0 0.6 0.2 1.0 1.5 0.5 98.9
Free lime = 1.0% CaO
Source: Understanding Cement, 1990.
The data from the clinker analysis are used in the following calculations:
6.4.2 Worked Example of a Bogue Calculation:
Combined CaO = (66.6% - 1.0% free lime) = 65.6%
This is the figure that was used for CaO in the calculation.
From the analysis:
CaO=65.6%; SiO2=21.5%; Al2O3=5.2% and Fe2O3=2.8%
The Bogue calculation is:

127
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:
C3S = (4.0710 x 65.6)-(7.6024 x 21.5)-(1.4297 x 2.8)-(6.718 x 5.2)
C2S = (8.6024 x 21.5) + (1.0785 x 2.8) + (5.0683 x 5.2)-(3.0710 x 65.6)
C3A = (2.6504 x 5.2)-(1.6920 x 2.8)
C4AF = 3.0432 x 2.8
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
Bogue calculations, presented in this research, is from the e-book of Understanding
Cement, which is published by WHD Microanalysis Consultants Ltd., a small privately-
owned company in the United Kingdom and can be accessed at:
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
justifies this by the following equation:
m& = m&
in out
Therefore, the system mass balance will be:
m& in =m& la + m& g + m& l + m& c + m& p + m& lm + m& cm + m& pm + m& bs + m& gd
m& out = m& a + m& g + m& v + m& fr + m& m
The mass balance of the RM investigated by Utlu et al. is presented in Table 6.3
Table 6.3 Mass Balance of the Raw Mill
Mass Balance of the Raw Mill
Source: Utlu et al. (2006).
Utlu also analyzed the energy balance in the cement industry, and for energy
calculations he made several assumptions, which are ptesented below:
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
materials are neglected.
It should be assumed that there is no heat transfer to the system from the
outside.
Electrical energy produces the shaft work in the raw mill.
The change in the ambient temperature is ignored.
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
balance of the system is shown in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 Mass and Energy Balance
Mass and Energy Balance
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
energy flow of the Utlus research is illustrated in Figure 6.11.

130
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%,
while the exergy efficiency values are found to be 25.2%.
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
important issues in the cement industry (Utlu et al., 2006).

Figure 6.11 Energy Flow Diagram of the Raw Mill.
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
radiation losses from not isolated cooler.
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
found. and Figure 6.13.
Source: Rasul et al. (2005).

Figure 6.12 Energy Flow Diagram of the Kiln System.
132
Source: Rasul et al. (2005).

Figure 6.13 Exergy Flow Diagram of the Kiln System.
Energy balance by Rasul et al.
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).
Exergy balance by Rasul et al.
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
conversion from chemical to thermal energy (Rasul et al., 2005, p. 2962).

133
Khurana et al. (2002) conducted research on energy balance in cement industry.
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
plant that is studied in Khurana et al. (2002) is Maihar CementUnit 2, Madhya
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
only a dashed box section on a schematic representation of a plant, represented in the
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.
The following reactions occur in the system:
Calcination reactions
CaCO3 CaO + CO2

134
MgCO3 MgO + CO2
Assuming complete combustion of coal
C + O2 CO2
4H + O2 2H2O
S + O2 SO2
Stoichiometric calculations are used to reach the flow rate of the remaining
streams. Composition of preheater exhaust is known and a species balance on nitrogen,
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
reactions (Khurana et al., 2002, p. 488).
Flow rates of the different streams are presented in Figure 6.14.
Source: Khurana et al. (2002).

Figure 6.14 Mass Flow Rates of Different Streams into the System.
The results of Khurana et al. energy balance are presented in
Table 6.5.
135
Table 6.5 Energy Balance for Maihar CementUnit 2, Madhya Pradesh, India
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
flow quantity of energy or material transfers between processes.

136

Figure 6.15 Sankey Diagram for the System.
137
7. CHAPTER SEVEN: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
In this chapter the economic-mathematical model is developed and the constraints
affecting the life cycle cost of cement production are recognized. Sensitivity anaysis of
the model is also conducted in this chapter.
7.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
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
can be presented as:
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,
n represents the number of cement producing units within the plant;
Zt is a vector, representing the parameters of cement producing units
(productivity, reliability, etc.) at time t;

138
K0 is the amount of total investments and costs necessary for establishing a
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
production unit at time t, which are in functional relation with Zt;
St represents the inventory storage costs at time t;
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;
cit represents annual cement production by producing unit i at the beginning of t
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
cement is stored, i.e. x0 = 0 and xT = 0 respectively;
qt represents the amount of cement imported from other producers at t interval of
time;
T is the projection period, is a coefficient considering the time factor, and t is a
coefficient of discounting;
s represents the unit cost of cement inventory storage;
p represents the unit cost of imported cement;
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
resource use, etc.

139
The breakdown of unit costs considered in this model can be presented as:
1. Producer price of inputs.
2. Transportation costs of inputs, which are usually calculated based on the
shipment distance from the source to the cement producing plant through
existing as well as possible newly constructed roadways.
3. Salaries of the personnel.
4. Cement production costs, which include all the above mentioned costs plus
taxes and fees.
The following constraints are included in the model of cement production:
1. Cement Demand Constraint
2. Input Constraint
3. Energy Constraint
4. Emissions Constraint
5. Capacity and Import Constraints
These constraints are represented by mathematical expressions that are included
in the economic-mathematical model of the cement production.
7.2.1 Cement Demand Constraint
The total amount of cement produced and stored during the previous period in the
plant should satisfy the predicted demand at each k interval of time:

n
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
is based on the forecasts of cement demand for the considered plant.
7.2.2 Input Constraint
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
available input supply in each k interval of time:

n
c
i =1
ik * m ij M kj (6)
where,
m ij represents consumption of input j for producing one unit of cement by
production unit i at the beginning of k interval of time.
7.2.3 Energy Constraint
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
unit i at the beginning of k interval of time.

141
Lk is the total maximum available amount of energy supply at each k interval of
time.
7.2.4 Emissions Constraint
The process of cement production is associated with intensive emissions. In this
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
of emissions for the considered plant during each k interval of time:

n
c
i =1
ik * y ig Ykg (8)
where,
y ig represents the amount of emissions of type g that are associated with
producing one unit of cement by production unit i at the beginning of k interval of time.
7.2.5 Capacity and Import Constraints
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:
c ik Cap ikmax (9)
q t * C min k (10)
where,
Capikmax represents maximum available capacity of the cement producing unit i at
each k interval of time;

142
is a coefficient defining the amount of maximum available import as a
percentage of the required production.
7.3 Data for Case Studies
To perform the economic analysis, the data were collected from different sources.
Then, the averages were calculated and used for case studies.
In Assessment of NOx emissions reduction strategies for cement kilns - Ellis
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%.
The average corresponding amount of cement produced will be 537,958.4 tons/year,
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
analysis are based on the average capacity of 540,000 tons/year.

143
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
kWh/ton electricity, which is equivalent to 517.8*103 Btu/ton, as stated by PCA Annual
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
States cement industry:
Gasoline 2.2*103 Btu/ton
Middle distillates 33.6*103 Btu/ton
Residual oil 6.1*103 Btu/ton
LPG 1.0*103 Btu/ton
Natural gas 151.1*103 Btu/ton
Coal 2,646.1*103 Btu/ton
Petroleum Coke 874.9*103 Btu/ton
Waste fuel 416.5*103 Btu/ton
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
The proportions of materials necessary for production of Portland cement vary
due to required specifications of cement properties. The proportions of these materials
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
Overview prepared by the U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste in 2006.
The list of raw materials necessary for the production of one ton of Portland
cement is presented below:
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
Iron Ore 10.24 kg
Gypsum 6.4 kg
Bauxite 1.76 kg
Mill Scale 1.6 kg
Diatomaceous Earth 1.44 kg
Slag 1.12 kg
Mag Rock 0.16 kg
Other 1.6 kg
145
As already mentioned, production of 1,000 kg of cement requiries from 1,500 kg
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
country to country. For environmental protection and sustainable development, countries
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
carbon dioxide, which was suggested to be included as emission in initiatives such as
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
regulations and limitations. According to the report developed by International Energy
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
Global Nation Organization, in 2007 cement producing company, Lafarge, has
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
dioxide emissions for the economic-mathematical model. The rate of minimization of
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
MMTCO2 (Energy Information Administration, 2008).
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
NOx emissions have more accurate regulations and limitations. In Pollution
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
Strategies for Cement Kilns Ellis County.
As mentioned above, World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(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
to 5.1lb/ton (EPA, 2008).
There are also state regulations for some pollutants. The state regulations for
Pennsylvania are presented below (The Environmental Quality Board, 2008):
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
allowable limits established under subsection (b).
b) The owner or operator of a Portland cement kiln shall determine allowable
emissions of NOx by multiplying the tons of clinker produced by the Portland
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-
process cement kilns.
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
device, which continuously monitors and records NOx emissions in a manner
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
form acceptable by the Executive Officer upon request.
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
is limited to no more than:
(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
production of cement, and, according to Environmental Protection Agency (1994 and
2005), they range from 0.38 lb/ton to 0.89lb/ton.

149
Limits for this pollution are stated by World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (2004). According to WBCSD (2004), the limit for particulates is 50
mg/Nm3 equivalent to 0.2 kg/ton, which is equal to 0.44lb/ton.
Another limit for this pollution in California (Adopted February 7, 1986) requires
(South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1986):
(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
hour. (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1986)
There is also another limit by Environmental Protection Agency (2005) for
particulate matter from the cement production:
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
cement, equivalent to 5.68lb/ton, according to Cement Association of Canada (2008).
Another number for SO2 associated with the production of cement, provided by
Environmental Protection Agency (1994), is 10lb/ton.

150
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
0.3mg/Nm3, equivalent to 0.000088lb/ton and 0.00264lb/ton, correspondingly. The same
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
amounts of emissions were collected for long dry-process cement kilns.
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
95,753,562 tons (94,693,000+1.2% of 94,693,000). This is also based on the PCA
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
presented in Table 7.2.

151
Table 7.2 Cement Production for 2009-2020
Cement Production for 2009-2020

Forcasted
Year Demand
ton/year
2009 2,140,000
2010 2,149,433
2011 2,121,797
2012 2,105,338
2013 2,079,988
2014 2,040,959
2015 2,015,477
2016 2,087,488
2017 2,126,403
2018 2,100,981
2019 2,132,927
2020 2,126,508
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
presented in Table 7.3.

152
Table 7.3 Calculated CO2 Emissions for Case Study
Calculated CO2 Emissions for Case Study

Calculated
CO2 based on U.S. total Plant
CO2 1.5% CO2 limit for
Year Clean Air Act cement production
ton case study
(ton/year) production (ton/year)
(ton/year)
2009 5,984,000,000 89,760,000 95,753,562 2,140,000 2,006,050
2010 5,927,547,170 88,913,208 95,333,342 2,149,433 2,004,681
2011 5,871,094,340 88,066,415 96,151,202 2,121,797 1,943,388
2012 5,814,641,509 87,219,623 97,734,237 2,105,338 1,878,838
2013 5,758,188,679 86,372,830 100,554,097 2,079,988 1,786,644
2014 5,701,735,849 85,526,038 105,433,659 2,040,959 1,655,592
2015 5,645,283,019 84,679,245 111,947,686 2,015,477 1,524,543
2016 5,588,830,189 83,832,453 114,763,783 2,087,488 1,524,865
2017 5,532,377,358 82,985,660 115,497,599 2,126,403 1,527,833
2018 5,475,924,528 82,138,868 117,642,599 2,100,981 1,466,919
2019 5,419,471,698 81,292,075 118,032,713 2,132,927 1,469,000
2020 5,363,018,868 80,445,283 118,781,581 2,126,508 1,440,186
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.
Table 7.4 Production Line Capacities
Production Line Capacities

Production Line
1 2 3 4 5
Capacities
ton/year 400,000 450,000 530,000 550,000 600,000
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
Table 7.5 Capital Cost and Total Capacity
Capital Cost and Total Capacity

Capital cost, $ 336,490,000
Total capacity
2,530,000
ton/year
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.
Table 7.6 5% Increase of Cement Demand
5% Increase of Cement Demand

Cement Cement1
Years
ton ton
2010 2,149,433 2,256,905
2011 2,121,797 2,227,887
2012 2,105,338 2,210,605
2013 2,079,988 2,183,987
2014 2,040,959 2,143,007
2015 2,015,477 2,116,251
2016 2,087,488 2,191,863
2017 2,126,403 2,232,724
2018 2,100,981 2,206,030
2019 2,132,927 2,239,573
2020 2,126,508 2,232,834
For the case studies the material proportions were selected from the above
mentioned numbers, and are presented in Table 7.7 and
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,
compared to reference value.
Calculated Material Proportion for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement

Lime Shale Clay Sand Marl Ashc
% change
kg kg kg kg kg kg
1 (4+3% of 4) 1,388.93 75.48 61.14 42.52 31.31 23.73
2 (4+2% of 4) 1,375.45 74.75 60.55 42.11 31.01 23.50
3 (4+1% of 4) 1,361.96 74.01 59.95 41.69 30.70 23.27
4 1,348.48 73.28 59.36 41.28 30.40 23.04
5 (4-1% of 4) 1,335.00 72.55 58.77 40.87 30.10 22.81
Calculated Material Proportion for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement

Iron Gyps Baux Mill Diatom Slag Mgrock
% change
kg kg kg kg kg kg kg
1 (4+3% of 4) 10.55 6.59 1.81 1.65 1.48 1.15 0.165
2 (4+2% of 4) 10.44 6.53 1.80 1.63 1.47 1.14 0.163
3 (4+1% of 4) 10.34 6.46 1.78 1.62 1.45 1.13 0.162
4 10.24 6.40 1.76 1.60 1.44 1.12 0.160
5 (4-1% of 4) 10.14 6.34 1.74 1.58 1.43 1.11 0.158
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
reference value, which is from the above mentioned data.

156
Table 7.9 (continued on following page)Calculated Energy Use for Production ofPortlan
Calculated Energy Use for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement

Elec. Coal Coke Wstfuel
% change
kWh Btu Btu Btu
1 (4+3% of 4) 156.56 2,725,483.00 901,147.00 428,995.00
2 (4+2% of 4) 155.04 2,699,022.00 892,398.00 424,830.00
3 (4+1% of 4) 153.52 2,672,561.00 883,649.00 420,665.00
4 152.00 2,646,100.00 874,900.00 416,500.00
5 (4-1% of 4) 150.48 2,619,639.00 866,151.00 412,335.00
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
Calculated Emissions from Production of One Ton of Portland Cement

CO2 NOx SO2 PM Mercury
% change
ton ton ton ton ton
1 (4+3% of 4) 0.83 0.00140 0.00266 0.0001543 0.000000638
2 (4+2% of 4) 0.83 0.00139 0.00263 0.0001528 0.000000632
3 (4+1% of 4) 0.82 0.00138 0.00260 0.0001513 0.000000625
4 0.81 0.00136 0.00258 0.0001498 0.000000619
5 (4-1% of 4) 0.80 0.00135 0.00255 0.0001483 0.000000613
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
considered as one of the constraints.

157
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 7.11 and

158
Table 7.12.
The 20% increase is not a fixed number and was selected only to increase the
limit for raw materials used in the cement production.
Table 7.11 Raw Materials with 20% Increase
Raw Materials with 20% Increase

Lime Shale Clay Sand Marl Ashc
Year
kg kg kg kg kg kg
2010 3,512,942,331 190,902,656 154,639,488 107,539,051 79,195,425 60,021,796
2011 3,467,775,741 188,448,183 152,651,258 106,156,400 78,177,194 59,250,084
2012 3,440,874,975 186,986,324 151,467,088 105,332,907 77,570,746 58,790,460
2013 3,399,443,753 184,734,841 149,643,288 104,064,605 76,636,724 58,082,570
2014 3,335,657,065 181,268,502 146,835,402 102,111,951 75,198,724 56,992,717
2015 3,294,011,118 179,005,350 145,002,151 100,837,075 74,259,861 56,281,158
2016 3,411,702,620 185,401,020 150,182,923 104,439,876 76,913,087 58,292,024
2017 3,475,304,021 188,857,290 152,982,652 106,386,858 78,346,911 59,378,711
2018 3,433,754,547 186,599,381 151,153,647 105,114,935 77,410,224 58,668,801
2019 3,485,965,811 189,436,680 153,451,983 106,713,239 78,587,269 59,560,878
2020 3,475,475,161 188,866,590 152,990,186 106,392,097 78,350,769 59,381,635
159
Table 7.12 Raw Materials with 20% Increase
Raw Materials with 20% Increase

Iron Gyps Baux Mill Diatom Slag Mgrock
Year
kg kg kg kg kg kg kg
2010 26,676,354 16,672,721 4,584,998 4,168,180 3,751,362 2,917,726 416,818
2011 26,333,371 16,458,357 4,526,048 4,114,589 3,703,130 2,880,212 411,459
2012 26,129,093 16,330,683 4,490,938 4,082,671 3,674,404 2,857,870 408,267
2013 25,814,476 16,134,047 4,436,863 4,033,512 3,630,161 2,823,458 403,351
2014 25,330,096 15,831,310 4,353,610 3,957,828 3,562,045 2,770,479 395,783
2015 25,013,848 15,633,655 4,299,255 3,908,414 3,517,572 2,735,890 390,841
2016 25,907,566 16,192,229 4,452,863 4,048,057 3,643,251 2,833,640 404,806
2017 26,390,538 16,494,086 4,535,874 4,123,522 3,711,169 2,886,465 412,352
2018 26,075,023 16,296,889 4,481,645 4,074,222 3,666,800 2,851,956 407,422
2019 26,471,501 16,544,688 4,549,789 4,136,172 3,722,555 2,895,320 413,617
2020 26,391,838 16,494,899 4,536,097 4,123,725 3,711,352 2,886,607 412,372
The energy necessary for cement production is also calculated, and the results are
increased by 20%. Calculated energy numbers are presented in Table 7.13.
Table 7.13 Calculated Energy with 20% Increase
Calculated Energy with 20% Increase

Elec. Coal Coke Wstfuel
Year
kWh Btu Btu Btu
2010 395,977,126 6,893,388,631,909 2,279,213,073,602 1,085,029,426,397
2011 390,885,970 6,804,758,978,866 2,249,908,782,967 1,071,078,989,720
2012 387,853,729 6,751,972,050,498 2,232,455,442,720 1,062,770,250,192
2013 383,183,622 6,670,672,248,600 2,205,574,676,052 1,049,973,542,777
2014 375,993,618 6,545,504,687,300 2,164,189,581,240 1,030,271,986,040
2015 371,299,307 6,463,783,534,514 2,137,169,500,150 1,017,408,957,381
2016 384,565,435 6,694,727,622,153 2,213,528,285,636 1,053,759,893,665
2017 391,734,554 6,819,531,598,431 2,254,793,165,590 1,073,404,221,589
2018 387,051,118 6,737,999,753,315 2,227,835,676,722 1,060,570,990,233
2019 392,936,346 6,840,453,053,612 2,261,710,584,107 1,076,697,289,154
2020 391,753,845 6,819,867,424,521 2,254,904,202,303 1,073,457,081,105
160
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
calculated. These calculations are based on limitations provided by different agencies
such as Environmental Protection Agency, state regulations or WBCSD. These numbers
are calculated and used as constraints in the economic-mathematical model.
Table 7.14 Calculated Emission Limits for Hypothetical Plant
Calculated Emission Limits for Hypothetical Plant

CO2 NOx SO2 PM Mercury
Year
ton ton ton ton ton
2010 2,004,681.35 5,158.64 3,439.09 429.89 0.98
2011 1,943,387.81 5,092.31 3,394.88 424.36 0.96
2012 1,878,837.58 5,052.81 3,368.54 421.07 0.96
2013 1,786,644.35 4,991.97 3,327.98 416.00 0.94
2014 1,655,592.08 4,898.30 3,265.53 408.19 0.93
2015 1,524,543.39 4,837.15 3,224.76 403.10 0.92
2016 1,524,864.87 5,009.97 3,339.98 417.50 0.95
2017 1,527,832.60 5,103.37 3,402.25 425.28 0.97
2018 1,466,919.30 5,042.35 3,361.57 420.20 0.95
2019 1,469,000.07 5,119.02 3,412.68 426.59 0.97
2020 1,440,185.85 5,103.62 3,402.41 425.30 0.97
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
Table 7.15 Capacities of Producing Units and Corresponding Production Costs
Capacities of Producing Units and Corresponding Production Costs

Capacities 1 2 3 4 5
ton/year 400,000 450,000 530,000 550,000 600,000
O&M costs per
72.69 72.93 72.83 72.90 72.83
ton of cement, $
The following notation is used in the model:
K - capital investment for cement producing plant ($)
e1 - unit OandM costs for 1st cement producing unit ($ 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)
Lm1 - consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
Sh1 - consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

162
Cl1 - consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
Sa1 - consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
Ma1 - consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
As1 - consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

163
Ir1 - consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
Gy1 - consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
Ba1 - consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
Mi1 - consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

164
Di1 - consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
Col1 - consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
Cok1 - consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

165
Wst1 - consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
el1 - consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1
co1 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1
no1 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1
166
so1 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1
pm1 - PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1
me1 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1
Maxcap1 - maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1

167

168
8. CHAPTER EIGHT: RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of case studies and their differences. It also
discusses the benefits of choices, based on different numbers of production lines in
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.
8.2.1 Case Study I
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
216,218.8 tons in 2020, which is the last year in this analysis.
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
production capacity, equal to 530,000 tons per year.
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
Table 8.1 Case Study I Results before Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study I Results before Sensitivity Analysis

Case Study 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
I ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year
cem1.L 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 315,462.4 315,841.2 319,332.9 247,669.4 250,117.6 216,218.8
cem2.L 69,433 41,797 25,338 218,201.3 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000
cem3.L 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000
cem4.L 550,000 550,000 550,000 391,786.7 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000
cem5.L 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 70,049.7
store. 60,000 19,090.7
impcem. 150,923.9 241,646.8 277,070.1 323,311.6 352,809.4 380,289.2
Table 8.2 Case Study I Results after Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study I Results after Sensitivity Analysis

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Case Study I
ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year
sens-cem1.L 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 315,462.4 315,841.2 319,332.9 247,669.4 250,117.6 216,218.8
sens-cem2.L 176,905 147,887 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000
sens-cem3.L 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000
sens-cem4.L 550,000 550,000 279,443.4 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000
sens-cem5.L 600,000 600,000 600,000 225,140.8 70,049.7
sens-store. 48,838.37 19,992.2
sens-impcem. 122,965.1 270,788.6 346,021.8 383,391.1 428,360.6 459,455.4 486,615.2
174
Table 8.3 Case Study I Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study I Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Case
Study I
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
Table 8.4 Case Study I Total Production after Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study I Total Production after Sensitivity Analysis

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Case
Study I
sens-total
2,256,905 2,227,887 2,259,443 2,155,141 2,000,050 1,845,462 1,845,841 1,849,333 1,777,669 1,780,118 1,746,219
prod.
175
Results before sensitivity analysis
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)
Results after sensitivity analysis
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
1966500 total prod.
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
8.2.2 Case Study II (Alternative I)
To further validate the effectiveness of the developed model Case Study II is
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
650,000 tons annually.

178
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
2010, and, then, continue with its maximum capacity.
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,
requiring a decrease in 2012, equal to 466,672.2 tones.
The numbers in Table 8.5 show that from 2015 the gap between the demand and
production should be satisfied by importing cement. The import is increasing gradually,
which can be seen from Figure 8.5. After the sensitivity analysis, the need for cement
import is also changed.
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
Table 8.5 Case Study II Results before Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study II Results before Sensitivity Analysis

Case 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Study II ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year
cem1.L 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 5,402.353
cem2.L 650,000 271,797 650,000 334,868 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000
cem4.L 299,433 650,000 255,338 605,120 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000
cem5.L 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 550,346.7 550,727.8 554,240.2 482,152.7 484,615.4 450,516
store. 60,000 24,443.35
impcem. 140,686.9 236,760.2 272,162.8 318,828.3 348,311.6 375,992
Table 8.6 Case Study II Results after Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study II Results after Sensitivity Analysis

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Case Study II
sens-cem1.L 500,000 500,000 500,000 159,581.2 5,402.353
sens-cem2.L 650,000 377,887 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000
sens-cem4.L 406,905 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000
sens-cem5.L 700,000 700,000 466,672.2 700,000 700,000 550,346.7 550,727.8 554,240.2 482,152.7 484,615.4 450,516
sens-store. 56,067.19 31,661.37
sens-impcem. 105,943.3 265,904.3 341,135.2 378,483.8 423,877.3 454,957.6 482,318
181
Table 8.7 Case Study II Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study II Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Case
Study II
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
Table 8.8 Case Study II Total Production after Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study II Total Production after Sensitivity Analysis

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Case
Study II
sens-total
2,256,905 2,227,887 2,266,672 2,159,581 2,005,402 1,850,347 1,850,728 1,854,240 1,782,153 1,784,615 1,750,516
prod.
182
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
1966500 total prod.
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
8.2.3 Case Study III (Alternative II)
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
same as in Case Study II .
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 and Figure 8.10.
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.
Starting from 2012 it will operate with its maximum capacity.
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
tons for that particular year.
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
are presented in Table 8.10 and Figure 8.10.
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
having storage also from 2012 to 2013.
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
all production units in Case Study III are extremely sensitive.
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
analysis. After the sensitivity analysis the LCC is $2,008,694,000.

187
Table 8.9 Case Study III Results before Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study III Results before Sensitivity Analysis

Case 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Study III ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year
cem1.L 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 351,137.6 196,962.4 197,341.2 200,832.9 129,169.4 131,617.6 97,718.82
cem2.L 499,433 471,797 455,338 572,685.8 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000
cem5.L 825,000 825,000 825,000 742,302.2 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000
store. 60,000 20,178.65
impcem. 148,336 240,146.8 275,570.1 321,811.6 351,309.4 378,789.2
Table 8.10 Case Study III Results after Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study III Results after Sensitivity Analysis

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Case Study III
sens-cem1.L 825,000 825,000 825,000 505,316.5 351,137.6 196,962.4 197,341.2 200,832.9 129,169.4 131,617.6 97,718.82
sens-cem2.L 606,905 577,887 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000
sens-cem5.L 825,000 825,000 612,530.2 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000 825,000
sens-store. 519,25.18 232,54.65
sens-impcem. 118,614.7 269,288.6 344,521.8 381,891.1 426,860.6 457,955.4 485,115.2
188
Table 8.11 Case Study III Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis
Case Study III Total Production before Sensitivity Analysis

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Case
Study III
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
Case Study III Total Production after Sensitivity Analysis

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Case
Study III
sens-total
2,256,905 2,227,887 2,262,530 2,155,316 2,001,138 1,846,962 1,847,341 1,850,833 1,779,169 1,781,618 1,747,719
prod.
189
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
1966500 total prod.
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
9. CHAPTER NINE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the conclusions and recommendations based on the
economic analysis.
9.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
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
estimate specific industrial development policy programs and the projected
investments in the cement industry. The uncertainty of forecasts, the infrastructure
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
cement producing plant.
There are two risks associated with the optimal cement production strategy:
Underestimation of existing production capacities, which can lead to a
long-term deficit. If the shortage continues for a long time, the cement
producing plant will not be able to satisfy demand, being forced to
import cement from other producers at relatively higher prices. This
will reduce the firm profits and can negatively affect its reputation,
making the firm less competitive in the market.

192
Overestimation of cement producing capacities, which can result in
improper distribution or misuse of investment funds.
The nature of this dual risk is asymmetric. The reputation of the firm
damaged by underestimation can not be re-established in a short-term, leading to
reduced competitiveness in the market. In contrast to the effects of
underestimation, the impact of overestimation will be limited and easier to deal
with using appropriate preventive regulations. To reduce the uncertainty and to
maintain the risk at a reasonable level, the dynamics of factors, which negatively
affect the forecasted demand for cement, should be carefully analyzed. The
average and long-term development scenarios of the cement industry need to be
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
verify the results through sensitivity analysis.
3. In this research three case studies were investigated. The output of developed
economic-mathematical model is providing solution report, which includes
detailed output for each producing unit.
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
$2,014,992,896. The difference of these costs is 4.602% of $1,926,334,906,
which resulted from 5% increase in demand.

193
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
increase in LCC exists. This increase is close to 4.604% of $1,923,364,931.
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
the LCC is $2,008,694,000. The difference between LCC is 4.616% of
$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
higher being equal to $3,060,947. Difference between savings is equal to $90,972.
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
production units of Case Study I brings more savings, equal to $90,972.
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
from the correct choice of combination of production units.

194
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
in demand is less preferable, since the amount of savings of $3,302,931 is larger
than $3,237,949 by $64,982. Thus, it is recommended to choose the production
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
production units of Case Study I brings more savings.
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
Study I, being equal to $6,298,896.
11. The developed economic-mathematical model is a good decision making tool.
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
the proposed emission or resource limitations will affect their plants.
12. The model is also a good decision making tool for storage issues, since its output
gives the time and duration of the required storage.

195
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:
Al-Muhaisen, M. (2002). Auditing of the maintenance system of Fuhais plant/Jordan
Cement Factories Co. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 8(1), 62-
76.
Amano, K. & Ebihara, M. (2005). Eco-intensity analysis as sustainability indicators
related to energy and material flow. Management of Environmental Quality: an
International Journal, 16(2), 160-166.
Andalas S. (2006). Indonesia: Reconstruction of Cement Production Facility in Aceh
Project. Summary Environmental Impact Assessment, Project No 39932-01.
Andrews, O. & Slater, A. (2002). Energy Utilities Tackle Sustainability Reporting.
Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(1), 86-94.
Arikan, M. (2004). Feasibility analysis of manufacturing high performance
ecologicalcement in Turkey. Building and Environment, 39(9), 1125-1130.
Azapagic, A. (2004). Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for
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
production in the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production,
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
Brodkom, F. (2000). Good Environmental Practice in the European Extractive Industry:
a Reference Guide. Retrieved Feb. 26, 2008, from
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/steel/non-energy-extractive-
industry/good_env_practice_eu_extractive_industry.htm
Canadian Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. (2007). Facts about Cement
Manufacturing. Retrieved Apr. 20, 2008, from
http://www.cpci.ca/?sc=sustainability&pn=cement
CEMBUREAU. (2006). Climate Change CO2 Emissions Trading Points of
Convergence within the Cement Industry. Retrieved Feb. 23, 2008, from
http://www.cembureau.be/
Cement Association of Canada. (2008). Canadian Cement Industry Sustainability Report
2008. Retrieved Feb. 25, 2008, from http://www.cement.ca/cement.nsf/eee
9ec7bbd630126852566c40052107b/cda31926e3e601228525740b006f526b/$FIL
E/Canadian%20Cement%20Industry%202008%20Sustainability%20Report.pdf
Cement Association of Canada. (2006). Canadian Cement Industry Sustainability Report
2006. Retrieved Feb. 25, 2008, from
http://www.cement.ca/cement.nsf/eee9ec7bbd630126852566c40052107b/86b42c
bc7dd8547e8525713a006da286/$FILE/2006%20Sustainability%20Report.pdf
Cement Distribution Consultants. (2008). Cement import operation: Operational costs
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
Sources 2007 Flash Estimate. Retrieved May 27, 2009, from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html
Environmental Protection Agency. (1994). Portland Cement Manufacturing Final
Report, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.6. Retrieved June
3, 2008 , from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s06.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Portland Cement Manufacturing Final
Report, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.6. Retrieved June
3, 2008 , from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s06.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Emission of Oxides of Nitrogen From
Cement Kilns. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/EPA-
AIR/2003/July/Day-30/a19279.htm
Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Performance of Building Guidelines. Retrieved Feb. 25, 2008,
from http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s1119.htm
ERG, Inc. (2006). Assessment of NOx emissions reduction strategies for cement kilns -
Ellis county. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from

199
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/agreements/BSA/
CEMENT_FINAL_REPORT_70514_final.pdf
Gabel, K. (2001). A Life Cycle Process Model: Simulation of Environmental, Product
and Economic Performance in Cement Production. Gteborg, Sweden: Chalmers
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/
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2008). G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.
Retrieved Apr. 4, 2008, from http://www.csrwire.com/News/11486.html
Habisch, A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility across Europe. New York: Springer.
Hodges, C. P. (2005). A facility managers approach to sustainability. Journal of
Facilities Management, 3(4), 321-324.
Holcim (US) Inc.. (2001). Social Responsibility. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from
http://www.holcim.us/USA/EN/id/57129/mod/gnm50/page/editorial.html
International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. (2004). Emission
Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from the Cement Industry. Retrieved Apr. 25,
2008, from http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s1119.htm

200
Klee, H. (2008). The $4 Million Report From the Cement Industry That Says: Toxic
Sludge is Good for You! Retrieved Apr. 4, 2008, from http://
www.cementkiln.com/DARThe4MillionReportFromTheCementIndustry.htm
KPMG and UNEP. (2006). Carrots and Sticks for Starters: Current Trends and
Approaches Involuntary and Mandatory Standards for Sustainability Reporting.
Retrieved Apr. 4, 2008, from http://www.uneptie.org/outreach/reporting/
docs/Public-UNEP-KPMG-Report-FIN.pdf
Lechtenberg, D. (2008). Tunisia: Waste management and the cement industry. Retrieved
Apr. 22, 2008, from http://www.propubs.com/GC/articles/GC_April08_
lechtenberg.pdf
Ministry of Environment. (2004). Chapter 4. Construction. In. Ministry Of Environment
(Ed.), Lebanon State of the Environment Report (p. 51-64). Lebanon: Ministry of
Environment/LEDO.
Portland Cement Association. (2006). Comments on the Final Report Assessment of
NOx Emissions Reduction Strategies for Cement Kilns Ellis County. Retrieved
June 1, 2008, from http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation
/air/sip/agreements/BSA/PCA_Comments-Final_Cement_Kiln_Report.PDF
Portland Cement Association. (2006). Economics of the U.S. Cement Industry. Retrieved
Apr. 20, 2008, from http://www.cement.org/econ/industry.asp
Portland Cement Association. (2007). PCA Annual Yearbook 2007. Retrieved May 11,
2008, from http://www.cement.org/econ/pdf/2007YrBk.pdf

201
Portland Cement Association. (2008). Cement Plants Take Steps to Go Green. Retrieved
Apr. 20, 2008, from http://www.cement.org/buildings/sustainable_cement.asp
Portland Cement Association. (2008). Green in Practice 101 - LEED 2.2 Credits with
Concrete. Retrieved Apr. 22, 2008, from
http://www.concretethinker.com/papers.aspx?docid=314
Rasul, M. G., Widiato, W., & Mohanty, B. (2005). Assessment of the thermal
performance and energy conservation opportunities of a cement industry in
Indonesia. Applied Thermal Engineering, 25(2), 2950-2965.
Rosenthal, R. E. (2008). A GAMS tutorial. Retrieved Apr. 10, 2008, from
http://www.gams.com/docs/gams/Tutorial.pdf
Shaleen, K. G., Rangan, B., & Uday, G. (2002). Energy balance and cogeneration for a
cement plant. Applied Thermal Engineering, 22(3), 485-494.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. (1986). RULE 1112 - Emissions of Oxides
of Nitrogen from Cement Kilns. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from
http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SC/CURHTML/R1112.HTM
South Coast Air Quality Management District. (1986). RULE 1112.1 - Emissions of
Particulate Matter from Cement Kilns. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from
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.
Retrieved Apr. 20, 2008, from http://www.cement.org/econ/pdf/
USForenonmember.pdf
The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB). (2004). Sustainability and Construction.
Retrieved Feb. 20, 2008, from http://www.ciob.org.uk/filegrab/
sustainability%20.pdf?ref=74
The Energy Conservation Center (ECC), Japan. (1994). Output of a Seminar on Energy
Conservation in Cement Industry. Retrieved Mar. 15, 2008, from
http://www.unido.org/userfiles/PuffK/cement.pdf
The Environmental Quality Board. (2008). Control of NOx Emissions from Cement Kilns.
Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.pabulletin.com /secure/data/vol38/38-
16/730.html
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, (2006). Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust:
Cement Industry Overview. USA: Environmental Protection Agency.
Utlu, Z., Hepbasli , A., & Oktay, Z. (2006). Energy and exergy analyses of a raw mill in a
cement production. Applied Thermal Engineering, 26, 2479-2489.
van Oss, H. G. (2006). Cement. In. USGS (Ed.), Mineral Commodity Summaries (p. 44-
45). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Viridis, TRL , CIRIA. (2008). Mass Balance of the Construction Industry to Improve
Sustainability. Retrieved Mar. 30, 2008, from http://www.trl.co.uk
/content/main.asp?pid=259
203
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2002). Cement Industry.
Retrieved Feb. 27, 2008, from http://www.uneptie.org/Outreach
/wssd/docs/further_resources/related_initiatives/WBCSD/WBCSD-cement.pdf
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2002). The Cement Sustainability
Initiative Executive Summary. Retrieved Apr. 22, 2008, from
http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/agenda_summary.pdf%20
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2002). Industrial Ecology in the
Cement Industry. Retrieved Apr. 20, 2008, from
http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/Q9STRLkJliURVchtjiuF/final_report9.pdf
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2004). Pollution Prevention and
Abatement for Cement Industry. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from
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
This list contains explanations of abbreviations used in the research investigation.
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
DJGSI Dow Jones Global Sustainability Index
SRI Social Responsibility Investment
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
ISO International Standardization Organization
CIOB Chartered Institute of Building
GRI Global Reporting Initiative
IE Industrial Ecology
LEDO Lebanese Environment and Department Observatory
IFEN French Institute for Environment
LCC Life-Cycle Cost
TCO Total Cost of Ownership
CP Carbon Footprint
205
B.Appendix B. Definitions
This list contains explanations of concepts, phrases, words used in this research.
B.1 Sustainable Development
Sustainable Development can be defined in many ways. It is also defined as a
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
Commission on Environment and Development, 1986).
B.2 Corporate Sustainability
Corporate Sustainability is a way of approach in business, which can create long-
term values with shareholders by approving opportunities and managing risks derived by
developments in economic, environmental, and social aspects (International Foundation
for Sustainable and Harmonious Earth, 2001).
B.3 Triple Bottom Line
The Triple Bottom Line - economic, environmental, and social values, in design
and construction includes approaches such as: Design for the Environment, Context
Sensitive Designs, Value Engineering, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, and Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification for projects (Carnegie Mellon,
2004).
B.4 CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
This is an approach by which a company:
May easilly recognize all activities, which have a wider impact on the society.
206
Will easily manage the economic, social, environmental and human rights
impacts from their actions.
Will be able to get benefits by doing business together with others
(http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/definitions.html).
B.5 DJGSI Dow Jones Global Sustainability Index
This is an index of 10% of the top sustainability companies in each of DJGSI
industry groups. Ranking of companies is based on their management of sustainability
opportunities and risks in order to provide information to investors
(http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/definitions.html).
B.6 SRI Social Responsibility Investment
This is an investment strategy, which is taking into account companys ethical,
social and environment performances. (http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/definitions.html).
B.7 LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
This is a voluntary based national standard in order to develop high-performance,
sustainable buildings (http://www.csbsju.edu/environmentalstudies
/curriculum/greenbuildingplan/Green%20Building%20Plan%20p12.htm).
B.8 ISO International Standardization Organization
This is the major developer of standards in the world. It is a non-governmental
organization of the national standards institutes, which includes 157 countries.
(http://www.archivaladvisor.org /shtml/glossary.shtml).
207
B.9 CIOB Chartered Institute of Building
The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) is an important organization for
managers in construction. (http://www.ciob.org.uk/home).
B.10 GRI Global Reporting Initiative
The Global Reporting Initiative is a big multi-stakeholder network of many
experts all over the world. (http://www.globalreporting.org/ AboutGRI/WhoWeAre/).
B.11 IE Industrial Ecology
IE is about physical, chemical, and biological interactions and interrelationships
within as well as between industrial and ecological systems (National Pollution
Prevention Center for Higher Education - University of Michigan, 1995)
B.12 LEDO Lebanese Environment and Department Observatory
Lebanese Ministry of Environment established in 1981 in order to make the laws
and regulations, which will improve the quality of environment and life conditions in
Lebanon (http://www.moe.gov.lb/Corporate/The+ministry/History.htm).
B.13 IFEN French Institute for Environment
IFEN coordinates collection, processing and diffusion of statistical information
about environmental topics. In particular, it is mostly concentrated on the field of water,
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
B.14 LCC Life-Cycle Cost
LCC is a methodology mostly used by systems engineering to estimate and
compare costs for development and investment, operation and acquisition, and support
during the life cycle of a product. (http://www.systecon.co.uk/definitions
/lifecyclecost.html). The primary uses of this technique are:
Comparison of possible alternatives
Global planning and budgeting
Comparison of concepts
Selection of contractors
Decisions for ageing equipment replacement
Control of programs
B.15 TCO Total Cost of Ownership
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,
operating, maintaining a bulldozer or other equipment (http://www.the-
financedirector.com/glossary/total-cost-of-ownership.html).
B.16 CF Carbon Footprint
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
dioxide (CO2). (http://timeforchange.org/what-is-a-carbon-footprint-definition).

209
Glossary
Blended hydraulic cements This products are made by the blending supplementary
cementing materials with Portland cement (Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
Calcination This is a chemical process in clinker production where limestone
disassociates (Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
Cementitious material All materials that have binding performance can be used to
make concrete or mortar (Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
Concrete This is a mix of Portland cement, water, fine and coarse aggregrates (Cement
Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
Clinker This is the main content of cement produced in cement kiln by pyroprocessing
of a proportioned mixture (Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
CO2 Carbon dioxide is a composition of carbon and oxygen. It is colourless, odourless,
non-poisonous gas (Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
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).
Emissions Intensity The amount of emissions per unit of production (Cement
Energy Intensity The amount of the energy consumption per unit of production
(Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
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
greenhouse effect (Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
Grinding Facility A facility that is designed to reduce the particle size of rock-like
materials (Cement Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).
NOX Chemical from composition of nitrogen and oxygen (Cement Association of
Canada, 2008, p. 27).
SOx Chemical from composition of sulphur and oxygen (Cement Association of
Canada, 2008, p. 27).
Total Particulate Matter This is a powder of solids or liquids suspended in a gas. It
can be produced by nature or may be generated by man (Cement Association of Canada,
2008, p. 27).
211
C.Appendix C. Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Computer Code for Economic-Mathematical Model of Life Cycle Cost analysis
*RESEARCH THESIS - HAKOB AVETISYAN

*SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CEMENT INDUSTRY
option lp=minos;
*option limrow=0, limcol=0, decimals=0, lp=minos, solprint=off;
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
2017 2126403 2232724 3475304021 188857290 152982652 106386858 78346911

59378711 26390538 16494086 4535874 4123522 3711169 391734554 6819531598431
2254793165590 1073404221589 1527833 5103 3402 425 0.97
2018 2100981 2206030 3433754547 186599381 151153647 105114935 77410224
58668801 26075023 16296889 4481645 4074222 3666800 387051118 6737999753315
2227835676722 1060570990233 1466919 5042 3362 420 0.95
2019 2132927 2239573 3485965811 189436680 153451983 106713239 78587269
59560878 26471501 16544688 4549789 4136172 3722555 392936346 6840453053612
2261710584107 1076697289154 1469000 5119 3413 427 0.97
2020 2126508 2232834 3475475161 188866590 152990186 106392097 78350769
59381635 26391838 16494899 4536097 4123725 3711352 391753845 6819867424521
2254904202303 1073457081105 1440186 5104 3402 425 0.97;
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 /
Sh1 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 75.48 /
Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
213
Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
214
Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995 /
el1 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 150.48 /
el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.00136 /
so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.00266 /
pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.00015 /
215
me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
Maxcap1 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1 /400000/

s unit costs of cement inventory storage ($ per ton) /5/

p norm considering the time factor / 0.012 /
*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) ($)
cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
216

cost5(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i ($ per ton);
positive variables cem1, cem2, cem3, cem4, cem5, impcem, store;
*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
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
217

Import(i,j) maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i;
*Objective function minimizing total expenses

Object.. LCC =E= K + sum(i,rho(i)*[e1*cem1(i) + e2*cem2(i) + e3*cem3(i) +
e4*cem4(i)
+ e5*cem5(i) + s*store(i) + pencem*(max[e1,e2,e3,e4,e5])*impcem(i)]);
*1.Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time

Dem(i,'Cement').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)
+ impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement') + store(i);
*2.Input1 Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time

*Lime
Inp1(i,'Lime').. cem1(i)*Lm1 + cem2(i)*Lm2 + cem3(i)*Lm3 + cem4(i)*Lm4 +
cem5(i)*Lm5 =L= data(i,'Lime');
*Shale
Inp2(i,'Shale').. cem1(i)*Sh1 + cem2(i)*Sh2 + cem3(i)*Sh3 + cem4(i)*Sh4 +
cem5(i)*Sh5 =L= data(i,'Shale');
*Clay
Inp3(i,'Clay').. cem1(i)*Cl1 + cem2(i)*Cl2 + cem3(i)*Cl3 + cem4(i)*Cl4 +
cem5(i)*Cl5 =L= data(i,'Clay');
*Sand
Inp4(i,'Sand').. cem1(i)*Sa1 + cem2(i)*Sa2 + cem3(i)*Sa3 + cem4(i)*Sa4 +
cem5(i)*Sa5 =L= data(i,'Sand');
*Marl
Inp5(i,'Marl').. cem1(i)*Ma1 + cem2(i)*Ma2 + cem3(i)*Ma3 + cem4(i)*Ma4 +
cem5(i)*Ma5 =L= data(i,'Marl');
*Ashc
Inp6(i,'Ashc').. cem1(i)*As1 + cem2(i)*As2 + cem3(i)*As3 + cem4(i)*As4 +
cem5(i)*As5 =L= data(i,'Ashc');
*Iron
Inp7(i,'Iron').. cem1(i)*Ir1 + cem2(i)*Ir2 + cem3(i)*Ir3 + cem4(i)*Ir4 +
cem5(i)*Ir5 =L= data(i,'Iron');
*Gyps
Inp8(i,'Gyps').. cem1(i)*Gy1 + cem2(i)*Gy2 + cem3(i)*Gy3 + cem4(i)*Gy4 +
cem5(i)*Gy5 =L= data(i,'Gyps');
*Baux
Inp9(i,'Baux').. cem1(i)*Ba1 + cem2(i)*Ba2 + cem3(i)*Ba3 + cem4(i)*Ba4 +
cem5(i)*Ba5 =L= data(i,'Baux');
*Mill
Inp10(i,'Mill').. cem1(i)*Mi1 + cem2(i)*Mi2 + cem3(i)*Mi3 + cem4(i)*Mi4 +
cem5(i)*Mi5 =L= data(i,'Mill');
218
*Diatom
Inp11(i,'Diatom').. cem1(i)*Di1 + cem2(i)*Di2 + cem3(i)*Di3 + cem4(i)*Di4 +
cem5(i)*Di5 =L= data(i,'Diatom');
*3a.Balance of Electricity - should be satisfied at each i interval of time

Elecbal(i,'Elec').. cem1(i)*el1 + cem2(i)*el2 + cem3(i)*el3 + cem4(i)*el4 +
cem5(i)*el5 =L= data(i,'Elec');
*3b.Balance of Energy - should be satisfied at each i interval of time

*Coal
Energy1(i,'Coal').. cem1(i)*Col1 + cem2(i)*Col2 + cem3(i)*Col3 + cem4(i)*Col4 +
cem5(i)*Col5 =L= data(i,'Coal');
*Coke
Energy2(i,'Coke').. cem1(i)*Cok1 + cem2(i)*Cok2 + cem3(i)*Cok3 + cem4(i)*Cok4 +
cem5(i)*Cok5 =L= data(i,'Coke');
*Wstfuel
Energy3(i,'Wstfuel')..cem1(i)*Wst1 + cem2(i)*Wst2 + cem3(i)*Wst3 + cem4(i)*Wst4 +
cem5(i)*Wst5 =L= data(i,'Wstfuel');
*4. Emissions constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time

Emission_CO2(i,'CO2').. cem1(i)*co1 + cem2(i)*co2 + cem3(i)*co3 + cem4(i)*co4 +
cem5(i)*co5 =L= data(i,'CO2');
Emission_NOx(i,'NOx').. cem1(i)*no1 + cem2(i)*no2 + cem3(i)*no3 + cem4(i)*no4 +
cem5(i)*no5 =L= data(i,'NOx');
*Emission_SO2(i,'SO2').. cem1(i)*so1 + cem2(i)*so2 + cem3(i)*so3 + cem4(i)*so4 +
* cem5(i)*so5 =L= data(i,'SO2');
Emission_PM(i,'PM').. cem1(i)*pm1 + cem2(i)*pm2 + cem3(i)*pm3 + cem4(i)*pm4 +
cem5(i)*pm5 =L= data(i,'PM');
Emission_Mer(i,'Merc').. cem1(i)*me1 + cem2(i)*me2 + cem3(i)*me3 + cem4(i)*me4 +
cem5(i)*me5 =L= data(i,'Merc');
*5.Capacity and Import Constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time

Capacity1(i).. cem1(i) =L= Maxcap1;
Import(i,'Cement').. impcem(i) =L= Maximp*data(i,'Cement');
model cement_plant /all/;

solve cement_plant minimizing LCC using lp;
cost1.l(i) = rho(i)*e1;
219
display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,

cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
execute_unload "result1.gdx" cem1.l;

execute_unload "store.gdx" store.l;
execute_unload "import.gdx" impcem.l;
execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l'

execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
*Sensitivity analysis - increasing the demand for cement by 5% for 2010-2020
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);
model cement_plant_sens_analysis /Object, Dem1, Inp1, Inp2, Inp3, Inp4,

Inp5, Inp6, Inp7, Inp8, Inp9, Inp10, Inp11,
Elecbal, Energy1, Energy2, Energy3, Emission_NOx,
Emission_CO2, Emission_PM, Emission_Mer,
Capacity1, Capacity2, Capacity3, Capacity4,
220
Capacity5, Import/;
*Emission_SO2,
solve cement_plant_sens_analysis minimizing LCC using lp;
display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,

cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
execute_unload "sens_result1.gdx" cem1.l;

execute_unload "sens_store.gdx" store.l;
execute_unload "sens_import.gdx" impcem.l;
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result1.gdx var=cem1.l'

execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result1.gdx var=cem1.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_store.gdx var=store.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_import.gdx var=impcem.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
221
D.Appendix D. Energy and Material Balance
Based on the notation below four phases of clinker are specified as follows:
Source: Understanding Cement, 1990.

Figure D.1 Notation for Cement Content.
D.1 Alite:
Ca3SiO5 in terms of its oxides is 3CaO.SiO2. The CaO term is shortened to C
and the SiO2 to S. The compound thus becomes C3S (Understanding Cement,
1990).
D.2 Belite:
Similarly, Ca2SiO4 is 2CaO.SiO2, which is shortened to C2S (Understanding
Cement, 1990).
D.3 Tricalcium Aluminate:
Ca3Al2O6 is 3CaO.Al2O3. The Al2O3 term is shortened to A and the compound
becomes C3A (Understanding Cement, 1990).
D.4 Tetracalcium Aluminoferrite:
2(Ca2AlFeO5) is 4CaO.Al2O3.Fe2O3. Fe2O3 is shortened to F and the compound
becomes C4AF (Understanding Cement, 1990).

222
Table D.1 Enthalpy Balance of the Raw Mill
Enthalpy Balance of the Raw Mill
Table D.2 Entropy Balance of Raw Mill

Entropy Balance of Raw Mill
Table D.3 Exergy Balance in the Raw Mill

Exergy Balance in the Raw Mill

223
Source: Rasul et al. (2005)

Figure D.2 Flowchart for Clinker Product Calculation.
Source: Rasul et al. (2005)

Figure D.3 Flowchart Showing the Principles of Mass Balance.
224
Source: Khurana et al. (2002)

Figure D.4 Schematic of the Maihar Cement Plant.
225
E.Appendix E. Cement Data

Figure E.1 Status of 15 Canadian Cement Plants in 2006.
226

Figure E.2 Status of 15 Canadian Cement Plants in 2005 and 2007.
227
Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, PCA Economic Research Department, 2008.

Figure E.3 Consumption of Portland Cement in the United States.
228
Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, PCA Economic Research Department, 2008.

Figure E.4 United States Cement and Clinker Imports by Country of Origin
229
F.Appendix F. Output of Case Study Analysis
Case Study I (number of production lines is 5)
GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08

20:40:26 Page 1
General Algebraic Modeling System
Compilation
1 *RESEARCH THESIS - HAKOB AVETISYAN

2 *SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CEMENT INDUSTRY
3 option lp=minos;
4 *option limrow=0, limcol=0, decimals=0, lp=minos, solprint=off;
5
6 sets i years of the considered period (time intervals) /2010, 2011, 2012,
7 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020/
8 j demand and resource components /Cement, Cement1, Lime, Shale, Clay,
9 Sand, Marl, Ashc, Iron, Gyps, Baux, Mill, Diatom, Elec, Coal, Coke,
10 Wstfuel, CO2, NOx, SO2, PM, Merc/;
11
12 table
13 data(i,j) predicted demand input and emissions for cement producing plant
14
15 Cement Cement1 Lime Shale Clay Sand Marl Ashc Iron
Gyps Baux Mill
Diatom Elec Coal Coke Wstfuel CO2 NOx SO2 PM Merc
16 2010 2149433 2256905 3512942331 190902656 154639488 107539051 79195425
60021796 26676354 16672721 4584998 4168180
3751362 395977126 6893388631909 2279213073602 1085029426397 2004681 5159
3439 430 0.98
17 2011 2121797 2227887 3467775741 188448183 152651258 106156400 78177194
59250084 26333371 16458357 4526048 4114589
3703130 390885970 6804758978866 2249908782967 1071078989720 1943388 5092
3395 424 0.96
18 2012 2105338 2210605 3440874975 186986324 151467088 105332907 77570746
58790460 26129093 16330683 4490938 4082671
3674404 387853729 6751972050498 2232455442720 1062770250192 1878838 5053
3369 421 0.96
19 2013 2079988 2183987 3399443753 184734841 149643288 104064605 76636724
58082570 25814476 16134047 4436863 4033512
3630161 383183622 6670672248600 2205574676052 1049973542777 1786644 4992
3328 416 0.94
230
20 2014 2040959 2143007 3335657065 181268502 146835402 102111951 75198724

56992717 25330096 15831310 4353610 3957828
3562045 375993618 6545504687300 2164189581240 1030271986040 1655592 4898
3266 408 0.93
21 2015 2015477 2116251 3294011118 179005350 145002151 100837075 74259861
56281158 25013848 15633655 4299255 3908414
3517572 371299307 6463783534514 2137169500150 1017408957381 1524543 4837
3225 403 0.92
22 2016 2087488 2191863 3411702620 185401020 150182923 104439876 76913087
58292024 25907566 16192229 4452863 4048057
3643251 384565435 6694727622153 2213528285636 1053759893665 1524865 5010
3340 417 0.95
23 2017 2126403 2232724 3475304021 188857290 152982652 106386858 78346911
59378711 26390538 16494086 4535874 4123522
3711169 391734554 6819531598431 2254793165590 1073404221589 1527833 5103
3402 425 0.97
24 2018 2100981 2206030 3433754547 186599381 151153647 105114935 77410224
58668801 26075023 16296889 4481645 4074222
3666800 387051118 6737999753315 2227835676722 1060570990233 1466919 5042
3362 420 0.95
25 2019 2132927 2239573 3485965811 189436680 153451983 106713239 78587269
59560878 26471501 16544688 4549789 4136172
3722555 392936346 6840453053612 2261710584107 1076697289154 1469000 5119
3413 427 0.97
26 2020 2126508 2232834 3475475161 188866590 152990186 106392097 78350769
59381635 26391838 16494899 4536097 4123725
3711352 391753845 6819867424521 2254904202303 1073457081105 1440186 5104
3402 425 0.97;
27
28 scalars
29 K capital investment for cement producing plant ($) / 336490000 /
30
31 e1 unit OandM costs for 1st cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.69 /
32 e2 unit OandM costs for 2nd cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.93 /
33 e3 unit OandM costs for 3rd cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.83 /
34 e4 unit OandM costs for 4th cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.90 /
36
37 Lm1 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1388.93 /
42
231
43 Sh1 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 75.48 /
48
49 Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
54
55 Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
60
61 Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
66
67 As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
72
73 Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
78
79 Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
84
85 Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
232
90
91 Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
96
97 Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
102
103 Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
108
109 Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
114
115 Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995
/
/
/
/
/
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 /
124 el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
233
126
127 co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
132
133 no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00136 /
0.00139 /
0.00139 /
0.00137 /
0.00140 /
138
139 so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00266 /
0.00263 /
0.00260 /
0.00258 /
0.00289 /
144
145 pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
150
151 me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
234
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
156
157 Maxcap1 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1 /400000/
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) ($)
177 cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
182 impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
183 store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
184 cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
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
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
236
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;
238

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;
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;
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'
341 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l'
342 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
343 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l'
344 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
345
346 *Sensitivity analysis - increasing the demand for cement by 5% for 2010-2020
347
348 equation
349 Dem1(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i;
350 *Adjusted Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of
time
351 Dem1(i,'Cement1').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)
239
352 + impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement1') + store(i);

353
354 model cement_plant_sens_analysis /Object, Dem1, Inp1, Inp2, Inp3, Inp4,
355 Inp5, Inp6, Inp7, Inp8, Inp9, Inp10, Inp11,
356 Elecbal, Energy1, Energy2, Energy3, Emission_NOx,
357 Emission_CO2, Emission_PM, Emission_Mer,
358 Capacity1, Capacity2, Capacity3, Capacity4,
359 Capacity5, Import/;
360 *Emission_SO2,
361 solve cement_plant_sens_analysis minimizing LCC using lp;
362
365
366 *execute_unload "sens_result1.gdx" cem1.l;
371 *execute_unload "sens_store.gdx" store.l;
372 *execute_unload "sens_import.gdx" impcem.l;
373
374 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result1.gdx var=cem1.l'
375 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result1.gdx var=cem1.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
384 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_store.gdx var=store.l'
385 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
386 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_import.gdx var=impcem.l'
387 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
COMPILATION TIME = 0.010 SECONDS 3 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008

240

20:40:26 Page 2
Equation Listing SOLVE cement_plant Using LP From line 314
---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
Object.. LCC - 71.8280632411067*cem1(2010) - 70.9763470761924*cem1(2011) -

70.1347303124431*cem1(2012)
- 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)
- 4.43777091311739*store(2019) - 4.38514912363378*store(2020) =E= 336490000 ;

(LHS = 0, INFES = 336490000 ****)
---- Dem =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
242
Dem(2010,Cement).. cem1(2010) + cem2(2010) + cem3(2010) + cem4(2010) +

cem5(2010) + impcem(2010) - store(2010) =G=
2149433 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2149433 ****)

cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)
- store(2011) =G= 2121797 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2121797 ****)

cem5(2012) + impcem(2012) + store(2011)
- store(2012) =G= 2105338 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2105338 ****)
REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED
---- Inp1 =L= input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp1(2010,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2010) + 1375.45*cem2(2010) + 1361.96*cem3(2010)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2010) + 1335*cem5(2010)
=L= 3512942331 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2011) + 1335*cem5(2011)
=L= 3467775741 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2012) + 1335*cem5(2012)
=L= 3440874975 ; (LHS = 0)
Inp2(2010,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2010) + 74.75*cem2(2010) + 74.01*cem3(2010) +

73.28*cem4(2010) + 72.55*cem5(2010) =L=
190902656 ; (LHS = 0)

73.28*cem4(2011) + 72.55*cem5(2011) =L=
188448183 ; (LHS = 0)
243

73.28*cem4(2012) + 72.55*cem5(2012) =L=
186986324 ; (LHS = 0)
Inp3(2010,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2010) + 60.55*cem2(2010) + 59.95*cem3(2010) +

59.36*cem4(2010) + 58.77*cem5(2010) =L=
154639488 ; (LHS = 0)

59.36*cem4(2011) + 58.77*cem5(2011) =L=
152651258 ; (LHS = 0)

59.36*cem4(2012) + 58.77*cem5(2012) =L=
151467088 ; (LHS = 0)
Inp4(2010,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2010) + 42.11*cem2(2010) + 41.69*cem3(2010) +

41.28*cem4(2010) + 40.87*cem5(2010) =L=
107539051 ; (LHS = 0)

41.28*cem4(2011) + 40.87*cem5(2011) =L=
106156400 ; (LHS = 0)

41.28*cem4(2012) + 40.87*cem5(2012) =L=
105332907 ; (LHS = 0)
244
Inp5(2010,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2010) + 31.01*cem2(2010) + 30.7*cem3(2010) +

30.4*cem4(2010) + 30.1*cem5(2010) =L=
79195425 ; (LHS = 0)

30.4*cem4(2011) + 30.1*cem5(2011) =L=
78177194 ; (LHS = 0)

30.4*cem4(2012) + 30.1*cem5(2012) =L=
77570746 ; (LHS = 0)
Inp6(2010,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2010) + 23.5*cem2(2010) + 23.27*cem3(2010) +

23.04*cem4(2010) + 22.81*cem5(2010) =L=
60021796 ; (LHS = 0)

23.04*cem4(2011) + 22.81*cem5(2011) =L=
59250084 ; (LHS = 0)

23.04*cem4(2012) + 22.81*cem5(2012) =L=
58790460 ; (LHS = 0)
Inp7(2010,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2010) + 10.44*cem2(2010) + 10.34*cem3(2010) +

10.24*cem4(2010) + 10.24*cem5(2010) =L=
26676354 ; (LHS = 0)

10.24*cem4(2011) + 10.24*cem5(2011) =L=
26333371 ; (LHS = 0)

10.24*cem4(2012) + 10.24*cem5(2012) =L=
245
26129093 ; (LHS = 0)
Inp8(2010,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2010) + 6.53*cem2(2010) + 6.46*cem3(2010) +

6.4*cem4(2010) + 6.34*cem5(2010) =L= 16672721 ;
(LHS = 0)

6.4*cem4(2011) + 6.34*cem5(2011) =L= 16458357 ;
(LHS = 0)

6.4*cem4(2012) + 6.34*cem5(2012) =L= 16330683 ;
(LHS = 0)
Inp9(2010,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2010) + 1.8*cem2(2010) + 1.78*cem3(2010) +

1.76*cem4(2010) + 1.74*cem5(2010) =L= 4584998 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.76*cem4(2011) + 1.74*cem5(2011) =L= 4526048 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.76*cem4(2012) + 1.74*cem5(2012) =L= 4490938 ;
(LHS = 0)

246
Inp10(2010,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2010) + 1.63*cem2(2010) + 1.62*cem3(2010) +

1.6*cem4(2010) + 1.58*cem5(2010) =L= 4168180 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.6*cem4(2011) + 1.58*cem5(2011) =L= 4114589 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.6*cem4(2012) + 1.58*cem5(2012) =L= 4082671 ;
(LHS = 0)
Inp11(2010,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2010) + 1.47*cem2(2010) + 1.45*cem3(2010) +

1.44*cem4(2010) + 1.43*cem5(2010) =L=
3751362 ; (LHS = 0)

1.44*cem4(2011) + 1.43*cem5(2011) =L=
3703130 ; (LHS = 0)

1.44*cem4(2012) + 1.43*cem5(2012) =L=
3674404 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Elecbal =L= electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Elecbal(2010,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2010) + 155.04*cem2(2010) + 153.52*cem3(2010) +

152*cem4(2010) + 156.56*cem5(2010)
=L= 395977126 ; (LHS = 0)
247

152*cem4(2011) + 156.56*cem5(2011)
=L= 390885970 ; (LHS = 0)

152*cem4(2012) + 156.56*cem5(2012)
=L= 387853729 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Energy1 =L= coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Energy1(2010,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2010) + 2699022*cem2(2010) +

2672561*cem3(2010) + 2646100*cem4(2010)
+ 2619639*cem5(2010) =L= 6893388631909 ; (LHS = 0)

2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)
+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 0)

2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)
+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Energy2 =L= coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Energy2(2010,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2010) + 892398*cem2(2010) +

883649*cem3(2010) + 874900*cem4(2010) + 866151*cem5(2010)
=L= 2279213073602 ; (LHS = 0)

883649*cem3(2011) + 874900*cem4(2011) + 866151*cem5(2011)
=L= 2249908782967 ; (LHS = 0)

883649*cem3(2012) + 874900*cem4(2012) + 866151*cem5(2012)
=L= 2232455442720 ; (LHS = 0)
248
---- Energy3 =L= wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Energy3(2010,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2010) + 424830*cem2(2010) +

420665*cem3(2010) + 416500*cem4(2010)
+ 412335*cem5(2010) =L= 1085029426397 ; (LHS = 0)

420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)
+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 0)

420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)
+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Emission_CO2 =L= CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
Emission_CO2(2010,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2010) + 0.8*cem2(2010) + 0.83*cem3(2010) +

0.83*cem4(2010) + 0.845*cem5(2010) =L=
2004681 ; (LHS = 0)

0.83*cem4(2011) + 0.845*cem5(2011) =L=
1943388 ; (LHS = 0)

0.83*cem4(2012) + 0.845*cem5(2012) =L=
1878838 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
249
Emission_NOx(2010,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2010) + 0.00139*cem2(2010) +

0.00139*cem3(2010) + 0.00137*cem4(2010)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2010) =L= 5159 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Emission_PM =L= PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
Emission_PM(2010,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2010) + 0.00015*cem2(2010) +

0.00015*cem3(2010) + 0.00015*cem4(2010)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2010) =L= 430 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2011) =L= 424 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
250
Emission_Mer(2010,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2010) + 4E-8*cem2(2010) + 4E-8*cem3(2010)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2010) + 4E-8*cem5(2010) =L=
0.98 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2011) + 4E-8*cem5(2011) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2012) + 4E-8*cem5(2012) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0)
---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
Capacity1(2010).. cem1(2010) =L= 400000 ; (LHS = 0)

251
---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
Import(2010,Cement).. impcem(2010) =L= 644829.9 ; (LHS = 0)

252

20:40:26 Page 3
Column Listing SOLVE cement_plant Using LP From line 314
---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 0, +INF, 0)
1 Object
---- cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
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)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
257
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)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
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)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
260
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)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity5(2012)
---- impcem cement received from other producers (ton)
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)
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
---- store cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
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)

263

20:40:26 Page 4
Model Statistics SOLVE cement_plant Using LP From line 314
MODEL STATISTICS
BLOCKS OF EQUATIONS 27 SINGLE EQUATIONS 287

BLOCKS OF VARIABLES 8 SINGLE VARIABLES 78
NON ZERO ELEMENTS 1,276
GENERATION TIME = 0.221 SECONDS 4 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008
EXECUTION TIME = 0.231 SECONDS 4 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008

264

20:40:26 Page 5
Solution Report SOLVE cement_plant Using LP From line 314
SOLVE SUMMARY
MODEL cement_plant OBJECTIVE LCC

TYPE LP DIRECTION MINIMIZE
SOLVER MINOS FROM LINE 314
**** SOLVER STATUS 1 NORMAL COMPLETION

**** MODEL STATUS 1 OPTIMAL
**** OBJECTIVE VALUE 1926334905.5264
RESOURCE USAGE, LIMIT 0.102 1000.000

ITERATION COUNT, LIMIT 81 10000
GAMS/MINOS May 1, 2008 22.7.1 WIN 3906.4700 VIS x86/MS Windows

M I N O S 5.51 (Jun 2004)
GAMS/MINOS 5.51, Large Scale Nonlinear Solver

B. A. Murtagh, University of New South Wales
P. E. Gill, University of California at San Diego,
W. Murray, M. A. Saunders, and M. H. Wright,
Systems Optimization Laboratory, Stanford University
Work space allocated -- 1.05 Mb
EXIT - Optimal Solution found, objective: 0.1926335E+10
Major, Minor Iterations 1 81

Funobj, Funcon calls 0 0
Superbasics 0
Aggregations 0
Interpreter Usage 0.00 0.0%
LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL
---- EQU Object 3.3649000E+8 3.3649000E+8 3.3649000E+8 1.0000

265
---- EQU Dem demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
2010.Cement 2149433.0000 2149433.0000 +INF 72.0652

2011.Cement 2121797.0000 2121797.0000 +INF 71.2107
2012.Cement 2105338.0000 2105338.0000 +INF 70.3663
2013.Cement 2079988.0000 2079988.0000 +INF 70.2946
2014.Cement 2040959.0000 2040959.0000 +INF 76.7607
2015.Cement 2015477.0000 2015477.0000 +INF 81.4713
2016.Cement 2087488.0000 2087488.0000 +INF 80.5052
2017.Cement 2126403.0000 2126403.0000 +INF 79.5506
2018.Cement 2100981.0000 2100981.0000 +INF 78.6073
2019.Cement 2132927.0000 2132927.0000 +INF 77.6752
2020.Cement 2126508.0000 2126508.0000 +INF 76.7541
---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
2010.Lime -INF 2.9155764E+9 3.5129423E+9 .

2011.Lime -INF 2.8775645E+9 3.4677757E+9 .
2012.Lime -INF 2.8549260E+9 3.4408750E+9 .
2013.Lime -INF 2.9068523E+9 3.3994438E+9 .
2014.Lime -INF 2.7315437E+9 3.3356571E+9 .
2015.Lime -INF 2.5206104E+9 3.2940111E+9 .
2016.Lime -INF 2.5211366E+9 3.4117026E+9 .
2017.Lime -INF 2.5259864E+9 3.4753040E+9 .
2018.Lime -INF 2.4264508E+9 3.4337545E+9 .
2019.Lime -INF 2.4298512E+9 3.4859658E+9 .
2020.Lime -INF 2.3827681E+9 3.4754752E+9 .
2010.Shale -INF 1.5844142E+8 1.9090266E+8 .

2011.Shale -INF 1.5637563E+8 1.8844818E+8 .
2012.Shale -INF 1.5514532E+8 1.8698632E+8 .
2013.Shale -INF 1.5796798E+8 1.8473484E+8 .
2014.Shale -INF 1.4844091E+8 1.8126850E+8 .
2015.Shale -INF 1.3697790E+8 1.7900535E+8 .
266
2016.Shale -INF 1.3700649E+8 1.8540102E+8 .

2017.Shale -INF 1.3727005E+8 1.8885729E+8 .
2018.Shale -INF 1.3186089E+8 1.8659938E+8 .
2019.Shale -INF 1.3204568E+8 1.8943668E+8 .
2020.Shale -INF 1.2948700E+8 1.8886659E+8 .
2010.Clay -INF 1.2834367E+8 1.5463949E+8 .

2011.Clay -INF 1.2667031E+8 1.5265126E+8 .
2012.Clay -INF 1.2567372E+8 1.5146709E+8 .
2013.Clay -INF 1.2796005E+8 1.4964329E+8 .
2014.Clay -INF 1.2024182E+8 1.4683540E+8 .
2015.Clay -INF 1.1095637E+8 1.4500215E+8 .
2016.Clay -INF 1.1097953E+8 1.5018292E+8 .
2017.Clay -INF 1.1119302E+8 1.5298265E+8 .
2018.Clay -INF 1.0681151E+8 1.5115365E+8 .
2019.Clay -INF 1.0696119E+8 1.5345198E+8 .
2020.Clay -INF 1.0488862E+8 1.5299019E+8 .
2010.Sand -INF 8.9253524E+7 1.0753905E+8 .

2011.Sand -INF 8.8089772E+7 1.0615640E+8 .
2012.Sand -INF 8.7396683E+7 1.0533291E+8 .
2013.Sand -INF 8.8987112E+7 1.0406461E+8 .
2014.Sand -INF 8.3620131E+7 1.0211195E+8 .
2015.Sand -INF 7.7162659E+7 1.0083708E+8 .
2016.Sand -INF 7.7178767E+7 1.0443988E+8 .
2017.Sand -INF 7.7327237E+7 1.0638686E+8 .
2018.Sand -INF 7.4280103E+7 1.0511494E+8 .
2019.Sand -INF 7.4384202E+7 1.0671324E+8 .
2020.Sand -INF 7.2942824E+7 1.0639210E+8 .
2010.Marl -INF 6.5728117E+7 7.9195425E+7 .

2011.Marl -INF 6.4871125E+7 7.8177194E+7 .
267
2012.Marl -INF 6.4360731E+7 7.7570746E+7 .

2013.Marl -INF 6.5531738E+7 7.6636724E+7 .
2014.Marl -INF 6.1577996E+7 7.5198724E+7 .
2015.Marl -INF 5.6822626E+7 7.4259861E+7 .
2016.Marl -INF 5.6834487E+7 7.6913087E+7 .
2017.Marl -INF 5.6943814E+7 7.8346911E+7 .
2018.Marl -INF 5.4700029E+7 7.7410224E+7 .
2019.Marl -INF 5.4776684E+7 7.8587269E+7 .
2020.Marl -INF 5.3715311E+7 7.8350769E+7 .
2010.Ashc -INF 4.9814776E+7 6.0021796E+7 .

2011.Ashc -INF 4.9165330E+7 5.9250084E+7 .
2012.Ashc -INF 4.8778543E+7 5.8790460E+7 .
2013.Ashc -INF 4.9665596E+7 5.8082570E+7 .
2014.Ashc -INF 4.6669934E+7 5.6992717E+7 .
2015.Ashc -INF 4.3066022E+7 5.6281158E+7 .
2016.Ashc -INF 4.3075011E+7 5.8292024E+7 .
2017.Ashc -INF 4.3157871E+7 5.9378711E+7 .
2018.Ashc -INF 4.1457295E+7 5.8668801E+7 .
2019.Ashc -INF 4.1515392E+7 5.9560878E+7 .
2020.Ashc -INF 4.0710973E+7 5.9381635E+7 .
2010.Iron -INF 2.2201081E+7 2.6676354E+7 .

2011.Iron -INF 2.1912561E+7 2.6333371E+7 .
2012.Iron -INF 2.1740729E+7 2.6129093E+7 .
2013.Iron -INF 2.2134117E+7 2.5814476E+7 .
2014.Iron -INF 2.0747509E+7 2.5330096E+7 .
2015.Iron -INF 1.9138328E+7 2.5013848E+7 .
2016.Iron -INF 1.9142324E+7 2.5907566E+7 .
2017.Iron -INF 1.9179163E+7 2.6390538E+7 .
2018.Iron -INF 1.8423112E+7 2.6075023E+7 .
2019.Iron -INF 1.8448941E+7 2.6471501E+7 .
2020.Iron -INF 1.8091309E+7 2.6391838E+7 .
268
2010.Gyps -INF 1.3837197E+7 1.6672721E+7 .

2011.Gyps -INF 1.3656734E+7 1.6458357E+7 .
2012.Gyps -INF 1.3549257E+7 1.6330683E+7 .
2013.Gyps -INF 1.3796089E+7 1.6134047E+7 .
2014.Gyps -INF 1.2962415E+7 1.5831310E+7 .
2015.Gyps -INF 1.1961197E+7 1.5633655E+7 .
2016.Gyps -INF 1.1963693E+7 1.6192229E+7 .
2017.Gyps -INF 1.1986704E+7 1.6494086E+7 .
2018.Gyps -INF 1.1514441E+7 1.6296889E+7 .
2019.Gyps -INF 1.1530575E+7 1.6544688E+7 .
2020.Gyps -INF 1.1307182E+7 1.6494899E+7 .
2010.Baux -INF 3804379.4000 4584998.0000 .

2011.Baux -INF 3754634.6000 4526048.0000 .
2012.Baux -INF 3725008.4000 4490938.0000 .
2013.Baux -INF 3793706.9333 4436863.0000 .
2014.Baux -INF 3567286.4852 4353610.0000 .
2015.Baux -INF 3292386.8588 4299255.0000 .
2016.Baux -INF 3293072.5294 4452863.0000 .
2017.Baux -INF 3299392.6235 4535874.0000 .
2018.Baux -INF 3169681.6353 4481645.0000 .
2019.Baux -INF 3174112.9412 4549789.0000 .
2020.Baux -INF 3112756.0706 4536097.0000 .
2010.Mill -INF 3459775.7900 4168180.0000 .

2011.Mill -INF 3414729.1100 4114589.0000 .
2012.Mill -INF 3387900.9400 4082671.0000 .
2013.Mill -INF 3449126.8400 4033512.0000 .
2014.Mill -INF 3242778.5325 3957828.0000 .
2015.Mill -INF 2992612.8824 3908414.0000 .
2016.Mill -INF 2993237.9412 4048057.0000 .
2017.Mill -INF 2998999.3529 4123522.0000 .
2018.Mill -INF 2880754.5294 4074222.0000 .
2019.Mill -INF 2884794.1176 4136172.0000 .
269
2020.Mill -INF 2828861.0588 4123725.0000 .
2010.Diatom -INF 3112566.5100 3751362.0000 .

2011.Diatom -INF 3071941.5900 3703130.0000 .
2012.Diatom -INF 3047746.8600 3674404.0000 .
2013.Diatom -INF 3103428.7600 3630161.0000 .
2014.Diatom -INF 2914171.0769 3562045.0000 .
2015.Diatom -INF 2688884.2824 3517572.0000 .
2016.Diatom -INF 2689444.9412 3643251.0000 .
2017.Diatom -INF 2694612.7529 3711169.0000 .
2018.Diatom -INF 2588550.7294 3666800.0000 .
2019.Diatom -INF 2592174.1176 3722555.0000 .
2020.Diatom -INF 2542003.8588 3711352.0000 .
---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
2010.Elec -INF 3.2985849E+8 3.9597713E+8 .

2011.Elec -INF 3.2557381E+8 3.9088597E+8 .
2012.Elec -INF 3.2302200E+8 3.8785373E+8 .
2013.Elec -INF 3.2887511E+8 3.8318362E+8 .
2014.Elec -INF 3.0589258E+8 3.7599362E+8 .
2015.Elec -INF 2.8220437E+8 3.7129931E+8 .
2016.Elec -INF 2.8226138E+8 3.8456544E+8 .
2017.Elec -INF 2.8278682E+8 3.9173455E+8 .
2018.Elec -INF 2.7200289E+8 3.8705112E+8 .
2019.Elec -INF 2.7237130E+8 3.9293635E+8 .
2020.Elec -INF 2.6727021E+8 3.9175385E+8 .
---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
2010.Coal -INF 5.721190E+12 6.893389E+12 .

2011.Coal -INF 5.646600E+12 6.804759E+12 .
2012.Coal -INF 5.602177E+12 6.751972E+12 .
2013.Coal -INF 5.704071E+12 6.670672E+12 .
2014.Coal -INF 5.360070E+12 6.545505E+12 .
2015.Coal -INF 4.946160E+12 6.463784E+12 .
270
2016.Coal -INF 4.947192E+12 6.694728E+12 .

2017.Coal -INF 4.956709E+12 6.819532E+12 .
2018.Coal -INF 4.761391E+12 6.738000E+12 .
2019.Coal -INF 4.768064E+12 6.840453E+12 .
2020.Coal -INF 4.675673E+12 6.819867E+12 .
---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
2010.Coke -INF 1.891640E+12 2.279213E+12 .

2011.Coke -INF 1.866978E+12 2.249909E+12 .
2012.Coke -INF 1.852290E+12 2.232455E+12 .
2013.Coke -INF 1.885980E+12 2.205575E+12 .
2014.Coke -INF 1.772240E+12 2.164190E+12 .
2015.Coke -INF 1.635386E+12 2.137170E+12 .
2016.Coke -INF 1.635727E+12 2.213528E+12 .
2017.Coke -INF 1.638874E+12 2.254793E+12 .
2018.Coke -INF 1.574295E+12 2.227836E+12 .
2019.Coke -INF 1.576501E+12 2.261711E+12 .
2020.Coke -INF 1.545953E+12 2.254904E+12 .
---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
2010.Wstfuel -INF 9.005237E+11 1.085029E+12 .

2011.Wstfuel -INF 8.887831E+11 1.071079E+12 .
2012.Wstfuel -INF 8.817908E+11 1.062770E+12 .
2013.Wstfuel -INF 8.978291E+11 1.049974E+12 .
2014.Wstfuel -INF 8.436829E+11 1.030272E+12 .
2015.Wstfuel -INF 7.785327E+11 1.017409E+12 .
2016.Wstfuel -INF 7.786952E+11 1.053760E+12 .
2017.Wstfuel -INF 7.801932E+11 1.073404E+12 .
2018.Wstfuel -INF 7.494499E+11 1.060571E+12 .
2019.Wstfuel -INF 7.505002E+11 1.076697E+12 .
2020.Wstfuel -INF 7.359577E+11 1.073457E+12 .
---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
2010.CO2 -INF 1798946.4000 2004681.0000 .

271
2011.CO2 -INF 1776837.6000 1943388.0000 .

2012.CO2 -INF 1763670.4000 1878838.0000 .
2013.CO2 -INF 1786644.0000 1786644.0000 -0.9534
2014.CO2 -INF 1655592.0000 1655592.0000 -9.6421
2015.CO2 -INF 1524543.0000 1524543.0000 -16.2376
2016.CO2 -INF 1524865.0000 1524865.0000 -16.0451
2017.CO2 -INF 1527833.0000 1527833.0000 -15.8548
2018.CO2 -INF 1466919.0000 1466919.0000 -15.6668
2019.CO2 -INF 1469000.0000 1469000.0000 -15.4810
2020.CO2 -INF 1440186.0000 1440186.0000 -15.2975
---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
2010.NOx -INF 2970.7119 5159.0000 .

2011.NOx -INF 2932.2978 5092.0000 .
2012.NOx -INF 2909.4198 5053.0000 .
2013.NOx -INF 2960.7476 4992.0000 .
2014.NOx -INF 2757.7696 4898.0000 .
2015.NOx -INF 2544.7288 4837.0000 .
2016.NOx -INF 2545.2440 5010.0000 .
2017.NOx -INF 2549.9928 5103.0000 .
2018.NOx -INF 2452.5304 5042.0000 .
2019.NOx -INF 2455.8600 5119.0000 .
2020.NOx -INF 2409.7576 5104.0000 .
---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
2010.PM -INF 322.4149 430.0000 .

2011.PM -INF 318.2695 424.0000 .
2012.PM -INF 315.8007 421.0000 .
2013.PM -INF 320.9982 416.0000 .
2014.PM -INF 300.0075 408.0000 .
2015.PM -INF 276.8194 403.0000 .
2016.PM -INF 276.8762 417.0000 .
2017.PM -INF 277.3999 425.0000 .
2018.PM -INF 266.6504 420.0000 .
2019.PM -INF 267.0176 427.0000 .
2020.PM -INF 261.9328 425.0000 .
272
---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
2010.Merc -INF 0.0860 0.9800 .

2011.Merc -INF 0.0849 0.9600 .
2012.Merc -INF 0.0842 0.9600 .
2013.Merc -INF 0.0856 0.9400 .
2014.Merc -INF 0.0800 0.9300 .
2015.Merc -INF 0.0738 0.9200 .
2016.Merc -INF 0.0738 0.9500 .
2017.Merc -INF 0.0740 0.9700 .
2018.Merc -INF 0.0711 0.9500 .
2019.Merc -INF 0.0712 0.9700 .
2020.Merc -INF 0.0698 0.9700 .
---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
2010 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.2372

2011 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.2343
2012 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.2316
2013 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.1811
2014 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.0837
2015 -INF 315462.3529 400000.0000 .
2016 -INF 315841.1765 400000.0000 .
2017 -INF 319332.9412 400000.0000 .
2018 -INF 247669.4118 400000.0000 .
2019 -INF 250117.6471 400000.0000 .
2020 -INF 216218.8235 400000.0000 .
2010 -INF 69433.0000 450000.0000 .

2011 -INF 41797.0000 450000.0000 .
2012 -INF 25338.0000 450000.0000 .
2013 -INF 218201.3333 450000.0000 .
2014 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.3397
2015 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5885
273
2016 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5815

2017 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5746
2018 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5678
2019 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5610
2020 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5544
2010 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.0988

2011 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.0976
2012 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.0965
2013 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.0667
2014 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1446
2015 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1944
2016 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1921
2017 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1898
2018 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1876
2019 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1854
2020 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1832
2010 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.0296

2011 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.0293
2012 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.0289
2013 -INF 391786.6667 550000.0000 .
2014 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.0787
2015 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1293
2016 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1277
2017 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1262
2018 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1247
2019 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1232
2020 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1218
2010 -INF 600000.0000 600000.0000 -0.0988

2011 -INF 600000.0000 600000.0000 -0.0976
274
2012 -INF 600000.0000 600000.0000 -0.0965

2013 -INF 600000.0000 600000.0000 -0.0524
2014 -INF 70049.7041 600000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 600000.0000 .
---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i
2010.Cement -INF . 644829.9000 .

2011.Cement -INF . 636539.1000 .
2012.Cement -INF . 631601.4000 .
2013.Cement -INF . 623996.4000 .
2014.Cement -INF . 612287.7000 .
2015.Cement -INF 150923.9429 604643.1000 .
2016.Cement -INF 241646.8235 626246.4000 .
2017.Cement -INF 277070.0588 637920.9000 .
2018.Cement -INF 323311.5882 630294.3000 .
2019.Cement -INF 352809.3529 639878.1000 .
2020.Cement -INF 380289.1765 637952.4000 .
---- VAR LCC -INF 1.9263349E+9 +INF .
---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
2010 . 400000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 400000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 400000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 400000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 400000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 315462.3529 +INF .
2016 . 315841.1765 +INF .
2017 . 319332.9412 +INF .
275
2018 . 247669.4118 +INF .

2019 . 250117.6471 +INF .
2020 . 216218.8235 +INF .
2010 . 69433.0000 +INF .

2011 . 41797.0000 +INF .
2012 . 25338.0000 +INF .
2013 . 218201.3333 +INF .
2014 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2010 . 530000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2010 . 550000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 391786.6667 +INF .
276
2014 . 550000.0000 +INF .

2015 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2010 . 600000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 600000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 600000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 600000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 70049.7041 +INF .
2015 . . +INF 0.0491
2016 . . +INF 0.0486
2017 . . +INF 0.0480
2018 . . +INF 0.0474
2019 . . +INF 0.0469
2020 . . +INF 0.0463
---- VAR impcem cement received from other producers (ton)
2010 . . +INF 14.4130

2011 . . +INF 14.2421
2012 . . +INF 14.0733
2013 . . +INF 13.1437
2014 . . +INF 5.6882
2015 . 150923.9429 +INF .
2016 . 241646.8235 +INF .
2017 . 277070.0588 +INF .
2018 . 323311.5882 +INF .
2019 . 352809.3529 +INF .
2020 . 380289.1765 +INF .
---- VAR store cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

277
2010 . . 60000.0000 5.7952

2011 . . 60000.0000 5.7265
2012 . . 60000.0000 4.8959
2013 . 60000.0000 60000.0000 -1.6991
2014 . 19090.7041 60000.0000 .
2015 . . 60000.0000 5.6207
2016 . . 60000.0000 5.5541
2017 . . 60000.0000 5.4882
2018 . . 60000.0000 5.4231
2019 . . 60000.0000 5.3588
2020 . . 60000.0000 81.1393
**** REPORT SUMMARY : 0 NONOPT

0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
278

20:40:26 Page 6
Execution
---- 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)
2010 400000.000, 2011 400000.000, 2012 400000.000, 2013 400000.000, 2014

400000.000, 2015 315462.353
2016 315841.176, 2017 319332.941, 2018 247669.412, 2019 250117.647, 2020
216218.824
(ton)
2010 69433.000, 2011 41797.000, 2012 25338.000, 2013 218201.333, 2014

450000.000, 2015 450000.000
2016 450000.000, 2017 450000.000, 2018 450000.000, 2019 450000.000, 2020
450000.000
(ton)
2010 530000.000, 2011 530000.000, 2012 530000.000, 2013 530000.000, 2014

530000.000, 2015 530000.000
2016 530000.000, 2017 530000.000, 2018 530000.000, 2019 530000.000, 2020
530000.000
(ton)
2010 550000.000, 2011 550000.000, 2012 550000.000, 2013 391786.667, 2014

550000.000, 2015 550000.000
2016 550000.000, 2017 550000.000, 2018 550000.000, 2019 550000.000, 2020
550000.000
279
(ton)
2010 600000.000, 2011 600000.000, 2012 600000.000, 2013 600000.000, 2014

70049.704
---- 322 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
2013 60000.000, 2014 19090.704
---- 322 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)
2015 150923.943, 2016 241646.824, 2017 277070.059, 2018 323311.588, 2019

352809.353, 2020 380289.176
---- 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
($ 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
($ 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
($ 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
($ 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

20:40:26 Page 7
Equation Listing SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 361

70.1347303124431*cem1(2012)
- 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)
- 4.43777091311739*store(2019) - 4.38514912363378*store(2020) =E= 336490000 ;

(LHS = 336490000)
---- Dem1 =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
283
Dem1(2010,Cement1).. cem1(2010) + cem2(2010) + cem3(2010) + cem4(2010) +

2256905 ; (LHS = 2149433, INFES = 107472 ****)

cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)
- store(2011) =G= 2227887 ; (LHS = 2121797, INFES = 106090 ****)

cem5(2012) + impcem(2012) + store(2011)
- store(2012) =G= 2210605 ; (LHS = 2105338, INFES = 105267 ****)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2010) + 1335*cem5(2010)
=L= 3512942331 ; (LHS = 2915576419.85)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2011) + 1335*cem5(2011)
=L= 3467775741 ; (LHS = 2877564483.65)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2012) + 1335*cem5(2012)
=L= 3440874975 ; (LHS = 2854925952.1)

73.28*cem4(2010) + 72.55*cem5(2010) =L=
190902656 ; (LHS = 158441416.75)

73.28*cem4(2011) + 72.55*cem5(2011) =L=
188448183 ; (LHS = 156375625.75)
284

73.28*cem4(2012) + 72.55*cem5(2012) =L=
186986324 ; (LHS = 155145315.5)

59.36*cem4(2010) + 58.77*cem5(2010) =L=
154639488 ; (LHS = 128343668.15)

59.36*cem4(2011) + 58.77*cem5(2011) =L=
152651258 ; (LHS = 126670308.35)

59.36*cem4(2012) + 58.77*cem5(2012) =L=
151467088 ; (LHS = 125673715.9)

41.28*cem4(2010) + 40.87*cem5(2010) =L=
107539051 ; (LHS = 89253523.63)

41.28*cem4(2011) + 40.87*cem5(2011) =L=
106156400 ; (LHS = 88089771.67)

41.28*cem4(2012) + 40.87*cem5(2012) =L=
105332907 ; (LHS = 87396683.18)
285

30.4*cem4(2010) + 30.1*cem5(2010) =L=
79195425 ; (LHS = 65728117.33)

30.4*cem4(2011) + 30.1*cem5(2011) =L=
78177194 ; (LHS = 64871124.97)

30.4*cem4(2012) + 30.1*cem5(2012) =L=
77570746 ; (LHS = 64360731.38)

23.04*cem4(2010) + 22.81*cem5(2010) =L=
60021796 ; (LHS = 49814775.5)

23.04*cem4(2011) + 22.81*cem5(2011) =L=
59250084 ; (LHS = 49165329.5)

23.04*cem4(2012) + 22.81*cem5(2012) =L=
58790460 ; (LHS = 48778543)

10.24*cem4(2010) + 10.24*cem5(2010) =L=
26676354 ; (LHS = 22201080.52)

10.24*cem4(2011) + 10.24*cem5(2011) =L=
26333371 ; (LHS = 21912560.68)

10.24*cem4(2012) + 10.24*cem5(2012) =L=
286
26129093 ; (LHS = 21740728.72)

6.4*cem4(2010) + 6.34*cem5(2010) =L= 16672721 ;
(LHS = 13837197.49)

6.4*cem4(2011) + 6.34*cem5(2011) =L= 16458357 ;
(LHS = 13656734.41)

6.4*cem4(2012) + 6.34*cem5(2012) =L= 16330683 ;
(LHS = 13549257.14)

1.76*cem4(2010) + 1.74*cem5(2010) =L= 4584998 ;
(LHS = 3804379.4)

1.76*cem4(2011) + 1.74*cem5(2011) =L= 4526048 ;
(LHS = 3754634.6)

1.76*cem4(2012) + 1.74*cem5(2012) =L= 4490938 ;
(LHS = 3725008.4)

287

1.6*cem4(2010) + 1.58*cem5(2010) =L= 4168180 ;
(LHS = 3459775.79)

1.6*cem4(2011) + 1.58*cem5(2011) =L= 4114589 ;
(LHS = 3414729.11)

1.6*cem4(2012) + 1.58*cem5(2012) =L= 4082671 ;
(LHS = 3387900.94)

1.44*cem4(2010) + 1.43*cem5(2010) =L=
3751362 ; (LHS = 3112566.51)

1.44*cem4(2011) + 1.43*cem5(2011) =L=
3703130 ; (LHS = 3071941.59)

1.44*cem4(2012) + 1.43*cem5(2012) =L=
3674404 ; (LHS = 3047746.86)

152*cem4(2010) + 156.56*cem5(2010)
=L= 395977126 ; (LHS = 329858492.32)
288

152*cem4(2011) + 156.56*cem5(2011)
=L= 390885970 ; (LHS = 325573806.88)

152*cem4(2012) + 156.56*cem5(2012)
=L= 387853729 ; (LHS = 323022003.52)

2672561*cem3(2010) + 2646100*cem4(2010)
+ 2619639*cem5(2010) =L= 6893388631909 ; (LHS = 5721190124526)

2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)
+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 5646599952534)

2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)
+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 5602176749436)

883649*cem3(2010) + 874900*cem4(2010) + 866151*cem5(2010)
=L= 2279213073602 ; (LHS = 1891640240334)

883649*cem3(2011) + 874900*cem4(2011) + 866151*cem5(2011)
=L= 2249908782967 ; (LHS = 1866977929206)

883649*cem3(2012) + 874900*cem4(2012) + 866151*cem5(2012)
=L= 2232455442720 ; (LHS = 1852289950524)
289

420665*cem3(2010) + 416500*cem4(2010)
+ 412335*cem5(2010) =L= 1085029426397 ; (LHS = 900523671390)

420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)
+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 888783069510)

420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)
+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 881790792540)
period i

0.00139*cem3(2010) + 0.00137*cem4(2010)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2010) =L= 5159 ; (LHS = 2970.71187)

0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 2932.29783)

0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 2909.41982)

290
period i

0.83*cem4(2010) + 0.845*cem5(2010) =L=
2004681 ; (LHS = 1798946.4)

0.83*cem4(2011) + 0.845*cem5(2011) =L=
1943388 ; (LHS = 1776837.6)

0.83*cem4(2012) + 0.845*cem5(2012) =L=
1878838 ; (LHS = 1763670.4)
i

0.00015*cem3(2010) + 0.00015*cem4(2010)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2010) =L= 430 ; (LHS = 322.41495)

0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2011) =L= 424 ; (LHS = 318.26955)

0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 315.8007)
period i
291

+ 4E-8*cem4(2010) + 4E-8*cem5(2010) =L=
0.98 ; (LHS = 0.08597732)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2011) + 4E-8*cem5(2011) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0.08487188)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2012) + 4E-8*cem5(2012) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0.08421352)
Capacity2(2010).. cem2(2010) =L= 450000 ; (LHS = 69432.9999999999)

292

293

20:40:26 Page 8
Column Listing SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 361
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)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity1(2010)
cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 400000, +INF, 0)
-70.9763 Object
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)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity1(2011)
cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 400000, +INF, 0)
-70.1347 Object
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)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
295
1 Capacity1(2012)
cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 69432.9999999999, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
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)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity2(2010)
cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 41796.9999999994, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
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)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity2(2011)
cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 25337.9999999998, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
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)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity2(2012)
cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 530000, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
297
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)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity3(2010)
cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 530000, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
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)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
298
1 Capacity3(2011)
cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 530000, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
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)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity3(2012)
cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 550000, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
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)
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity4(2010)
cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 550000, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
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)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity4(2011)
cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 550000, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
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)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity4(2012)
cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 600000, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
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)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
301
1 Capacity5(2010)
cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 600000, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
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)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity5(2011)
cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 600000, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
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
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.4130434782609)
-86.4783 Object
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.2421378243685)
-85.4528 Object
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.0732587197317)
-84.4396 Object
store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.7952397319127)
-4.9407 Object
-1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.72652147422205)
303
-4.8821 Object
store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 4.8958931358741)
-4.8242 Object

304

20:40:26 Page 9
Model Statistics SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 361
MODEL STATISTICS


305

20:40:26 Page 10
Solution Report SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 361
SOLVE SUMMARY
MODEL cement_plant_sens_analysis OBJECTIVE LCC


**** OBJECTIVE VALUE 2014992896.0010


M I N O S 5.51 (Jun 2004)


Superbasics 0
Aggregations 0
---- EQU Object 3.3649000E+8 3.3649000E+8 3.3649000E+8 1.0000

306
---- EQU Dem1 demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
2010.Cement1 2256905.0000 2256905.0000 +INF 72.0652

2011.Cement1 2227887.0000 2227887.0000 +INF 71.2107
2012.Cement1 2210605.0000 2210605.0000 +INF 72.8576
2013.Cement1 2183987.0000 2183987.0000 +INF 77.6819
2014.Cement1 2143007.0000 2143007.0000 +INF 82.4489
2015.Cement1 2116251.0000 2116251.0000 +INF 81.4713
2016.Cement1 2191863.0000 2191863.0000 +INF 80.5052
2017.Cement1 2232724.0000 2232724.0000 +INF 79.5506
2018.Cement1 2206030.0000 2206030.0000 +INF 78.6073
2019.Cement1 2239573.0000 2239573.0000 +INF 77.6752
2020.Cement1 2232834.0000 2232834.0000 +INF 76.7541
2010.Lime -INF 3.0633988E+9 3.5129423E+9 .

2011.Lime -INF 3.0234860E+9 3.4677757E+9 .
2012.Lime -INF 3.0741871E+9 3.4408750E+9 .
2013.Lime -INF 2.9385903E+9 3.3994438E+9 .
2014.Lime -INF 2.7315437E+9 3.3356571E+9 .
2015.Lime -INF 2.5206104E+9 3.2940111E+9 .
2016.Lime -INF 2.5211366E+9 3.4117026E+9 .
2017.Lime -INF 2.5259864E+9 3.4753040E+9 .
2018.Lime -INF 2.4264508E+9 3.4337545E+9 .
2019.Lime -INF 2.4298512E+9 3.4859658E+9 .
2020.Lime -INF 2.3827681E+9 3.4754752E+9 .
2010.Shale -INF 1.6647495E+8 1.9090266E+8 .

2011.Shale -INF 1.6430585E+8 1.8844818E+8 .
2012.Shale -INF 1.6706241E+8 1.8698632E+8 .
2013.Shale -INF 1.5969277E+8 1.8473484E+8 .
2014.Shale -INF 1.4844091E+8 1.8126850E+8 .
2015.Shale -INF 1.3697790E+8 1.7900535E+8 .
307
2016.Shale -INF 1.3700649E+8 1.8540102E+8 .

2017.Shale -INF 1.3727005E+8 1.8885729E+8 .
2018.Shale -INF 1.3186089E+8 1.8659938E+8 .
2019.Shale -INF 1.3204568E+8 1.8943668E+8 .
2020.Shale -INF 1.2948700E+8 1.8886659E+8 .
2010.Clay -INF 1.3485110E+8 1.5463949E+8 .

2011.Clay -INF 1.3309406E+8 1.5265126E+8 .
2012.Clay -INF 1.3532676E+8 1.5146709E+8 .
2013.Clay -INF 1.2935653E+8 1.4964329E+8 .
2014.Clay -INF 1.2024182E+8 1.4683540E+8 .
2015.Clay -INF 1.1095637E+8 1.4500215E+8 .
2016.Clay -INF 1.1097953E+8 1.5018292E+8 .
2017.Clay -INF 1.1119302E+8 1.5298265E+8 .
2018.Clay -INF 1.0681151E+8 1.5115365E+8 .
2019.Clay -INF 1.0696119E+8 1.5345198E+8 .
2020.Clay -INF 1.0488862E+8 1.5299019E+8 .
2010.Sand -INF 9.3779170E+7 1.0753905E+8 .

2011.Sand -INF 9.2557222E+7 1.0615640E+8 .
2012.Sand -INF 9.4110622E+7 1.0533291E+8 .
2013.Sand -INF 8.9958706E+7 1.0406461E+8 .
2014.Sand -INF 8.3620131E+7 1.0211195E+8 .
2015.Sand -INF 7.7162659E+7 1.0083708E+8 .
2016.Sand -INF 7.7178767E+7 1.0443988E+8 .
2017.Sand -INF 7.7327237E+7 1.0638686E+8 .
2018.Sand -INF 7.4280103E+7 1.0511494E+8 .
2019.Sand -INF 7.4384202E+7 1.0671324E+8 .
2020.Sand -INF 7.2942824E+7 1.0639210E+8 .
2010.Marl -INF 6.9060824E+7 7.9195425E+7 .

2011.Marl -INF 6.8160976E+7 7.8177194E+7 .
308
2012.Marl -INF 6.9304579E+7 7.7570746E+7 .

2013.Marl -INF 6.6246239E+7 7.6636724E+7 .
2014.Marl -INF 6.1577996E+7 7.5198724E+7 .
2015.Marl -INF 5.6822626E+7 7.4259861E+7 .
2016.Marl -INF 5.6834487E+7 7.6913087E+7 .
2017.Marl -INF 5.6943814E+7 7.8346911E+7 .
2018.Marl -INF 5.4700029E+7 7.7410224E+7 .
2019.Marl -INF 5.4776684E+7 7.8587269E+7 .
2020.Marl -INF 5.3715311E+7 7.8350769E+7 .
2010.Ashc -INF 5.2340368E+7 6.0021796E+7 .

2011.Ashc -INF 5.1658445E+7 5.9250084E+7 .
2012.Ashc -INF 5.2524475E+7 5.8790460E+7 .
2013.Ashc -INF 5.0207562E+7 5.8082570E+7 .
2014.Ashc -INF 4.6669934E+7 5.6992717E+7 .
2015.Ashc -INF 4.3066022E+7 5.6281158E+7 .
2016.Ashc -INF 4.3075011E+7 5.8292024E+7 .
2017.Ashc -INF 4.3157871E+7 5.9378711E+7 .
2018.Ashc -INF 4.1457295E+7 5.8668801E+7 .
2019.Ashc -INF 4.1515392E+7 5.9560878E+7 .
2020.Ashc -INF 4.0710973E+7 5.9381635E+7 .
2010.Iron -INF 2.3323088E+7 2.6676354E+7 .

2011.Iron -INF 2.3020140E+7 2.6333371E+7 .
2012.Iron -INF 2.3403700E+7 2.6129093E+7 .
2013.Iron -INF 2.2335642E+7 2.5814476E+7 .
2014.Iron -INF 2.0747509E+7 2.5330096E+7 .
2015.Iron -INF 1.9138328E+7 2.5013848E+7 .
2016.Iron -INF 1.9142324E+7 2.5907566E+7 .
2017.Iron -INF 1.9179163E+7 2.6390538E+7 .
2018.Iron -INF 1.8423112E+7 2.6075023E+7 .
2019.Iron -INF 1.8448941E+7 2.6471501E+7 .
2020.Iron -INF 1.8091309E+7 2.6391838E+7 .
309
2010.Gyps -INF 1.4538990E+7 1.6672721E+7 .

2011.Gyps -INF 1.4349502E+7 1.6458357E+7 .
2012.Gyps -INF 1.4590738E+7 1.6330683E+7 .
2013.Gyps -INF 1.3945693E+7 1.6134047E+7 .
2014.Gyps -INF 1.2962415E+7 1.5831310E+7 .
2015.Gyps -INF 1.1961197E+7 1.5633655E+7 .
2016.Gyps -INF 1.1963693E+7 1.6192229E+7 .
2017.Gyps -INF 1.1986704E+7 1.6494086E+7 .
2018.Gyps -INF 1.1514441E+7 1.6296889E+7 .
2019.Gyps -INF 1.1530575E+7 1.6544688E+7 .
2020.Gyps -INF 1.1307182E+7 1.6494899E+7 .
2010.Baux -INF 3997829.0000 4584998.0000 .

2011.Baux -INF 3945596.6000 4526048.0000 .
2012.Baux -INF 4013220.3373 4490938.0000 .
2013.Baux -INF 3837145.0414 4436863.0000 .
2014.Baux -INF 3567286.4852 4353610.0000 .
2015.Baux -INF 3292386.8588 4299255.0000 .
2016.Baux -INF 3293072.5294 4452863.0000 .
2017.Baux -INF 3299392.6235 4535874.0000 .
2018.Baux -INF 3169681.6353 4481645.0000 .
2019.Baux -INF 3174112.9412 4549789.0000 .
2020.Baux -INF 3112756.0706 4536097.0000 .
2010.Mill -INF 3634955.1500 4168180.0000 .

2011.Mill -INF 3587655.8100 4114589.0000 .
2012.Mill -INF 3647209.3976 4082671.0000 .
2013.Mill -INF 3487822.5089 4033512.0000 .
2014.Mill -INF 3242778.5325 3957828.0000 .
2015.Mill -INF 2992612.8824 3908414.0000 .
2016.Mill -INF 2993237.9412 4048057.0000 .
2017.Mill -INF 2998999.3529 4123522.0000 .
2018.Mill -INF 2880754.5294 4074222.0000 .
2019.Mill -INF 2884794.1176 4136172.0000 .
310
2020.Mill -INF 2828861.0588 4123725.0000 .
2010.Diatom -INF 3270550.3500 3751362.0000 .

2011.Diatom -INF 3227893.8900 3703130.0000 .
2012.Diatom -INF 3282398.4578 3674404.0000 .
2013.Diatom -INF 3135951.3846 3630161.0000 .
2014.Diatom -INF 2914171.0769 3562045.0000 .
2015.Diatom -INF 2688884.2824 3517572.0000 .
2016.Diatom -INF 2689444.9412 3643251.0000 .
2017.Diatom -INF 2694612.7529 3711169.0000 .
2018.Diatom -INF 2588550.7294 3666800.0000 .
2019.Diatom -INF 2592174.1176 3722555.0000 .
2020.Diatom -INF 2542003.8588 3711352.0000 .
2010.Elec -INF 3.4652095E+8 3.9597713E+8 .

2011.Elec -INF 3.4202200E+8 3.9088597E+8 .
2012.Elec -INF 3.4773699E+8 3.8785373E+8 .
2013.Elec -INF 3.3017365E+8 3.8318362E+8 .
2014.Elec -INF 3.0589258E+8 3.7599362E+8 .
2015.Elec -INF 2.8220437E+8 3.7129931E+8 .
2016.Elec -INF 2.8226138E+8 3.8456544E+8 .
2017.Elec -INF 2.8278682E+8 3.9173455E+8 .
2018.Elec -INF 2.7200289E+8 3.8705112E+8 .
2019.Elec -INF 2.7237130E+8 3.9293635E+8 .
2020.Elec -INF 2.6727021E+8 3.9175385E+8 .
2010.Coal -INF 6.011259E+12 6.893389E+12 .

2011.Coal -INF 5.932939E+12 6.804759E+12 .
2012.Coal -INF 6.032429E+12 6.751972E+12 .
2013.Coal -INF 5.766353E+12 6.670672E+12 .
2014.Coal -INF 5.360070E+12 6.545505E+12 .
2015.Coal -INF 4.946160E+12 6.463784E+12 .
311
2016.Coal -INF 4.947192E+12 6.694728E+12 .

2017.Coal -INF 4.956709E+12 6.819532E+12 .
2018.Coal -INF 4.761391E+12 6.738000E+12 .
2019.Coal -INF 4.768064E+12 6.840453E+12 .
2020.Coal -INF 4.675673E+12 6.819867E+12 .
2010.Coke -INF 1.987548E+12 2.279213E+12 .

2011.Coke -INF 1.961652E+12 2.249909E+12 .
2012.Coke -INF 1.994547E+12 2.232455E+12 .
2013.Coke -INF 1.906573E+12 2.205575E+12 .
2014.Coke -INF 1.772240E+12 2.164190E+12 .
2015.Coke -INF 1.635386E+12 2.137170E+12 .
2016.Coke -INF 1.635727E+12 2.213528E+12 .
2017.Coke -INF 1.638874E+12 2.254793E+12 .
2018.Coke -INF 1.574295E+12 2.227836E+12 .
2019.Coke -INF 1.576501E+12 2.261711E+12 .
2020.Coke -INF 1.545953E+12 2.254904E+12 .
2010.Wstfuel -INF 9.461810E+11 1.085029E+12 .

2011.Wstfuel -INF 9.338533E+11 1.071079E+12 .
2012.Wstfuel -INF 9.495131E+11 1.062770E+12 .
2013.Wstfuel -INF 9.076324E+11 1.049974E+12 .
2014.Wstfuel -INF 8.436829E+11 1.030272E+12 .
2015.Wstfuel -INF 7.785327E+11 1.017409E+12 .
2016.Wstfuel -INF 7.786952E+11 1.053760E+12 .
2017.Wstfuel -INF 7.801932E+11 1.073404E+12 .
2018.Wstfuel -INF 7.494499E+11 1.060571E+12 .
2019.Wstfuel -INF 7.505002E+11 1.076697E+12 .
2020.Wstfuel -INF 7.359577E+11 1.073457E+12 .
period i
2010.NOx -INF 3120.0980 5159.0000 .

312
2011.NOx -INF 3079.7629 5092.0000 .

2012.NOx -INF 3129.0374 5053.0000 .
2013.NOx -INF 2974.8972 4992.0000 .
2014.NOx -INF 2757.7696 4898.0000 .
2015.NOx -INF 2544.7288 4837.0000 .
2016.NOx -INF 2545.2440 5010.0000 .
2017.NOx -INF 2549.9928 5103.0000 .
2018.NOx -INF 2452.5304 5042.0000 .
2019.NOx -INF 2455.8600 5119.0000 .
2020.NOx -INF 2409.7576 5104.0000 .
period i
2010.CO2 -INF 1884924.0000 2004681.0000 .

2011.CO2 -INF 1861709.6000 1943388.0000 .
2012.CO2 -INF 1878838.0000 1878838.0000 -3.0365
2013.CO2 -INF 1786644.0000 1786644.0000 -9.7578
2014.CO2 -INF 1655592.0000 1655592.0000 -16.3736
2015.CO2 -INF 1524543.0000 1524543.0000 -16.2376
2016.CO2 -INF 1524865.0000 1524865.0000 -16.0451
2017.CO2 -INF 1527833.0000 1527833.0000 -15.8548
2018.CO2 -INF 1466919.0000 1466919.0000 -15.6668
2019.CO2 -INF 1469000.0000 1469000.0000 -15.4810
2020.CO2 -INF 1440186.0000 1440186.0000 -15.2975
i
2010.PM -INF 338.5357 430.0000 .

2011.PM -INF 334.1830 424.0000 .
2012.PM -INF 338.9165 421.0000 .
2013.PM -INF 323.2711 416.0000 .
2014.PM -INF 300.0075 408.0000 .
2015.PM -INF 276.8194 403.0000 .
2016.PM -INF 276.8762 417.0000 .
2017.PM -INF 277.3999 425.0000 .
2018.PM -INF 266.6504 420.0000 .
2019.PM -INF 267.0176 427.0000 .
2020.PM -INF 261.9328 425.0000 .
313
period i
2010.Merc -INF 0.0903 0.9800 .

2011.Merc -INF 0.0891 0.9600 .
2012.Merc -INF 0.0904 0.9600 .
2013.Merc -INF 0.0862 0.9400 .
2014.Merc -INF 0.0800 0.9300 .
2015.Merc -INF 0.0738 0.9200 .
2016.Merc -INF 0.0738 0.9500 .
2017.Merc -INF 0.0740 0.9700 .
2018.Merc -INF 0.0711 0.9500 .
2019.Merc -INF 0.0712 0.9700 .
2020.Merc -INF 0.0698 0.9700 .
2010 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.2372

2011 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.2343
2012 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.1419
2013 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.0847
2014 -INF 400000.0000 400000.0000 -0.0500
2015 -INF 315462.3529 400000.0000 .
2016 -INF 315841.1765 400000.0000 .
2017 -INF 319332.9412 400000.0000 .
2018 -INF 247669.4118 400000.0000 .
2019 -INF 250117.6471 400000.0000 .
2020 -INF 216218.8235 400000.0000 .
2010 -INF 176905.0000 450000.0000 .

2011 -INF 147887.0000 450000.0000 .
2012 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.0621
2013 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.3438
2014 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.6426
2015 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5885
314
2016 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5815

2017 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5746
2018 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5678
2019 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5610
2020 -INF 450000.0000 450000.0000 -0.5544
2010 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.0988

2011 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.0976
2012 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.0675
2013 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1464
2014 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.2456
2015 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1944
2016 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1921
2017 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1898
2018 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1876
2019 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1854
2020 -INF 530000.0000 530000.0000 -0.1832
2010 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.0296

2011 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.0293
2012 -INF 279443.3735 550000.0000 .
2013 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.0796
2014 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1797
2015 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1293
2016 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1277
2017 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1262
2018 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1247
2019 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1232
2020 -INF 550000.0000 550000.0000 -0.1218
2010 -INF 600000.0000 600000.0000 -0.0988

2011 -INF 600000.0000 600000.0000 -0.0976
315
2012 -INF 600000.0000 600000.0000 -0.0220

2013 -INF 225140.8284 600000.0000 .
2014 -INF 70049.7041 600000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 600000.0000 .
2010.Cement -INF . 644829.9000 .

2011.Cement -INF . 636539.1000 .
2012.Cement -INF . 631601.4000 .
2013.Cement -INF . 623996.4000 .
2014.Cement -INF 122965.0940 612287.7000 .
2015.Cement -INF 270788.6471 604643.1000 .
2016.Cement -INF 346021.8235 626246.4000 .
2017.Cement -INF 383391.0588 637920.9000 .
2018.Cement -INF 428360.5882 630294.3000 .
2019.Cement -INF 459455.3529 639878.1000 .
2020.Cement -INF 486615.1765 637952.4000 .
---- VAR LCC -INF 2.0149929E+9 +INF .
2010 . 400000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 400000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 400000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 400000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 400000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 315462.3529 +INF .
2016 . 315841.1765 +INF .
2017 . 319332.9412 +INF .
316
2018 . 247669.4118 +INF .

2019 . 250117.6471 +INF .
2020 . 216218.8235 +INF .
2010 . 176905.0000 +INF .

2011 . 147887.0000 +INF .
2012 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 450000.0000 +INF .
2010 . 530000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 530000.0000 +INF .
2010 . 550000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 279443.3735 +INF .
2013 . 550000.0000 +INF .
317
2014 . 550000.0000 +INF .

2015 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 550000.0000 +INF .
2010 . 600000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 600000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 600000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 225140.8284 +INF .
2014 . 70049.7041 +INF .
2015 . . +INF 0.0491
2016 . . +INF 0.0486
2017 . . +INF 0.0480
2018 . . +INF 0.0474
2019 . . +INF 0.0469
2020 . . +INF 0.0463
2010 . . +INF 14.4130

2011 . . +INF 14.2421
2012 . . +INF 11.5819
2013 . . +INF 5.7564
2014 . 122965.0940 +INF .
2015 . 270788.6471 +INF .
2016 . 346021.8235 +INF .
2017 . 383391.0588 +INF .
2018 . 428360.5882 +INF .
2019 . 459455.3529 +INF .
2020 . 486615.1765 +INF .

318
2010 . . 60000.0000 5.7952

2011 . . 60000.0000 3.2352
2012 . 48838.3735 60000.0000 .
2013 . 19992.2019 60000.0000 .
2014 . . 60000.0000 5.6882
2015 . . 60000.0000 5.6207
2016 . . 60000.0000 5.5541
2017 . . 60000.0000 5.4882
2018 . . 60000.0000 5.4231
2019 . . 60000.0000 5.3588
2020 . . 60000.0000 81.1393

0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
319

20:40:26 Page 11
Execution
sts) ($)
(ton)
2010 400000.000, 2011 400000.000, 2012 400000.000, 2013 400000.000, 2014

400000.000, 2015 315462.353
2016 315841.176, 2017 319332.941, 2018 247669.412, 2019 250117.647, 2020
216218.824
(ton)
2010 176905.000, 2011 147887.000, 2012 450000.000, 2013 450000.000, 2014

450000.000, 2015 450000.000
2016 450000.000, 2017 450000.000, 2018 450000.000, 2019 450000.000, 2020
450000.000
(ton)
2010 530000.000, 2011 530000.000, 2012 530000.000, 2013 530000.000, 2014

530000.000, 2015 530000.000
2016 530000.000, 2017 530000.000, 2018 530000.000, 2019 530000.000, 2020
530000.000
(ton)
2010 550000.000, 2011 550000.000, 2012 279443.373, 2013 550000.000, 2014

550000.000, 2015 550000.000
2016 550000.000, 2017 550000.000, 2018 550000.000, 2019 550000.000, 2020
550000.000
320
(ton)
2010 600000.000, 2011 600000.000, 2012 600000.000, 2013 225140.828, 2014

70049.704
2012 48838.373, 2013 19992.202
2014 122965.094, 2015 270788.647, 2016 346021.824, 2017 383391.059, 2018

428360.588, 2019 459455.353
2020 486615.176
($ 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
($ 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
($ 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
($ 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
($ 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
USER: GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC G871201/0000CA-ANY

Free Demo, 202-342-0180, sales@gams.com, www.gams.com DC0000
**** FILE SUMMARY

322
Case Study II (number of production lines is 4)

21:04:07 Page 1
Compilation

3 option lp=minos;
5
7 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020/
11
12 table
14
Gyps Baux Mill
16 2010 2149433 2256905 3512942331 190902656 154639488 107539051 79195425
60021796 26676354 16672721 4584998 4168180
3751362 395977126 6893388631909 2279213073602 1085029426397 2004681 5159
3439 430 0.98
17 2011 2121797 2227887 3467775741 188448183 152651258 106156400 78177194
59250084 26333371 16458357 4526048 4114589
3703130 390885970 6804758978866 2249908782967 1071078989720 1943388 5092
3395 424 0.96
18 2012 2105338 2210605 3440874975 186986324 151467088 105332907 77570746
58790460 26129093 16330683 4490938 4082671
3674404 387853729 6751972050498 2232455442720 1062770250192 1878838 5053
3369 421 0.96
19 2013 2079988 2183987 3399443753 184734841 149643288 104064605 76636724
58082570 25814476 16134047 4436863 4033512
3630161 383183622 6670672248600 2205574676052 1049973542777 1786644 4992
3328 416 0.94
20 2014 2040959 2143007 3335657065 181268502 146835402 102111951 75198724
56992717 25330096 15831310 4353610 3957828
323
3562045 375993618 6545504687300 2164189581240 1030271986040 1655592 4898

3266 408 0.93
21 2015 2015477 2116251 3294011118 179005350 145002151 100837075 74259861
56281158 25013848 15633655 4299255 3908414
3517572 371299307 6463783534514 2137169500150 1017408957381 1524543 4837
3225 403 0.92
22 2016 2087488 2191863 3411702620 185401020 150182923 104439876 76913087
58292024 25907566 16192229 4452863 4048057
3643251 384565435 6694727622153 2213528285636 1053759893665 1524865 5010
3340 417 0.95
23 2017 2126403 2232724 3475304021 188857290 152982652 106386858 78346911
59378711 26390538 16494086 4535874 4123522
3711169 391734554 6819531598431 2254793165590 1073404221589 1527833 5103
3402 425 0.97
24 2018 2100981 2206030 3433754547 186599381 151153647 105114935 77410224
58668801 26075023 16296889 4481645 4074222
3666800 387051118 6737999753315 2227835676722 1060570990233 1466919 5042
3362 420 0.95
25 2019 2132927 2239573 3485965811 189436680 153451983 106713239 78587269
59560878 26471501 16544688 4549789 4136172
3722555 392936346 6840453053612 2261710584107 1076697289154 1469000 5119
3413 427 0.97
26 2020 2126508 2232834 3475475161 188866590 152990186 106392097 78350769
59381635 26391838 16494899 4536097 4123725
3711352 391753845 6819867424521 2254904202303 1073457081105 1440186 5104
3402 425 0.97;
27
28 scalars
30
36
42
324
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
325
90
96
102
108
114
/
/
/
/
/
120
/
126
326
132
0.00136 /
0.00139 /
0.00139 /
0.00137 /
0.00140 /
138
0.00266 /
0.00263 /
0.00260 /
0.00258 /
0.00289 /
144
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
150
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
327
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
156
162
165
170
171 parameters
173 rho(i) = (1 + p)**(-(ord(i)-1));
174
175 variables
189
191
193 store.l('2010')=0;
328
194 store.l('2020')=0;
195 *Storage limit
196 store.up(i)= 60000;
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
period i
period i
period i
i
period i
329
i;
233
e4*cem4(i)
237
241
243 *Lime
246 *Shale
249 *Clay
252 *Sand
255 *Marl
258 *Ashc
261 *Iron
264 *Gyps
267 *Baux
270 *Mill
273 *Diatom
330

276
280
282 *Coal
+
285 *Coke
cem4(i)*Cok4 +
288 *Wstfuel
cem4(i)*Wst4 +
291
cem4(i)*co4 +
cem4(i)*no4 +
cem4(i)*so4 +
298 * cem5(i)*so5 =L= data(i,'SO2');
cem4(i)*pm4 +
cem4(i)*me4 +
303
331
310
312
315
321
324
330 *execute_unload "store.gdx" store.l;
331 *execute_unload "import.gdx" impcem.l;
332
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
349
350 equation
time
332

355
362 *Emission_SO2,
364
367
373 *execute_unload "sens_store.gdx" store.l;
374 *execute_unload "sens_import.gdx" impcem.l;
375
386 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_store.gdx var=store.l'
387 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
388 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_import.gdx var=impcem.l'
389 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'

333

21:04:07 Page 2

70.2891058365866*cem1(2012)
- 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 ;
(LHS = 0, INFES = 332500000 ****)

2149433 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2149433 ****)

cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)
- store(2011) =G= 2121797 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2121797 ****)

335

cem5(2012) + impcem(2012) + store(2011)
- store(2012) =G= 2105338 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2105338 ****)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2010) + 1335*cem5(2010)
=L= 3512942331 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2011) + 1335*cem5(2011)
=L= 3467775741 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2012) + 1335*cem5(2012)
=L= 3440874975 ; (LHS = 0)

73.28*cem4(2010) + 72.55*cem5(2010) =L=
190902656 ; (LHS = 0)

73.28*cem4(2011) + 72.55*cem5(2011) =L=
188448183 ; (LHS = 0)

73.28*cem4(2012) + 72.55*cem5(2012) =L=
186986324 ; (LHS = 0)
336

59.36*cem4(2010) + 58.77*cem5(2010) =L=
154639488 ; (LHS = 0)

59.36*cem4(2011) + 58.77*cem5(2011) =L=
152651258 ; (LHS = 0)

59.36*cem4(2012) + 58.77*cem5(2012) =L=
151467088 ; (LHS = 0)

41.28*cem4(2010) + 40.87*cem5(2010) =L=
107539051 ; (LHS = 0)

41.28*cem4(2011) + 40.87*cem5(2011) =L=
106156400 ; (LHS = 0)

41.28*cem4(2012) + 40.87*cem5(2012) =L=
105332907 ; (LHS = 0)

30.4*cem4(2010) + 30.1*cem5(2010) =L=
79195425 ; (LHS = 0)

30.4*cem4(2011) + 30.1*cem5(2011) =L=
78177194 ; (LHS = 0)

30.4*cem4(2012) + 30.1*cem5(2012) =L=
337
77570746 ; (LHS = 0)

23.04*cem4(2010) + 22.81*cem5(2010) =L=
60021796 ; (LHS = 0)

23.04*cem4(2011) + 22.81*cem5(2011) =L=
59250084 ; (LHS = 0)

23.04*cem4(2012) + 22.81*cem5(2012) =L=
58790460 ; (LHS = 0)

10.24*cem4(2010) + 10.24*cem5(2010) =L=
26676354 ; (LHS = 0)

10.24*cem4(2011) + 10.24*cem5(2011) =L=
26333371 ; (LHS = 0)

10.24*cem4(2012) + 10.24*cem5(2012) =L=
26129093 ; (LHS = 0)

6.4*cem4(2010) + 6.34*cem5(2010) =L= 16672721 ;
338
(LHS = 0)

6.4*cem4(2011) + 6.34*cem5(2011) =L= 16458357 ;
(LHS = 0)

6.4*cem4(2012) + 6.34*cem5(2012) =L= 16330683 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.76*cem4(2010) + 1.74*cem5(2010) =L= 4584998 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.76*cem4(2011) + 1.74*cem5(2011) =L= 4526048 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.76*cem4(2012) + 1.74*cem5(2012) =L= 4490938 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.6*cem4(2010) + 1.58*cem5(2010) =L= 4168180 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.6*cem4(2011) + 1.58*cem5(2011) =L= 4114589 ;
339
(LHS = 0)

1.6*cem4(2012) + 1.58*cem5(2012) =L= 4082671 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.44*cem4(2010) + 1.43*cem5(2010) =L=
3751362 ; (LHS = 0)

1.44*cem4(2011) + 1.43*cem5(2011) =L=
3703130 ; (LHS = 0)

1.44*cem4(2012) + 1.43*cem5(2012) =L=
3674404 ; (LHS = 0)

152*cem4(2010) + 156.56*cem5(2010)
=L= 395977126 ; (LHS = 0)

152*cem4(2011) + 156.56*cem5(2011)
=L= 390885970 ; (LHS = 0)

152*cem4(2012) + 156.56*cem5(2012)
=L= 387853729 ; (LHS = 0)

340

2672561*cem3(2010) + 2646100*cem4(2010)
+ 2619639*cem5(2010) =L= 6893388631909 ; (LHS = 0)

2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)
+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 0)

2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)
+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 0)

883649*cem3(2010) + 874900*cem4(2010) + 866151*cem5(2010)
=L= 2279213073602 ; (LHS = 0)

883649*cem3(2011) + 874900*cem4(2011) + 866151*cem5(2011)
=L= 2249908782967 ; (LHS = 0)

883649*cem3(2012) + 874900*cem4(2012) + 866151*cem5(2012)
=L= 2232455442720 ; (LHS = 0)

420665*cem3(2010) + 416500*cem4(2010)
+ 412335*cem5(2010) =L= 1085029426397 ; (LHS = 0)

341

420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)
+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 0)

420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)
+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 0)
period i

0.83*cem4(2010) + 0.845*cem5(2010) =L=
2004681 ; (LHS = 0)

0.83*cem4(2011) + 0.845*cem5(2011) =L=
1943388 ; (LHS = 0)

0.83*cem4(2012) + 0.845*cem5(2012) =L=
1878838 ; (LHS = 0)
period i

0.00139*cem3(2010) + 0.00137*cem4(2010)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2010) =L= 5159 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 0)

342

0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 0)
i

0.00015*cem3(2010) + 0.00015*cem4(2010)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2010) =L= 430 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2011) =L= 424 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 0)
period i

+ 4E-8*cem4(2010) + 4E-8*cem5(2010) =L=
0.98 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2011) + 4E-8*cem5(2011) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2012) + 4E-8*cem5(2012) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0)
343

344

345

21:04:07 Page 3
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)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
354
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem(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)

356

21:04:07 Page 4
MODEL STATISTICS


357

21:04:07 Page 5
SOLVE SUMMARY


**** OBJECTIVE VALUE 1923364930.7689


M I N O S 5.51 (Jun 2004)


Superbasics 0
Aggregations 0
---- EQU Object 3.3250000E+8 3.3250000E+8 3.3250000E+8 1.0000

358
2010.Cement 2149433.0000 2149433.0000 +INF 72.0652

2011.Cement 2121797.0000 2121797.0000 +INF 71.2107
2012.Cement 2105338.0000 2105338.0000 +INF 70.3663
2013.Cement 2079988.0000 2079988.0000 +INF 69.5319
2014.Cement 2040959.0000 2040959.0000 +INF 76.7607
2015.Cement 2015477.0000 2015477.0000 +INF 81.4713
2016.Cement 2087488.0000 2087488.0000 +INF 80.5052
2017.Cement 2126403.0000 2126403.0000 +INF 79.5506
2018.Cement 2100981.0000 2100981.0000 +INF 78.6073
2019.Cement 2132927.0000 2132927.0000 +INF 77.6752
2020.Cement 2126508.0000 2126508.0000 +INF 76.7541
2010.Lime -INF 2.9267869E+9 3.5129423E+9 .

2011.Lime -INF 2.8793202E+9 3.4677757E+9 .
2012.Lime -INF 2.8673257E+9 3.4408750E+9 .
2013.Lime -INF 2.9055514E+9 3.3994438E+9 .
2014.Lime -INF 2.7125580E+9 3.3356571E+9 .
2015.Lime -INF 2.5052674E+9 3.2940111E+9 .
2016.Lime -INF 2.5057761E+9 3.4117026E+9 .
2017.Lime -INF 2.5104652E+9 3.4753040E+9 .
2018.Lime -INF 2.4142283E+9 3.4337545E+9 .
2019.Lime -INF 2.4175160E+9 3.4859658E+9 .
2020.Lime -INF 2.3719933E+9 3.4754752E+9 .
2010.Shale -INF 1.5905495E+8 1.9090266E+8 .

2011.Shale -INF 1.5647383E+8 1.8844818E+8 .
2012.Shale -INF 1.5582367E+8 1.8698632E+8 .
2013.Shale -INF 1.5789958E+8 1.8473484E+8 .
2014.Shale -INF 1.4741227E+8 1.8126850E+8 .
2015.Shale -INF 1.3614716E+8 1.7900535E+8 .
359
2016.Shale -INF 1.3617480E+8 1.8540102E+8 .

2017.Shale -INF 1.3642963E+8 1.8885729E+8 .
2018.Shale -INF 1.3119968E+8 1.8659938E+8 .
2019.Shale -INF 1.3137835E+8 1.8943668E+8 .
2020.Shale -INF 1.2890443E+8 1.8886659E+8 .
2010.Clay -INF 1.2884084E+8 1.5463949E+8 .

2011.Clay -INF 1.2675031E+8 1.5265126E+8 .
2012.Clay -INF 1.2622336E+8 1.5146709E+8 .
2013.Clay -INF 1.2790518E+8 1.4964329E+8 .
2014.Clay -INF 1.1941080E+8 1.4683540E+8 .
2015.Clay -INF 1.1028538E+8 1.4500215E+8 .
2016.Clay -INF 1.1030777E+8 1.5018292E+8 .
2017.Clay -INF 1.1051420E+8 1.5298265E+8 .
2018.Clay -INF 1.0627761E+8 1.5115365E+8 .
2019.Clay -INF 1.0642235E+8 1.5345198E+8 .
2020.Clay -INF 1.0441832E+8 1.5299019E+8 .
2010.Sand -INF 8.9601094E+7 1.0753905E+8 .

2011.Sand -INF 8.8146372E+7 1.0615640E+8 .
2012.Sand -INF 8.7780853E+7 1.0533291E+8 .
2013.Sand -INF 8.8949645E+7 1.0406461E+8 .
2014.Sand -INF 8.3042208E+7 1.0211195E+8 .
2015.Sand -INF 7.6696171E+7 1.0083708E+8 .
2016.Sand -INF 7.6711746E+7 1.0443988E+8 .
2017.Sand -INF 7.6855298E+7 1.0638686E+8 .
2018.Sand -INF 7.3909079E+7 1.0511494E+8 .
2019.Sand -INF 7.4009731E+7 1.0671324E+8 .
2020.Sand -INF 7.2616088E+7 1.0639210E+8 .
2010.Marl -INF 6.5984263E+7 7.9195425E+7 .

2011.Marl -INF 6.4913425E+7 7.8177194E+7 .
360
2012.Marl -INF 6.4643775E+7 7.7570746E+7 .

2013.Marl -INF 6.5504905E+7 7.6636724E+7 .
2014.Marl -INF 6.1155648E+7 7.5198724E+7 .
2015.Marl -INF 5.6481937E+7 7.4259861E+7 .
2016.Marl -INF 5.6493407E+7 7.6913087E+7 .
2017.Marl -INF 5.6599131E+7 7.8346911E+7 .
2018.Marl -INF 5.4429295E+7 7.7410224E+7 .
2019.Marl -INF 5.4503423E+7 7.8587269E+7 .
2020.Marl -INF 5.3477031E+7 7.8350769E+7 .
2010.Ashc -INF 5.0005936E+7 6.0021796E+7 .

2011.Ashc -INF 4.9195230E+7 5.9250084E+7 .
2012.Ashc -INF 4.8989988E+7 5.8790460E+7 .
2013.Ashc -INF 4.9643363E+7 5.8082570E+7 .
2014.Ashc -INF 4.6346198E+7 5.6992717E+7 .
2015.Ashc -INF 4.2804409E+7 5.6281158E+7 .
2016.Ashc -INF 4.2813101E+7 5.8292024E+7 .
2017.Ashc -INF 4.2893220E+7 5.9378711E+7 .
2018.Ashc -INF 4.1248902E+7 5.8668801E+7 .
2019.Ashc -INF 4.1305077E+7 5.9560878E+7 .
2020.Ashc -INF 4.0527269E+7 5.9381635E+7 .
2010.Iron -INF 2.2295194E+7 2.6676354E+7 .

2011.Iron -INF 2.1936561E+7 2.6333371E+7 .
2012.Iron -INF 2.1843661E+7 2.6129093E+7 .
2013.Iron -INF 2.2135451E+7 2.5814476E+7 .
2014.Iron -INF 2.0666995E+7 2.5330096E+7 .
2015.Iron -INF 1.9077551E+7 2.5013848E+7 .
2016.Iron -INF 1.9081453E+7 2.5907566E+7 .
2017.Iron -INF 1.9117420E+7 2.6390538E+7 .
2018.Iron -INF 1.8379243E+7 2.6075023E+7 .
2019.Iron -INF 1.8404462E+7 2.6471501E+7 .
2020.Iron -INF 1.8055284E+7 2.6391838E+7 .
361
2010.Gyps -INF 1.3893871E+7 1.6672721E+7 .

2011.Gyps -INF 1.3667834E+7 1.6458357E+7 .
2012.Gyps -INF 1.3611663E+7 1.6330683E+7 .
2013.Gyps -INF 1.3792456E+7 1.6134047E+7 .
2014.Gyps -INF 1.2878102E+7 1.5831310E+7 .
2015.Gyps -INF 1.1893698E+7 1.5633655E+7 .
2016.Gyps -INF 1.1896114E+7 1.6192229E+7 .
2017.Gyps -INF 1.1918383E+7 1.6494086E+7 .
2018.Gyps -INF 1.1461348E+7 1.6296889E+7 .
2019.Gyps -INF 1.1476962E+7 1.6544688E+7 .
2020.Gyps -INF 1.1260771E+7 1.6494899E+7 .
2010.Baux -INF 3820002.0800 4584998.0000 .

2011.Baux -INF 3756234.6000 4526048.0000 .
2012.Baux -INF 3742394.8800 4490938.0000 .
2013.Baux -INF 3790773.6000 4436863.0000 .
2014.Baux -INF 3541778.2588 4353610.0000 .
2015.Baux -INF 3271603.3373 4299255.0000 .
2016.Baux -INF 3272266.3905 4452863.0000 .
2017.Baux -INF 3278378.0118 4535874.0000 .
2018.Baux -INF 3152945.6331 4481645.0000 .
2019.Baux -INF 3157230.7692 4549789.0000 .
2020.Baux -INF 3097897.7988 4536097.0000 .
2010.Mill -INF 3469592.8000 4168180.0000 .

2011.Mill -INF 3414029.1100 4114589.0000 .
2012.Mill -INF 3399040.8000 4082671.0000 .
2013.Mill -INF 3445026.8400 4033512.0000 .
2014.Mill -INF 3214413.8824 3957828.0000 .
2015.Mill -INF 2969047.8580 3908414.0000 .
2016.Mill -INF 2969649.9408 4048057.0000 .
2017.Mill -INF 2975199.5740 4123522.0000 .
2018.Mill -INF 2861301.2071 4074222.0000 .
2019.Mill -INF 2865192.3077 4136172.0000 .
362
2020.Mill -INF 2811315.2426 4123725.0000 .
2010.Diatom -INF 3127683.5200 3751362.0000 .

2011.Diatom -INF 3076541.5900 3703130.0000 .
2012.Diatom -INF 3064186.7200 3674404.0000 .
2013.Diatom -INF 3104628.7600 3630161.0000 .
2014.Diatom -INF 2900495.4824 3562045.0000 .
2015.Diatom -INF 2678495.8462 3517572.0000 .
2016.Diatom -INF 2679040.7692 3643251.0000 .
2017.Diatom -INF 2684063.5385 3711169.0000 .
2018.Diatom -INF 2580978.3077 3666800.0000 .
2019.Diatom -INF 2584500.0000 3722555.0000 .
2020.Diatom -INF 2535737.8462 3711352.0000 .
2010.Elec -INF 3.3112182E+8 3.9597713E+8 .

2011.Elec -INF 3.2577141E+8 3.9088597E+8 .
2012.Elec -INF 3.2441938E+8 3.8785373E+8 .
2013.Elec -INF 3.2872817E+8 3.8318362E+8 .
2014.Elec -INF 3.0998095E+8 3.7599362E+8 .
2015.Elec -INF 2.8573829E+8 3.7129931E+8 .
2016.Elec -INF 2.8579795E+8 3.8456544E+8 .
2017.Elec -INF 2.8634785E+8 3.9173455E+8 .
2018.Elec -INF 2.7506182E+8 3.8705112E+8 .
2019.Elec -INF 2.7544738E+8 3.9293635E+8 .
2020.Elec -INF 2.7010878E+8 3.9175385E+8 .
2010.Coal -INF 5.743183E+12 6.893389E+12 .

2011.Coal -INF 5.650040E+12 6.804759E+12 .
2012.Coal -INF 5.626503E+12 6.751972E+12 .
2013.Coal -INF 5.701513E+12 6.670672E+12 .
2014.Coal -INF 5.322801E+12 6.545505E+12 .
2015.Coal -INF 4.916039E+12 6.463784E+12 .
363
2016.Coal -INF 4.917037E+12 6.694728E+12 .

2017.Coal -INF 4.926239E+12 6.819532E+12 .
2018.Coal -INF 4.737395E+12 6.738000E+12 .
2019.Coal -INF 4.743847E+12 6.840453E+12 .
2020.Coal -INF 4.654519E+12 6.819867E+12 .
2010.Coke -INF 1.898912E+12 2.279213E+12 .

2011.Coke -INF 1.868115E+12 2.249909E+12 .
2012.Coke -INF 1.860333E+12 2.232455E+12 .
2013.Coke -INF 1.885134E+12 2.205575E+12 .
2014.Coke -INF 1.759918E+12 2.164190E+12 .
2015.Coke -INF 1.625427E+12 2.137170E+12 .
2016.Coke -INF 1.625757E+12 2.213528E+12 .
2017.Coke -INF 1.628799E+12 2.254793E+12 .
2018.Coke -INF 1.566361E+12 2.227836E+12 .
2019.Coke -INF 1.568494E+12 2.261711E+12 .
2020.Coke -INF 1.538959E+12 2.254904E+12 .
2010.Wstfuel -INF 9.039853E+11 1.085029E+12 .

2011.Wstfuel -INF 8.893245E+11 1.071079E+12 .
2012.Wstfuel -INF 8.856198E+11 1.062770E+12 .
2013.Wstfuel -INF 8.974265E+11 1.049974E+12 .
2014.Wstfuel -INF 8.378166E+11 1.030272E+12 .
2015.Wstfuel -INF 7.737917E+11 1.017409E+12 .
2016.Wstfuel -INF 7.739489E+11 1.053760E+12 .
2017.Wstfuel -INF 7.753971E+11 1.073404E+12 .
2018.Wstfuel -INF 7.456729E+11 1.060571E+12 .
2019.Wstfuel -INF 7.466884E+11 1.076697E+12 .
2020.Wstfuel -INF 7.326280E+11 1.073457E+12 .
period i
2010.CO2 -INF 1785029.3900 2004681.0000 .

364
2011.CO2 -INF 1773437.6000 1943388.0000 .

2012.CO2 -INF 1748430.5400 1878838.0000 .
2013.CO2 -INF 1786644.0000 1786644.0000 EPS
2014.CO2 -INF 1655592.0000 1655592.0000 -9.5632
2015.CO2 -INF 1524543.0000 1524543.0000 -16.1023
2016.CO2 -INF 1524865.0000 1524865.0000 -15.9114
2017.CO2 -INF 1527833.0000 1527833.0000 -15.7227
2018.CO2 -INF 1466919.0000 1466919.0000 -15.5363
2019.CO2 -INF 1469000.0000 1469000.0000 -15.3521
2020.CO2 -INF 1440186.0000 1440186.0000 -15.1700
period i
2010.NOx -INF 2973.7232 5159.0000 .

2011.NOx -INF 2928.2978 5092.0000 .
2012.NOx -INF 2913.3131 5053.0000 .
2013.NOx -INF 2954.4809 4992.0000 .
2014.NOx -INF 2781.3472 4898.0000 .
2015.NOx -INF 2564.4854 4837.0000 .
2016.NOx -INF 2565.0189 5010.0000 .
2017.NOx -INF 2569.9363 5103.0000 .
2018.NOx -INF 2469.0137 5042.0000 .
2019.NOx -INF 2472.4615 5119.0000 .
2020.NOx -INF 2424.7224 5104.0000 .
i
2010.PM -INF 322.4149 430.0000 .

2011.PM -INF 318.2695 424.0000 .
2012.PM -INF 315.8007 421.0000 .
2013.PM -INF 320.9982 416.0000 .
2014.PM -INF 300.8104 408.0000 .
2015.PM -INF 277.5520 403.0000 .
2016.PM -INF 277.6092 417.0000 .
2017.PM -INF 278.1360 425.0000 .
2018.PM -INF 267.3229 420.0000 .
2019.PM -INF 267.6923 427.0000 .
2020.PM -INF 262.5774 425.0000 .
365
period i
2010.Merc -INF 0.0860 0.9800 .

2011.Merc -INF 0.0849 0.9600 .
2012.Merc -INF 0.0842 0.9600 .
2013.Merc -INF 0.0856 0.9400 .
2014.Merc -INF 0.0802 0.9300 .
2015.Merc -INF 0.0740 0.9200 .
2016.Merc -INF 0.0740 0.9500 .
2017.Merc -INF 0.0742 0.9700 .
2018.Merc -INF 0.0713 0.9500 .
2019.Merc -INF 0.0714 0.9700 .
2020.Merc -INF 0.0700 0.9700 .
2010 -INF 500000.0000 500000.0000 -0.0791

2011 -INF 500000.0000 500000.0000 -0.0781
2012 -INF 500000.0000 500000.0000 -0.0772
2013 -INF 500000.0000 500000.0000 -0.0763
2014 -INF 5402.3529 500000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2010 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 1.174685E-14

2011 -INF 271797.0000 650000.0000 .
2012 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 EPS
2013 -INF 334868.0000 650000.0000 .
2014 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.4028
2015 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6967
366
2016 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6884

2017 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6803
2018 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6722
2019 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6642
2020 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6563
2010 -INF . 530000.0000 .

2011 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2012 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2013 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2014 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2010 -INF 299433.0000 650000.0000 .

2011 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 EPS
2012 -INF 255338.0000 650000.0000 .
2013 -INF 605120.0000 650000.0000 .
2014 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.1159
2015 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2136
2016 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2111
2017 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2086
2018 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2061
2019 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2037
2020 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2012
2010 -INF 700000.0000 700000.0000 -0.0296

2011 -INF 700000.0000 700000.0000 -0.0293
367
2012 -INF 700000.0000 700000.0000 -0.0289

2013 -INF 700000.0000 700000.0000 -0.0286
2014 -INF 700000.0000 700000.0000 -0.0007
2015 -INF 550346.7456 700000.0000 .
2016 -INF 550727.8107 700000.0000 .
2017 -INF 554240.2367 700000.0000 .
2018 -INF 482152.6627 700000.0000 .
2019 -INF 484615.3846 700000.0000 .
2020 -INF 450515.9763 700000.0000 .
2010.Cement -INF . 644829.9000 .

2011.Cement -INF . 636539.1000 .
2012.Cement -INF . 631601.4000 .
2013.Cement -INF . 623996.4000 .
2014.Cement -INF . 612287.7000 .
2015.Cement -INF 140686.9015 604643.1000 .
2016.Cement -INF 236760.1893 626246.4000 .
2017.Cement -INF 272162.7633 637920.9000 .
2018.Cement -INF 318828.3373 630294.3000 .
2019.Cement -INF 348311.6154 639878.1000 .
2020.Cement -INF 375992.0237 637952.4000 .
---- VAR LCC -INF 1.9233649E+9 +INF .
2010 . 500000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 500000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 500000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 500000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 5402.3529 +INF .
2015 . . +INF 0.0340
2016 . . +INF 0.0336
2017 . . +INF 0.0332
368
2018 . . +INF 0.0328

2019 . . +INF 0.0324
2020 . . +INF 0.0320
2010 . 650000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 271797.0000 +INF .
2012 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 334868.0000 +INF .
2014 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 650000.0000 +INF .
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
2010 . 299433.0000 +INF .

2011 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 255338.0000 +INF .
2013 . 605120.0000 +INF .
369
2014 . 650000.0000 +INF .

2015 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2010 . 700000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 700000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 700000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 700000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 700000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 550346.7456 +INF .
2016 . 550727.8107 +INF .
2017 . 554240.2367 +INF .
2018 . 482152.6627 +INF .
2019 . 484615.3846 +INF .
2020 . 450515.9763 +INF .
2010 . . +INF 14.4130

2011 . . +INF 14.2421
2012 . . +INF 14.0733
2013 . . +INF 13.9064
2014 . . +INF 5.6882
2015 . 140686.9015 +INF .
2016 . 236760.1893 +INF .
2017 . 272162.7633 +INF .
2018 . 318828.3373 +INF .
2019 . 348311.6154 +INF .
2020 . 375992.0237 +INF .

370
2010 . . 60000.0000 5.7952

2011 . . 60000.0000 5.7265
2012 . . 60000.0000 5.6586
2013 . 60000.0000 60000.0000 -2.4618
2014 . 24443.3529 60000.0000 .
2015 . . 60000.0000 5.6207
2016 . . 60000.0000 5.5541
2017 . . 60000.0000 5.4882
2018 . . 60000.0000 5.4231
2019 . . 60000.0000 5.3588
2020 . . 60000.0000 81.1393

0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
371

21:04:07 Page 6
Execution
sts) ($)
(ton)
2010 500000.000, 2011 500000.000, 2012 500000.000, 2013 500000.000, 2014

5402.353
(ton)
2010 650000.000, 2011 271797.000, 2012 650000.000, 2013 334868.000, 2014

650000.000, 2015 650000.000
2016 650000.000, 2017 650000.000, 2018 650000.000, 2019 650000.000, 2020
650000.000
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
(ton)
2010 299433.000, 2011 650000.000, 2012 255338.000, 2013 605120.000, 2014

650000.000, 2015 650000.000
2016 650000.000, 2017 650000.000, 2018 650000.000, 2019 650000.000, 2020
650000.000
(ton)
372
2010 700000.000, 2011 700000.000, 2012 700000.000, 2013 700000.000, 2014

700000.000, 2015 550346.746
2016 550727.811, 2017 554240.237, 2018 482152.663, 2019 484615.385, 2020
450515.976
2013 60000.000, 2014 24443.353
2015 140686.901, 2016 236760.189, 2017 272162.763, 2018 318828.337, 2019

348311.615, 2020 375992.024
($ 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
($ 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
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
($ per ton)
2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
373
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962
($ 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

21:04:07 Page 7

70.2891058365866*cem1(2012)
- 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)

2256905 ; (LHS = 2149433, INFES = 107472 ****)

cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)
- store(2011) =G= 2227887 ; (LHS = 2121797, INFES = 106090 ****)

376

cem5(2012) + impcem(2012) + store(2011)
- store(2012) =G= 2210605 ; (LHS = 2105338, INFES = 105267 ****)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2010) + 1335*cem5(2010)
=L= 3512942331 ; (LHS = 2926786911.84)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2011) + 1335*cem5(2011)
=L= 3467775741 ; (LHS = 2879320183.65)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2012) + 1335*cem5(2012)
=L= 3440874975 ; (LHS = 2867325686.24)

73.28*cem4(2010) + 72.55*cem5(2010) =L=
190902656 ; (LHS = 159054950.24)

73.28*cem4(2011) + 72.55*cem5(2011) =L=
188448183 ; (LHS = 156473825.75)

73.28*cem4(2012) + 72.55*cem5(2012) =L=
186986324 ; (LHS = 155823668.64)
377

59.36*cem4(2010) + 58.77*cem5(2010) =L=
154639488 ; (LHS = 128840842.88)

59.36*cem4(2011) + 58.77*cem5(2011) =L=
152651258 ; (LHS = 126750308.35)

59.36*cem4(2012) + 58.77*cem5(2012) =L=
151467088 ; (LHS = 126223363.68)

41.28*cem4(2010) + 40.87*cem5(2010) =L=
107539051 ; (LHS = 89601094.24)

41.28*cem4(2011) + 40.87*cem5(2011) =L=
106156400 ; (LHS = 88146371.67)

41.28*cem4(2012) + 40.87*cem5(2012) =L=
105332907 ; (LHS = 87780852.64)

30.4*cem4(2010) + 30.1*cem5(2010) =L=
79195425 ; (LHS = 65984263.2)

30.4*cem4(2011) + 30.1*cem5(2011) =L=
78177194 ; (LHS = 64913424.97)

30.4*cem4(2012) + 30.1*cem5(2012) =L=
378
77570746 ; (LHS = 64643775.2)

23.04*cem4(2010) + 22.81*cem5(2010) =L=
60021796 ; (LHS = 50005936.32)

23.04*cem4(2011) + 22.81*cem5(2011) =L=
59250084 ; (LHS = 49195229.5)

23.04*cem4(2012) + 22.81*cem5(2012) =L=
58790460 ; (LHS = 48989987.52)

10.24*cem4(2010) + 10.24*cem5(2010) =L=
26676354 ; (LHS = 22295193.92)

10.24*cem4(2011) + 10.24*cem5(2011) =L=
26333371 ; (LHS = 21936560.68)

10.24*cem4(2012) + 10.24*cem5(2012) =L=
26129093 ; (LHS = 21843661.12)

6.4*cem4(2010) + 6.34*cem5(2010) =L= 16672721 ;
379
(LHS = 13893871.2)

6.4*cem4(2011) + 6.34*cem5(2011) =L= 16458357 ;
(LHS = 13667834.41)

6.4*cem4(2012) + 6.34*cem5(2012) =L= 16330683 ;
(LHS = 13611663.2)

1.76*cem4(2010) + 1.74*cem5(2010) =L= 4584998 ;
(LHS = 3820002.08)

1.76*cem4(2011) + 1.74*cem5(2011) =L= 4526048 ;
(LHS = 3756234.6)

1.76*cem4(2012) + 1.74*cem5(2012) =L= 4490938 ;
(LHS = 3742394.88)

1.6*cem4(2010) + 1.58*cem5(2010) =L= 4168180 ;
(LHS = 3469592.8)

1.6*cem4(2011) + 1.58*cem5(2011) =L= 4114589 ;
380
(LHS = 3414029.11)

1.6*cem4(2012) + 1.58*cem5(2012) =L= 4082671 ;
(LHS = 3399040.8)

1.44*cem4(2010) + 1.43*cem5(2010) =L=
3751362 ; (LHS = 3127683.52)

1.44*cem4(2011) + 1.43*cem5(2011) =L=
3703130 ; (LHS = 3076541.59)

1.44*cem4(2012) + 1.43*cem5(2012) =L=
3674404 ; (LHS = 3064186.72)

152*cem4(2010) + 156.56*cem5(2010)
=L= 395977126 ; (LHS = 331121816)

152*cem4(2011) + 156.56*cem5(2011)
=L= 390885970 ; (LHS = 325771406.88)

152*cem4(2012) + 156.56*cem5(2012)
=L= 387853729 ; (LHS = 324419376)

381

2672561*cem3(2010) + 2646100*cem4(2010)
+ 2619639*cem5(2010) =L= 6893388631909 ; (LHS = 5743182761300)

2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)
+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 5650039882534)

2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)
+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 5626502981800)

883649*cem3(2010) + 874900*cem4(2010) + 866151*cem5(2010)
=L= 2279213073602 ; (LHS = 1898911831700)

883649*cem3(2011) + 874900*cem4(2011) + 866151*cem5(2011)
=L= 2249908782967 ; (LHS = 1868115299206)

883649*cem3(2012) + 874900*cem4(2012) + 866151*cem5(2012)
=L= 2232455442720 ; (LHS = 1860333116200)

420665*cem3(2010) + 416500*cem4(2010)
+ 412335*cem5(2010) =L= 1085029426397 ; (LHS = 903985344500)

382

420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)
+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 889324519510)

420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)
+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 885619777000)
period i

0.00139*cem3(2010) + 0.00137*cem4(2010)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2010) =L= 5159 ; (LHS = 2973.72321)

0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 2928.29783)

0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 2913.31306)
period i

0.83*cem4(2010) + 0.845*cem5(2010) =L=
2004681 ; (LHS = 1785029.39)

0.83*cem4(2011) + 0.845*cem5(2011) =L=
383
1943388 ; (LHS = 1773437.6)

0.83*cem4(2012) + 0.845*cem5(2012) =L=
1878838 ; (LHS = 1748430.54)
i

0.00015*cem3(2010) + 0.00015*cem4(2010)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2010) =L= 430 ; (LHS = 322.41495)

0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2011) =L= 424 ; (LHS = 318.26955)

0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 315.8007)
period i

+ 4E-8*cem4(2010) + 4E-8*cem5(2010) =L=
0.98 ; (LHS = 0.08597732)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2011) + 4E-8*cem5(2011) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0.08487188)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2012) + 4E-8*cem5(2012) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0.08421352)
384

385

386

21:04:07 Page 8
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
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)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity1(2010)
cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 500000, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
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)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity1(2011)
cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 500000, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
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)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
388
1 Capacity1(2012)
cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 650000, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
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)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity2(2010)
cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 271796.999999999, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
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)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity2(2011)
cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 650000, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
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)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity2(2012)
cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -72.0652173913043)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity3(2010)
cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -71.2106891218423)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity3(2011)
391
cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -70.3662935986583)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity3(2012)
cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 299433, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
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
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity4(2010)
cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 650000, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
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)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity4(2011)
cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 255338, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
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)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity4(2012)
cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 700000, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
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)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity5(2010)
394
cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 700000, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
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)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity5(2011)
cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 700000, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
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)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
395
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.4130434782609)
-86.4783 Object
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.2421378243685)
-85.4528 Object
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.0732587197317)
-84.4396 Object
store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.79523973191269)
-4.9407 Object
store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.72652147422205)
-4.8821 Object
396
store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.65861805753165)
-4.8242 Object

397

21:04:07 Page 9
MODEL STATISTICS


398

21:04:07 Page 10
SOLVE SUMMARY


**** OBJECTIVE VALUE 2011931949.2899


M I N O S 5.51 (Jun 2004)


Superbasics 0
Aggregations 0
---- EQU Object 3.3250000E+8 3.3250000E+8 3.3250000E+8 1.0000

399
2010.Cement1 2256905.0000 2256905.0000 +INF 72.0652

2011.Cement1 2227887.0000 2227887.0000 +INF 71.2107
2012.Cement1 2210605.0000 2210605.0000 +INF 72.8576
2013.Cement1 2183987.0000 2183987.0000 +INF 77.6819
2014.Cement1 2143007.0000 2143007.0000 +INF 82.4489
2015.Cement1 2116251.0000 2116251.0000 +INF 81.4713
2016.Cement1 2191863.0000 2191863.0000 +INF 80.5052
2017.Cement1 2232724.0000 2232724.0000 +INF 79.5506
2018.Cement1 2206030.0000 2206030.0000 +INF 78.6073
2019.Cement1 2239573.0000 2239573.0000 +INF 77.6752
2020.Cement1 2232834.0000 2232834.0000 +INF 76.7541
2010.Lime -INF 3.0717108E+9 3.5129423E+9 .

2011.Lime -INF 3.0252417E+9 3.4677757E+9 .
2012.Lime -INF 3.0880269E+9 3.4408750E+9 .
2013.Lime -INF 2.9267016E+9 3.3994438E+9 .
2014.Lime -INF 2.7125580E+9 3.3356571E+9 .
2015.Lime -INF 2.5052674E+9 3.2940111E+9 .
2016.Lime -INF 2.5057761E+9 3.4117026E+9 .
2017.Lime -INF 2.5104652E+9 3.4753040E+9 .
2018.Lime -INF 2.4142283E+9 3.4337545E+9 .
2019.Lime -INF 2.4175160E+9 3.4859658E+9 .
2020.Lime -INF 2.3719933E+9 3.4754752E+9 .
2010.Shale -INF 1.6693050E+8 1.9090266E+8 .

2011.Shale -INF 1.6440405E+8 1.8844818E+8 .
2012.Shale -INF 1.6781657E+8 1.8698632E+8 .
2013.Shale -INF 1.5904969E+8 1.8473484E+8 .
2014.Shale -INF 1.4741227E+8 1.8126850E+8 .
2015.Shale -INF 1.3614716E+8 1.7900535E+8 .
400
2016.Shale -INF 1.3617480E+8 1.8540102E+8 .

2017.Shale -INF 1.3642963E+8 1.8885729E+8 .
2018.Shale -INF 1.3119968E+8 1.8659938E+8 .
2019.Shale -INF 1.3137835E+8 1.8943668E+8 .
2020.Shale -INF 1.2890443E+8 1.8886659E+8 .
2010.Clay -INF 1.3522038E+8 1.5463949E+8 .

2011.Clay -INF 1.3317406E+8 1.5265126E+8 .
2012.Clay -INF 1.3593782E+8 1.5146709E+8 .
2013.Clay -INF 1.2883729E+8 1.4964329E+8 .
2014.Clay -INF 1.1941080E+8 1.4683540E+8 .
2015.Clay -INF 1.1028538E+8 1.4500215E+8 .
2016.Clay -INF 1.1030777E+8 1.5018292E+8 .
2017.Clay -INF 1.1051420E+8 1.5298265E+8 .
2018.Clay -INF 1.0627761E+8 1.5115365E+8 .
2019.Clay -INF 1.0642235E+8 1.5345198E+8 .
2020.Clay -INF 1.0441832E+8 1.5299019E+8 .
2010.Sand -INF 9.4037538E+7 1.0753905E+8 .

2011.Sand -INF 9.2613822E+7 1.0615640E+8 .
2012.Sand -INF 9.4536392E+7 1.0533291E+8 .
2013.Sand -INF 8.9597892E+7 1.0406461E+8 .
2014.Sand -INF 8.3042208E+7 1.0211195E+8 .
2015.Sand -INF 7.6696171E+7 1.0083708E+8 .
2016.Sand -INF 7.6711746E+7 1.0443988E+8 .
2017.Sand -INF 7.6855298E+7 1.0638686E+8 .
2018.Sand -INF 7.3909079E+7 1.0511494E+8 .
2019.Sand -INF 7.4009731E+7 1.0671324E+8 .
2020.Sand -INF 7.2616088E+7 1.0639210E+8 .
2010.Marl -INF 6.9251412E+7 7.9195425E+7 .

2011.Marl -INF 6.8203276E+7 7.8177194E+7 .
401
2012.Marl -INF 6.9618333E+7 7.7570746E+7 .

2013.Marl -INF 6.5982987E+7 7.6636724E+7 .
2014.Marl -INF 6.1155648E+7 7.5198724E+7 .
2015.Marl -INF 5.6481937E+7 7.4259861E+7 .
2016.Marl -INF 5.6493407E+7 7.6913087E+7 .
2017.Marl -INF 5.6599131E+7 7.8346911E+7 .
2018.Marl -INF 5.4429295E+7 7.7410224E+7 .
2019.Marl -INF 5.4503423E+7 7.8587269E+7 .
2020.Marl -INF 5.3477031E+7 7.8350769E+7 .
2010.Ashc -INF 5.2482091E+7 6.0021796E+7 .

2011.Ashc -INF 5.1688345E+7 5.9250084E+7 .
2012.Ashc -INF 5.2760793E+7 5.8790460E+7 .
2013.Ashc -INF 5.0004861E+7 5.8082570E+7 .
2014.Ashc -INF 4.6346198E+7 5.6992717E+7 .
2015.Ashc -INF 4.2804409E+7 5.6281158E+7 .
2016.Ashc -INF 4.2813101E+7 5.8292024E+7 .
2017.Ashc -INF 4.2893220E+7 5.9378711E+7 .
2018.Ashc -INF 4.1248902E+7 5.8668801E+7 .
2019.Ashc -INF 4.1305077E+7 5.9560878E+7 .
2020.Ashc -INF 4.0527269E+7 5.9381635E+7 .
2010.Iron -INF 2.3395707E+7 2.6676354E+7 .

2011.Iron -INF 2.3044140E+7 2.6333371E+7 .
2012.Iron -INF 2.3495723E+7 2.6129093E+7 .
2013.Iron -INF 2.2293581E+7 2.5814476E+7 .
2014.Iron -INF 2.0666995E+7 2.5330096E+7 .
2015.Iron -INF 1.9077551E+7 2.5013848E+7 .
2016.Iron -INF 1.9081453E+7 2.5907566E+7 .
2017.Iron -INF 1.9117420E+7 2.6390538E+7 .
2018.Iron -INF 1.8379243E+7 2.6075023E+7 .
2019.Iron -INF 1.8404462E+7 2.6471501E+7 .
2020.Iron -INF 1.8055284E+7 2.6391838E+7 .
402
2010.Gyps -INF 1.4581692E+7 1.6672721E+7 .

2011.Gyps -INF 1.4360602E+7 1.6458357E+7 .
2012.Gyps -INF 1.4658202E+7 1.6330683E+7 .
2013.Gyps -INF 1.3894140E+7 1.6134047E+7 .
2014.Gyps -INF 1.2878102E+7 1.5831310E+7 .
2015.Gyps -INF 1.1893698E+7 1.5633655E+7 .
2016.Gyps -INF 1.1896114E+7 1.6192229E+7 .
2017.Gyps -INF 1.1918383E+7 1.6494086E+7 .
2018.Gyps -INF 1.1461348E+7 1.6296889E+7 .
2019.Gyps -INF 1.1476962E+7 1.6544688E+7 .
2020.Gyps -INF 1.1260771E+7 1.6494899E+7 .
2010.Baux -INF 4009152.8000 4584998.0000 .

2011.Baux -INF 3947196.6000 4526048.0000 .
2012.Baux -INF 4031009.6095 4490938.0000 .
2013.Baux -INF 3820841.9294 4436863.0000 .
2014.Baux -INF 3541778.2588 4353610.0000 .
2015.Baux -INF 3271603.3373 4299255.0000 .
2016.Baux -INF 3272266.3905 4452863.0000 .
2017.Baux -INF 3278378.0118 4535874.0000 .
2018.Baux -INF 3152945.6331 4481645.0000 .
2019.Baux -INF 3157230.7692 4549789.0000 .
2020.Baux -INF 3097897.7988 4536097.0000 .
2010.Mill -INF 3641548.0000 4168180.0000 .

2011.Mill -INF 3586955.8100 4114589.0000 .
2012.Mill -INF 3661842.0592 4082671.0000 .
2013.Mill -INF 3468808.9412 4033512.0000 .
2014.Mill -INF 3214413.8824 3957828.0000 .
2015.Mill -INF 2969047.8580 3908414.0000 .
2016.Mill -INF 2969649.9408 4048057.0000 .
2017.Mill -INF 2975199.5740 4123522.0000 .
2018.Mill -INF 2861301.2071 4074222.0000 .
2019.Mill -INF 2865192.3077 4136172.0000 .
403
2020.Mill -INF 2811315.2426 4123725.0000 .
2010.Diatom -INF 3282443.2000 3751362.0000 .

2011.Diatom -INF 3232493.8900 3703130.0000 .
2012.Diatom -INF 3298841.2308 3674404.0000 .
2013.Diatom -INF 3128680.1412 3630161.0000 .
2014.Diatom -INF 2900495.4824 3562045.0000 .
2015.Diatom -INF 2678495.8462 3517572.0000 .
2016.Diatom -INF 2679040.7692 3643251.0000 .
2017.Diatom -INF 2684063.5385 3711169.0000 .
2018.Diatom -INF 2580978.3077 3666800.0000 .
2019.Diatom -INF 2584500.0000 3722555.0000 .
2020.Diatom -INF 2535737.8462 3711352.0000 .
2010.Elec -INF 3.4745756E+8 3.9597713E+8 .

2011.Elec -INF 3.4221960E+8 3.9088597E+8 .
2012.Elec -INF 3.4787820E+8 3.8785373E+8 .
2013.Elec -INF 3.3318178E+8 3.8318362E+8 .
2014.Elec -INF 3.0998095E+8 3.7599362E+8 .
2015.Elec -INF 2.8573829E+8 3.7129931E+8 .
2016.Elec -INF 2.8579795E+8 3.8456544E+8 .
2017.Elec -INF 2.8634785E+8 3.9173455E+8 .
2018.Elec -INF 2.7506182E+8 3.8705112E+8 .
2019.Elec -INF 2.7544738E+8 3.9293635E+8 .
2020.Elec -INF 2.7010878E+8 3.9175385E+8 .
2010.Coal -INF 6.027564E+12 6.893389E+12 .

2011.Coal -INF 5.936379E+12 6.804759E+12 .
2012.Coal -INF 6.059583E+12 6.751972E+12 .
2013.Coal -INF 5.743012E+12 6.670672E+12 .
2014.Coal -INF 5.322801E+12 6.545505E+12 .
2015.Coal -INF 4.916039E+12 6.463784E+12 .
404
2016.Coal -INF 4.917037E+12 6.694728E+12 .

2017.Coal -INF 4.926239E+12 6.819532E+12 .
2018.Coal -INF 4.737395E+12 6.738000E+12 .
2019.Coal -INF 4.743847E+12 6.840453E+12 .
2020.Coal -INF 4.654519E+12 6.819867E+12 .
2010.Coke -INF 1.992939E+12 2.279213E+12 .

2011.Coke -INF 1.962790E+12 2.249909E+12 .
2012.Coke -INF 2.003526E+12 2.232455E+12 .
2013.Coke -INF 1.898855E+12 2.205575E+12 .
2014.Coke -INF 1.759918E+12 2.164190E+12 .
2015.Coke -INF 1.625427E+12 2.137170E+12 .
2016.Coke -INF 1.625757E+12 2.213528E+12 .
2017.Coke -INF 1.628799E+12 2.254793E+12 .
2018.Coke -INF 1.566361E+12 2.227836E+12 .
2019.Coke -INF 1.568494E+12 2.261711E+12 .
2020.Coke -INF 1.538959E+12 2.254904E+12 .
2010.Wstfuel -INF 9.487474E+11 1.085029E+12 .

2011.Wstfuel -INF 9.343947E+11 1.071079E+12 .
2012.Wstfuel -INF 9.537873E+11 1.062770E+12 .
2013.Wstfuel -INF 9.039585E+11 1.049974E+12 .
2014.Wstfuel -INF 8.378166E+11 1.030272E+12 .
2015.Wstfuel -INF 7.737917E+11 1.017409E+12 .
2016.Wstfuel -INF 7.739489E+11 1.053760E+12 .
2017.Wstfuel -INF 7.753971E+11 1.073404E+12 .
2018.Wstfuel -INF 7.456729E+11 1.060571E+12 .
2019.Wstfuel -INF 7.466884E+11 1.076697E+12 .
2020.Wstfuel -INF 7.326280E+11 1.073457E+12 .
period i
2010.NOx -INF 3120.9599 5159.0000 .

405
2011.NOx -INF 3075.7629 5092.0000 .

2012.NOx -INF 3127.3411 5053.0000 .
2013.NOx -INF 2991.0304 4992.0000 .
2014.NOx -INF 2781.3472 4898.0000 .
2015.NOx -INF 2564.4854 4837.0000 .
2016.NOx -INF 2565.0189 5010.0000 .
2017.NOx -INF 2569.9363 5103.0000 .
2018.NOx -INF 2469.0137 5042.0000 .
2019.NOx -INF 2472.4615 5119.0000 .
2020.NOx -INF 2424.7224 5104.0000 .
period i
2010.CO2 -INF 1874231.1500 2004681.0000 .

2011.CO2 -INF 1858309.6000 1943388.0000 .
2012.CO2 -INF 1878838.0000 1878838.0000 -2.9826
2013.CO2 -INF 1786644.0000 1786644.0000 -9.6779
2014.CO2 -INF 1655592.0000 1655592.0000 -16.2551
2015.CO2 -INF 1524543.0000 1524543.0000 -16.1023
2016.CO2 -INF 1524865.0000 1524865.0000 -15.9114
2017.CO2 -INF 1527833.0000 1527833.0000 -15.7227
2018.CO2 -INF 1466919.0000 1466919.0000 -15.5363
2019.CO2 -INF 1469000.0000 1469000.0000 -15.3521
2020.CO2 -INF 1440186.0000 1440186.0000 -15.1700
i
2010.PM -INF 338.5357 430.0000 .

2011.PM -INF 334.1830 424.0000 .
2012.PM -INF 340.0008 421.0000 .
2013.PM -INF 323.9372 416.0000 .
2014.PM -INF 300.8104 408.0000 .
2015.PM -INF 277.5520 403.0000 .
2016.PM -INF 277.6092 417.0000 .
2017.PM -INF 278.1360 425.0000 .
2018.PM -INF 267.3229 420.0000 .
2019.PM -INF 267.6923 427.0000 .
2020.PM -INF 262.5774 425.0000 .
406
period i
2010.Merc -INF 0.0903 0.9800 .

2011.Merc -INF 0.0891 0.9600 .
2012.Merc -INF 0.0907 0.9600 .
2013.Merc -INF 0.0864 0.9400 .
2014.Merc -INF 0.0802 0.9300 .
2015.Merc -INF 0.0740 0.9200 .
2016.Merc -INF 0.0740 0.9500 .
2017.Merc -INF 0.0742 0.9700 .
2018.Merc -INF 0.0713 0.9500 .
2019.Merc -INF 0.0714 0.9700 .
2020.Merc -INF 0.0700 0.9700 .
2010 -INF 500000.0000 500000.0000 -0.0791

2011 -INF 500000.0000 500000.0000 -0.0781
2012 -INF 500000.0000 500000.0000 -0.0333
2013 -INF 159581.1765 500000.0000 .
2014 -INF 5402.3529 500000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 500000.0000 .
2010 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 EPS

2011 -INF 377887.0000 650000.0000 .
2012 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.1053
2013 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.4076
2014 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.7374
2015 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6967
407
2016 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6884

2017 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6803
2018 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6722
2019 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6642
2020 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.6563
2010 -INF . 530000.0000 .

2011 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2012 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2013 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2014 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2010 -INF 406905.0000 650000.0000 .

2011 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 EPS
2012 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.0158
2013 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.1173
2014 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2497
2015 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2136
2016 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2111
2017 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2086
2018 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2061
2019 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2037
2020 -INF 650000.0000 650000.0000 -0.2012
2010 -INF 700000.0000 700000.0000 -0.0296

2011 -INF 700000.0000 700000.0000 -0.0293
408
2012 -INF 466672.1893 700000.0000 .

2013 -INF 700000.0000 700000.0000 -0.0007
2014 -INF 700000.0000 700000.0000 -0.0342
2015 -INF 550346.7456 700000.0000 .
2016 -INF 550727.8107 700000.0000 .
2017 -INF 554240.2367 700000.0000 .
2018 -INF 482152.6627 700000.0000 .
2019 -INF 484615.3846 700000.0000 .
2020 -INF 450515.9763 700000.0000 .
2010.Cement -INF . 644829.9000 .

2011.Cement -INF . 636539.1000 .
2012.Cement -INF . 631601.4000 .
2013.Cement -INF . 623996.4000 .
2014.Cement -INF 105943.2812 612287.7000 .
2015.Cement -INF 265904.2544 604643.1000 .
2016.Cement -INF 341135.1893 626246.4000 .
2017.Cement -INF 378483.7633 637920.9000 .
2018.Cement -INF 423877.3373 630294.3000 .
2019.Cement -INF 454957.6154 639878.1000 .
2020.Cement -INF 482318.0237 637952.4000 .
---- VAR LCC -INF 2.0119319E+9 +INF .
2010 . 500000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 500000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 500000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 159581.1765 +INF .
2014 . 5402.3529 +INF .
2015 . . +INF 0.0340
2016 . . +INF 0.0336
2017 . . +INF 0.0332
409
2018 . . +INF 0.0328

2019 . . +INF 0.0324
2020 . . +INF 0.0320
2010 . 650000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 377887.0000 +INF .
2012 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 650000.0000 +INF .
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
2010 . 406905.0000 +INF .

2011 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 650000.0000 +INF .
410
2014 . 650000.0000 +INF .

2015 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 650000.0000 +INF .
2010 . 700000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 700000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 466672.1893 +INF .
2013 . 700000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 700000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 550346.7456 +INF .
2016 . 550727.8107 +INF .
2017 . 554240.2367 +INF .
2018 . 482152.6627 +INF .
2019 . 484615.3846 +INF .
2020 . 450515.9763 +INF .
2010 . . +INF 14.4130

2011 . . +INF 14.2421
2012 . . +INF 11.5819
2013 . . +INF 5.7564
2014 . 105943.2812 +INF .
2015 . 265904.2544 +INF .
2016 . 341135.1893 +INF .
2017 . 378483.7633 +INF .
2018 . 423877.3373 +INF .
2019 . 454957.6154 +INF .
2020 . 482318.0237 +INF .

411
2010 . . 60000.0000 5.7952

2011 . . 60000.0000 3.2352
2012 . 56067.1893 60000.0000 .
2013 . 31661.3658 60000.0000 .
2014 . . 60000.0000 5.6882
2015 . . 60000.0000 5.6207
2016 . . 60000.0000 5.5541
2017 . . 60000.0000 5.4882
2018 . . 60000.0000 5.4231
2019 . . 60000.0000 5.3588
2020 . . 60000.0000 81.1393

0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
412

21:04:07 Page 11
Execution
sts) ($)
(ton)
2010 500000.000, 2011 500000.000, 2012 500000.000, 2013 159581.176, 2014

5402.353
(ton)
2010 650000.000, 2011 377887.000, 2012 650000.000, 2013 650000.000, 2014

650000.000, 2015 650000.000
2016 650000.000, 2017 650000.000, 2018 650000.000, 2019 650000.000, 2020
650000.000
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
(ton)
2010 406905.000, 2011 650000.000, 2012 650000.000, 2013 650000.000, 2014

650000.000, 2015 650000.000
2016 650000.000, 2017 650000.000, 2018 650000.000, 2019 650000.000, 2020
650000.000
(ton)
413
2010 700000.000, 2011 700000.000, 2012 466672.189, 2013 700000.000, 2014

700000.000, 2015 550346.746
2016 550727.811, 2017 554240.237, 2018 482152.663, 2019 484615.385, 2020
450515.976
2012 56067.189, 2013 31661.366
2014 105943.281, 2015 265904.254, 2016 341135.189, 2017 378483.763, 2018

423877.337, 2019 454957.615
2020 482318.024
($ 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
($ 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
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
($ 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
($ 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

**** FILE SUMMARY

415
Case Study III (number of production lines is 3)

15:18:56 Page 1
Compilation

3 option lp=minos;
5
7 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020/
11
12 table
14
Gyps Baux Mill
16 2010 2149433 2256905 3512942331 190902656 154639488 107539051 79195425
60021796 26676354 16672721 4584998 4168180
3751362 395977126 6893388631909 2279213073602 1085029426397 2004681 5159
3439 430 0.98
17 2011 2121797 2227887 3467775741 188448183 152651258 106156400 78177194
59250084 26333371 16458357 4526048 4114589
3703130 390885970 6804758978866 2249908782967 1071078989720 1943388 5092
3395 424 0.96
18 2012 2105338 2210605 3440874975 186986324 151467088 105332907 77570746
58790460 26129093 16330683 4490938 4082671
3674404 387853729 6751972050498 2232455442720 1062770250192 1878838 5053
3369 421 0.96
19 2013 2079988 2183987 3399443753 184734841 149643288 104064605 76636724
58082570 25814476 16134047 4436863 4033512
3630161 383183622 6670672248600 2205574676052 1049973542777 1786644 4992
3328 416 0.94
20 2014 2040959 2143007 3335657065 181268502 146835402 102111951 75198724
56992717 25330096 15831310 4353610 3957828
416
3562045 375993618 6545504687300 2164189581240 1030271986040 1655592 4898

3266 408 0.93
21 2015 2015477 2116251 3294011118 179005350 145002151 100837075 74259861
56281158 25013848 15633655 4299255 3908414
3517572 371299307 6463783534514 2137169500150 1017408957381 1524543 4837
3225 403 0.92
22 2016 2087488 2191863 3411702620 185401020 150182923 104439876 76913087
58292024 25907566 16192229 4452863 4048057
3643251 384565435 6694727622153 2213528285636 1053759893665 1524865 5010
3340 417 0.95
23 2017 2126403 2232724 3475304021 188857290 152982652 106386858 78346911
59378711 26390538 16494086 4535874 4123522
3711169 391734554 6819531598431 2254793165590 1073404221589 1527833 5103
3402 425 0.97
24 2018 2100981 2206030 3433754547 186599381 151153647 105114935 77410224
58668801 26075023 16296889 4481645 4074222
3666800 387051118 6737999753315 2227835676722 1060570990233 1466919 5042
3362 420 0.95
25 2019 2132927 2239573 3485965811 189436680 153451983 106713239 78587269
59560878 26471501 16544688 4549789 4136172
3722555 392936346 6840453053612 2261710584107 1076697289154 1469000 5119
3413 427 0.97
26 2020 2126508 2232834 3475475161 188866590 152990186 106392097 78350769
59381635 26391838 16494899 4536097 4123725
3711352 391753845 6819867424521 2254904202303 1073457081105 1440186 5104
3402 425 0.97;
27
28 scalars
30
36
42
417
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
418
90
96
102
108
114
/
/
/
/
/
120
/
126
419
132
0.00136 /
0.00139 /
0.00139 /
0.00137 /
0.00140 /
138
0.00266 /
0.00263 /
0.00260 /
0.00258 /
0.00289 /
144
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
0.00015 /
150
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
420
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
0.00000004 /
156
162
165
170
171 parameters
173 rho(i) = (1 + p)**(-(ord(i)-1));
174
175 variables
189
191
193 store.l('2010')=0;
421
194 store.l('2020')=0;
195 *Storage limit
196 store.up(i)= 60000;
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
period i
period i
period i
i
period i
422
i;
233
e4*cem4(i)
237
241
243 *Lime
246 *Shale
249 *Clay
252 *Sand
255 *Marl
258 *Ashc
261 *Iron
264 *Gyps
267 *Baux
270 *Mill
273 *Diatom
423

276
280
282 *Coal
+
285 *Coke
cem4(i)*Cok4 +
288 *Wstfuel
cem4(i)*Wst4 +
291
cem4(i)*co4 +
cem4(i)*no4 +
cem4(i)*so4 +
298 * cem5(i)*so5 =L= data(i,'SO2');
cem4(i)*pm4 +
cem4(i)*me4 +
303
424
310
312
315
321
324
325 execute_unload "result1.gdx" cem1.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'
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
349
350 equation
time
425

355
362 *Emission_SO2,
364
367
368 execute_unload "sens_result1.gdx" cem1.l;
373 execute_unload "sens_store.gdx" store.l;
374 execute_unload "sens_import.gdx" impcem.l;
375
376 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result1.gdx var=cem1.l'
377 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result1.gdx var=cem1.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
386 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_store.gdx var=store.l'
387 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
388 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_import.gdx var=impcem.l'
389 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'

426

15:18:56 Page 2

70.2891058365866*cem1(2012)
- 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)
- 4.38514912363378*store(2020) =E= 329175000 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 329175000

****)

2149433 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2149433 ****)

cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)
- store(2011) =G= 2121797 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2121797 ****)

cem5(2012) + impcem(2012) + store(2011)
- store(2012) =G= 2105338 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2105338 ****)
428

+ 1348.48*cem4(2010) + 1335*cem5(2010)
=L= 3512942331 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2011) + 1335*cem5(2011)
=L= 3467775741 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2012) + 1335*cem5(2012)
=L= 3440874975 ; (LHS = 0)

73.28*cem4(2010) + 72.55*cem5(2010) =L=
190902656 ; (LHS = 0)

73.28*cem4(2011) + 72.55*cem5(2011) =L=
188448183 ; (LHS = 0)

73.28*cem4(2012) + 72.55*cem5(2012) =L=
186986324 ; (LHS = 0)

59.36*cem4(2010) + 58.77*cem5(2010) =L=
154639488 ; (LHS = 0)

59.36*cem4(2011) + 58.77*cem5(2011) =L=
152651258 ; (LHS = 0)

59.36*cem4(2012) + 58.77*cem5(2012) =L=
429
151467088 ; (LHS = 0)

41.28*cem4(2010) + 40.87*cem5(2010) =L=
107539051 ; (LHS = 0)

41.28*cem4(2011) + 40.87*cem5(2011) =L=
106156400 ; (LHS = 0)

41.28*cem4(2012) + 40.87*cem5(2012) =L=
105332907 ; (LHS = 0)

30.4*cem4(2010) + 30.1*cem5(2010) =L=
79195425 ; (LHS = 0)

30.4*cem4(2011) + 30.1*cem5(2011) =L=
78177194 ; (LHS = 0)

30.4*cem4(2012) + 30.1*cem5(2012) =L=
77570746 ; (LHS = 0)

23.04*cem4(2010) + 22.81*cem5(2010) =L=
60021796 ; (LHS = 0)
430

23.04*cem4(2011) + 22.81*cem5(2011) =L=
59250084 ; (LHS = 0)

23.04*cem4(2012) + 22.81*cem5(2012) =L=
58790460 ; (LHS = 0)

10.24*cem4(2010) + 10.24*cem5(2010) =L=
26676354 ; (LHS = 0)

10.24*cem4(2011) + 10.24*cem5(2011) =L=
26333371 ; (LHS = 0)

10.24*cem4(2012) + 10.24*cem5(2012) =L=
26129093 ; (LHS = 0)

6.4*cem4(2010) + 6.34*cem5(2010) =L= 16672721 ;
(LHS = 0)

6.4*cem4(2011) + 6.34*cem5(2011) =L= 16458357 ;
(LHS = 0)

6.4*cem4(2012) + 6.34*cem5(2012) =L= 16330683 ;
431
(LHS = 0)

1.76*cem4(2010) + 1.74*cem5(2010) =L= 4584998 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.76*cem4(2011) + 1.74*cem5(2011) =L= 4526048 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.76*cem4(2012) + 1.74*cem5(2012) =L= 4490938 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.6*cem4(2010) + 1.58*cem5(2010) =L= 4168180 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.6*cem4(2011) + 1.58*cem5(2011) =L= 4114589 ;
(LHS = 0)

1.6*cem4(2012) + 1.58*cem5(2012) =L= 4082671 ;
(LHS = 0)

432

1.44*cem4(2010) + 1.43*cem5(2010) =L=
3751362 ; (LHS = 0)

1.44*cem4(2011) + 1.43*cem5(2011) =L=
3703130 ; (LHS = 0)

1.44*cem4(2012) + 1.43*cem5(2012) =L=
3674404 ; (LHS = 0)

152*cem4(2010) + 156.56*cem5(2010)
=L= 395977126 ; (LHS = 0)

152*cem4(2011) + 156.56*cem5(2011)
=L= 390885970 ; (LHS = 0)

152*cem4(2012) + 156.56*cem5(2012)
=L= 387853729 ; (LHS = 0)

2672561*cem3(2010) + 2646100*cem4(2010)
+ 2619639*cem5(2010) =L= 6893388631909 ; (LHS = 0)

2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)
433
+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 0)

2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)
+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 0)

883649*cem3(2010) + 874900*cem4(2010) + 866151*cem5(2010)
=L= 2279213073602 ; (LHS = 0)

883649*cem3(2011) + 874900*cem4(2011) + 866151*cem5(2011)
=L= 2249908782967 ; (LHS = 0)

883649*cem3(2012) + 874900*cem4(2012) + 866151*cem5(2012)
=L= 2232455442720 ; (LHS = 0)

420665*cem3(2010) + 416500*cem4(2010)
+ 412335*cem5(2010) =L= 1085029426397 ; (LHS = 0)

420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)
+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 0)

420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)
+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 0)

434
period i

0.83*cem4(2010) + 0.845*cem5(2010) =L=
2004681 ; (LHS = 0)

0.83*cem4(2011) + 0.845*cem5(2011) =L=
1943388 ; (LHS = 0)

0.83*cem4(2012) + 0.845*cem5(2012) =L=
1878838 ; (LHS = 0)
period i

0.00139*cem3(2010) + 0.00137*cem4(2010)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2010) =L= 5159 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 0)

435
i

0.00015*cem3(2010) + 0.00015*cem4(2010)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2010) =L= 430 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2011) =L= 424 ; (LHS = 0)

0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 0)
period i

+ 4E-8*cem4(2010) + 4E-8*cem5(2010) =L=
0.98 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2011) + 4E-8*cem5(2011) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2012) + 4E-8*cem5(2012) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0)

436

437

438

15:18:56 Page 3
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)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
444
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
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)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
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)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
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)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
447
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem(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)

449

15:18:56 Page 4
MODEL STATISTICS


450

15:18:56 Page 5
SOLVE SUMMARY


**** OBJECTIVE VALUE 1920061725.9415


M I N O S 5.51 (Jun 2004)


Superbasics 0
Aggregations 0
---- EQU Object 3.2917500E+8 3.2917500E+8 3.2917500E+8 1.0000

451
2010.Cement 2149433.0000 2149433.0000 +INF 72.0652

2011.Cement 2121797.0000 2121797.0000 +INF 71.2107
2012.Cement 2105338.0000 2105338.0000 +INF 70.3663
2013.Cement 2079988.0000 2079988.0000 +INF 70.0404
2014.Cement 2040959.0000 2040959.0000 +INF 76.7607
2015.Cement 2015477.0000 2015477.0000 +INF 81.4713
2016.Cement 2087488.0000 2087488.0000 +INF 80.5052
2017.Cement 2126403.0000 2126403.0000 +INF 79.5506
2018.Cement 2100981.0000 2100981.0000 +INF 78.6073
2019.Cement 2132927.0000 2132927.0000 +INF 77.6752
2020.Cement 2126508.0000 2126508.0000 +INF 76.7541
2010.Lime -INF 2.9341874E+9 3.5129423E+9 .

2011.Lime -INF 2.8961754E+9 3.4677757E+9 .
2012.Lime -INF 2.8735369E+9 3.4408750E+9 .
2013.Lime -INF 2.9245414E+9 3.3994438E+9 .
2014.Lime -INF 2.7238269E+9 3.3356571E+9 .
2015.Lime -INF 2.5096882E+9 3.2940111E+9 .
2016.Lime -INF 2.5102143E+9 3.4117026E+9 .
2017.Lime -INF 2.5150641E+9 3.4753040E+9 .
2018.Lime -INF 2.4155285E+9 3.4337545E+9 .
2019.Lime -INF 2.4189289E+9 3.4859658E+9 .
2020.Lime -INF 2.3718459E+9 3.4754752E+9 .
2010.Shale -INF 1.5945737E+8 1.9090266E+8 .

2011.Shale -INF 1.5739158E+8 1.8844818E+8 .
2012.Shale -INF 1.5616127E+8 1.8698632E+8 .
2013.Shale -INF 1.5893329E+8 1.8473484E+8 .
2014.Shale -INF 1.4802637E+8 1.8126850E+8 .
2015.Shale -INF 1.3638922E+8 1.7900535E+8 .
452
2016.Shale -INF 1.3641781E+8 1.8540102E+8 .

2017.Shale -INF 1.3668137E+8 1.8885729E+8 .
2018.Shale -INF 1.3127221E+8 1.8659938E+8 .
2019.Shale -INF 1.3145700E+8 1.8943668E+8 .
2020.Shale -INF 1.2889832E+8 1.8886659E+8 .
2010.Clay -INF 1.2916642E+8 1.5463949E+8 .

2011.Clay -INF 1.2749306E+8 1.5265126E+8 .
2012.Clay -INF 1.2649647E+8 1.5146709E+8 .
2013.Clay -INF 1.2874173E+8 1.4964329E+8 .
2014.Clay -INF 1.1990756E+8 1.4683540E+8 .
2015.Clay -INF 1.1048128E+8 1.4500215E+8 .
2016.Clay -INF 1.1050444E+8 1.5018292E+8 .
2017.Clay -INF 1.1071793E+8 1.5298265E+8 .
2018.Clay -INF 1.0633642E+8 1.5115365E+8 .
2019.Clay -INF 1.0648610E+8 1.5345198E+8 .
2020.Clay -INF 1.0441353E+8 1.5299019E+8 .
2010.Sand -INF 8.9827874E+7 1.0753905E+8 .

2011.Sand -INF 8.8664122E+7 1.0615640E+8 .
2012.Sand -INF 8.7971033E+7 1.0533291E+8 .
2013.Sand -INF 8.9532690E+7 1.0406461E+8 .
2014.Sand -INF 8.3388873E+7 1.0211195E+8 .
2015.Sand -INF 7.6833339E+7 1.0083708E+8 .
2016.Sand -INF 7.6849447E+7 1.0443988E+8 .
2017.Sand -INF 7.6997917E+7 1.0638686E+8 .
2018.Sand -INF 7.3950783E+7 1.0511494E+8 .
2019.Sand -INF 7.4054882E+7 1.0671324E+8 .
2020.Sand -INF 7.2613504E+7 1.0639210E+8 .
2010.Marl -INF 6.6150667E+7 7.9195425E+7 .

2011.Marl -INF 6.5293675E+7 7.8177194E+7 .
453
2012.Marl -INF 6.4783281E+7 7.7570746E+7 .

2013.Marl -INF 6.5933033E+7 7.6636724E+7 .
2014.Marl -INF 6.1409870E+7 7.5198724E+7 .
2015.Marl -INF 5.6582641E+7 7.4259861E+7 .
2016.Marl -INF 5.6594502E+7 7.6913087E+7 .
2017.Marl -INF 5.6703829E+7 7.8346911E+7 .
2018.Marl -INF 5.4460044E+7 7.7410224E+7 .
2019.Marl -INF 5.4536699E+7 7.8587269E+7 .
2020.Marl -INF 5.3475326E+7 7.8350769E+7 .
2010.Ashc -INF 5.0132176E+7 6.0021796E+7 .

2011.Ashc -INF 4.9482730E+7 5.9250084E+7 .
2012.Ashc -INF 4.9095943E+7 5.8790460E+7 .
2013.Ashc -INF 4.9967279E+7 5.8082570E+7 .
2014.Ashc -INF 4.6538246E+7 5.6992717E+7 .
2015.Ashc -INF 4.2879667E+7 5.6281158E+7 .
2016.Ashc -INF 4.2888656E+7 5.8292024E+7 .
2017.Ashc -INF 4.2971516E+7 5.9378711E+7 .
2018.Ashc -INF 4.1270940E+7 5.8668801E+7 .
2019.Ashc -INF 4.1329037E+7 5.9560878E+7 .
2020.Ashc -INF 4.0524618E+7 5.9381635E+7 .
2010.Iron -INF 2.2365831E+7 2.6676354E+7 .

2011.Iron -INF 2.2077311E+7 2.6333371E+7 .
2012.Iron -INF 2.1905479E+7 2.6129093E+7 .
2013.Iron -INF 2.2283764E+7 2.5814476E+7 .
2014.Iron -INF 2.0765502E+7 2.5330096E+7 .
2015.Iron -INF 1.9138953E+7 2.5013848E+7 .
2016.Iron -INF 1.9142949E+7 2.5907566E+7 .
2017.Iron -INF 1.9179788E+7 2.6390538E+7 .
2018.Iron -INF 1.8423737E+7 2.6075023E+7 .
2019.Iron -INF 1.8449566E+7 2.6471501E+7 .
2020.Iron -INF 1.8091934E+7 2.6391838E+7 .
454
2010.Gyps -INF 1.3928547E+7 1.6672721E+7 .

2011.Gyps -INF 1.3748084E+7 1.6458357E+7 .
2012.Gyps -INF 1.3640607E+7 1.6330683E+7 .
2013.Gyps -INF 1.3882584E+7 1.6134047E+7 .
2014.Gyps -INF 1.2931747E+7 1.5831310E+7 .
2015.Gyps -INF 1.1915732E+7 1.5633655E+7 .
2016.Gyps -INF 1.1918228E+7 1.6192229E+7 .
2017.Gyps -INF 1.1941239E+7 1.6494086E+7 .
2018.Gyps -INF 1.1468976E+7 1.6296889E+7 .
2019.Gyps -INF 1.1485110E+7 1.6544688E+7 .
2020.Gyps -INF 1.1261717E+7 1.6494899E+7 .
2010.Baux -INF 3827729.4000 4584998.0000 .

2011.Baux -INF 3777984.6000 4526048.0000 .
2012.Baux -INF 3748358.4000 4490938.0000 .
2013.Baux -INF 3815690.2667 4436863.0000 .
2014.Baux -INF 3556059.1412 4353610.0000 .
2015.Baux -INF 3277001.8588 4299255.0000 .
2016.Baux -INF 3277687.5294 4452863.0000 .
2017.Baux -INF 3284007.6235 4535874.0000 .
2018.Baux -INF 3154296.6353 4481645.0000 .
2019.Baux -INF 3158727.9412 4549789.0000 .
2020.Baux -INF 3097371.0706 4536097.0000 .
2010.Mill -INF 3478825.7900 4168180.0000 .

2011.Mill -INF 3433779.1100 4114589.0000 .
2012.Mill -INF 3406950.9400 4082671.0000 .
2013.Mill -INF 3467565.3289 4033512.0000 .
2014.Mill -INF 3227627.1176 3957828.0000 .
2015.Mill -INF 2973237.8824 3908414.0000 .
2016.Mill -INF 2973862.9412 4048057.0000 .
2017.Mill -INF 2979624.3529 4123522.0000 .
2018.Mill -INF 2861379.5294 4074222.0000 .
2019.Mill -INF 2865419.1176 4136172.0000 .
455
2020.Mill -INF 2809486.0588 4123725.0000 .
2010.Diatom -INF 3134916.5100 3751362.0000 .

2011.Diatom -INF 3094291.5900 3703130.0000 .
2012.Diatom -INF 3070096.8600 3674404.0000 .
2013.Diatom -INF 3124340.2711 3630161.0000 .
2014.Diatom -INF 2912183.7176 3562045.0000 .
2015.Diatom -INF 2684004.2824 3517572.0000 .
2016.Diatom -INF 2684564.9412 3643251.0000 .
2017.Diatom -INF 2689732.7529 3711169.0000 .
2018.Diatom -INF 2583670.7294 3666800.0000 .
2019.Diatom -INF 2587294.1176 3722555.0000 .
2020.Diatom -INF 2537123.8588 3711352.0000 .
2010.Elec -INF 3.3074009E+8 3.9597713E+8 .

2011.Elec -INF 3.2645541E+8 3.9088597E+8 .
2012.Elec -INF 3.2390360E+8 3.8785373E+8 .
2013.Elec -INF 3.2915004E+8 3.8318362E+8 .
2014.Elec -INF 3.0990919E+8 3.7599362E+8 .
2015.Elec -INF 2.8670889E+8 3.7129931E+8 .
2016.Elec -INF 2.8676590E+8 3.8456544E+8 .
2017.Elec -INF 2.8729134E+8 3.9173455E+8 .
2018.Elec -INF 2.7650741E+8 3.8705112E+8 .
2019.Elec -INF 2.7687582E+8 3.9293635E+8 .
2020.Elec -INF 2.7177473E+8 3.9175385E+8 .
2010.Coal -INF 5.757706E+12 6.893389E+12 .

2011.Coal -INF 5.683116E+12 6.804759E+12 .
2012.Coal -INF 5.638693E+12 6.751972E+12 .
2013.Coal -INF 5.738779E+12 6.670672E+12 .
2014.Coal -INF 5.344915E+12 6.545505E+12 .
2015.Coal -INF 4.924713E+12 6.463784E+12 .
456
2016.Coal -INF 4.925745E+12 6.694728E+12 .

2017.Coal -INF 4.935262E+12 6.819532E+12 .
2018.Coal -INF 4.739944E+12 6.738000E+12 .
2019.Coal -INF 4.746617E+12 6.840453E+12 .
2020.Coal -INF 4.654226E+12 6.819867E+12 .
2010.Coke -INF 1.903714E+12 2.279213E+12 .

2011.Coke -INF 1.879052E+12 2.249909E+12 .
2012.Coke -INF 1.864364E+12 2.232455E+12 .
2013.Coke -INF 1.897456E+12 2.205575E+12 .
2014.Coke -INF 1.767230E+12 2.164190E+12 .
2015.Coke -INF 1.628295E+12 2.137170E+12 .
2016.Coke -INF 1.628636E+12 2.213528E+12 .
2017.Coke -INF 1.631783E+12 2.254793E+12 .
2018.Coke -INF 1.567204E+12 2.227836E+12 .
2019.Coke -INF 1.569410E+12 2.261711E+12 .
2020.Coke -INF 1.538862E+12 2.254904E+12 .
2010.Wstfuel -INF 9.062714E+11 1.085029E+12 .

2011.Wstfuel -INF 8.945308E+11 1.071079E+12 .
2012.Wstfuel -INF 8.875385E+11 1.062770E+12 .
2013.Wstfuel -INF 9.032922E+11 1.049974E+12 .
2014.Wstfuel -INF 8.412974E+11 1.030272E+12 .
2015.Wstfuel -INF 7.751570E+11 1.017409E+12 .
2016.Wstfuel -INF 7.753195E+11 1.053760E+12 .
2017.Wstfuel -INF 7.768175E+11 1.073404E+12 .
2018.Wstfuel -INF 7.460742E+11 1.060571E+12 .
2019.Wstfuel -INF 7.471244E+11 1.076697E+12 .
2020.Wstfuel -INF 7.325820E+11 1.073457E+12 .
period i
2010.CO2 -INF 1797921.4000 2004681.0000 .

457
2011.CO2 -INF 1775812.6000 1943388.0000 .

2012.CO2 -INF 1762645.4000 1878838.0000 .
2013.CO2 -INF 1786644.0000 1786644.0000 -0.6356
2014.CO2 -INF 1655592.0000 1655592.0000 -9.5632
2015.CO2 -INF 1524543.0000 1524543.0000 -16.0624
2016.CO2 -INF 1524865.0000 1524865.0000 -15.8719
2017.CO2 -INF 1527833.0000 1527833.0000 -15.6837
2018.CO2 -INF 1466919.0000 1466919.0000 -15.4977
2019.CO2 -INF 1469000.0000 1469000.0000 -15.3140
2020.CO2 -INF 1440186.0000 1440186.0000 -15.1324
period i
2010.NOx -INF 2971.2119 5159.0000 .

2011.NOx -INF 2932.7978 5092.0000 .
2012.NOx -INF 2909.9198 5053.0000 .
2013.NOx -INF 2957.2563 4992.0000 .
2014.NOx -INF 2779.2972 4898.0000 .
2015.NOx -INF 2569.6188 4837.0000 .
2016.NOx -INF 2570.1340 5010.0000 .
2017.NOx -INF 2574.8828 5103.0000 .
2018.NOx -INF 2477.4204 5042.0000 .
2019.NOx -INF 2480.7500 5119.0000 .
2020.NOx -INF 2434.6476 5104.0000 .
i
2010.PM -INF 322.4149 430.0000 .

2011.PM -INF 318.2695 424.0000 .
2012.PM -INF 315.8007 421.0000 .
2013.PM -INF 320.9982 416.0000 .
2014.PM -INF 300.1706 408.0000 .
2015.PM -INF 277.0444 403.0000 .
2016.PM -INF 277.1012 417.0000 .
2017.PM -INF 277.6249 425.0000 .
2018.PM -INF 266.8754 420.0000 .
2019.PM -INF 267.2426 427.0000 .
2020.PM -INF 262.1578 425.0000 .
458
period i
2010.Merc -INF 0.0860 0.9800 .

2011.Merc -INF 0.0849 0.9600 .
2012.Merc -INF 0.0842 0.9600 .
2013.Merc -INF 0.0856 0.9400 .
2014.Merc -INF 0.0800 0.9300 .
2015.Merc -INF 0.0739 0.9200 .
2016.Merc -INF 0.0739 0.9500 .
2017.Merc -INF 0.0740 0.9700 .
2018.Merc -INF 0.0712 0.9500 .
2019.Merc -INF 0.0713 0.9700 .
2020.Merc -INF 0.0699 0.9700 .
2010 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0791

2011 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0781
2012 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0772
2013 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0445
2014 -INF 351137.6471 825000.0000 .
2015 -INF 196962.3529 825000.0000 .
2016 -INF 197341.1765 825000.0000 .
2017 -INF 200832.9412 825000.0000 .
2018 -INF 129169.4118 825000.0000 .
2019 -INF 131617.6471 825000.0000 .
2020 -INF 97718.8235 825000.0000 .
2010 -INF 499433.0000 825000.0000 .

2011 -INF 471797.0000 825000.0000 .
2012 -INF 455338.0000 825000.0000 .
2013 -INF 572685.7778 825000.0000 .
2014 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.4028
2015 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.7286
459
2016 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.7200

2017 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.7115
2018 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.7030
2019 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.6947
2020 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.6865
2010 -INF . 530000.0000 .

2011 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2012 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2013 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2014 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2010 -INF . 650000.0000 .

2011 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2012 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2013 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2014 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2010 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0296

2011 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0293
460
2012 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0289

2013 -INF 742302.2222 825000.0000 .
2014 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0007
2015 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0338
2016 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0334
2017 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0330
2018 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0326
2019 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0322
2020 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0318
2010.Cement -INF . 644829.9000 .

2011.Cement -INF . 636539.1000 .
2012.Cement -INF . 631601.4000 .
2013.Cement -INF . 623996.4000 .
2014.Cement -INF . 612287.7000 .
2015.Cement -INF 148336.0000 604643.1000 .
2016.Cement -INF 240146.8235 626246.4000 .
2017.Cement -INF 275570.0588 637920.9000 .
2018.Cement -INF 321811.5882 630294.3000 .
2019.Cement -INF 351309.3529 639878.1000 .
2020.Cement -INF 378789.1765 637952.4000 .
---- VAR LCC -INF 1.9200617E+9 +INF .
2010 . 825000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 351137.6471 +INF .
2015 . 196962.3529 +INF .
2016 . 197341.1765 +INF .
2017 . 200832.9412 +INF .
461
2018 . 129169.4118 +INF .

2019 . 131617.6471 +INF .
2020 . 97718.8235 +INF .
2010 . 499433.0000 +INF .

2011 . 471797.0000 +INF .
2012 . 455338.0000 +INF .
2013 . 572685.7778 +INF .
2014 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 825000.0000 +INF .
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
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
2010 . 825000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 742302.2222 +INF .
2014 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2010 . . +INF 14.4130

2011 . . +INF 14.2421
2012 . . +INF 14.0733
2013 . . +INF 13.3979
2014 . . +INF 5.6882
2015 . 148336.0000 +INF .
2016 . 240146.8235 +INF .
2017 . 275570.0588 +INF .
2018 . 321811.5882 +INF .
2019 . 351309.3529 +INF .
2020 . 378789.1765 +INF .

463
2010 . . 60000.0000 5.7952

2011 . . 60000.0000 5.7265
2012 . . 60000.0000 5.1501
2013 . 60000.0000 60000.0000 -1.9533
2014 . 20178.6471 60000.0000 .
2015 . . 60000.0000 5.6207
2016 . . 60000.0000 5.5541
2017 . . 60000.0000 5.4882
2018 . . 60000.0000 5.4231
2019 . . 60000.0000 5.3588
2020 . . 60000.0000 81.1393

0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
464

15:18:56 Page 6
Execution
sts) ($)
(ton)
2010 825000.000, 2011 825000.000, 2012 825000.000, 2013 825000.000, 2014

351137.647, 2015 196962.353
2016 197341.176, 2017 200832.941, 2018 129169.412, 2019 131617.647, 2020
97718.824
(ton)
2010 499433.000, 2011 471797.000, 2012 455338.000, 2013 572685.778, 2014

825000.000, 2015 825000.000
2016 825000.000, 2017 825000.000, 2018 825000.000, 2019 825000.000, 2020
825000.000
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
(ton)
465
2010 825000.000, 2011 825000.000, 2012 825000.000, 2013 742302.222, 2014

825000.000, 2015 825000.000
2016 825000.000, 2017 825000.000, 2018 825000.000, 2019 825000.000, 2020
825000.000
2013 60000.000, 2014 20178.647
2015 148336.000, 2016 240146.824, 2017 275570.059, 2018 321811.588, 2019

351309.353, 2020 378789.176
($ 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
($ 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
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
466
($ 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

15:18:56 Page 7

70.2891058365866*cem1(2012)
- 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)
- 4.38514912363378*store(2020) =E= 329175000 ; (LHS = 329175000)

2256905 ; (LHS = 2149433, INFES = 107472 ****)

cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)
- store(2011) =G= 2227887 ; (LHS = 2121797, INFES = 106090 ****)

cem5(2012) + impcem(2012) + store(2011)
- store(2012) =G= 2210605 ; (LHS = 2105338, INFES = 105267 ****)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2010) + 1335*cem5(2010)
469
=L= 3512942331 ; (LHS = 2934187369.85)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2011) + 1335*cem5(2011)
=L= 3467775741 ; (LHS = 2896175433.65)

+ 1348.48*cem4(2012) + 1335*cem5(2012)
=L= 3440874975 ; (LHS = 2873536902.1)

73.28*cem4(2010) + 72.55*cem5(2010) =L=
190902656 ; (LHS = 159457366.75)

73.28*cem4(2011) + 72.55*cem5(2011) =L=
188448183 ; (LHS = 157391575.75)

73.28*cem4(2012) + 72.55*cem5(2012) =L=
186986324 ; (LHS = 156161265.5)

59.36*cem4(2010) + 58.77*cem5(2010) =L=
154639488 ; (LHS = 129166418.15)

59.36*cem4(2011) + 58.77*cem5(2011) =L=
152651258 ; (LHS = 127493058.35)

59.36*cem4(2012) + 58.77*cem5(2012) =L=
151467088 ; (LHS = 126496465.9)
470

41.28*cem4(2010) + 40.87*cem5(2010) =L=
107539051 ; (LHS = 89827873.63)

41.28*cem4(2011) + 40.87*cem5(2011) =L=
106156400 ; (LHS = 88664121.67)

41.28*cem4(2012) + 40.87*cem5(2012) =L=
105332907 ; (LHS = 87971033.18)

30.4*cem4(2010) + 30.1*cem5(2010) =L=
79195425 ; (LHS = 66150667.33)

30.4*cem4(2011) + 30.1*cem5(2011) =L=
78177194 ; (LHS = 65293674.97)

30.4*cem4(2012) + 30.1*cem5(2012) =L=
77570746 ; (LHS = 64783281.38)

23.04*cem4(2010) + 22.81*cem5(2010) =L=
60021796 ; (LHS = 50132175.5)
471

23.04*cem4(2011) + 22.81*cem5(2011) =L=
59250084 ; (LHS = 49482729.5)

23.04*cem4(2012) + 22.81*cem5(2012) =L=
58790460 ; (LHS = 49095943)

10.24*cem4(2010) + 10.24*cem5(2010) =L=
26676354 ; (LHS = 22365830.52)

10.24*cem4(2011) + 10.24*cem5(2011) =L=
26333371 ; (LHS = 22077310.68)

10.24*cem4(2012) + 10.24*cem5(2012) =L=
26129093 ; (LHS = 21905478.72)

6.4*cem4(2010) + 6.34*cem5(2010) =L= 16672721 ;
(LHS = 13928547.49)

6.4*cem4(2011) + 6.34*cem5(2011) =L= 16458357 ;
(LHS = 13748084.41)

6.4*cem4(2012) + 6.34*cem5(2012) =L= 16330683 ;
(LHS = 13640607.14)
472

1.76*cem4(2010) + 1.74*cem5(2010) =L= 4584998 ;
(LHS = 3827729.4)

1.76*cem4(2011) + 1.74*cem5(2011) =L= 4526048 ;
(LHS = 3777984.6)

1.76*cem4(2012) + 1.74*cem5(2012) =L= 4490938 ;
(LHS = 3748358.4)

1.6*cem4(2010) + 1.58*cem5(2010) =L= 4168180 ;
(LHS = 3478825.79)

1.6*cem4(2011) + 1.58*cem5(2011) =L= 4114589 ;
(LHS = 3433779.11)

1.6*cem4(2012) + 1.58*cem5(2012) =L= 4082671 ;
(LHS = 3406950.94)

473

1.44*cem4(2010) + 1.43*cem5(2010) =L=
3751362 ; (LHS = 3134916.51)

1.44*cem4(2011) + 1.43*cem5(2011) =L=
3703130 ; (LHS = 3094291.59)

1.44*cem4(2012) + 1.43*cem5(2012) =L=
3674404 ; (LHS = 3070096.86)

152*cem4(2010) + 156.56*cem5(2010)
=L= 395977126 ; (LHS = 330740092.32)

152*cem4(2011) + 156.56*cem5(2011)
=L= 390885970 ; (LHS = 326455406.88)

152*cem4(2012) + 156.56*cem5(2012)
=L= 387853729 ; (LHS = 323903603.52)

2672561*cem3(2010) + 2646100*cem4(2010)
+ 2619639*cem5(2010) =L= 6893388631909 ; (LHS = 5757706304526)

2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)
474
+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 5683116132534)

2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)
+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 5638692929436)

883649*cem3(2010) + 874900*cem4(2010) + 866151*cem5(2010)
=L= 2279213073602 ; (LHS = 1903713860334)

883649*cem3(2011) + 874900*cem4(2011) + 866151*cem5(2011)
=L= 2249908782967 ; (LHS = 1879051549206)

883649*cem3(2012) + 874900*cem4(2012) + 866151*cem5(2012)
=L= 2232455442720 ; (LHS = 1864363570524)

420665*cem3(2010) + 416500*cem4(2010)
+ 412335*cem5(2010) =L= 1085029426397 ; (LHS = 906271371390)

420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)
+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 894530769510)

420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)
+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 887538492540)

475
period i

0.00139*cem3(2010) + 0.00137*cem4(2010)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2010) =L= 5159 ; (LHS = 2971.21187)

0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 2932.79783)

0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)
+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 2909.91982)
period i

0.83*cem4(2010) + 0.845*cem5(2010) =L=
2004681 ; (LHS = 1797921.4)

0.83*cem4(2011) + 0.845*cem5(2011) =L=
1943388 ; (LHS = 1775812.6)

0.83*cem4(2012) + 0.845*cem5(2012) =L=
1878838 ; (LHS = 1762645.4)
i
476

0.00015*cem3(2010) + 0.00015*cem4(2010)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2010) =L= 430 ; (LHS = 322.41495)

0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2011) =L= 424 ; (LHS = 318.26955)

0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)
+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 315.8007)
period i

+ 4E-8*cem4(2010) + 4E-8*cem5(2010) =L=
0.98 ; (LHS = 0.08597732)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2011) + 4E-8*cem5(2011) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0.08487188)

+ 4E-8*cem4(2012) + 4E-8*cem5(2012) =L=
0.96 ; (LHS = 0.08421352)

477

478

479

15:18:56 Page 8
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
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)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity1(2010)
cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
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)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity1(2011)
cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
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)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
481
1 Capacity1(2012)
cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 499433, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
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)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity2(2010)
cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 471797, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
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)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity2(2011)
cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 455338, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
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)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity2(2012)
cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -72.0652173913043)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity3(2010)
cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -71.2106891218423)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity3(2011)
484
cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -70.3662935986583)
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)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity3(2012)
cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -72.0652173913043)
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)
485
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity4(2010)
cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -71.2106891218423)
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)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity4(2011)
cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -70.3662935986583)
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)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
1 Capacity4(2012)
cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
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)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
1 Capacity5(2010)
cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
487
-71.1814 Object
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)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
1 Capacity5(2011)
cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
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)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
488
1 Capacity5(2012)
impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.4130434782609)
-86.4783 Object
impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.2421378243685)
-85.4528 Object
impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.0732587197317)
-84.4396 Object
store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.7952397319127)
-4.9407 Object
store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.72652147422205)
-4.8821 Object
store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.15013477642643)
489
-4.8242 Object

490

15:18:56 Page 9
MODEL STATISTICS


491

15:18:56 Page 10
SOLVE SUMMARY


**** OBJECTIVE VALUE 2008693528.5660


M I N O S 5.51 (Jun 2004)


Superbasics 0
Aggregations 0
---- EQU Object 3.2917500E+8 3.2917500E+8 3.2917500E+8 1.0000

492
2010.Cement1 2256905.0000 2256905.0000 +INF 72.0652

2011.Cement1 2227887.0000 2227887.0000 +INF 71.2107
2012.Cement1 2210605.0000 2210605.0000 +INF 72.8576
2013.Cement1 2183987.0000 2183987.0000 +INF 77.6819
2014.Cement1 2143007.0000 2143007.0000 +INF 82.4489
2015.Cement1 2116251.0000 2116251.0000 +INF 81.4713
2016.Cement1 2191863.0000 2191863.0000 +INF 80.5052
2017.Cement1 2232724.0000 2232724.0000 +INF 79.5506
2018.Cement1 2206030.0000 2206030.0000 +INF 78.6073
2019.Cement1 2239573.0000 2239573.0000 +INF 77.6752
2020.Cement1 2232834.0000 2232834.0000 +INF 76.7541
2010.Lime -INF 3.0820097E+9 3.5129423E+9 .

2011.Lime -INF 3.0420969E+9 3.4677757E+9 .
2012.Lime -INF 3.0983413E+9 3.4408750E+9 .
2013.Lime -INF 2.9379705E+9 3.3994438E+9 .
2014.Lime -INF 2.7238269E+9 3.3356571E+9 .
2015.Lime -INF 2.5096882E+9 3.2940111E+9 .
2016.Lime -INF 2.5102143E+9 3.4117026E+9 .
2017.Lime -INF 2.5150641E+9 3.4753040E+9 .
2018.Lime -INF 2.4155285E+9 3.4337545E+9 .
2019.Lime -INF 2.4189289E+9 3.4859658E+9 .
2020.Lime -INF 2.3718459E+9 3.4754752E+9 .
2010.Shale -INF 1.6749090E+8 1.9090266E+8 .

2011.Shale -INF 1.6532180E+8 1.8844818E+8 .
2012.Shale -INF 1.6837881E+8 1.8698632E+8 .
2013.Shale -INF 1.5966379E+8 1.8473484E+8 .
2014.Shale -INF 1.4802637E+8 1.8126850E+8 .
2015.Shale -INF 1.3638922E+8 1.7900535E+8 .
493
2016.Shale -INF 1.3641781E+8 1.8540102E+8 .

2017.Shale -INF 1.3668137E+8 1.8885729E+8 .
2018.Shale -INF 1.3127221E+8 1.8659938E+8 .
2019.Shale -INF 1.3145700E+8 1.8943668E+8 .
2020.Shale -INF 1.2889832E+8 1.8886659E+8 .
2010.Clay -INF 1.3567385E+8 1.5463949E+8 .

2011.Clay -INF 1.3391681E+8 1.5265126E+8 .
2012.Clay -INF 1.3639265E+8 1.5146709E+8 .
2013.Clay -INF 1.2933405E+8 1.4964329E+8 .
2014.Clay -INF 1.1990756E+8 1.4683540E+8 .
2015.Clay -INF 1.1048128E+8 1.4500215E+8 .
2016.Clay -INF 1.1050444E+8 1.5018292E+8 .
2017.Clay -INF 1.1071793E+8 1.5298265E+8 .
2018.Clay -INF 1.0633642E+8 1.5115365E+8 .
2019.Clay -INF 1.0648610E+8 1.5345198E+8 .
2020.Clay -INF 1.0441353E+8 1.5299019E+8 .
2010.Sand -INF 9.4353520E+7 1.0753905E+8 .

2011.Sand -INF 9.3131572E+7 1.0615640E+8 .
2012.Sand -INF 9.4853858E+7 1.0533291E+8 .
2013.Sand -INF 8.9944556E+7 1.0406461E+8 .
2014.Sand -INF 8.3388873E+7 1.0211195E+8 .
2015.Sand -INF 7.6833339E+7 1.0083708E+8 .
2016.Sand -INF 7.6849447E+7 1.0443988E+8 .
2017.Sand -INF 7.6997917E+7 1.0638686E+8 .
2018.Sand -INF 7.3950783E+7 1.0511494E+8 .
2019.Sand -INF 7.4054882E+7 1.0671324E+8 .
2020.Sand -INF 7.2613504E+7 1.0639210E+8 .
2010.Marl -INF 6.9483374E+7 7.9195425E+7 .

2011.Marl -INF 6.8583526E+7 7.8177194E+7 .
494
2012.Marl -INF 6.9851158E+7 7.7570746E+7 .

2013.Marl -INF 6.6237209E+7 7.6636724E+7 .
2014.Marl -INF 6.1409870E+7 7.5198724E+7 .
2015.Marl -INF 5.6582641E+7 7.4259861E+7 .
2016.Marl -INF 5.6594502E+7 7.6913087E+7 .
2017.Marl -INF 5.6703829E+7 7.8346911E+7 .
2018.Marl -INF 5.4460044E+7 7.7410224E+7 .
2019.Marl -INF 5.4536699E+7 7.8587269E+7 .
2020.Marl -INF 5.3475326E+7 7.8350769E+7 .
2010.Ashc -INF 5.2657768E+7 6.0021796E+7 .

2011.Ashc -INF 5.1975845E+7 5.9250084E+7 .
2012.Ashc -INF 5.2936563E+7 5.8790460E+7 .
2013.Ashc -INF 5.0196910E+7 5.8082570E+7 .
2014.Ashc -INF 4.6538246E+7 5.6992717E+7 .
2015.Ashc -INF 4.2879667E+7 5.6281158E+7 .
2016.Ashc -INF 4.2888656E+7 5.8292024E+7 .
2017.Ashc -INF 4.2971516E+7 5.9378711E+7 .
2018.Ashc -INF 4.1270940E+7 5.8668801E+7 .
2019.Ashc -INF 4.1329037E+7 5.9560878E+7 .
2020.Ashc -INF 4.0524618E+7 5.9381635E+7 .
2010.Iron -INF 2.3487838E+7 2.6676354E+7 .

2011.Iron -INF 2.3184890E+7 2.6333371E+7 .
2012.Iron -INF 2.3589059E+7 2.6129093E+7 .
2013.Iron -INF 2.2392089E+7 2.5814476E+7 .
2014.Iron -INF 2.0765502E+7 2.5330096E+7 .
2015.Iron -INF 1.9138953E+7 2.5013848E+7 .
2016.Iron -INF 1.9142949E+7 2.5907566E+7 .
2017.Iron -INF 1.9179788E+7 2.6390538E+7 .
2018.Iron -INF 1.8423737E+7 2.6075023E+7 .
2019.Iron -INF 1.8449566E+7 2.6471501E+7 .
2020.Iron -INF 1.8091934E+7 2.6391838E+7 .
495
2010.Gyps -INF 1.4630340E+7 1.6672721E+7 .

2011.Gyps -INF 1.4440852E+7 1.6458357E+7 .
2012.Gyps -INF 1.4707441E+7 1.6330683E+7 .
2013.Gyps -INF 1.3947786E+7 1.6134047E+7 .
2014.Gyps -INF 1.2931747E+7 1.5831310E+7 .
2015.Gyps -INF 1.1915732E+7 1.5633655E+7 .
2016.Gyps -INF 1.1918228E+7 1.6192229E+7 .
2017.Gyps -INF 1.1941239E+7 1.6494086E+7 .
2018.Gyps -INF 1.1468976E+7 1.6296889E+7 .
2019.Gyps -INF 1.1485110E+7 1.6544688E+7 .
2020.Gyps -INF 1.1261717E+7 1.6494899E+7 .
2010.Baux -INF 4021179.0000 4584998.0000 .

2011.Baux -INF 3968946.6000 4526048.0000 .
2012.Baux -INF 4044052.5089 4490938.0000 .
2013.Baux -INF 3835122.8118 4436863.0000 .
2014.Baux -INF 3556059.1412 4353610.0000 .
2015.Baux -INF 3277001.8588 4299255.0000 .
2016.Baux -INF 3277687.5294 4452863.0000 .
2017.Baux -INF 3284007.6235 4535874.0000 .
2018.Baux -INF 3154296.6353 4481645.0000 .
2019.Baux -INF 3158727.9412 4549789.0000 .
2020.Baux -INF 3097371.0706 4536097.0000 .
2010.Mill -INF 3654005.1500 4168180.0000 .

2011.Mill -INF 3606705.8100 4114589.0000 .
2012.Mill -INF 3673797.6805 4082671.0000 .
2013.Mill -INF 3482022.1765 4033512.0000 .
2014.Mill -INF 3227627.1176 3957828.0000 .
2015.Mill -INF 2973237.8824 3908414.0000 .
2016.Mill -INF 2973862.9412 4048057.0000 .
2017.Mill -INF 2979624.3529 4123522.0000 .
2018.Mill -INF 2861379.5294 4074222.0000 .
2019.Mill -INF 2865419.1176 4136172.0000 .
496
2020.Mill -INF 2809486.0588 4123725.0000 .
2010.Diatom -INF 3292900.3500 3751362.0000 .

2011.Diatom -INF 3250243.8900 3703130.0000 .
2012.Diatom -INF 3309668.1538 3674404.0000 .
2013.Diatom -INF 3140368.3765 3630161.0000 .
2014.Diatom -INF 2912183.7176 3562045.0000 .
2015.Diatom -INF 2684004.2824 3517572.0000 .
2016.Diatom -INF 2684564.9412 3643251.0000 .
2017.Diatom -INF 2689732.7529 3711169.0000 .
2018.Diatom -INF 2583670.7294 3666800.0000 .
2019.Diatom -INF 2587294.1176 3722555.0000 .
2020.Diatom -INF 2537123.8588 3711352.0000 .
2010.Elec -INF 3.4740255E+8 3.9597713E+8 .

2011.Elec -INF 3.4290360E+8 3.9088597E+8 .
2012.Elec -INF 3.4795172E+8 3.8785373E+8 .
2013.Elec -INF 3.3311002E+8 3.8318362E+8 .
2014.Elec -INF 3.0990919E+8 3.7599362E+8 .
2015.Elec -INF 2.8670889E+8 3.7129931E+8 .
2016.Elec -INF 2.8676590E+8 3.8456544E+8 .
2017.Elec -INF 2.8729134E+8 3.9173455E+8 .
2018.Elec -INF 2.7650741E+8 3.8705112E+8 .
2019.Elec -INF 2.7687582E+8 3.9293635E+8 .
2020.Elec -INF 2.7177473E+8 3.9175385E+8 .
2010.Coal -INF 6.047776E+12 6.893389E+12 .

2011.Coal -INF 5.969455E+12 6.804759E+12 .
2012.Coal -INF 6.079825E+12 6.751972E+12 .
2013.Coal -INF 5.765127E+12 6.670672E+12 .
2014.Coal -INF 5.344915E+12 6.545505E+12 .
2015.Coal -INF 4.924713E+12 6.463784E+12 .
497
2016.Coal -INF 4.925745E+12 6.694728E+12 .

2017.Coal -INF 4.935262E+12 6.819532E+12 .
2018.Coal -INF 4.739944E+12 6.738000E+12 .
2019.Coal -INF 4.746617E+12 6.840453E+12 .
2020.Coal -INF 4.654226E+12 6.819867E+12 .
2010.Coke -INF 1.999622E+12 2.279213E+12 .

2011.Coke -INF 1.973726E+12 2.249909E+12 .
2012.Coke -INF 2.010218E+12 2.232455E+12 .
2013.Coke -INF 1.906167E+12 2.205575E+12 .
2014.Coke -INF 1.767230E+12 2.164190E+12 .
2015.Coke -INF 1.628295E+12 2.137170E+12 .
2016.Coke -INF 1.628636E+12 2.213528E+12 .
2017.Coke -INF 1.631783E+12 2.254793E+12 .
2018.Coke -INF 1.567204E+12 2.227836E+12 .
2019.Coke -INF 1.569410E+12 2.261711E+12 .
2020.Coke -INF 1.538862E+12 2.254904E+12 .
2010.Wstfuel -INF 9.519287E+11 1.085029E+12 .

2011.Wstfuel -INF 9.396010E+11 1.071079E+12 .
2012.Wstfuel -INF 9.569733E+11 1.062770E+12 .
2013.Wstfuel -INF 9.074394E+11 1.049974E+12 .
2014.Wstfuel -INF 8.412974E+11 1.030272E+12 .
2015.Wstfuel -INF 7.751570E+11 1.017409E+12 .
2016.Wstfuel -INF 7.753195E+11 1.053760E+12 .
2017.Wstfuel -INF 7.768175E+11 1.073404E+12 .
2018.Wstfuel -INF 7.460742E+11 1.060571E+12 .
2019.Wstfuel -INF 7.471244E+11 1.076697E+12 .
2020.Wstfuel -INF 7.325820E+11 1.073457E+12 .
period i
2010.NOx -INF 3120.5980 5159.0000 .

498
2011.NOx -INF 3080.2629 5092.0000 .

2012.NOx -INF 3126.2922 5053.0000 .
2013.NOx -INF 2988.9804 4992.0000 .
2014.NOx -INF 2779.2972 4898.0000 .
2015.NOx -INF 2569.6188 4837.0000 .
2016.NOx -INF 2570.1340 5010.0000 .
2017.NOx -INF 2574.8828 5103.0000 .
2018.NOx -INF 2477.4204 5042.0000 .
2019.NOx -INF 2480.7500 5119.0000 .
2020.NOx -INF 2434.6476 5104.0000 .
period i
2010.CO2 -INF 1883899.0000 2004681.0000 .

2011.CO2 -INF 1860684.6000 1943388.0000 .
2012.CO2 -INF 1878838.0000 1878838.0000 -2.9826
2013.CO2 -INF 1786644.0000 1786644.0000 -9.6779
2014.CO2 -INF 1655592.0000 1655592.0000 -16.2551
2015.CO2 -INF 1524543.0000 1524543.0000 -16.0624
2016.CO2 -INF 1524865.0000 1524865.0000 -15.8719
2017.CO2 -INF 1527833.0000 1527833.0000 -15.6837
2018.CO2 -INF 1466919.0000 1466919.0000 -15.4977
2019.CO2 -INF 1469000.0000 1469000.0000 -15.3140
2020.CO2 -INF 1440186.0000 1440186.0000 -15.1324
i
2010.PM -INF 338.5357 430.0000 .

2011.PM -INF 334.1830 424.0000 .
2012.PM -INF 339.3795 421.0000 .
2013.PM -INF 323.2975 416.0000 .
2014.PM -INF 300.1706 408.0000 .
2015.PM -INF 277.0444 403.0000 .
2016.PM -INF 277.1012 417.0000 .
2017.PM -INF 277.6249 425.0000 .
2018.PM -INF 266.8754 420.0000 .
2019.PM -INF 267.2426 427.0000 .
2020.PM -INF 262.1578 425.0000 .
499
period i
2010.Merc -INF 0.0903 0.9800 .

2011.Merc -INF 0.0891 0.9600 .
2012.Merc -INF 0.0905 0.9600 .
2013.Merc -INF 0.0862 0.9400 .
2014.Merc -INF 0.0800 0.9300 .
2015.Merc -INF 0.0739 0.9200 .
2016.Merc -INF 0.0739 0.9500 .
2017.Merc -INF 0.0740 0.9700 .
2018.Merc -INF 0.0712 0.9500 .
2019.Merc -INF 0.0713 0.9700 .
2020.Merc -INF 0.0699 0.9700 .
2010 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0791

2011 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0781
2012 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0333
2013 -INF 505316.4706 825000.0000 .
2014 -INF 351137.6471 825000.0000 .
2015 -INF 196962.3529 825000.0000 .
2016 -INF 197341.1765 825000.0000 .
2017 -INF 200832.9412 825000.0000 .
2018 -INF 129169.4118 825000.0000 .
2019 -INF 131617.6471 825000.0000 .
2020 -INF 97718.8235 825000.0000 .
2010 -INF 606905.0000 825000.0000 .

2011 -INF 577887.0000 825000.0000 .
2012 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.1053
2013 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.4076
2014 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.7374
2015 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.7286
500
2016 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.7200

2017 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.7115
2018 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.7030
2019 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.6947
2020 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.6865
2010 -INF . 530000.0000 .

2011 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2012 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2013 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2014 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 530000.0000 .
2010 -INF . 650000.0000 .

2011 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2012 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2013 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2014 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2015 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2016 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2017 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2018 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2019 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2020 -INF . 650000.0000 .
2010 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0296

2011 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0293
501
2012 -INF 612530.1775 825000.0000 .

2013 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0007
2014 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0342
2015 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0338
2016 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0334
2017 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0330
2018 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0326
2019 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0322
2020 -INF 825000.0000 825000.0000 -0.0318
2010.Cement -INF . 644829.9000 .

2011.Cement -INF . 636539.1000 .
2012.Cement -INF . 631601.4000 .
2013.Cement -INF . 623996.4000 .
2014.Cement -INF 118614.7048 612287.7000 .
2015.Cement -INF 269288.6471 604643.1000 .
2016.Cement -INF 344521.8235 626246.4000 .
2017.Cement -INF 381891.0588 637920.9000 .
2018.Cement -INF 426860.5882 630294.3000 .
2019.Cement -INF 457955.3529 639878.1000 .
2020.Cement -INF 485115.1765 637952.4000 .
---- VAR LCC -INF 2.0086935E+9 +INF .
2010 . 825000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 505316.4706 +INF .
2014 . 351137.6471 +INF .
2015 . 196962.3529 +INF .
2016 . 197341.1765 +INF .
2017 . 200832.9412 +INF .
502
2018 . 129169.4118 +INF .

2019 . 131617.6471 +INF .
2020 . 97718.8235 +INF .
2010 . 606905.0000 +INF .

2011 . 577887.0000 +INF .
2012 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2013 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 825000.0000 +INF .
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
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
2010 . 825000.0000 +INF .

2011 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2012 . 612530.1775 +INF .
2013 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2014 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2015 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2016 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2017 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2018 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2019 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2020 . 825000.0000 +INF .
2010 . . +INF 14.4130

2011 . . +INF 14.2421
2012 . . +INF 11.5819
2013 . . +INF 5.7564
2014 . 118614.7048 +INF .
2015 . 269288.6471 +INF .
2016 . 344521.8235 +INF .
2017 . 381891.0588 +INF .
2018 . 426860.5882 +INF .
2019 . 457955.3529 +INF .
2020 . 485115.1765 +INF .

504
2010 . . 60000.0000 5.7952

2011 . . 60000.0000 3.2352
2012 . 51925.1775 60000.0000 .
2013 . 23254.6481 60000.0000 .
2014 . . 60000.0000 5.6882
2015 . . 60000.0000 5.6207
2016 . . 60000.0000 5.5541
2017 . . 60000.0000 5.4882
2018 . . 60000.0000 5.4231
2019 . . 60000.0000 5.3588
2020 . . 60000.0000 81.1393

0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
505

15:18:56 Page 11
Execution
sts) ($)
(ton)
2010 825000.000, 2011 825000.000, 2012 825000.000, 2013 505316.471, 2014

351137.647, 2015 196962.353
2016 197341.176, 2017 200832.941, 2018 129169.412, 2019 131617.647, 2020
97718.824
(ton)
2010 606905.000, 2011 577887.000, 2012 825000.000, 2013 825000.000, 2014

825000.000, 2015 825000.000
2016 825000.000, 2017 825000.000, 2018 825000.000, 2019 825000.000, 2020
825000.000
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
(ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
(ton)
506
2010 825000.000, 2011 825000.000, 2012 612530.178, 2013 825000.000, 2014

825000.000, 2015 825000.000
2016 825000.000, 2017 825000.000, 2018 825000.000, 2019 825000.000, 2020
825000.000
2012 51925.178, 2013 23254.648
2014 118614.705, 2015 269288.647, 2016 344521.824, 2017 381891.059, 2018

426860.588, 2019 457955.353
2020 485115.176
($ 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
($ 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
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
($ per ton)
( ALL 0.000 )
507
($ 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

**** FILE SUMMARY
TAD Digitally signed by TAD

Services
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'

Ohiou1225820445 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ohiou1225820445 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable Design and Operation of the Cement Industry

the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University

of the requirements for the degree

2009 Hakob G. Avetisyan. All Rights Reserved.

This thesis titled

Sustainable Design and Operation of the Cement Industry

has been approved for

the Department of Civil Engineering

and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering

Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

AVETISYAN, HAKOB G., M.S., November 2008, Civil Engineering

Sustainable Design and Operation of the Cement Industry (507 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Ben J. Stuart

The world consumption of cement is rising at an increasing rate creating

significant levels of pollution. Therefore, cement production is considered one of the

on whether to implement sustainability practices in projects. The research focuses on

cement production, using the economic-mathematical model of Life Cycle-Cost analysis

calculates the optimal production of cement that provides minimum LCC.

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering

for providing me with cement data.

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 12

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 14

1. Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................... 16

1.1 Chapter Organization ...................................................................................... 17

1.2 Purpose of the Research .................................................................................. 17

1.3 Scope of the Research ..................................................................................... 18

1.4 Objectives of the Research.............................................................................. 19

1.5 Research Justification ..................................................................................... 20

1.6 Order of Research Chapters ............................................................................ 21

2. Chapter Two: Problem Definition .............................................................................. 22

2.1 Chapter Organization ...................................................................................... 22

2.2 Background ..................................................................................................... 22

2.3 Importance of this Research............................................................................ 23

2.4 Driving Forces ................................................................................................ 23

2.5 Benefits of the Research ................................................................................. 24

3. Chapter Three: Methodology ...................................................................................... 26

3.1 Chapter Organization ...................................................................................... 26

3.2 Specific Focus Areas....................................................................................... 26

3.3 Phases of the Research .................................................................................... 26

Phase One: ........................................................................................................................ 26

Phase Two: ........................................................................................................................ 27

Phase Three: ...................................................................................................................... 27

Phase Five: ........................................................................................................................ 28

Phase Six: .......................................................................................................................... 28

Phase Seven: ..................................................................................................................... 28

Phase Eight: ...................................................................................................................... 28

Phase Nine: ....................................................................................................................... 29

Phase Ten: ......................................................................................................................... 29

Phase Eleven: .................................................................................................................... 29

Phase Twelve: ................................................................................................................... 30

Phase Thirteen: .................................................................................................................. 30

Phase Fourteen: ................................................................................................................. 30

Phase Fifteen: .................................................................................................................... 30

Phase Sixteen: ................................................................................................................... 30

Phase Seventeen: ............................................................................................................... 30

Phase Eighteen: ................................................................................................................. 30

Phase Nineteen: ................................................................................................................. 30

4. Chapter Four: Literature Review ................................................................................ 31

4.1 Chapter Organization ...................................................................................... 31

4.2 Sustainability Reporting ................................................................................. 32

4.3 Pollution and Waste Management .................................................................. 35

4.4 Energy and Material Efficiency ...................................................................... 41