IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v18y2026i10p4828-d1941084.html

Multidimensional Comparative Assessment of Decarbonization Technologies for Cement Production: Evidence from China

Author

Listed:
  • Lianmian Shen

    (State Key Laboratory of Regional and Urban Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Li Qian

    (State Key Laboratory of Regional and Urban Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Xuan Zhou

    (School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Wei Zhang

    (Huzhou Institute, Zhejiang University, Huzhou 313001, China)

  • Xin Li

    (Huzhou Institute, Zhejiang University, Huzhou 313001, China)

  • Huanghao Ning

    (University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
    Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Yajuan Shi

    (State Key Laboratory of Regional and Urban Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

Abstract

Rapid urbanization and escalating demands for pollution and carbon reduction pose significant challenges to the cement industry in China, characterized by high energy consumption and emissions. However, a multidimensional framework to assess the synergies and trade-offs between environmental, carbon, and economic effects for various decarbonization technologies in cement production is still lacking. Here, six application scenarios of new suspension preheater dry process cement production were developed and evaluated using a life cycle assessment (LCA) framework to quantify environmental impacts, synergistic reduction of pollution and carbon emissions (SRPC), and economic performance. A multi-attribute decision-making model, Analytic Hierarchy Process–entropy–TOPSIS (AHP–entropy–TOPSIS), was applied to assess environmental–economic trade-offs. The results indicate that biomass fuel substitution and high grinding efficiency achieved the best SRPC and environmental–economic trade-off scores (S norm : 0.17–0.22). Alternative raw materials moderately reduced carbon but increased pollutant emissions and economic uncertainty (S norm : 0.14–0.20). Mono-ethanolamine absorption and calcium looping provided substantial carbon reduction but weaker overall performance due to environmental trade-offs and higher costs (S norm : 0.12–0.16). These findings provide quantitative guidance for prioritizing and combining decarbonization strategies to support the green transition and sustainable development of the cement industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Lianmian Shen & Li Qian & Xuan Zhou & Wei Zhang & Xin Li & Huanghao Ning & Yajuan Shi, 2026. "Multidimensional Comparative Assessment of Decarbonization Technologies for Cement Production: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-21, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:10:p:4828-:d:1941084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/10/4828/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/10/4828/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:10:p:4828-:d:1941084. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.