Cemtech Live Webinar: The Power of Carbon Capture

Hello, and welcome to this Stech Live webinar. It's great to be back here. I'm Tom Armstrong, managing editor of International Cement Review organizing this webinar, and very pleased to be chairing this session. these webinars are really designed to spotlight the latest technology advances and to promote the best available technologies, helping producers like you take meaningful steps towards manufacturing excellence and sustainability. CEC events are organized by International cement review. Cement industry's leading monthly publication for over 35 years. Each issue offers deep technical insights into cutting edge technologies across the entire cement production process.

If you work in the cement sector and attend Cemtech webinars, you should be reading ICR. So check out the latest issue and subscribe for full access@cnet.com. ICR is also a trusted source of data and analysis for the global cement sector. Our latest publication, the Global Cement Market Outlook, is now available. It provides a comprehensive survey of the market and a forecast for the 25 to 27 period. If you already use the Global Cement report, this is an ideal companion an update to that dataset. more details again on senet.com. A quick word about our forthcoming event securing Europe's cement future innovation, efficiency and competitiveness.

that's coming up in a couple of months, the 28th of September to the 1st of October taking place in Barcelona. we would be delighted to welcome you there in person. relevant to this particular webinar, we'll be having A-C-C-U-S panel discussion led by Claude Laure, formerly of the GCCA and now with CL for Change. and we'll be featuring sustainability leaders from some of the top European cement producers discussing their plans. we'll have te Tan revealing more about their estas carbon capture project, one of the largest projects carbon capture projects in the world. and also group sustainability director from cement here who have the Al Borg CCS project underway as well.

So we're really looking forward to that programs under development, but we'll keep updating you. have a look on cnet.com for more information. Sold out exhibition with 30 35 exhibitors. do come and spend a couple of days in Barcelona and the chance to network with your colleagues. but today, yeah, we're gonna be unlocking the carbon capture secrets in cement production. it's a fast developing area, of course, and we all know earlier this month the, the unveiling of Brex carbon capture plant by Heidelberg materials quite a momentous landmark moment for the cement industry. an amazing piece of engineering. lots to talk about that. But we're gonna be focusing slightly more narrowly.

we're gonna see a little bit about what's happening down in Australia scenario. We don't really hear as much about in Europe, but it is important and there are really interesting developments. So we'll hear from Greg Ross from KC eight capture. we'll also hear from ramble in Denmark alternatives to amines a good technical presentation. but to start us off today and with a slightly wider kind of commentary on CCS, I'm really pleased to be able to welcome Michael Clark, who's the founder and managing director of White Hopman UK consultants to the International Cement Industry. he has more than 40 years experience working with cement companies and investors from all corners of the globe.

Michael is also technical consultants at International Cement Review and delivers an online technical training series through the CNET Trading website. in his current role, he carries out technical and due diligence audits of cement plants, feasibility studies for new projects, and cement project monitoring on behalf of owners and investors. He's previously held roles within the cement industry for with Blue Circle Industries, RAs Kamer, white Cement company in the UAE and also Figi Cement Industries. many of you know Michael from emec and previous webinars. So it's it's great to have him back. Michael, if you'd like to share your slides, the the floor is yours.

in the meantime, I'm glad to see that the, the chat is opening up. do, do take a moment to introduce yourself your company, and and get to know a little bit of the other participants watching today. But now over to you, Michael. Yes, thank you, Tom. good afternoon everybody. Tom asked me to talk more broadly about cement, carbon capture, utilization and storage. Just to form an, an introduction to the webinar. Webinar this afternoon. the title I've come up with cement carbon capture utilization or storage, and an imperative and a challenge.

So there can be no doubting the growing imperative to decarbonize cement manufacture as the world's government and investors become increasingly concerned by climate change, there can also be no doubt that carbon capture and storage or utilization will have to play a major part if cement manufacture is to be meaningfully decarbonized. Concrete is the second most widely used material in the world after water. It is the most wide, widely used building material, and is used in the construction of roads, railways, homes, offices, and cities. Concrete is strong, durable, resilient, safe and affordable. The world uses around 30 billion tons of concrete each year.

That's around 13 billion cubic meters of concrete. This is equivalent to about four metric tons of concrete per person annually in the whole world. Cement is the binder which gives the concrete its strength. A cubic meter of concrete typically co typically contains between 230 and 250 kilograms of cement dependent on the grade of the concrete. So more than 3 billion tons per year of cement or consumed in the manufacture of 13 billion cubic meters of concrete. Other applications of cement, such as mortars and renders lift the total annual world consumption of cement to more than 4 billion tons per year.

The strength developing characteristics of cement derived primarily from the clinker minerals in the cement. These clinker minerals are silicates illuminates and lumino phite of calcium. In 2024, the world average clinker content of cement was around 70%. This means that almost 3 billion tons of clinker have to be produced to satisfy world demand for cement. The climate-related problem for cement is that the manufacture of each ton of clinker involves the emission of around N 0.85 tons of carbon dioxide dependent on the fuels used to fire the cement kiln.

The upshot is that ma manufacturing the world's annual consumption of cement, and therefore clinker generates around 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide emission per year. Total, total anthropogenic IE manmade carbon dioxide emissions are around 36 billion tons per year, meaning that cement manufacturer of cement is accountable for around seven 7% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The carbon dioxide associated with the manufacturer of the clinker arises from two sources in the manufacturing process.

Firstly, firing the cement kiln with carbon containing fuels to reach the temperatures of around 900 degrees centigrade required in precal signers, and more than 1400 degrees centigrade in the burning zone of a cement kiln. Secondly, the process emissions from the calcination of the calcium carbonate to produce lime as a precursor for the formation of the cement clinker minerals in the cement guild. Many strategies are deployed to reduce the carbon dioxide associated with cement and cement, clinker manufacture, reducing clinker content of cement using fly ash, granulated blast furnace, slag, natural LANs, calcine clays, and limestone makes a significant contribution.

All the carbon dioxide released in the manufacturer of cement arises from the production of the clinker. Therefore, less clinker in cement means less carbon dioxide released in the manufacturer of the cement. So improved kiln thermal energy efficiency fuel switching to lower carbon fuels, biomass fuels, or even electrification, will all reduce the amount of fuel combustion related carbon outside associated with the manufacturer of the clinker. However, these strategies will do nothing to reduce the processed carbon dioxide emissions from the calcination of calcium carbonate to produce lime.

So the, the lime produce from the calcium carbonate to combine with the silica, aluminum and ion oxide to form the clinker minerals. All the clinker minerals contain lime. The Lyme content of commercial clinker is typically around 68%. This means that about 0.535 tons of calcination carbon dioxide are released to produce a ton of clinker with almost 3 billion tons of clinker being produced per year. This means that there is over 1.5 billion tons of calcination carbon dioxide emitted per year.

There is no practical means to reduce that significantly, meaning that carbon capture is the only way these process carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of cement, clinker, and cement can be rectified. These calcination carbon dioxide emissions are larger than the combustion carbon dioxide emissions. The International Energy Agency produced a technology roadmap for the low carbon transition in the cement industry. In 2018, that roadmap envisaged a 24% cut in direct cement industry carbon emissions from then levels by 2050.

This roadmap was to, was believed to set out the root to at least a 50% chance of limiting the average go global temperature increase to two degrees centigrade by the year 2100. In the two degrees Celsius scenario, the roadmap included carbon capture from cement kilns rising, rising to 552 million tons per year by 2050. However, the parties to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement were aiming for a global temperature rise well below two degrees centigrade, and pursuing efforts towards a maximum 1.5 degrees centigrade increase against this backdrop.

The in, in the 2018 International Energy Agency cement industry roadmap and the two degrees centigrade scenario soon proved to be politically insufficient efficient. Accordingly. In May, 2021, the International Energy Agency published its landmark report, net zero emissions by 2050, a roadmap for the global energy sector. That report set out a ma narrow but feasible pathway for the energy sector to limit global temperatures to 1.5 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels. This new net zero emissions roadmap included carbon capture from cement rising to 1.31 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. By 20 20 50, there is the imperative.

No one can, can doubt that that is a huge challenge for the world cement industry. While it is not the logic of the International Energy Agency's net zero emissions roadmap, this is virtually saying that most of the calcination carbon dioxide from manufacturing the world's clinker will need to be captured. So the imperative to decarbonize cement manufacture arises from the Earth's climate emergency and the determination of politicians, governments, investors, and society to in to address that by reducing carbon dioxide emissions to atmosphere.

The challenge for the cement industry is the sheer scale of the emissions, and the fact that there is no practical means to reduce the calcination carbon dioxide emissions other than by carbon storage or use. Once the absolute requirement for carbon capture in cement manufacturers accepted, then at least two further challenges for, for producers of cement become apparent. Firstly, the technology to capture carbon dioxide at the scale required is scarcely mature only aiming solution based post combustion capture technology can be described as commercially available.

And at technology readiness, level nine, that aiming based, that's aiming solution based post combustion capture is prohibitively expensive at between 50 and $100 per ton of carbon dioxide captured before the costs of carbon dioxide processing, transport and storage, or even considered. So These challenges for the cement producers mean that there are major developments and research into alternative carbon capture technologies to aiming solution based post combustion capture. As we're going to hear from ramble, the industry is seeking alternative technologies that can be commercially deployed and will be less costly than naming solution based post combustion capture. Dr.

Clark, I myself, believes that the world cement industry is capable and willing to rise to the challenge of carbon capture utilization or storage or storage. However, the cement industry cannot do that alone, using the captured carbon dioxide as an alternative raw material and source of carbon to oil and gas will, the will require the provision of massive amounts of carbon free electricity to produce carbon free hydrogen carbon dioxide, pipelines, and shipment hubs will need to be developed to transport the captured carbon dioxide from the point source cement kiln emission locations to the eventual storage or utilization locations.

In September, 2020 fours, additional of inter addition of international cement review, the German VD estimated that the required investments in Germany alone would be around 14 billion euros for those carbon dioxide pipelines. Oil and gas companies and oil and gas producing countries are interested to repurpose their oil and gas wells for carbon dioxide storage. The VDZ and the poly cement industry have highlighted the possibility to develop onshore carbon dioxide storage and this and that. This might eventually be significantly lower cost than the offshore storage currently envisaged.

In Europe, that will probably be the case, but the development of such geological storage will certainly require the involvement of companies beyond the cement industry who will need to make a profit from their operations. What is required for the cons commitment of such massive capital to such technical technology and infrastructure is long-term confidence in government policy. In the USA major award awards were granted for cement carbon capture projects at Lebec, California and Mitchell, Indiana. In the final months of the Biden presidency, Donald Trump then withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement on the first day of his second presidency on the 2nd of June, 2025.

We could read on CEM net newsroom that the Le Lebec carbon capture grant had been canceled. Cement companies cannot and will not commit to such costly long-term projects if government policy will change with each incoming administration in democratic countries. So therein lies a further challenge, and that's what I'd prepared as my presentation on both the imperative and the challenge of cement carbon capture utilization or storage. Thank you. Thank you very much, Michael. very neatly summarizes the whole situation really, the, the, the predicament the challenge it's a huge, huge challenge. there are lots of different views on, on which way to go in terms of decarbonization.

there's certainly a lot there's a lot that can be done before we, we reach for carbon capture and utilization storage in terms of minimizing the combustion emissions minimizing the, the amount of clinker that we use in our, in our binders. There's a huge amount of research in that area. There's a lot of new technology emerging, especially in the new binder areas when we've got ine clays taking, making a reemergence and other novel cements. What's your view on the potential of all those other levers to reduce our requirement for clinker and therefore our requirement to deploy carbon capture on, on all the remaining plants?

Well, I would say, I, I, I believe it, it will and is making a huge contribution. We, if we look at the average clinker content of cement, will the world cement in 2024? I, I put around 70% in, in the presentation with calcine clays, other engineered supplementary cementitious materials. What we could envisage that going down towards 50% clinker content in the world cement. But it is difficult to envisage going much below 50%. So there's still going to be, maybe we can, we can make the, we can contain the climate change or we can reduce the carbon dioxide emission from cement manufacture such that maybe we only need to capture a billion tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2050 instead of 1.31.

But there was, if we're going to decarbonize, ultimately this only so far, you can go with lower carbon fuels, electrification, reduced clinker content, there is still going to have to be carbon capture if we're going to do it. And that's where the leadership is required, not only from the cement companies, but also from government and policy makers. And you mentioned Poland, and we were there for Cemtech last year, and that really highlighted those problems in Poland. They have one of the largest industries in Europe. they're still, their, they're building and modernizing the, their kilns.

they've got a lot of demand still to fulfill, and they're looking very seriously at lots of different projects for carbon capture, but they're at their wits end because the regulatory frameworks are just simply not there. There is no the downstream beyond carbon capture is, is completely untouched almost by regulation and policies to support investment in pipelines. it's a, that, that really is a huge, a huge job. it's maybe slightly beyond the, the remit of this webinar.

in terms of the technology itself, what's your view, just very briefly on the technology and readiness levels of the other the other technologies beyond aiming do you, do you think that's moving fast enough and and, and there are good prospects in that, in that respect? I think, I think there are lots of interesting developments. I think I'm very interested to hear what ramble have to say about hot potassium carbonate, although that's not deployed at anything like the scale currently required. The industry, the leading players in the industry seem to be very much moving in the cryogenic capture direction.

So wholesome and, and cemex are both clearly staking a lot on cryogenic post combustion capture. Those are the ones that I think are progressing the, the, the most quickly, the, the quickest. Obviously, Oxy combustion for a brand new kiln, yes, that's also a, a strong possibility. But for retrofitting, I think it will end up having to be post combustion capture. I think cryogenic post combustion capture at the moment seems to be, to me, the one which has the greatest momentum, other than of course, amines. Very interesting. And there's there's a, a lot of technology advance was in in Oxy fuel.

I think this in the, in the next few months, we'll see the Catch for Climate Project, which is a, a collaboration of Schwank VA Heidelberg and Bootsy. they're building an Oxy fuel kiln with Pius. And that will be starting up later this year, I believe. And we'll, we'll start learning about that and the potential of that technology. all very, very interesting. I thank you very much, Michael. that's all we've got time for at the moment on this very, very interesting topic. And we're gonna start now narrowing our focus in more to some some technologies. just in the meantime, we've, we've got some really good comments coming up in the q and a box.

I mean, there are, there are so many questions and ideas and thoughts, but definitely please take a moment press the q and a button, read the comments ask questions. it'll just add to the the exchange of ideas today. But all for now Michael, thank you very much. Thank you, Tom. I, I'll stop sharing. Yeah, if you could stop sharing. and I'm very pleased now to, to move on to our next speaker. and to welcome back Greg Ross, chief Chief Executive Officer from KC eight capture. Greg is a seasoned engineering executive with over 35 years experience across mining, petrochemical, oil and gas and industrial sectors.

And for the past two decades, he's led large scale engineering and fabrication firms specializing in cryogenic storage, gas processing vessels, and subsea technology. Since joining KC eight capture technologies, Greg has spearheaded the commercialization of the UNO Mark three carbon capture system under his leadership, KCA secured an Australian dollars 10 million projects and decarbonize heavier industries, including cement by deploying highly efficient CO2 capture solutions. we're gonna hear the latest from what's going on down in Australia now from Greg. So welcome, Greg, if you'd like to share your slides with us. See, sorry, is, let me share these. There we go. We are. Okay.

Look, thank you Tom for the introduction, and yes, it's it's great to be to be back once again. it's been about a year since we initially presented our, our technology, and this is really an update of everyone, of where we're, we're up to. And I'd like to thank Michael as well for a, you know, excellent overview of, of the industry and, and, you know, the requirements for, for carbon capture in general, and, and of course in the cement industry. And we are, we are trying to be part of that. as a process licensing company, we we have a technology which we believe will fit the post combustion capture framework and certainly be a retrofittable technology for for existing plants.

our technology is has been around 15 years in, in the development. it was born out of work that was done in Australia by the CO2 CRC, which is a, a, a government backed cooperative research council. And this technology came out of that process with sort of three key pillars of of what was required of a technology to go to large scale post combustion capture. So the first mandate that was given was that the technology had to be sustainable. that meant that it had to operate in a sustainable way. So it has to have 90, 95% capture capability of, of CO2 emissions in flu gas. but more importantly, it had to be small enough footprint so it didn't create extra industry, extra work.

And so we took the pathway of utilizing potassium carbonate however we use it in a very different way to the way that people have traditionally looked at carbon capture with potassium carbonate. But being a, a, a product of the fertilizer chain, it's available in, in every country. So it's, it's safe, it's naturally occurring, and the way we apply it doesn't create any environmental issues in in operation. It's a, it's an affordable solution because potassium carbonate is cheap, and that means that, you know, the cost of operation and the way we apply the technology, again, has a very low CapEx compared to the technical amine systems that are being used today.

And, and the final thing was that it had to be impactful. And, and really what that meant was that it was always designed for large scale capture. So this wasn't a lab-based concept that then struggled to scale. This was a technology that was built for scale right from the start. So we were looking at processes of, of anywhere from a hundred thousand to a million ton per annum capture in a single, single processing train. And, and the idea was that to be impactful, we would have to retrofit to existing industry. So not only is it cement, but it's also steel and in particular power. Now our, our technology is a potassium carbonate based solvent.

So as a process licensing company, we will work with the EPC companies around the world and the clients to build a capture process that sits at the point source location. We are using a potassium carbonate, but as a differentiator, we found a, the type of promoter that we can add to the solution, which actually increases the kinetics of the process. It means that our solvent will absorb CO2 at atmospheric pressure and at around 40 degrees Celsius, and it will do that at a rate that's equivalent to or faster than the current amine technologies that allows us to build absorbers, which are around about 20% smaller in diameter, and about 30% lower in height.

So that is the first step in, in saving the CapEx cost of building a post combustion plant. The other part of this process is that it's, it's fully reversible and it only has a certain pathway for capturing carbon. So we are not introducing additional pathways where you can take impurities from the flue gas or create additional problems with VOCs, with volatile organic compounds with nitrous amines and those sorts of subcategory of chemicals, which then have to be scrubbed from the flue gas or from the CO2 that's actually produced being fully reversible. We know what the energy component is. We have a low energy requirement in the re boiler section.

So overall, we end up with a solvent, which can capture CO2 from flue gas. It's oxygen tolerant. It's not hampered by impurities, but it will capture and hold CO2 with a very high carrying rate. Now, our solvent, and part of the reason that we are different to what normally would happen with potassium carbonate is we add the promoter and we have a clean, clear solvent that we introduced to the process at the top of the absorber tower. That's what you see on the right hand side of the screen that's lean solvent before it's been introduced to the flu gas. What we have on the left hand side is rich solvent. This is solvent that's been exposed to the flu gas coming down the absorber.

And what you see is that milky substance, that's actually potassium bicarbonate crystals. So we drive the solvent solution into the precipitation range that allows us to carry a significant amount of CO2 in the solvent as both a saturated liquid and as very fine crystals of potassium bicarbonate. That means we can carry up to 40% by weight CO2, and that means that for every liter of solvent that we transport in the system, we are carrying nearly double the amount of CO2 that you would could, could absorb with an amine solvent.

What that allows us to do is have smaller equipment, smaller pipe work, smaller pumps, a much smaller footprint, and obviously a, a much lower CapEx cost for the total plant. Now our, our process and the reason we have a scalable process is that we utilize technology and equipment that's already available in the market today. We are not inventing new items of mechanical equipment. We're utilizing what we can already purchase as industrial based equipment. Our, our process is circular, so we have a, a continuous solvent loop where the output is pure CO2. So from the the start of the process, we cool the gas down, and in doing so, we have a waste heat recovery unit.

We recover whatever's remaining heat is in the flue gas, we cool it down to around 40 degrees, and we pass that into a direct contact cooler to do that. That direct contact cooler also allows us to capture any knocks or socks that are in the flue gas that would otherwise contaminate the process. We take that with potassium carbonate, and if it's there in sufficient quantities, so for example, in a coal fired kiln where there may be higher levels of, of socks, we can dose and protect the system and take that out of the solvent as potassium sulfate. If it's large enough in volume, that can be taken out of solvent and actually sold back into the fertilizer.

The same place where you buy the potassium carbonate, we'll buy the potassium sulfate off you. Once we've treated the flue gas and it's cold at 40 degrees, we blow it into the absorber. That's a very open vessel. It's atmospheric pressure. It's, it's an insulated, there's no heat required. That allows us to then start the absorption process. The flue gas is blowing in the bottom. The solvent is taken and put into the top through distributors, and we run three beds in the absorber column that are fluidized. These are, these are elements. They have elements which are moving, whereas the flu gas passes through in that movement.

They provide some additional kinetics, but also they allow the solids to continue to fall down to the bottom of the absorber at the top of the absorber. The flue gas leaves with the 95% of CO2 removed and everything else that was in the flue gas just leaves the process at that point. At the bottom of the absorber, we have our rich solvent, which is loaded with CO2. We pump that through ex heat exchanger, which comes from the pulp and paper industry. and it gets pressurized, it gains heat when it does that, the crystals melt. And then we just have a, a highly saturated solvent, which we then put through a flash drum flash stripper system that involves CO2 and water.

We condense the water back into the system to retain a water balance. And what, what we have as an output is 99% CO2, less than 10 pp m oxygen clean enough to go straight to compression, dehydration, and compression for injection or inter liquification if if it can be used as another product. So we don't have a substantial amount of cleanup in the system. We have a very balanced water neutral process for arid locations. and it, it makes of course for a low opex process in this, because we don't degrade the solvent, we're not removing spent solvent. The system runs and we use top it up. The losses are in the grams per ton of CO2 caption. So it's a very, very simple process to work with.

So what that means in summing it all up is, is that you get 90, 95% capture a very safe solvent, up to 40% less CapEx on a plant that's equivalent to an amine system. It's 15% opex less than you would normally have because we are not topping up fluid content. We're not handling hazardous materials or hazardous waste and our energy component is lower than what you would normally see. Part of the saving is also that we can do a single train, large scale capture. So you're not looking at having multiple trains for large emissions, and of course, you can retrofit to existing systems.

So really where we're up to in this last 12 months since my last presentation was as a process licensing organization, we realized we needed to prove the process to be able to build up and scale up into larger applications. We were fortunate enough to have two locations and two supporters to take us forward with these demonstration projects. The first one is in the United States, where we've installed a unit at the National Carbon Capture Center that was supported by the Department of Energy, and that will capture 10 tons of CO2 per day on natural gas flue gas. The natural gas is derived from a boiler.

it would be equivalent to if you had a gas fired kiln without the CO2 emitted from the clinker material. So that's around about 4% CO2. The other one is, is directly related to the cement industry. we working in association with Cement Australia, which is a joint venture between wholesome and Heidelberg Cement. in Australia. They operate two integrated cement plants. We're installing a 20 ton per day capture unit operating on the outlet of the bag house off the back end of the clinker kiln. So that unit is in construction at the moment, and that's the one that we'll be demonstrating and running for a longer period of time.

on direct flue gas from the the Clinker kiln Cement Australia is one of, of one of Australia's leading supplier of cement aous products. as I say, they have two major production plants. we'll be operating on the plant in Gladstone in Queensland for a period of around six to 12 months of operation testing the unit. we've been supported in this process, not only by Cement Australia, by low Emission Technology Australia through a grant to build the plant. all of these people involved are working with us to, to get the unit installed currently as it stands today all the equipment is purchased. We've started construction, we've started the earth works to install it.

This will be connected directly into the flu ducting. we will not be releasing any CO2 in directly from our plant in in this process. This is purely a demonstration. So we will be taking a slip stream of the flue gas. We will be processing it, metering it, monitoring it, testing it, and then returning it to the stack so that we know don't create any further EPA issues on site. The longer term aim of this opportunity is in fact, to start looking at liquid fuels utilizing the CO2. This is close to a green hydrogen hub that there is already a project underway for a 50 megawatt electrolyzer.

we are now in discussions with the company to look at a demonstration plant that will take flu gas directly from the clinker kiln, extract the CO2, convert it into methanol, and have a, a product with a value. One of the key elements, and it's, it touches on what Michael said in his presentation with government support, government backing, not changing the government regulations, Australia doesn't have a strong carbon system in place, and so you need to find a way of monetizing the CO2 to be able to afford to capture it, to remove it from the system. So this is one way that is going to be a, a further demonstration of us as we move forward into 2026 and 2027.

To give you an idea what the package looks like when it's finished we have installed the unit at the National Carbon Capture Center that was built and delivered from Houston. It was an integrated package, four modules fully assembled in the yard in Houston, and then disassembled for transport to site. So it took about a, a week to install it, and it's now taken three weeks to complete the hookup. And we were at the pre-commissioning stage. so that's really the, the essence of the title of my talk that we were from concept to reality nearly.

It's, we are within weeks away now of commissioning this plant, and we are about three months away from commissioning the plant in the, in the cement facility. The modules are loaded. and this will be something that will be used in future tests. We will test here for around nine months at the carbon capture center, and then this will be removed to a client site where it'll go through further extended testing. so it's quite a compact system. It's an indication of the footprint that we have. it's operating within a system that's significantly larger aiming processing unit next door. so it gives us a very good, very good comparison of of the technologies.

And I think just finally, just to give you an a, an idea of context, how we see the technology applied in in the real terms at, at full scale. We've done a detailed concept study for a lime plant in in the United States. this plant has two economi kilns running horizontal kilns gas fired. these kilns collectively produce around about 630 to 650,000 tons per annum of CO2. we did a detailed analysis of applying our technology at what we believe will be the optimum conditions for it, and that gave us a captured cost, including dehydration and compression of around about 58 to 60 US dollars a ton. Now, this particular site has its own ability for sequestration wells and, and monitoring wells.

They have the ability to run the system complete, so very short distance between the point source capture and the sequestration point. However, that price per ton incorporated CapEx and opex, it was done over a 20 year life. and it did include the benefits from the inflation reduction Act, the 45 Q tax benefits, which still exist where luckily they were not removed by the new administration in the us. So that is something that we'll continue on working with. it does, as Michael said, though, require significant capital and requires, you know, a an overall willingness of the market to have that additional green cost. everything comes at a cost no matter how cheaply we can make it.

So there's still work to be done. for us now, it's a case of really trying to verify the energy values and the cost to back up these concept studies to really move them forward now into pre-feed and into feed studies. So that's just a, a, a touch of what, what it is we can do. but we certainly expect to be busy for the next sort of six months. And we do ex have a number of clients within the cement and lime industry that we are looking at now with larger scale opportunities and, and applications of the technology. So that, that is really where we're up to. That's what KC eight has done over the last 12 months. It's been a busy busy time for us with two pilot plants.

so that's that's where we are. So thank you all very much for your attention, and yeah, I hope you learned something out of that and I'm happy to answer any questions. Well, thank you very much, Greg. It's very interesting to have that update with the the, the pilot plant in the US as well as the pacer project with Cement Australia. very exciting. Wish you luck with that. The it's I mean this is, I guess a, a learning phase. I mean, there'll be the, the proof will be in, in how these, these things perform, I guess, when they're, they're actually up, up and running. there are a couple of questions around the, the technology.

one, one is what's the commercial availability of the solvent that's used? so yeah, No, it's every country has potassium carbonate. So the solvent is, is literally water potassium carbonate loaded at around about 30%, 30 between 30 and 50% dissolved in, in water. And then we provide the promoter, which is added at around 100 ratio of one to a hundred to test in carbonate. overall the, the cost of the solvent is, is around a thousand dollars a ton. So yeah, it's not, not expensive on, on the scheme of things. an average large scale plant may have 40 tons of solvent in inventory across the vessels and piping and everything.

And then you would potentially replace you know, four tons a year which would be through losses in the system that would be vaporized or leaks or something of, of that nature. The solvent doesn't degrade you know, over, over time with, with the impurities that it's fairly inert to most most products. And that's part of the, the longer term, the reason for the testing for so long at the cement plant is not, not really to worry about whether we capture CO2 or not, it's the long term application of the solvent into ensure that, you know, we, we are not degrading it and that the energy component doesn't go up or the losses don't go up.

So at the moment it's a, it's a very cheap solvent on the scheme of things. Yeah. and it's it's efficient and as you said, it's 40% less CapEx. so that's a, that's another highlight and less opex, but have you got any figures for how much it costs relative to I guess, the benchmark of the, I mean, systems? Yeah, look, it's, it's a bit hard. the, the dollar per ton value is probably the, the, the best leveler that's, that's probably the levelized cost of, of capture is probably easier. We would normally run in that sort of 50 to $60 per ton range. on a larger scale capture process, a lot of it is going to be on where the availability of waste heat comes into the process.

and that's where as the more modern cement plants in operation look at using it, they, they already capture a lot of the waste heat. So to, to keep that value low, it's really the challenges in the heat integration into the process to, to keep it low. So it's hard to, to work that out. We used low grade heat. the re boiler runs at a low temperature, it's 120 degrees. so, you know, low grade heat, low grade steam, that type of thing is, so Is it steam, steam, waste, heat recovery or, or what kind of technology?

for these, we've just been using steam waste, heat recovery on the back end of the well, on those units, it was the front end of the baghouse, so there's still a sufficient temperature coming into that. It was running at around 150 degrees C so it was quite warm, you know, from that point of view, we could extract that heat, bring that down and, and take additional heat off that before it goes into our direct contact cooler. So there was, there was heat available in the system prior to the economizers, but we didn't step into that because that was already balanced within the system as it as it was.

So we were really trying to get as much of the low grade heat out of the system before before it hit the baghouse. So that was, there was sufficient ducting there for us to add that section in. And just one more question about the, the process. what should the flu gas composition be for optimally carrying out the, the KC eight technology? So is there any conditioning, cleaning of the flu, gas, what can you talk around that a little bit? so we would, the only impurities that we, we are concerned about with, with our solvent because it's potassium carbonate, is the SOX and NOx. So if it was a natural gas fired system, then it doesn't really cause too much problem because it's low sulfur.

And, you know, there's generally not a lot of NOx in the system either, if it's coal and, and that's again, part of what we are testing in Gladstone that's using coal fired kiln that will have a level of NOx and socks that we will treat. We will treat that as part of the process in the direct contact cooler. So we will knock out the residual socks and knocks out of that system, not, not to the level of you would require from an EPA power station type emission, you know, where you're looking at 5:00 PM or 10 PPM or something. We'll, we just knock out the broad socks and nos. That's all we have to do.

we don't have any other chemical cleanup requirements on the flue gas, so most other products are inert to potassium carbonate, so they pass through likeno and some of the other impurities in flue gas just passed straight through with the flue gas, we don't touch them. So it's part of the reason why the potassium carbonate process is, is quite robust for post combustion capture because it doesn't, it doesn't really react with a lot of things. So, Yeah. Okay. Well, that's, that's just a, a brilliant presentation. Very interesting. We look forward to the next phase as, as more information comes available. we'll keep following it with you and hope it goes well.

thank you very much, Greg, for that presentation. there's some questions in the q and a. I mean, we've, we've touched on several of the points, but you might want to give some more detailed answers to, to those a couple of questions from GUI Hernandez asking about the role of international organizations in ensuring that local policies in each country remain consistent across different administrations. well, that was talk that's really relating to our, our conversation earlier. it's, it's worth maybe just highlighting quickly the evolution of, of, of different carbon pricing instruments around the world. you can just go very quickly to the World Banks dashboard here.

and you can see that it's, it's really concentrated in, in Europe with the emissions trading system that's the most evolved and progressing now quite fast into a, into a, a new phase in 2026. carbon prices around 70 euros a ton. and that is driving activity in in carbon capture projects. but it has to be said at the moment, a lot of our projects as everywhere are, are funded by state subsidy in the case of Europe from the innovation fund that receives fund from the emissions trading system. and they're partially recycled back to the cement industry, although that's a point of contention. So that's, that's where we are in Europe and, and, and as we know in, in us, it's, it's much more local.

There's only a couple of states that have any kind of carbon trading instruments carbon pricing instruments. and as we've pointed out also in this q and a boxes that Trump has canceled a few of the a few of the projects there at Mitchell and Lebeck. So you know, the, speaking to what Michael was saying earlier, it's you know, without that policy without being sure about the policy, it's very hard for cement producers to, to invest these vast sums in, in these technologies. so I thought I would just quickly make you aware of that useful resource. and now we move on to our final presentation.

and I'm, I'm very pleased to introduce two representatives from Ramble two speakers Moritz KKE and David j Anth who are going to speak to us. Morris has 20 years of international experience leading major CCUS and Becks projects across Europe and Latin America. He's worked at VA Andal and capsule and founded Clean Energy Ventures in Chile. Morris is a project manager and engineer with a deep commitment to sustainable energy. he's joined by David a carbon capture specialist at Ramble. he's an energy eng engineer with 18 years of experience and decarbonization carbon capture and sustainable fuels a certified PMP.

He has held r and d roles at Bosch and FL Smit focusing on emission control and pro process modeling. He's passionate about advancing innovation in green technologies. Very excited to hear from you both your presentations up and running. so I, I'll leave the floor to you. Go ahead. Thank you very much, Thomas, and welcome everybody to the third presentation. I'm thrilled by the international group listening to us today. So I say my name is Mo, I'm Senior chief consultant and current capture team lead Germany at Ramble, speaking to you from Berlin. And I'm David, I'm a principal consultant at Ramble. I'm joining from India.

I have a background in civil industry, particularly it's decarbonization using carbon capture as well as other levers. And today we'll be discussing two carbon capture technologies that are gaining traction as alternatives to aiming based systems just as introduced by you. Thanks. Mike, Len, Greg, hot potassium carbonate for HPC and cryogenic capture with pressure swing as object. Both are well known and considered mature technologies, but yes they are relatively new when it comes to large scale industrial deployment to atmospheric flu gases. They haven't yet been implemented commercially in cement, but we do consider them technically ready for near term rollout.

We'll walk you through the fundamentals of each, compare their strengths and limitate limitations, and share insights from engineering studies and project experience. So before we dive into the technical content, let me briefly introduce Rumble. We're a global engineering architecture and consultancy company with 18,000 experts working across nearly 300 offices in 35 countries. Our work spans seven core markets among which energy, water, transport, environment, and health and management consulting. And increasingly, we are working at the intersections of these fields, especially when it comes to decarbonization and industrial transformation.

Carbon capture really is at the core of our activities here at Rumble. We've been involved in more than 180 CCOS projects globally over the past years with over 20 currently ongoing and several already in the feed phase. Our role spans the full project lifecycle from early stage concept development to one engineer or EPCM contractor. And just as as important we are of course a hundred percent independent consultant. So we do not promote any specific technology or vendor. Our focus is entirely on what works best for each client specific context, technically, economically, and operationally. So let's now look at the specific setting we are dealing with.

that was introduced largely already by Michael. we are looking at flu gases that have C two concentrations typically above 20 or even 30% by dry volume, combined with a significant dust load and trace acid gases like socks, NOx, and hydrogen chloride. In a separate paper, we describe what to consider in terms of cement plant upgrades prior to capture that can greatly enhance EOC two capture economics. On top of that, most cement plants have limited onsite utilities, so steam is usually not available and electricity may be constrained or expensive. So integration becomes a key issue both technically and economically.

We'll start by looking at HPC in more detail, and then David will take us through the cryogenic route. After that, we'll compare the two side by side and discuss where each might have an edge. So HPC is a solvent based technology that's been used for decades in gas processing, but is now gaining traction in post combustion carbon capture, including f cement. The basic chemistry is straightforward as Greg showed us C two regs with potassium carbonate to form bicarbonate, and that reaction is reversible, but there's a catch without any further promoters in the solvent. The C two partial pressure is even in cement, flu gas generally too low for efficient absorption at atmospheric pressures.

So the entire flu gas stream needs to be compressed, typically to round five to seven bar, depending on the concentration to make the process work. So there's a significant energy input, but it also enables heat recovery and process integration. The benefit on the other hand side is that stripping happens to a certain extent already through flashing at atmospheric pressure and using integrated flashing to vacuum and mechanical vapor recompression. So relatively small amounts of heat are actually required to revert the bicarbonate reaction.

The result can be a fully electric process no steam required with a power demand in the range of 200 to 300 kilowatt hours per ton of CO2 captured plus a hundred. Also for compression cooling, water demand is moderate and the technology is considered to be at TL 78. That's our estimate. So it's close to commercial readiness. David? Yes. So shifting focus a little bit, looking at the cryogenic common capture system as the name suggests, it's a low temperature process which relies on face change completely different approach to the HPC we saw before. here the gases needs to be cooled through very low temperatures wherein the CO2 and the gas mixture would separate out either as liquid or solid.

Now, depending on whether CO2 converts to liquid or solid, there are at least two distinct mechanisms for cryogenics. The first one, cryogenic distillation shown in blue is a well established technology. However, this is only applicable for gases which have very high concentration of c c2. So normally for a cement application, there needs to be an upfront pre concentration step to increase the concentration of the C2 before the cryogenic distillation. Now, the distillation process itself will produce liquid CO2 solid formation must be avoided in order to protect the equipments.

So this means that we don't need to cool the gases too much beyond the triple point or the melting curve as seen in this phase diagram. However, just like the HPC system the cryogenic distillation also requests the flu gases to be compressed to a very high pressure. contrary to this is the cryo de sublimation process shown in green. This actually takes advantage of the, of the solid formation. So the gases needs to be cooled more to reach the de sublimating temperatures of CO2. but this process can operate at lower pressures, close to atmospheric conditions. So this means that the process does not lead a pre concentration step, just like in the distillation process.

Nevertheless, this technology is still yet to be proved at scale. so for that reason and also for to make an reasonable comparison with HPC, we'll just focus on the cryogenic distillation process from here. On One step further, looking at practical ways to implement the cryo distillation process. if the feed gas from the cement plant is already CO to rich the gases needs to be pretreated compressed, and then it undergoes a moisture removal step in a temperature swing absorption mechanism, after which the gases are sent to the cryo section where partial condensation as well as distillation happens at very low temperatures. At this point, the CO2 is separated out as liquid.

Now this system is ideal for integration with the XI fuel, indirect calcination, or even an electrified calcination process as a final purification or polishing step. If the distillation process needs to be used for a typical cement pyro process, then like I said before, it would need an additional pre concentration step. And this is normally done with a precious swing absorption like shown in the picture on the right. Now. The key advantage of the cryogenic process is that it can produce liquid CO2, more or less a single step without the need for additional compression or leak ion. that would be normally required in an A nine process or even in HPC process.

the system can be puked completely electrically driven with power consumption ranging from 150 to 450 kilowatt or per ton of CO2, depending on the configuration, whether it's just the cryogenic which will be used, or if it needs a upfront pre pre concentration. With the PSA system since there's no solvent used, there's no need for c STEAM to be used for regeneration of the solvent. but there is opportunities for better heat integration like shown in this picture with these heat exchanges, which can also benefit from waste heat that's available from the cement plant.

Just like the HPC, the TRL for this technology is also considered to be seven to eight, again, close to be proven at the actual operational environments like in plant. Mm-hmm. Alright, so let's start some comparisons. first up I said HPC is a chemical absorption process. We use a liquid solvent to bind CO2 at elevated pressure and temperature. The absorption happens around 90 degrees without the need for heating as the gas comes in hot. So yes, we need massive compression, but this part of the pro process is considered robust and well understood. Good. So the PSA cryo on the contrary, it's completely physical. the PSS system uses solid ants to selectively capture the CO2 from the flu gas.

This normally operates at a temperature close to at rate, let's say 10 to 40 degrees ingrade and followed by the cryo system, which cools the gases to close to minus 50 degrees centigrade. This is where the CO2 separates out as a liquid. Yeah, and that brings us to the footprint. HPC needs tall absorbent disorder columns. We're talking 40 meters or more, plus blue gas compounder and flash steam heat pumps. It's not small, but it may be rather vertically complex and relatively simple in layout. Right. The PSA cryo system, on the other hand, they could be quite modular, multiple Ps a vessels, cryo columns, refrigeration kits.

The unit stem cells could be very small but the system could be quite dispersed. You do need speeds, additional equipments additional particle removal steps, additional moisture removal steps, heat exchangers ins, installations, vacuum pumps, and so on. So there would be need for an optimized layout for the PSA cryo. So in short, HPC tall, centralized PSA cryo maybe a a bit lower, but more spread out. Let's move on to utilities and energy. That's after all a key differentiator when it comes to integration. So the PSA cryo, like we mentioned, can be pure, completely driven by electricity, but they do benefit from using waste heat which can reduce the power consumption quite a bit.

the total consumption could range anywhere between one to 1.5 giga per ton. Now this is, again, reread for completely to produce liquid CO2. and the only downside could be that the PSA could, the logo and the PSA is a little bit dynamic, so it could have some influences on the choice of compressors as well as grid connections. Yeah, right. HPC in contrast has a more stable operating profile, but the pure electric power demand is rather similar. And we are typically looking at 0.7 to 0.9 giga per ton for capture plus 0.4 2.6 for compression and leak affection. So it adds up to similar values. Cooling is another important point.

HPC as a moderate cooling amount, which may be a benefit in regions where cooling is not abundant, and it's mostly at higher temperature levels, which makes it easier to handle with dry coolers and air cool systems. Right. While the, the amount of cooling that's needed for PS, air cryo could be quite similar to that of HPC, maybe a little bit higher. but the cooling happens at low temperature. So this means we need hybrid or wet cooling systems. the cryogenic systems. Some vendors do use external refrigeration loops. Others use the expansion cooling using the geo thoms and effect. The choice of cooling system does have an influence on the, on the total energy that's required as well.

So this is an important consideration. Mm-hmm. And if we look at how these technologies behave in day-to-day operation, because that's where the practical differences often become visible, Starting with the solvent solvent management. PSA cryo is solvent free solution, which is a great advantage. but they do use solid solvents which do need replacement at least once a year. at the same time, the cryo systems or the equipments and the cryo systems, they operate at Sub-Zero conditions and they need careful maintenance. Right? HPC is a liquid solution, so it's an aqui solution, but as Greg already detailed, it is rather stable. It's non-toxic, and it doesn't degrade like a means.

There's no reclaiming step and make rates are low and at low cost. So you do need to purge periodically to manage salt buildup, and you'll have some spend solvent to dispose of mostly in organic salts. Mm-hmm. Speaking of purities, the PSA cryo is quite sensitive to, to water both the, both the PSA and cryo. so the feed gas needs to meet, right extensively, I should say so that we don't initiate premature degradation of the solid solvents as well as prevent freezing on the cryo systems.

in terms of pollutants, most pollutants would end up in the gas stream from the capture plant but some pollutants which are which could condense readily more readily than the CO2 would end up in the solvent stream. So vendors do use a secondary scrubbing system to get rid of some of the so and locks. Mm-hmm. HPC is more tolerant in that sense, but it also does require some upstream removal of dust and acid components to below maybe 20 milligrams per meter cube and NOx below 50 milligrams. These are not black and white hard limits, but a recommendation, otherwise solvent makeup may start to become a cost issue and you may risk falling and corrosion in the absorb. Alright.

So where streams PSA grow, like I mentioned, there's they're very sensitive to moisture. So there's a lot of steps where moisture is remote in the DCC in the compression stages, and then at least a couple of dehydration steps before the PSA system. So there's a lot of condensate that needs to be handled pretty well. Mm-hmm. condensate are produced in HPC as well but only down to the dew point controlled by your cooling water temperature. So after all, both technologies are viable but they come with different operational expectations and maintenance philosophies. Cool. before Morris concludes, let me just summarize the thoughts that we shared.

These are thoughts that normally comes up during project discussions, but doesn't necessarily always show up in data, data sheets. starting with the energy integration, both HPC and the cryogenics can be pure electric systems, but they do benefit from waste heat that's available at the cement plant. But the way the waste heat is used is completely different in the two systems. In HPC, the heat is used to produce steam for, for the solvent regeneration step. while in the PSA cry system, it could be used for multiple purposes, like for reheating the the non-con condensable gases before the expansion in a way to recover some energy for compression.

They can also be used for regeneration of the de rise and other other processes. moving on to the footprint, like we mentioned, HPC, just like an amine solvent based technology requests all absorbers and diesel absorbers, they could be fairly compact in terms of layout, but also requiring simpler installations. Cryo systems on the other hand, could be quite modular, smaller and footprint on a unit level, but they do require a lot of units or a lot of equipments for heat exchanges removing moisture, removing particles and so on. continuing with the concept of modularity PSA and PSA and cryo, this is an advantage, especially this, they do scale better at smaller size.

And if you want to increase the capacity, we can always have multiple modular systems next to each other. This is actually an advantage and offers a lot of flexibility, especially on cement plants with multiple production lines. The HPC, on the other hand, benefits from economies of scale, and they do a motorize better for with larger capacities, especially around 500 kilotons per annum. And finally, on the part load operations, both systems can do manage part load app operations may be PSAA little bit better because of its cyclic nature of absorption and regeneration. the cryo system though could be a little bit more sensitive to sudden changes in flu rate and temperature. Contrary.

The HPC again, being a very continuous process requires careful management of their solvent loops. So summing up even though both technologies are quite different they do have similarities. So the decision, final decision often comes down to aspects, the integration aspects like energy footprint, scalability, and the operational flexibility. That's right. So where does it leave us after all the technical comparison? The answer is both are technol. both are viable. and in many ways they're more similar than they're different. Both HPC and PA cryo are solvent free or use beno benign solvents.

They avoid toxic degradation products and run entirely on electricity and both deliver high purity CO2 that is suitable for pipeline transport or chemical use of CO2. They're also retrofit friendly. You don't need to rebuild your plant to integrate them, though. You do need to plan carefully for space utilities and flu gas pretreatment as discussed capture rates of 90 to 95% are achievable with both, and both require water management, especially around flu, gass cooling and condensate handling. So is it a draw? Not quite.

What we want to make you aware of with that presentation is the right choice depends on your specific project, your flu volume and composition, your utility profile, your site layout, space availability, and your long-term strategy. And that's where we come in to help you evaluate those trade-offs and prepare the right decision for your plant. We support you with feasibility studies, process modeling, energy integration, and help simulate the impact of different configurations, assess CapEx and opex and build a lifecycle business case that includes C two use or storage.

As mentioned before, we also advise on cement plant upgrades prior to capture things like s air reduction, raw mill bypass strategies, flu, gas conditioning, all of which can really greatly en enhance, improve your capture efficiency and reduce the costs. Even if you're interested in pilot scale data, we can help identify opportunities or trials or demo campaigns. We do explore synergies using waste heat or for example, cold from l and d regasification to optimize the capture process. So whether you're planning a retrofit or a greenfield project, where here to help to navigate the options and make informed decisions.

Just to add a final note that these two technologies we do see quite often in our, in some of the projects that we're involved in. It's not just just to say that the other technologies become irrelevant, we are also seeing the amines coming, making a strong comeback with their own electrified process using high temperature heat pump, and so are other new technologies like membranes or the cryogenic dation process. So this is a space to watch out for. Thank you very much Moritz and David for that really fascinating pro presentation. so much detail and insight into these these processes that are probably for most viewers from some industry, it's, it's a whole new world.

and it really is, it's a, you know, a a whole different science. in terms of the systems you presented, there's a lot of interest in the cryo. a few questions around that. just quickly what, what pressure is required for the flue gas in the cryo system? and is the, is the cryo the 95% capture rate achieved in one stage or multiple stages? Yeah, so if you have a, for example, if you have an oxy fuel system, which produces 95% CO2 on a dry basis after the preheat then it's just the cryo distillation to produce the liquid CO2. So if you, if otherwise, then you need multiple steps. that's with the PSA.

So in terms of pressure for the PSA, I think it's somewhere between six bars or nine bars or 10 bars before the PSA system. just like probably similar to that of an HPC. the flu needs to be compressed. Okay. in terms of kind of how, how, how did you approach all the technologies you've presented them very specific solutions. is that after you've gone through a process of evaluating many of the others, the other alternatives are these the ones that you think are the best runners? no. So what we normally do is very project specific. So every project has its own goals, like some could be like low CapEx, low opex, some would say zero water discharge.

So we do do a lot of technology screening upfront at least two levels of technology screening, screening for every project before we kind of end up with what technologies to recommend for a specific project. So the first screening would probably include a, a larger pool of candidates, and then when we've selected probably one or two, then we would do a detailed process modeling, look at all the energy consumption aspects what's the cost and so on. So in terms of, of a technology selection, is it gonna be very plant specific? I mean, I'm speaking for the cement industry.

I mean I guess it's relating to the scale of the plant primarily, I mean, know how much waste heat is available, these kind of Issues. Exactly. And both technologies that we presented today lend themselves to high C two concentrations, which is the case in cement. That's why we selected them for the presentation today. But there are others and need to be in its own merit. Yeah. and that's, when you say high concentration, that's without oxy fuel? Yes. Yeah. Coming from a power plant background, so anything above 12 is high to me, but certainly 20 to 30% is, is a pretty good CO2 concentration to start with. Yeah.

So in terms of comparing with other industries you know, cement is the place to start. If, if one industry needed to be decarbonized the best, the most bunk bang for your buck is from the cement industry for that reason. Yeah, I would say so. I think if, if carbon capture makes sense anywhere, it's probably cement industry. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's absolutely not either or. Right. We need as much c capture as possible. Yeah, yeah. what are you seeing just out of interest when you compare the engagement from the power industry compared to the cement industry in terms of you know, engagement with with carbon capture? That's very high. You mean in interest from the client side?

Yeah, that's, that's pretty comparable. Yeah, it's very high at the moment. Yeah. Okay. And, and in terms, are you seeing that most, mostly in Europe, I guess. and do you see things accelerating quite substantially now that the emissions trading system is moving into a new phase? free allocation has been reduced proceeding CBAM is kicking in. Do you think that is gonna be quite a catalyst? I would say yes. I'm looking at David, Yes. Also, the fact that we've now have pre, which is operational, like you mentioned, so they have passed the hurdle for us and Mary more will follow. Yeah, that's set the president I guess to see the industrial scale carbon capture in action. Very good.

Well, thank you very much both of you to all our speakers, Moritz, David, Greg, and Michael. it's been a, a really interesting session. there's lots more to talk about. We will over the coming weeks, months and years, no doubt. but for now, that's all we have time for. hopefully you can all join us for the next webinar, which won't be in August, but we're gonna have to take a break and we'll be back in September. and we'll also have Cemtech Europe at the end of September. So have a look at the information on the website. but for now thank you. good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are. enjoy the rest of the day and have a, have a great month and we'll see you for the next webinar.

Goodbye. Thanks Dan. Thank you. Bye.