Anda di halaman 1dari 507

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

2.1 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


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

4.1 Chapter Organization ...................................................................................... 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

5.1 Chapter Organization ...................................................................................... 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

7.1 Chapter Organization .................................................................................... 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

8.1 Chapter Organization .................................................................................... 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

9.1 Chapter Organization .................................................................................... 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
Table 7.8 Calculated Material Proportion for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement
......................................................................................................................................... 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

2.1 Chapter Organization

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

3.1 Chapter Organization

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

4.1 Chapter Organization

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

5.1 Chapter Organization

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

Development, 2002, p. 11).

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

Development, 2002, p. 34).

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

(Rosenthal, R. E., 2008).

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

(Rosenthal, R. E., 2008).

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

6.1 Chapter Organization

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

Source: Utlu et al. (2006).

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).

Source: 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

Source: Khurana et al. (2002).

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

Source: Khurana et al. (2002).


Figure 6.15 Sankey Diagram for the System.
137

7. CHAPTER SEVEN: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

7.1 Chapter Organization

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.

Table 7.7 Calculated Material Proportion for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement

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

Table 7.8 Calculated Material Proportion for Production of One Ton of Portland Cement

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

Lm2 - consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Lm3 - consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Lm4 - consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Lm5 - consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Sh1 - consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Sh2 - consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Sh3 - consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Sh4 - consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 4


162

Sh5 - consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Cl1 - consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Cl2 - consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Cl3 - consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Cl4 - consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Cl5 - consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Sa1 - consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Sa2 - consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Sa3 - consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Sa4 - consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Sa5 - consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Ma1 - consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Ma2 - consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Ma3 - consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Ma4 - consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Ma5 - consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

As1 - consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

As2 - consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 2


163

As3 - consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

As4 - consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

As5 - consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Ir1 - consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Ir2 - consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Ir3 - consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Ir4 - consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Ir5 - consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Gy1 - consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Gy2 - consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Gy3 - consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Gy4 - consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Gy5 - consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Ba1 - consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Ba2 - consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Ba3 - consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Ba4 - consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Ba5 - consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Mi1 - consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1


164

Mi2 - consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Mi3 - consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Mi4 - consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Mi5 - consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Di1 - consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Di2 - consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Di3 - consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Di4 - consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Di5 - consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Col1 - consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Col2 - consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Col3 - consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Col4 - consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Col5 - consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Cok1 - consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Cok2 - consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Cok3 - consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Cok4 - consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Cok5 - consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 5


165

Wst1 - consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

Wst2 - consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

Wst3 - consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

Wst4 - consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

Wst5 - consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

el1 - consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1

el2 - consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 2

el3 - consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 3

el4 - consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4

el5 - consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 5

co1 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1

co2 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2

co3 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3

co4 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4

co5 - CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5

no1 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1

no2 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2

no3 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3
166

no4 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4

no5 - NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5

so1 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1

so2 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2

so3 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3

so4 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4

so5 - SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5

pm1 - PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1

pm2 - PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2

pm3 - PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3

pm4 - PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4

pm5 - PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5

me1 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1

me2 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2

me3 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3

me4 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4

me5 - Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5

Maxcap1 - maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1


167

Maxcap2 - maximum capacity of cement producing unit 2

Maxcap3 - maximum capacity of cement producing unit 3

Maxcap4 - maximum capacity of cement producing unit 4

Maxcap5 - maximum capacity of cement producing unit 5


168

8. CHAPTER EIGHT: RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

8.1 Chapter Organization

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
ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year

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
ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year
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

Results before sensitivity analysis

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)

Results after sensitivity analysis

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
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 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
ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year

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
ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year
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

Results before sensitivity analysis

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)

Results after sensitivity analysis

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

Results before sensitivity analysis

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)

Results after sensitivity analysis

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
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 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
ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year

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
ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year
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

Results before sensitivity analysis

900000

800000

700000

600000
cem1.L
500000 cem2.L
cem5.L
400000 store.
impcem.
300000

200000

100000

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 8.9 Production of Producing Units before Sensitivity Analysis (Case Study III)

Results after sensitivity analysis

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

Results before sensitivity analysis

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)

Results after sensitivity analysis

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

9.1 Chapter Organization

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

Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).

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

Association of Canada, 2008, p. 27).

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 /
Lm2 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1375.45 /
Lm3 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1361.96 /
Lm4 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1348.48 /
Lm5 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1335.00 /

Sh1 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 75.48 /
Sh2 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 74.75 /
Sh3 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 74.01 /
Sh4 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 73.28 /
Sh5 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 72.55 /

Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
Cl2 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 60.55 /
Cl3 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 59.95 /
Cl4 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 59.36 /
Cl5 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 58.77 /

Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
Sa2 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 42.11 /
Sa3 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 41.69 /
Sa4 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 41.28 /
213

Sa5 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 40.87 /

Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
Ma2 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 31.01 /
Ma3 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 30.70 /
Ma4 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 30.40 /
Ma5 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 30.10 /

As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
As2 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 23.50 /
As3 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 23.27 /
As4 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 23.04 /
As5 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 22.81 /

Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
Ir2 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 10.44 /
Ir3 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 10.34 /
Ir4 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 10.24 /
Ir5 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 10.24 /

Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
Gy2 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 6.53 /
Gy3 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 6.46 /
Gy4 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 6.40 /
Gy5 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 6.34 /

Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
Ba2 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.80 /
Ba3 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.78 /
Ba4 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.76 /
Ba5 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.74 /

Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
Mi2 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.63 /
Mi3 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.62 /
Mi4 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.60 /
Mi5 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.58 /

Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
Di2 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.47 /
Di3 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.45 /
Di4 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.44 /
Di5 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.43 /
214

Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
Col2 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 2699022 /
Col3 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 2672561 /
Col4 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 2646100 /
Col5 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 2619639 /

Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
Cok2 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 892398 /
Cok3 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 883649 /
Cok4 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 874900 /
Cok5 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 866151 /

Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995 /
Wst2 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 424830 /
Wst3 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 420665 /
Wst4 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 416500 /
Wst5 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 412335 /

el1 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 150.48 /
el2 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 155.04 /
el3 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 153.52 /
el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
el5 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 156.56 /

co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
co2 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.80 /
co3 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.83 /
co4 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.83 /
co5 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.845 /

no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.00136 /
no2 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.00139 /
no3 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.00139 /
no4 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.00137 /
no5 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.00140 /

so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.00266 /
so2 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.00263 /
so3 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.00260 /
so4 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.00258 /
so5 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.00289 /

pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.00015 /
pm2 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.00015 /
215

pm3 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.00015 /
pm4 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.00015 /
pm5 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.00015 /

me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
me2 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00000004 /
me3 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00000004 /
me4 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00000004 /
me5 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00000004 /

Maxcap1 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1 /400000/


Maxcap2 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 2 /450000/
Maxcap3 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 3 /530000/
Maxcap4 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 4 /550000/
Maxcap5 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 5 /600000/

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) ($)
cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
cem2(i) annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
cem3(i) annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
cem4(i) annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
cem5(i) annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
cost2(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i ($ per ton)
216

cost3(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i ($ per ton)


cost4(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i ($ per ton)
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
Inp2(i,j) input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp3(i,j) input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp4(i,j) input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp5(i,j) input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp6(i,j) input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp7(i,j) input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp8(i,j) input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp9(i,j) input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp10(i,j) input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Inp11(i,j) input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Elecbal(i,j) electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Energy1(i,j) coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Energy2(i,j) coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Energy3(i,j) wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Emission_CO2(i,j) CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Emission_NOx(i,j) NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
*Emission_SO2(i,j) SO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Emission_PM(i,j) PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Emission_Mer(i,j) Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
Capacity1(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
Capacity2(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
Capacity3(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
217

Capacity4(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i


Capacity5(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
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;
Capacity2(i).. cem2(i) =L= Maxcap2;
Capacity3(i).. cem3(i) =L= Maxcap3;
Capacity4(i).. cem4(i) =L= Maxcap4;
Capacity5(i).. cem5(i) =L= Maxcap5;

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

cost2.l(i) = rho(i)*e2;
cost3.l(i) = rho(i)*e3;
cost4.l(i) = rho(i)*e4;
cost5.l(i) = rho(i)*e5;

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 "result2.gdx" cem2.l;
execute_unload "result3.gdx" cem3.l;
execute_unload "result4.gdx" cem4.l;
execute_unload "result5.gdx" cem5.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 result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.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_result2.gdx" cem2.l;
execute_unload "sens_result3.gdx" cem3.l;
execute_unload "sens_result4.gdx" cem4.l;
execute_unload "sens_result5.gdx" cem5.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_result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result3.gdx var=cem3.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result3.gdx var=cem3.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result5.gdx var=cem5.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

Source: Utlu et al. (2006).

Table D.2 Entropy Balance of Raw Mill


Entropy Balance of Raw Mill

Source: Utlu et al. (2006).

Table D.3 Exergy Balance in the Raw Mill


Exergy Balance in the Raw Mill

Source: Utlu et al. (2006).


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

Source: Cement Association of Canada. (2006).


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

Source: Cement Association of Canada. (2008).


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 /
35 e5 unit OandM costs for 5th cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.83 /
36
37 Lm1 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1388.93 /
38 Lm2 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1375.45 /
39 Lm3 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1361.96 /
40 Lm4 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1348.48 /
41 Lm5 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1335.00 /
42
231

43 Sh1 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 75.48 /
44 Sh2 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 74.75 /
45 Sh3 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 74.01 /
46 Sh4 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 73.28 /
47 Sh5 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 72.55 /
48
49 Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
50 Cl2 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 60.55 /
51 Cl3 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 59.95 /
52 Cl4 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 59.36 /
53 Cl5 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 58.77 /
54
55 Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
56 Sa2 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 42.11 /
57 Sa3 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 41.69 /
58 Sa4 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 41.28 /
59 Sa5 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 40.87 /
60
61 Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
62 Ma2 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 31.01 /
63 Ma3 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 30.70 /
64 Ma4 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 30.40 /
65 Ma5 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 30.10 /
66
67 As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
68 As2 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 23.50 /
69 As3 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 23.27 /
70 As4 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 23.04 /
71 As5 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 22.81 /
72
73 Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
74 Ir2 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 10.44 /
75 Ir3 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 10.34 /
76 Ir4 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 10.24 /
77 Ir5 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 10.24 /
78
79 Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
80 Gy2 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 6.53 /
81 Gy3 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 6.46 /
82 Gy4 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 6.40 /
83 Gy5 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 6.34 /
84
85 Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
86 Ba2 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.80 /
232

87 Ba3 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.78 /
88 Ba4 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.76 /
89 Ba5 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.74 /
90
91 Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
92 Mi2 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.63 /
93 Mi3 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.62 /
94 Mi4 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.60 /
95 Mi5 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.58 /
96
97 Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
98 Di2 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.47 /
99 Di3 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.45 /
100 Di4 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.44 /
101 Di5 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.43 /
102
103 Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
104 Col2 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 2699022 /
105 Col3 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 2672561 /
106 Col4 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 2646100 /
107 Col5 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 2619639 /
108
109 Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
110 Cok2 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 892398 /
111 Cok3 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 883649 /
112 Cok4 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 874900 /
113 Cok5 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 866151 /
114
115 Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995
/
116 Wst2 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 424830
/
117 Wst3 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 420665
/
118 Wst4 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 416500
/
119 Wst5 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 412335
/
120
121 el1 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 150.48
/
122 el2 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 155.04 /
123 el3 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 153.52 /
124 el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
233

125 el5 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 156.56 /
126
127 co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
128 co2 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.80 /
129 co3 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.83 /
130 co4 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.83 /
131 co5 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.845 /
132
133 no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00136 /
134 no2 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00139 /
135 no3 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00139 /
136 no4 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00137 /
137 no5 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00140 /
138
139 so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00266 /
140 so2 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00263 /
141 so3 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00260 /
142 so4 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00258 /
143 so5 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00289 /
144
145 pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00015 /
146 pm2 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00015 /
147 pm3 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00015 /
148 pm4 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00015 /
149 pm5 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00015 /
150
151 me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
234

152 me2 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00000004 /
153 me3 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00000004 /
154 me4 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00000004 /
155 me5 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00000004 /
156
157 Maxcap1 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1 /400000/
158 Maxcap2 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 2 /450000/
159 Maxcap3 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 3 /530000/
160 Maxcap4 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 4 /550000/
161 Maxcap5 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 5 /600000/
162
163 s unit costs of cement inventory storage ($ per ton) /5/
164 p norm considering the time factor / 0.012 /
165
166 *prices of cement imported from other producers are assumed to be higher than
167 *that of own production
168 pencem coefficient adjusting the price of imported cement /1.2/
169 Maximp maximum import as a percentage of cement demand in period i /0.3/;
170
171 parameters
172 rho(i) discounting factor;
173 rho(i) = (1 + p)**(-(ord(i)-1));
174
175 variables
176 LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
177 cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
178 cem2(i) annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
179 cem3(i) annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
180 cem4(i) annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
181 cem5(i) annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
182 impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
183 store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
184 cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
185 cost2(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i ($ per ton)
186 cost3(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i ($ per ton)
187 cost4(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i ($ per ton)
188 cost5(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i ($ per ton);
189
190 positive variables cem1, cem2, cem3, cem4, cem5, impcem, store;
191
235

192 *cement stored in the beginning and in the end of the considered period is zero
193 store.l('2010')=0;
194 store.l('2020')=0;
195 *Storage limit
196 store.up(i)= 60000;
197 *Select the number of units in the plant
198 *cem1.fx(i)=0; e1=0;
199 *cem2.fx(i)=0; e2=0;
200 *cem3.fx(i)=0; e3=0;
201 *cem4.fx(i)=0; e4=0;
202 *cem5.fx(i)=0; e5=0;
203
204 equations
205 Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
206 Dem(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
207 Inp1(i,j) input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
208 Inp2(i,j) input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
209 Inp3(i,j) input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
210 Inp4(i,j) input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
211 Inp5(i,j) input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
212 Inp6(i,j) input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
213 Inp7(i,j) input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
214 Inp8(i,j) input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
215 Inp9(i,j) input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
216 Inp10(i,j) input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
217 Inp11(i,j) input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
218 Elecbal(i,j) electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
219 Energy1(i,j) coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
220 Energy2(i,j) coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
221 Energy3(i,j) wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
222 Emission_CO2(i,j) CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
223 Emission_NOx(i,j) NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
224 *Emission_SO2(i,j) SO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
225 Emission_PM(i,j) PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
226 Emission_Mer(i,j) Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
227 Capacity1(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
228 Capacity2(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
229 Capacity3(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
230 Capacity4(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
236

231 Capacity5(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
232 Import(i,j) maximum available import of cement from other producers in period
i;
233
234 *Objective function minimizing total expenses
235 Object.. LCC =E= K + sum(i,rho(i)*[e1*cem1(i) + e2*cem2(i) + e3*cem3(i) +
e4*cem4(i)
236 + e5*cem5(i) + s*store(i) + pencem*(max[e1,e2,e3,e4,e5])*impcem(i)]);
237
238 *1.Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
239 Dem(i,'Cement').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)
240 + impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement') + store(i);
241
242 *2.Input1 Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
243 *Lime
244 Inp1(i,'Lime').. cem1(i)*Lm1 + cem2(i)*Lm2 + cem3(i)*Lm3 + cem4(i)*Lm4 +
245 cem5(i)*Lm5 =L= data(i,'Lime');
246 *Shale
247 Inp2(i,'Shale').. cem1(i)*Sh1 + cem2(i)*Sh2 + cem3(i)*Sh3 + cem4(i)*Sh4 +
248 cem5(i)*Sh5 =L= data(i,'Shale');
249 *Clay
250 Inp3(i,'Clay').. cem1(i)*Cl1 + cem2(i)*Cl2 + cem3(i)*Cl3 + cem4(i)*Cl4 +
251 cem5(i)*Cl5 =L= data(i,'Clay');
252 *Sand
253 Inp4(i,'Sand').. cem1(i)*Sa1 + cem2(i)*Sa2 + cem3(i)*Sa3 + cem4(i)*Sa4 +
254 cem5(i)*Sa5 =L= data(i,'Sand');
255 *Marl
256 Inp5(i,'Marl').. cem1(i)*Ma1 + cem2(i)*Ma2 + cem3(i)*Ma3 + cem4(i)*Ma4 +
257 cem5(i)*Ma5 =L= data(i,'Marl');
258 *Ashc
259 Inp6(i,'Ashc').. cem1(i)*As1 + cem2(i)*As2 + cem3(i)*As3 + cem4(i)*As4 +
260 cem5(i)*As5 =L= data(i,'Ashc');
261 *Iron
262 Inp7(i,'Iron').. cem1(i)*Ir1 + cem2(i)*Ir2 + cem3(i)*Ir3 + cem4(i)*Ir4 +
263 cem5(i)*Ir5 =L= data(i,'Iron');
264 *Gyps
265 Inp8(i,'Gyps').. cem1(i)*Gy1 + cem2(i)*Gy2 + cem3(i)*Gy3 + cem4(i)*Gy4 +
266 cem5(i)*Gy5 =L= data(i,'Gyps');
267 *Baux
268 Inp9(i,'Baux').. cem1(i)*Ba1 + cem2(i)*Ba2 + cem3(i)*Ba3 + cem4(i)*Ba4 +
269 cem5(i)*Ba5 =L= data(i,'Baux');
270 *Mill
271 Inp10(i,'Mill').. cem1(i)*Mi1 + cem2(i)*Mi2 + cem3(i)*Mi3 + cem4(i)*Mi4 +
272 cem5(i)*Mi5 =L= data(i,'Mill');
237

273 *Diatom
274 Inp11(i,'Diatom').. cem1(i)*Di1 + cem2(i)*Di2 + cem3(i)*Di3 + cem4(i)*Di4 +
275 cem5(i)*Di5 =L= data(i,'Diatom');
276
277 *3a.Balance of Electricity - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
278 Elecbal(i,'Elec').. cem1(i)*el1 + cem2(i)*el2 + cem3(i)*el3 + cem4(i)*el4 +
279 cem5(i)*el5 =L= data(i,'Elec');
280
281 *3b.Balance of Energy - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
282 *Coal
283 Energy1(i,'Coal').. cem1(i)*Col1 + cem2(i)*Col2 + cem3(i)*Col3 + cem4(i)*Col4
+
284 cem5(i)*Col5 =L= data(i,'Coal');
285 *Coke
286 Energy2(i,'Coke').. cem1(i)*Cok1 + cem2(i)*Cok2 + cem3(i)*Cok3 +
cem4(i)*Cok4 +
287 cem5(i)*Cok5 =L= data(i,'Coke');
288 *Wstfuel
289 Energy3(i,'Wstfuel')..cem1(i)*Wst1 + cem2(i)*Wst2 + cem3(i)*Wst3 +
cem4(i)*Wst4 +
290 cem5(i)*Wst5 =L= data(i,'Wstfuel');
291
292 *4. Emissions constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
293 Emission_CO2(i,'CO2').. cem1(i)*co1 + cem2(i)*co2 + cem3(i)*co3 +
cem4(i)*co4 +
294 cem5(i)*co5 =L= data(i,'CO2');
295 Emission_NOx(i,'NOx').. cem1(i)*no1 + cem2(i)*no2 + cem3(i)*no3 +
cem4(i)*no4 +
296 cem5(i)*no5 =L= data(i,'NOx');
297 *Emission_SO2(i,'SO2').. cem1(i)*so1 + cem2(i)*so2 + cem3(i)*so3 +
cem4(i)*so4 +
298 * cem5(i)*so5 =L= data(i,'SO2');
299 Emission_PM(i,'PM').. cem1(i)*pm1 + cem2(i)*pm2 + cem3(i)*pm3 +
cem4(i)*pm4 +
300 cem5(i)*pm5 =L= data(i,'PM');
301 Emission_Mer(i,'Merc').. cem1(i)*me1 + cem2(i)*me2 + cem3(i)*me3 +
cem4(i)*me4 +
302 cem5(i)*me5 =L= data(i,'Merc');
303
304 *5.Capacity and Import Constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
305 Capacity1(i).. cem1(i) =L= Maxcap1;
306 Capacity2(i).. cem2(i) =L= Maxcap2;
307 Capacity3(i).. cem3(i) =L= Maxcap3;
308 Capacity4(i).. cem4(i) =L= Maxcap4;
238

309 Capacity5(i).. cem5(i) =L= Maxcap5;


310
311 Import(i,'Cement').. impcem(i) =L= Maximp*data(i,'Cement');
312
313 model cement_plant /all/;
314 solve cement_plant minimizing LCC using lp;
315
316 cost1.l(i) = rho(i)*e1;
317 cost2.l(i) = rho(i)*e2;
318 cost3.l(i) = rho(i)*e3;
319 cost4.l(i) = rho(i)*e4;
320 cost5.l(i) = rho(i)*e5;
321
322 display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,
323 cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
324
325 *execute_unload "result1.gdx" cem1.l;
326 *execute_unload "result2.gdx" cem2.l;
327 *execute_unload "result3.gdx" cem3.l;
328 *execute_unload "result4.gdx" cem4.l;
329 *execute_unload "result5.gdx" cem5.l;
330 *execute_unload "store.gdx" store.l;
331 *execute_unload "import.gdx" impcem.l;
332
333 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l'
334 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
335 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
336 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
337 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
338 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
339 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
340 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.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
363 display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,
364 cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
365
366 *execute_unload "sens_result1.gdx" cem1.l;
367 *execute_unload "sens_result2.gdx" cem2.l;
368 *execute_unload "sens_result3.gdx" cem3.l;
369 *execute_unload "sens_result4.gdx" cem4.l;
370 *execute_unload "sens_result5.gdx" cem5.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'
376 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
377 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
378 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result3.gdx var=cem3.l'
379 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result3.gdx var=cem3.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
380 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
381 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
382 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
383 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result5.gdx var=cem5.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

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 2
General Algebraic Modeling System
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 ****)

Dem(2011,Cement).. cem1(2011) + cem2(2011) + cem3(2011) + cem4(2011) +


cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)

- store(2011) =G= 2121797 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2121797 ****)

Dem(2012,Cement).. cem1(2012) + cem2(2012) + cem3(2012) + cem4(2012) +


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)

Inp1(2011,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2011) + 1375.45*cem2(2011) + 1361.96*cem3(2011)


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

Inp1(2012,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2012) + 1375.45*cem2(2012) + 1361.96*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp2(2011,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2011) + 74.75*cem2(2011) + 74.01*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp2(2012,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2012) + 74.75*cem2(2012) + 74.01*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp3(2011,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2011) + 60.55*cem2(2011) + 59.95*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp3(2012,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2012) + 60.55*cem2(2012) + 59.95*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp4(2011,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2011) + 42.11*cem2(2011) + 41.69*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp4(2012,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2012) + 42.11*cem2(2012) + 41.69*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
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)

Inp5(2011,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2011) + 31.01*cem2(2011) + 30.7*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp5(2012,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2012) + 31.01*cem2(2012) + 30.7*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp6(2011,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2011) + 23.5*cem2(2011) + 23.27*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp6(2012,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2012) + 23.5*cem2(2012) + 23.27*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp7(2011,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2011) + 10.44*cem2(2011) + 10.34*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp7(2012,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2012) + 10.44*cem2(2012) + 10.34*cem3(2012) +


10.24*cem4(2012) + 10.24*cem5(2012) =L=
245

26129093 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp8(2011,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2011) + 6.53*cem2(2011) + 6.46*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 0)

Inp8(2012,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2012) + 6.53*cem2(2012) + 6.46*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp9(2011,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2011) + 1.8*cem2(2011) + 1.78*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 0)

Inp9(2012,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2012) + 1.8*cem2(2012) + 1.78*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


246

---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp10(2011,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2011) + 1.63*cem2(2011) + 1.62*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 0)

Inp10(2012,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2012) + 1.63*cem2(2012) + 1.62*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp11(2011,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2011) + 1.47*cem2(2011) + 1.45*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp11(2012,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2012) + 1.47*cem2(2012) + 1.45*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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

Elecbal(2011,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2011) + 155.04*cem2(2011) + 153.52*cem3(2011) +


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

Elecbal(2012,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2012) + 155.04*cem2(2012) + 153.52*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Energy1(2011,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2011) + 2699022*cem2(2011) +


2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)

+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 0)

Energy1(2012,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2012) + 2699022*cem2(2012) +


2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)

+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Energy2(2011,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2011) + 892398*cem2(2011) +


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

Energy2(2012,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2012) + 892398*cem2(2012) +


883649*cem3(2012) + 874900*cem4(2012) + 866151*cem5(2012)
=L= 2232455442720 ; (LHS = 0)
248

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Energy3(2011,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2011) + 424830*cem2(2011) +


420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)

+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 0)

Energy3(2012,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2012) + 424830*cem2(2012) +


420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)

+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Emission_CO2(2011,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2011) + 0.8*cem2(2011) + 0.83*cem3(2011) +


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

Emission_CO2(2012,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2012) + 0.8*cem2(2012) + 0.83*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Emission_NOx(2011,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2011) + 0.00139*cem2(2011) +


0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 0)

Emission_NOx(2012,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2012) + 0.00139*cem2(2012) +


0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Emission_PM(2011,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2011) + 0.00015*cem2(2011) +


0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)

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

Emission_PM(2012,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2012) + 0.00015*cem2(2012) +


0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)

+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Emission_Mer(2011,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2011) + 4E-8*cem2(2011) + 4E-8*cem3(2011)


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

Emission_Mer(2012,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2012) + 4E-8*cem2(2012) + 4E-8*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

Capacity1(2010).. cem1(2010) =L= 400000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity1(2011).. cem1(2011) =L= 400000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity1(2012).. cem1(2012) =L= 400000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

Capacity2(2010).. cem2(2010) =L= 450000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity2(2011).. cem2(2011) =L= 450000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity2(2012).. cem2(2012) =L= 450000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

Capacity3(2010).. cem3(2010) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2011).. cem3(2011) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2012).. cem3(2012) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)


251

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

Capacity4(2010).. cem4(2010) =L= 550000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity4(2011).. cem4(2011) =L= 550000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity4(2012).. cem4(2012) =L= 550000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

Capacity5(2010).. cem5(2010) =L= 600000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity5(2011).. cem5(2011) =L= 600000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity5(2012).. cem5(2012) =L= 600000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

Import(2010,Cement).. impcem(2010) =L= 644829.9 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2011,Cement).. impcem(2011) =L= 636539.1 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2012,Cement).. impcem(2012) =L= 631601.4 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


252

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 3
General Algebraic Modeling System
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)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)

cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.1347 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
254

1 Capacity1(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)

cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
255

1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)

cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
256

1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)

cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
257

4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)

cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
258

1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)

cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)

cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
259

59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
260

0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)

cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)

cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
261

156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)
1 Import(2011,Cement)

impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1 Import(2012,Cement)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


263

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 4
General Algebraic Modeling System
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

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 5
General Algebraic Modeling System
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

Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant

---- EQU Dem demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
268

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

---- VAR LCC -INF 1.9263349E+9 +INF .

LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)

---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL


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

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 6
General Algebraic Modeling System
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

---- 322 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(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

---- 322 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(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

---- 322 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(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

---- 322 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(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

---- 322 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962

---- 322 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 71.966, 2011 71.113, 2012 70.270, 2013 69.437, 2014 68.613, 2015
67.800, 2016 66.996
2017 66.201, 2018 65.416, 2019 64.641, 2020 63.874
280

---- 322 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935

---- 322 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 71.966, 2011 71.113, 2012 70.270, 2013 69.437, 2014 68.613, 2015
67.800, 2016 66.996
2017 66.201, 2018 65.416, 2019 64.641, 2020 63.874
281

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 7
General Algebraic Modeling System
Equation Listing SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 361

---- 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)
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) +


cem5(2010) + impcem(2010) - store(2010) =G=
2256905 ; (LHS = 2149433, INFES = 107472 ****)

Dem1(2011,Cement1).. cem1(2011) + cem2(2011) + cem3(2011) + cem4(2011) +


cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)

- store(2011) =G= 2227887 ; (LHS = 2121797, INFES = 106090 ****)

Dem1(2012,Cement1).. cem1(2012) + cem2(2012) + cem3(2012) + cem4(2012) +


cem5(2012) + impcem(2012) + store(2011)

- store(2012) =G= 2210605 ; (LHS = 2105338, INFES = 105267 ****)

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 = 2915576419.85)

Inp1(2011,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2011) + 1375.45*cem2(2011) + 1361.96*cem3(2011)


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

Inp1(2012,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2012) + 1375.45*cem2(2012) + 1361.96*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 158441416.75)

Inp2(2011,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2011) + 74.75*cem2(2011) + 74.01*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp2(2012,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2012) + 74.75*cem2(2012) + 74.01*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 128343668.15)

Inp3(2011,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2011) + 60.55*cem2(2011) + 59.95*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp3(2012,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2012) + 60.55*cem2(2012) + 59.95*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 89253523.63)

Inp4(2011,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2011) + 42.11*cem2(2011) + 41.69*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp4(2012,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2012) + 42.11*cem2(2012) + 41.69*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
285

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 = 65728117.33)

Inp5(2011,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2011) + 31.01*cem2(2011) + 30.7*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp5(2012,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2012) + 31.01*cem2(2012) + 30.7*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 49814775.5)

Inp6(2011,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2011) + 23.5*cem2(2011) + 23.27*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp6(2012,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2012) + 23.5*cem2(2012) + 23.27*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 22201080.52)

Inp7(2011,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2011) + 10.44*cem2(2011) + 10.34*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp7(2012,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2012) + 10.44*cem2(2012) + 10.34*cem3(2012) +


10.24*cem4(2012) + 10.24*cem5(2012) =L=
286

26129093 ; (LHS = 21740728.72)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 13837197.49)

Inp8(2011,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2011) + 6.53*cem2(2011) + 6.46*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 13656734.41)

Inp8(2012,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2012) + 6.53*cem2(2012) + 6.46*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 13549257.14)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 3804379.4)

Inp9(2011,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2011) + 1.8*cem2(2011) + 1.78*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 3754634.6)

Inp9(2012,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2012) + 1.8*cem2(2012) + 1.78*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 3725008.4)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


287

---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 3459775.79)

Inp10(2011,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2011) + 1.63*cem2(2011) + 1.62*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 3414729.11)

Inp10(2012,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2012) + 1.63*cem2(2012) + 1.62*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 3387900.94)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 3112566.51)

Inp11(2011,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2011) + 1.47*cem2(2011) + 1.45*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp11(2012,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2012) + 1.47*cem2(2012) + 1.45*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 329858492.32)
288

Elecbal(2011,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2011) + 155.04*cem2(2011) + 153.52*cem3(2011) +


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

Elecbal(2012,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2012) + 155.04*cem2(2012) + 153.52*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 5721190124526)

Energy1(2011,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2011) + 2699022*cem2(2011) +


2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)

+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 5646599952534)

Energy1(2012,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2012) + 2699022*cem2(2012) +


2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)

+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 5602176749436)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 1891640240334)

Energy2(2011,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2011) + 892398*cem2(2011) +


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

Energy2(2012,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2012) + 892398*cem2(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 900523671390)

Energy3(2011,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2011) + 424830*cem2(2011) +


420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)

+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 888783069510)

Energy3(2012,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2012) + 424830*cem2(2012) +


420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)

+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 881790792540)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

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 = 2970.71187)

Emission_NOx(2011,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2011) + 0.00139*cem2(2011) +


0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 2932.29783)

Emission_NOx(2012,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2012) + 0.00139*cem2(2012) +


0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 2909.41982)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


290

---- 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 = 1798946.4)

Emission_CO2(2011,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2011) + 0.8*cem2(2011) + 0.83*cem3(2011) +


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

Emission_CO2(2012,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2012) + 0.8*cem2(2012) + 0.83*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 322.41495)

Emission_PM(2011,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2011) + 0.00015*cem2(2011) +


0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)

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

Emission_PM(2012,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2012) + 0.00015*cem2(2012) +


0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)

+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 315.8007)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
291

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 = 0.08597732)

Emission_Mer(2011,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2011) + 4E-8*cem2(2011) + 4E-8*cem3(2011)


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

Emission_Mer(2012,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2012) + 4E-8*cem2(2012) + 4E-8*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

Capacity1(2010).. cem1(2010) =L= 400000 ; (LHS = 400000)

Capacity1(2011).. cem1(2011) =L= 400000 ; (LHS = 400000)

Capacity1(2012).. cem1(2012) =L= 400000 ; (LHS = 400000)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

Capacity2(2010).. cem2(2010) =L= 450000 ; (LHS = 69432.9999999999)

Capacity2(2011).. cem2(2011) =L= 450000 ; (LHS = 41796.9999999994)

Capacity2(2012).. cem2(2012) =L= 450000 ; (LHS = 25337.9999999998)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

Capacity3(2010).. cem3(2010) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 530000)

Capacity3(2011).. cem3(2011) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 530000)

Capacity3(2012).. cem3(2012) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 530000)


292

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

Capacity4(2010).. cem4(2010) =L= 550000 ; (LHS = 550000)

Capacity4(2011).. cem4(2011) =L= 550000 ; (LHS = 550000)

Capacity4(2012).. cem4(2012) =L= 550000 ; (LHS = 550000)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

Capacity5(2010).. cem5(2010) =L= 600000 ; (LHS = 600000)

Capacity5(2011).. cem5(2011) =L= 600000 ; (LHS = 600000)

Capacity5(2012).. cem5(2012) =L= 600000 ; (LHS = 600000)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

Import(2010,Cement).. impcem(2010) =L= 644829.9 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2011,Cement).. impcem(2011) =L= 636539.1 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2012,Cement).. impcem(2012) =L= 631601.4 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


293

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 8
General Algebraic Modeling System
Column Listing SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 361

---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)

LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 1926334905.52643, +INF, 0)
1 Object

---- cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)

cem1(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 400000, +INF, 0)
-71.8281 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)

cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 400000, +INF, 0)
-70.9763 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
294

1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)

cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 400000, +INF, 0)
-70.1347 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
295

1 Capacity1(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 69432.9999999999, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)

cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 41796.9999999994, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
296

1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)

cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 25337.9999999998, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 530000, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
297

1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)

cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 530000, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
298

4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)

cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 530000, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 550000, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
299

1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)

cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 550000, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)

cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 550000, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
300

59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 600000, +INF, 0)
-71.9664 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
301

0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)

cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 600000, +INF, 0)
-71.113 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)

cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 600000, +INF, 0)
-70.2698 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
302

156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- impcem cement received from other producers (ton)

impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.4130434782609)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Import(2010,Cement)

impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.2421378243685)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Import(2011,Cement)

impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.0732587197317)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Import(2012,Cement)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- store cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.7952397319127)
-4.9407 Object
-1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)

store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.72652147422205)
303

-4.8821 Object
-1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)

store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 4.8958931358741)
-4.8242 Object
-1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2013,Cement1)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


304

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 9
General Algebraic Modeling System
Model Statistics SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 361

MODEL STATISTICS

BLOCKS OF EQUATIONS 27 SINGLE EQUATIONS 287


BLOCKS OF VARIABLES 8 SINGLE VARIABLES 78
NON ZERO ELEMENTS 1,276

GENERATION TIME = 0.061 SECONDS 3 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008

EXECUTION TIME = 0.371 SECONDS 3 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008


305

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 10
General Algebraic Modeling System
Solution Report SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 361

SOLVE SUMMARY

MODEL cement_plant_sens_analysis OBJECTIVE LCC


TYPE LP DIRECTION MINIMIZE
SOLVER MINOS FROM LINE 361

**** SOLVER STATUS 1 NORMAL COMPLETION


**** MODEL STATUS 1 OPTIMAL
**** OBJECTIVE VALUE 2014992896.0010

RESOURCE USAGE, LIMIT 0.047 1000.000


ITERATION COUNT, LIMIT 9 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: 0.2014993E+10

Major, Minor Iterations 1 9


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


306

Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant

---- EQU Dem1 demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
309

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

---- VAR LCC -INF 2.0149929E+9 +INF .

LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)

---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- VAR impcem cement received from other producers (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR store cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL


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

**** REPORT SUMMARY : 0 NONOPT


0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
319

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


20:40:26 Page 11
General Algebraic Modeling System
Execution

---- 363 VARIABLE LCC.L = 2.014993E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)

---- 363 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)

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

---- 363 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(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

---- 363 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(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

---- 363 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(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

---- 363 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(ton)

2010 600000.000, 2011 600000.000, 2012 600000.000, 2013 225140.828, 2014


70049.704

---- 363 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

2012 48838.373, 2013 19992.202

---- 363 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)

2014 122965.094, 2015 270788.647, 2016 346021.824, 2017 383391.059, 2018


428360.588, 2019 459455.353
2020 486615.176

---- 363 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 71.828, 2011 70.976, 2012 70.135, 2013 69.303, 2014 68.481, 2015
67.669, 2016 66.867
2017 66.074, 2018 65.291, 2019 64.516, 2020 63.751

---- 363 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962

---- 363 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 71.966, 2011 71.113, 2012 70.270, 2013 69.437, 2014 68.613, 2015
67.800, 2016 66.996
2017 66.201, 2018 65.416, 2019 64.641, 2020 63.874
321

---- 363 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935

---- 363 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 71.966, 2011 71.113, 2012 70.270, 2013 69.437, 2014 68.613, 2015
67.800, 2016 66.996
2017 66.201, 2018 65.416, 2019 64.641, 2020 63.874

EXECUTION TIME = 0.020 SECONDS 3 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008

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)

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 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
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
29 K capital investment for cement producing plant ($) / 332500000 /
30
31 e1 unit OandM costs for 1st cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.85 /
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) / 72.93 /
35 e5 unit OandM costs for 5th cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.90 /
36
37 Lm1 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1388.93 /
38 Lm2 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1375.45 /
39 Lm3 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1361.96 /
40 Lm4 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1348.48 /
41 Lm5 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1335.00 /
42
43 Sh1 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 75.48 /
44 Sh2 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 74.75 /
324

45 Sh3 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 74.01 /
46 Sh4 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 73.28 /
47 Sh5 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 72.55 /
48
49 Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
50 Cl2 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 60.55 /
51 Cl3 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 59.95 /
52 Cl4 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 59.36 /
53 Cl5 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 58.77 /
54
55 Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
56 Sa2 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 42.11 /
57 Sa3 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 41.69 /
58 Sa4 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 41.28 /
59 Sa5 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 40.87 /
60
61 Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
62 Ma2 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 31.01 /
63 Ma3 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 30.70 /
64 Ma4 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 30.40 /
65 Ma5 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 30.10 /
66
67 As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
68 As2 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 23.50 /
69 As3 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 23.27 /
70 As4 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 23.04 /
71 As5 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 22.81 /
72
73 Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
74 Ir2 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 10.44 /
75 Ir3 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 10.34 /
76 Ir4 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 10.24 /
77 Ir5 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 10.24 /
78
79 Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
80 Gy2 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 6.53 /
81 Gy3 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 6.46 /
82 Gy4 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 6.40 /
83 Gy5 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 6.34 /
84
85 Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
86 Ba2 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.80 /
87 Ba3 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.78 /
88 Ba4 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.76 /
325

89 Ba5 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.74 /
90
91 Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
92 Mi2 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.63 /
93 Mi3 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.62 /
94 Mi4 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.60 /
95 Mi5 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.58 /
96
97 Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
98 Di2 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.47 /
99 Di3 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.45 /
100 Di4 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.44 /
101 Di5 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.43 /
102
103 Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
104 Col2 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 2699022 /
105 Col3 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 2672561 /
106 Col4 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 2646100 /
107 Col5 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 2619639 /
108
109 Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
110 Cok2 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 892398 /
111 Cok3 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 883649 /
112 Cok4 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 874900 /
113 Cok5 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 866151 /
114
115 Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995
/
116 Wst2 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 424830
/
117 Wst3 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 420665
/
118 Wst4 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 416500
/
119 Wst5 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 412335
/
120
121 el1 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 150.48
/
122 el2 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 155.04 /
123 el3 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 153.52 /
124 el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
125 el5 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 156.56 /
126
326

127 co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
128 co2 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.80 /
129 co3 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.83 /
130 co4 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.83 /
131 co5 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.845 /
132
133 no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00136 /
134 no2 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00139 /
135 no3 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00139 /
136 no4 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00137 /
137 no5 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00140 /
138
139 so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00266 /
140 so2 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00263 /
141 so3 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00260 /
142 so4 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00258 /
143 so5 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00289 /
144
145 pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00015 /
146 pm2 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00015 /
147 pm3 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00015 /
148 pm4 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00015 /
149 pm5 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00015 /
150
151 me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
152 me2 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00000004 /
327

153 me3 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00000004 /
154 me4 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00000004 /
155 me5 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00000004 /
156
157 Maxcap1 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1 /500000/
158 Maxcap2 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 2 /650000/
159 Maxcap3 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 3 /530000/
160 Maxcap4 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 4 /650000/
161 Maxcap5 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 5 /700000/
162
163 s unit costs of cement inventory storage ($ per ton) /5/
164 p norm considering the time factor / 0.012 /
165
166 *prices of cement imported from other producers are assumed to be higher than
167 *that of own production
168 pencem coefficient adjusting the price of imported cement /1.2/
169 Maximp maximum import as a percentage of cement demand in period i /0.3/;
170
171 parameters
172 rho(i) discounting factor;
173 rho(i) = (1 + p)**(-(ord(i)-1));
174
175 variables
176 LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
177 cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
178 cem2(i) annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
179 cem3(i) annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
180 cem4(i) annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
181 cem5(i) annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
182 impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
183 store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
184 cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
185 cost2(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i ($ per ton)
186 cost3(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i ($ per ton)
187 cost4(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i ($ per ton)
188 cost5(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i ($ per ton);
189
190 positive variables cem1, cem2, cem3, cem4, cem5, impcem, store;
191
192 *cement stored in the beginning and in the end of the considered period is zero
193 store.l('2010')=0;
328

194 store.l('2020')=0;
195 *Storage limit
196 store.up(i)= 60000;
197 *Select the number of units in the plant
198 *cem1.fx(i)=0; e1=0;
199 *cem2.fx(i)=0; e2=0;
200 cem3.fx(i)=0; e3=0;
201 *cem4.fx(i)=0; e4=0;
202 *cem5.fx(i)=0; e5=0;
203
204 equations
205 Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
206 Dem(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
207 Inp1(i,j) input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
208 Inp2(i,j) input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
209 Inp3(i,j) input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
210 Inp4(i,j) input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
211 Inp5(i,j) input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
212 Inp6(i,j) input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
213 Inp7(i,j) input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
214 Inp8(i,j) input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
215 Inp9(i,j) input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
216 Inp10(i,j) input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
217 Inp11(i,j) input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
218 Elecbal(i,j) electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
219 Energy1(i,j) coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
220 Energy2(i,j) coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
221 Energy3(i,j) wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
222 Emission_CO2(i,j) CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
223 Emission_NOx(i,j) NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
224 *Emission_SO2(i,j) SO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
225 Emission_PM(i,j) PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
226 Emission_Mer(i,j) Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
227 Capacity1(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
228 Capacity2(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
229 Capacity3(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
230 Capacity4(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
231 Capacity5(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
329

232 Import(i,j) maximum available import of cement from other producers in period
i;
233
234 *Objective function minimizing total expenses
235 Object.. LCC =E= K + sum(i,rho(i)*[e1*cem1(i) + e2*cem2(i) + e3*cem3(i) +
e4*cem4(i)
236 + e5*cem5(i) + s*store(i) + pencem*(max[e1,e2,e3,e4,e5])*impcem(i)]);
237
238 *1.Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
239 Dem(i,'Cement').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)
240 + impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement') + store(i);
241
242 *2.Input1 Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
243 *Lime
244 Inp1(i,'Lime').. cem1(i)*Lm1 + cem2(i)*Lm2 + cem3(i)*Lm3 + cem4(i)*Lm4 +
245 cem5(i)*Lm5 =L= data(i,'Lime');
246 *Shale
247 Inp2(i,'Shale').. cem1(i)*Sh1 + cem2(i)*Sh2 + cem3(i)*Sh3 + cem4(i)*Sh4 +
248 cem5(i)*Sh5 =L= data(i,'Shale');
249 *Clay
250 Inp3(i,'Clay').. cem1(i)*Cl1 + cem2(i)*Cl2 + cem3(i)*Cl3 + cem4(i)*Cl4 +
251 cem5(i)*Cl5 =L= data(i,'Clay');
252 *Sand
253 Inp4(i,'Sand').. cem1(i)*Sa1 + cem2(i)*Sa2 + cem3(i)*Sa3 + cem4(i)*Sa4 +
254 cem5(i)*Sa5 =L= data(i,'Sand');
255 *Marl
256 Inp5(i,'Marl').. cem1(i)*Ma1 + cem2(i)*Ma2 + cem3(i)*Ma3 + cem4(i)*Ma4 +
257 cem5(i)*Ma5 =L= data(i,'Marl');
258 *Ashc
259 Inp6(i,'Ashc').. cem1(i)*As1 + cem2(i)*As2 + cem3(i)*As3 + cem4(i)*As4 +
260 cem5(i)*As5 =L= data(i,'Ashc');
261 *Iron
262 Inp7(i,'Iron').. cem1(i)*Ir1 + cem2(i)*Ir2 + cem3(i)*Ir3 + cem4(i)*Ir4 +
263 cem5(i)*Ir5 =L= data(i,'Iron');
264 *Gyps
265 Inp8(i,'Gyps').. cem1(i)*Gy1 + cem2(i)*Gy2 + cem3(i)*Gy3 + cem4(i)*Gy4 +
266 cem5(i)*Gy5 =L= data(i,'Gyps');
267 *Baux
268 Inp9(i,'Baux').. cem1(i)*Ba1 + cem2(i)*Ba2 + cem3(i)*Ba3 + cem4(i)*Ba4 +
269 cem5(i)*Ba5 =L= data(i,'Baux');
270 *Mill
271 Inp10(i,'Mill').. cem1(i)*Mi1 + cem2(i)*Mi2 + cem3(i)*Mi3 + cem4(i)*Mi4 +
272 cem5(i)*Mi5 =L= data(i,'Mill');
273 *Diatom
330

274 Inp11(i,'Diatom').. cem1(i)*Di1 + cem2(i)*Di2 + cem3(i)*Di3 + cem4(i)*Di4 +


275 cem5(i)*Di5 =L= data(i,'Diatom');
276
277 *3a.Balance of Electricity - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
278 Elecbal(i,'Elec').. cem1(i)*el1 + cem2(i)*el2 + cem3(i)*el3 + cem4(i)*el4 +
279 cem5(i)*el5 =L= data(i,'Elec');
280
281 *3b.Balance of Energy - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
282 *Coal
283 Energy1(i,'Coal').. cem1(i)*Col1 + cem2(i)*Col2 + cem3(i)*Col3 + cem4(i)*Col4
+
284 cem5(i)*Col5 =L= data(i,'Coal');
285 *Coke
286 Energy2(i,'Coke').. cem1(i)*Cok1 + cem2(i)*Cok2 + cem3(i)*Cok3 +
cem4(i)*Cok4 +
287 cem5(i)*Cok5 =L= data(i,'Coke');
288 *Wstfuel
289 Energy3(i,'Wstfuel')..cem1(i)*Wst1 + cem2(i)*Wst2 + cem3(i)*Wst3 +
cem4(i)*Wst4 +
290 cem5(i)*Wst5 =L= data(i,'Wstfuel');
291
292 *4. Emissions constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
293 Emission_CO2(i,'CO2').. cem1(i)*co1 + cem2(i)*co2 + cem3(i)*co3 +
cem4(i)*co4 +
294 cem5(i)*co5 =L= data(i,'CO2');
295 Emission_NOx(i,'NOx').. cem1(i)*no1 + cem2(i)*no2 + cem3(i)*no3 +
cem4(i)*no4 +
296 cem5(i)*no5 =L= data(i,'NOx');
297 *Emission_SO2(i,'SO2').. cem1(i)*so1 + cem2(i)*so2 + cem3(i)*so3 +
cem4(i)*so4 +
298 * cem5(i)*so5 =L= data(i,'SO2');
299 Emission_PM(i,'PM').. cem1(i)*pm1 + cem2(i)*pm2 + cem3(i)*pm3 +
cem4(i)*pm4 +
300 cem5(i)*pm5 =L= data(i,'PM');
301 Emission_Mer(i,'Merc').. cem1(i)*me1 + cem2(i)*me2 + cem3(i)*me3 +
cem4(i)*me4 +
302 cem5(i)*me5 =L= data(i,'Merc');
303
304 *5.Capacity and Import Constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
305 Capacity1(i).. cem1(i) =L= Maxcap1;
306 Capacity2(i).. cem2(i) =L= Maxcap2;
307 Capacity3(i).. cem3(i) =L= Maxcap3;
308 Capacity4(i).. cem4(i) =L= Maxcap4;
309 Capacity5(i).. cem5(i) =L= Maxcap5;
331

310
311 Import(i,'Cement').. impcem(i) =L= Maximp*data(i,'Cement');
312
313 model cement_plant /all/;
314 solve cement_plant minimizing LCC using lp;
315
316 cost1.l(i) = rho(i)*e1;
317 cost2.l(i) = rho(i)*e2;
318 cost3.l(i) = rho(i)*e3;
319 cost4.l(i) = rho(i)*e4;
320 cost5.l(i) = rho(i)*e5;
321
322 display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,
323 cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
324
325 *execute_unload "result1.gdx" cem1.l;
326 *execute_unload "result2.gdx" cem2.l;
327 *execute_unload "result3.gdx" cem3.l;
328 *execute_unload "result4.gdx" cem4.l;
329 *execute_unload "result5.gdx" cem5.l;
330 *execute_unload "store.gdx" store.l;
331 *execute_unload "import.gdx" impcem.l;
332
333 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l'
334 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
335 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
336 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
337 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l'
338 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
339 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
340 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
341 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
342 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
343 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l'
344 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
345 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l'
346 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
347
348 *Sensitivity analysis - increasing the demand for cement by 5% for 2010-2020
349
350 equation
351 Dem1(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i;
352 *Adjusted Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of
time
332

353 Dem1(i,'Cement1').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)


354 + impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement1') + store(i);
355
356 model cement_plant_sens_analysis /Object, Dem1, Inp1, Inp2, Inp3, Inp4,
357 Inp5, Inp6, Inp7, Inp8, Inp9, Inp10, Inp11,
358 Elecbal, Energy1, Energy2, Energy3, Emission_NOx,
359 Emission_CO2, Emission_PM, Emission_Mer,
360 Capacity1, Capacity2, Capacity3, Capacity4,
361 Capacity5, Import/;
362 *Emission_SO2,
363 solve cement_plant_sens_analysis minimizing LCC using lp;
364
365 display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,
366 cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
367
368 *execute_unload "sens_result1.gdx" cem1.l;
369 *execute_unload "sens_result2.gdx" cem2.l;
370 *execute_unload "sens_result3.gdx" cem3.l;
371 *execute_unload "sens_result4.gdx" cem4.l;
372 *execute_unload "sens_result5.gdx" cem5.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'
378 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
379 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
380 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result3.gdx var=cem3.l'
381 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result3.gdx var=cem3.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
382 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
383 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
384 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
385 *execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result5.gdx var=cem5.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'

COMPILATION TIME = 0.010 SECONDS 3 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008


333

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 2
General Algebraic Modeling System
Equation Listing SOLVE cement_plant Using LP From line 314

---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant

Object.. LCC - 71.9861660079051*cem1(2010) - 71.1325751066256*cem1(2011) -


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 ****)

---- Dem =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i

Dem(2010,Cement).. cem1(2010) + cem2(2010) + cem3(2010) + cem4(2010) +


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

Dem(2011,Cement).. cem1(2011) + cem2(2011) + cem3(2011) + cem4(2011) +


cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)

- store(2011) =G= 2121797 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2121797 ****)


335

Dem(2012,Cement).. cem1(2012) + cem2(2012) + cem3(2012) + cem4(2012) +


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)

Inp1(2011,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2011) + 1375.45*cem2(2011) + 1361.96*cem3(2011)


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

Inp1(2012,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2012) + 1375.45*cem2(2012) + 1361.96*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp2(2011,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2011) + 74.75*cem2(2011) + 74.01*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp2(2012,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2012) + 74.75*cem2(2012) + 74.01*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
336

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)

Inp3(2011,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2011) + 60.55*cem2(2011) + 59.95*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp3(2012,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2012) + 60.55*cem2(2012) + 59.95*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp4(2011,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2011) + 42.11*cem2(2011) + 41.69*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp4(2012,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2012) + 42.11*cem2(2012) + 41.69*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp5(2011,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2011) + 31.01*cem2(2011) + 30.7*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp5(2012,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2012) + 31.01*cem2(2012) + 30.7*cem3(2012) +


30.4*cem4(2012) + 30.1*cem5(2012) =L=
337

77570746 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp6(2011,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2011) + 23.5*cem2(2011) + 23.27*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp6(2012,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2012) + 23.5*cem2(2012) + 23.27*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp7(2011,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2011) + 10.44*cem2(2011) + 10.34*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp7(2012,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2012) + 10.44*cem2(2012) + 10.34*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 ;
338

(LHS = 0)

Inp8(2011,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2011) + 6.53*cem2(2011) + 6.46*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 0)

Inp8(2012,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2012) + 6.53*cem2(2012) + 6.46*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp9(2011,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2011) + 1.8*cem2(2011) + 1.78*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 0)

Inp9(2012,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2012) + 1.8*cem2(2012) + 1.78*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp10(2011,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2011) + 1.63*cem2(2011) + 1.62*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 0)

Inp10(2012,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2012) + 1.63*cem2(2012) + 1.62*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp11(2011,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2011) + 1.47*cem2(2011) + 1.45*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp11(2012,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2012) + 1.47*cem2(2012) + 1.45*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Elecbal(2011,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2011) + 155.04*cem2(2011) + 153.52*cem3(2011) +


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

Elecbal(2012,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2012) + 155.04*cem2(2012) + 153.52*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


340

---- 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)

Energy1(2011,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2011) + 2699022*cem2(2011) +


2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)

+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 0)

Energy1(2012,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2012) + 2699022*cem2(2012) +


2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)

+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Energy2(2011,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2011) + 892398*cem2(2011) +


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

Energy2(2012,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2012) + 892398*cem2(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)


341

Energy3(2011,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2011) + 424830*cem2(2011) +


420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)

+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 0)

Energy3(2012,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2012) + 424830*cem2(2012) +


420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)

+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Emission_CO2(2011,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2011) + 0.8*cem2(2011) + 0.83*cem3(2011) +


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

Emission_CO2(2012,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2012) + 0.8*cem2(2012) + 0.83*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

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)

Emission_NOx(2011,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2011) + 0.00139*cem2(2011) +


0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 0)


342

Emission_NOx(2012,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2012) + 0.00139*cem2(2012) +


0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Emission_PM(2011,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2011) + 0.00015*cem2(2011) +


0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)

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

Emission_PM(2012,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2012) + 0.00015*cem2(2012) +


0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)

+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

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)

Emission_Mer(2011,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2011) + 4E-8*cem2(2011) + 4E-8*cem3(2011)


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

Emission_Mer(2012,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2012) + 4E-8*cem2(2012) + 4E-8*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

Capacity1(2010).. cem1(2010) =L= 500000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity1(2011).. cem1(2011) =L= 500000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity1(2012).. cem1(2012) =L= 500000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

Capacity2(2010).. cem2(2010) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity2(2011).. cem2(2011) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity2(2012).. cem2(2012) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

Capacity3(2010).. cem3(2010) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2011).. cem3(2011) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2012).. cem3(2012) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

Capacity4(2010).. cem4(2010) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity4(2011).. cem4(2011) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity4(2012).. cem4(2012) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)


344

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

Capacity5(2010).. cem5(2010) =L= 700000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity5(2011).. cem5(2011) =L= 700000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity5(2012).. cem5(2012) =L= 700000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

Import(2010,Cement).. impcem(2010) =L= 644829.9 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2011,Cement).. impcem(2011) =L= 636539.1 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2012,Cement).. impcem(2012) =L= 631601.4 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


345

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 3
General Algebraic Modeling System
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)
-71.9862 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)

cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
346

1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)

cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
347

1 Capacity1(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)

cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
348

1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)

cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
349

1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)

cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
350

cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
351

152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)

cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)

cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
352

23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)
353

cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)

cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
354

412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)
1 Import(2011,Cement)

impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1 Import(2012,Cement)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)
-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)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


356

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 4
General Algebraic Modeling System
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 1,265

GENERATION TIME = 0.120 SECONDS 4 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008

EXECUTION TIME = 0.120 SECONDS 4 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008


357

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 5
General Algebraic Modeling System
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 1923364930.7689

RESOURCE USAGE, LIMIT 0.031 1000.000


ITERATION COUNT, LIMIT 65 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: 0.1923365E+10

Major, Minor Iterations 1 65


Funobj, Funcon calls 0 0
Superbasics 0
Aggregations 0
Interpreter Usage 0.00 0.0%

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

---- EQU Object 3.3250000E+8 3.3250000E+8 3.3250000E+8 1.0000


358

Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant

---- EQU Dem demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
361

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

---- VAR LCC -INF 1.9233649E+9 +INF .

LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)

---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3663
2013 . . . -69.5319
2014 . . . -68.8233
2015 . . . -68.1063
2016 . . . -67.2987
2017 . . . -66.5007
2018 . . . -65.7122
2019 . . . -64.9330
2020 . . . -64.1630

---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR impcem cement received from other producers (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR store cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL


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

**** REPORT SUMMARY : 0 NONOPT


0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
371

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 6
General Algebraic Modeling System
Execution

---- 322 VARIABLE LCC.L = 1.923365E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)

---- 322 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)

2010 500000.000, 2011 500000.000, 2012 500000.000, 2013 500000.000, 2014


5402.353

---- 322 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(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

---- 322 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(ton)

( ALL 0.000 )

---- 322 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(ton)

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

---- 322 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(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

---- 322 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

2013 60000.000, 2014 24443.353

---- 322 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)

2015 140686.901, 2016 236760.189, 2017 272162.763, 2018 318828.337, 2019


348311.615, 2020 375992.024

---- 322 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 71.986, 2011 71.133, 2012 70.289, 2013 69.456, 2014 68.632, 2015
67.818, 2016 67.014
2017 66.219, 2018 65.434, 2019 64.658, 2020 63.892

---- 322 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962

---- 322 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)

( ALL 0.000 )

---- 322 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
373

2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962

---- 322 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935
374

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 7
General Algebraic Modeling System
Equation Listing SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 363

---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant

Object.. LCC - 71.9861660079051*cem1(2010) - 71.1325751066256*cem1(2011) -


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)

---- Dem1 =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i

Dem1(2010,Cement1).. cem1(2010) + cem2(2010) + cem3(2010) + cem4(2010) +


cem5(2010) + impcem(2010) - store(2010) =G=
2256905 ; (LHS = 2149433, INFES = 107472 ****)

Dem1(2011,Cement1).. cem1(2011) + cem2(2011) + cem3(2011) + cem4(2011) +


cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)

- store(2011) =G= 2227887 ; (LHS = 2121797, INFES = 106090 ****)


376

Dem1(2012,Cement1).. cem1(2012) + cem2(2012) + cem3(2012) + cem4(2012) +


cem5(2012) + impcem(2012) + store(2011)

- store(2012) =G= 2210605 ; (LHS = 2105338, INFES = 105267 ****)

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 = 2926786911.84)

Inp1(2011,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2011) + 1375.45*cem2(2011) + 1361.96*cem3(2011)


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

Inp1(2012,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2012) + 1375.45*cem2(2012) + 1361.96*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 159054950.24)

Inp2(2011,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2011) + 74.75*cem2(2011) + 74.01*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp2(2012,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2012) + 74.75*cem2(2012) + 74.01*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
377

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 = 128840842.88)

Inp3(2011,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2011) + 60.55*cem2(2011) + 59.95*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp3(2012,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2012) + 60.55*cem2(2012) + 59.95*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 89601094.24)

Inp4(2011,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2011) + 42.11*cem2(2011) + 41.69*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp4(2012,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2012) + 42.11*cem2(2012) + 41.69*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 65984263.2)

Inp5(2011,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2011) + 31.01*cem2(2011) + 30.7*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp5(2012,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2012) + 31.01*cem2(2012) + 30.7*cem3(2012) +


30.4*cem4(2012) + 30.1*cem5(2012) =L=
378

77570746 ; (LHS = 64643775.2)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 50005936.32)

Inp6(2011,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2011) + 23.5*cem2(2011) + 23.27*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp6(2012,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2012) + 23.5*cem2(2012) + 23.27*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 22295193.92)

Inp7(2011,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2011) + 10.44*cem2(2011) + 10.34*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp7(2012,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2012) + 10.44*cem2(2012) + 10.34*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 ;
379

(LHS = 13893871.2)

Inp8(2011,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2011) + 6.53*cem2(2011) + 6.46*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 13667834.41)

Inp8(2012,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2012) + 6.53*cem2(2012) + 6.46*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 13611663.2)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 3820002.08)

Inp9(2011,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2011) + 1.8*cem2(2011) + 1.78*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 3756234.6)

Inp9(2012,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2012) + 1.8*cem2(2012) + 1.78*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 3742394.88)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 3469592.8)

Inp10(2011,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2011) + 1.63*cem2(2011) + 1.62*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 3414029.11)

Inp10(2012,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2012) + 1.63*cem2(2012) + 1.62*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 3399040.8)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 3127683.52)

Inp11(2011,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2011) + 1.47*cem2(2011) + 1.45*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp11(2012,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2012) + 1.47*cem2(2012) + 1.45*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 331121816)

Elecbal(2011,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2011) + 155.04*cem2(2011) + 153.52*cem3(2011) +


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

Elecbal(2012,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2012) + 155.04*cem2(2012) + 153.52*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


381

---- 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 = 5743182761300)

Energy1(2011,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2011) + 2699022*cem2(2011) +


2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)

+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 5650039882534)

Energy1(2012,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2012) + 2699022*cem2(2012) +


2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)

+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 5626502981800)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 1898911831700)

Energy2(2011,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2011) + 892398*cem2(2011) +


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

Energy2(2012,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2012) + 892398*cem2(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 903985344500)


382

Energy3(2011,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2011) + 424830*cem2(2011) +


420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)

+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 889324519510)

Energy3(2012,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2012) + 424830*cem2(2012) +


420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)

+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 885619777000)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

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 = 2973.72321)

Emission_NOx(2011,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2011) + 0.00139*cem2(2011) +


0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 2928.29783)

Emission_NOx(2012,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2012) + 0.00139*cem2(2012) +


0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 2913.31306)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 1785029.39)

Emission_CO2(2011,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2011) + 0.8*cem2(2011) + 0.83*cem3(2011) +


0.83*cem4(2011) + 0.845*cem5(2011) =L=
383

1943388 ; (LHS = 1773437.6)

Emission_CO2(2012,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2012) + 0.8*cem2(2012) + 0.83*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 322.41495)

Emission_PM(2011,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2011) + 0.00015*cem2(2011) +


0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)

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

Emission_PM(2012,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2012) + 0.00015*cem2(2012) +


0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)

+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 315.8007)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

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 = 0.08597732)

Emission_Mer(2011,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2011) + 4E-8*cem2(2011) + 4E-8*cem3(2011)


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

Emission_Mer(2012,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2012) + 4E-8*cem2(2012) + 4E-8*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

Capacity1(2010).. cem1(2010) =L= 500000 ; (LHS = 500000)

Capacity1(2011).. cem1(2011) =L= 500000 ; (LHS = 500000)

Capacity1(2012).. cem1(2012) =L= 500000 ; (LHS = 500000)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

Capacity2(2010).. cem2(2010) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 650000)

Capacity2(2011).. cem2(2011) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 271796.999999999)

Capacity2(2012).. cem2(2012) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 650000)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

Capacity3(2010).. cem3(2010) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2011).. cem3(2011) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2012).. cem3(2012) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

Capacity4(2010).. cem4(2010) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 299433)

Capacity4(2011).. cem4(2011) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 650000)

Capacity4(2012).. cem4(2012) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 255338)


385

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

Capacity5(2010).. cem5(2010) =L= 700000 ; (LHS = 700000)

Capacity5(2011).. cem5(2011) =L= 700000 ; (LHS = 700000)

Capacity5(2012).. cem5(2012) =L= 700000 ; (LHS = 700000)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

Import(2010,Cement).. impcem(2010) =L= 644829.9 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2011,Cement).. impcem(2011) =L= 636539.1 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2012,Cement).. impcem(2012) =L= 631601.4 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


386

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 8
General Algebraic Modeling System
Column Listing SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 363

---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)

LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 1923364930.76885, +INF, 0)
1 Object

---- cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)

cem1(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 500000, +INF, 0)
-71.9862 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)

cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 500000, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
387

1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)

cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 500000, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
388

1 Capacity1(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 650000, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)

cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 271796.999999999, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
389

1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)

cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 650000, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -72.0652173913043)
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
390

1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)

cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -71.2106891218423)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
391

cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -70.3662935986583)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 299433, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
392

152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)

cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 650000, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)

cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 255338, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
393

23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 700000, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)
394

cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 700000, +INF, 0)
-71.1814 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)

cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 700000, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
395

412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- impcem cement received from other producers (ton)

impcem(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.4130434782609)
-86.4783 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Import(2010,Cement)

impcem(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.2421378243685)
-85.4528 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Import(2011,Cement)

impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 14.0732587197317)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Import(2012,Cement)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- store cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

store(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.79523973191269)
-4.9407 Object
-1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)

store(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.72652147422205)
-4.8821 Object
-1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
396

store(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 60000, 5.65861805753165)
-4.8242 Object
-1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1 Dem1(2013,Cement1)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


397

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 9
General Algebraic Modeling System
Model Statistics SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 363

MODEL STATISTICS

BLOCKS OF EQUATIONS 27 SINGLE EQUATIONS 287


BLOCKS OF VARIABLES 8 SINGLE VARIABLES 78
NON ZERO ELEMENTS 1,265

GENERATION TIME = 0.050 SECONDS 3 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008

EXECUTION TIME = 0.060 SECONDS 3 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008


398

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 10
General Algebraic Modeling System
Solution Report SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 363

SOLVE SUMMARY

MODEL cement_plant_sens_analysis OBJECTIVE LCC


TYPE LP DIRECTION MINIMIZE
SOLVER MINOS FROM LINE 363

**** SOLVER STATUS 1 NORMAL COMPLETION


**** MODEL STATUS 1 OPTIMAL
**** OBJECTIVE VALUE 2011931949.2899

RESOURCE USAGE, LIMIT 0.023 1000.000


ITERATION COUNT, LIMIT 12 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: 0.2011932E+10

Major, Minor Iterations 1 12


Funobj, Funcon calls 0 0
Superbasics 0
Aggregations 0
Interpreter Usage 0.00 0.0%

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

---- EQU Object 3.3250000E+8 3.3250000E+8 3.3250000E+8 1.0000


399

Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant

---- EQU Dem1 demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
402

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

---- VAR LCC -INF 2.0119319E+9 +INF .

LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)

---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3821
2013 . . . -69.6492
2014 . . . -68.9572
2015 . . . -68.1063
2016 . . . -67.2987
2017 . . . -66.5007
2018 . . . -65.7122
2019 . . . -64.9330
2020 . . . -64.1630

---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR impcem cement received from other producers (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR store cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL


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

**** REPORT SUMMARY : 0 NONOPT


0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
412

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/22/08


21:04:07 Page 11
General Algebraic Modeling System
Execution

---- 365 VARIABLE LCC.L = 2.011932E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)

---- 365 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)

2010 500000.000, 2011 500000.000, 2012 500000.000, 2013 159581.176, 2014


5402.353

---- 365 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(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

---- 365 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(ton)

( ALL 0.000 )

---- 365 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(ton)

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

---- 365 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(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

---- 365 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

2012 56067.189, 2013 31661.366

---- 365 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)

2014 105943.281, 2015 265904.254, 2016 341135.189, 2017 378483.763, 2018


423877.337, 2019 454957.615
2020 482318.024

---- 365 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 71.986, 2011 71.133, 2012 70.289, 2013 69.456, 2014 68.632, 2015
67.818, 2016 67.014
2017 66.219, 2018 65.434, 2019 64.658, 2020 63.892

---- 365 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962

---- 365 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)

( ALL 0.000 )

---- 365 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)
414

2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962

---- 365 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935

EXECUTION TIME = 0.010 SECONDS 3 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008

USER: GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC G871201/0000CA-ANY


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

**** FILE SUMMARY


415

Case Study III (number of production lines is 3)

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/23/08


15:18:56 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
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
29 K capital investment for cement producing plant ($) / 329175000 /
30
31 e1 unit OandM costs for 1st cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.85 /
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) / 72.93 /
35 e5 unit OandM costs for 5th cement producing unit ($ per ton) / 72.90 /
36
37 Lm1 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1388.93 /
38 Lm2 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1375.45 /
39 Lm3 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1361.96 /
40 Lm4 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1348.48 /
41 Lm5 consumption of Lime for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1335.00 /
42
43 Sh1 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 75.48 /
44 Sh2 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 74.75 /
417

45 Sh3 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 74.01 /
46 Sh4 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 73.28 /
47 Sh5 consumption of Shale for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 72.55 /
48
49 Cl1 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 61.14 /
50 Cl2 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 60.55 /
51 Cl3 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 59.95 /
52 Cl4 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 59.36 /
53 Cl5 consumption of Clay for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 58.77 /
54
55 Sa1 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 42.52 /
56 Sa2 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 42.11 /
57 Sa3 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 41.69 /
58 Sa4 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 41.28 /
59 Sa5 consumption of Sand for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 40.87 /
60
61 Ma1 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 31.31 /
62 Ma2 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 31.01 /
63 Ma3 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 30.70 /
64 Ma4 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 30.40 /
65 Ma5 consumption of Marl for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 30.10 /
66
67 As1 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 23.73 /
68 As2 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 23.50 /
69 As3 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 23.27 /
70 As4 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 23.04 /
71 As5 consumption of Ashc for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 22.81 /
72
73 Ir1 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 10.55 /
74 Ir2 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 10.44 /
75 Ir3 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 10.34 /
76 Ir4 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 10.24 /
77 Ir5 consumption of Iron for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 10.24 /
78
79 Gy1 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 6.59 /
80 Gy2 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 6.53 /
81 Gy3 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 6.46 /
82 Gy4 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 6.40 /
83 Gy5 consumption of Gyps for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 6.34 /
84
85 Ba1 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.81 /
86 Ba2 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.80 /
87 Ba3 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.78 /
88 Ba4 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.76 /
418

89 Ba5 consumption of Baux for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.74 /
90
91 Mi1 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.65 /
92 Mi2 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.63 /
93 Mi3 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.62 /
94 Mi4 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.60 /
95 Mi5 consumption of Mill for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.58 /
96
97 Di1 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 1.48 /
98 Di2 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 1.47 /
99 Di3 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 1.45 /
100 Di4 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 1.44 /
101 Di5 consumption of Diatom for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 1.43 /
102
103 Col1 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 2725483 /
104 Col2 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 2699022 /
105 Col3 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 2672561 /
106 Col4 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 2646100 /
107 Col5 consumption of Coal for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 2619639 /
108
109 Cok1 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 901147 /
110 Cok2 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 892398 /
111 Cok3 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 883649 /
112 Cok4 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 874900 /
113 Cok5 consumption of Coke for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 866151 /
114
115 Wst1 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 428995
/
116 Wst2 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 424830
/
117 Wst3 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 420665
/
118 Wst4 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 416500
/
119 Wst5 consumption of Wstfuel for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 412335
/
120
121 el1 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 150.48
/
122 el2 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 155.04 /
123 el3 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 153.52 /
124 el4 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 152 /
125 el5 consumption of electricity for producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 156.56 /
126
419

127 co1 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 / 0.85 /
128 co2 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 / 0.80 /
129 co3 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 / 0.83 /
130 co4 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 / 0.83 /
131 co5 CO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 / 0.845 /
132
133 no1 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00136 /
134 no2 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00139 /
135 no3 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00139 /
136 no4 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00137 /
137 no5 NOx emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00140 /
138
139 so1 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00266 /
140 so2 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00263 /
141 so3 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00260 /
142 so4 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00258 /
143 so5 SO2 emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00289 /
144
145 pm1 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00015 /
146 pm2 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00015 /
147 pm3 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00015 /
148 pm4 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00015 /
149 pm5 PM emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00015 /
150
151 me1 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 1 /
0.00000004 /
152 me2 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 2 /
0.00000004 /
420

153 me3 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 3 /
0.00000004 /
154 me4 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 4 /
0.00000004 /
155 me5 Mercury emissions associated with producing one unit of cement by unit 5 /
0.00000004 /
156
157 Maxcap1 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 1 /825000/
158 Maxcap2 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 2 /825000/
159 Maxcap3 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 3 /530000/
160 Maxcap4 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 4 /650000/
161 Maxcap5 maximum capacity of cement producing unit 5 /825000/
162
163 s unit costs of cement inventory storage ($ per ton) /5/
164 p norm considering the time factor / 0.012 /
165
166 *prices of cement imported from other producers are assumed to be higher than
167 *that of own production
168 pencem coefficient adjusting the price of imported cement /1.2/
169 Maximp maximum import as a percentage of cement demand in period i /0.3/;
170
171 parameters
172 rho(i) discounting factor;
173 rho(i) = (1 + p)**(-(ord(i)-1));
174
175 variables
176 LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)
177 cem1(i) annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)
178 cem2(i) annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)
179 cem3(i) annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)
180 cem4(i) annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)
181 cem5(i) annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)
182 impcem(i) cement received from other producers (ton)
183 store(i) cement stored at the end of period i (ton)
184 cost1(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i ($ per ton)
185 cost2(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i ($ per ton)
186 cost3(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i ($ per ton)
187 cost4(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i ($ per ton)
188 cost5(i) discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i ($ per ton);
189
190 positive variables cem1, cem2, cem3, cem4, cem5, impcem, store;
191
192 *cement stored in the beginning and in the end of the considered period is zero
193 store.l('2010')=0;
421

194 store.l('2020')=0;
195 *Storage limit
196 store.up(i)= 60000;
197 *Select the number of units in the plant
198 *cem1.fx(i)=0; e1=0;
199 *cem2.fx(i)=0; e2=0;
200 cem3.fx(i)=0; e3=0;
201 cem4.fx(i)=0; e4=0;
202 *cem5.fx(i)=0; e5=0;
203
204 equations
205 Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant
206 Dem(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i
207 Inp1(i,j) input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
208 Inp2(i,j) input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
209 Inp3(i,j) input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
210 Inp4(i,j) input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
211 Inp5(i,j) input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
212 Inp6(i,j) input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
213 Inp7(i,j) input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
214 Inp8(i,j) input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
215 Inp9(i,j) input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
216 Inp10(i,j) input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
217 Inp11(i,j) input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
218 Elecbal(i,j) electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
219 Energy1(i,j) coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
220 Energy2(i,j) coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
221 Energy3(i,j) wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i
222 Emission_CO2(i,j) CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
223 Emission_NOx(i,j) NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
224 *Emission_SO2(i,j) SO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
225 Emission_PM(i,j) PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
226 Emission_Mer(i,j) Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i
227 Capacity1(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i
228 Capacity2(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i
229 Capacity3(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i
230 Capacity4(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i
231 Capacity5(i) capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i
422

232 Import(i,j) maximum available import of cement from other producers in period
i;
233
234 *Objective function minimizing total expenses
235 Object.. LCC =E= K + sum(i,rho(i)*[e1*cem1(i) + e2*cem2(i) + e3*cem3(i) +
e4*cem4(i)
236 + e5*cem5(i) + s*store(i) + pencem*(max[e1,e2,e3,e4,e5])*impcem(i)]);
237
238 *1.Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
239 Dem(i,'Cement').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)
240 + impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement') + store(i);
241
242 *2.Input1 Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
243 *Lime
244 Inp1(i,'Lime').. cem1(i)*Lm1 + cem2(i)*Lm2 + cem3(i)*Lm3 + cem4(i)*Lm4 +
245 cem5(i)*Lm5 =L= data(i,'Lime');
246 *Shale
247 Inp2(i,'Shale').. cem1(i)*Sh1 + cem2(i)*Sh2 + cem3(i)*Sh3 + cem4(i)*Sh4 +
248 cem5(i)*Sh5 =L= data(i,'Shale');
249 *Clay
250 Inp3(i,'Clay').. cem1(i)*Cl1 + cem2(i)*Cl2 + cem3(i)*Cl3 + cem4(i)*Cl4 +
251 cem5(i)*Cl5 =L= data(i,'Clay');
252 *Sand
253 Inp4(i,'Sand').. cem1(i)*Sa1 + cem2(i)*Sa2 + cem3(i)*Sa3 + cem4(i)*Sa4 +
254 cem5(i)*Sa5 =L= data(i,'Sand');
255 *Marl
256 Inp5(i,'Marl').. cem1(i)*Ma1 + cem2(i)*Ma2 + cem3(i)*Ma3 + cem4(i)*Ma4 +
257 cem5(i)*Ma5 =L= data(i,'Marl');
258 *Ashc
259 Inp6(i,'Ashc').. cem1(i)*As1 + cem2(i)*As2 + cem3(i)*As3 + cem4(i)*As4 +
260 cem5(i)*As5 =L= data(i,'Ashc');
261 *Iron
262 Inp7(i,'Iron').. cem1(i)*Ir1 + cem2(i)*Ir2 + cem3(i)*Ir3 + cem4(i)*Ir4 +
263 cem5(i)*Ir5 =L= data(i,'Iron');
264 *Gyps
265 Inp8(i,'Gyps').. cem1(i)*Gy1 + cem2(i)*Gy2 + cem3(i)*Gy3 + cem4(i)*Gy4 +
266 cem5(i)*Gy5 =L= data(i,'Gyps');
267 *Baux
268 Inp9(i,'Baux').. cem1(i)*Ba1 + cem2(i)*Ba2 + cem3(i)*Ba3 + cem4(i)*Ba4 +
269 cem5(i)*Ba5 =L= data(i,'Baux');
270 *Mill
271 Inp10(i,'Mill').. cem1(i)*Mi1 + cem2(i)*Mi2 + cem3(i)*Mi3 + cem4(i)*Mi4 +
272 cem5(i)*Mi5 =L= data(i,'Mill');
273 *Diatom
423

274 Inp11(i,'Diatom').. cem1(i)*Di1 + cem2(i)*Di2 + cem3(i)*Di3 + cem4(i)*Di4 +


275 cem5(i)*Di5 =L= data(i,'Diatom');
276
277 *3a.Balance of Electricity - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
278 Elecbal(i,'Elec').. cem1(i)*el1 + cem2(i)*el2 + cem3(i)*el3 + cem4(i)*el4 +
279 cem5(i)*el5 =L= data(i,'Elec');
280
281 *3b.Balance of Energy - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
282 *Coal
283 Energy1(i,'Coal').. cem1(i)*Col1 + cem2(i)*Col2 + cem3(i)*Col3 + cem4(i)*Col4
+
284 cem5(i)*Col5 =L= data(i,'Coal');
285 *Coke
286 Energy2(i,'Coke').. cem1(i)*Cok1 + cem2(i)*Cok2 + cem3(i)*Cok3 +
cem4(i)*Cok4 +
287 cem5(i)*Cok5 =L= data(i,'Coke');
288 *Wstfuel
289 Energy3(i,'Wstfuel')..cem1(i)*Wst1 + cem2(i)*Wst2 + cem3(i)*Wst3 +
cem4(i)*Wst4 +
290 cem5(i)*Wst5 =L= data(i,'Wstfuel');
291
292 *4. Emissions constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
293 Emission_CO2(i,'CO2').. cem1(i)*co1 + cem2(i)*co2 + cem3(i)*co3 +
cem4(i)*co4 +
294 cem5(i)*co5 =L= data(i,'CO2');
295 Emission_NOx(i,'NOx').. cem1(i)*no1 + cem2(i)*no2 + cem3(i)*no3 +
cem4(i)*no4 +
296 cem5(i)*no5 =L= data(i,'NOx');
297 *Emission_SO2(i,'SO2').. cem1(i)*so1 + cem2(i)*so2 + cem3(i)*so3 +
cem4(i)*so4 +
298 * cem5(i)*so5 =L= data(i,'SO2');
299 Emission_PM(i,'PM').. cem1(i)*pm1 + cem2(i)*pm2 + cem3(i)*pm3 +
cem4(i)*pm4 +
300 cem5(i)*pm5 =L= data(i,'PM');
301 Emission_Mer(i,'Merc').. cem1(i)*me1 + cem2(i)*me2 + cem3(i)*me3 +
cem4(i)*me4 +
302 cem5(i)*me5 =L= data(i,'Merc');
303
304 *5.Capacity and Import Constraints - should be satisfied at each i interval of time
305 Capacity1(i).. cem1(i) =L= Maxcap1;
306 Capacity2(i).. cem2(i) =L= Maxcap2;
307 Capacity3(i).. cem3(i) =L= Maxcap3;
308 Capacity4(i).. cem4(i) =L= Maxcap4;
309 Capacity5(i).. cem5(i) =L= Maxcap5;
424

310
311 Import(i,'Cement').. impcem(i) =L= Maximp*data(i,'Cement');
312
313 model cement_plant /all/;
314 solve cement_plant minimizing LCC using lp;
315
316 cost1.l(i) = rho(i)*e1;
317 cost2.l(i) = rho(i)*e2;
318 cost3.l(i) = rho(i)*e3;
319 cost4.l(i) = rho(i)*e4;
320 cost5.l(i) = rho(i)*e5;
321
322 display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,
323 cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
324
325 execute_unload "result1.gdx" cem1.l;
326 execute_unload "result2.gdx" cem2.l;
327 execute_unload "result3.gdx" cem3.l;
328 execute_unload "result4.gdx" cem4.l;
329 execute_unload "result5.gdx" cem5.l;
330 execute_unload "store.gdx" store.l;
331 execute_unload "import.gdx" impcem.l;
332
333 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l'
334 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result1.gdx var=cem1.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
335 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
336 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
337 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l'
338 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result3.gdx var=cem3.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
339 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
340 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
341 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
342 execute 'gdxxrw.exe result5.gdx var=cem5.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
343 execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l'
344 execute 'gdxxrw.exe store.gdx var=store.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
345 execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l'
346 execute 'gdxxrw.exe import.gdx var=impcem.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
347
348 *Sensitivity analysis - increasing the demand for cement by 5% for 2010-2020
349
350 equation
351 Dem1(i,j) demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i;
352 *Adjusted Cement Demand Constraint - should be satisfied at each i interval of
time
425

353 Dem1(i,'Cement1').. cem1(i) + cem2(i) + cem3(i) + cem4(i) + cem5(i) + store(i-1)


354 + impcem(i) =G= data(i,'Cement1') + store(i);
355
356 model cement_plant_sens_analysis /Object, Dem1, Inp1, Inp2, Inp3, Inp4,
357 Inp5, Inp6, Inp7, Inp8, Inp9, Inp10, Inp11,
358 Elecbal, Energy1, Energy2, Energy3, Emission_NOx,
359 Emission_CO2, Emission_PM, Emission_Mer,
360 Capacity1, Capacity2, Capacity3, Capacity4,
361 Capacity5, Import/;
362 *Emission_SO2,
363 solve cement_plant_sens_analysis minimizing LCC using lp;
364
365 display LCC.l, cem1.l, cem2.l, cem3.l, cem4.l, cem5.l, store.l, impcem.l,
366 cost1.l, cost2.l, cost3.l, cost4.l, cost5.l;
367
368 execute_unload "sens_result1.gdx" cem1.l;
369 execute_unload "sens_result2.gdx" cem2.l;
370 execute_unload "sens_result3.gdx" cem3.l;
371 execute_unload "sens_result4.gdx" cem4.l;
372 execute_unload "sens_result5.gdx" cem5.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'
378 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result2.gdx var=cem2.l'
379 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result2.gdx var=cem2.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
380 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result3.gdx var=cem3.l'
381 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result3.gdx var=cem3.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
382 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result4.gdx var=cem4.l'
383 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result4.gdx var=cem4.l rng=NewSheet!f1:i11'
384 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result5.gdx var=cem5.l'
385 execute 'gdxxrw.exe sens_result5.gdx var=cem5.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'

COMPILATION TIME = 0.010 SECONDS 3 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008


426

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/23/08


15:18:56 Page 2
General Algebraic Modeling System
Equation Listing SOLVE cement_plant Using LP From line 314

---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant

Object.. LCC - 71.9861660079051*cem1(2010) - 71.1325751066256*cem1(2011) -


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


****)

---- Dem =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i

Dem(2010,Cement).. cem1(2010) + cem2(2010) + cem3(2010) + cem4(2010) +


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

Dem(2011,Cement).. cem1(2011) + cem2(2011) + cem3(2011) + cem4(2011) +


cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)

- store(2011) =G= 2121797 ; (LHS = 0, INFES = 2121797 ****)

Dem(2012,Cement).. cem1(2012) + cem2(2012) + cem3(2012) + cem4(2012) +


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
428

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)

Inp1(2011,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2011) + 1375.45*cem2(2011) + 1361.96*cem3(2011)


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

Inp1(2012,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2012) + 1375.45*cem2(2012) + 1361.96*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp2(2011,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2011) + 74.75*cem2(2011) + 74.01*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp2(2012,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2012) + 74.75*cem2(2012) + 74.01*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp3(2011,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2011) + 60.55*cem2(2011) + 59.95*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp3(2012,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2012) + 60.55*cem2(2012) + 59.95*cem3(2012) +


59.36*cem4(2012) + 58.77*cem5(2012) =L=
429

151467088 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp4(2011,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2011) + 42.11*cem2(2011) + 41.69*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp4(2012,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2012) + 42.11*cem2(2012) + 41.69*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp5(2011,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2011) + 31.01*cem2(2011) + 30.7*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp5(2012,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2012) + 31.01*cem2(2012) + 30.7*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)
430

Inp6(2011,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2011) + 23.5*cem2(2011) + 23.27*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp6(2012,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2012) + 23.5*cem2(2012) + 23.27*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp7(2011,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2011) + 10.44*cem2(2011) + 10.34*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp7(2012,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2012) + 10.44*cem2(2012) + 10.34*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp8(2011,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2011) + 6.53*cem2(2011) + 6.46*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 0)

Inp8(2012,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2012) + 6.53*cem2(2012) + 6.46*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp9(2011,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2011) + 1.8*cem2(2011) + 1.78*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 0)

Inp9(2012,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2012) + 1.8*cem2(2012) + 1.78*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp10(2011,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2011) + 1.63*cem2(2011) + 1.62*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 0)

Inp10(2012,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2012) + 1.63*cem2(2012) + 1.62*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


432

---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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)

Inp11(2011,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2011) + 1.47*cem2(2011) + 1.45*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp11(2012,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2012) + 1.47*cem2(2012) + 1.45*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Elecbal(2011,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2011) + 155.04*cem2(2011) + 153.52*cem3(2011) +


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

Elecbal(2012,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2012) + 155.04*cem2(2012) + 153.52*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Energy1(2011,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2011) + 2699022*cem2(2011) +


2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)
433

+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 0)

Energy1(2012,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2012) + 2699022*cem2(2012) +


2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)

+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Energy2(2011,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2011) + 892398*cem2(2011) +


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

Energy2(2012,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2012) + 892398*cem2(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Energy3(2011,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2011) + 424830*cem2(2011) +


420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)

+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 0)

Energy3(2012,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2012) + 424830*cem2(2012) +


420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)

+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 0)


434

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)

Emission_CO2(2011,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2011) + 0.8*cem2(2011) + 0.83*cem3(2011) +


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

Emission_CO2(2012,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2012) + 0.8*cem2(2012) + 0.83*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

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)

Emission_NOx(2011,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2011) + 0.00139*cem2(2011) +


0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 0)

Emission_NOx(2012,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2012) + 0.00139*cem2(2012) +


0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


435

---- 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)

Emission_PM(2011,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2011) + 0.00015*cem2(2011) +


0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)

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

Emission_PM(2012,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2012) + 0.00015*cem2(2012) +


0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)

+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

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)

Emission_Mer(2011,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2011) + 4E-8*cem2(2011) + 4E-8*cem3(2011)


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

Emission_Mer(2012,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2012) + 4E-8*cem2(2012) + 4E-8*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

Capacity1(2010).. cem1(2010) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity1(2011).. cem1(2011) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 0)


436

Capacity1(2012).. cem1(2012) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

Capacity2(2010).. cem2(2010) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity2(2011).. cem2(2011) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity2(2012).. cem2(2012) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

Capacity3(2010).. cem3(2010) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2011).. cem3(2011) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2012).. cem3(2012) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

Capacity4(2010).. cem4(2010) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity4(2011).. cem4(2011) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity4(2012).. cem4(2012) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

Capacity5(2010).. cem5(2010) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity5(2011).. cem5(2011) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 0)


437

Capacity5(2012).. cem5(2012) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

Import(2010,Cement).. impcem(2010) =L= 644829.9 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2011,Cement).. impcem(2011) =L= 636539.1 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2012,Cement).. impcem(2012) =L= 631601.4 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


438

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/23/08


15:18:56 Page 3
General Algebraic Modeling System
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)
-71.9862 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)

cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
439

1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)

cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
440

1 Capacity1(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)

cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
441

1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)

cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
442

1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)

cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
443

cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
444

2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)

cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)

cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, 0)
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1348.48 Inp1(2012,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
445

1.76 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2012,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2012,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

cem5(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-72.0356 Object
1 Dem(2010,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2010,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2010,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2010,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2010,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2010,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2010,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2010)

cem5(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
446

-71.1814 Object
1 Dem(2011,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2011,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2011,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2011,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2011,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2011,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2011,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2011)

cem5(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-70.3373 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1335 Inp1(2012,Lime)
72.55 Inp2(2012,Shale)
58.77 Inp3(2012,Clay)
40.87 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.1 Inp5(2012,Marl)
22.81 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.34 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.74 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.58 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.43 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
156.56 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2619639 Energy1(2012,Coal)
866151 Energy2(2012,Coke)
412335 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.845 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
447

0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity5(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)
1 Import(2011,Cement)

impcem(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, +INF, 0)
-84.4396 Object
1 Dem(2012,Cement)
1 Import(2012,Cement)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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)
-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)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


449

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/23/08


15:18:56 Page 4
General Algebraic Modeling System
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 1,254

GENERATION TIME = 0.581 SECONDS 4 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008

EXECUTION TIME = 0.581 SECONDS 4 Mb WIN227-227 Apr 23, 2008


450

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/23/08


15:18:56 Page 5
General Algebraic Modeling System
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 1920061725.9415

RESOURCE USAGE, LIMIT 0.043 1000.000


ITERATION COUNT, LIMIT 47 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: 0.1920062E+10

Major, Minor Iterations 1 47


Funobj, Funcon calls 0 0
Superbasics 0
Aggregations 0
Interpreter Usage 0.00 0.0%

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

---- EQU Object 3.2917500E+8 3.2917500E+8 3.2917500E+8 1.0000


451

Object objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant

---- EQU Dem demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Inp1 input 1 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp2 input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp3 input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp4 input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp5 input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp6 input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp7 input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp8 input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i
454

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp9 input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp10 input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Inp11 input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Elecbal electricity contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy1 coal contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy2 coke contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Energy3 wastefuel contraint for the cement producing plant in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Emission_CO2 CO2 emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Emission_NOx NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Emission_PM PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Emission_Mer Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity1 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity2 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Capacity3 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity4 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- EQU Capacity5 capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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

---- EQU Import maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

---- VAR LCC -INF 1.9200617E+9 +INF .

LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)

---- VAR cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3663
2013 . . . -69.5128
2014 . . . -68.8233
2015 . . . -68.1395
2016 . . . -67.3315
2017 . . . -66.5331
2018 . . . -65.7442
2019 . . . -64.9646
2020 . . . -64.1943

---- VAR cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

2010 . . . -72.0652
2011 . . . -71.2107
2012 . . . -70.3663
2013 . . . -69.5128
462

2014 . . . -68.8233
2015 . . . -68.1395
2016 . . . -67.3315
2017 . . . -66.5331
2018 . . . -65.7442
2019 . . . -64.9646
2020 . . . -64.1943

---- VAR cem5 annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR impcem cement received from other producers (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL

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 .

---- VAR store cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL


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

**** REPORT SUMMARY : 0 NONOPT


0 INFEASIBLE
0 UNBOUNDED
464

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/23/08


15:18:56 Page 6
General Algebraic Modeling System
Execution

---- 322 VARIABLE LCC.L = 1.920062E+9 life cycle cost (investment plus
operation and maintenance co
sts) ($)

---- 322 VARIABLE cem1.L annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i
(ton)

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

---- 322 VARIABLE cem2.L annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i
(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

---- 322 VARIABLE cem3.L annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i
(ton)

( ALL 0.000 )

---- 322 VARIABLE cem4.L annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i
(ton)

( ALL 0.000 )

---- 322 VARIABLE cem5.L annual cement production by producing unit 5 in period i
(ton)
465

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

---- 322 VARIABLE store.L cement stored at the end of period i (ton)

2013 60000.000, 2014 20178.647

---- 322 VARIABLE impcem.L cement received from other producers (ton)

2015 148336.000, 2016 240146.824, 2017 275570.059, 2018 321811.588, 2019


351309.353, 2020 378789.176

---- 322 VARIABLE cost1.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 1 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 71.986, 2011 71.133, 2012 70.289, 2013 69.456, 2014 68.632, 2015
67.818, 2016 67.014
2017 66.219, 2018 65.434, 2019 64.658, 2020 63.892

---- 322 VARIABLE cost2.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 2 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.065, 2011 71.211, 2012 70.366, 2013 69.532, 2014 68.707, 2015
67.893, 2016 67.088
2017 66.292, 2018 65.506, 2019 64.729, 2020 63.962

---- 322 VARIABLE cost3.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 3 in period i
($ per ton)

( ALL 0.000 )

---- 322 VARIABLE cost4.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 4 in period i
($ per ton)

( ALL 0.000 )
466

---- 322 VARIABLE cost5.L discounted cost of cement produced by unit 5 in period i
($ per ton)

2010 72.036, 2011 71.181, 2012 70.337, 2013 69.503, 2014 68.679, 2015
67.865, 2016 67.060
2017 66.265, 2018 65.479, 2019 64.703, 2020 63.935
467

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/23/08


15:18:56 Page 7
General Algebraic Modeling System
Equation Listing SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 363

---- Object =E= objective function minimizing LCC of the cement producing plant

Object.. LCC - 71.9861660079051*cem1(2010) - 71.1325751066256*cem1(2011) -


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)

---- Dem1 =G= demand balance for the cement producing plant in period i

Dem1(2010,Cement1).. cem1(2010) + cem2(2010) + cem3(2010) + cem4(2010) +


cem5(2010) + impcem(2010) - store(2010) =G=
2256905 ; (LHS = 2149433, INFES = 107472 ****)

Dem1(2011,Cement1).. cem1(2011) + cem2(2011) + cem3(2011) + cem4(2011) +


cem5(2011) + impcem(2011) + store(2010)

- store(2011) =G= 2227887 ; (LHS = 2121797, INFES = 106090 ****)

Dem1(2012,Cement1).. cem1(2012) + cem2(2012) + cem3(2012) + cem4(2012) +


cem5(2012) + impcem(2012) + store(2011)

- store(2012) =G= 2210605 ; (LHS = 2105338, INFES = 105267 ****)

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)
469

=L= 3512942331 ; (LHS = 2934187369.85)

Inp1(2011,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2011) + 1375.45*cem2(2011) + 1361.96*cem3(2011)


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

Inp1(2012,Lime).. 1388.93*cem1(2012) + 1375.45*cem2(2012) + 1361.96*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp2 =L= input 2 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 159457366.75)

Inp2(2011,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2011) + 74.75*cem2(2011) + 74.01*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp2(2012,Shale).. 75.48*cem1(2012) + 74.75*cem2(2012) + 74.01*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp3 =L= input 3 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 129166418.15)

Inp3(2011,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2011) + 60.55*cem2(2011) + 59.95*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp3(2012,Clay).. 61.14*cem1(2012) + 60.55*cem2(2012) + 59.95*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp4 =L= input 4 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 89827873.63)

Inp4(2011,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2011) + 42.11*cem2(2011) + 41.69*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp4(2012,Sand).. 42.52*cem1(2012) + 42.11*cem2(2012) + 41.69*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp5 =L= input 5 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 66150667.33)

Inp5(2011,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2011) + 31.01*cem2(2011) + 30.7*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp5(2012,Marl).. 31.31*cem1(2012) + 31.01*cem2(2012) + 30.7*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp6 =L= input 6 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 50132175.5)
471

Inp6(2011,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2011) + 23.5*cem2(2011) + 23.27*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp6(2012,Ashc).. 23.73*cem1(2012) + 23.5*cem2(2012) + 23.27*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp7 =L= input 7 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 22365830.52)

Inp7(2011,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2011) + 10.44*cem2(2011) + 10.34*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp7(2012,Iron).. 10.55*cem1(2012) + 10.44*cem2(2012) + 10.34*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp8 =L= input 8 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 13928547.49)

Inp8(2011,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2011) + 6.53*cem2(2011) + 6.46*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 13748084.41)

Inp8(2012,Gyps).. 6.59*cem1(2012) + 6.53*cem2(2012) + 6.46*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 13640607.14)
472

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp9 =L= input 9 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 3827729.4)

Inp9(2011,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2011) + 1.8*cem2(2011) + 1.78*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 3777984.6)

Inp9(2012,Baux).. 1.81*cem1(2012) + 1.8*cem2(2012) + 1.78*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 3748358.4)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Inp10 =L= input 10 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 3478825.79)

Inp10(2011,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2011) + 1.63*cem2(2011) + 1.62*cem3(2011) +


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

(LHS = 3433779.11)

Inp10(2012,Mill).. 1.65*cem1(2012) + 1.63*cem2(2012) + 1.62*cem3(2012) +


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

(LHS = 3406950.94)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


473

---- Inp11 =L= input 11 constraint for the cement producing plant in period i

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 = 3134916.51)

Inp11(2011,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2011) + 1.47*cem2(2011) + 1.45*cem3(2011) +


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

Inp11(2012,Diatom).. 1.48*cem1(2012) + 1.47*cem2(2012) + 1.45*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 330740092.32)

Elecbal(2011,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2011) + 155.04*cem2(2011) + 153.52*cem3(2011) +


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

Elecbal(2012,Elec).. 150.48*cem1(2012) + 155.04*cem2(2012) + 153.52*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 5757706304526)

Energy1(2011,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2011) + 2699022*cem2(2011) +


2672561*cem3(2011) + 2646100*cem4(2011)
474

+ 2619639*cem5(2011) =L= 6804758978866 ; (LHS = 5683116132534)

Energy1(2012,Coal).. 2725483*cem1(2012) + 2699022*cem2(2012) +


2672561*cem3(2012) + 2646100*cem4(2012)

+ 2619639*cem5(2012) =L= 6751972050498 ; (LHS = 5638692929436)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 1903713860334)

Energy2(2011,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2011) + 892398*cem2(2011) +


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

Energy2(2012,Coke).. 901147*cem1(2012) + 892398*cem2(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 906271371390)

Energy3(2011,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2011) + 424830*cem2(2011) +


420665*cem3(2011) + 416500*cem4(2011)

+ 412335*cem5(2011) =L= 1071078989720 ; (LHS = 894530769510)

Energy3(2012,Wstfuel).. 428995*cem1(2012) + 424830*cem2(2012) +


420665*cem3(2012) + 416500*cem4(2012)

+ 412335*cem5(2012) =L= 1062770250192 ; (LHS = 887538492540)


475

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_NOx =L= NOx emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

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 = 2971.21187)

Emission_NOx(2011,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2011) + 0.00139*cem2(2011) +


0.00139*cem3(2011) + 0.00137*cem4(2011)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2011) =L= 5092 ; (LHS = 2932.79783)

Emission_NOx(2012,NOx).. 0.00136*cem1(2012) + 0.00139*cem2(2012) +


0.00139*cem3(2012) + 0.00137*cem4(2012)

+ 0.0014*cem5(2012) =L= 5053 ; (LHS = 2909.91982)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- 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 = 1797921.4)

Emission_CO2(2011,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2011) + 0.8*cem2(2011) + 0.83*cem3(2011) +


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

Emission_CO2(2012,CO2).. 0.85*cem1(2012) + 0.8*cem2(2012) + 0.83*cem3(2012) +


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_PM =L= PM emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in period
i
476

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 = 322.41495)

Emission_PM(2011,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2011) + 0.00015*cem2(2011) +


0.00015*cem3(2011) + 0.00015*cem4(2011)

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

Emission_PM(2012,PM).. 0.00015*cem1(2012) + 0.00015*cem2(2012) +


0.00015*cem3(2012) + 0.00015*cem4(2012)

+ 0.00015*cem5(2012) =L= 421 ; (LHS = 315.8007)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Emission_Mer =L= Mercury emissions contraint for the cement producing plant in
period i

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 = 0.08597732)

Emission_Mer(2011,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2011) + 4E-8*cem2(2011) + 4E-8*cem3(2011)


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

Emission_Mer(2012,Merc).. 4E-8*cem1(2012) + 4E-8*cem2(2012) + 4E-8*cem3(2012)


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

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity1 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 1 in period i

Capacity1(2010).. cem1(2010) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 825000)

Capacity1(2011).. cem1(2011) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 825000)

Capacity1(2012).. cem1(2012) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 825000)


477

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity2 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 2 in period i

Capacity2(2010).. cem2(2010) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 499433)

Capacity2(2011).. cem2(2011) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 471797)

Capacity2(2012).. cem2(2012) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 455338)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity3 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 3 in period i

Capacity3(2010).. cem3(2010) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2011).. cem3(2011) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity3(2012).. cem3(2012) =L= 530000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity4 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 4 in period i

Capacity4(2010).. cem4(2010) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity4(2011).. cem4(2011) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

Capacity4(2012).. cem4(2012) =L= 650000 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Capacity5 =L= capacity constraint for the cement producing unit 5 in period i

Capacity5(2010).. cem5(2010) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 825000)

Capacity5(2011).. cem5(2011) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 825000)

Capacity5(2012).. cem5(2012) =L= 825000 ; (LHS = 825000)


478

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- Import =L= maximum available import of cement from other producers in period i

Import(2010,Cement).. impcem(2010) =L= 644829.9 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2011,Cement).. impcem(2011) =L= 636539.1 ; (LHS = 0)

Import(2012,Cement).. impcem(2012) =L= 631601.4 ; (LHS = 0)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED


479

GAMS Rev 227 x86/MS Windows 06/23/08


15:18:56 Page 8
General Algebraic Modeling System
Column Listing SOLVE cement_plant_sens_analysis Using LP From line 363

---- LCC life cycle cost (investment plus operation and maintenance costs) ($)

LCC
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = -INF, 1920061725.94147, +INF, 0)
1 Object

---- cem1 annual cement production by producing unit 1 in period i (ton)

cem1(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-71.9862 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2010,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2010,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2010,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2010,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2010)

cem1(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-71.1326 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
480

1388.93 Inp1(2011,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2011,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2011,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2011,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity1(2011)

cem1(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 825000, +INF, 0)
-70.2891 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1388.93 Inp1(2012,Lime)
75.48 Inp2(2012,Shale)
61.14 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.52 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.31 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.73 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.55 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.59 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.81 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.65 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.48 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
150.48 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2725483 Energy1(2012,Coal)
901147 Energy2(2012,Coke)
428995 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.85 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
481

1 Capacity1(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem2 annual cement production by producing unit 2 in period i (ton)

cem2(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 499433, +INF, 0)
-72.0652 Object
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2010,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2010,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2010,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2010,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2010,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2010)

cem2(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 471797, +INF, 0)
-71.2107 Object
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2011,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2011,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2011,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2011,Baux)
482

1.63 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2011,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2011,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2011)

cem2(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 455338, +INF, 0)
-70.3663 Object
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1375.45 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.75 Inp2(2012,Shale)
60.55 Inp3(2012,Clay)
42.11 Inp4(2012,Sand)
31.01 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.5 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.44 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.53 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.8 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.63 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.47 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
155.04 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2699022 Energy1(2012,Coal)
892398 Energy2(2012,Coke)
424830 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.8 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity2(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem3 annual cement production by producing unit 3 in period i (ton)

cem3(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -72.0652173913043)
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
483

1361.96 Inp1(2010,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2010,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2010,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2010)

cem3(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -71.2106891218423)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2011,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2011,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2011,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2011)
484

cem3(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -70.3662935986583)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1361.96 Inp1(2012,Lime)
74.01 Inp2(2012,Shale)
59.95 Inp3(2012,Clay)
41.69 Inp4(2012,Sand)
30.7 Inp5(2012,Marl)
23.27 Inp6(2012,Ashc)
10.34 Inp7(2012,Iron)
6.46 Inp8(2012,Gyps)
1.78 Inp9(2012,Baux)
1.62 Inp10(2012,Mill)
1.45 Inp11(2012,Diatom)
153.52 Elecbal(2012,Elec)
2672561 Energy1(2012,Coal)
883649 Energy2(2012,Coke)
420665 Energy3(2012,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2012,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2012,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2012,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2012,Merc)
1 Capacity3(2012)

REMAINING 8 ENTRIES SKIPPED

---- cem4 annual cement production by producing unit 4 in period i (ton)

cem4(2010)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -72.0652173913043)
1 Dem1(2010,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2010,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2010,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2010,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2010,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2010,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2010,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2010,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2010,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2010,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2010,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2010,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2010,Elec)
485

2646100 Energy1(2010,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2010,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2010,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2010,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2010,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2010,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2010,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2010)

cem4(2011)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -71.2106891218423)
1 Dem1(2011,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(2011,Lime)
73.28 Inp2(2011,Shale)
59.36 Inp3(2011,Clay)
41.28 Inp4(2011,Sand)
30.4 Inp5(2011,Marl)
23.04 Inp6(2011,Ashc)
10.24 Inp7(2011,Iron)
6.4 Inp8(2011,Gyps)
1.76 Inp9(2011,Baux)
1.6 Inp10(2011,Mill)
1.44 Inp11(2011,Diatom)
152 Elecbal(2011,Elec)
2646100 Energy1(2011,Coal)
874900 Energy2(2011,Coke)
416500 Energy3(2011,Wstfuel)
0.0014 Emission_NOx(2011,NOx)
0.83 Emission_CO2(2011,CO2)
0.0001 Emission_PM(2011,PM)
4.0000000E-8 Emission_Mer(2011,Merc)
1 Capacity4(2011)

cem4(2012)
(.LO, .L, .UP, .M = 0, 0, 0, -70.3662935986583)
1 Dem1(2012,Cement1)
1348.48 Inp1(20