Roadmap Development

Every ceramic manufacturing site differs, unique in manufactured product/s, processes, raw materials/energy used and (crucially) their emissions profiles. To properly understand the emissions reduction potential across the full ceramic product spectrum - from existing, emerging and potential decarbonisation technologies - it was important to align closely data with the sector’s heterogeneity.

An in-depth exercise was undertaken, exploring how different ceramic producers may look to further decarbonise in the future, if energy supplies/costs and other constraints were removed and funding support was available. Engagement with technical contacts from around the sector was carried out to set a project scope and modelling approach, with work carried out through a number of phases:

1. Understanding UK ceramics’ emissions

Manufacturing sites (and their associated emissions) were categorised into separate Emission Pots; firstly, by key product group:

… sub-divided further by emissions magnitude (using UK ETS classifications, but applied to total Scope 1 & 2 emissions, rather than Scope 1, which may uplift some categorisations):

Each Pots’ total indirect, direct fuels and process emissions were aggregated for modelling.

2. Future Technology Deployment

Companies in each Emissions Pot were surveyed on:

  • Decarbonisation technologies they see as relevant to their manufacturing site(s)

  • Potential roll-out timeframes of each technology (in the 2020s, 2030s, 2040s)

  • Indicative emissions reductions of each technology (as % reduction)

Key Assumptions & Caveats

The below sets out the key criteria and data used in the Roadmap methodology:

  • Emissions Scope: The energy-intensive stages of ceramic production are product drying/firing, with the predominant GHG associated with ceramic production being carbon.  This exercise has therefore focussed on Scope 1 & 2 carbon emissions.

  • Baseline Year: In terms of representativeness 2019 was selected as most appropriate, given the more recent impacts on the sector of both the Coronavirus pandemic and energy crisis. This also aligns with the year net zero was legislated for in the UK.

  • Future Scenario: ‘Steady state’ production was assumed throughout modelling. More effort (and complexity) was put into understanding emissions/technology relationships across the sector than modelling of scenarios of sector growth or contraction. 

  • Input Data (Sources/Availability): Production (tonnage), verified UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) emissions (for those in the scheme); and energy consumption (kWh) for sites not in ETS (converted to carbon emissions) was collated. For completeness, extensive effort was made to gather data through backfilling of gaps, with estimations for some small- / medium-sized companies (where not obtainable).

  • Emission Factors: Indirect emissions were calculated from site electricity use (kWh). For non-ETS sites, direct emissions were calculated from the fuels used (kWh) i.e. natural gas, LPG. UK GHG conversion factors were used for emissions calculations.

  • Process Emissions: Verified process emissions data was collated for UK ETS / Small Emitter Opt-Out participants. For non-ETS sites, estimates were made following ETS ‘Method B’ (output-based) Tier 1 estimation methodology for clays (predominant tonnages used). Additives were not accounted for, given lack of available data/complexity of uses in the sector, although tonnages (versus clays) are comparatively small and unlikely to drastically impact outcomes.

  • Reporting: The intention is for five-yearly Progress Reporting to be undertaken following publication of the Roadmap.

  • Roadmap Inclusions: The approach is broadly consistent with Government’s Business Sector Roadmap Criteria, insofar as currently possible, and as applicable.

A range of working assumptions were made for direct decarbonisation technologies:

  • Fuel Switching: All sites fuel-switch to one of profiled technologies included in modelling.

  • Hydrogen: Green hydrogen roll-out / individual consortium involvement initially, with uplift in electricity consumption modelled (albeit transitioning to zero-carbon from mid-2030s). In addition, more-extensive network availability beginning in 2030s, rapidly expanding in 2040s (aligned with the Energy Network Association’s Vision for Hydrogen). Assumed commercial viability versus alternative production methods.

  • CCUS: Application to largest sites in the sector (and emissions). Assumed deployment funding support availability. Uplift in electricity consumption modelled (albeit transitioning to zero-carbon from mid-2030s) as well as 95% carbon capture efficiency. Some with bio-energy with carbon capture resulting in a limited proportion of negative fuel emissions.

  • Efficiency: Assumed funding support availability for investment in efficiency measures.

  • Grid Decarbonisation: Alignment has been made to Government’s target of a decarbonised electricity network by 2035.

  • Electrification: Applicable predominantly to smaller-scale production sites. Commercial viability versus alternative production methods has been assumed, with grid connections/infrastructure to support operations. Uplift in electricity consumption modelled (albeit transitioning to zero-carbon from mid-2030s).

  • Self Generation: Assumption of no grid connection issues for sites

  • Product Adaption: Assumed further R&D support is available and projects undertaken

  • Bio-Energy: Limited (site-/company-specific) use is envisaged, given the Government's focus on prioritised applications, as set out in the UK Biomass Strategy.

3. Emissions modelling to 2050

Each Pot’s direct, indirect and process emissions data was modelled with agreed technology deployment (working from the baseline emissions data). Overall outputs intend to show sector-level ‘Maximum Deliverable’ emissions reductions.