Akçansa projects carbon costs across Türkiye and Europe

Akçansa Çimento Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ has brought climate regulation into industrial planning. On its [Climate Change page](https://sr.akcansa.com.tr/en/sustainable-future/climate-change) and in the 2025 Integrated Annual Report, the company says it conducted a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism impact analysis, developed carbon-cost projections and worked on preparation for the Türkiye emissions trading system.

From compliance to an industrial decision

CBAM turns the embedded carbon intensity of cement entering Europe into a commercial variable. Preparing for a Turkish ETS also requires inventories, price assumptions and internal responsibilities to be organised before a regulatory signal reaches the income statement. Akçansa does not present these exercises as a single exposure figure, nor does the source publish a euro value for each unit of thermal energy. It reports the analysis and preparation needed to build that value from operating data.

In Europe, the reduction of allowances from 2026 raises the importance of separating carbon associated with fuel, process and the product being traded. For a cement producer, that separation prevents effects belonging to one lever from being credited to kiln efficiency and enables CBAM and ETS scenarios to be compared on a consistent basis.

A transition built on several levers

Akçansa's transition plan combines lower fossil-fuel use, higher alternative-fuel use, a lower clinker ratio and efficiency improvements. These lines are connected but not interchangeable. Alternative fuels change the thermal mix; efficiency changes the energy required to produce clinker; and the clinker-to-cement ratio acts on product composition. A robust business case must keep the attribution of each effect separate.

The company also reports that its 3 cement plants hold CSC Gold certification. That certification provides a shared framework for responsible management, but it does not replace a kiln energy baseline or by itself demonstrate how much economic value remains uncaptured in the pyroprocess.

The Knergy Angle

Assigning a euro value to every avoided kcal and every additional AFR point must begin with a measured baseline for each production line, not a savings promise. The technical file should bring together clinker output, specific thermal consumption, fuel mix and cost, AFR moisture and calorific value, kiln stability, clinker quality and emission factors over a comparable operating window. Explicit carbon-price and commercial-exposure scenarios should then be applied, with the effect of thermal efficiency separated from changes in clinker factor and other measures in the plan. Only after that can hydrogen and oxygen co-injection enter as a hypothesis for a controlled trial, with the success criterion, reference period and attribution method defined before testing. The business case must show sensitivities and limits rather than turn a technical possibility into expected performance. For Akçansa, the useful question is the value of efficiency that has not yet been measured under its real exposure; the answer requires plant data and industrial validation.

From projection to business case

The CBAM impact analysis and carbon-cost projections provide the regulatory frame. Preparation for the Türkiye ETS adds the domestic frame. Greater precision comes from connecting both with kiln baselines, fuel scenarios and quality criteria while keeping the source of each change traceable. The public source confirms the direction of Akçansa's plan and the corporate scope of its preparation; it publishes no KNERGY operating results and does not support a savings promise.