Uniform Reporting Format:
Activities Implemented Jointly Under the Pilot Phase
The uniform reporting format contained below is to be used in reporting on activities implemented jointly
under the pilot phase. It is noted that the reporting should be consistent with decision 5/CP.1 and 8/CP.2
(reproduced in annexes I and II to this reporting format). The SBSTA notes that the uniform reporting
format could possibly require revision in the light of experience gained and methodological work conducted
under the pilot phase.
List of
Projects
A. Description of project
A 1) Title of project: Cogeneration station SKODA plant Mlada Boleslav
A 2) Participants/actors:
Please fill in one table for each participant/actor. For individuals fill in as from item Function within
activity".
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization (a) :
|
Bayernwerk AG
|
|
Name of organization (English):
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Investor
|
|
Street:
|
Nymphenburger Strasse 39
|
|
Post code:
|
80335
|
|
City:
|
Munich
|
|
Country:
|
Germany
|
|
Telephone:
|
+49/89/1254-1
|
|
Fax:
|
+49/89/1254-3906
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Eingartner
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
|
|
Job title:
|
Senior Advisor
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+49/89/1254-3387
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+49/89/1254-3081
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
Organization includes: institutions, ministries, companies, non-governmental organizations, etc. involved
in the activity, i.e. research institutes associated with the project, auditors, government agency closely
following the activity.
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization (a) :
|
RWE AG
|
|
Name of organization (English):
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Investor
|
|
Street:
|
Kruppstr. 5
|
|
Post code:
|
45128
|
|
City:
|
Essen
|
|
Country:
|
Germany
|
|
Telephone:
|
+49/201/12-0
|
|
Fax:
|
+49/89/12-24972
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Dr. Rentz
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Henning
|
|
Job title:
|
Head of Department Corporate Enviromental Affairs
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+49/201/12-15593
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+49/89/12-15595
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization (a) :
|
ŠKODA AUTO a.s.
|
|
Name of organization (English):
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Investor
|
|
Street:
|
Václava Klementa
|
|
Post code:
|
293 60
|
|
City:
|
Mladá Boleslav
|
|
Country:
|
Czech Republic
|
|
Telephone:
|
|
|
Fax:
|
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Foøt
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Zdenìk
|
|
Job title:
|
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+420/326/817092
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+420/326/817739
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization (a) :
|
Støedoèeská Energetická a.s. (STE)
|
|
Name of organization (English):
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Investor
|
|
Street:
|
Vinohradská 8
|
|
Post code:
|
120 21
|
|
City:
|
Praha 2
|
|
Country:
|
Czech Republic
|
|
Telephone:
|
|
|
Fax:
|
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Poláèek
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Pavel
|
|
Job title:
|
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+420/2/22032209
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+420/2/24221980
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization (a) :
|
Institut für Industriebetriebslehre und Industrielle Produktion (IIP)
|
|
Name of organization (English):
|
Institute for Industrial Production (IIP)
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Partner for Industrial Accompaniment
|
|
Street:
|
Hertzstr. 16
|
|
Post code:
|
76187
|
|
City:
|
Karlsruhe
|
|
Country:
|
Germany
|
|
Telephone:
|
+49/721/608-4460
|
|
Fax:
|
+49/721/758909
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Dr. Fichtner
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Wolf
|
|
Job title:
|
Researcher
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+49/721/608-4468
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+49/721/758909
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
wolf.fichtner@wiwi.uni/karlsruhe. de
|
A 3) Activity:
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
General description:
|
Modernisation and renovation of a combined heat and power generation plant
|
|
Type of project:a)
|
Fuel switching / Energy efficiency
|
|
Location (exact, e.g. city, region, state):
|
Czech Republic, Mladá Boleslav
|
|
Activity starting date:
|
Beginning 1995/96
|
|
Expected activity ending date:
|
31.3.1999
|
|
Stage of activity:b)
|
completed: K8012.2.1999, K9017.9.1999
|
|
Lifetime of activity if different from ending date:c)
|
20 years
|
|
Technical data:d)
|
2 coal-fired fluidised bed boilers:
- 2 bleeder type condensing turbines:
total 70-90 MWel
- Surplus thermal output: total 0-150 MWth
3 oil/gas-fired water boilers: total 110 MWth
1 oil/gas-fired auxiliary boiler
|
|
Efficiency Factors:
Coal-fired boiler: 93%
Oil/gas-fired boiler: 94%
Turbines: 40%
Utilisation ratio if surplus heat is transferred to the grid: 69%
|
Since 1995, ŠKO-ENERGO has been operating a cogeneration plant on the premises of the ŠKODA
automobile factory in Mladá Boleslav (ÈR) which is intended to essentially supply the works
with electricity and heat, and the city of Mladá Boleslav with heat. Before ŠKO-ENERGO, a
Czech-German consortium founded in 1995, started operations, ŠKODA's cogeneration plant was
operated by ŠKODA alone as an industrial power plant.
With a view to the time-related and technical ageing of the plants and the emission limits applicable in
the Czech Republic as of January 1, 1999, it was decided in 1995 to build a new cogeneration plant. Unlike
the "old plant" which had a comparably low share of combined heat and power generation (CHP) and
a low efficiency using two pure back-pressure turbine-generator sets, the new plant was designed as a
controlled-extraction condensing-turbine power plant for full supply of the ŠKODA works
the whole year round and was equipped with optimized plant process technology providing high
efficiency during CHP operation. When considering the emissions reductions achieved by the new plant, the
share of emissions connected to previous electricity supply from the public grid must also be taken into
account.
Emissions (SO2 , NO2, particulate) are calculated for the base line, as well, while
taking the legal emission concentrations valid since January 1, 1999, into consideration. However when it
comes to calculating the CO2 emissions resulting from qual volumes of electricity and heat
produced, calculations are based on the fuel volumes (efficiencies) required and fuel specific
CO2 emissions.
- In accordance with the design, the emissions in the subsequent comparison are based on the following
electricity and heat demands as of 2000:
- electricity 415 million kWh/a
- heat 700 million kWh/a
The cogeneration plant (industrial power plant) which was operated until December 31, 1998, consisted of
four lignite-fired intermediate pressure steam generators with a total installed steam capacity of approx.
220 t/h, two (2) back-pressure turbines with an electrical capacity of 2 x 6 MWel as well as two (2)
natural-gas-fired hot water boiler systems with an effective heat capacity of 2 x 58 MW MWth.
The plant was basically used for supplying the ŠKODA automobile works and the city of Mlada Boleslav
with heat. As a result of the plants and structure available, the amount of electricity to be produced in
the combined heat and power process was only small. Therefore, the works' electricity demand was
largely met by the public grid.
Taking the required heat volumes and the demand structure into consideration, it may be assumed that an
additional natural-gas-fired hot water boiler would have had to be installed in order to cover the demand.
Consequently, the heat demand of 700 GWh is based on lignite and fuel with approx. 50 % each.
Self-generation is assumed to be only approx. 25 GWh(el) and to cover no more than the power station's
internal load.
The following assumptions and values are the basis for calculating the base line:
- Fuel lignite (50 %), natural gas (50 %)
- Steam boiler efficiency 87 %
- Hot water boiler efficiency 94 %
- Electricity ratio 300 kWh/MWh; additional fuel demand F = 1.2
Lignite: 350 GWh heat* 1/0.87 = 402 GWh lignite
25 GWh(el)* 1.2 = 30 GWh lignite
= 432 GWh lignite
Natural gas 350 GWh heat* 1/0.04 = 372 GWh natural gas
Electricity procurement from the public grid
The following assumptions are made for evaluating the emissions linked to "electricity procurement
from the public grid":
- Condensing-turbine-based electricity generation
- Total efficiency 30 % (incl. flue-gas desulfurization required as of 1/1/99)
- Fuel lignite
Supposing electricity purchases of 415 GWh, an equivalent fuel volume of 415/0.3 = 1383 GWh lignite is
required.
Summary
Fuel demand for 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 adds up to a total of:
- Lignite = 432 GWh + 1383 GWh = 1815 GWh
- Natural gas = 372 GWh
A 4) Cost (to the extent possible):
The new plant in operation since January 1, 1999, consists of two (2) hard-coal-fired high-pressure steam
boiler systems with circulating fluidized-bed combustion and a steam capacity of 140 t/h each, one
natural-gas-fired HP steam generator with a steam capacity of 60 t/h and two controlled-extraction
condensing turbine-generator sets with a capacity of 44.3 MWel each in condensing operation or 35 MWel at a
heat capacity of 70 MWth (during quasi-back-pressure operation).
Three (3) natural-gas-fired hot water boilers, with an effective heat capacity of 58 MWth each, are
available for heat supply and for meeting peak load demand.
- fuel: hard coal/natural gas
- fluidized-bed boiler efficiency 91 % (annual average)
- hot water boiler efficiency 94 %
- electricity ratio 500 kWel/MWth
- electricity loss ratio 0.13 kWh(el)/kWh(th)
- power station internal load 10 %
- specific heat consumption 2.85 kWh (fuel)/kWh(el) annual average
Based on the annual load curves and the demand structure for electricity and heat, the following fuel input
is required for a heat output of 700 GWh and electricity generation of 460 GWh (415 GWh output and 45 GWh
internal load):
Electricity 460 GWh* 2.85
= 1311 GWh fuel Coal = 93 %
= 1219 GWh coal Natural gas = 7 %
= 92 GWh natural gas
Heat 700 GWh
thereof CHP operation 550 GWh* 0.13*2.85
= 204 GWh coal 50 GWh*0.13*2.85
= 18.5 GWh natural gas
Heating operation 90 GWh*1/0.91
= 99 GWh coal 10 GWh*1/0.94
= 10.6 GWh natural gas
Total 1522 GWh coal = 121 GWh natural gas
|
Item
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
|
Cost of the project in million US$:
|
2,77
|
2,51
|
56,7
|
30,36
|
|
AIJ component in US$:
|
- *
|
-*
|
-*
|
-*
|
|
US$ per avoided ton of CO equivalent
|
- *
|
-*
|
-*
|
-*
|
The total investment costs will be approx. 92,34 million US$
*The project was originally undertaken as a purely commercial investment. Therfore projectpartners
agreed there will be no crediting during the AIJ pilot phase. Therefore no figures are applicable.
A 5) Mutually agreed assessment procedures:
|
Describe the procedures, including name of organizations involved ) :
|
|
The scientific accompaniment of the project is carried out by an independent scientific research
institut, the Institut for Industrial Production (IIP), Karlsruhe (Germany).
The IIP analyses the AIJ criteria of Dec.5/COP1 to be fulfilled by the project and suitability of
the project type as JI project. Therefore, baseline determination, emissions reduction calculation.
local impacts and the other AIJ criteria are analysed in detail.
|
- a) Please ensure that detailed contact information for all organizations mentioned is reported under
section A.2 above.
B. Governmental acceptance, approval or endorsement
Bearing in mind that all activities implemented jointly under this pilot phase require prior acceptance,
approval or endorsement by the Governments of the Parties participating in these activities, which shall be
shown as follows:
B 1) For the activity:
- * First report and joint reporting: please add copies of letters of endorsement by each designated
national authority of Parties involved in the activity.
* Subsequent reports:
- Activity was: 9 suspended
9 terminated earlier
Describe:
B 2) This report is a joint report:
- 9 Yes, forward copy of agreement/endorsement by the designated national authorities involved
9 No
B 3) General short comment by the government(s) if applicable:
C. Compatibility with and supportiveness of national economic development and socioeconomic and
environment priorities and strategies
|
Describe (to the extent possible) how the activity is compatible with and supportive of national
economic development and socio economic and environment priorities and strategies
|
|
The new czech laws (valid 1.1.1999) are fullfilled. Sustainable labour for 90local workers.
Cheap, clean and reliable energy supply for the SKODA plant and for the households.
|
D. Benefits derived from the activities implemented jointly project
- Whenever possible, quantitative information should be provided. Failing that, a qualitative description
should be given. If quantitative information becomes available, it could be submitted using the update(s).
(If the amount of quantative information is too large, the source could be indicated.)
|
Item
|
Please fill in
|
|
Describe environmental benefits in detail:
|
(1)
|
Particulates
- (mg/m³) Sulfur dioxide
(mg/m³) Nitrogen dioxide
(mg/m³) C-monoxide
(mg/m³)
|
Particulates (t/a)
|
SO2
|
NO2
|
CO
|
|
Solid fuels
legal limit values
min d.r.* = 85 %
|
100
|
500 (max)
|
650
|
250
|
|
Solid fuelsv voluntary limit values
min d.r.* = 85 %
|
50
|
400 (max)
|
200
|
250
|
|
Gaseous fuel
legal limit values
|
10
|
35
|
200
|
100
|
|
Gaseous fuel
voluntary limit values
|
10
|
35
|
100
|
100
|
- (*) min d.r. = required minimum desulphurization rate > 85 %
- = 100 % - (100 % * SO2 out/SO2 in) > 85 %
|
Item
|
Please fill in
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of
environmental benefits?
|
Yes (2)
|
(2) Comparison of emissions
Old plant (the new legal limits valid, 1.1.1999, are taken into account)
The fuel used for the „old cogeneration plant" as well for the baseline"external condesing
power plants" was" Bohemian lignite".
The fluegas flows (waste gas flows) arising during combustion are needed to determine pollutant emissions
(annual loads), with the exception of CO2 emissions, since the limit values are concentration limits(e.g.
mg SO2/m3 flue gas).
In accordance with the legal regulations in the Czech Republic, the limit values have to be ralated to
„dry flue gas", i.e. after escape of the water vapor - the evaporated moisture of the fuel
(water content): when using lignite, to a residual oxygen content in the flue gas of 6 %.
Thus, the annual pollutant load is calculated from the specific fluegas flow rate (m3/kWh fuel,
standard condition, dry , 6% O2) multiplied by the annual amout of fuel used multiplied by the
respective emission limit value. The latest limit values are used both for ¨baseline" and
„new line" to také account of „worstcase scenarios".
As agreed with the authorities, the emission limit values valid as of January 1, 1999, are also used for
„baseline" calculations.
Calculation
Conservatively, further calculations have been based on hightquality Bohemian lignite.
According to fuel literature:
C = 52% by weight : H2 = 42% by weight : O2 + N2 = 13% by weight:
H2O = 24% by
weight: ash = 6% by weight: californic value = 20,1 MJ/kg
With complete combustion usig the reference formula for lignite with up to 7,5% ash
Vo n = (0,898 0,239 Hu + 1634)/990(mm3/kg) = 6,0 m3/kg
and after deduction of VH20 = 0,77 m3/kg
the "theoretical dry flue gas quality (standard condition) is Vo ,n = 5,23 m3/kg
The theoretical CO2 content is 18,35 % by weight.
Based on a residual content of 6 % O2 in the flue gas, this results in:
O2 = 21 ( C O2max - C O2real)/CO2max, with 6% O2:
CO2real= 13,1%
This results in an air/fluegas ratio:
Lambda = CO2max /CO2real = 18,35/13,1 = 1,4
V = Lambda *Vo ,n = 1,4* 5,23m3/kg fuel
corresponding to:
7,32 * 3600/20100 (m3/kg/h*Ws/J) = 1.31 m3/KWh = 1.31 * 105 m3/GWh fuel
multiplied by the anual amount of fuel of 1815 GWh:
1815 GWh/a * 1.31 *106 m3/GWh = 2377.65 * 106 m3/a = 2.378.000.000 m3/a
This value must then be multiplied with the respective emission limit values.
The fluegas quantities of hard coal and natural gas are calculated accordingly.
The respective annual CO2 loads are calculated by multiplying the specific CO2
emissions of the respective fuels by the annual amounts of fuel computed for baseline and new line.
(Note: dimensions attachments k = 103, M = 106, G = 105 to be observed)
Technology:
For compliance with the emission limit values valid as of January 1,1999,the technologies used to retrofit
the lignite-fired power plants in the Czech Republic to meet the limit values valid of as January1,1999,
can basically also be used for the old plants of SKO-ENERGO.
Examples:
In line with the emission limit values valid as of January1,1999, the following technologies and plant
arrangements have been available.
Basically, it can be assumed that due to low thermal Nox formation an large volume furnaces no additional
plants for Nox removal are required for the combustion of lignite. Possibly, so-called primary measures
(air temperature reduction, etc.) would have been sufficient although efficiencies would have deteriorated.
- Dust filter plant (electrostatic precipitator) – desul
a1) Desulphurization system as a SO2 wet scrubbing system
The resulting byproducts are ash (fly ash), which can either be landfilled or used in the building
materials industry, and highgrade gypsum which can also be used in the building materials industry. The
disadvantage is waste water with a high chloride content which has to be evaporated or discharged via a
body of running water.
a2) Desulphurization system as a quasi-dry spray absorption system
Here, too, the main quantity of fly ash comes from the electrostatic precipitator. The byproduct from
desulphurization is a mixture of calcium sulfite (CaSO3) and calcium sulphate (CaSO4)
as well as admixtures of caCl and free lime.
This product is virtually unusable so that the cost of disposal is comparably high. Compared to the
wetscrubbing process, the advantage is that there is no waste water and capital expenditure is lower. Due
to dry dust formation, it may be necessary to install a (small) fabric filter downstream of the
desulphurization systém in order to meet dust limit values.
- Desulphurization system (as a quasidry spray absorption plant) - dust filter plant (only as fabric
filter plant)
As there is no further fly ash separation upstream of desulhurization, a mixture of fly ash, calcium
sulfite and calcium sulphate will arise from the desulphurization process. This mixture can only be
separated by means of fabric filter plants as the acid content is high and temperatures are low. This gives
rise to large amount of a byproduct which can only be used to a limited extent and the disposal of which in
landfills, pits and the like must be paid for. What is an advantage is the relatively low capital
expenditure required for the overall plant and the nonoccurrence of waste water.
Note on dust filter plants/solids separators. For the separation of fly ash arising from combustion, the
old plant would have had to be retrofitted with highgrade electrostatic precipitators with at least four
zones in order to be able to comply whit the dust limit values valid as of January 1, 1999. Due to
conceptional and technical deficiencies, it would have been impossible to reconstruct or retrofit the
existing dust collection plants (multicyclones and twozone electrostatic precipitators) to meet the
required collection efficiency. The direct utilization of fabric filter plants downstream of the boiler is
impossible due to the high fluegas temperatures of the old plant (danger of fire).
New cogeneration plant with special combustion technology (cirkulating fluidizedbed combustion)
The following premises were decisive for the conceptual design and technology of the new cogeneration
plant, particularly with regard to environmental protection:
Appreciable fuel savings and thus maximum environmental efficiency and conservation of resources by
combined heat and power generation (cogeneration) instead of the hitherto largely separate generation of
heat and power (in separate plants). According to the design, there is a fuel savings potential of some
20%.
- Innovative combustion technology (integrade pollutant limitation, no additional (tailend) plants and
systems.
- Simple, lowcost and directly usable feedstock (auxiliary agent) for desulphurization (CaCO3)
- Byproduct which is largely reusable in the building materials industry (mixture of fly ash +
CaSO4)
- Even with hard coal, no additional processes nor auxiliary agents (feedstock) are required for
NOX reduction thanks to lower temperatures in the furnace
- Switching from hard coal to lignite
- hard coals of different orif´gin and quality can be used
- th use of hard coal instead of lignite considerebly reduces resulting ashes which have to be disposed
of
- the use of hard coal instead of lidnite considerably reduces the volume of rail and road transport
Lignite 1815 GWh* 1.31 million m³ flue gas/GWh = 2,378,000,000 m³ flue gas
Natural gas 372 GWh* 1.01 million m³ flue gas/GWh = 376,000,000 m³ flue gas
|
Particulates (t/a)
|
SO2 (t/a)
|
NO2 (t/a)
|
CO (t/a)
|
|
238
|
1189
|
1546
|
595
|
|
4
|
13
|
75
|
38
|
|
S approx. 240
|
S approx. 1200
|
S approx. 1620
|
S approx. 630
|
New plant
Hard coal (HC) 1522 GWh* 1.31 million m³ flue gas = 1,994,000,000 m³ flue gas
Natural gas (NG) 121 GWh* 1.01 million m³ flue gas = 122,000,000 m³ flue gas
|
Particulates (t/a)
|
SO2 (t/a)
|
NO2 (t/a)
|
CO (t/a)
|
|
100
|
798
|
399
|
499
|
|
1
|
4
|
12
|
12
|
|
S approx. 100
|
S approx. 800
|
S approx. 410
|
S approx. 510
|
Comparison
|
Particulates (t/a)
|
SO2 (t/a)
|
NO2 (t/a)
|
CO (t/a)
|
|
S approx. 240
|
S approx. 1200
|
S approx. 1620
|
S approx. 630
|
|
S approx. 100
|
S approx. 800
|
S approx. 410
|
S approx. 510
|
|
approx. 140
|
approx. 400
|
approx. 1210
|
approx. 120
|
Considering the planned electricity and heat volumes for the works and the city of Mladá Boleslav
(electricity: 415 GWh; heat: 700 GWh) the following emissions reductions are to be found in comparison to
the baseline: "limit values applicable as of 1/1/99":
Particulates 140 t/a
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 400 t/a
Nitrogen oxides (as NO2) 1 210 t/a
Carbon monoxide (CO) 120 t/a
|
Item
|
Please fill in
|
|
Describe social/cultural benefits in detail:
|
see Point C.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits?
|
No
|
|
Describe economic benefits in detail:
|
internal datas not to be puplished
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of
economic benefits?
|
internal datas not to be puplished
|
-
E. Calculation of the contribution of activities implemented jointly projects that bringabout real,
measurable and long-term environmental benefits related to the mitigation of climate change that would
not have occurred in the absence of such activities
The legal limit values applicable in the Czech Republic are taken into account when calculating the
individual pollutant emissions "for the base line, as well" (*).
Two variants are calculated for the "new plant":
a) Legal limit values valid since 1/1/99
b) Limit values based on the statements made in the licensing procedure, i.e. "voluntary limit
values" which are even lower than the legally required limit values.
(*) The determination of applicable limit values for the new plant is based on plants with a furnace
thermal rating > 300 MW, according to the German definition of plants. The same applies to the plants
belonging to the public grid since this category occurs in most cases, and with respect to the existing
larger power plant units and when individual combustion plants are considered.
Varying reference oxygen contents which may occur due to different combustion systems are not taken into
account, either.
Specific CO2 emissions:
Lignite = 0.40 kgCO2/kWh (fuel) = 400 t CO2/GWh lignite
Hard coal = 0.33 kgCO2/kWh (fuel) = 330 t CO2/GWh hard coal
Natural gas = 0.19 kgCO2/kWh (fuel) = 190 T CO2/GWh natural gas
Energy-related flue-gas volume (dry):
Lignite (21.5 MJ/kg) = 1.31 million m³/GWh (6 % O2)
Hard coal (30.0 MJ/kg) = 1.31 million m³/GWh (6 % O2)
Natural gas (43.9 MJ/kg) = 1.01 million m³/GWh (3 % O2)
Comparison of emissions
Old plant (the new legal limits valid, 1.1.1999, are taken into account)
Lignite 1815 GWh* 1.31 million m³ flue gas/GWh = 2,378,000,000 m³ flue gas
Natural gas 372 GWh* 1.01 million m³ flue gas/GWh = 376,000,000 m³ flue gas
|
CO2 (t/a)
|
|
726 000 (L)
|
|
70 680 (NG)
|
|
S approx. 797 000
|
New plant
Hard coal (HC) 1522 GWh* 1.31 million m³ flue gas = 1,994,000,000 m³ flue gas
Natural gas (NG) 121 GWh* 1.01 million m³ flue gas = 122,000,000 m³ flue gas
|
CO2 (t/a)
|
|
502 260 (HC)
|
|
23 000 (NG)
|
|
S approx. 525 000
|
Comparison
|
CO2 (t/a)
|
|
S 797 000
|
|
S 525 000
|
|
Emissions reductions
|
|
approx. 272 000
|
Considering the planned electricity and heat volumes for the works and the city of Mlada Boleslav
(electricity: 415 GWh; heat: 700 GWh) the following emissions reductions are to be found in comparison to
the baseline: "limit values applicable as of 1/1/99":
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 272 000 t/a
Fill in the following tables as applicable:
Summary table: Projected emission reductions:
|
GHG
|
Year 1999
|
...
|
Year 2018
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
797.000
|
|
797.000
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenario a)
|
CO2
|
525.000
|
|
525.000
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
272.000
|
|
272.000
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
|
|
5.440.000
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
- Includes indirect GHG leakage.
Summary table: Actual emission reductions:
|
GHG
|
Year 1
|
Year 2
|
...
|
Year X
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity data a)
|
CO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
- Includes indirect GHG leakage.
|
Source of project funding
including pre-feasibility phase
(For each source one line)
|
Amount
|
|
Bayernwerk AG
|
9.750.000 USD
|
|
RWE Energie AG
|
9.750.000 USD
|
|
Škoda automobilová a.s.
|
2.300.000 USD
|
|
Støedoèeská Energetická a.s.
|
1.100.000 USD
|
- Commerzbank AG / Hypovereinsbank (A-Loun) 45.000.000 USD
European Investment Bank (B-Loun) 47.000.000 USD
100% letter of comfort by Bayernwerk/RWE Energie AG
G. Contribution to capacity building, transfer of environmentally sound technologies and know-how to
other Parties, particularly developing country Parties, to enable them to implement the provisions of
the Convention. In this process, the developed country Parties shall support the development and
enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies of developing country Parties
- transfer of knowhow to the Czech Republic regarding planning, construction and operation of such plants
(personnel training, increase in special marketable knowledge of plant construction and export)
- Use of domestic fuels to secure national independence as well as jobs
-
H. Additional comments, if any, including any practical experience gained or technical difficulties,
effects, impacts or other obstacles encountered
Fill in as appropriate:
H 1) Any practical experience gained:
H 2) Technical difficulties:
H 3) negative impacts and/or effects encountered:
- Whenever possible, quantitative information should be provided. Failing that, a qualitative description
should be given. If quantitative information becomes available, it could be submitted using the update(s).
(If the amount of quantitative information is too large, the source could be indicated.)
|
Item
|
Please fill in
|
|
Describe environmental negative impacts/effects in detail:
|
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental negative impacts/effects?
|
Yes/no
|
|
Describe social/cultural negative impacts/effects in detail:
|
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of economic
negative impacts/effects?
|
Yes/no
|
|
Describe economic negative impacts/effects in detail:
|
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social negative impacts/effects?
|
Yes/no
|
H 4) Other obstacles encountered:
H 5) Other:
