NEGOTIATIONS
FOCUS
PROCESS
KEY STEPS
|
|
Your location: Home |
|
|
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY(AIJ)
|
USIJI Uniform Reporting Document:
Activities Implemented Jointly Under the Pilot Phase
List of
Projects
-
A. Description of the AIJ project
1. Title of project: CESSA CO2 Reduction
2. Host country: El Salvador
3. Brief project description:
- CESSA, S.A. de C.V. installed a new kiln at CESSA’s facility located in Metapán, Santa
Ana, El Salvador. The installation of the new dry kiln will replace the wet kiln, which after
replacement will be shut down. The old kiln used a wet process, which emitted about 1.14 MT of CO2 per
metric ton of clinker, while with the new kiln only about 0.95 MT of CO2 are emitted per metric ton of
clinker. This reduction of CO2 emissions is a result of the decrease in fuel oil consumption by the new
dry kiln technology. The new kiln has a capacity of 2,200 mt per year, designed by F.L.Smidth. This
system includes 5 stages, pre-calcination and tertiary air.
4. Participants:
|
Name of Organization or Individual
|
Country
|
|
Cemento de El Salvador, S.A. de C.V.
|
El Salvador
|
|
Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas
|
U.S.A.
|
|
Item
|
|
|
Organization
|
|
Name of organization (original language)
or
Name of individual if unaffiliated with any organization
|
Cemento de El Salvador, S.A. de C.V.
|
|
Name of organization (English)
|
Cement of El Salvador
|
|
Acronym (original language)
|
CESSA
|
|
Acronym (English)
|
CESSA
|
|
Department
|
|
|
Function(s) within the AIJ project activities(b)
|
Project Administrator
|
|
Street
|
Avenida El Espino, Urbanización Madreselva
|
|
City
|
Antigua Cuscatlán
|
|
State
|
La Libertad
|
|
Post code
|
|
|
Country
|
El Salvador
|
|
Telephone
|
(503) 243 7722
|
|
Fax
|
(503) 243 7717
|
|
E-mail
|
cessaof@es.com.sv
|
|
World Wide Web-URL address
|
http://www.cessa.com.sv/
|
|
Administrative Officer Responsible for the Project
|
|
Surname
|
Herrera
|
|
First name, middle name
|
Luis Mariano
|
|
Job title
|
Quality Control and Environment Manager
|
|
Direct telephone
|
(503) 888 1736
|
|
Direct fax
|
(503) 442 0194
|
|
Direct e-mail
|
mailto:cessateca@cessa.com.sv
|
|
Contact Person for AIJ Activities (if different from the Administrative Officer)
|
|
Surname
|
Quevedo
|
|
First name, middle name
|
Marco Antonio
|
|
Job title
|
Administrative & Finance Director
|
|
Direct telephone
|
(503) 243 7715
|
|
Direct fax
|
(503) 243 7720
|
|
Direct e-mail
|
mailto:cessagfc@cessa.com.sv
|
|
Item
|
|
|
Organization
|
|
Name of organization (original language)
or
Name of individual if unaffiliated with any organization
|
Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas
|
|
Name of organization (English)
|
|
|
Acronym (original language)
|
CSDA
|
|
Acronym (English)
|
|
|
Department
|
|
|
Function(s) within the AIJ project activities(b)
|
Technical Assistance
|
|
Street
|
1700 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 403
|
|
City
|
Washington
|
|
State
|
DC
|
|
Post code
|
20009
|
|
Country
|
U.S.A.
|
|
Telephone
|
(202) 588 0155
|
|
Fax
|
(202) 588 0756
|
|
E-mail
|
|
|
World Wide Web-URL address
|
http://www.csdanet.org/
|
|
Administrative Officer Responsible for the Project
|
|
Surname
|
Figueres
|
|
First name, middle name
|
Christiana
|
|
Job title
|
Executive Director
|
|
Direct telephone
|
(202) 588 0155
|
|
Direct fax
|
(202) 588 0756
|
|
Direct e-mail
|
christiana@csdanet.org
|
|
Contact Person for AIJ Activities (if different from the Administrative Officer)
|
|
Surname
|
Olivas
|
|
First name, middle name
|
Helena
|
|
Job title
|
Project Director
|
|
Direct telephone
|
(202) 588-0155
|
|
Direct fax
|
(202) 588 0756
|
|
Direct e-mail
|
guga@csdanet.org
|
-
5. Description of AIJ project activities
|
Item
|
|
|
Type of Project
|
|
Sector(s)
|
Energy
|
|
Primary activity(ies)
|
Improving energy efficiency by installing a new rotary kiln that introduces a dry process versus a
wet process during the burning of cement powder.
|
|
Project Location
|
|
Country
|
El Salvador
|
|
Exact location (city, state, region)
|
Cantón Tecomapa, Metapán, Departamento de Santa Ana
|
|
Key Dates and Current Stage of Project
|
|
Project starting date (month/year)
|
September 1997
|
|
Project ending date (month/year)
|
December 2010
|
|
Project lifetime (years)
|
12 years
|
|
Current stage of project
|
In operation
|
|
General Project Description and Technical Data
|
|
Project #1
Cemento de El Salvador, S.A. de C.V., CESSA, is the only cement producer in El Salvador. It was
founded and established at the end of the 1940s. The company operates mainly in the Salvadoran
market. Since its establishment, the Company has maintained a prominent position in the local
cement market.
In the late 1970s, however, the government started a new dry process plant (called MAYA) to address
the demand for cement production during those years. In light of major operational failures and
labor difficulties since its early years, the government decided to privatize MAYA in 1993 through
an open bidding process, which CESSA won. The acquisition was implemented smoothly and the MAYA
plant, which CESSA modernized and expanded during 1994-1995, now operates satisfactorily.
CESSA’s installations have 4 rotary kilns and the MAYA has one rotary kiln. In the CESSA
installations, there are 3 wet rotary kilns with a total capacity of 175 mt, 225 mt and 550 mt per
day, respectively; and a dry rotary kiln with a capacity of 1,200 mt per day, with a Miag
Preheater. MAYA has a dry rotary kiln with 1,100 mt per day, with a Miag Preheater. The plants are
currently operating at about 96% of their total production capacity or about 1.0 million mt per
year.
Since 1993 Cemento de EL Salvador, S.A. de C.V. has been working in order to install a new cement
kiln in the CESSA plant due to the increased rate of cement consumption in El Salvador.
As it is well known, wet rotary kilns are inefficient because they have very high fuel consumption.
A high amount of energy is required to dry the paste to be fed into the kiln, previous to
calcination, sinterization and cooling of the clinker. In the dry process, this energy required to
dry the paste is avoided because air is used for homogenization rather than water. As a
consequence, there is an energy reduction during the burning of the cement powder. With the new dry
line # 5 of 2,200 mt per day, and with the implementation of new technology in the process, CESSA
is able to reduce fuel consumption during the burning of the cement, in the kiln. As a result,
there is a valuable CO2 reduction. The new line brings small electrical energy
consumption per mt of clinker due to electrical efficiency, and as a result, there is another
amount of CO2 reduction.
|
|
With the new technology implementation in the kiln’s burner, there is a NOx
reduction, but we are not monitoring NOx emissions with the actual kilns, so it is hard
to establish a baseline and emission values.
FLSmidth was commissioned for this new line, and started operations since September 3rd, 1999. This
project is financed by the IFC, and the Banco Multisectorial de Inversiones through Banco
Agrícola Comercial (El Salvador). The main equipment in this new line includes a
modification in the crusher to increase capacity, a new raw vertical mill, one new kiln with 5
stages preheater and with calciner and terciary air, one cement ball mill, civil infrastructure,
belt transportation, etc.
At this time, the rotary kiln #5 is in operation and the wet process has been shut down. Baseline
will be considered with the use of the wet process and rotary #4.
Project 2:
CESSA is planning to implement a second CO2 reduction by reforesting a maximum of 10 hectares every
year, beginning in 2001 up to year 2011. Once CESSA is able to negotiate carbon credits from
Project 1 it will be self supported for this second project. Several species will be used
during reforestation: flor amarilla, llama del bosque, flor de fuego, leucaena, etc. The first
year’s costs will be approximately US$1,200 per hectare and the following year’s
maintenance will cost around US$750 per hectare.
CESSA has some positive experiences with reforestation at the quarries and plans to reforest inside
and outside the area of the cement plant. CESSA has some areas available for reforestation.
|
|
Methodology for Calculating Cost Data
|
|
This cost methodology includes:
a) Turn key Project costs
1. Mechanical and electrical equipment
2. Civil works, infrastructure and buildings
3. Erection, Engineering and Supervision
b) Preliminary costs (before and during bid evaluation)
c) Pre-starting operations
d) Financial costs during construction
e) Financial costs after construction
f) Other costs and unexpected costs
|
-
(b) Cost data–Project development
Itemized Project Development Costs
-
(c) Cost data–Project implementation
Itemized Project Implementation Costs
|
Year(s)
|
Item
|
Projected Amount
(US$)
|
Actual Amount
(US$)
|
|
Project Costs
|
|
|
|
1997-1999
|
Pre-project and Start Up Expenses
|
2,400,000.00
|
2,000,000.00
|
|
1997-1999
|
Turn key point
|
65,190,000.00
|
73,864,000.00
|
|
1997
|
Working capital
|
1,500,000.00
|
320,000.00
|
|
1997-1999
|
Interest during construction
|
7,200,000.00
|
6,159,000.00
|
|
1997-1999
|
Contingency and Escalation
|
6,630,000.00
|
1,516,000.00
|
|
Subtotal
|
82,920,000.00
|
83,859,000.00
|
|
Project Revenues
|
|
|
|
1 (1997)
|
|
-
|
-
|
|
2
|
|
-
|
-
|
|
3
|
|
-
|
-
|
|
4
|
|
195,000.00
|
|
|
5
|
|
236,700.00
|
|
|
6
|
|
278,000.00
|
|
|
7
|
|
278,000.00
|
|
|
8
|
|
267,700.00
|
|
|
9
|
|
256,600.00
|
|
|
10
|
|
244,800.00
|
|
|
11
|
|
234,000.00
|
|
|
12
|
|
219,100.00
|
|
|
13
|
|
159,100.00
|
|
|
14
|
|
94,000.00
|
|
|
15
|
|
16,900.00
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
2,479,900.00
|
-
|
|
Net Project Cost (Project Costs-Project Revenues)
|
80,440,100.00
|
83,859,000.00
|
-
7. Monitoring and verification of AIJ project activities and results
|
Item
|
Please Complete
|
|
Party(ies) that will be monitoring project activities
|
a) Cement of El Salvador (CESSA)
- b) Clean Development Mechanisms of the Ministry of the Environment, El Salvador
|
|
Party(ies) that will be externally verifying project results
|
To be given at a later date.
|
|
Date when the monitoring plan became (or will become) operational (month/year)
|
First month of year 2001 to year 2013
|
|
Types of data that will be collected
|
a) Rate and efficiency of fuel combustion
b) Fuel composition
c) Fugitive emissions
|
|
Description of Monitoring and Verification Activities and Schedule for Implementation
|
|
The developer will verify that the projections made are established by the actual measured and
recorded emissions. The monitoring will be in accordance to the rules and regulations established
by the following entities: the USIJI program, the Clean Development Mechanism office in El
Salvador, and the UNFCCC.
|
|
Item
|
Please Complete
|
|
Please check one of the following.
|
This report is a first report.
or
This report is an intermediate report.
or
This report is a final report.
|
|
Please check one of the following:
|
This report is a joint report. Letter(s) of approval of this report from the designated national
authority of the other Party(ies) involved in the activity is (are) attached in Section J, Annex.
or
This report is a separate report.
|
|
Additional comments (if any):
|
See attached letter of approval.
|
-
C. Compatibility with, and supportiveness of, national economic development and socioeconomic and
environmental priorities and strategies
|
Compatibility with Economic Development and Socioeconomic and Environmental Priorities
|
|
We are proving that cement manufacturing is compatible with the environment by implementing clean
processes, more efficient energy technology, improving the landscaping with reforestation, etc.
This new line project is compatible with The Salvadoran economic development standards because it
is increasing the cement capacity that satisfies cement demand in construction, roads, pre-casting,
pre-stress, etc. This in turn is able to promote job opportunities in the country.
The working force is one of the main issues in this particular project, because, it continues to
increase the active economic population.
During the construction of the project, more than 1700 workers were at the field, most of them from
Metapán, the city where the plant is located. Contractors from El Salvador were also hired
to provide for civil works, mechanical and electrical installations by FLSmidth.
|
-
D. Environmental, social/cultural, and economic impacts of the AIJ project
|
Non-Greenhouse-Gas Environmental Impacts of the Project
|
|
This project provides several positive impacts to the region from the environmental perspective,
and these are as follows:
Positive thermal impact into air: The new installed kiln #5 sends cooler gases into the atmosphere,
which are les harmful. With this new dry process we use the hot gases to dry up the raw material at
the grinding mill, instead of releasing them into the atmosphere as we see during the wet process,
that instead releases the hot gases as a waste product into the atmosphere.
Positive underground water impact: the wet process requires 13,411 m3 of water/month and
the kiln #5 requires 2,160 m3/month, with the new kiln, this water consumption is
reduced by 11,251 m3/month.
Positive Dust emissions: The old wet process does not use any kind of filter at the exit gases, the
new kiln #5 is using an electrostatic filter that reduces dust emission to under 50
mg/Nm3.
Positive sound impact: The wet grinding mills are emitting 105 dB (A), while the new Atox vertical
mill emits a maximum of 70 dB (A).
Positive health impact: because there are cleaner gas emissions and a cleaner environment.
Positive Industrial safety impact: because the control process of the new line is completely
automated.
|
|
Social/Cultural Impacts of the Project
|
|
With the new kiln #5 there are no dust emissions and this creates a healthier environment for the
workers and a cleaner landscape for the community. This project has also given job opportunities
for women workers, specifically in the area of laboratory work.
|
|
Economic Impacts of the Project
|
|
Project construction created a source of employment for people in and out of the Metapan community.
New kiln 5 will bring economic development to the country.
|
-
E. Greenhouse gas impacts of the AIJ project
1. Scenario description
|
Item
|
Please Complete for Each Site
|
|
Site Designation
|
|
Site number (order of presentation in this report)
|
|
|
Site name/designation
|
Metapan, El Salvador
|
|
Project sector
|
Energy
|
|
Reference Scenario
|
|
Primary activity(ies)
|
Energy
|
|
Has the reference scenario changed since the last report? (If yes, explain any changes below.)
|
Yes
No
This is the first project report.
|
|
Description:
The previous scenario with the 3 wet process kilns (#1, #2 and #3) and the dry process (rotary kiln
#4) at the CESSA factory, and the dry process (rotary kiln #1) at Maya factory, were showing a
dusty operation at CESSA. The 3 wet process kilns were emitting a lot of dust into the atmosphere
because they did not have electrostatic filters or a bag filter. Each kiln emitted about 1 mt/h of
dust. With the rotary kiln #4, even with an electrostatic filter, emissions were about 4 mt/h of
dust into the atmosphere. Since 1997 CESSA has worked on reducing dust emissions from kiln #4 by
improving mechanical and electrical parts of the electrostatic filter. The project GREEN CESSA was
developed and financed, and obtained from DANIDA.
Another consideration is that a wet process consumes more water than the dry process. Fuel
consumption is higher in the wet process because the heat required to dry up the slurry is greater.
|
|
Predicted Project Scenario
|
|
Primary activity (ies)
|
Energy
|
|
Description:
The new line is implementing a more efficient FLSmidth rotary kiln (3.6 x 57 m), including
precalciner, terciary air, 5 stages preheating tower, etc. An Atox vertical mill is implemented for
raw material as well as a new cement ball mill and a continuous feeding silo.
This new line was constructed beside the previous plant, in about 2 hectares. Specific fuel
consumption for the kiln is 725 Kcal/Kg. Water demand is lower. No dust emissions are expected
above 50 mg/Nm3, the maximum amount established by World Bank Regulations.
|
|
Actual Project
|
|
Primary activity(ies)
|
|
|
Description:
|
CO2 Calculation for year 1999 as it should be calculated:
a) CO2 Calculation (based on kiln’s fuel consumption)
Cessa’s fuel oil consumption: 16,148,960 gallons
Maya’s fuel oil consumption: 7,776,599 gallons
Total: 23,925,559 gallons
mt CO2 = (gallons of fuel oil) x density x 3.785 x (Carbon% in fuel) x 44 / 12,000
= ((23,925,559 gal) x (0.93 Kg/L) x ( 3.875 L/gln) x (0.86) x (44) ) / 12,000
= 265,571.1 tm
To calculate fuel oil emission factor, you have to use fuel oil consumption and clinker production per
kiln. First you estimate mt CO2 then divided by clinker production. Example:
- kiln #1 = (1,440,822 gal) x 0.93 x 3.875 x 0.86 x 44 / (12,000 x 27,477 mt clinker) = 0.5820 mt
CO2/mt clink, etc.
- CO2 Calculation (based on limestone calcination)
1. Establish the % CaCO3 fed to kilns
cessa wet process = 76.86%
cessa dry process = 76.89%
maya dry process = 77.38%
2. Calculate CO2 emission factor by using
mt CO2/mt clinker = (%CaCO3 x 0.44) / ( 100 - (%CaCO3 x 0.44))
Cessa wet process = 0.5110 mt CO2/ mt clinker
Cessa dry process = 0.5113 mt CO2/ mt clinker
Maya dry process = 0.5162 mt CO2/ mt clinker
3. Using clinker production we estimate CO2 emissions
Cessa wet process = 147,595 mt clinker x 0.5110 =75,421.0 mt CO2
Cessa dry process = 373,177 mt clinker x 0.5113 = 190,805.0 mt CO2
Maya dry process = 282,572 mt clinker x 0.5162 = 145,873.8 mt CO2
Total 412,099.8 mt CO2
Limestone calcination factors are already calculated: 0.5110 for wet process, etc.
c) CO2 Calculation (based on electrical energy consumption)
Gross Electrical generation (at factory) = 104,002,613 KWh
Net Electrical generation (at factory) = 98,889,566 KWh
Total Fuel consumption = 6,230,553 gallons
Specific fuel consumption = 0.063005161 gall/KWh
Sales to CESSA = 58,763,199 KWh
Sales to MAYA = 37,389,549 KWh
Total = 96,152,748 KWh
Fuel consumption due to electrical requirements at cement factories =
96,152,748 KWh x 0.063005161 gallons/KWh = 6,058,119 gallons
mt CO2 = (gallons of fuel oil) x density x 3.785 x (Carbon% in fuel) x 44 / 12,000
= ((6,058,119 gal) x (0.93 Kg/L) x ( 3.875 L/gln) x (0.86) x (44) ) / 12,000
= 68,843.4 tm
To calculate electrical emission factors:
We need Electric consumption:
CESSA’s electric Consump. (wet P.) 16,423,394 KWh
CESSA’s electric Consump. (dry P.) 49,613,743 KWh
MAYA’s electric Consump. (dry P.) 40,768,149 KWh
Total 106,805,286 KWh
We calculate mt CO2/ KWh = 68,843.4 / 106,805,286 = 0.00064457
Mt CO2/ mt clinker = (electrical consumption, KWh) x 0.00064457 / (clinker production, mt)
cessa wet process = 16,423,394 x 0.00064457 / 147,595 = 0.0717 mt CO2/mt clinker
cessa dry process = 49,613,743 x 0.00064457 / 373,177 = 0.0857 mt CO2/mt clinker
maya dry process = 40,768,149 x 0.00064457 / 282,572 = 0.0930 mt CO2/mt clinker
d) Total CO2 emissions
CO2 due to fuel consumption by kilns 265,571.1 mt
CO2 due to limestone calcination 412,099.8 mt
CO2 due to electrical requirements 68,843.4 mt
Total 746,514.3 mt
-
2. GHG emission/sequestration calculation methodology
|
GHG Emission/Sequestration Calculation Methodology
|
|
Site number)
|
|
|
Project sector)
|
Energy Efficiency
|
|
Description of Calculation Methodology for the Reference Scenario
|
|
a) We based our clinker production on cement demand (with a growth rate of 6% per year)
b) Clinker - cement factor is required to calculate clinker requirements
c) Clinker production from each kiln must be determined, considering operating priorities as
shown:
Priority #1: kiln #4 (CESSA, with clinker max capacity of 357,500 mtpy)
Priority #2: kiln #1 (MAYA, with clinker max capacity of 341,250 mtpy)
Priority #3: kiln #3 (CESSA, with clinker max capacity of 165,000 mtpy)
Priority #4: kiln #2 (CESSA, with clinker max capacity of 65,000 mtpy)
Priority #5: kiln #1 (CESSA, with clinker max capacity of 57,000 mtpy).
- d) Any other clinker requirement will be based if we are buying clinker at a better CO2
efficiency factor, as the clinker produced by CESSA’s rotary kiln # 5.
e) CO2 emission factors for each kiln are required to calculate CO2 emissions.
|
|
Description of Calculation Methodology for the Project Scenario
|
|
a) We based our clinker production on cement demand (with a growth rate of 6% per year)
b) Clinker - cement factor is required to calculate clinker requirements
c) Clinker production from each kiln must be determined, considering operating priorities as
shown:
Priority #1: kiln #5 (CESSA, with clinker max capacity of 715,000 mtpy)
Priority #2: kiln #4 (CESSA, with clinker max capacity of 357,500 mtpy)
Priority #3: kiln #1 (MAYA, with clinker max capacity of 341,250 mtpy)
d) Any other clinker requirement will include the existing rotary kiln #1, #2 and #3 as a first
choice.
- e) Any other clinker requirement will be base if we are buying clinker at a better CO2
efficiency factor, as the clinker produced by CESSA’s rotary kiln #5.
f) CO2 emission factors for each kiln are required to calculate CO2 emissions.
|
|
Description of Calculation Methodology for the Actual Project
|
|
a) We require total fuel oil requirements for each kiln.
b) Calculate CO2 emissions due to fuel oil kilns consumption.
c) We require CaCO3 % fed at kiln inlet.
d) We require total clinker production from each kiln.
e) We calculate CO2 emissions due to limestone calcinations.
f) We require total fuel oil requirements for electrical generation sent to CESSA’s facility.
g) We require Net electrical generation at electrical facility.
h) We require electrical sales to CESSA and MAYA cement plants.
i) We calculate CO2 emissions due to electrical requirements.
j) We require carbon percentage and density in fuel oil.
k) Sum all CO2 emissions.
Any other clinker requirement will be based if we are buying clinker at a better CO2 efficient
factor, as the clinker produced by CESSA’s rotary kiln # 5.
|
-
3. GHG emission/sequestration data
-
(a) Reporting of GHG emissions/sequestration
|
Projected Net Greenhouse Gas Benefits: All Project Sites
(Tonnes, Full Molecular Weight Basis)
|
|
Sector(s):
|
|
Project Activity(ies):
|
Energy
|
|
Please specify:
|
Year 1= 1997
|
|
Reference Scenario
Emissions
|
Project Scenario
Emissions
|
Net GHG Benefits
(Reference Scenario -
Project Scenario)
|
Cumulative GHG Benefits
(Reference Scenario -
Project Scenario)
|
|
Year
|
CO2
|
CH4
|
N2O
|
CO2
|
CH4
|
N2O
|
CO2
|
CH4
|
N2O
|
CO2-
Equivalent
|
CO2
|
CH4
|
N2O
|
CO2-
Equivalent
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
774,570
|
0
|
0
|
774,570
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
4
|
829,117
|
0
|
0
|
757,614
|
0
|
0
|
71,503
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
71,503
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
5
|
887,826
|
0
|
0
|
801,038
|
0
|
0
|
86,788
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
158,291
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
6
|
949,012
|
0
|
0
|
847,067
|
0
|
0
|
101,945
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
260,236
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
7
|
997,803
|
0
|
0
|
895,858
|
0
|
0
|
101,945
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
362,181
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
8
|
1,049,521
|
0
|
0
|
951,345
|
0
|
0
|
98,176
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
460,357
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
9
|
1,104,342
|
0
|
0
|
1,010,240
|
0
|
0
|
94,102
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
554,459
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
10
|
1,162,453
|
0
|
0
|
1,072,668
|
0
|
0
|
89,785
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
644,244
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
11
|
1,224,050
|
0
|
0
|
1,138,842
|
0
|
0
|
85,208
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
729,452
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
12
|
1,289,343
|
0
|
0
|
1,208,986
|
0
|
0
|
80,357
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
809,809
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
13
|
1,358,554
|
0
|
0
|
1,300,224
|
0
|
0
|
58,330
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
868,139
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
14
|
1,431,918
|
0
|
0
|
1,397,448
|
0
|
0
|
34,470
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
902,609
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
15
|
1,509,683
|
0
|
0
|
1,503,470
|
0
|
0
|
6,213
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
908,822
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
14,568,192
|
|
|
13,659,370
|
|
|
908,822
|
|
|
|
6,730,102
|
|
|
|
|
Actual Net Greenhouse Gas Benefits: All Project Sites
(Tonnes, Full Molecular Weight Basis)
|
|
Sector(s):
|
|
Project Activity(ies):
|
Energy
|
|
Please specify: Year 1=
|
1997
|
|
Reference Scenario
Emission
|
Project Scenario
Emissions
|
Net GHG Benefits
(Reference Scenario -
Project Scenario)
|
Cumulative GHG Benefits
(Reference Scenario - Project Scenario)
|
|
Year
|
CO2
|
CH4
|
N2O
|
CO2
|
CH4
|
N2O
|
CO2
|
CH4
|
N2O
|
CO2-
Equivalent
|
CO2
|
CH4
|
N2O
|
|
1
|
796,031
|
|
|
796,031
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
828,031
|
|
|
828,031
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
774,570
|
0
|
0
|
746,514
|
0
|
0
|
28,055.70
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
28,055.70
|
0
|
0
|
|
4
|
829,117
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
887,826
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
949,012
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
997,803
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
1,049,521
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
1,104,342
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
1,162,453
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
1,224,050
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
1,289,343
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
1,358,554
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
1,431,918
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
1,509,683
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
16,192,254
|
|
|
2,370,576
|
|
|
28,056
|
|
|
|
28,056
|
|
|
-
(b) Additional information on GHG emissions/sequestration
|
Indirect or Secondary GHG Impacts (Positive and Negative)
|
- Positive impact to Metapan flora because will improve air quality.
- Positive impact to fauna because will improve air quality.
- Positive impact to underground water, because wet process is no longer being in operation.
|
|
Factors That Could Cause the Future Loss or Reversal of GHG Benefits
|
|
Only a total destruction of this kiln #5 as well as kiln #4. At the present time it could be
considered as a low risk situation because there is a stable political situation in El Salvador.
|
|
Strategy for Reducing the Risk of Future Loss or Reversal of GHG Benefits
|
|
It is not necessary to establish a strategy for reducing the risk of future loss or reversal of GHG
benefits. It is depending on fuel oil kiln design, which is warranted and was already successfully
tested. Variations could be bellow 5%.
|
|
Funding Source
|
Country of Funding Source
|
Amount ($US)
|
Percent of Total Funding (%)
|
|
Self funded
|
El Salvador
|
131,633
|
100
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
-
(b) Funding sources for project implementation
|
Funding Source
|
Country of Funding Source
|
Amount ($US)
|
Percent of Total Funding (%)
|
Is This Funding Assured? (Y/N)
|
|
IFC (Credit A)
|
USA
|
20,000,000
|
23.9
|
Yes
|
|
IFC (Credit B)(a)
|
USA
|
24,000,000
|
28.6
|
Yes
|
|
BMI (through Banco Agrícola Comercial, BAC)
|
El Salvador
|
11,000,000
|
13.1
|
Yes
|
|
Self funding
|
El Salvador
|
28,859,000
|
34.4
|
|
|
Total
|
|
83,859,000
|
100
|
|
|
|
-
2. Assessment of additional funding needs:
|
Current or Planned Activities to Obtain Additional Funding
|
|
Not required.
|
-
G. Contribution to capacity building and technology transfer
|
Contribution to Capacity Building and Technology Transfer
|
|
Clinker production was 985,750 mt per year before the project. With the implementation of kiln #5,
clinker production is 1,413,750 mt per year, excluding the wet process. Calculations are considered
to successfully satisfy national cement demand.
New technology is reducing our CO2 emissions by reducing fuel oil consumption at the new kiln.
|
-
H. Recent developments, technical difficulties, and obstacles encountered
|
Recent Project Developments
|
|
CESSA has already implemented an environmental program, called GREEN CESSA, project which is
considered to reduce dust emissions of kiln #4 (at the CESSA plant) to a maximum of 150
mg/Nm3, to accomplish World Bank Regulation. At the same time there is an increase in
the number of bag filters at CESSA and MAYA plants, with the kiln #4 (CESSA) and kiln #1 (MAYA).
The cost of this project is about US$1,615,000.00
Actual dust emissions from kiln #4 (CESSA) have an average value of 90 mg/Nm3. This
value is within Environmental Regulations.
At the same time CESSA is interested in the use of Alternative fuels.
|
|
Technical Difficulties and Other Obstacles Encountered
|
|
No technical difficulties were encountered.
|
-
I. Additional information
|
Additional Information
|
|
Not applicable.
|
J. Annex
-
1. Host country acceptance of the AIJ project
|
Country/Project Title
|
Name, Title, and Government Agency of the Designated National Authority
|
Date of Approval (day/month/year)
|
|
El Salvador
CESSA CO2 REDUCTION
|
Ana Maria Majano, Ministro de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, El Salvador.
|
26 July 1999
|
|
Item
|
Please Complete If Applicable
|
|
Organization
|
|
Name
|
Luis Mariano Herrera
|
|
Organization (English)
|
Cemento de El Salvador, S.A. de C.V.
|
|
Telephone
|
(503) 243-7722
|
|
Fax
|
(503) 243-7717
|
|
E-mail
|
Cessateca@cessa.com.sv
|
|
Milestone
|
Date Initiated (if applicable) (month/year)
|
Date Completed (if applicable) (month/year)
|
|
Substantive discussions regarding project
|
1991
|
|
|
Pre-feasibility study
|
January 1992
|
June 1993
|
|
Feasibility study
|
January 1994
|
January 1994
|
|
Bidding
|
June 1996
|
September 1996
|
|
Bid Evaluations
|
September 1996
|
September 1996
|
|
Bid Assignation (company)
|
September 1996
|
|
|
Bid Negotiation (with FLS as the winner)
|
September 1996
|
September 1997
|
|
Signing of Turn key Bidding Contract
|
September 1997
|
|
|
Project development (including construction and/or setting up on-site offices, purchase of lands,
etc.)
|
October 1997
|
October 1999
|
|
Project operations (including starting management practices, distributing information, training,
purchase of operating equipment, etc.)
|
1997
|
|
|
Sequestration or reduction of GHG emissions
|
July 1999
|
October 1999
|
|
Project financing obtained
|
October 1999
|
December 2011
|
|
Other (please specify)
|
Not applicable
|
|
-
3. Assignment of GHG emission reductions
-
(a) Methodology for allocating GHG emission reductions.
|
Methodology for Allocating GHG Emission Reductions
|
|
Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas will have 5% of the total CO2 emissions
Cemento de El Salvador will have 95% of the total CO2 emissions.
|
-
(b) Final assignment of GHG emission reductions
|
Participant
|
Percentage of the Total Emission Reduction Assigned to This Participant
|
|
Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas, CSDA
|
5%
|
|
Cemento de El Salvador
|
95%
|
|
Total
|
100
|
-
4. Baseline GHG emission scenario (prior 12 months)
|
Period
|
Baseline Emissions (metric tonnes)
|
|
From (month/year)
|
To (month/year)
|
CO2
|
CH4
|
N2O
|
Other (Specify)
|
CO2-Equivalent
|
|
January 1997
|
December 1997
|
Estimated: 805,190.3
(Real: 796,031.1)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Methodology for Calculating Baseline Emission/Sequestration Estimates
|
|
Factors calculation:
- fuel oil kiln consumption: (based on year 1996, 1997 y 1998)
gallons of fuel oil/ mt of clinker mt of CO2 emissions/mt clinker
kiln #1 cessa 48.13 0.5480
kiln #2 cessa 44.16 0.5028
kiln #3 cessa 42.89 0.4884
kiln #4 cessa 24.68 0.2810
kiln #1 maya 27.21 0.3098
Note 1: mt CO2/mt clinker = (fuel density) x 3.785 x (gal fuel oil/mt ckr) x (carbon % in fuel
oil) x 44 / 12,000
Density = 0.954 Carbon % in fuel oil = 86%
- Due to limestone calculations
CaCO3 in limestone mt of CO2 emissions/mt clinker
kiln #1, #2 & #3 cessa 76.71% 0.5095
kiln #4 cessa 76.7% 0.5094
kiln #1 maya 77.4% 0.5164
Note 2: mt CO2/mt clinker = (CaCO3 %) x 0.44 / ( 100 - (CaCO3 % x 44 ))
- Due to electrical consumption
Gallons of fuel oil/ KWh KWh / mt clinker mt of CO2 emissions/mt clinker
kiln #1, #2 & #3 cessa 0.0583 127.76 0.0836
kiln #4 cessa 0.0583 129.81 0.0873
kiln #1 maya 0.0583 133.86 0.0900
Note 2: mt CO2/mt clinker = (fuel oil density) x (carbon % in fuel oil) x (gallons of fuel oil/Kwh)
x 3.785 x
(KWh/mt clinker) x 44 / 12,000
|
Example for year 1997:
|
Kiln #
|
Clinker Production (mt)
|
CO2 Due to Fuel Oil Consumption (mt)
|
CO2 Due to Calcination (mt)
|
CO2 Due to Electrical Consumption (mt)
|
|
1 (cessa)
|
44,010
|
24,117.5
|
22,423.1
|
3,679.2
|
|
2 (cessa)
|
44,542
|
22,395.7
|
22,694.1
|
3,723.7
|
|
3 (cessa)
|
134,693
|
65,784.1
|
68,626.1
|
11,260.3
|
|
4 (cessa)
|
322,039
|
90,493.0
|
164,046.7
|
28,114.0
|
|
1 (maya)
|
291,688
|
100,953.2
|
150,627.7
|
26,251.9
|
|
total
|
|
303,743.5
(real: 294,584.3)
|
428,417.7
|
73,029.1
|
|
|
