Your location: Home


ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY(AIJ)

List of Projects

USIJI Uniform Reporting Document:

Activities Implemented Jointly Under the Pilot Phase 

  • 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.

  • 6. Cost
    • (a) Explanation of methodology for calculating cost data

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

Image

  • (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.

  • B. Governmental approval
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.
  1. 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.

  • l) We correct the electrical emission factor and the limestone calcination factor. We add these factors to the original fuel oil emission factor to have the new emission factor per kiln. This kiln emission factor will be used with clinker production in REFERENCE SCENARIO AND PREDICTED PROJECT SCENARIO. These new factors are not expected to be much different from the calculated values.

    m) Maximum clinker capacity will be the one given by CESSA rotary kiln # 4 and #5, and MAYA rotary kiln #1.

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%.

  • F. Funding of the AIJ project

    1. Identification of funding sources

    • (a) Funding sources for project development
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
  • (a) Credit B was used to pay an initial credit hold with General Societté and Dresdner Bank at the beginning of the project.

  • 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
  • 2. Letters of approval of this AIJ project report:
    • See attached letter of concurrence.

    K. Addendum for USIJI Secretariat Only

    1. Lead contact for project reporting

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

  • 2. Milestones
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:

  1. 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%

  2. 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 ))

  3. 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