Annex I
UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT:
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY UNDER THE PILOT PHASE
List of
Projects
A. Description of project
1) Title of project:
Mustamäe, energy efficiency of 4 cooperative houses
2) Participants/actors:
|
Item
|
Financier/Reporter
|
Estonian co-reporter
|
|
Name of organisation(a):
|
Statens Energimyndighet
|
Eesti Vabariigi Keskkonnaministeerium
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
Swedish National Energy Administration
|
Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia
|
|
Department:
|
Division for Eastern Europe- EAES Programme
|
International Relation development
|
|
Acronym:
|
STEM
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
STEM
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Assigned by the Swedish Government for Implementation including financing arrangements.
|
Estonian Climate responsible Organisation
|
|
Street:
|
Liljeholmsvägen 32
|
Toompuiestee 24
|
|
Post code:
|
S-117 86
|
EE 0100
|
|
City:
|
Stockholm
|
Tallinn
|
|
Country:
|
Sweden
|
ESTONIA
|
|
Telephone:
|
+46-8-681 96 07
|
|
|
Fax:
|
+46-8-681 96 67
|
|
|
E-mail:
|
gudrun.knutsson@stem.se
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
http://www.stem.se
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Westermark
|
Kratovits
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Sune
|
Andres
|
|
Job title:
|
senior officer
|
councellor
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+46-8-681 95 39
|
+372-62 62 841
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+46-8-681 96 67
|
+372-62 62 845
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
sune.westermark@stem.se
|
andres@ekm.envir.ee
|
|
Borrower
|
|
Name of organisation(a):
|
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
|
|
Street:
|
|
|
Post code:
|
|
|
City:
|
|
|
Country:
|
|
|
Telephone:
|
|
|
Fax:
|
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
|
|
Surname:
|
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
|
|
Job title:
|
|
|
Direct tel:
|
|
|
Direct fax:
|
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization(a):
|
|
Projektsamordning AB
|
|
Name of organization (English):
|
Institute of Energy Research
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Project evaluator
|
|
|
Street:
|
Paldiski Road 1
|
Technical support
|
|
Post code:
|
EE 0001
|
|
|
City:
|
Tallinn
|
S-217 65
|
|
Country:
|
ESTONIA
|
Vätra Frölunda
|
|
Telephone:
|
+372-2-45 03 03
|
SWEDEN
|
|
Fax:
|
+372-2-45 24 35
|
+46-31-49 03 61
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Vares
|
Pahapill
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Villu
|
Taavi
|
|
Job title:
|
Professor
|
project leader
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+372-2-45 03 03
|
+46-31- 49 03 61
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+372-2-45 24 35
|
+46-31-
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
villuv@online.ee
|
taavi.pahapill@projektsamordning.muth.se
|
|
|
|
a) Organisation includes: institutions, ministries, companies, non-governmental organisations, etc.
involved in the activity, i.e. research institutes associated with the project, auditors, government agency
closely following the activity.
3) Activity:
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
General description:
|
Mustamäe District of Tallinn was built in the 1960`s and 1970`s.There live about 80 000
persons in 20 000 flats.The actual buildings are built in 1964-65. The framework is precast
concrete elements and walls are of plastered light weight concrete. The roof is flat and had many
leaks causing considerable energy losses. The buildings have open and one-pipe heating systems
(Ehitajate tee partly 2-pipe system) connected with district heating.No regulation possibilities
were available for incoming heating water or for local needs inside the buildings. Ventilation
consist of natural draught. This project consist of four units, totaly seven buildings, 424 flats
and owned by four cooperatives. (legal private status also during the Soviet era)
|
|
Type of project:a)
|
energy efficiency
|
|
Location (exact, e.g. city, region,
state):
|
Mustamäe district
Tallinn town
ESTONIA
|
|
Activity starting date:
|
08. June 1995 (Letter of Intent)
|
|
Expected activity ending date:
|
Loan expire date 31. March 2005
|
|
Stage of activity:b)
|
compleated
|
|
Lifetime of activity if different from ending date:c)
|
Expected technical lifetime is 15 years which means that the plant is expected to be in operation
till 2010.
|
|
Technical data:d)
|
Renovation and insulation of the roof, wheather-stripping of windows, renovation of wall element
joints, insulation of gable sections (Sütiste tee) new entrances new substation including heat
exchangers, domestic hotwater circulation, expansion tanks,main pipe control valves and balancing
the heating system, radiator reduction valves in rooms next to insulated parts, termostatic
radiator valves installed in 2-pipe system (Ehitajate tee) exchanging old and leaking pipes
including new insulation, finally chemical cleaning the house heating system.
|
a) For example, using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) classification: energy efficiency;
renewable energy; fuel switching; forest preservation, restoration or reforestation; afforestation;
fugitive gas capture; industrial processes; solvents; agriculture; waste disposal or bunker fuels.
b) Circle the appropriate option.
c) Methodological work will be required to define lifetime of activities.
Methodological work will be required to determine for each type of activity what the minimum data
requirements are.
Heat production plants (bio fuel)
|
25 years
|
New installation of all main equipment parts (fuel handling system, firing equipment and boiler)
and modernisation of secondary equipment.
|
|
15 years
|
Conversion of existing boiler but new installation fuel handling system and firing equipment.
Modernisation of secondary equipment.
|
|
10 years
|
Limited installation of new equipment (only one part of the three main parts, normally the firing
equipment). Modernisation of other equipment.
|
Heat distribution systems and sub-stations
|
25 years
|
Pre-fabricated pipes including western installation supervision
|
|
15 years
|
Pre-fabricated pipes including local installation supervision
|
|
10 years
|
Modernisation of existing pipes.
|
-
Cost (to the extent possible):
The cost analysis is based on a model developed within the framework of an expert group set up by the
Nordic Council of Ministers and presented in the report TemaNord:564. The calculations include:
1. How would the CO2 emissions have developed without the investment from the investor country,
i.e. determination of a reference alternative.
2. The investment cost of the project.
3. Differences in operation costs before and after the investment.
4. Changes in other economic conditions, e-g- reduction of other environmentally damaging emissions.
5. The time before the project would have been implemented anyhow, or the economic lifetime of the project
if it is reasonable to expect that the project alternatively would not have been implemented within the
period in question.
The more detailed calculations are found in the table enclosed as the last page to this project report.
|
Swedish National Energy Administration's costs
|
|
NPV(Swedish net costs)/
|
14,49
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for NUTEK/SNEA
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
recipient's costs
|
|
NPV(recipient's net costs)/
|
7,51
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient's action - baseline case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
recipient country's economic costs
|
|
NPV(recipient country's economic costs) /
|
0,00
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient country's action case - baseline case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
total costs in recipient country
|
|
NPV(recipient country's total costs) /
|
7,51
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient's and recipient country's action case - baseline
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
Overall costs
|
|
NPV(all costs)/
|
22,00
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of all costs for SNEA, recipient, and recipient country's action case - baseline
case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
5) Mutually agreed assessment procedures:
|
Describe the procedures, including name of organizations involveda):
|
|
It is from teh Swedish side intended that upon agreement with a central Estonian authority on
reporting of JI-projects, this authority will assign a local organisation, which will be involved
in the evaluation of the climate effects of this project. After an initial work in cooperation with
STEM’s assigned consultant, this local organisation would take the main responsibility the
continued measuring for JI-reporting.
|
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:
(a) In the case of joint reporting, the report is submitted by the designated national authority of one
participating Party with the concurrence of all other participating Parties as evidenced by attached
letters issued by the relevant national authorities;
(b) In the case of separate reporting, the reports are submitted separately by the designated national
authority of each and every participating Party. Information will only be compiled once reports have been
received from all participating Parties.
1) For the activity:
Second report . First report was submitted 1997.
2) This report is a joint report:
3) General short comment by the government(s) if applicable:
cf. Annex II, section B
C. Compatibility with and supportiveness of national economic development and socio economic 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 following objectives in the Estonian Energy Law:
- efficient use of energy resources;
- creation and usage of energy efficient technologies, fuel/energy consuming and diagnostic
equipment, construction and insulation materials; energy flow metering and control devices,
automated energy consumption control systems;
|
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:
|
Annual emissions reduction
370 ton CO2
3.3 ton SO2
0.24 ton NOx
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental benefits?
|
No.
|
|
Describe social/cultural benefits in detail:
|
The inhabitants have become much more aware of environmental aspects. Inhabitants and neighbors
find that they can see "the light in the tunnel" - they have common positive issues to
discuss. This creates of course unity and identity.The process give also as result a
form of self-identity and proudness to take part in the evolution. Looking at the actors in the
process from local manager to architects,ingeneers, suppliers they receive an example how to act
commercially and at the same time keep the ethic in business.
Much better comfort thanks to a 2-30C higher inside temperature.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits?
|
Yes, some studies has been curried out
|
|
Describe economic benefits in detail:
|
Decreased energy consumption between 8-30 %. The experiences from this project encouraged the
actors to go further with new projects. For example the whole Mustamäe District will have new
substations in the end of the year 1997.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of economic benefits?
|
Yes, some studies has been curried out
|
E. Calculation of the contribution of activities implemented jointly projects that bring about 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
-
Estimated emissions without the activity (project baseline):
The bsasline has been revised in relation to the feasibility study made 1995.
Annual heat supply would continue to have been provided with district heating based on mazout. For the
comparison of emission reduction, only the saved energy is used as the source of emissions for the baseline
calculation. It is assumed that the inhabitants in the co-operatives would have done energy savings
measures by themselves. The annual savings would be 3 % for three years starting 2 years from the start of
this project. The energy reduction made would thus be 10 %. Emissions are calculated from elementary
analysis of the assumed fuels.
The amount of CO2 emitted without the project during the technical lifespan is 8,570 ton.
2) Estimated emissions with the activity:
Description of the scenario, including methodologies applied:
Annual heat is provided with district heating based on mazout. The annual energy savings is estimated to 55
kWh/m2 and 40,000 m2, giving 2,400 MWh in savings. The emissions are calculated from
the elementary analysis of the assumed fuels.
Fill in the following tables as applicable:
Summary table: Projected emission reductions:
|
GHG
|
Year 1
=1996
|
Year 2
=1997
|
Year 3
=1998
|
Year 4
=1999
|
Year 15
|
|
Planned energy saving MWh/year
|
|
1.600
|
1.600
|
2.400
|
2.400
|
2.400
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
442
|
430
|
630
|
605
|
605
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-442
|
-430
|
-630
|
-605
|
-605
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-442
|
-872
|
-1502
|
-2107
|
-2712
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Includes indirect GHG leakages.
Summary table: Actual emission reductions:
|
GHG
|
Year 1
= 1996
|
Year 2
= 1997
|
|
...
|
Year 15
|
|
Factual energy saving MWh per year
|
|
1600
|
1600
|
|
|
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
442
|
430
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-442
|
-430
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-442
|
-872
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Includes indirect GHG leakages.
F. Additionality to financial obligations of Parties included in Annex II to the Convention within the
framework of the financial mechanism as well as to current official development assistance flows
Please indicate all sources of project funding.
|
Category of funding
(For each source one line)
|
Amount
(US dollars)
|
|
Loan from NUTEK
|
580.859 USD
|
|
Grant from NUTEK for technical assistans
|
94.854 USD
|
1 USD = 7.50 SEK
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 environmentally sound technologies and know-how
|
Describe briefly
|
|
Schematically, the transfer of knowledge involves the following activities over time:
i) Technology transfer through NUTEKs technical specialist during the implementation of the
project.
ii) Technology transfer through cooperation between foreign supplier and local partner
iii) Conferences, seminars, documentation and training.
iv) Stimulate "net-working" for the exchange of experience between plant owners with
similar problems, e g "bio-clubs"
|
technology transfer has taken place through
i) NUTEKs technical specialist support to the local project leader and municipality. ii) technology
transfer through cooperation between foreign consultants, supplier and local consultant and
building constructor.
- iii) informations and meetings with personal involved in the project and the tenants
- stimulate cooperation with local experts,consultants to achieve two-way communication
and to find respect for chosen solutions from both sides.
- Involve professional groups besides energy experts i e architects, construction
engineers, firesecurity experts and so on to achieve optimal solutions and to secure other aspects
such as estetical view.
|
Endogenous capacity supported or enhanced:
|
Endogenous capacity
(Name of organization1)
|
Development (DEV) /
enhancement (ENH)
|
Describe briefly
|
|
Mustamäe District Administra-
tion of City Tallinn
|
(DEV)
|
The local project leader has been an important person who continues the energyefficiency projects
in larger scale and informs other interested.The representatives for the cooperatives have become
important references for others.
|
1) Please ensure that detailed contact information for all organizations listed is reported under section
A.2 above.
H. Additional comments, if any, including any practical experience gained or technical difficulties,
effects, impacts or other obstacles encountered
Fill in as appropriate:
-
Any practical experience gained:
-
Technical difficulties:
-
Effects encountered:
4) Impacts encountered:
5) Other obstacles encountered:
6) Other:
