Annex I
UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT:
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY UNDER THE PILOT PHASE
List of
Projects
A. Description of project
1) Title of project:
- AS Tamme Soojus, Aardla boilerplant in Tartu, Estonia
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:
|
SNEA
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
SNEA
|
|
|
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):
|
AS Tamme Soojus
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
Ltd Tamme Soojus
|
|
Department:
|
Aardla Boilerplant
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Project owner
|
|
Street:
|
Aardla 113
|
|
Post code:
|
EE 2400
|
|
City:
|
Tartu
|
|
Country:
|
ESTONIA
|
|
Telephone:
|
+372 7 42 81 37
|
|
Fax:
|
+372 7 47 12 86
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Pärnamäe
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Enn
|
|
Job title:
|
director
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+372- 7 42 81 37
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+372- 7 47 12 86
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization(a):
|
|
ÅF Energikonsult Syd AB
|
|
Name of organization (English):
|
Institute of Energy Research
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Project evaluator
|
Technical support
|
|
Street:
|
Paldiski Road 1
|
Stensjögatan 3
|
|
Post code:
|
EE 0001
|
S-217 65
|
|
City:
|
Tallinn
|
MALMÖ
|
|
Country:
|
ESTONIA
|
SWEDEN
|
|
Telephone:
|
+372-2-45 03 03
|
+46-40-37 50 00
|
|
Fax:
|
+372-2-45 24 35
|
+46-40-13 03 69
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Vares
|
Mårtensson
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Villu
|
Roland
|
|
Job title:
|
Professor
|
project leader
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+372-2-45 03 03
|
+46-40-37 51 04
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+372-2-45 24 35
|
+46-40-13 03 69
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
villuv@online.ee
|
roland.martensson@ens.af.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:
|
Tartu is the second largest town in Estonia and there are several boiler plants and district
heating networks in Tartu. In Aardla boiler plant there were three oilfired DKVR 10/13 boilers. One
of these boilers has been converted to biofuels. The converted boiler will be used as the baseload
for this particular net.
|
|
Type of project:a)
|
conversion from fossil fuels to biofuels
|
|
Location (exact, e.g. city, region,
state):
|
Tartu town
Tartu County
Estonia
|
|
Activity starting date:
|
10. December 1993 (Letter of Intent)
|
|
Expected activity ending date:
|
Loan expire date 10. October 2004
|
|
Stage of activity:b)
|
completed
|
|
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)
|
Conversion of an oilfired DKVR 10-13 boiler to biofuels through installation of an integrated
movable grate in the existing boiler with an estimated capacity of 6 MW after conversion. The
annual heat production is estimated to be around 30 000 MWh.
The total production is about 42.000 MWh/year
|
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.
d) 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)/
|
1,20
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for NUTEK/SNEA
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
recipient's costs
|
|
NPV(recipient's net costs)/
|
-3,90
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient'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
|
|
recipient country's economic costs
|
|
NPV(recipient country's economic costs) /
|
0,00
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient country's action case - baseline case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
total costs in recipient country
|
|
NPV(recipient country's total costs) /
|
-3,90
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient's 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
|
|
Overall costs
|
|
NPV(all costs)/
|
-2,71
|
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 organisations involveda):
|
|
It is from the 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 co-operation
with SNEA’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 organisations 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
9800 ton CO2
147 ton SO2
6 ton NOx
Lower pollution in town
Improved silviculture
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental benefits?
|
Yes. Some measurements have been has been carried out at 1994.
|
|
Describe social/cultural benefits in detail:
|
More stable energy supply
Improved working conditions, increased motivation
More employment (fuel companies)
Improved trade balance
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits?
|
Yes . Some reports have been produced
|
|
Describe economic benefits in detail:
|
Decreased fuel costs approx. 4 USD per MWh.
The boilerplant has the lowest productions costs (include capital costs) in town.
The boiler plant has started with loan amortisation prematurely.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of economic benefits?
|
Yes. Some reports have been produced.
|
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 1994.
After two years the mazut will be replaced by natural gas for the rest of the activity lifetime.
The baseline emission of CO2 during 15 years is calculated to 205.000 tons.
2) Estimated emissions with the activity:
Description of the scenario, including methodologies applied:
Below comparison is based upon that the base-line scenario represents a status quo solution.
Fill in the following tables as applicable:
Summary table: Projected emission reduction s:
|
GHG
|
Year 1
=1995
|
Year 2
=1996
|
Year 3
=1997
|
Year 10
=1005
|
Year 15
=2010
|
|
Project baseline scenario
Production MWh/year
Project activity scenario
Production by biofuel MWh/year
Saving from project
MWh/year
|
|
42.000
30 000
|
42.000
30 000
|
42.000
30 000
|
42.000
30.000
|
42.000
30.000
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
13.600
|
13.600
|
11.000
|
11.000
|
11.000
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
All tons/year
|
N2O
|
-
|
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
other
|
-
|
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
3.800
|
3.800
|
3.100
|
3.100
|
3.100
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
other
|
-
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-9.800
|
-9.800
|
-7.900
|
7.900
|
7.900
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
Other
|
-
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-9.800
|
-19.600
|
-27.500
|
-82.800
|
122.300
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
Other
|
-
|
|
-
|
|
|
a) Includes indirect GHG leakages.
Summary table: Actual emission reductions :
|
GHG
|
Year 1
= 1995
|
Year 2
= 1996
|
Year 3
=1997
|
...
|
Year 15
|
|
Factual energy production on biofuels
|
|
28 000
|
31 000
|
36 200
|
|
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
9.100
|
10.100
|
9.500
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-9.100
|
10.100
|
-9.500
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
Other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-9.100
|
-19.200
|
-28.700
|
|
|
|
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
|
754007 USD
|
|
Grant from NUTEK for technical assistans
|
73331 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 co-operation 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.
iii) personal from boilerplant has been invited to different seminars and work-shops, documentation
for training has been handed ower
iv) the boilerplant manager has been used as "local consultant" for other boilerplants.
Boilerplant is active in "bio-club" .
|
Endogenous capacity supported or enhanced:
|
Endogenous capacity
(Name of organisation1)
|
Development (DEV) /
enhancement (ENH)
|
Describe briefly
|
|
AS Tamme Soojus
|
(DEV)
|
The boilerplant director has got very good renomé after boiler conversion with best result
in town. The energy department use him as advisor to solving energy problems in Tartu. Boilerplant
uses as demonstration object in town.
|
1) Please ensure that detailed contact information for all organisations 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:
Wood fuel companies using waste from forest is established.
The manager of the company works as consultant from time to time.
2) Technical difficulties:
The political situation was against local purchasing of fuel.
3) Effects encountered:
4) Impacts encountered:
5) Other obstacles encountered:
6) Other:
