Your location: Home


ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY(AIJ)

List of Projects

Annex I

UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT:

ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY UNDER THE PILOT PHASE

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.

  1. 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:

  • * Subsequent reports:

Second report . First report was submitted 1997.

2) This report is a joint report:

  • Yes.

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

  1. 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:

  1. 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: