Your location: Home

ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY(AIJ)


 
Annex I

UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT:

ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY UNDER THE PILOT PHASE

List of Projects

A. Description of project

1) Title of project:

System project in Kuressaare, 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 Kuressare Soojus

Name of organisation (English):

Ldt Heat Producer in Kuresssare

Department:

Acronym:

Acronym (English):

Function within activity:

borrower

Street:

Kalevi 1a

Post code:

EE 33 00

City:

Kuressaare

Country:

Estonia

Telephone:

+372-45-31 260

Fax:

+372-45-31 265

E-mail:

ksoojus@tt.ee

WWW-URL:

Contact person (for this activity):

Surname:

Mehik

First name, middle name:

Jaan

Job title:

Technical director

Direct tel:

+372-45-312 61

Direct fax:

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):

Tallinn Technical University

Thermal Engineering Dep.

Department:

Acronym:

Acronym (English):

Function within activity:

Environmental, capacity evaluator of the techn. equipm.

Technical support

Street:

Kopli 116

Stensjögatan 3

Post code:

EE 0017

S-217 65

City:

Tallinn

MALMÖ

Country:

Estonia

SWEDEN

Telephone:

+372-2-474432

+46-40-37 50 00

Fax:

+372-2-474095

+46-40-13 90 38

E-mail:

WWW-URL:

Contact person (for this activity):

-------------------------------------

Surname:

Paist

Mårtensson

First name, middle name:

Aadu

Roland

Job title:

Professor

Project leader

Direct tel:

+46-40-37 51 04

Direct fax:

+46-40-13 03 69

Direct E-mail:

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:

In Estonias biggest island Saaremaa (Ösel) have been installed a wood fuel fired boiler.

It is in main boiler house in Kuressaare town. The equipment consist of, fuel storage, fuel conveyors, prefurnace, boiler and ash handling system.

The project includes also atomising and rebuilding of two DE- boilers in boiler house no 4, as well as partly rebuilding of the network.

Type of project:a)

System project

Location (exact, e.g. city, region,

state):

Kuressaare town

Saaremaa

Estonia

Activity starting date:

6 March 1997 ( Letter of Intent)

Expected activity ending date:

Loan expire date 31 March 2007

Stage of activity:b)

Completed

Lifetime of activity if different from ending date:c)

Expected technical lifetime is 25 years which means that the plant is expected to be in operation till 2022.

Technical data:d)

Boiler type Hot water

Boiler output 5,0 MW

Prefurnace Free standing

Flue gas cleaning Multicyclone < 300 mg/Nm3

Fuel type Wood chips, 35-55 % RH

Previous fuel Mazut (High-sulphur-heavy oil)

Estimated heat production from wood fuel boiler 34.000 MWh/year

Energy saving through energy efficiency: 1.900 MWH

Total production of the boiler plant 65.000 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.

  1. 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)/ 1,10 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)/

-4,26

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$/ton defined as NPV of costs for recipient country's action case - baseline case
Emission Reduction comp. base-line (NOTE! negative value is profit) per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic life
total costs in recipient country
NPV(recipient country's total costs) / -4,26 US$/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)/ -3,16 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 Part 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 Parts. Information will only be compiled once reports have been received from all participating Parties.

1) For the activity:

  • * Subsequent reports:

First report

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 quantitative information is too large, the source could be indicated.)

Item Please fill in

Describe environmental benefits in detail:

Annual Reduction

CO2 t/year 11.650

SO2 t/year 177

NOx t/year 4,0

Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental benefits?

Yes, Tallinn Technical University have made environmental measurements in spring 1998. Report available

Describe social/cultural benefits in detail:

More stable energy supply.

Improved working conditions, increased motivation

More employment (local fuel companies)

Improved trade balance in the island

Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits?

No

Describe economic benefits in detail:

There will be less import of heavy oil, to a cost of about 320.000 Usd/year. The total savings are 170.000 Usd/year. All the wood fuel is bought local to a cost of 225.000 Usd/year.

Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of economic benefits?

Yes

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):

Natural gas is not available. During next 15 years only energy efficiency measures could be actual.

The baseline emissions of CO2 during 25 years is calculated to 492.000 tons.

  1. Estimated emissions with the activity:

The activities consist of installation a 5 MW wood fuelled boiler, rebuilding of net work and co-operation in between networks.

Below comparison is based upon that the base-line scenario represents a status according to the baseline.

The emissions are calculated from the ultimate analysis of the assumed fuel mentioned in above baseline.

Summary table: Projected emission reductions:

GHG

Year 0

=1997

Year 1

=1998

Year 5

=2003

Year 10

=2008

Year 25

=2023

Project baseline scenario production MWh/year

65.000

65.000

62.000

60.000

58.000

Project activity scenario Production by biofuel MWh/year

Saving from project MWh/year

34.000

1.900

A) Project baseline scenario

CO2

21.100

21.100

20.120

19.470

18.820

CH4

All tons/year

N2O

--

--

--

--

--

SO2

B) Project activity scenarioa)

CO2

21.100

9.450

8.470

7.820

7.170

CH4

All tons/year

N2O

--

--

--

--

--

SO2

C) Effect ( B-A= )

CO2

00000

-11.650

-11.650

-11.650

-11.650

CH4

All tons/year

N2O

--

--

--

--

--

SO2

D) Cumulative effect

CO2

00000

-11.650

-588250

-116.500

-291.250

CH4

All tons

N2O

--

--

--

--

--

SO2

a) No indirect GHG leakage’s.

Summary table: Actual emission reductions:

GHG

Year 0

= 1997

Year 1

= 1998

Year 5

=2003

Year 10

=2008

Year 25

=2023

Factual energy product. on bio fuel MWh/year

65.000

A) Project baseline scenario

CO2

21.000

CH4

All tons /year

N2O

--

SO2

B) Project activity scenarioa)

CO2

21.100

CH4

All tons/year

N2O

--

SO2

C) Effect ( B-A= )

CO2

0

CH4

All tons/year

N2O

-

SO2

D) Cumulative effect

CO2

0

CH4

All tons

N2O

--

SO2

a)No indirect GHG leakage’s

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

946660

Grant from NUTEK for technical assistance

100000

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 SNEA’s 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"

Knowledge in negotiations to foreign companies.

Knowledge in managing and planning of bigger industrial projects.

Transferring of environmental issues to the local parties.

Transferring of knowledge in computer- and controlsystem.

A conference for the Estonian District Heating Association is hold local, to give information about the project. The benefits, difficulties, problems, environmental and economical were then discussed.

The company is a member of the bioclub.

Endogenous capacity supported or enhanced:

Endogenous capacity

(Name of organisation1)

Development (DEV) /

enhancement (ENH)

Describe briefly

Tallinn Technical University

(DEV)

Technical evaluation

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:

The operators has got knowledge of modern equipment.

An Estonian company has got more experience in planning, erection and start up of bigger industrial projects.

The manager of the company has got high experience in managing bigger industrial projects.

  1. Technical difficulties:
  2. Effects encountered:

Several local companies have participated.

4) Impacts encountered:

  1. Other obstacles encountered:

There were big problems to support the establishment of a wood fuel company.

  1. Other:

About 60 % of the project costs are spent local.