|
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:
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.
- 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)/
|
1,10
|
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:
First report
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
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
Technical difficulties:
-
Effects encountered:
Several local companies have participated.
4) Impacts encountered:
-
Other obstacles encountered:
There were big problems to support the establishment of a wood fuel company.
-
Other:
About 60 % of the project costs are spent local.
|