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 Türi (2), 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):
|
Türi linnavalitsus
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
Türi Municipal Government
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Borrower
|
|
Street:
|
Kohtu 2
|
|
Post code:
|
EE2810 Türi
|
|
City:
|
Jjärvamaa
|
|
Country:
|
Estonia
|
|
Telephone:
|
+372-38-78476
|
|
Fax:
|
+372-38-78645
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
|
|
Surname:
|
Mäger
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Enn
|
|
Job title:
|
technical director
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+372-38-78244
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+372-38-78645
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organisation(a):
|
Tallinn Technical University
|
ÅF Energikonsult Syd AB
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
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:
|
Türi is a city in the middle of Estonia with about 7 000 inhabitants. There were three
separate networks in town. One oilfired boilerhouse has been closed, two nets has been connected
and the main boiler has been converted from heavy oil to biofuels. The main boiler in one net is
already using wood fuel
|
|
Type of project:a)
|
System project
|
|
Location (exact, e.g. city, region,
state):
|
Türi town
Türi County
Estonia
|
|
Activity starting date:
|
5 May 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 15 years which means that the plant is expected to be in operation
till 2013.
|
|
Technical data:d)
|
Boiler type Hot water
Boiler output 4,5 MW
Prefurnace inclined
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 20.000 MWh/year
Total production of the boiler plant 22.000 MWh/year
Energy saving through efficiency measures about 2.000 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)/
|
1,64
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for NUTEK/SNEA
|
|
Emission Reduction comp.base-line
|
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
recipient's costs
|
|
NPV(recipient's net costs) /
|
0,12
|
US$/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$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient country's action case - baseline case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
total costs in recipient country
|
|
NPV(recipient country's total costs)/
|
0,12
|
US$/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)/
|
1,76
|
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 SNEAâs 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:
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 project meets 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 7140
SO2 t/year 108
Nox t/year 2,2
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental benefits?
|
Yes, Tallinn Technical University have made environmental measurements in spring 1998. Report is
available
|
|
Describe social/cultural benefits in detail:
|
More stable energy supply
Improved working conditions, increased motivation
More employment (fuel companies)
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits?
|
No
|
|
Describe economic benefits in detail:
|
Improved trade balans in the county.
The wood fuel is bought local to a cost of 125.000 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):
The boiler house would be rebuild so that smaller mazut fired boiler with high efficiency will be installed
within three years. After five and ten years energy efficiency measures will be taken.
The condition of the net work is so that it needs normal maintenance and rebuilding.
These works would have taken place within a ten year period.
The baseline emission of CO2 during 15 years is calculated to 105.000 tons.
2) Estimated emissions with the activity:
The activities consist of conversion to 4,5 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 quo solution.
Fill in the following tables as applicable:
Summary table: Projected emission reductions:
|
Project baseline scenario
production MWh/year
|
GHG
|
Year 0
=1997
24.000
|
Year 1
=1998
24.000
|
Year 5
=2003
23.000
|
Year 10
=2008
20.000
|
Year 15
=2013
19.000
|
|
Project activity scenario
Production by biofuel MWh/year
Saving from project
MWh/year
|
|
20.000
2.000
|
20.000
2.000
|
18.000
2.000
|
17.000
2.000
|
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
7.800
|
7.800
|
7.500
|
6.500
|
6.200
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All tons/year
|
N2O
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
SO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
660
|
360
|
324
|
324
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All tons/year
|
N2O
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
SO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-7.140
|
-7.140
|
-6.176
|
5.841
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
|
SO2
|
-108
|
-108
|
-94
|
-89
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-7.140
|
-38.127
|
-57.804
|
-97.357
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
|
|
SO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Includes indirect GHG leakages.
Summary table: Actual emission reductions:
|
GHG
|
Year 0
= 1997
|
Year 1
= 1998
|
Year 5
= 2003
|
Year 10
=2008
|
Year 15
=2013
|
|
Factual energy production and saved energy MWh
|
24.000
|
|
|
|
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
7.800
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
7.800
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
SO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
866.666 USD
|
|
Grant from NUTEK for technical assistance
|
93.333 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 STEMâs 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"
|
Knowledge in negotiations to foreign companies.
Knowledge in managing and planning of bigger industrial projects.
Transferring of environmental issues.
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 local project manager has got high experience in managing of bigger industrial projects.
The staff has got education in operating modern equipment.
-
Technical difficulties:
-
Effects encountered:
Several local companies have participated.
4) Impacts encountered:
5) Other obstacles encountered:
-
Other:
- About 60 % of the project costs are spent local.
