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 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.

  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)/

1,64

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:

  • * 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 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:

  1. 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.

  1. Technical difficulties:
  1. Effects encountered:

Several local companies have participated.

4) Impacts encountered:

5) Other obstacles encountered:

  1. Other:
  2. About 60 % of the project costs are spent local.