|
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:
Boiler Conversion at Daugavgriva, Latvia
2) Participants/actors:
|
Item
|
Financier/Reporter
|
Latvian co-reporter
|
|
Name of organisation(a):
|
Statens Energimyndighet
|
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
Swedish National Energy Administration
|
Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia
|
|
Department:
|
Division for Eastern Europe- EAES Programme
|
environmental protection Department
|
|
Acronym:
|
SNEA
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
SNEA
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Assigned by the Swedish Government for Implementation including financing arrangements.
|
Latvian Climate Responsible Organisation
|
|
Street:
|
Liljeholmsvägen 32
|
Peldu Str. 25
|
|
Post code:
|
S-117 86
|
LV 1494
|
|
City:
|
Stockholm
|
Riga
|
|
Country:
|
Sweden
|
Latvia
|
|
Telephone:
|
+46-8-681 96 07
|
+371-7 026 508
|
|
Fax:
|
+46-8-681 96 67
|
+371-7 820 442
|
|
E-mail:
|
Gudrun.knutsson@stem.se
|
erna@varam.gov.lv
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
http://www.stem.se
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Westermark
|
Apene
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Sune
|
Ingrid
|
|
Job title:
|
senior officer
|
senior official
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+46-8-681 95 39
|
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+46-8-681 96 67
|
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
sune.westermark@stem.se
|
|
|
Borrower
|
|
Name of organisation(a):
|
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
JSC Riga Siltums
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Borrower
|
|
Street:
|
Kr.Valdemara Street 3
|
|
Post code:
|
LV-1539
|
|
City:
|
Riga
|
|
Country:
|
Latvia
|
|
Telephone:
|
+371 7320 680
|
|
Fax:
|
+371 7220 785
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
|
|
Surname:
|
Krilovs
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Nikolajs
|
|
Job title:
|
Boiler House Manager
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+371 2 43 23 97
|
|
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):
|
Riga Technical University
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Project evaluator
|
|
|
Street:
|
Kronovalda Boulv. 1
|
Technical support
|
|
Post code:
|
LV 4100
|
Stensjögatan 3
|
|
City:
|
Riga
|
S-217 65
|
|
Country:
|
LATVIA
|
MALMÖ
|
|
Telephone:
|
+371-7 089 923
|
SWEDEN
|
|
Fax:
|
+371-7 089 923
|
+46-40-37 50 00
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Blumberga
|
Mårtensson
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Dagnija
|
Roland
|
|
Job title:
|
Professor
|
project leader
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+371 7 210 597
|
+46-40-37 51 04
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+372-7 210 597
|
+46-40-13 03 69
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
eko@mail.bkc.lv
|
rmn@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:
|
Daugavgriva, a part of Riga town, is situated west of the river Daugava and close to the Gulf of Riga. The
boiler house supplies inhabitants of Daugagriva region with heat but was earlier also energy centre for the
Russian submarine base. The plant consists of four identical oil fired steam boilers DKVR-10/13 and two oil
fired hot water boilers KGVM10. The annual heat production is about 80,000 MWh.
|
|
Type of project:a)
|
Conversion to renewable energy
|
|
Location (exact, e.g. city, region,
state):
|
Daugagrieva
Riga Region
LATVIA
|
|
Activity starting date:
|
2. June 1995 (Letter of Intent)
|
|
Expected activity ending date:
|
Loan expire date 31. March 2006
|
|
Stage of activity:b)
|
Complete
|
|
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)
|
One of the DKVR 10-13 boilers has been converted to biofuels, through the installation of a moving inclined
grate in a separate pre-furnace. The project also comprises automatic fuel storage, flue-gas cleaning and a
wood chipper. After conversion the output power of the boiler is estimated to 6 MW, with an estimated
annual heat production based on bio-fuel of 40,000 MWh.
|
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)/
|
1,42
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for NUTEK/SNEA
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic life
|
|
recipient's costs
|
|
NPV(recipient's net costs)/
|
-7,19
|
US$/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$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient country's action case - baseline case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic life
|
|
total costs in recipient country
|
|
NPV(recipient country's total costs) /
|
-7,19
|
US$/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)/
|
-5,77
|
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 organizations involveda):
|
|
It is from the Swedish side intended that upon agreement with a central Latvian 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 STEM’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 organizations 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:
Second report. First report was submitted 1997.
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 Latvian 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 emission reductions calculated on the baseline scenario with an estimated heat production of 40,000
MWh based on biofuel.
13,000 ton CO2
210 ton SO2
22 ton NOx
Wood waste from board factory can be used
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental benefits?
|
Yes.
|
|
Describe social/cultural benefits in detail:
|
More stable energy supply.
Improved working conditions and increased motivation.
Improved trade balance.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits?
|
No.
|
|
Describe economic benefits in detail:
|
Decreased fuel costs approx. 6 USD/MWh.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of economic benefits?
|
No.
|
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
-
Estimated emissions without the activity (project baseline):
The bsasline has been revised in relation to the feasibility study made 1995.
In hind-sight it can be considered probable that mazout would continued to be the main fuel. The annual heat
production would continue to be around 60,000 MWh. For the comparison of emission reduction, only the 40,000 MWh
produced with biofuels is used as the source of emissions for the baseline calculation. The total CO2 emission
during the plant’s lifetime would have been 195,000 ton. Emissions are calculated from elementary analysis of
the assumed fuels.
2) Estimated emissions with the activity:
40,000 MWh of heat produced in a boiler with the annual average efficiency of 80 %. For the actual emissions the
baseline emission calculation is done, assuming the heat production was made on mazout instead of bio-fuels.
Emissions are calculated from elementary analysis of the assumed fuels.
Fill in the following tables as applicable:
Summary table: Projected emission reduction s:
|
GHG
|
Year 1
=1996
|
Year 2
=1997
|
|
...
|
Year 15
=2010
|
|
Estimated energy production at plant based upon the baseline (MWh/year)
|
|
40,000
|
40,000
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
13,000
|
13,000
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
0
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-13,000
|
-13,000
|
|
|
-13,000
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-13,000
|
-26,000
|
|
|
-195,000
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Includes indirect GHG leakages.
Summary table: Actual emission reductions :
|
GHG
|
Year 1
= 1996
|
Year 2
= 1997
|
Year 3
=1998
|
...
|
Year 15
=2010
|
|
Factual energy production on biofuels/ (MWh/year)
|
|
27,260
|
32,220
|
|
|
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
9,400
|
11,110
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-9,400
|
-11,110
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-9,400
|
-20,510
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
778.731 USD
|
|
Grant from NUTEK for technical assistance
|
92.781 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, knowledge has been
transferred in procurement, project management, operation and maintenance.
iii) Personal from boiler plant has been invited to different seminars and workshops, documentation for
training has been handed owner.
iv) Specialists of other boiler plants have visited the boiler plant, the staff has an exchange of
experience with other boiler plants and is active in "bio-club".
|
Endogenous capacity supported or enhanced:
|
Endogenous capacity
(Name of organization1)
|
Development (DEV) /
enhancement (ENH)
|
Describe briefly
|
|
Daugavgriva
|
DEV
|
A feasibility study is made for cogeneration based on biofuels. It is probable that the co-generation will
be implemented with assistance from STEM.
|
1) Please ensure that detailed contact information for all organizations listed are 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 boiler house manager has become very skilled with biofuelled plants and is often hired by other plant owner to
give advice about, adjust and optimise their equipment.
2) Technical difficulties:
3) Effects encountered:
4) Impacts encountered:
5) Other obstacles encountered:
At the end of the project the ownership of the plant was transferred to Riga Siltums. They were not interested in
the converted boiler and did not want to take over the loan. The commission of the boiler was delayed for 6 months,
before the problem was solved.
6) Other:
|