accessing carbon finance workshop on landfill gas development and the cdm
DESCRIPTION
Accessing Carbon Finance Workshop on Landfill Gas Development and the CDM Denpasar, Indonesia. September 5-7, 2005. Sn. Environmental Specialist. Lasse Ringius. World Bank. Overview of Presentation Kyoto Protocol/CDM Baseline and monitoring methodologies CDM project cycle - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Accessing Carbon Finance
Workshop on Landfill Gas Development and the CDM
Denpasar, Indonesia. September 5-7, 2005.
Sn. Environmental Specialist. Lasse Ringius. World Bank
Overview of Presentation
- Kyoto Protocol/CDM- Baseline and monitoring methodologies - CDM project cycle - Overview of global carbon market
Kyoto Protocol: Industrial countries must reduce GHG emissions by 5.2% compared to 1990 levels in the period 2008-2012
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
GH
G E
mis
sio
ns
(In
de
x 1
00
= 1
99
0)
EU15
Japan
Canada
-8%
-6% -6%
-2%-3%
+20%
+12%
+9%
EU15
(228 MtCO2e)
Canada
(159 MtCO2e)
Japan
(214 MtCO2e)
Other Western Europe+ New Zealand
(19 MtCO2e)
Pe
rce
nt
of
19
90
em
iss
ion
s l
ev
el
Kyoto Target
Current (2002) Emissions
Current Kyoto gaps
Annex BNon-Annex B
How to close the gap?
Joint Imple-
mentation
Emissions Allowance
Market
Clean Development Mechanism
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
• Project-based mechanism• Projects in developing countries earn
“credits” for reducing additional CO2, CH4, N2O emissions
• Verified GHG emission reductions have become an internationally tradable commodity Seller: Project investor Buyer: OECD governments and companies facing
GHG mitigation targets under the Kyoto Protocol
World Bank Carbon Finance Funds
Italian Carbon Fund. $15 million (open to Italian participation). Italian Multi-shareholder. Multipurpose.
Netherlands Clean Development Facility. $180 million.Netherlands Ministry of Environment. CDM energy projects.
BioCarbon Fund. $46.3 million (open). Multi-shareholder. JI and CDM LULUCF projects.
Community Development Carbon Fund. $128.6 million (closed). Multi-shareholder. Small-scale CDM energy projects.
Prototype Carbon Fund. $180 million (closed). Multi-shareholder. Multi-purpose.
Total funds under management: ~ US$ 875 mill.
Netherlands ECF
Netherlands European Carbon Facility. $60 million with IFC.
Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs. JI projects.Spanish
CF
Spanish Carbon Fund. $200 million (open to Spanish participation). Spanish Multi-shareholder. Multipurpose.
Danish CF Danish Carbon Fund. $64 million (open to Danish participation). Danish Multi-shareholder. Multipurpose.
How Indonesia can benefit from the CDM
Electricity
$$
Power Purchase Agreement
Certified Emission Reductions
$$
Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement
LFG to Energy Project
Organic methane (CH4)
• Forms when organic material decomposes under anaerobic conditions
• Avoidance of CH4 emissions through: Prevention Capture & Combustion
• When CH4 is avoided, CO2 is emitted
• But: CO2 originating from the decay of organic material is considered neutral to the atmosphere
ER estimationThe amount of credits that can be earned from
LFG projects is dependant upon several factors: Amount of waste; Waste composition (organic fraction); Waste management practices (e.g landfill
covering, compacting of waste, depth of landfill);
Moisture; Age of the landfill site; Efficiency of LFG collection system; and Amount of LFG collection mandated by law
A back-of-the-envelope-calculation*
• Methane generation potential of 1 ton of waste ranges from less than 100 to more than 200 m3, depending on the waste composition (IPCC Good practice guidelines 1996)
• With weight of methane equaling 0.7168 kg/m3: 150m3 of CH4 = 0.1 tons of CH4
• At a collection efficiency of 70%, 0.07 tons of CH4 can be recovered
• Multiplied with the GWP for CH4 (i.e., 21), one ton of waste yields 1.47 t CO2e emission reductions (ERs)
* based on gas yield methodology
Example: Carbon revenues from LFG recovery and methane
destruction
1 mio. tons of waste
6 mio. m3 LFG/yr
2,140 ton CH4/yr
1,500 ton CH4 recovered/yr
31,500 tCO2e US$ 140,000/yr* 21
1
2
Underlying assumptions:- 1 m3 LFG contains 357 g methane- 70% collection efficiency- US$ 4.50/t CO2e
Opportunities in the MSW sector
• CH4 is 21 times more potent than CO2. The “methane kick” significantly improves project economics.
• Projects which reduce CO2 or CH4 emissions against the baseline are eligible, e.g. Landfill gas recovery and utilization Composting Biodigestion
LFG methodologies
Approved LFG methodologies
Project Reference
Presented by
Salvador da Bahia (VEGA), Brazil
AM0002 ICF Consulting
Durban, Africa del Sur
AM0010 PCF
Nova Gerar (NCDF)
AM0003 NCDF /Ecosecurities
Onyx, Brazil AM0011 CERUPT
ABIL, India AM0012 PCF / IDFC
Biodigester
Elements of consolidated LFG methodology ACM0001
• Builds on approved methodologies for landfill projects
• Does not replace previously approved methodologies
• Applicable to both flaring-only and gas utilization projects
Elements of ACM0001 - Baseline
• Baseline is release of gas to the atmosphere, considering gas captured for other reasons (safety, regulations, contractual requirements)
• If no regulations apply, an Adjustment Factor shall be used and justified based on project context
• Approved additionality tool applies Step 2: Investment analysis:
• For flaring projects: a straightforward investment economics test
• For electricity generation projects: compare levelized electricity costs with least cost option in the system or show that IRR is below standard returns in the market.
Step 4: Common practice test can feed into Adjustment Factor
Elements of ACM0001 - Monitoring
• LFG projects allow for direct monitoring of emission reductions following the simple rationale that all methane captured would have been released in the absence of the project
• ER = (methane captured – x%) * 21with x = Regulations or Adjustment Factor
• Monitoring variables include: LFG recovered / flared through flow meters, methane content of LFG (continuous gas analyzer or periodic samples), flare efficiency, flare availability, electricity generation, etc.
• Furthermore: monitoring of regulations and adjustment of baseline scenario if regulations tighten
Which methodology to choose?
Methodology Electricity generation
?
Baseline
Salvador da Bahia (VEGA)
no Mandated collection in concession contract (20% eff)
Durban (PCF)
yes Existing safety curtain wells (7% eff., declining) +
monitoring of regulations
Nova Gerar (NCDF)
yes, but not credited
Collection efficiency in bidding documents + safety
margin (20%)
Onyx (CERUPT)
yes, but on-site use only
Coll. mandated by law or economically attractive (0%)
Consolidated Methodology
yes Existing Regulations or Adjustment Factor +
monitoring of regulations
MSW Project Examples in the Bank
Durban LFG-to-energy, RSA A. Sanghvi
Nova Gerar LFG-to-energy, Brazil
W. Kornexl
Shanghai LFG-to-energy, China
M. Anderson
Mexico LFG-to-Energy Umbrella
W. Vergara
Teheran LFG-to-Energy, Iran
A. Rotman
Olivarria LFG capture and flaring, Argentina
H. Terraza
Liepaja Energy Cell, Latvia A. Halldin
ABIL Biodigester, India D. Hoornweg