project design document (pdd) - cdm loan...
TRANSCRIPT
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM
FOR CDM PROJECT ACTIVITIES (F-CDM-PDD)
Version 04.0
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (PDD)
Title of the project activity Partial Fuel Switching to Agricultural Wastes,
Sewage Sludge & Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
at Arabian cement plant.
Version number of the PDD 01
Completion date of the PDD May 2012
Project participant(s) Arabian Cement Company (Private Entity)
Host Party(ies) Egypt
Sectoral scope and selected methodology(ies) Sectoral Scope 4: Manufacturing Industries
Selected Methodology: ACM0003/Version
07.4.1 entitled “Emissions reduction through
partial substitution of fossil fuels with
alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels
in cement or quicklime manufacture”.
Estimated amount of annual average GHG
emission reductions
66,602 tCO2e / year over 10 years period.
SECTION A. Description of project activity
A.1. Purpose and general description of project activity
1) Project Purpose:
Arabian cement plant operates 2 identical production lines with a total production capacity of 4.2 Million
tonnes of clinker per year. Line I started its operation in year 2008, while line II started its operation in
year 2011.The plant operates 24 hours/day, 3 shifts per day 8 hours each and approximately 330
days/year. Both the pre-calciner and kiln burning system can operate on natural gas or diesel oil (sular)
burning. Arabian cement plan is utilizing natural gas as the main and only source of fuel while diesel oil
(sular) will be available only as an emergency standby. In 2010 and 2011 due to delay in issuance of the
business licence for the second production line, natural gas supplies were not sufficient to cover the two
production lines needs. Therefore, diesel oil (sular) was temporarily combusted as a secondary fuel.
However, after the issuance of the business licence for the second line, natural gas supplies have been
raised to cover the two lines consumption. Both production lines operate fully on natural gas now.
The annual clinker production and fuel consumption for the past 3 years are presented in Table 1 and
Table 2 .
Table 1: Clinker production in Arabian Cement Plant
Year Clinker production ( tons/year )
2009 2010 2011
Production line #1 1,996,800 1,963,540 2,124,240
Production line #2 0 0 1,176,480
Table 2: Fossil fuel combustion in Arabian Cement Plant
Year 2009 2010 2011
Natural Gas ( m3/year )
Production line
#1
173,303,69
8
171,545,45
2
175,720,75
9
Production line
#2
0 0 35,318,111
Diesel Oil (Sular) ( m3/year )
Production line
#1
0 3,189 15,570
Production line
#2
0 0 69,985
The purpose of the project is the partial substitution of Natural Gas used in the clinker production
process in the production lines of Arabian cement plant. The alternative fuels, which are planned to be
used, will be a mixture of agricultural wastes (rice straw and cotton stalk), municipal sludge, and Refuse
Derived Fuel (RDF). The starting date of the fuel substitution project is expected to occur in year 2013
with a starting equivalent energy replacement percentage of 5.4% to reach a maximum of 15.1% from
2015 onward as detailed in Table 3 and Table 4 below.
Table 3: Alternative Fuels Mix in Arabian Cement Plant
Alternative Fuel
Type 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
RDF (t/year) 35,280 62,020 82,000 82,000 82,000
Municipal Sludge
(t/year)
10,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Agricultural
Waste (t/year)
5,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Total (t/year) 50,280 97,020 142,000 142,000 142,000
Table 4: Equivalent energy replacement with alternative fuels in
Arabian Cement Plant
Years
20
13
20
14
20
15
- 2
02
2
Total Replacement % 5.4% 10.3% 15.1%
2) GHGs Reduction:
The objective of the project is to partially switch the natural gas used in Arabian Cement Plant to
alternative fuels (agricultural wastes, municipal sludge and RDF). Since agricultural wastes and sludge
are CO2-neutral emission sources and RDF has a lower CO2 emission factor than the used natural gas, the
project will result in an average annual emissions reduction of approximately 66,602 tons of CO2e/yr
(over 10 years period).
3) Contribution to Sustainable Development:
The project will help contribute to the sustainable development globally through the reduction of CO2
emissions from the displaced natural gas combustion.
The project activity intends to utilize sludge as a fuel instead of its unsafe handling as untreated fertilizer,
which will bring huge benefits to the local community. Untreated sludge has a high content in heavy
metals and parasites that are transferred to the land and human body when applied as untreated fertilizer.
In addition, using RDF in the project activity will improve the health conditions in the community since
municipal solid wastes are usually dumped in managed or unmanaged landfills releasing CH4 emissions,
and sometimes they are disposed in open dumpsites and burnt emitting CO2 and other hazardous
emissions such as dioxins/furans, particulate matter, etc. Similarly, using rice straw as fuel instead of
being uncontrollably burned in the fields will contribute in mitigating the black cloud episodes that
significantly affects Egypt nowadays.
Furthermore, it is expected that other local benefits like helping to mitigate the black cloud in Egypt will
be achieved,, use of renewable resources and solid waste utilization.,.
Ultimately, the utilization of alternative fuels results in energy diversification which is necessary for
sustainable economic growth. Furthermore, using alternative fuels will reduce the financial burden on
the Egyptian Government since natural gas is subsidized. Since the technology of using alternative fuels
instead of conventional fossil fuels is a new know-how in Egypt, applying this project will lead to
technology transfer.
Based on the above, the project activity is associated with positive impacts on the three pillars of
sustainable development: environmental, economic, and social. Therefore, the project will complement
the goals of the Government of Egypt to achieve sustainable development.
A.2. Location of project activity
A.2.1. Host Party(ies)
>> Egypt
A.2.2. Region/State/Province etc.
>> Suez Governorate
A.2.3. City/Town/Community etc.
>> Suez City
A.2.4. Physical/Geographical location
>> Arabian cement plant is located in the eastern Egyptian desert plain, within Suez Governorate, at the
intersection of longitude 32° 09′ 12.02″ E & latitude 29° 48′ 12.21″ N as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Figure 1: Location of the Arabian Cement Company
Figure 2: Arabian Cement Plant
A.3. Technologies and/or measures
>> The objective of the project is to reduce CO2 emissions from Arabian Cement plant through partial
fuel substitution of natural gas by alternative fuels (agricultural wastes, sludge, and RDF). A new
environmentally safe and sound technology will be transferred to Egypt through the implementation of
the project activity as detailed below.
Prior to the start of the implementation of the project activity, Arabian cement plant would be burning
natural gas. The equipment and system in operation at that time are typical for cement industry as
illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Typical equipment installed at cement plant
The alternative fuels injection technology to be employed by Arabian Cement Company is a new know-
how in Egypt. Switching to this new technology will require new equipment and facilities that will be
necessary to handle the alternative fuels. This would interrupt the production process and in turn the
production capacity, especially in the start-up phase of the project.
The alternative fuels used that will be used in the project activity are:
Agricultural wastes (rice straw, cotton stalks) collected from various agricultural areas in
the surrounding regions.
Sewage sludge from municipal wastewater treatment.
Refused derived fuels (RDF) from municipal solid waste.
Implementing this technology will require additional facilities and equipment in order to adapt the
combustion system in the cement production lines to the new alternative fuels as suitable. The technical
specifications for the proposed project equipment are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Technical Details of the for the proposed project equipment (per line)
Project Phase Equipment Number of
Units Technical Specifications
1. Conveying and Dosing
system
Drag chain conveyor 1 Power installed: 11 kW
Length: 26.5 m
Width: 1290 mm
Mass flow rate design:
30 t/hr
Dedusting Filter 1 Capacity: 7500 Nm3/hr
Filter area: 22 m2
Fan for dedusting filter 1 Volume flow rate: 10000
m3/hr
Power: 11 kW
Speed: 2900 1/min
Double discharge screw
conveyor
1 Power: 2x15 kW
Screw diameter: 2x400
mm
Length: 6000 mm
Drag chain conveyor 1 Power installed: 9.2 kW
Length: 21 m
Width: 990 mm
Mass flow rate design:
12 t/hr
Dedusting Filter 1 Capacity: 2500 Nm3/hr
Filter area: 12.6 m2
Fan for dedusting filter
ATEX
1 Volume flow rate: 2500
m3/hr
Power: 2.2 kW
Speed: 2900 1/min
Pipe Conveyor 1 Capacity: 12 t/hr
Pipe diameter: 200 mm
Lifting height: 42 m
Length: 152 m
Inclination: 16 ˚
Belt width: 780 mm
Motor power: 22 kW
Rotary valve 1 Diameter: 900 mm
Motor Power: 7.5 kW
2. Storage Reception Bunker Unit 1 Opening Size: 5500 x
5500 mm
Support height: 1500
mm
Height total: 6130 mm
Volume: 50 m3
Outlet size: 3500 x 3500
mm
Height: 4500 mm
Screw Bottom Discharge
Unit
1 Capacity: 6 t/hr
Power installed: (4x7) +
11 kW
Inlet size: 3500 x 3500
mm
Length: approximately
3500 mm
Diameter: 500 mm
Overhead reclaimer
storage
2 Power: 2x4 + 18 kW
Width: 4200 mm
Shaft centers: 26.7 m
Volume: 1000 (live) m3
3. Shredding Belt Conveyor 1 Capacity: 12 t/hr
Motor power: 5.5 kW
Belt width: 1400 mm
Length: 20 m
Inclination: 30 ˚
Shredder 1 Width: 3000 mm
Power consumption: 255
kW
Rotor diameter: 800 mm
Dedusting filter 1 Capacity: 2500 Nm3/hr
Filter area: 12.6 m2
Fan for dedusting filter 1 Volume flow rate: 2500
m3/hr
Power: 2.2 kW
Speed: 2900 1/min
Figure 4: Plant Layout
The alternative fuels will arrive by trucks and will be unloaded using special wheel loaders. The
unloaded bales will be placed on wide conveyer on floor level transporting the bales to the shredder. The
shredder will open the bales and shred the material down to >50 mm. The shredder installation is
dedusted. The shredded material is transported to the overhead reclaimer storage system.
Figure 5: Shredder
Shredded material will be discharged by a drag chain conveyor to an overhead reclaimer storage whose
capacity is 1000 m3.which will give a buffer time of approximately 25 hours
Figure 6: Drag Chain Conveyor
The prepared alternative fuels fuel will be extracted from the overhead reclaimer storage with dosing
screws integrated into the storage. The alternative fuels will then be transferred to the burner section by
pipe conveyors.
After the pipe conveyor, the alternative fuels will be transported up to the pre-feeding hopper for the
feeder. The alternative fuels are proportioned by the pre-feeding system to the surge hopper. The rotary
sluice will continuously feed the alternative fuels to the calciner while maintaining a low intake of false
air.
Figure 7: feeder with pre-hopper
Figure 8: Rotary Sluice
..
Figure 9: Feed Chute
A.4. Parties and project participants
Party involved
(host) indicates a host Party
Private and/or public
entity(ies) project participants
(as applicable)
Indicate if the Party involved
wishes to be considered as
project participant (Yes/No)
Egypt (host) Arabian Cement Company
(Private entity)
No
A.5. Public funding of project activity
>> There will be no public funding involved in the project.
SECTION B. Application of selected approved baseline and monitoring methodology
B.1. Reference of methodology
>> The approved consolidated methodology ACM0003 entitled "Emissions reduction through partial
substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels in cement or quicklime
manufacture", Version 07.4.1, is applied to this project activity.
This methodology also refers to the latest approved version of the following tools:
“Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality”, Version 04.0.0;
“Emissions from solid waste disposal sites”, Version 06.0.1;
“Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”, Version 02;
“Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity consumption, Version 01;
B.2. Applicability of methodology
>>
The methodology is applicable to the cement industry with the following conditions:
Fossil fuel(s) use in cement manufacture is partially replaced by one or more less carbon
intensive fossil fuel(s) and/or alternative fuels.
Natural used in the cement manufacturing process in Arabian Cement Plant will be partially replaced by
municipal sludge, agricultural waste, and RDF.
A significant investment is required to enable the use of the alternative fuel(s) and/or the less
carbon intensive fossil fuel(s).
Significant investment is required in process modifications, construction of alternative fuel storage and
purchase of equipment to implement the system. This includes equipment for AFR receiving area,
shredding, storage and conveying the alternative fuels from the storage to the dosing and feeding point in
the pre-calciners. An approximate investment of 9,931,101USD is required which is equivalent to about
59,983,863EGP.
Table 6: Investment required for the Implementation of the Project Activity in the two Lines in Arabian
Cement Plant
Item Cost (USD)
Mechanical Deliveries 4,795,186
Overall Engineering 129,320
Low Voltage & USP 309,592
Additional Overhead Reclaimer bunker 1,055,251
Reception bunker unit with screw bottom 313,924
Automation Packet 191,135
Supervision 405,612
Commisioning 209,434
Civil engineering 297,436
Steel structure 1,474,248
Sea Transportation (from Hamburg to
Alexandria)
387,960
Inland transport 62,074
Customs 299,929
Total 9,931,101
During the last three years prior to the start of the project activity, no alternative fuels have been
used in the project plant.
Natural gas and diesel oil (sular) have been the only fuel type used at the plant for the last three years.
The CO2 emissions reduction relates to CO2 emissions generated from fuel combustion only and
is unrelated to the CO2 emissions from decarbonisation of raw materials (i.e. CaCO3 and MgCO3
bearing minerals).
Arabian Cement Company is only claiming emission reductions from the replacement of natural gas in
the combustion process only and no emission reductions are claimed from de-carbonization of raw
materials.
The methodology is applicable only for installed capacity (expressed in tons clinker/year) that
exists by the time of validation of the project activity.
The emission reductions calculations are only based on installed capacity by the time of validation of the
project activity which is 4.2 Million tonnes of clinker per year for each of Line I and Line II, where the
production capacity of each line is 2.1 Million tonnes of clinker.
The biomass is not chemically processed (e.g. esterification to produce biodiesel, production of
alcohols from biomass, etc) prior to combustion in the project plant but it may be processed
mechanically or be dried at the project site. Moreover, any preparation of the biomass, occurring
before use in the project activity, does not cause other significant GHG emissions (such as, for example,
methane emissions from anaerobic treatment of waste water or from char coal production).
The biomass (agricultural wastes and sludge) and RDF received at Arabian Cement Plant are not
chemically processed before combustion in the project plant, but are mechanically processed through
baling, shredding and crushing at the project site. The project activity will not result in other significant
GHG emissions other than those related to the energy consumption for the transportation of AFR,
shredding, operation of storage and conveying, dosing and feeding systems.
The biomass used by the project facility is stored under aerobic conditions.
The daily receiving area in Arabian Cement Plant is shed with adequate openingsto keep the biomass
under aerobic conditions. The storage in the intermediate storage area will not exceed 2 days to avoid the
occurrence of anaerobic fermentation of the biomass.
Therefore, the project activity meets the applicability conditions outlined by the approved
consolidated methodology ACM0003.
B.3. Project boundary
The physical project boundary covers all production processes related to clinker production, including:
The pre-heaters, where the heat of exhaust gas is used to heat the inputs for clinker production;
The pre-calciner, where fuels are fired for the pre-calcination of the inputs for clinker production;
The kiln , where fuels are also fired and where the calcinations process takes place;
On-site storage and on-site transportation;
The vehicles used for transportation of alternative fuels (rice straw, sewage sludge, and RDF) to
the project site;
The sites where the biomass residues would be dumped, left to decay or burnt in the absence of
the project activity;
The sites where the municipal solid waste used in manufacturing the RDF would be dumped in
controlled or uncontrolled landfills or even dumpsites.
The emission sources and gases included in or excluded from the project boundary are described in Table
7. Figure 10 illustrates the project boundary for the project activity.
Table 7: Emissions sources included in or excluded from the project boundary
Source GHGs Included? Justification/Explanation
Ba
seli
ne
Sce
na
rio
Emissions from
fossil fuels
displaced in the
project plant
(BEFF,y)
CO2 Yes Main emission source
CH4 No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.
N2O No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.
Methane emissions
avoided from
preventing disposal
or uncontrolled
burning of biomass
residues
CO2 No It is assumed that CO2 emissions from
surplus agricultural residues do not lead
to changes of carbon pools in the
LULUCF sector.
CH4 Yes Significant emission source from the
municipal solid waste disposed as well
as emissions from decay, dumping or
burning of agricultural residues
N2O No Minor source
Pro
ject
Sce
nari
o
Emissions from the
use of alternative
fuels and/or less
carbon intensive
fossil fuels (PEk,y)
CO2 Yes Main emission source
CH4 No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.
N2O No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.
Emissions from
additional electricity
and/or fossil fuel
consumption as a
result of the project
activity (PEFC,y and
PEEC,y)
CO2 Yes Can be a significant emission source
CH4 No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.
N2O No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.
Emissions from
combustion of fossil
fuels for
transportation of
alternative fuels to
the project plant
(PET,y)
CO2 Yes Can be a significant emission source
CH4 No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.
N2O No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.
Preparation of
alternative fuels
Landfills where agricultural wastes
and MSW are dumped or burnt
Unloading in the
Receiving Station
CombustionConveying Dosing
Transportation
of the AFR
Agricultural Residues
RDF
Project Boundary
Sludge
Intermediate Storage in Overhead Reclaimer
Figure 10: Project Boundary
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 17
B.4. Establishment and description of baseline scenario
>> Identification of the baseline scenario was made using the latest Version (0.4.0.0) “Combined tool to
identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality’’. The following steps have been applied to
identify the baseline scenario and to demonstrate the additionality of the project:
STEP 0. Demonstration whether the proposed project activity is the First-of-its-kind
STEP 1. Identification of alternative scenarios;
STEP 2. Barrier analysis;
STEP 3. Investment analysis;
STEP 4. Common practice analysis.
STEP 0: Demonstration whether the proposed project activity is the First-of-its-kind
The proposed project activity is not the First-of-its-kind. CEMEX has a registered CDM project using
biomass fuels at Assiut Cement Plant. Suez Cement Company has 2 CDM projects that are currently
under validation.
STEP 1. Identification of alternative scenarios prohibitive
This Step serves to identify all alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity which can be
the baseline scenario via the following sub-steps:
Step 1a: Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity
In applying step 1a of the tool, the alternatives to be analyzed for the fuel mix for cement
manufacturing may include, inter alia:
F1 The proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity i.e. uses of
alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels.
The project participants are proposing the use of alternative fuels, namely, agricultural wastes,
sludge and RDF in the production process which complies to all the legal and regulatory
requirements. However, the project implementation is not economically feasible as will be
demonstrated in Step 3.
The estimated alternative fuels mix and the fossil fuel consumptions are illustrated in Table 8.
Table 8: The estimated alternative fuels mix and the fossil fuel consumptions
Year Natural Gas
(m3/year)
Agricultura
l Wastes
(tons/year)
Sludge
(tons/year)
RDF
(tons/year)
1 358,446,669 5,000 10,000 35,280
2 339,691,681 20,000 15,000 62,020
3 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
4 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
5 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
6 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
7 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
8 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
9 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
10 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 18
F2 Continuation of current practice, i.e., a scenario in which the company continues cement
production using the existing technology, materials and fuel mix.
This alternative is the most likely scenario to occur. The pre-calciner and kiln burning system in
Arabian Cement Plant can operate on natural gas or diesel oil (sular). However, Arabian cement
plan is currently utilizing natural gas only as the main source of fuel while diesel oil (sular) will be
available only as a standby. In 2010 and 2011, due to delay in issuance of the licence for the second
production line, diesel oil (sular) was temporarily combusted as a secondary fuel as shown in Table
9 and Table 10. However, after the issuance of the business licence for the second line, natural gas
supplies have been raised to cover the two lines consumption and both lines operate fully on natural
gas now.
Table 9 and Table 10 represent the fossil fuels consumption in the two production lines for
the past 3 years.
Table 9: Natural Gas Consumption of the 2 Production Lines in Arabian Cement Plant
Fossil Fuel Type I: Natural Gas
Fossil Fuel
Consumption
Year Unit
2009 2010 2011
Production Line #1: 173,303,698 171,545,452 175,720,759 [m3/year]
Production Line #2: 0 0 35,318,111 [m3/year]
Total 173,303,698 171,545,452 211,038,870 [m3/year]
Table 10: Diesel oil (sular) Consumption of the 2 Production Lines in Arabian Cement Plant
Fossil Fuel Type II: Diesel Oil (sular)
Fossil Fuel Consumption
Year Unit
2009 2010 2011
Production Line #1: 0 3,189 15,570 [m3/year]
Production Line #2: 0 0 69,985 [m3/year]
TOTAL = 0 3,189 85,555 [m3/year]
Table 11 represents the clinker production rates for the past 3 years. The production capacity of the 2
lines in Arabian Cement Plant is 4.2 Million tonnes of clinker per year. However, Line II has started
operation in year 2011 and operated for 190 days only. Therefore, the production rate in Arabian
Cement plant in 2011 was 3.3 Million tonnes of clinker.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 19
Table 11: Clinker Production Rates in Arabian Cement Plant
Arabian Cement Plant
Year Unit
2009 2010 2011
Production Line #1: 6,240 6,334 6,360 [t/day]
Average days of
utilization
320 310 334 [day]
Production Line #1: 1,996,800 1,963,540 2,124,240 [t/year]
Production Line #2: 0 0 6,192 [t/day]
Average days of
utilization
0 0 190 [day]
Production Line #2: 0 0 1,176,480 [t/year]
Total production rate= 1,996,800 1,963,540 3,300,720 [t/year]
F3 The continuation of using only fossil fuels and no alternative fuels, however, with a different fuel
mix portfolio, taking into account relative prices of fuels available. The scenario(s) may be based
on one fuel or a different mixes of fuels.
As illustrated in F2, the current practice in Arabian Cement Plant involves the utilization of natural
gas as the main fuel and diesel oil (sular) will be available as a standby only in the production
process. In 2010 and 2011, due to the delay of the issuance of the license for the new line, diesel oil
(sular) was temporarily combusted as a secondary fuel. This issue has been resolved and both lines
operate fully on natural gas from the beginning of year 2012 and natural gas is recognized as the
least carbon intensive fossil fuel. Moreover, using diesel oil (sular) in the combustion process is
more expensive than natural gas and it has been used temporarily due to shortage in natural gas
supplies. It is also important to note that the facility is not able to combust Mazout (heavy fuel oil
#6) since the infrastructure for doing so is not available at the facility in addition to its higher price
compared to natural gas.
On the other hand, other fossil fuels, such as coal, are not widely available or common to use in
cement industry in Egypt.
F4 The currently used fuels are partially substituted with alternative fuels and/or less carbon
intensive fossil fuels other than those used in the CDM project activity and/or any other fuel
types, without using the CDM. If relevant, develop different scenarios with different mixes of
alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels and varying degrees of fuel-switch from traditional
to alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels.
Arabian cement company has started operation in 2008 utilizing natural gas only as shown in F2
and diesel oil (sular) has been used temporarily in years 2010 and 2011 after the operation of the
second production line due to the delay in the issuance of the license as previously stated..
Currently, there are no other alternative fuels available to Arabian Cement plant other than those
proposed under the CDM project. If there were other possibilities available, they would have been
considered in the same project by Arabian Cement company in the same project.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 20
F5 The construction and operation of a new cement plant.
Arabian Cement Plant is a relatively new plant, where Line I has started its operation in 2008 and
Line II has started its operation in 2011. This scenario is not a likely scenario to occur, since it
involves the abandonment of the current plant for the transfer of the project activity to a new built
plant designed to meet the requirements to achieve GHG emission reduction. Undertaking such a
large and costly project makes this option not an obvious choice for operating the company during
the crediting period.
Where Wastes originating from fossil sources are used as the alternative fuel, the alternatives to be
analyzed may include, inter alia:
W1 Incineration of the waste in a waste incinerator without utilizing the energy from the
incineration
Currently, there are no waste incineration facilities in Egypt. The only type of waste that is
incinerated without energy recovery in Egypt corresponds to medical waste. Therefore, this is
not a plausible scenario for the waste.1
W2 Incineration of the waste in a waste incinerator with use of the energy (e.g. for heat and/or
electricity generation)
Currently, there are not waste to energy facilities in Egypt that are used to recover energy from
these types of waste. This technology is considered to be a new know-how technology in Egypt
and it requires huge investment. Therefore, this is not a plausible scenario.2
W3 Disposal of the waste at a managed or unmanaged landfill
This alternative is a highly likely scenario for municipal waste in Egypt, where the constituents
of RDF (plastic bags, rags, etc) are usually dumped in managed or unmanaged landfills, and
sometimes they are disposed in open dumpsites.3
W4 The use of the waste at other facilities, e.g. other cement plants or power plants, as a
feedstock or for the generation of energy
This scenario is not a likely alternative for municipal waste in Egypt due to the high investment
related to waste transportation & handling and necessary modifications in the cement plants or
power plants to inject it as a fuel. Moreover, since fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by the
government, such projects are not economically feasible. Using RDF will interrupt the
production process and in turn the production capacity. Furthermore, there are no regulations in
Egypt that require the use of waste in cement plants or power plants for the generation of energy.
Therefore, there are no plants utilizing waste in Egypt except one plant, which is a registered
1 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010 2 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010 3 SWEEP REPORT: COUNTRY REPORT ON THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN EGYPT, The Regional
Solid Waste Exchange of Information and Expertise network in Mashreq and Maghreb countries, July 2010
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 21
CDM project.4
W5 The recycling or reutilization of the waste
The current common practice in Egypt is landfilling of the waste. A very small fraction of waste
is being recycled in Egypt by scavengers before the municipal waste reaches the landfills. No
recycling activities occur in the landfills where the RDF will be sourced from. The recycling or
reutilization of this material would require performing a lobbying process with the authorities in
order to modify the applicable regulations. Unfortunately this process would yield significant
results probably not before a decade.5
W6 The proposed project activity, not undertaken as a CDM project activity, i.e. the use of the
waste in the project plant.
The replacement of the conventional Natural gas (fossil fuel) with RDF is a new technology in
Egypt that has been used by only 1 plant in Egypt, which is a registered CDM project. In
addition, alternative fuels usage in cement kiln requires several modifications to the plant facility
and research and development capabilities which poses operational risks to the company. There
are no other similar projects implemented in Egypt. The project implementation is not
economically feasible as will be demonstrated in Step 3.
Regarding the biomass residues, the types of biomass residues that will be utilized in the project may
consist of agricultural waste (rice straw and cotton stalk) from the farms in the Delta region as well as
sludge. The estimated amount of crop residues in Egypt is over 33.4 million dry tonnes in year 20106.
The five crops with the highest amount of residue are rice, corn, wheat/barley, cotton, and sugar cane7. In
general, about 30% of the agricultural residues in Egypt are not utilized especially in priority
governorates and about 79% - 84% of this quantity is estimated to be rice straw. Sharkeya is the only
governorate in which a majority of rice straw is utilized; this is because of 2 composting facilities that
have been implemented recently (2005 and 2006). Table 12 identifies the quantities of agricultural
residues under analysis that are being utilized and the quantity that remains unutilized in Egypt.
Table 12: Estimated Management of crop residues in Egypt in year 2004 (000’s tonnes)
8
Type of
Biomass
Residue
Residue
generation
Estimated utilization Estimated tonnes
not utilized (%
not utilized)
Total
utilization Utilization on farm
Utilization off-
farm
Cotton
stalks 1,252 626 626
(use as fuel) ----- 626 (50%)
Rice straw 4,968 1,900
1,540 (composting, animal bedding,
vegetable storage, and animal
feed after treatment with urea)
360 (composting and
vegetable storage)
2,500 – 3,000
(50 -60%)
4 Draft Report EPAP II, The Use of Alternative Fuels In the Egyptian Cement Industry, Richard WF Boarder,
Cement Consult Associates February 2011 5 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010 6 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010. 7 Source: Agricultural Waste as an Energy Source in Developing Countries: A Case Study in Egypt on the Utilization
of Agricultural Waste through Complexes (2001) by El-Haggar, Ghirbi, and Longo. 8 Source: Technical/Policy Report on Agricultural Waste Management in Egypt (May 2006) prepared by GTZ
International Services.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 22
Where biomass residues are used as the alternative fuel the alternatives to be analyzed may include,
inter alia:
B1 The biomass residues are dumped or left to decay under mainly aerobic conditions. This
applies, for example, to dumping and decay of biomass residues on fields.
This scenario is not a likely alternative for cotton stalks and rice straw residues in the region,
where they are usually burned in an uncontrolled manner. This is because it causes a fire and
safety threat for farmers to store it or dump it for a long duration in the agricultural fields.9
As to sewage sludge, it is highly likely that it would be left to decay under aerobic conditions in
the wastewater treatment plant in shallow ponds to reduce its volume before final disposal or
utilization.10
B2 The biomass residues are dumped or left to decay under clearly anaerobic conditions. This
applies, for example, to deep landfills with more than 5 meters. This does not apply to
biomass residues that are stock-piled or left to decay on fields.
This alternative is not a likely scenario for the agricultural residues, since they are usually burnt
in open fields. Transferring agricultural wastes to the landfills is more costly for farmers than
burning the waste due to baling and transportation expenses to transfer the residues from the
farm to the landfills. This alternative is preferred to open burning which is believed by the
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) to contribute to the ‘black cloud’ yearly
episode occurring in Greater Cairo11
B3
The biomass residues are burnt in an uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for
energy purposes.
This alternative is a highly likely scenario, where the biomass residues are usually burned in the
open field. This is currently a common practice by the farmers, especially for rice straw, despite
the efforts of EEAA to prevent this practice as it is the easiest option for the farmers to get rid of
this waste12
. The reason is that farmers must clear their land rapidly in preparation for the next
growing season. Farmers believe that burning crop residues eliminates various pests that might
otherwise have negative impacts on the yields and overall sanitary conditions.
In rural areas, about 50% of the crop residues are used as a fuel by farmers through direct
9 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010. 10
Source: Sewage Sludge Management in Egypt: Current Status and Perspectives towards a Sustainable
Agricultural, Use, M. Ghazy, T. Dockhorn, and N. Dichtl, World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, 2009 11
Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010 12
Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 23
combustion in low efficiency traditional furnaces. The traditional furnaces are primitive mud
stoves and ovens that generate significant local air pollution and are extremely energy
inefficient.13
As to other energy utilizations, such as biogas, a wide variety of these technologies
have not been applied at a commercial scale in Egypt yet. The investment required, low
awareness of farmers about these technologies, timely opportunity to sell/utilize the residues
contributes as well to crop residues non-utilization for energy purposes.
B4 The biomass residues are sold to other consumers in the market and used by these
consumers, such as for heat and/or electricity generation, for the generation of biofuels, as
feedstock in processes (e.g. the pulp and paper industry), as fertilizer, etc.
This scenario is not a likely alternative for these types of biomass residues in Egypt. Unlike
wheat and barley residues that are usually used for animal fodder, the residues that will be used
in Arabian Cement Plant, mainly rice straw and cotton stalks are not currently of interest to any
other market consumers. Uses for rice straw are minimal mainly for composting and vegetable
storage. Worldwide, there are technologies to utilize biomass residues for various purposes such
as animal fodder, generate biogas, gasification, composting, etc. However, most of these
practices are not common in Egypt but only exist under pilot or research phases. This is due to
investment required in crop residue utilization and limited infrastructure for collection, delivery,
processing, and marketing. Furthermore, there are no regulations in Egypt that require the use of
biomass residues as a fuel or feedstock since other fossil fuels are subsidized by the Egyptian
government.14
And regarding the sewage sludge, it is mainly used for land application as a fertilizer by farmers
or it is rarely dumped into landfills.15
B5 The biomass residues are used for other purposes at the project site, such as for heat
and/or electricity generation, for the generation of biofuels, as feedstock in processes (e.g.
the pulp and paper industry), as fertilizer, etc.
This scenario is not a likely alternative for this type of agricultural wastes and sludge in Egypt.
In addition, this is not of interest to the company as it does not fall within its core business which
is cement manufacturing. Also, the high capital investment required for such option is another
barrier.
B6 The proposed project activity, not undertaken as a CDM project activity, i.e. the use of the
biomass residue in the project plant.
The replacement of the conventional fossil fuel with biomass is not a common practice in Egypt.
Agricultural wastes and sludge usage in cement kilns requires several modifications to the plant
13
Source: Agricultural Waste as Energy Source in Developing Countries. A Case Study in Egypt on the Utilization
of Agricultural Waste through Complexes, El-Haggar Salah M., Ghribi Mounir, Longo Gennaro, The American
University in Cairo, Egypt, International Center for Science and High Technology, Trieste, Italy 14
Source : Technical/Policy Report on Agricultural Waste Management in Egypt (May 2006) prepared by GTZ
International Services 15
Source: Sewage Sludge Management in Egypt: Current Status and Perspectives towards a Sustainable
Agricultural, Use, M. Ghazy, T. Dockhorn, and N. Dichtl, World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology 57 2009
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 24
facility and a research and development capability which poses operational risks to the company.
There is currently only 1 partial fuel switching to biomass project implemented by Cemex
Egypt, which is registered as CDM project. There are no other similar projects implemented in
Egypt16
. The project implementation is not economically feasible as will be demonstrated in Step
3.
The use of renewable biomass from a new dedicated plantation is not relevant to Arabian cement
plant case. Therefore, it will be omitted from the analysis.
Sub-step 1b. Consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations:
The alternatives should be in compliance with all mandatory applicable legal and regulatory
requirements, even if these laws and regulations have objectives other than GHG reductions, e.g. to
mitigate local air pollution.
In Egypt, there are no environmental law or regulation that bans the usage of certain fuels in industrial
areas. As to biomass residues, the Egyptian Environment Law 4/1994 bans the open burning, dumping, or
treatment of solid waste unless in special areas in accordance with the specifications, conditions and
minimum permissible distances from such areas indicated in its executive regulation. However, open
burning of garbage and agricultural waste is widespread in the country as these regulatory requirements
are systematically not enforced.
Step 2. Barriers Analysis
This step serves to identify barriers and to assess which alternatives are prevented by these barriers. The
following tables show the barriers preventing the implementation of each of the alternatives discussed in
Step 1.
Step 2a. Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of alternatives
The tables below identify barriers other than the insufficient financial returns which will be demonstrated
in step 3.
Table 13: Barriers analysis for fuel mix alternatives
Alternative
scenario
Investment
barriers
Technological barriers Barriers due to
prevailing practices
Other barriers
F1: Proposed
project activity not
undertaken as a
CDM project
activity
NO NO
NO
NO.
F2: Continuation of
current practice
NO
There is no initial
capital investment
required.
NO
Natural gas has been the
usual practice in the plant,
therefore, no technological
barriers.
NO
There are no barriers,
as this is the
prevailing practice.
NO
16
Source: Draft Report EPAP II, The Use of Alternative Fuels In the Egyptian Cement Industry, Richard WF
Boarder, Cement Consult Associates February 2011
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 25
Alternative
scenario
Investment
barriers
Technological barriers Barriers due to
prevailing practices
Other barriers
F3: Use of evolving
fuel mix portfolios
(but using only
fossil fuels and no
alternative fuels)
NO NO
NO
YES
The current practice
in Arabian Cement
Plant involves the
utilization of natural
gas as the main fuel
and diesel oil (sular)
will be available as a
standby only in the
production process.
In 2010 and 2011,
due to shortage in
natural gas supplies
due to the delay in
the issuance of the
license of the new
line, diesel oil
(sular) was
temporarily
combusted as a
secondary fuel. This
issue has been
resolved and both
lines operate fully
on natural gas now. Moreover, using
diesel oil (sular) in
the combustion
process is more
expensive than
natural gas and it
has been used
temporarily due to
shortage in natural
gas supplies. It is
also important to
note that the facility
is not able to
combust Mazout
(heavy fuel oil #6)
since the
infrastructure for
doing so is not
available at the
facility in addition to
its higher price
compared to natural
gas.. On the other
hand, other fossil
fuels, such as coal,
are not widely
available or
common to use in
cement industry in
Egypt.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 26
Alternative
scenario
Investment
barriers
Technological barriers Barriers due to
prevailing practices
Other barriers
F4: Partial
switching to
alternative fuels
and/or less carbon
intensive fossil
fuels
NO
NO
NO
YES
Currently, there are
no other alternative
fuels available to
Arabian Cement
plant other than
those proposed
under the CDM
project. If there were
other possibilities
available, they
would have been
considered in the
same project by
Arabian Cement
company in the
same project.
F5: Construction
and operation of a
new cement plant
YES
High capital
investment for new
factory which is
not justified to be
undertaken for an
alternative fuel
project.
NO
NO
YES
Possible lack of
incentive and on
Arabian cement
behalf to undertake
this scenario since
Arabian Cement
Plant is relatively
new.
Table 14: Barriers analysis for RDF
Alternative
scenario
Investment
barriers
Technological barriers Barriers due to
prevailing practices
Other barriers
W1: Incineration of
the waste in a waste
incinerator without
utilizing the energy
from the incineration
YES
Investment required
for marketing and
technology
implementation.
NO
YES
It is not common
practice in Egypt.
NO
W2: Incineration of
the waste in a waste
incinerator with use
of the energy e.g.
for heat and/or
electricity
generation
YES
Investment required
for marketing and
technology
implementation.
YES
Technology not available in the
country.
YES
It is not common
practice in Egypt.
NO
W3: Disposal of the
waste at a managed
or unmanaged
landfill
NO
NO
NO
NO
W4: The use of the
waste at other
facilities, e.g. other
cement plants or
power plants, as a
feedstock or for the
generation of energy
NO
NO
YES
It is not common
practice in Egypt.
YES
These projects are
not economically
feasible since
natural gas is
subsidized.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 27
W5: The recycling
or reutilization of
the waste
YES
Lack of
infrastructure for
collection and
management of
waste.
NO
YES
It is not common
practice in Egypt.
YES
There is no
market interest.
W6: The proposed
project activity, not
undertaken as a
CDM project
activity
NO
NO
NO
NO
Table 15: Barriers analysis for biomass residues
Alternative scenario Investment
barriers
Technological barriers Barriers due to
prevailing practices
Other barriers
B1: The biomass
residues are dumped
or left to decay
under mainly
aerobic conditions
NO
NO
NO
YES
Fire & safety
hazard for farmers
to store in fields.
B2: The biomass
residues are dumped
or left to decay
under clearly
anaerobic conditions
Yes.
It is more costly for
farmers than
burning the waste
due to
transportation
expenses to transfer
the agricultural
wastes from the
farm to the
dumpsites.
NO
NO
NO
B3: The biomass
residues are burnt in
an uncontrolled
manner without
utilizing them for
energy purposes
NO
NO
NO
NO
B4: The biomass
residues are sold to
other consumers in
the market and used
by these consumers
YES
Investment
required for
marketing and
technology
implementation.
YES
Most technologies are under
research or pilot phases only.
YES
It is not common
practice in Egypt.
YES
There is no
market interest.
B5: The biomass
residues are used for
other purposes at the
project site
YES
High capital
investment
required.
NO YES
It is not common
practice in Egypt.
YES
Not of interest
to the company
as it does not
fall within its
core business
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 28
which is cement
manufacturing
B6: The proposed
project activity, not
undertaken as a
CDM project
activity
NO
NO
NO
NO
From applying step 2a, the alternatives that are facing barriers are as follows:
For fossil fuels mix, the alternatives that are facing barriers are F3, F4 and F5
For wastes originating from fossil sources, the alternatives that are facing barriers are W1, W2,
W4 and W5
For biomass residues (agricultural residues and sludge) , the alternatives that are facing barriers
are B1, B2, B4 and B5
Sub-step 2b. Eliminate alternative scenarios which are prevented by the identified barriers
In applying step 2b of the tool, the alternatives remaining for the fuel mix for cement manufacturing
are F1 and F2 which include the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as
a CDM project activity, then proceed to step 3.
In applying step 2b of the tool, the alternatives remaining for using waste originating from fossil
sources are W3and W6 which include the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered
as a CDM project activity, then proceed to step 3.
In applying step 2b of the tool, the alternatives remaining for using biomass residues (agricultural
wastes and sludge) as alternative fuel are B3 and B6which include the proposed project activity
undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity, then proceed to step 3.
Scenarios W6 and B6 are the same as scenario F1, which is “the proposed project activity not undertaken
as a CDM project activity”.
Scenario W3 is associated with either scenario F2. Similarly, Scenario B3 is associated with either
scenario F2. Therefore the possible combinations of remaining scenarios are as follows:
F1, W6 and B6
F2, W3, and B3
In step 2b, there are 4 possible outcomes. The outcome in the case of this project is the third outcome
which is “several alternative scenarios remaining, including the proposed project activity undertaken
without being registered as a CDM project activity, proceed to Step 3 (investment analysis)”.
Therefore, the outcome of Step 2b is a list of alternative scenarios to the project activity that are not
prevented by any barrier (other than insufficient financial returns which is analyzed in step 3). These
alternatives include :
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 29
For fossil fuels mix, the alternative scenarios that are not prevented by any barrier are F1 and F2,
which include the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM
project activity
For wastes originating from fossil sources, the alternative scenarios that are not prevented by any
barrier are W3 and W6 which include the proposed project activity undertaken without
being registered as a CDM project activity
For biomass residues (agricultural residues), the alternative scenarios that are not prevented by
any barrier are B3 and B6 which include the proposed project activity undertaken without
being registered as a CDM project activity
According to the combined tool, if there are still several alternative scenarios remaining, including the
proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity, proceed to
Step 3 (investment analysis). In step 3, the baseline scenario is determined after conducting the
investment analysis.
Step 3: Investment analysis
The identified financial indicator most suitable for the investment analysis is the net present value
(NPV). The Weighted average cost of capital (WAAC) has been provided by Arabian Cement Company.
Scenario F2 “continuation of current practice” does not involve any investment and therefore it’s
NPV=0.
Scenario F1 “The proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity” involves the
investment in the following:
1. Construction of Alternative Fuel storage
2. Purchasing and installation of new equipment for handling, conveying and dosing systems
for the alternative fuels
3. Biomass and RDF procurement and transportation
4. Monitoring and control systems
A financial analysis has been conducted based on the assumptions and data illustrated in Table 16.
The agricultural wastes (rice straw and cotton stalks) will be transported to the plant site using the fleet
of Arabian Cement Company.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 30
Table 16: Data and Assumptions used for the Financial Analysis
Arabian Cement
Plant
(2 lines)
Investment Required 59,983,863EGP
Natural Gas Price 4$/MMBTU
Agricultural Residues Cost (without
transportation)
Rice straw
(unshredded)
300 EGP/ton
Cotton stalks 370 EGP/ton
RDF cost (including transportation) 400 EGP/ton
Sludge cost (including transportation) 185 EGP/ton
Benchmark IRR 10.62%
Depreciation Rate 10%
Exchange Rates 1 USD= 6.04 EGP
1 EURO = 1.29 USD
Scenario F2 “The continuation of using only fossil fuels and no alternative fuels” involves no capital
investment. Since the forecasted price of the fossil fuel is not available, the current fuel price has been
used in the analysis and hence the analysis is done on real terms.
Using the company WAAC of 10.62 % as the discount rate in estimating the NPV, an NPV of
-13,880,758 USD is obtained for scenario F1. Scenario F2 is associated with an NPV of 0 as this is the
continuation of current practice which does not involve any investment.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 31
Sensitivity Analysis
According to the “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality” a
sensitivity analysis is included in order to assess whether the conclusion regarding the financial
attractiveness of the proposed project activity is robust to reasonable variations in the critical
assumptions.
Sensitivity analysis is conducted based on the variations in the investment and the alternative fuels price.
The investment amount and fuel prices used in the NPV calculations are taken as reference (100%) and
the variation in the NPV is calculated and explained in the following tables:
Table 17: Sensitivity of NPV to change in Project (Investment) Costs
Investment Scenario F1 NPV
(USD)
Scenario F2 NPV
(USD)
90% -12,938,743 0
100% -13,880,758 0
110% -14,823,693 0
Table 18: Sensitivity of NPV to change in Alternative fuel cost
Alternative Fuel Cost
change
Scenario F1 NPV
(USD)
Scenario F2 NPV
(USD)
90% -8,189,351 0
100% -13,880,758 0
110% -19,897,043 0
Table 19: Sensitivity of NPV to change in fossil fuel cost
Fossil Fuel Cost change Scenario F1 NPV
(USD)
Scenario F2 NPV
(USD)
90% -20,053,462 0
100% -13,880,758 0
110% -8,042,339 0
As can be seen from the sensitivity analysis, the conclusion is robust with the changes in capital
investment, fossil fuel prices and alternative fuel prices as the NPV of scenario F1 is always negative.
Since scenario F2 “The continuation of using only fossil fuels and no alternative fuels” has 0 NPV which
is more financially attractive than the negative NPV of scenario F1, then F2 is the baseline scenario.
Since F2 is not the proposed project activity without being registered as a CDM project, then proceed to
step 4.
According to the investment analysis, the baseline scenario is F2 associated with W3 and B3 and the
least attractive scenario is F1 associated with W6 & B6.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 32
Step 4: Common practice analysis
This analysis is a credibility check to demonstrate additionality and complements the barrier analysis
(Step 2) and the investment analysis (Step 3)
The Guidelines on Common Practice, version (01.0) has been used to prove that the proposed project
activity is not a common practice in Egypt. The following steps have been applied.
Step 1: Calculate applicable output range as +/-50% of the design output or capacity of the proposed
project activity.
Arabian Cement Company’s production capacity is 4.2 Million tonnes of cement per year. Therefore, the
applicable output range will be 2.1 to 6.4 Million tonnes of cement per year.
Step 2: In the applicable geographical area, identify all plants that deliver the same output or capacity,
within the applicable output range calculated in Step 1, as the proposed project activity and have
started commercial operation before the start date of the project. Note their number Nall. Registered
CDM project activities shall not be included in this step.
The default geographical area is the host country. The cement plants in Egypt that will be taken into
consideration are that of production capacity that is +/-50% of Arabian Cement Plant production
capacity.17
Plant Production Capacity (1000 metric tonnes)
Amirya Cement Co. (Cimpor) 4,450
Suez Cement Co. (Cements Français S.A.,
54.2%)
4,200
Arab Swiss Engineering Co. (ASEC)
(Suez Cement Co., 68.7%)
3,615
Helwan cement Co. (Suez Cement Co., 98.69%) 4,500
TITAN Cement Egypt (TITAN Cement Co.,
100%)
3,300
Torah Portland Cement Co. (Suez Cement, Co.,
66.12%)
4,625
National Cement Co. (Government, 77%, and
private interests, 23%)
3,100
Misr Beni Suef Cement Co. 2,800
Therefore, N all = 8
17
Source: 2009 Minerals Yearbook, Egypt [Advance Release], USGS,
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 33
Step 3: Within plants identified in Step 2, identify those that apply technologies different that the
technology applied in the proposed project activity. Note their number Ndiff.
Within the plants identified in Step 2, no plants that utilize alternative fuels in the cement manufacturing
process i.e. all plants utilize different technologies. Therefore, N different = 8.
Step 4: Calculate factor F=1-Ndiff/Nall representing the share of plants using technology similar to
the technology used in the proposed project activity in all plants that deliver the same output or
capacity as the proposed project activity.
F = 1 – 8/8
F = 0
Nall-Ndiff = 8 – 8 = 0
The proposed project activity is a not a common practice since the factor F is not greater than 0.2 and
Nall-Ndiff is not greater than 3.
Since step 4 is satisfied, where similar activities cannot be observed, then the proposed project activity is
additional.
.
Conclusion:
Based on the barrier analysis, financial analysis and common practice analysis, it has been concluded that
the baseline scenarios are as follows:
Regarding the fuel mix for cement manufacturing, the baseline scenario is F2: “The Continuation
of current practice, i.e., a scenario in which the company continues cement or quicklime
production using the existing technology, materials and fuel mix”.
Regarding the use of wastes origination from fossil fuel sources, the baseline scenario is W3:
Disposal of the waste at a managed or unmanaged landfill
Regarding the use of biomass (agricultural wastes and sludge) residues, the baseline scenario is
B3: The biomass (agricultural wastes and sludge) residues are burnt in an uncontrolled manner
without utilizing them for energy purposes.
B.5. Demonstration of additionality
>>
Additionality has been demonstrated in section B.4 as the combined tool is used to determine the
baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality.
. The following dates reveal the chronology of events for Arabian Cement plant’s project.
1. 11th March, 2012: The Prior Consideration of the CDM project was made available on the
website www.cdm.unfccc.int.
2. March 2012: Development of the CDM Documentation
3. 1st March, 2012: Arabian Cement Company submitted a request for the issuance of the Letter of
Approval and the Letter of No Objection to the Egyptian DNA for the CDM project.
4. 12th
April, 2012: The Environmental Impact Assessment of the project has been submitted to the
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA, Suez Office) and was handed to the Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency (Cairo's Office) on 17th April, 2012.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 34
B.6. Emission reductions
B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices
>>
In the baseline, natural gas was combusted at Arabian cement plant in the clinker production lines
generating CO2 emissions.
The project activity reduces CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion in the cement manufacturing
process. Emission reduction is achieved through substituting a portion of natural gas with alternative fuel
mix. Alternative fuels are agricultural wastes, sewage sludge and RDF. Agricultural wastes and sewage
sludge are considered renewable sources and CO2 emissions from these sources are equal to zero. RDF
will emit CO2 during its combustion from the components of fossil origin. These emissions are counted
as project emissions.
Project emissions
Project emissions include project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive
fossil fuels (PEk,y), project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a result
of the project activity (PEEC,y and PEFC,y), project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for
transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant (PET,y):
yTyECyFCyk PEPEPEPE ,,,,yPE (1)
Where:
PEy = Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e)
PEk,y = Project emissions from combustion of alternative fuels and/or less carbon
intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2)
PEFC,y = Project emissions from additional fossil fuel combustion as a result of the
project activity in year y (tCO2)
PEEC,y = Project emissions from additional electricity consumption as a result of the
project activity in year y (tCO2)
PET,y = CO2 emissions during the year y due to transport of alternative fuels to the
project plant (tCO2)
Project emissions are calculated in the following steps:
Step 1. Calculate project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil
fuels
Step 2. Calculate project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a result
of the project activity
Step 3. Calculate project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels
to the project plant
Step 4. Calculate project emissions from the cultivation of renewable biomass at the dedicated plantation
(This step is not applicable to Arabian project since no biomass is sourced from dedicated
plantation)
Step 1. Calculate project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil
fuels
Project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project
plant are calculated as follows:
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 35
k
yk,CO2,yk,yk,PJ,yk, EFNCVFCPE (2)
Where:
PEk,y = Project emissions from combustion of alternative fuels and/or less carbon
intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2).
FCPJ,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k used in the
project plant in year y (tons).
EFCO2,k,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for alternative or less carbon intensive fossil
fuels type k in year y (tCO2/GJ). For rice straw and sewage sludge it will be
equivalent to zero (0); as to RDF it will be equal to 36 tCO2/TJ.
NCVk,y = Net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k in
year y (GJ/tonne). Rice straw= 0.014 TJ/t dry, cotton stalk = 0.0154 TJ/t dry,
sewage sludge = 0.0168 TJ/t dry, and RDF = 0.0143 TJ/t.
K = Alternative fuel types and less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the
project plant in year y. There are three alternative fuel types: a) agricultural
wastes (rice straw and cotton stalk), b) sewage sludge, and c) refuse derived fuel
(RDF).
Step 2. Calculate project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a
result of the project activity
The use of the biomass alternative fuel results in additional fossil fuel and/or electricity consumption at
the project site. This includes the following emission sources:
Belt conveyors used in the transportation of alternative fuels from the shredders to the pre-
calciners
Biomass shredding and biomass injection to the pre-calciners/kilns;
CO2 emissions from on-site electricity consumption (PEEC,y) is calculated using the latest approved
version of the “Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity consumption”. Electricity
consumption from each relevant source should be monitored and summed up to ECPJ,y.
PEEC,y = ECPJ,y * ECgrid,y * (1+ TDLy) (3)
Where:
PEEC,y are the project emissions from electricity consumption by the project activity during the
year y (tCO2/yr);
ECPJ,y is the quantity of electricity consumed by the project activity during the year y (MWh);
EFgrid,y is the emission factor for the grid in year y (tCO2/MWh), for Egypt national grid the
emission factor is 0.551 tCO2/MWh as calculated in Annex 3.
TDLy are the average technical transmission and distribution losses in the grid in year y for the
voltage level at which electricity is obtained from the grid at the project site, the default
value of 20% will be used as per the “Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity
consumption”.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 36
Step 3. Project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the
project plant
For Arabian cement plant, Option 2 is chosen to calculate CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels.
ykm,CO2,y
y
k
yk,T,
yT, EFAVDTL
AF
PE
(4)
Where:
PET,y = CO2 emissions during the year y due to transport of alternative fuels to the project plant
(tCO2/yr)
AVDy = Average round trip distance (from and to) between the alternative fuel supply sites and
the site of the project plant during the year y (km).
EFkm,CO2,y = Average CO2 emission factor for the trucks measured during the year y (tCO2/km); for
diesel oil (sular) = 0.0017 tCO2/km
AFT,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel type k that has been transported to the project site during the
year y (mass or volume units).
TLy = Average truck load of the trucks used (tons or liter) during the year y; the average truck
is 20 tons/truck
k = Types of alternative fuels used in the project plant and that have been transported to the
project plant in year y
Baseline emissions
The project reduces CO2 emissions by using alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in
cement kilns. The project also reduces CH4 emissions from preventing disposal or uncontrolled burning
of biomass residues. Baseline emissions are calculated as follows:
ybiomass,CH4,yFF,y BEBEBE (5)
Where:
BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2)
BEFF,y = Baseline emission from fossil fuels displaced by alternative fuels or less carbon
intensive fossil fuels in year y (tCO2)
BECH4,biomass,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing disposal
or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)
Baseline emissions are determined in the following steps:
Step 1. Estimate the project specific “fuel penalty”
Step 2. Calculate baseline emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the alternative or less carbon
intensive fuel(s)
Step 3. Calculate baseline emissions from decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues
Step 4. Calculate baseline emissions from the disposal of solid waste at solid waste disposal sites
Step 1. Estimate the project specific “fuel penalty”
A project specific fuel “penalty” is applied because the combustion of typically coarser biomass or other
alternative fuels will reduce the heat transfer efficiency in the cement or quicklime manufacturing
process. The use of alternative fuels will therefore require a greater heat input to produce the same
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 37
quantity and quality of cement clinker. The chemical content and ease of absorption into cement clinker
of all fuel ashes also differs, and this also contributes to the need for a project specific “fuel penalty”.
However, this fuel penalty will be included during the monitoring period of the project activity and it will
slightly reduce the emission reductions.
The project specific fuel penalty will be determined as follows:
)SEC(SECx PFP yBL,clinker,yPJ,clinker,y clinker,y (6)
Where:
FPy = Fuel Penalty in year y (GJ)
Pclinker = Production of clinker in year y (tons)
SECclinker,PJ,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year y (GJ/ton clinker)
SECclinker,BL,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in the absence of the project
activity (GJ/ton clinker)
The specific energy consumption in the project is calculated based on the quantity of all fuels used in the
project plant and the quantity of clinker produced in year y, as follows:
y clinker,
yk,
i
y k,PJ,yi,
i
y i,PJ,
yPJ,clinker,
P
)NCVx (FC )NCVx (FC
SEC
(7)
Where:
SECclinker,PJ,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year y (GJ/ton clinker)
FC PJ, i, y = Quantity of fossil fuel type (i) fired in the project plant in year y (tons)
NCV i,y = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type (i) in year y (GJ/ton)
FC PJ, k, y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fuel type (k) used in the
project plant in year y (tons)
NCV k,y = Net calorific value of the alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fuel type (k) in
year y (GJ/ton)
Pclinker = Production of clinker in year y (tons)
k = Alternative fuel types and less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the
project plant in year y
i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in year y that are not less carbon
intensive fossil fuel types
As a conservative approach, the specific energy consumption in the absence of the project activity is
calculated as the lowest annual ratio of fuel input per clinker production among the most recent three
years prior to the start of the project activity, as follows:
][2- xclinker,
2-x
1- xclinker,
1-x
xclinker,
xyBL,clinker,
P
HG ,
P
HG ,
P
HG MIN SEC
(8)
With:
HGx = ΣFC i, x × NCVi (9)
Where:
SECclinker,BL,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in the absence of the project
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 38
activity (GJ/ton clinker)
HG x = Heat generated from fuel combustion in the project plant in the historical year x
(GJ)
NCV i,x = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type (i) in year x (GJ/ton)
FC i, x = Quantity of fossil fuel type i used in the project plant in year x (tons)
Pclinker = Production of clinker in year y (tons)
x = Year prior to the start of the project activity
i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior to the start
of the project activity
Step 2. Calculate baseline emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the alternative or less carbon
intensive fuel(s)
Baseline emissions from displacement of fossil fuels are calculated as follows:
yBL,CO2,y
k
y,ky,k,PJyFF, EFFPNCVFCBE
(10)
Where:
BEFF,y = Baseline emission from fossil fuels displaced by alternative fuels or less carbon
intensive fossil fuels in year y (tCO2)
FCPJ,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k used in the
project plant in year y (tons), please refer to Table 8.
NCVk,y = Net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon intensive fuel type k in year y
(GJ/tonne). Rice straw = 0.0134 TJ/t dry, cotton stalk = 0.016 TJ/t dry, sewage
sludge = 0.014 TJ/t dry, and RDF = 0.0125 TJ/t.
FPy = Fuel penalty in year y (GJ)
EFCO2,BL,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of
alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y
(tCO2/GJ)
k = Alternative fuel types and less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the
project plant in year y
The baseline emissions factor (EFCO2,BL,y) is estimated as the lowest of the following CO2 emission
factors:
A. The weighted average CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s) consumed during the most recent
three years before the start of the project activity, calculated as follows:
i
ixi,1xi,2xi,
i
iFF,CO2,ixi,1xi,2xi,
yBL,CO2,NCVFCFCFC
EFNCVFCFCFC
EF (11)
Where:
EFCO2,BL,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of
alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in
year y (tCO2/GJ)
FCi,x = Quantity of fossil fuel type i used in the project plant in year x (tons)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 39
NCVi = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type i (GJ/ton)
EFCO2,FF,i CO2 emission factor for fossil fuel type i (tCO2/GJ)
x Year prior to the start of the project activity
i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior to the
start of the project activity
B. the weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel(s) that are not less carbon
intensive fossil fuels and that are used in the project plant in year y, calculated as follows:
i
iy,i,PJ
i
yi,FF,CO2,yi,y,i,PJ
yCO2,BL,NCVFC
EFNCVFC
EF (12)
Where:
EFCO2,BL,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of
alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in
year y (tCO2/GJ)
FCPJ,i,y = Quantity of fossil fuel type i fired in the project plant in year y (tons)
NCVi,y = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ/ton)
EFCO2,FF,i,y = Carbon dioxide emission factor for fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)
i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in year y that are not less carbon
intensive fossil fuel types
Step 3. Calculate baseline emissions from decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues
The calculation of baseline methane emissions from biomass residues dumped left to decay or burnt in an
uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for energy purposes depends on the applicable baseline
scenario (B1, B2 or B3). If for a certain biomass residue type k, leakage cannot be ruled out by using one
of the approaches L1, L2 or L3 outlined in the leakage section, then no baseline methane emissions can be
claimed from decay, dumping or uncontrolled burning of that biomass quantity. Baseline emissions from
decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues are calculated as follows:
y,2B,4CHy,3B/1B,4CHy,biomass,4CH BEBEBE (13)
Where:
BECH4,biomass,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing disposal
or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)
BECH4,B1/B3,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from aerobic decay and/or
uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)
BECH4,B2,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from anaerobic decay of
biomass residues at a solid waste disposal site (tCO2e)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 40
Uncontrolled burning or aerobic decay of the biomass residues (cases B1 and B3)
The most likely baseline scenario for the use of biomass residue type k, used as alternative fuel in the
project plant, is burning in an uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for energy purposes (B3).
Therefore, baseline emissions are calculated as follows:
yk,4,burning,CHyk,
k
yk,PJ,CH4yB1/B3,CH4, EFNCVFCGWPBE (14)
Where:
BECH4,B1/B3,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from uncontrolled
burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)
GWPCH4 = Global Warming Potential of methane valid for the commitment period
(tCO2e/tCH4)
FCPJ,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k used in the
project plant in year y (tons)
NCVk,y = Net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon intensive fuel type k in year y
(GJ/tonne)
EFburning,CH4,k,y = CH4 emission factor for uncontrolled burning of the biomass residue type k
during the year y (tCH4/GJ)
k = Types of biomass residues used as alternative fuel in the project plant in year y
for which the identified baseline scenario is B3 and for which leakage effects
could be ruled out with one of the approaches L1, L2 or L3 described in the
leakage section.
A default emission factor has been used in order to determine the CH4 emissions of 0.0027 tCH4 per ton
of biomass as default value for the product of NCVk and EFburning,CH4,k,y. The uncertainty can be deemed to
be greater than 100%, resulting in a conservativeness factor of 0.73. Thus, in this case, an emission factor
of 0.001971 tCH4/t biomass will be used.
Anaerobic decay of the biomass residues (case B2)
The latest approved version of the “Emissions from solid waste disposal sites” is used to estimate
methane emissions avoided from the disposal of waste used in the production of RDF
The variable BECH4,SWDS,y calculated by the tool then corresponds to BECH4,B2,y in this methodology. Use as
waste quantities prevented from disposal (Wj,x) in the tool, those quantities of biomass residues (BFPJ,k,y)
for which B2 has been identified as the most plausible baseline scenario and for which leakage could be
ruled out using one of the approaches L1, L2 or L3 described in the leakage section.
Where:
BECH4,SWDS,y = Methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing waste disposal at
the solid waste disposal site (SWDS to the end of the year y (tCO2e)
Φ = Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties
F = Fraction of methane captured at the SWDS and flared, combusted or used in
another manner
GWPCH4 = Global warming potential of methane, valid for the relevant commitment period
OX = Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS that is oxidized
in the soil or other material covering the waste
F = Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction)
DOCf = Fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can decompose
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 41
MCF = Methane correction factor
Wj,x = Amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the SWDS in the
year x (tons)
DOCj = Fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste type j
kj = Decay rate of the waste type j
J = Waste type category (index)
X = Year during the crediting period: x runs from the first year of the first crediting
period (x=1) to the year y for which avoided emissions are calculated (x=y)
Y = Year from which methane emissions are calculated
F 0.5
DOCf 0.5
MCF 0.4
16/12 1.33
f or AF 0%
Φ 0.75
OX 0.1
GWPCH4 21
Leakage
For this type of project activity, the first source of leakage is considered. Since the project activity may
result in an increase in emissions from fossil fuel combustion or other sources due to diversion of
biomass residues from other uses to the project plant as a result of the project activity, it has to be
demonstrated that such diversion will not occur.
Step 1: Calculation of leakage emissions related to the use of biomass residues
This step is only applicable if biomass residues are used in the project plant. In this case, project
participants shall demonstrate that the use of the biomass residues does not result in increased fossil fuel
consumption elsewhere. For this purpose, project participants shall assess as part of the monitoring the
supply situation for the types of biomass residues used in the project plant. Options L1 is used to
demonstrate that the biomass residues used in the project plant will be burnt in the fields by the farmers
in the absence of the project activity.
L1 Demonstrate that at the sites where the project activity is supplied from with biomass residues, the
biomass residues have not been collected or utilized (e.g. as fuel, fertilizer or feedstock) but have
been dumped and left to decay, land-filled or burnt without energy generation (e.g. field burning)
prior to the implementation of the project activity. Demonstrate that this practice would continue in
the absence of the CDM project activity, e.g. by showing that in the monitored period no market has
emerged for the biomass residues considered or by showing that it would still not be feasible to
utilize the biomass residues for any purposes (e.g. due to the remote location where the biomass
residue is generated).
This approach is applicable to situations where project participants use only biomass residues from
specific sites and do not purchase biomass residues from or sell biomass residues to a market.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 42
Geographical Boundary
The geographical boundary of the project will cover a radius around the project of 200 km to include
some of Lower Egypt governorates as well as the Canal governorates as demonstrated in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Lower Egypt and Canal Governorates
In the absence of the project activity, the biomass residues will be dumped in landfills, burnt causing the
black cloud episode or left to decay. Therefore, the project will contribute in an environmental friendly
management system for the biomass residues without increasing the fossil fuel consumption elsewhere.
Official letter was obtained from a potential supplier supporting the aforementioned information that the
agricultural residues will be collected from sites that do not utilize the biomass and that the biomass is
burnt in the fields by the farmers in the absence of the project activity.
This can be also supported by the following facts obtained from other reports and studies. For example, a
study conducted by the department of economics at the American University in Cairo confirms the fact
that burnt agricultural wastes including rice ashes, wheat straw, cotton straw, beans straw, residues of
fruits, vegetables residues, and barley straw account for 42% of the Black Cloud phenomenon. Moreover,
another study conducted by METAP states that the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has previously
recommended the burning of crop residues. Although EEAA identifies that the burning of crop residues
is contrary to the law, effective enforcement has not been achieved and poses practical constraints given
the number of farmers in the country and the limited resources of EEAA. As a result, the burning of crop
residues is commonly practiced by farmers, notwithstanding legal requirements. Furthermore, the state of
the environment report in Egypt states that the current practice of the farmers is to burn the agricultural
waste openly, which one of the major sources of the “Black Cloud” phenomena18
.
Therefore, no leakage penalty related to the use of biomass residues will be applied.
Emission Reductions
Emission reductions are calculated as follows:
yy yy LEPEBEER (17)
18
Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 43
Where:
ERy = Emission reductions during the year y (tCO2/yr)
BEy = Baseline emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr)
PEy = Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr)
B.6.2. Data and parameters fixed ex ante
Data / Parameter EFCH4,BB
Unit tCH4/tonne of dry matter
Description CH4 emission factor for field burning of biomass
Source of data 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Vol. 4, Ch. 2, Table 2.5.
Value(s) applied 2.7 x 10-3
tCH4/tonne of dry matter
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
EFCH4,BB
Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the field
burning of biomass in the baseline activity.
Additional comment -
Data / Parameter φdefault
Unit -
Description Default value for the model correction factor to account for model
uncertainties
Source of data -
Value(s) applied 0.75
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the solid
waste disposal sites
Additional comment -
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 44
Data / Parameter OX
Unit -
Description Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS that is
oxidized in the soil or other material covering the waste)
Source of data Based on an extensive review of published literature on this subject,
including the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories
Value(s) applied 0.1
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the solid
waste disposal sites
Additional comment -
Data / Parameter F
Unit -
Description Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction)
Source of data IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Value(s) applied 0.5
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the solid
waste disposal sites
Additional comment -
Data / Parameter DOCf,default
Unit Weight fraction
Description Default value for the fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) in
MSW that decomposes in the SWDS
Source of data IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Value(s) applied 0.5
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the solid
waste disposal sites
Additional comment -
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 45
Data / Parameter MCFdefault
Unit -
Description Methane correction factor
Source of data IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Value(s) applied 0.4 For unmanaged-shallow solid waste disposal sites or stockpiles that
are considered SWDS. This comprises all SWDS not meeting the criteria
of managed SWDS and which have depths of less than 5 meters. This
includes stockpiles of solid waste that are considered SWDS (according
to the definition given for a SWDS)
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the solid
waste disposal sites
Additional comment -
Data / Parameter DOCj
Unit -
Description Fraction of degradable organic carbon in the waste type j (weight
fraction)
Source of data IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Value(s) applied For MSW, the following values for the different waste types j should be
applied:
Waste type j DOCj (% wet
waste)
Wood and wood products 43
Pulp, paper and cardboard (other than sludge) 40
Food, food waste, beverages and tobacco 15
(other than sludge)
Textiles 24
Garden, yard and park waste 20
Glass, plastic, metal, other inert waste 0
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the solid
waste disposal sites
Additional comment -
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 46
Data / Parameter kj
Unit 1/yr
Description Decay rate for the waste type j
Source of data IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Value(s) applied
Waste type j
Tropical
(MAT>20°C)
Dry
(MAP<
1000mm)
Slowly
degrading Pulp, paper, cardboard
(other than sludge), textiles
0.045
Wood, wood products and
straw
0.025
Moderately
degrading Other (non- food) organic
putrescible garden and
park waste
0.065
Rapidly
degrading Food, food waste, sewage
sludge, beverages and
tobacco
0.085
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the solid
waste disposal sites
Additional comment -
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 47
Data / Parameter FCi,x, FCi,x-1 and FCi,x-2
Unit Tons/year
Description Quantity of fossil fuel of type i used in the project plant in year x, x-1 and
x-2, where x is the year prior to the start of the project activity and i are
the fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior
to the start of the project activity
Source of data Three years data from fuel consumption data logs at the project site
Value(s) applied Year 2009 2010 2011
Natural Gas (m3/year )
Production line
#1
173,303,69
8
171,545,45
2
175,720,75
9
Production line
#2
0 0 35,318,111
Diesel oil (sular) ( m3/year )
Production line
#1
0 3,189 15,570
Production line
#2
0 0 69,985
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Measured through the metered fuel consumption quantities and cross
checked with the purchased fuel invoices from the financial records.
Purpose of data To calculate the specific energy consumption of the project plant in years
x, x-1, x-2 in order to determine the fuel penalty.
Additional comment -
Data / Parameter Pclinker,x, Pclinker,x-1 and Pclinker,x-2
Unit Ton/year
Description Production of clinker in year x, x-1 and x-2 where x is the year prior to the
start
of the project activity
Source of data Three years data from production data logs at the project site
Value(s) applied Year Clinker production ( tons/year )
2009 2010 2011
Production line #1 1,996,800 1,963,540 2,124,240
Production line #2 0 0 1,176,480
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Measured through the metered clinker production.
Purpose of data To calculate the specific energy consumption of the project plant in years
x, x-1, x-2 in order to determine the fuel penalty.
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 48
Data / Parameter NCVi
Unit GJ/mass or volume units
Description Net calorific value of fossil fuel type i where i are the fossil fuel types
used in the project plant in the last three years prior to the start of the
project activity
Source of data Measurements done by the Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute (EPRI)
for Arabian Cement Company.
Value(s) applied 0.049 TJ/tonne for Natural gas
0.0457 TJ/tonne for Gas/Diesel oil (sular)
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Obtained from the lab measurements that are reported monthly by the
project participants.
Purpose of data To calculate the specific energy consumption of the project plant in years
x, x-1, x-2 in order to determine the fuel penalty and the baseline
emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the alternative or less carbon
intensive fuel(s).
Additional comment
Data / Parameter EFCO2,FF,i
Unit tCO2/GJ
Description Weighted average CO2 emission factor for fossil fuel type i where i are
the fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior
to the start of the project activity
Source of data For Gas/Diesel Oil (sular), the CO2 emission factor is calculated using lab
measurements done by third party for Arabian Cement Company. While
for Natural Gas, 2006 IPCC default values have been used at the
lower/upper limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as
provided in table 2.5 of Chapter 2 of Vol. 2 (Energy).
Value(s) applied For fossil fuels:
56.1 tCO2/TJ for Natural Gas
69.8 tCO2/TJ for Diesel Oil (sular)
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Purpose of data To calculate the baseline emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the
alternative or less carbon intensive fuel(s).
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 49
Data / Parameter EFgrid,y
Unit tCO2/MWh
Description Ex-ante emission factor of the grid in year y
Source of data Calculated using the latest approved version of “Tool to calculate the
emission factor of an electricity system”
Value(s) applied 0.551 tCO2/MWh
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Ex-ante emission factor is used, which is simpler.
Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions generated from additional electricity as
a result of the project activity
Additional comment
B.6.3. Ex ante calculation of emission reductions
>>
Project emissions
Project emissions include project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive
fossil fuels (PEk,y), project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a result
of the project activity (PEEC,y and PEFC,y), project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for
transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant (PET,y:
yTyECyFCyk PEPEPEPE ,,,,yPE (1)
Where:
PEy = Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e)
PEk,y = Project emissions from combustion of alternative fuels and/or less carbon
intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2)
PEFC,y = Project emissions from additional fossil fuel combustion as a result of the
project activity in year y (tCO2)
PEEC,y = Project emissions from additional electricity consumption as a result of the
project activity in year y (tCO2)
PET,y = CO2 emissions during the year y due to transport of alternative fuels to the
project plant (tCO2)
Step 1. Calculate project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil
fuels
Project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project
plant are calculated as follows:
k
yk,CO2,yk,yk,PJ,yk, EFNCVFCPE (2)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 50
Table 20: Project Emissions from Alternative Fuels Combustion in Arabian Cement Plant
Year FCagricultural
wastes
[dry t/year]
PEagricultural
wastes
[tCO2/year]
FCsludge
[dry
t/year]
PEsludge
[tCO2/year]
FCRDF
[dry
t/year]
PERDF
[tCO2/year]
PEk,y
[tCO2/year]
2013 5,000 0 10,000 0 35,280 18,135 18,135
2014 20,000 0 15,000 0 62,020 31,880 31,880
2015 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150
2016 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150
2017 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150
2018 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150
2019 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150
2020 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150
2021 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150
2022 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150
Step 2. Calculate project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a
result of the project activity
2.1. Calculations of CO2 emissions from on-site combustion of fossil fuels (PEFC,y):
According to the “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”,
version 02, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j are calculated based on the quantity
of fuels combusted and the CO2 emission coefficient of those fuels, as follows:
i
yiyjiyjFC COEFFCPE ,,,,, (3)
The trucks will deliver the alternative fuels directly to the receiving area, where the alternative fuels will
be conveyed mechanically to the shredder, also there will not be any on-site fossil fuel combustion in
process. Therefore, the CO2 emissions resulting from on-site combustion of fossil fuels will be neglected.
2.2. Calculations of CO2 emissions from on-site electricity consumption (PEEC):
According to the “Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity consumption”, version 01, project
emissions from electricity consumption (PEEC,y) include CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil
fuels at any power plants at the project site and, if applicable, at power plants connected physically to the
electricity system (grid) from where the CDM project is consuming electricity. Option A is selected since
Arabian cement plant consumes electricity from the grid.
Case A: Electricity consumption from the grid
Project emissions from consumption of electricity from the grid are calculated based on the power
consumed by the project activity and the emission factor of the grid, adjusted for transmission losses,
using the following formula:
PEEC,y = ECPJ,y * ECgrid,y * (1+ TDLy) (4)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 51
In Arabian cement plant, the project activity will involve the following on-site electricity consumption:
Alternative fuels transportation within the different areas in the plant by belt conveyor
Alternative fuels shredding at the biomass shredding & storage area
Alternative fuels injection to the pre-calciners/kilns inside the cement factory
The electricity emissions from the use of the equipment in Arabian plant are calculated in Table 21
through Table 22.
Table 21: Project emissions from additional on-site electricity consumption per line in Arabian
cement plant
New Equipment Numbe
r of
Units
Installed
Capacity per
Unit
(kW)
Electricity
Consumption
(MWh/year)
Working
hours per
equipment
(hours/day)
Working
days per
equipment
(d/year)
Shredder 1 255 1616 24 330
Belt Conveyors 1 5.5 12 24 330
Dedusting filters fans 1 2.2 5 24 330
Screw discharge unit
(for reception bunker
unit)
1 39 1318 24 330
Overhead reclaimer
storage
2 52 329 24 330
Drag chain conveyor 1 11 70 24 330
Fan for dedusting
filter
11 70 24 330
Double discharge
screw conveyor
1 30 190 24 330
Draig chain conveyor 1 9.2 58 24 330
Fan for dedusting
filter ATEX
1 2.2 14 24 330
Pipe conveyor 1 22 139 24 330
Rotary valve 1 7.5 48 24 330
Table 22: Total project emissions from additional on-site electricity consumption
Year EC PJ, y (MWh/year) EF grid,y (tCO2/MWh) Total PEEC,y [tCO2/year]
2013 3,712 0.551 2,455
2014 3,712 0.551 2,455
2015 7,425 0.551 4,909
2016 7,425 0.551 4,909
2017 7,425 0.551 4,909
2018 7,425 0.551 4,909
2019 7,425 0.551 4,909
2020 7,425 0.551 4,909
2021 7,425 0.551 4,909
2022 7,425 0.551 4,909
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 52
Step 3. Project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the
project plant
CO2 emissions resulting from transportation of the biomass residues and RDF to the project plant are
calculated. For Arabian cement plant, Option 2 will be chosen to calculate CO2 emissions from
combustion of fossil fuels for the off-site transport of biomass residues and RDF to the project plant as
summarized in
ykm,CO2,y
y
k
yk,T,
yT, EFAVDTL
AF
PE
(5)
Table 23: Project emissions due to transport of alternative fuels to Arabian cement plant
Type of Alternative
Fuels
Transportation
mean
Capacity of each
type of transport
(i.e. tons/truck)
Transportation
distance (km)
Agricultural wastes Trucks 20 200
RDF Trucks 20 130
Sludge Trucks 20 200
Variable Value Unit Data Source
T l,y 20 [ton/truck] Arabian Cement
EF km, CO2, y 0.0017 [tCO2e/km] Calculated
Specific fuel
consumption
0.45 [lit/km] IPCC 1996 Guidelines
1 ton diesel oil (sular) 1200 lit diesel oil
(sular)
Lab Analysis
Table 24: Total project emissions due to transport of alternative fuels
Yea
r Number of Trucks/
day
k
yk,T,AF Total PET,y
[tCO2/year]
2013 6 50,280 458
2014 12 97,020 909
2015 17 142,000 1,368
2016 17 142,000 1,368
2017 17 142,000 1,368
2018 17 142,000 1,368
2019 17 142,000 1,368
2020 17 142,000 1,368
2021 17 142,000 1,368
2022 17 142,000 1,368
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 53
Baseline emissions
The project reduces CO2 emissions by using alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in
cement kilns/pre-calciners. The project also reduces CH4 emissions from preventing disposal or
uncontrolled burning of biomass residues. Baseline emissions are calculated as follows:
ySWDS,CH4,ybiomass,CH4,yFF,y BE BEBEBE (6)
Where:
BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2)
BEFF,y = Baseline emission from fossil fuels displaced by alternative fuels or less carbon
intensive fossil fuels in year y (tCO2)
BECH4,biomass,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing disposal
or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)
Step 1. Estimate the project specific “fuel penalty”
)SEC(SECx PFP yBL,clinker,yPJ,clinker,y clinker,y (7)
Table 25: Specific Energy Consumption of the Fossil Fuels during the Project Activity
Yea
r
[m3
NG/year]
[TJ/year
]
Total Fossil
Fuels[TJ/year]
1 358,446,669 13,202 13,202
2 339,691,681 12,511 12,511
3 321,550,450 11,843 11,843
4 321,550,450 11,843 11,843
5 321,550,450 11,843 11,843
6 321,550,450 11,843 11,843
7 321,550,450 11,843 11,843
8 321,550,450 11,843 11,843
9 321,550,450 11,843 11,843
10 321,550,450 11,843 11,843
Table 26: Specific Energy Consumption of the Alternative Fuels during the Project Activity
Year [t Agricultural
residues /year]
[Agricultural
residues
TJ/year]
[t Sludge
dry/year]
[SludgeT
J/year]
[t RDF
/year]
[RDF
TJ/year]
Total Alternative
Fuels [TJ/year]
1 5,000 74 10,000 168 35,280 506 748
2 20,000 298 15,000 252 62,020 890 1,439
3 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107
4 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107
5 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107
6 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107
7 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107
8 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107
9 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107
10 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 54
Table 27: Annual Ratio of Fuel Input per Clinker Production Among the Most Recent Three Years Prior to
the Start of the Project Activity
Year FCP Dieseloil,i,y
[t diesel
oil/year]
∑(FCPDieseloil,i,y*NCVi
,y) [TJ/year]
FCP NG,i,y
[m3/year]
∑(FCNG,i,y*NCVi,y
) [TJ/year]
SECclinker,BL [TJ/t
Clinker]
2009 0 0 173,303,698 6,613 0.00331203
2010 3,189 146 171,545,452 6,546 0.00340819
2011 85,555 3,910 211,038,870 8,053 0.00362457
The specific energy consumption of the project activity (SECclinker,PJ,y) has been assumed to be 1 % greater
than the lowest fuel input per clinker production among the most recent three years prior to the start of
the project activity.
Table 28: Fuel Penalty
Year Pclinker,y [t
Clinker/ year]
SECclinker,PJ,y[TJ/t
Clinker]
FPy[TJ/
year]
1 4,200,000 0.00332 13
2 4,200,000 0.00332 13
3 4,200,000 0.00332 13
4 4,200,000 0.00332 13
5 4,200,000 0.00332 13
6 4,200,000 0.00332 13
7 4,200,000 0.00332 13
8 4,200,000 0.00332 13
9 4,200,000 0.00332 13
10 4,200,000 0.00332 13
Step 2. Calculate baseline emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the alternative or less carbon
intensive fuel(s)
Baseline emissions from displacement of fossil fuels are calculated as follows:
yBL,CO2,y
k
y,ky,k,PJyFF, EFFPNCVFCBE
(8)
The baseline emissions factor (EFCO2,BL,y) is estimated as the lowest of the following CO2 emission
factors:
A. The weighted average CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s) consumed during the most recent
three years before the start of the project activity, calculated as follows:
i
ixi,1xi,2xi,
i
iFF,CO2,ixi,1xi,2xi,
yBL,CO2,NCVFCFCFC
EFNCVFCFCFC
EF (9)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 55
B. The weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel(s) that are not less carbon
intensive fossil fuels and that are used in the project plant in year y, calculated as follows:
i
iy,i,PJ
i
yi,FF,CO2,yi,y,i,PJ
yCO2,BL,NCVFC
EFNCVFC
EF (10)
C. If F3 has been determined as the most likely baseline scenario: the weighted average annual CO2
emission factor for the fossil fuel(s) that would have been consumed according to fuel mix
determined in “Procedure for the selection of the most plausible baseline scenario” above, as
follows:
i
iyi,BLF3,
i
yi,FF,CO2,yi,yi,F3,BL,
yCO2,BL,NCVFC
EFNCVFC
EF
(11)
Method A:
The diesel oil (sular) and natural gas consumption is as follows in the last three years prior to the start of
the project activity:
Table 29: Diesel oil (sular) and Natural Gas Consumption for the Most Recent Three Years
Year Diesel oil (sular)
t/yr
Natural Gas
(m3/year)
2009 0 173,303,698
2010 3,189 171,545,452
2011 85,555 211,038,870
Table 30: Emission Factor and Net Calorific Value of Diesel oil (sular) and Natural Gas
Fuel Type NCV
(TJ/t)
EF CO2
(tCO2/TJ)
Diesel oil
(sular)
0.0457 69.8
Natural gas 0.049 56.1
Method B:
The weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of natural gas in Arabian cement plant is 56.1
tCO2/TJ. Since Method B is lower than Method A, therefore Method B will be used to calculate the
baseline emissions from fossil fuels displaced by renewable biomass (BEFF,y) as shown in Table 30.
Method C:
Since F3 is not determined as the baseline scenario, therefore, this method will not be used.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 56
Table 31: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factor for the Fossil Fuels Displaced by the Use of Alternative Fuels or
Less Carbon Intensive Fossil Fuels in the Project Plant
Options EFCO2,BL,y
(tCO2/TJ)
Option A 58.36
Option B 56.1
Table 32: Baseline emissions from fossil fuels displaced by renewable biomass (BEFF,y)
Year
∑(FCPJ,k,y*NCVk,y
)
[TJ/year]
FPy [TJ/year] BEFF,y
[tCO2/year]
2013 748 13 41,234
2014 1,439 13 79,987
2015 2,107 13 117,471
2016 2,107 13 117,471
2017 2,107 13 117,471
2018 2,107 13 117,471
2019 2,107 13 117,471
2020 2,107 13 117,471
2021 2,107 13 117,471
2022 2,107 13 117,471
Step 3. Calculate baseline emissions from decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues
The calculation of baseline methane emissions from biomass residues dumped left to decay or burnt in an
uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for energy purposes depends on the applicable baseline
scenario (B1, B2 or B3). If for a certain biomass residue type k, leakage cannot be ruled out by using one
of the approaches L1, L2 or L3 outlined in the leakage section, then no baseline methane emissions can be
claimed from decay, dumping or uncontrolled burning of that biomass quantity. Baseline emissions from
decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues are calculated as follows:
y,2B,4CHy,3B/1B,4CHy,biomass,4CH BEBEBE (12)
Where:
BECH4,biomass,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing disposal
or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)
BECH4,B1/B3,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from aerobic decay and/or
uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)
BECH4,B2,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from anaerobic decay of
biomass residues at a solid waste disposal site (tCO2e)
According to the baseline scenario analysis, B3 is the most likely scenarios to occur. Therefore,
BECH4,B2,y will be equal to zero and only the calculations for BECH4,B1/B3,y will be developed.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 57
Uncontrolled burning or aerobic decay of the biomass residues
Baseline emissions avoided from aerobic decay and/or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues are
calculated as follows:
yk,4,burning,CHyk,
k
yk,PJ,CH4yB1/B3,CH4, EFNCVFCGWPBE (13)
GWPCH4 = 21 [dimensionless]
EFCH4,BB 0.0027 [tCH4/t dry matter]
Conservativeness factor 0.73 [dimensionless]
Table 33: Baseline methane emissions avoided from preventing uncontrolled burning of biomass
residues
Year ∑(FCPJ,biomass,y*NC
Vbiomass,y)
BECH4,biomass,y
[tCO2/year]
2013 74 207
2014 295 828
2015 589 1,656
2016 589 1,656
2017 589 1,656
2018 589 1,656
2019 589 1,656
2020 589 1,656
2021 589 1,656
2022 589 1,656
Anaerobic decay of the biomass residues
The amount of methane produced in the year y (BECH4,SWDS,y) is calculated as follows:
y
1x j
k-x)-(yk-jxj,fCH4ySWDS,CH4, )e1.(.e.DOCW.MCF.F.DOC 16/12. OX). -(1 .GWP).f1.(BE jj
(14)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 58
Table 34: Baseline emissions from the disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site
Year BECH4,SWDS,y
[t CO2/year]
2013 542
2014 1,203
2015 2,198
2016 2,684
2017 3,153
2018 3,605
2019 4,041
2020 4,460
2021 4,863
2022 5,252
Therefore, total baseline emissions will be:
ySWDS,CH4,y, biomassCH4,yFF,y BEBEBEBE (15)
Table 35: Total baseline emissions in the 2 production lines of Arabian Cement Plant
Years BECH4,biomass,y
(tCO2e/year)
BEFF,y
(tCO2/yr)
BECH4,SWDS,y
(tCO2e/year)
BEy
(tCO2/yr)
2013 41,234 207 542 41,983
2014 79,987 828 1,203 82,017
2015 117,471 1,656 2,198 121,325
2016 117,471 1,656 2,684 121,811
2017 117,471 1,656 3,153 122,280
2018 117,471 1,656 3,605 122,732
2019 117,471 1,656 4,041 123,167
2020 117,471 1,656 4,460 123,587
2021 117,471 1,656 4,863 123,990
2022 117,471 1,656 5,252 124,379
Leakage
It has been demonstrated in section B.4 that the agricultural residues utilized by Arabian Cement Project
will be collected from sites that do not utilize the biomass and that the biomass is burnt in the fields by
the farmers in the absence of the project activity. Therefore, no leakage penalty related to the use of
biomass residues will be applied.
The other source of leakage includes mainly fugitive CH4 emissions and CO2 emissions from associated
fuel combustion and flaring.
The project does not involve the utilization of less carbon intensive fuels. Therefore, upstream leakage
emissions from fossil fuels will not be considered.
Therefore, leakage is considered to be zero for the project activity.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 59
B.6.4. Summary of ex ante estimates of emission reductions
Year Baseline emissions
(t CO2e)
Project emissions
(t CO2e)
Leakage
(t CO2e)
Emission reductions
(t CO2e)
1 41,983 21,047 0 20,935
2 82,017 35,244 0 46,774
3 121,325 45,973 0 75,352
4 121,811 48,427 0 73,384
5 122,280 48,427 0 73,853
6 122,732 48,427 0 74,305
7 123,167 48,427 0 74,740
8 123,587 48,427 0 75,159
9 123,990 48,427 0 75,563
10 124,379 48,427 0 75,951
Total 1,107,271 441,256 0 666,016
Total
number
of
crediting
years
10
Annual
average
over the
crediting
period
110,727 44,126 0 66,602
B.7. Monitoring plan
B.7.1. Data and parameters to be monitored
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 60
Data / Parameter FCPJ,k,y and FCPJ,i,y
Unit Mass or volume units
Description Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel of type k
(FCPJ,k,y) and fossil fuel of type i (FCPJ,i,y) used in the project plant in year y
Source of data Plant records
Value(s) applied Refer to Table 8.
Measurement methods
and procedures
Use mass or volume meters
The consistency of metered fuel consumption quantities will be cross-
checked by an annual energy balance that is based on purchased quantities
and stock changes.
Regarding the agricultural wastes, RDF and sludge quantities, they will be
measured using Weighbridges to weigh the alternative fuels before
entering the calciner.
Monitoring frequency For the fossil fuels, they will be recorded monthly.
For alternative fuels, they will be recorded with the arrival of each truck
and aggregated at least annually
QA/QC procedures According to ISO 9001 system.
The mass or volume flow meters will be calibrated internally each 3
months and calibrated by a 3rd party each three years.
Purpose of data To calculate the following:
1) Project emissions resulting from the use of alternative fuels and/or less
carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant
2) Specific energy consumption in the project which will be further used
to calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels
displaced by the alternative fuels
3) Baseline emissions resulting from the uncontrolled burning or aerobic
decay of the biomass residues
Additional comment -
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 61
Data / Parameter EFCO2,k,y , EFCO2,FF,i,y
Unit tCO2/TJ
Description Weighted average CO2 emission factor for alternative or less carbon
intensive
fuels of type k (EFCO2,k,y) and for fossil fuel of type i (EFCO2,FF,i) in year y
Source of data For diesel oil (sular), the following data source is used:
Data Source Conditions for using the
data source
b) Measurements by the project
participants
If a) is not available
For natural gas and wastes originating from fossil sources for which W3
has been identified as the most likely baseline scenario, the following data
source us used:
Data Source Conditions for using the
data source
d) IPCC default values at the lower
limit of the uncertainty at a 95%
confidence interval as provided in
table 1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2
(Energy) of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines on National GHG
Inventories.
If a) is not available
Value(s) applied
For fossil fuels:
56.1 tCO2/TJ for Natural Gas
69.8 tCO2/TJ for Diesel Oil (sular)
For the alternative fuels:
0 tCO2/TJ for Agricultural Wastes
0 tCO2/TJ for Sludge
36 tCO2/TJ for RDF
Measurement methods
and procedures
For a) and b): Measurements should be undertaken in line with national or
international fuel standards
Monitoring frequency For a) and b): The CO2 emission factor should be obtained for each fuel on
a monthly basis by sending samples to the Egyptian Petroleum Research
Institute, from which weighted average annual values should be calculated.
For d): Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines should be taken into
Account
QA/QC procedures According to ISO 9001 system.
Purpose of data To calculate the following:
1) Project emissions resulting from the use of alternative fuels and/or
less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant
2) Project emissions based on the actual quantity of fossil fuels consumed
for the alternative fuels transportation
3) Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the
use of alternative fuels (EFCO2, BL,y) which will be further used to
calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels
displaced by the alternative fuels
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 62
Additional comment -
Data / Parameter NCVk,y and NCVi,y
Unit TJ/tonne
Description Weighted average net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon
intensive fuel types k (NCVk,y) and fossil fuel types i (NCVi,y).
Source of data For Natural Gas and Diesel Oil (sular), the following data source will be
used:
Data Source Conditions for using the
data source
b) Measurements by the project
participants
If a) is not available
For Agricultural wastes, Sludge and RDF, the following data source will
be used:
Data Source Conditions for using the
data source
b) Lab measurements by the project
participants
If a) is not available
Value(s) applied 0.0144 TJ/tonne for rice straw
0.0154 TJ/tonne for cotton stalks
0.0143 TJ/tonne for RDF
0.0168 TJ/tonne for sludge
0.049 TJ/tonne for Natural gas
0.0457 TJ/tonne for Diesel oil (sular)
Measurement methods
and procedures
For a) and b): Measurements should be undertaken in line with national or
international fuel standards
Monitoring frequency For a) and b): The NCV should be obtained for each fuel on a monthly
basis by sending samples to the Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute,
from which weighted average annual values will be calculated.
QA/QC procedures According to ISO 9001 system.
Purpose of data To calculate the following:
1) Project emissions resulting from the use of alternative fuels and/or
less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant
2) Project emissions based on the actual quantity of fossil fuels consumed
for the alternative fuels transportation
3) Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year y that will be
used to estimate the fuel penalty
4) Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the
use of alternative fuels (EFCO2, BL,y) which will be further used to
calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels
displaced by the alternative fuels
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 63
Data / Parameter ECPJ,y
Unit MWh
Description Onsite consumption of electricity provided by the grid and attributable to
the project activity during the year y
Source of data Plant Records
Value(s) applied Refer to Table 21
Measurement methods
and procedures
Use electricity meters.
Monitoring frequency Continuously, and aggregated at least monthly
QA/QC procedures The consistency of metered electricity consumption will be cross-checked
by the purchased electricity invoices
Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions resulting from additional electricity
consumption as a result of the project activity
Additional comment
Data / Parameter TDL y
Unit -
Description Average technical transmission and distribution losses in the grid in year y
for the voltage level at which electricity is obtained from the grid at the
project site in year y
Source of data As per the “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil
fuel
Combustion”.”
Value(s) applied Default value of 20%
Measurement methods
and procedures
For a): TDLj/k/l,y should be estimated for the distribution and transmission
networks of the electricity grid of the same voltage as the connection
where the proposed CDM project activity is connected to. The technical
distribution losses should not contain other types of grid losses (e.g.
commercial losses/theft). The distribution losses can either be calculated
by the project participants or be based on references from utilities, network
operators or other official documentation.
Monitoring frequency Annually. In the absence of data from the relevant year, most recent figures
should be used, but not older than 5 years.
QA/QC procedures Technical distribution losses do not contain other types of grid losses (e.g.
commercial losses/theft).
Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions resulting from additional electricity
consumption as a result of the project activity
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 64
Data / Parameter BECH4,B2,y
Unit tCO2
Description Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing
disposal of biomass residues at a solid waste disposal site during the period
from the start of the project activity to the end of the year y
Source of data As per “Emissions avoided from solid waste disposal sites”, Version 06.
Value(s) applied Refer to Table 33.
Measurement methods
and procedures
As per “Emissions avoided from solid waste disposal sites”, Version 06.
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures As per “Emissions avoided from solid waste disposal sites”, Version 06
and also according to ISO 9001 system.
Purpose of data To calculate the baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y
from preventing disposal of biomass residues at a solid waste disposal sites
Additional comment
Data / Parameter AVDy
Unit Km
Description Average round trip distance (from and to) between the alternative fuel
supply sites and the site of the project plant during the year y
Source of data Transportation data logs.
Value(s) applied Refer to
Table 23
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Monitoring frequency With the arrival of each truck
QA/QC procedures Check consistency of distance records provided by the truckers by
comparing recorded distances with other information from other sources
(e.g. maps).
Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil
fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant.
Additional comment If alternative fuels are supplied from different sites, this parameter should
correspond to the mean value of km travelled by trucks that supply the
alternative fuels to the plant
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 65
Data / Parameter EFkm,CO2,y
Unit tCO2/km
Description Average CO2 emission factor for the trucks measured during the year y
Source of data 2006 IPCC default values have been used at the lower/upper limit of the
uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table 1.4 of
Chapter1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) and 1996 IPCC default value as provided in
Table 1-32, Energy Chapter.
Value(s) applied Gas/Diesel oil (sular)= 0.0017 tCO2/km
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency At least annually
QA/QC procedures Cross-check measurement results with emission factors referred to in the
Literature
Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil
fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant.
Additional comment
Data / Parameter AFT,k,y
Unit mass or volume units
Description Quantity of alternative fuel type k that has been transported to the project
site during the year y.
Source of data Measurements by project participants
Value(s) applied Please refer to
Table 24
Measurement methods
and procedures
Regarding the agricultural wastes, RDF quantities, they will be measured
as follows:
Trucks transporting the alternative fuels will be weighed before entering
the facility after leaving the facility as a double check.
Monitoring frequency Recorded with each truck arrival and reported monthly.
QA/QC procedures According to ISO 9001 system.
Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil
fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant.
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 66
Data / Parameter TLy
Unit mass or volume units
Description Average truck load of the trucks used during the year y
Source of data Transportation data logs.
Value(s) applied 25 ton/truck
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Monitoring frequency Continuously
QA/QC procedures -
Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil
fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant.
Additional comment Applicable if Option 1 is chosen to estimate CO2 emissions from
transportation.
Data / Parameter Pclinker,y
Unit Tons
Description Production of clinker in year y
Source of data Production data logs from plant records
Value(s) applied Refer to Table 1
Measurement methods
and procedures
Weighing feeders
Monitoring frequency Recorded/calculated and reported monthly
QA/QC procedures According to ISO 9001 system.
Purpose of data To estimate the Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year
that will be used to estimate the fuel penalty
Additional comment -
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 67
Data / Parameter EFCO2,BL,y
Unit tCO2/TJ
Description Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of
alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant
Source of data Calculated as follows as the lowest of the following CO2 emission factors:
- the weighted average annual CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s)
consumed and monitored ex ante during the most recent three years
before the start of the project activity;
- the weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel(s)
consumed in the project plant in year y that are not less carbon
intensive fossil fuels,
Value(s) applied 56.1 t CO2/TJ
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Monitoring frequency Continuously, aggregated at least annually
QA/QC procedures -
Purpose of data To calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels
displaced by the alternative fuels
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 68
Data / Parameter FCBL,i,y
Unit Mass or volume unit
Description Quantity of fossil fuel type i displaced in the project plant as a result of the
project activity in year y
Source of data The quantities and types of fossil fuels i that are displaced as a result of the
project activity (FCBL,i,y) should be determined consistent with the
guidance above on the determination of the baseline CO2 emission factor
(EFCO2,BL,y).
Value(s) applied Please refer to Method B. Table 36: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factor for the Fossil Fuels Displaced by
the Use of Alternative Fuels or Less Carbon Intensive Fossil Fuels in the
Project Plant
Options EFCO2,BL,y
(tCO2/TJ)
Option A 58.36
Option B 56.1
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Monitoring frequency Annually
QA/QC procedures -
Purpose of data To calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels
displaced by the alternative fuels
Additional comment
Data / Parameter EFburning, CH4, K ,y
Unit tCH4/GJ
Description CH4 emission factor for uncontrolled burning of the biomass residue type k
during the year y
Source of data IPCC 2006 Guidelines
Value(s) applied 0.0027 tCH4/t dry matter
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Monitoring frequency Review of default values: annually
QA/QC procedures -
Purpose of data To calculate the baseline methane emissions from biomass residues
dumped, left to decay or burnt in an uncontrolled manner without utilizing
them for energy purposes.
Additional comment Monitoring of this parameter for project emissions is only required if CH4
emissions from biomass combustion are included in the project boundary.
Note that a conservative factor shall be applied, as specified in the baseline
methodology.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 69
Data / Parameter Biomass residue type k
Unit -
Description Demonstration that the biomass residue type k from a specific source
would continue not to be collected or utilized, e.g. by an assessment
whether a market has emerged for that type of biomass residue (if yes,
leakage is assumed not be ruled out) or by showing that it would still not
be feasible to utilize the biomass residues for any purposes
Source of data Information from the site where the biomass is generated
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
-
Monitoring frequency Annually
QA/QC procedures -
Purpose of data To demonstrate that the biomass residue type K from a specific source will
be burnt in the fields by the farmers in the absence of the project activity
Additional comment Monitoring of this parameter is applicable if approach L1 is used to rule
out Leakage
B.7.2. Sampling plan
>> Described in sections B.7.1 & B.7.3
B.7.3. Other elements of monitoring plan
>>
The monitoring plan should include all the methods related to the collection and archiving of all relevant
data necessary for determining the baseline, anthropogenic GHG emissions within the project boundary,
and leakage. The monitoring plan will be integrated to the existing ISO 9001:2000 system.
Through accurate book-keeping and IT-based systems, the percentage of each fuel used and the amount
of cement clinker made in a fixed time period will be recorded. Fuel heat values will be systematically
measured and applied and emission factors used are laboratory tested for each fuel type. Since it is a
normal priority for a cement company to track the fuel split, an additional fuel can be easily absorbed
into an existing tracking system.
Monitoring System
A continuous monitoring system is used to measure the emissions from the stacks. This monitoring
system includes the following measurements:
1. Gas Analysis
Carbon monoxide, oxygen, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides are constantly measured using
electrochemical detectors as this measurement is indispensable to control the production process inside
the kiln and the measurement of carbon monoxide is very important for the safety of the electrostatic
filters.
2. Dust
The dust in the flue gases emitted from the stacks is measured where the appropriate measurement points
are determined for the passage of flue-gas on a regular basis.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 70
3. Heavy metals
Minerals in the alternative fuels are not flammable and they are either vaporized due to rising
temperatures in the kiln and emitted to the atmosphere or discharged with a dust of the by-pass or mixed
with the clinker and finished in cement. The heavy metals will be analyzed on a regular basis by the
Central Laboratory of the plant.
4. Dioxins / furans
They will be measured by a certified laboratory and the measurements will be conducted at least twice a
year to assess the level of these pollutants in the emissions.
Periodic inspections will be conducted for the storage area of the alternative fuels, the section of
alternative fuels supply to the furnace and the quality of the emissions resulting from the project activity.
Arabian Cement Company has an environmental record that includes all the results of the periodic
monitoring. The following table illustrates the monitoring plan and the follow-up plan that will be
followed during the project activity.
Procedures Frequency Authority
Periodic Inspection
1. Inspection on the storage area of alternative fuels and the
section of alternative fuels supply to the furnace
Daily Plant
2. Inspection on the pumps and motors Monthly Plant
3. Periodic medical examinations of workers and conducting
the necessary tests.
Every 6 months Specialized entity
4. Periodic inspection and maintenance of the devices and
equipment of fire fighting
Weekly Plant
Measurements
1. Dust emissions from the main stacks (rotary kiln stack,
cooler stack and the by-pass stack)
Daily Monitoring
devices that are
connected to the
national network
of the EEAA in
Cairo
2. Gaseous emissions from the main stackes: SOx, NOx, CO. Daily
3. Dust inhalants for the occupational health and safety within
the workplace, TSP - PM10
Twice per
month
The plant using
mobile devices
4. Outdoor gaseous air pollutants for the safety, occupational
health and the protection of the working environment inside
the plant’s workplaces
Daily The plant using
mobile devices
5. Particulate matter emissions for the safety, occupational
health and the protection of the working environment inside
the plant’s workplaces
Twice per week The plant using
mobile devices
6. Monthly reports to the EEAA in Cairo Monthly The plant using
mobile devices
7. Monthly reports of the environmental record of the plant
and the top management of the company
Monthly Plant
8. Measurements inside the workplaces (light intensity - noise
- heat stress)
Monthly The plant using
mobile devices
Furthermore, Arabian Cement Company has established implemented and maintained procedures to
identify and evaluate the performance of their processes. The company has established a documented
procedure for each process called process document. Each document is established and reviewed by the
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 71
process owner himself. To monitor the process, each document contains the process criteria in the form
of the key performance indicators. Each manger evaluates his process monthly. In case of deviation from
stated indicators, the corrective and /or preventive action will be taken.
Internal Audit
Comprehensive, planned and documented audits are carried out to verify whether quality activities and
related results comply with planned arrangements and to determine the effectiveness of the system.
Audits are scheduled according to an annual plan on the basis of the status and importance of the activity.
Identified nonconforming conditions are brought to the attention of the responsible manager to initiate
the necessary corrective action.
The Quality Assurance department will be responsible for planning, following up and keeping records.
Management Representative /Quality Assurance Manager will be responsible for leading the audit, audits
team and issuing the audit report. The auditors will conduct the audit, issue the nonconformity report,
and get the agreement of Auditee on the required actions and to follow up the closing of the corrective
actions. Implementation and effectiveness of the action are verified by a follow-up audit. The internal
audits (QMS/SMS audits) are carried out at least twice a year or as needed on the basis.
The following chart summarizes the internal audit procedure at Arabian Cement Plant.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 72
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 73
Figure 12: Internal Audit Procedure at Arabian Cement Plant
Calibration
Arabian Cement Company established, documented and maintained a procedure to ensure the calibration
of lab measuring instruments according to the annual calibration plan. The lab measuring instruments are
listed and proper measurements required for each instrument are defined to keep its precision according
to the international and local standards. The certified calibration organization is determined and all
calibration activities are documented to ensure the achievement of the calibration plan. Calibrated
instruments are certified and calibration data is posted on each instrument.
The quality control manager sets up the quality plan and follows up the quality control
parameters of each raw material
The calibration officer prepares the lab measuring instruments list.
The calibration officer defines the proper measurements required for each instrument to keep its
precision according to the international and local standards.
The calibration officer prepares the annual calibration plan. .
Calibration of the lab measuring instruments before due time.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 74
After receiving the calibration certificates, they are revised by the calibration officer and signed
for revision to consider any comments during usage. Calibration officer will maintain copy of the
calibration certificate of the calibration equipment used from authorized institute.
Posting poster on each instrument shows the calibration data.
Documentation of all of the calibration activities.
Maintenance
The Maintenance Department maintain all plant equipment and follow up maintenance activities in case
of outsourcing, aiming to keep the plant equipment in a perfect condition to ensure maximum plant
availability with minimum stoppages and cost, attaining the production targetsand applying the most
advanced maintenance system.
Types of Maintenance
1. Corrective maintenance.
2. Systematic (periodic) maintenance.
3. Preventative maintenance.
4. Predictive maintenance.
The Maintenance Manager follows up and evaluates the maintenance process performance via the KPIs
set and issues monthly reports to the Plant Manager
The maintenance department is responsible for maintaining all the plant equipment (follow up in case of
outsourcing the plant maintenance), keeping the plant machinery in a perfect conditions; plant
availability with minimum stoppages attaining the production targets through the teams; and is also
responsible for establishing and applying the most advanced maintenance system.
The Maintenance Team consists of Maintenance Manager as a head of the department and the team
reporting to him.
Operational & Management Team
The chart below describes the operational and management team that will responsible for monitoring the
emissions reductions generated by the project activity.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 75
Figure 13: Operational and Management Structure of the CDM Project
Documents Management & Control
Arabian Cement Company has established documented operating procedures to control all documents,
data and forms that relate to the requirements of the quality management system. Appropriate documents
are available at locations where they are intended to be used. Obsolete documents are removed from
locations of use. Document controller is responsible for implementing document control procedure.
Quality system documentation comprises the following types of documents:
1. Quality Policy / Quality Manual
2. Process Documents (Pr)
3. Operating Procedure (P)
4. Work Instructions (W)
5. Forms (F)
The Process Owner identifies, stores, maintains, and determines the retention time and disposition of
records. The Quality Assurance Manager maintains the updated quality and safety records control list.
Records are established and maintained to provide evidence of conformity to requirements and to provide
the effective operation of the quality and safety management systems.
While filling the record, each process owner shall remain his / her records:
Legible.
Readily identifiable.
Retrievable.
Traceable.
Each process owner lists his / her records and defines the retention time of each record and copy to
Quality Assurance Manager. Quality Assurance Manger in cooperation with the concerned manager will
survey the records on annually and obsolete records are discarded.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 76
Each manager collects the data from the records and analyzes it in order to set his objectives and in order
to measure the effectiveness of the performance of his department.
Records are either hard copies or electronic media
Emissions Monitoring and Calculations Procedures
Data source and collection • Data is available from the plant records
• Most data are archived and maintained
according to the existing ISO 14001 &
9001 systems
• The data is monitored by the monitoring
engineers in Arabian Cement Plant then
reviewed and forwarded by the technical
and operations department.
• The frequency of the monitored data will
be according to the existing management
systems and the requirements of the
methodology
Data compilation • All data necessary for the CO2 reporting
are entered into the SAP modules and the
additional monitoring spread sheet.
• The data is then collected by the CDM
assessment team to calculate the emissions
reductions and elaborate the monitoring
report.
Emission calculation and monitoring report • Emission reductions calculations are
conducted on a yearly basis from the data
collected monthly by the CDM assessment
team
• All the data are inserted in excel
spreadsheets by the CDM assessment
team. Monitoring report will be elaborated
from the results obtained from the
calculations.
Emission data review and approval • Emissions calculations and monitoring
reports will be reviewed and approved by
the CDM Coordinator
Records maintaining • All the data will be recorded and
maintained according to the existing data
management systems.
Training
Implementing this project activity at Arabian Cement Plant will lead to the transfer of a new technology
to Egypt. The operation of this project will require training for the employees of Arabian Cement
Company. The employees responsible for running the alternative fuel project will be subject to the
company training policies and procedures.
Training needs are identified according to the following criteria/assumptions:
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 77
Employees: ACC employees are entitled to participate in training after 6 months of employment.
The training can be given following or lying on the following categories:
Annual Department Training Plan
Non-plan Training as per changes on working conditions: Promotion, Change of tasks ...etc.
General Company training: Soft skills and languages.
New Employees: If specific Training needs are detected upon the interview and are a
requirement for the hiring.
The Annual Training Plan contains the whole training actions set up by each department according to
their training needs and the outcome of the annual appraisal. There are 3 kinds of training needs:
Need to develop competencies:
Enable employee with a professional improvement enhancing their qualifications. Heads of Departments
will determine what skills are most pertinent to the company's current or future needs and will provide
the biggest payback.
Need of adjustment with the job:
List key goals and the top competency gaps of his/her staff. Enable employees with the competencies
required to fulfil business achievements.
Need of Compliance with the job evolution and new requirements:
Training to update employees’ skills in order to maintain their adaptability with their job (new project,
changes in the organization, mobility, tasks evolution…).
Head of Department should assure and justify on his proposed Training needs Plan Form the reason of
the course, manager decision assumptions and the benefits that the Manager expects this course will
bring for the employee and the company in order to make fair decisions taking all staff development in
consideration. The Head of Department will be guided by HR Development and Training Officer on the
training needs identification, through meetings with the concerns Heads of Department.
Each Head of Department will present his/her Final Training Plan to HR development and training
officer in order to be compiled on a Company Annual training plan check suitability as per the Company
training budget, and presented to the CEO for approval. The Administration Manager and HR
Department notify the relevant departments of the company about the training plan, once approved by the
CEO.
In case the need of a training course is not included in the plan (sudden need appearing or unexpected
training course found), this course is determined by the head of department in the appropriate application
Form to be submitted to the CEO for approval and include it in the training plan
The Company trainings can be classified as:
Internal
External
Local
International
Long term Education
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 78
SECTION C. Duration and crediting period
C.1. Duration of project activity
C.1.1. Start date of project activity
>>
The starting date of the project activity is expected to be in 01/06/2012
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of project activity
>>
20
C.2. Crediting period of project activity
C.2.1. Type of crediting period
>>
Fixed crediting period (A single 10-year)
C.2.2. Start date of crediting period
>>
>> 01/03/2013
C.2.3. Length of crediting period
10 years
SECTION D. Environmental impacts
D.1. Analysis of environmental impacts
>>
>> An environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been conducted for Arabian Cement Plant fuel
switching project in accordance with the Egyptian Environmental Law 4/1994. The purpose of the study
was to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed fuel switching project on the surrounding
environment.
Different impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed project, and mitigation measures to
reduce these impacts were identified. The issues/impacts which were addressed are as follows:
1. Particulate matter impacts
2. Gaseous emissions impacts
3. Air quality impacts
4. Noise impacts
5. Waste Transportation impacts
6. Traffic impacts
7. Waste Storage impacts
8. Ecology (flora and fauna) impacts
9. Socio-economic impacts
D.2. Environmental impact assessment
>>
Control measures, mitigation measures and the environmental impacts resulting from the project activity
are outlined as follows:
1. Particulate matter impacts
Particulate emissions resulting from the cement kilns will be controlled via electrostatic filters so that the
emissions will not exceed 50 mg / cubic meters.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 79
2. Gaseous emissions impacts
The combustion of natural gas produces carbon dioxide and water vapour, taking into
account that a small percentage of carbon monoxide may be produced from the incomplete
combustion of natural gas. Using the aforementioned alternative fuels will also result in the
emission of the same gas in addition to small amounts of hydrochloric acid and sulphur
dioxide due to the presence of chlorine and sulphur in the fuel and vaporization of alkaline
metals (sodium and potassium) also may occur. These gases are made to pass through the
pre-heater where the raw materials (lime) pass in the opposite direction which leads to the
neutralization of any acidic gases such as hydrochloric acid and sulphur dioxide resulting in
the formation of calcium sulphate and calcium chloride in the process. Gaseous emissions
will be monitored in order to demonstrate compliance with Law 4/1994 environmental limits
related to gaseous emissions from stacks.
3. Air Quality Impacts
Fugitive dust during waste feeding to the kilns will be mitigated through using a well closed tightly
covered belt will be used and the fuels will be transmitted directly to the pre-heaters and thus air quality
will not be affected.
4. Noise Impacts
The noise in the kiln area will not be affected by using alternative fuels since the combustion process will
not change and dealing with the alternative fuels and their feeding system will not represent a new source
of noise in the plant. Therefore, it is not expected that any changes in the level of noise will occur.
5. Waste Transportation impacts
The alternative fuels will be transported to the plant according to the following conditions:
The transportation trucks will be fitted with all the safety equipment, and trucks must be in a
good working condition
The capacity of these trucks and their schedules must be proportionate to the amount of waste
being transported.
The trucks are driven by two trained drivers, able to take independent initiatives, particularly in
cases of emergency.
The trucks must be clearly marked to indicate the nature of its cargo, and the best way to deal
with it in emergency situations.
The routes of the trucks transporting the waste will be determined in order to take the necessary action
quickly and decisively in emergency situations.
6. Traffic impacts
The road linking the plant to Suez City and Cairo is adequate to accommodate the additional traffic
resulting from the transfer of the alternative fuels.
It is expected that on burning about 500 tons / day of waste, the additional number of trucks will be18
trucks/day and the capacity of each truck is about 25 tons. For 10 working hours per day, the traffic load
will increase by 2 trucks per hour. So, there is no significant change in the traffic load.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 80
7. Waste storage impacts
The wastes will be stored in covered storage areas that are made of concrete and stainless
steel and they will be equipped with fire fighting system.
The storage areas of the wastes will be lined with non porous and leak proof material.
The storage areas of the wastes will be monitored 24 hours per day
8. Ecology (flora and fauna) impacts
The flora is very limited within the surrounding region of the plant. The plants and animals species
within the surrounding region of the plant have not been mentioned in the list of plants and animals that
are threatened with extinction and there are no natural protectorates close to the project site. It is
expected that no ecological impacts will occur.
9. Socio-economic impacts
There is no permanent residence area around the plant. The proposed new activity will give the
opportunity to hire new workers, in addition to the indirect job opportunities related to wastes handling
and transport which would lead to economic boost on the long-term.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the use of wastes as alternative fuels in kilns of Arab Cement Company Cement
is environmentally compatible due to the following reasons:
1. There will be no change in emissions.
2. Significant savings in energy used.
3. No residues will be left behind
4. The quality of cement produced is not expected to be affected.
SECTION E. Local stakeholder consultation
E.1. Solicitation of comments from local stakeholders
>>
A stakeholders meeting was held in Cairo where representatives from various organizations were invited.
The list of invitees included representatives from the following organizations:
Governmental Organizations
Climate Change Unit, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA)
CDM Awareness & Promotion Unit, EEAA
CDM Unit, EEAA
Egyptian DNA
3rd
National Communication Project
Regional Branch for Greater Cairo, EEAA
Central Unit for Environmental Impact Assessment, EEAA
General Authority for Foreign Investment (GAFI)
Environmental Compliance Unit, Federation of Egyptian Industries
Ministry of Electricity, Minster Consultant for Environmental Studies and Renewable
Energy
Neighbouring Universities and Research Centers
Tabbin Institute for Metallurgical Studies
Environment and Research Centre, Cairo University
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)
Arab Office for Youth and Environment (Non-Governmental Organizations)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 81
Invitations were sent to the invitees and an announcement was publicized in one of the most popular
newspapers (Gomhouryia News paper) in 24/04/2012 to invite interested organizations and personnel
from the public. The meeting was held in Dusit Thani in New Cairo on 3rd
of May, 2012. The Alternative
Fuel Manager from Arabian Cement presented an overview of the company’s activities and its
commitment to environmental improvement and sustainable development. A representative from Integral
Consult, the company’s CDM consultant, presented a description of the project activity to the attendees.
After the presentation, a discussion session was held. The consultant and company representatives
replied to questions from the audience. A questionnaire was distributed to the audience to provide any
comments they have on the project. The questionnaire contained the following questions:
1. Do you think that the project activity will contribute to the sustainable development of the area?
Please indicate reasons for your answer.
2. Do you think that the project activity will result in positive environmental effects in the
surrounding area? Please indicate reasons for your answer.
3. Do you agree on the implementation of the project activity? Please indicate reasons for your
answer.
4. Do you think that the industrial area and Arab Republic of Egypt will benefit from this project
activity? Please indicate reasons for your answer.
5. Do you have any further comments?
E.2. Summary of comments received
>>
The list of participants who provided comments is presented in Table 37.The replies of attendees on the
questionnaire are presented in Table 38.
Table 37 : List of Persons Providing Comments
Organization Position Name
1 Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency
Head of Climate Change
Central Department
Dr. Ezzat lewis
2 Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency
Manager of 3rd
National
Communication Project
Dr. Elsayed Sabry
3 Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency
Environmental Specialist Yasser Samir Mohamed
4 Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency/Egyptian DNA CDM Specialist Wael Farag Bassiouny
5 Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency / CDM Awareness and
Promotion Unit
Technical Specialist Ahmed Bahaa El-Dein
Mohammed
6 ASEC Group Consultant Major General Eng. Ismail
Hassan
7 Arabian Cement Company Projects Manager Karim Mohamed Abdel
Monsef
8 Pharaohs Group Chairman Ahmed Shireen Korayem
9 Arabian Cement Company Chief Operations Officer Fernas El-Hakim
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 82
Table 38: Consolidation of Replies to Questionnaire
Q1 Do you think that the project activity will contribute to the sustainable development of
the area? Please indicate reasons for your answer.
1 Yes, achieve environmental, economic and social benefits.
2 Yes, due to its sustainable development benefits (Environmental, Social & Economic
benefits)
3 -
4 Yes, economically, it will reduce the subsidy allocated by the government to the fossil fuels
and will generate CER revenues. Environmentally, it will reduce emissions from the black
cloud episode. Socially, the project will create job opportunities.
5 Yes, avoidance of unsafe handling of sludge and reallocation of subsidies paid to natural gas.
6 Many benefits will be achieved from this project
7 Yes, by providing more jobs in the area in addition to decreasing emissions in the area, thus
allowing the development of more industries.
8 -
9 -
Q2 Do you think that the project activity will result in positive environmental effects in the
surrounding area? Please indicate reasons for your answer.
1 Yes, reducing GHGs and solid wastes
2 Yes, reducing the GHG emissions, and avoidance of burning agricultural wastes and RDF.
3 -
4 Yes, as referred in question 1
5 Yes, emission reduction in CO2, some CH4 and uncontrolled burning of rice straw
6 Yes, it will decrease the emissions
7 Yes, the decreased emissions will decrease the effect of the harmful emissions on the
surrounding wildlife.
8 -
9 Yes, the project will result in reduced emissions than those resulting from natural gas and
diesel oil
Q3 Do you agree on the implementation of the project activity? Please indicate reasons for
your answer.
1 Yes, for achieving sustainable development
2 Yes, due to its environmental, social and economic benefits
3 -
4 Yes, due to its contribution to sustainable development through the 3 pillars; social,
economic and environmental.
5 Yes, the project will contribute to the sustainable development of Egypt
6 Yes
7 Yes, it will save natural gas quantities that are much needed in addition to several
opportunities for handling the fuels in terms of employment and proper disposal of wastes.
8 -
9 Yes, due to the expected shortage of fuel
Q4 Do you think that the industrial area and Arab Republic of Egypt will benefit from this
project activity? Please indicate reasons for your answer.
1 Yes, by achieving environmental, economic and social benefits and also the transfer of a new
technology
2 Yes, due to its contribution in reducing the subsidies allocated for the fossil fuels and for the
technology transfer as well.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 83
3 -
4 Yes, due to technology transfer and saving of fossil fuels
5 Yes, Egypt will benefit from solving the problem of large amounts of unsafely handled waste
and sludge.
6 Yes, the project will result in environmental, economic and social benefits.
7 Yes, due to all above mentioned reasons, the project will bring benefits to the industrial
sector of Egypt.
8 -
9 The project will reduce the normal fuel consumption and the open burning of agricultural
wastes
Q5 Do you have any further comments?
1 Hope to finalize this project according to the time table.
2 No
3 -
4 Accelerate the registration of the project before the end of 2012.
5 No
6 No
7 No
8 -
9 No
Most of the replies showed that the attendees totally agree that the project will contribute to the
sustainable development of the area due to contribution to environment enhancement in the surrounding
areas, reducing the GHGs, increasing of employment, economic utilization of waste, reducing the
financial burden on the Egyptian Government by reducing the subsidies allocated for the fossil fuels and
also transfer of a new technology.
Most replies showed that the attendees totally agree that the project will have positive environmental
impacts in the surrounding areas. The environmental aspects reflected in their replies were the reduction
of greenhouse gases, reduce open burning of agricultural residues which will have effect on reducing the
black cloud episode severity and duration. It will reduce as well the unsafe handling of sludge All replies
showed that the attendees agree to the implementation of the project activity. All the replies agreed that
the project will assist EEAA efforts to reduce the uncontrolled burning of agriculture residues and
uncontrolled handle of MSW.
However some concerns aroused from the attendees during the discussions and were reflected in some
comments. These concerns were the emission of dioxins and furans from the combustion of alternative
fuel specially RDF, emission of pollutants due to combustion of alternative fuel, the effect of the fuel
mix on the production process and product quality and the guarantee of continuous supply of alternative
fuels.
E.3. Report on consideration of comments received
>>
The comments received were addressed as follows:
(i) Emission of dioxins and furans from the combustion of alternative fuel specially RDF
There are no threats of emission of dioxins and furans since dioxins and furans which are formed at 300 -
400 ˚C will be thermally destructed due to the high temperatures in the kilns that reaches 1300 – 1400 ˚C
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 84
(ii) Emission of pollutants due to combustion of alternative fuel and increase of bypass dust
Quantities
The submitted EIA addresses all the mitigation measures to ensure that the emissions resulting from the
project activity will not exceed the allowable limits determined by the Egyptian Law. Electrostatic
precipitators will be used for the reduction of dust particulates to reach the allowable limit. Regarding the
produced bypass dust quantities, it is not expected to increase; the bypass dust production is dependant
on the chlorine amount in the raw materials combusted, Chlorine will only be present in the PVC found
in the RDF with a negligible amount, that will not affect the amount of produced bypass which is
pelletized with water and sent to a landfill.
(iii) The greenhouse gases that are taken into consideration in the project activity
The greenhouse gases that are included in the project activity are CO2 resulting from the baseline
emissions and project emissions as well as CH4 emissions resulting from the open burning of agricultural
wastes and from solid waste disposal sites. Other CO2 emissions resulting from the calcinations process
or other activities that are not
(iv) Effect of the fuel mix on the production process and product quality
There will not be major changes in the production process and the production capacity. The substitution
percentage will not exceed 15% to avoid major changes in the ID fans which will require further
investment.
Regarding the product quality, the supplied alternative fuels have to pass the acceptance criteria before
being used by the plant. Moreover, Arabian cement is applying stringent quality control plan to assure
the product quality as well.
(v) The guarantee of continuous supply of the alternative fuels
This is one of the main risks of the project activity, due to the absence of a mature market for the
alternative fuels. The revenues generated from the CERs are expected to slightly alleviate this risk.
Furthermore, the contracts with the alternative fuels suppliers will be based on the net calorific values of
the alternative fuels and not the quantity only.
(vi) Risk of blockage in the dosing system
The dosing system will be mechanical to avoid the risk of blockage of the dosing system. Furthermore, a
comprehensive study has been made to detect the injection point of the alternative fuels because the
wrong allocation of the injection point is the main reason for blockages in the dosing system and also
may lead to an increase the CO level.
SECTION F. Approval and authorization
>>
The EIA has been submitted to the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) on 11/04/2012 for
approval and authorization.
- - - - -
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 85
Appendix 1: Contact information of project participants
Organization name Arabian Cement Company
Street/P.O. Box El-Teseen Street – Blom Bank Building, 2nd
floor, Fifth Settlement
Building 61
City New Cairo
State/Region Cairo
Postcode -
Country Egypt
Telephone +202 26133623/4/5
Fax +202 26133626
E-mail [email protected]
Website www.arabiancementcompany.com
Contact person Adel Ezzat
Title Engineer
Salutation Mr.
Last name Adel
Middle name
First name Ezzat
Department Alternative fuels
Mobile +201066600239
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail [email protected]
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 86
Appendix 2: Affirmation regarding public funding
The project implementation is completely dependent on private entities. The project has not received and
will not receive any public funding from any international development funding agency or local
governorate.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 87
Appendix 3: Applicability of selected methodology
The approved consolidated methodology ACM0003 entitled "Emissions reduction through partial
substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels in cement or quicklime
manufacture", Version 7.04.1, is applied to this project activity.
This methodology also refers to the latest approved version of the following tools:
“Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality”, Version 03.0.1;
“Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal
site”, Version 06;
“Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”, Version 02;
“Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity consumption, Version 01;
B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project
activity:
The methodology is applicable to the cement industry with the following conditions:
Fossil fuel(s) use in cement manufacture is partially replaced by one or more less carbon
intensive fossil fuel(s) and/or alternative fuels.
Natural used in the cement manufacturing process in Arabian Cement Plant will be partially replaced by
municipal sludge, agricultural waste, and RDF.
A significant investment is required to enable the use of the alternative fuel(s) and/or the less
carbon intensive fossil fuel(s).
Significant investment is required in process modifications, construction of new storage areas and
purchase of equipment to implement the system. This includes equipment for shredding, transportation,
and conveying the alternative fuels from the daily storage area to the pre-calciners and kilns. An
approximate investment of 9,931,101USD is required which is equivalent to about 59,983,863EGP.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 88
Table 39: Investment required for the Implementation of the Project Activity in the two Lines of Arabian
Cement Plant
Item Cost (USD)
Mechanical Deliveries 4,795,186
Overall Engineering 129,320
Low Voltage & USP 309,592
Additional Overhead Reclaimer bunker 1,055,251
Reception bunker unit with screw bottom 313,924
Automation Packet 191,135
Supervision 405,612
Commisioning 209,434
Civil engineering 297,436
Steel structure 1,474,248
Sea Transportation (from Hamburg to
Alexandria)
387,960
Inland transport 62,074
Customs 299,929
Total 9,931,101
During the last three years prior to the start of the project activity, no alternative fuels have been
used in the project plant.
Natural gas and diesel oil (sular) have been the only fuel type used at the plant for the last three years.
The CO2 emissions reduction relates to CO2 emissions generated from fuel combustion only and
is unrelated to the CO2 emissions from decarbonisation of raw materials (i.e. CaCO3 and MgCO3
bearing minerals).
Arabian Cement Company is only claiming emission reductions from the replacement of natural gas in
the combustion process only and no emission reductions are claimed from de-carbonization of raw
materials.
The methodology is applicable only for installed capacity (expressed in tons clinker/year) that
exists by the time of validation of the project activity.
The emission reductions calculations are only based on installed capacity by the time of validation of the
project activity which is 4.2 Million tonnes of clinker per year for each of Line I and Line II, where the
production capacity of each line is 2.1 Million tonnes of clinker.
The biomass is not chemically processed (e.g. esterification to produce biodiesel, production of
alcohols from biomass, etc) prior to combustion in the project plant but it may be processed
mechanically or be dried at the project site. Moreover, any preparation of the biomass, occurring
before use in the project activity, does not cause other significant GHG emissions (such as, for example,
methane emissions from anaerobic treatment of waste water or from char coal production).
The agricultural wastes, sludge and RDF received at Arabian Cement Plant are not chemically processed
before combustion in the project plant, but are mechanically processed through baling, shredding and
crushing at the project site. The project activity will not result in other significant GHG emissions other
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 89
than those related to the energy consumption for the preparation of AFR, transportation, shredding,
operation of storage and feeding systems.
The biomass used by the project facility is stored under aerobic conditions.
The daily storage area in Arabian Cement Plant is shed with adequate openings, designed and equipped
with ventilation system to keep the biomass under aerobic conditions. The reclaimer storage has a total
capacity of 2000 m3 will not exceed 2 days to avoid the occurrence of anaerobic fermentation of the
biomass.
Therefore, the project activity meets the applicability conditions outlined by the approved
consolidated methodology ACM0003.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 90
Appendix 4: Further background information on ex ante calculation
of emission reductions
1. Calculation of the Emission Factor of Egypt’s Electricity Grid
The methodological “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (Version 2.2.1) has
been used to calculate the emission factor of the electricity grid.
The information and data used in the calculations have been obtained from publically available
information published by the Egyptian Ministry of Electricity & Energy.19
The following steps have been applied to determine the grid emission factor:
STEP 1. Identify the relevant electric power system.
STEP 2. Select an operating margin (OM) method.
STEP 3. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method.
STEP 4. Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin (BM).
STEP 5. Calculate the build margin emission factor.
STEP 6. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor.
STEP 1. Identify the relevant electric power system.
The Egyptian DNA hasn’t published a delineation of the project electricity system which could be used
by Arabian Cement Plant. In Egypt, all the power plants are connected to the unified Egyptian National
Grid in which the Egyptian Electricity Transmission Company (EETC) acts as a single buyer of bulk
power, purchasing electricity from the generating companies through Power Purchase Agreements
(PPAs) and selling it to the distribution companies and UHV and HV customers. Similarly, Arabian
Cement Plant is connected to the Egyptian National Grid which is considered as the relevant electric
power system for Arabian Cement Plant. The Egyptian transmission lines are not operated at 90% or
more of its rated capacity during 90% percent or more of the hours of the year, and as a result, there are
no significant transmission constraints.
STEP 2. Select an operating margin (OM) method.
The calculation of the operating margin emission factor (EFgrid,OM,y) is based on one of the following
methods:
(a) Simple OM, or
(b) Simple adjusted OM, or
(c) Dispatch data analysis OM, or
(d) Average OM.
19
Source: http://www.moee.gov.eg/English/e-fr-main.htm
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 91
Any of the four methods can be used, however, the simple OM method (option a) can only be used if
low-cost/must-run resources
constitute less than 50% of total grid generation in: 1) average of the five
most recent years, or 2) based on long-term averages for hydroelectricity production.
For the simple OM, the simple adjusted OM and the average OM, the emissions factor can be calculated
using either of the two following data vintages:
Ex ante option: A 3-year generation-weighted average, based on the most recent data
available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE for validation, without
requirement to monitor and recalculate the emissions factor during the crediting period, or
Ex post option: The year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the
emissions factor to be updated annually during monitoring. If the data required to calculate
the emission factor for year y is usually only available later than six months after the end of
year y, alternatively the emission factor of the previous year (y-1) may be used. If the data is
usually only available 18 months after the end of year y, the emission factor of the year
proceeding the previous year (y-2) may be used. The same data vintage (y, y-1 or y-2) should
be used throughout all crediting periods.
The following values are provided by the Egyptian Electricity Holding Company annual reports for years
2005/2006, 2006/2007, 2007/2008, 2008/2009, 2009/2010.
Table 40: Electricity Generation for the past 5 years
Electricity Generated (GWh)
2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
Hydro Power Plants 12,538 12,814 15,375 14,545 12,738
Wind Parks 542 612 828 924 1,113
Private sector (BOOT
plants)
12,816 11,915 11,918 12,495 12,428
Total - low-cost/must run 25,896 25,341 28,121 27,964 26,279
Total Net - all plants 104,378 111,036 120,568 126,283 134,243
Low-cost/must-run
portion
24.81% 22.82% 23.32% 22.14% 19.58%
Five -year averagefor
low-cost/must-run
plants:
22.54%
Since low cost/must run electricity generation sources resources are about 23% of the total grid
electricity generation and constitute less than 50% of total grid generation in average of the five most
recent years, therefore, Simple OM can be applied.
STEP 3. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 92
(a) Simple OM
The simple OM emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per unit
net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generating power plants serving the system, not including
low-cost / must-run power plants / units. It may be calculated:
• Based on data on fuel consumption and net electricity generation of each power plant / unit
(Option A), or
• Based on data on net electricity generation, the average efficiency of each power unit and the
fuel type(s) used in each power unit (Option B),
Option A should be preferred and must be used if fuel consumption data is available for each power plant
/ unit. For the purpose of calculating the simple OM, Option B should only be used if the necessary data
for option A is not available and can only be used if only nuclear and renewable power generation are
considered as low-cost / must-run power sources and if off-grid power plants are not included in the
calculations.
Where Option B is used, the simple OM emission factor is calculated as follows:
y
yi,,COyi,i,
y,i,
y Simple, OM grid,
EG
.EF.NCVFCER
2
(1)
Where:
EFgrid,OMsimple,y = Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)
FCi,,y = Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power plant / unit m in year y (mass or
volume unit)
NCVi,y = Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ / mass or
volume unit)
EFCO2,i,y = CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)
EF,y = Net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by all power sources serving
the system, not including low-cost / must-run power plants / units, in year y
(MWh)
i = All fossil fuel types combusted in power plant / unit m in year y
Y = Either the three most recent years for which data is available at the time of
submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE for validation (ex ante option) or the
applicable year during monitoring (ex post option), following the guidance on
data vintage in step 2
Table 41: Net Electricity Production for the most recent 3 years including low-cost/must-run
power plants
Net Electricity Production GWh
2007/200
8
2008/200
9
2009/201
0
Hydro 15,375 14,545 12,738
Thermal 92,433 98,302 107,938
Generated Energy from Wind (Zafarana) 828 924 1,113
Purchased Energy from IPPs 14 17 26
Generated from private sector (BOOT) 11,918 12,495 12,428
Total Net electricity generated (excluding isolated units),
(GWh)
120568.2 126283 134243
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 93
Table 42: Net Electricity Production for the most recent 3 years excluding low-cost/must-run
power plants
Net Electricity Production GWh
2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
Thermal 92,433 98,302 107,938
Purchased Energy from IPPs 14 17 26
Total Net electricity generated (excluding isolated units)
(GWh)
92,447 98,319 107,964
Table 43: Fossil fuels amounts consumed in the project electricity system in the most recent 3 years
Fossil Fuels Consumption
Fuel type Units 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
HFO Tonnes 4,774,000 5,321,000 5,929,000
NG m3 21,907,000,00
0
23,013,000,00
0
24,314,000,00
0
NG tonnes
*
17,048,249 17,908,949 18,921,401
LFO Tonnes 2,700 5,370 4,400
Special
LFO
Tonnes 102,000 116,000 170,810
Table 44: Simple Operating Margin for Year 2009/2010
Fuel
type
Fuel
Consumption
Units NCV TJ/Tonne * CO2 emisisons factor
(tCO2/TJ) *
CO2 Emissions
(tCO2/t fuel)
HFO 5929000 Tonnes 0.0404 75.5 18084636
NG 24314000000 m3 0.0000
NG 18921401 tonnes 0.0480 54.3 49316739.
LFO 4400 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 13736
Special
LFO
170810 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 533235
CO2 emissions, 2009/2010 (tCO2) 67948345
Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor 2009/2010 (tCO2/MWh) 0.6294
Table 45: Simple Operating Margin for Year 2008/2009
Fuel
type
Fuel
Consumption
Units NCV
TJ/Tonne
CO2 emisisons factor
(tCO2/TJ)
CO2 Emissions
(tCO2/t fuel)
HFO 5321000 Tonnes 0.0404 75.5 16230114
NG 23013000000 m3 0.0000
NG 17908949 tonnes 0.0480 54.3 46677886
LFO 5370 tonnes 0.0430 72.6 16764
Special
LFO
116000 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 362129
CO2 emissions, 2008/2009 ( tCO2/t fuel) 63286892.8248
Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor 2008/2009 (tCO2/MWh) 0.6437
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 94
Table 46: Simple Operating Margin for Year 2007/2008
Fuel
type
Consumption Units NCV TJ/Tonne CO2 emisisons
factor (tCO2/TJ)
CO2 Emissions
(tCO2 / t fuel)
HFO 4774000 Tonnes 0.0404 75.5 14561655
NG 21907000000 m3 0
NG 17048249 tonnes 0.0480 54.3 44434556
LFO 2700 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 8429
Special
LFO
102000 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 318424
CO2 emissions, 2007/2008( tCO2) 59323064
Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor 2007/2008 (tCO2/MWh) 0.6417
The Simple OM is then calculated as the average Net CO2 emissions from electricity generation / Net
electricity supplied to the grid in the most recent 3 years.
Simple OM = 0.638
STEP 4. Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin (BM).
The sample group of power units (m) used to calculate the build margin consists of either
(a) The set of five power units that have been built most recently, or
(b) The set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system
generation (in MWh) and that have been built most recently.
Project participants should use the set of power units that comprises the larger annual generation. Option
(B) will be chosen to calculate the build margin (BM).
The set of power units that have been built most recently are specified in the following table.
Table 47: The set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the
system generation (in MWh) and that have been built most recently.
Power Plant No. of
Units
Installed
capacity
(MW)
Fuel Net
Electricity
generated
(GWh)
Commissioning
Date
Most recent
commissioning
date
% of
System
Net
Total
Kurraymat 2
(CC)
2×250 +
1×250
750 N.G –
L.F.O
5,035 2007-2009 2009 3.8%
Kurraymat
3* (CC)
2×250 +
1×250
750 N.G –
H.F.O
2,784 2009 2009 2.1%
Sidi krir *
(CC)
2×250 +
1×250
500 N.G –
H.F.O
3,080 2009 2009 2.3%
El-ATF *
(CC)
2×250 +
1×250
500 N.G –
L.F.O
2,991 2009 2009 2.2%
Cairo North
(CC)
4×250 +
2×250
1500 N.G –
L.F.O
9,346 2005-2006-2008 2008 7.0%
Talkha 750 2×250 +
1×250
750 N.G –
L.F.O
4347 2006 - 2008 2008 3.2%
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 95
In terms of vintage of data, Option 1 will be chosen which states that for the first crediting period,
calculate the build margin emission factor ex-ante based on the most recent information available on
units already built for sample group m at the time of CDM-PDD submission to the DOE for validation.
For the second crediting period, the build margin emission factor should be updated based on the most
recent information available on units already built at the time of submission of the request for renewal of
the crediting period to the DOE. For the third crediting period, the build margin emission factor
calculated for the second crediting period should be used. This option does not require monitoring the
emission factor during the crediting period.
STEP 5. Calculate the build margin emission factor.
The build margin emissions factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of
all power units m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available, calculated
as follows:
m
ym,
mym,EL,ym,
y BM, grid,
EG
.EFEG EF
(2)
Where:
EFgrid,BM,y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)
EG m,y = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in
year y (MWh)
EF EL, m, y = CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh)
m = Power units included in the build margin
y = Most recent historical year for which power generation data is available
Table 48: CO2 emissions from each power unit per MWh
Power
Plant
Power
Station
type
Primary
energy
source
Net
Electricity
Generated
(MWh)
Fuel energy
consumtpio
n (ktoe) *
Fuel energy
consumptio
n (TJ)
tCO2
(NG)
tCO2
(F.O)
tCO2/MWh
Kurraymat
2 (CC)
(CC) N.G –
L.F.O
5,034,780 760 31768 138000
2
461271 0.366
Kurraymat
3* (CC)
(CC) N.G –
H.F.O
2,784,000 755 31559 137092
3
476541 0.664
Sidi krir *
(CC)
(CC) N.G –
H.F.O
3,080,265 750 31350 136184
4
473385 0.596
El-ATF *
(CC)
(CC) N.G –
L.F.O
2,991,000 646 27003 117300
2
392081 0.523
Cairo
North (CC)
(CC) N.G –
L.F.O
9,346,249 1577 65919 286350
4
957138 0.409
Talkha 750 (CC) N.G –
L.F.O
4,347,000 784 32771.2 142358
1
475838 0.437
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 96
Build Margin Emissions Factor (tCO2/MWh) = 0.464
STEP 6. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor.
The combined margin emissions factor is calculated as follows:
EF grid,CM,y = EF grid, OM,y x wOM + EF grid, BM,y x wBM (3)
Where:
EFgrid,BM,y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)
EF grid,OM,y = Operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)
w OM = Weighting of operating margin emissions factor (%)
w BM = Weighting of build margin emissions factor (%)
The following default values should be used for wOM
and wBM
:
All projects other than wind and solar power generation projects: wOM = 0.5 and wBM = 0.5 for the first
crediting period, and wOM = 0.25 and wBM = 0.75 for the second and third crediting period unless
otherwise specified in the approved methodology which refers to this tool
EF grid,CM,y = 0.551 tCO2/MWh
2. IPCC Default Values used in calculating the Baseline Emissions from solid waste disposal at
landfills
IPCC Default Values
F (fraction of methane in LFG) 0.5
DOCf (fraction of DOC to LFG) 0.5
MCF (methane correction factor) 0.4
16/12 1.33
f or AF (fraction of CH4 captured & flared or used at the SWDS) 0%
GWP methane 21
Oxidation Factor (OX) 0.1
Model Correction Factor 0.75
Power Plant Net Electricity Generated
(MWh)
tCO2/MW
h
tCO2
Kurraymat 2 (CC) 5,034,780 0.366 1841273
Kurraymat 3*
(CC)
2,784,000 0.664 1847464
Sidi krir * (CC) 3,080,265 0.596 1835229
El-ATF * (CC) 2,991,000 0.523 1565082
Cairo North (CC) 9,346,249 0.409 3820642
Talkha 750 4,347,000 0.437 1899419
TOTAL 23,236,294 1280910
9
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 97
3. Degradable organic content and decay order of each waste component
IPCC guidelines, 2006: DOCj
(%
wet
waste)
DOCj
(% dry
waste)
k
A. Wood and Wood Products 43% 50% 0.025
B. Pulp, Paper & Cardboard (other than sludge) 40% 44% 0.045
C. Food, Food Waste, Beverages & Tobacco (other than
sludge)
15% 38% 0.085
D. Textiles 24% 30% 0.045
E. Garden, Yard & Park Waste 20% 49% 0.065
4. Plant records for clinker production
Year Clinker production ( tons/year )
2009 2010 2011
Production line #1 1,996,800 1,963,540 2,124,240
Production line #2 0 0 1,176,480
5. Plant records for fossil fuels consumption
Year 2009 2010 2011
Natural Gas (m3/year )
Production line
#1
173,303,69
8
171,545,45
2
175,720,75
9
Production line
#2
0 0 35,318,111
Diesel oil (sular) ( m3/year )
Production line
#1
0 3,189 15,570
Production line
#2
0 0 69,985
6. Alternative fuels and fossil fuels consumption during the project activity
Yea
r
Natural
Gas
(m3/year)
Agricultural
Wastes
(tons/year)
Sludge
(tons/year
)
RDF
(tons/year
)
1 358,446,669 5,000 10,000 35,280
2 339,691,681 20,000 15,000 62,020
3 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
4 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
5 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
6 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
7 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
8 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
9 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
10 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 98
7. Net Calorific Value of each fuel type
Fuel NCV
(TJ/t)
Natural Gas 0.049
Diesel Oil
(sular)
0.0457
Rice Straw 0.0144
Cotton Stalk 0.0154
Sludge 0.0168
RDF 0.0143
8. Emission factor of each fuel type
The emission factor of each fuel type has been calculated from the following equation:
CO2 Emissions = CLi * OF i * 44/12
Where:
CLi = Carbon Content of each fossil fuel type (fraction)
OF i = Oxidation factor for each fossil fuel type (fraction) = 1
44/12 = Conversion factor from Carbon to Carbon dioxide
Fuel EF CO2
(tCO2/TJ)
tCO2/t
fuel
Natural Gas 56.1 2.75
Diesel Oil
(sular)
69.8 3.19
Rice straw 0 0
Cotton stalk 0 0
Sludge 0 0
RDF 34 0.42
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 99
9. RDF Composition
Component Average % Fossil Carbon Content
(IPCC Default Values,
Volume 5, Table 2.5)
Paper 11% 1%
Card board 2% 1%
Baby diapers 5% 10%
Textiles 6% 40%
Grocery plastic
bags
25% 100%
Plastic bottles 3% 100%
Plastic food
container
3% 100%
Woods 3% 0%
Glasses 1% N/A
Bones 1% 0%
Stones 4% 100%
Tines 2% N/A
Woven plastic 2% 100%
Shoes Sole 1% 20%
Coarse organic
matter
34% 0%
Total 100%
Organic
Fraction
58%
Inorganic
Fraction
39%
Inerts 3%
The CO2 emission factor of the RDF with the above composition is 36 ton CO2/TJ, calculated from the
following equation.
EF RDF = Non-biomass fraction of RDF * Effective CO2 emission factor of non-biomass fraction of
municipal waste.
Where:
Non-biomass fraction of RDF = 39%
Effective CO2 emission factor of non-biomass fraction of municipal waste is 91.7 ton CO2 /TJ
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM – Executive Board Page 100
Appendix 5: Further background information on monitoring plan
Please refer to section B.7.
Appendix 6: Summary of post registration changes
- - - - -
History of the document
Version Date Nature of revision
04.0 EB 66 13 March 2012
Revision required to ensure consistency with the “Guidelines for completing the project design document form for CDM project activities” (EB 66, Annex 8).
03 EB 25, Annex 15 26 July 2006
02 EB 14, Annex 06 14 June 2004
01 EB 05, Paragraph 12 03 August 2002
Initial adoption.
Decision Class: Regulatory
Document Type: Form
Business Function: Registration