CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) Version 03 - in effect as of: 22 December 2006 CONTENTS

Transcription

1 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) Version 03 - in effect as of: 22 December 2006 CONTENTS A. General description of the small scale project activity B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period D. Environmental impacts E. Stakeholders comments Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the proposed small scale project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information Annex 4: Monitoring Information 1

2 Revision history of this document Version Date Description and reason of revision Number January Initial adoption July 2005 The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since version 01 of this document. As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest version can be found at < December 2006 The Board agreed to revise the CDM project design document for small-scale activities (CDM-SSC-PDD), taking into account CDM-PDD and CDM-NM. 2

3 SECTION A. General description of small-scale project activity A.1 Title of the small-scale project activity: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF ANIMAL MANURE AND OLIVE PROCESSING RESIDUE WITH ON-SITE POWER PROJECT, CYPRUS -Version 1 -Completed 14 June 2007 A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity: The ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF ANIMAL MANURE AND OLIVE PROCESSING RESIDUE WITH ON-SITE POWER PROJECT, CYPRUS (hereafter, the Project ) that is being developed by G. & AF. Energy, Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the Project Developer or GAFE ) is a central waste treatment project for the anaerobic digestion of swine waste slurry, chicken litter and olive processing residue at the D & F Afxentiou farm located at Maroni Cyprus. The D & F Bros Afxentiou, Ltd Farm employs normal scraping and hose-down cleaning of swine waste with a series of open-pit lagoons (sometimes referred to as ponds ). Such lagoon-based treatment is standard practice in Cyprus. This waste material is left to decay in the individual facility s open lagoon system, producing significant amounts of biogas, methane, that is emitted directly to the atmosphere. This biogas emission contributes to significant air (odour) and water pollution in the areas close to the farm. The local citizens continuous voice may complaint regarding the odour. GAFE will engineer a method of utilizing biological treatment to enhance the farm s wastewater treatment. The Project has four principle objectives: (a) Manage the farm waste water, and reduce the organic loading of the ground and surface water (b) Process the residues from several regional olive processing facilities and a broiler production facility that are impacting their local neighborhoods with air and water pollution similar to the Afxentiou farm (c) Reduce local air pollution and the odour that is a significant issue for local people (d) Produce electrical and thermal energy from the captured biogas (e) Reduce harmful emission of greenhouse gases The Covered In-Ground Anaerobic Reactor (or the CIGAR ), under a controlled anaerobic environment, effectively breaks down organic contaminants through a multi-step biological treatment of the waste organic solids. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is used to provide for a gas seal cover. The results: at least 95% destruction of harmful biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and 90% reduction of chemical oxygen demand (COD). Suspended solids, colour and dissolved solids are all improved in the CIGAR system. The engineered digester is designed to provide added retention time (number of days in the CIGAR), which, with this continued exposure to temperature in the order of C, destroys all pathogenic material. The effluent is then sent to an additional treatment pond, where it is then treated aerobically via a conventional facultative process, as opposed to the original stagnant anaerobic process. GAFE guarantees a design that will further process the treated water by evaporation and irrigation with the resulting water being treated in a manner that meets and/or exceeds the local regulatory standards. 3

4 In this system, GAFE ensures biogas is recovered through its CIGAR design. Biogas methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas and potential energy source, is on average 65-70% by volume of the biogas emitted and captured. In CIGAR, 6,500m 3 biogas is expected to be captured from the farm s wastewater per day. The biogas produced in the anaerobic digester will be used to generate electricity for use on-site with extra production sold to the local grid. Two sets of biogas-fuelled generator of 400 kw each, are to be installed and will generate 7,000 MWh per year. The generator will provide 100% of the farm s power needs. Surplus electricity will be sold to the Cyprus electrical grid. Surplus biogas, when produced, will be flared to oridize the methane rather than released to the atmosphere. The excess thermal energy produced by the engines will be recovered and utilized on the farm replacing fossil fuel that, in the past, was required to heat the farm building. The Project will reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions by 22, equivalent tco2e per year. The Project can expect to deliver multiple benefits in respect of sustainable development in Cyprus, including: Macro Level Benefits Clean technology both in wastewater management and in renewable energy will be demonstrated and may be replicated throughout the country s livestock sector and food processing industries National energy self-sufficiency is increased with the use of cheap, renewable and indigenous energy resources, which correspondingly decreases dependence on imported fossil fuel and a reduction in negative impacts of fuel imports on the nations balance of payments; Global environmental protection is supported by the capture of fugitive GHGs; specifically methane, and the reduction in energy related emissions A New Financial Mechanism for financing in the renewable energy and waste management sectors via the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is positively demonstrated and shown to present an alternative development path through the improvement in the financial viability of marginal projects; Incremental reduction on the need for new build power plants at a national level. Micro Level Benefits Reduction in wastewater discharge to local environments A healthier and safer work place is developed with improvements in local air quality, and control of highly combustible methane emissions; Considerable reduction in odour from the existing treatment facility that currently affects local communities; Improvement in the viability of rural enterprises, enterprises that support local employment in the agricultural sector; Generation of locally produced energy to provide a more reliable energy source than the current grid system. 4

5 A.3. Project participants: Name of Party Involved ( ) ((host) indicates a host Party) Private and/or Public entity(ies) Project participants (*) (as applicable) Cyprus G. & AF. Energy Limited No Kindly indicate if the Party involved wishes to be considered as Project Participant (Yes/No) A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity: A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity: A Host Party(ies): Cyprus ( Host Country ) A Region/State/Province etc.: Maroni A City/Town/Community etc: Maroni, Cyprus A Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this small-scale project activity : G. & AF. Energy Ltd is situated in the Maroni Village which is situated in Southeast Cyprus in Larnaca district. Its geographical coordinates are (lat): 34 45'30"N and (lon): 33 21'20"E. It is 1.3km Southeast of Psematismenos and 3.2km Northeast of Zyyi. Global Environmental Technology (GET) is the official contact for the CDM project activity and Focal Point for all communication with the CDM. GET will be represented by Hoffland Environmental, a USA Company. Contact details of HEI: Robert Hoffland, rh@hoffland.net, telephone no

6 6

7 A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology/measure of the small-scale project activity: The categories for the project activities according to the UNFCCC s published Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities are: Type I.C (reference AMS-I.C) Thermal Energy for the user for the use of excess thermal energy recovered from the Grid connected renewable electricity generation - which replaces previously consumed fossil fuel thermal energy; and, Type I.D (reference AMS-I.D) Grid connected renewable electricity generation for the electricity generation component; and, Type III.D (reference AMS-III.D) Methane recovery for the methane recovery component; and Αnnex 14, Methodological tool tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site for the methane recovery component for waste olive processing residues ; The project activities conform to project category III.D since the Project will reduce anthropogenic emissions by sources, directly emit less than 15kt of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, and result in emission reductions lower than 60ktCO2e annually. The project activities conform to project category I.D. since the renewable generating units will displace electricity from an electricity distribution system and supply an individual user with a small amount of electricity and the capacity will not exceed 15 MW. The project activities conform to project category I.C since the recovery and use of excess thermal energy from its production of non fossil fuel electricity generation will displace the previous consumption of fossil fuel for thermal energy. The project activities conform to Annex 14, since the project will reduce anthropogenic emissions, from waste that would in the absence of the project activity be disposed at a solid waste disposal site but when combined with activities of project category III.D result in emissions reduction lower than 60 KtCO2e annually. A.4.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: Table A.4.3: Total Emissions Reductions throughout the Crediting Period Years Annual estimation of emissions reductions (tco2e/year) , ,

8 Total Estimated Reductions (t CO2e) Total Number of Crediting Years 7 Annual average of the crediting period of 22, emissions reductions (t of CO2e) A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity: The Project does not have any public funding from Parties included in Annex I of the UNFCCC. A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a large scale project activity: Based on the information provided in Appendix C of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities, these project activities are not a debundled component of a larger project activity since the project participants have not registered nor operated another project in the region surrounding the project boundaries. SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the small-scale project activity: Project activity type I.C (reference AMS-IC/version 10) Thermal energy for the user, and, Project activity type I.D (reference AMS-I.D/version 11) Grid connected renewable electricity generation; and, Project activity type III.D (reference AMS-III.D/version 12) - Methane recovery in agricultural and agro industrial activities and, Project activity per Annex 14, Methodological tool (reference Annex 14, EB26) Tool to determine methane emission avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site. B.2 Justification of the choice of the project category: These selections are appropriate because the alternative to the project activities would be to continue with the business-as-usual scenario. This scenario would continue to manage wastewater through the existing pond system and dump site, and would continue to use electricity from the electricity distribution system in the area as well as the purchase of fossil fuel for thermal energy. The electricity generation capacity installed is below 15 MW as required by AMS-I.D version 11. 8

9 For the methane recovery component of the project activities, the Project will result in emission reduction of less than or equal to 60kt CO2 equivalent annually as required by AMS-III.D version 12. For the thermal recovery component of the project activities, the Project will result in a reduction of less 45 MW Thermal than annually as required by AMS-I.C version 10. B.3. Description of the project boundary: The project boundary for the farm is defined as the national margin around the project within which the project s impact (in terms of carbon emission reductions) will be assessed. As referred to in Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities: The project boundary for type I.C (AMS-IC) is the physical, geographical site of the renewable energy generation and delineates the project boundary. The project boundary for type I.D (AMS-I.D) is the physical, geographical site of the renewable generation source. The project boundary for type III.D (AMS-III.D) projects is the physical, geographical site of the methane recovery facility. For the purposes of this analysis, different boundaries were applied in relation to the elements contributing to project and baseline emissions: Electricity and Fuel Oil Displacement/Emissions: The boundaries are assumed to be the physical, geographical site of the generating unit. Wastewater Methane Emissions/ Mitigation: The boundaries are assumed to be physical, geographical site of the methane recovery facility at the farm. B.4. Description of baseline and its development: As specified in Appendix B: The appropriate baseline for project category Type I.C (AMS-I.C) is found in paragraph 6. The appropriate baseline for project category Type I.D (AMS-I.D) is found in paragraph 9. The appropriate baseline for project category Type III.D (AMS-IIID) is found in paragraphs 6 and 7. The appropriate baseline for project category Annex 14 is found in II Baseline Methodology Procedure. Date of completing the final draft of this baseline section : 01/05/2007 9

10 For AMS-I.C: For renewable energy technologies that displace technologies using fossil fuels, the simplified baseline is the fuel consumption of the technologies that would have been used in the absence of the project activity times an emission coefficient for the fossil fuel displaced. IPCC default values for emission coefficients may be uses. Baseline thermal energy replace is given by: (Following equations are extracted from 2006 IPCC Section 2 Energy, Chapter 2 Stationary Combustion page 2.11) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY COMBUSTION Emissions GHG, fuel = Fuel Consumption fuel * Emission Factor GHG, fuel Where: Emissions GHG, fuel Fuel Consumption fuel Emission Factor GHG,Fuel = emissions of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg GHG) = amount of fuel combusted (TJ) = default emission factor of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg gas/tj). For CO 2, it includes the carbon oxidation factor, assumed to by 1. To calculate the total emissions by gas from the source category, the emissions as calculated in above equation 2.1 are summed over all fuels: TOTAL EMISSIONS BY GREENHOUSE GAS Emissions GHG = Σ Emission GHG, fuel fuels For AMS-I.D: Baseline electricity generation emissions are given by: E = EP CEF baseline BIO grid Where: E baseline : Baseline electricity generation emissions (tco 2 e/year) EP BIO : Electricity produced by the biogas generator unit for grid electricity replacement (MWh) 10

11 CDM Executive Board CEF grid : Emission coefficient for electricity grid (kg CO2e/kWh). For AMS-III.D: Baseline fugitive GHG emissions are: FEbaseline = FM baseline GWP Where: FE baseline : Baseline fugitive GHG emissions (tco 2 /year) FM baseline : Baseline fugitive methane emissions (t/year) GWP: Global warming potential for methane (tco 2 e/t) Baseline fugitive methane emissions are: FM baseline = EFi Pop Where: FM baseline : Baseline fugitive methane emissions (tco 2 /year) EF i : Annual emission factor of the animal type i (i.e. swine or broiler for this document) (kg) POP: Animal population Annual emission factor for animal waste is: EF i =VS i x 365 days/ year x B oi 1000 x 0.67kg/m 3 x MCF x MS% Where: VS = Where: EF i : Annual emission factor for swine (tons) VS i : Daily volatile solid excreted for swine or boilers (kg) B oi : Maxium methane producing capacity (m 3 /kg of VS) for manure produced by swine or broilers MCF: Methane conversion factor for the swine or boilers, manure management system MS% Fraction of swine manure handled using manure system [ GE ( 1 DE% /100) + ( UE GE) ] ( 1 ASH% /18.45) VS : Volatile solid excretion per day on a dry weight basis (kg) GE : Estimated daily average feed intake (MJ/day) UE x GE: Urinate energy expressed as fraction of GE (MJ/day) DE%: Digestibility of the feed (%) ASH%: Ash content of the manure (%) From Annex 14 The amount of methane that would in the absence of the project activity be generated from disposal of 11

12 waste at the solid waste disposal site (BE CH4,SWDS,y ) is calculated with a multi-phase model. The calculation is based on a first order decay (FOD) model. The model differentiates between the different types of waste j with respectively different decay rates k j and different fractions of degradable organic carbon (DOC j ). The model calculated the methane generation based on the actual waste streams W j,x disposal in each year x, starting with the first year after the start of the project activity until the end of the year y, for which baseline emissions are calculated (years x with x = 1 to x = y). In cases where at the SWDS methane is captured (e.g. due to safety regulations) and flared, combusted or used in another manner, the baseline emissions are adjusted for the fraction of methane captured at the SWDS. The amount of methane produced in the year (BE CH4,SWDS,y ) is calculated as follows: BE CH 4, SWDS, y 16 = φ (1 f ) GWP CH 4 (1 OX ) F DOC f 12 y kj ( y x) kj MCF W DOC e e x = 1 j j, x j (1 ) Where: BE CH4,SWDS,y = Methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing waste disposal at the solid Waste disposal site (SWDS) during the period from the start of the project activity to the end of the year y (tco 2 e) φ = Model correction factor to account form model uncertainties (0.9) f = Fraction of methane captured at the SWDS and flared, combusted or used in another manner GWP CH4 = Global Warning Potential (GWP) of methane, valid for the relevant commitment period OX = Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS that is oxidised in the soil or other material covering the waste) F = Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction) (0.5) DOC = Fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can decompose MCF = Methane correction factor W j,k = Amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the SWDS in the year x (tons) DOC j = Fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste type j k j = Decay rate for 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 for which methane emissions are calculated When different waste types j are prevented from disposal, determine the amount of different waste types (W j,x ) through sampling and calculate the mean from the samples, as follows: W j, x = W x z n= 1 P n, j, x z Where: W j,k W x P n, j,x z = Amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the SWDS in the year x (tons) = Total amount of organic waste prevented from disposal in the year x (tons) = Weight fraction of the waste type j in the sample n collected during the year x = Number of samples collected during the year x 12

13 The above formula provided by Annex 14 and Chapter 3 solid waste disposal of the 2006 IPCC Guideline for GHG, consider a half life decay factor for its decomposition of organic matter disposed in open anaerobic pits or basins. Therefore, total baseline emissions (TB emissions ) are: TB emissions = FE 1Baseline + FE 2Baseline + FE 3Baseline + FE 4Baseline + FE 5Baseline + FE 6Baseline + + E baseline Where: TB emmissins :Total emissions FE 1baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Fossil fuelled broiler for thermal energy FE 2baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Breeding swine FE 3baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Market swine FE 4baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Broilers swine FE 5baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Liquid olive processing residue FE 6baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Solid olive processing residue E baseline : Baseline electricity generation emissions, The baseline study was prepared by: Hoffland Environmental, telephone no , Contact: Robert Hoffland, rh@hoffland.net B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered small-scale CDM project activity: The principal method utilized by the Cyprus swine production industry is direct flushing of all waste and liquids to an unlined open anaerobic lagoon. The solids are anaerobically decomposed to form methane and some of the water evaporates with the remaining peculating into the ground water. Olive processing facilities in Cyprus principal two methods for the treatment of the processing residue, is direct discharge of all liquids and solids to an unlined open anaerobic lagoon. The farm of this project discharges all of the swine manure and solids, to open anaerobic lagoon, the olive processing residues are also discharged to open unlined anaerobic lagoons. In Cyprus, most swine farms use a scrape system to remove the manure and urine from the animal housing area. Fresh water is used to flush and clean the holding pens. The result is a swine waste slurry of solids content. The slurry is pumped to unlined anaerobic basins where some of the water evaporates with the remainder percolating into the ground water. The organic solids all go through anaerobic decomposition producing methane. In addition, there is a high concentration on malodorous sulfide and mecaptan compounds present. According to attachment A of Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities, a selection of at least one of the barriers tests may be employed for small-scale project 13

14 activities, covering: investment barriers, technological barriers; prevailing practice or other barriers. In the case of the swine rearing industry in Cyprus, there are multiple reasons for the low takeup of biogas systems amongst swine farmers, covering aspects of all of these barriers, as follows: Investment barriers: The opportunity cost for investment into biogas systems is high relative to investing in additional swine livestock. The purchase of additional fattening pigs can deliver a payback on investment of less than 2 years, compared to 8 or 9 years of more for biogas plants. As such, the preferred investment of most farmers is into new livestock rather than manure/wastewater management systems. Furthermore, the capital expenditure involved with building high-rate biogas systems is potentially prohibitive (up to1.2 million Euro) for a 15,000 swine rearing facility, and most swine farmers have only moderate equity, and lack access to low cost capital. The current HEI scheme can provide some funding towards these costs, but there has not been widespread uptake for other reasons, as outlined below. Technological barriers: There continues to be low confidence amongst investors in the efficacy and operating costs of anaerobic treatment technologies as it is unproven as yet on a commercial scale in Cyprus. Moreover, only recently has there been an emergence of skilled biogas plant designers and engineers, brought about by HEI technology and the emergence of the CDM as a business opportunity for Cyprus project developers. Prevailing practice: The prevailing practice for the management of swine manures and barn flushing wastewaters is detailed above. These discussions clearly suggested that there has been no interest in developing biogas systems for the treatment of animal and food processing waste in Cyprus. Other barriers: Energy use on most swine farms is fairly low, and not a major cost for swine farmers. As such, many would face a surplus supply of energy when installing biogas systems with energy recovery. In order to export electricity to the Cyprus grid, a power purchase agreement (PPA) must be negotiated with the Energy Generating Authority of Cyprus. Often, most farmers are not willing to enter into such complex negotiations and, depending on the quantity of power delivered and the type of PPA agreed, could also face major penalty charges for not meeting obligations once an agreement is in place. In addition, project developers in other sectors have faced protracted negotiations and delays when attempting to enter into PPA negotiations. Summary The barrier analysis above clearly demonstrates that the most plausible baseline scenario is the prevailing practice of lagoon systems. The most significant barriers facing the Project are technology familiarity, perceived risk of the technology and the relative lack of investment interest among the key business constituency. The inclusion of CER revenues has become an important part of the Project Developer s implementation and financing strategy. The lack of appetite of the project host to undertake this project and hence the project s additionally, is further demonstrated through the need to attract third party, international, finance through foreign investment in this project, whose objective is to seek access to CERs. The project host is taking no risk, investment or otherwise, relying on CERs to attract sufficient risk capital to implement this project. 14

15 B.6. Emission reductions: B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: Emission reductions For AMS-I.D: The electricity generated by the biogas times the CO2 emission coefficient for the displaced electricity from the grid and of the displaced fossil fuel. For AMS-I.C: For renewable energy technologies that displace technologies using fossil fuels, the simplified baseline is the fuel consumption of the technologies that would have been used in the absence of the project activity times an emission coefficient for the fossil fuel displaced. IPCC default values for emission coefficients may be uses. For AMS-III.D: The actual monitored amount of methane captured and destroyed by the project activity will be utilized to determine the emission reduction. The methane emissions calculated ex ante using the amount of waste or raw material that would decay anaerobically in the absence of the project activity, with the 2006 IPCC guidelines, tier 1 approach. is utilized as a guideline only. Project direct emissions For AMS-I.D: As the Project is utilizing biogas with biogenic origins to produce renewable energy, and the design of the system has not include many electrical appliance except one blower (consuming 3.2 MWh per annum supplied by the system itself). The anthropogenic emissions from this component are considered to be zero. For AMS-III.D: Project emission from leaks in the CIGAR system is zero due to its structural stability and leak-proof design. The perimeter of the digester employs an anchor-trench lining design, where the liner of the digester exceeds the perimeter by approximately one meter. The gas-impermeable cover of the digester also extends beyond the perimeter of the digester in order to meet and completely cover the liner. The liner and cover are then sealed at the perimeter of the digester and the overlapped portion (approximately one meter) is then buried and compacted with soil to further anchor the liner and cover. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that there will be any leakage from the digester. The generator has been designed for high performance as 100% combustion efficiency. At this level, it is unlikely that there will be any uncombusted biogas from the generator. The default flare efficiency of 90% will be used for ex ante estimations of CERs. Ex post determination will be defined after the measurement of the flare efficiency is attempted. However, to enhance conservativeness, 5% of the total methane captured of the Project are accounted as project emissions. Total GHG emissions due to the project activity: FE project = FM Baseline 5% Where: 15

16 Baseline FE project : Project fugitive methane emissions (tco 2 e/year) FM baseline : Baseline fugitive methane emissions (tco 2 e/year) The total baseline emissions (TB emissions ) are: TB = FE + E emissions baseline baseline Refer to section B.4 for details of the calculation of each source. Therefore, total baseline emissions (TB emissions ) are: TB emissions = FE 1Baseline + FE 2Baseline + FE 3Baseline + FE 4Baseline + FE 5Baseline + FE 6Baseline + E baseline Where: TB emmissins :Total emissions FE 1baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Fossil fuelled broiler for thermal energy FE 2baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Breeding swine FE 3baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Market swine FE 4baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Broilers swine FE 5baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Liquid olive processing residue FE 6baseline : Baseline fugitive emissions from Solid olive processing residue E baseline : Baseline electricity generation emissions Leakage AMS-I-C, paragraph 10, AMS-I.D, paragraph 12 and AMS-III.D, paragraph 8: No leakage calculation is required since the equipment is not being transferred to or from another activity. B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation: Data / Parameter: CEFgrid Data unit: tco2/mwh Description: Emission Coefficient of the electricity distribution system Source of data used: SSC-CDM Project Mari Wind Farm in Cyprus Value Justification of the The CEF used in the ex-post monitoring will be revised choice of data or according to the most updated Cyprus Electrical Authority official CEF description of value. measurement methods and procedures actually 16

17 Any comment: Data / Parameter: Pop Data unit: Heads Description: Animal population Source of data used: Farm specific Value Reference Annex 3 Justification of the The actual current animal population of 2006 is used for the choice of data or ex ante estimation of emission reductions. For each year description of during the crediting period, emission reductions will be the measurement methods lower one of (1) the monitored methane captured and and procedures actually destroyed and (2) the ex ante estimate number. Any comment: Data / Parameter: Capacity Data unit: kw Description: Installed generator capacity Source of data used: Engineering design Value 800 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Any comment: Data / Parameter: Manure management system usage Data unit: % Description: Fraction of the manure being treated by the system Source of data used: Project design Value 100% Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually 17

18 Any comment: Data / Parameter: Operation rate Data unit: % Description: Fraction of the time the generator is operational Source of data used: Project developer s experience Value 87.5% Justification of the To enhance conservativeness, the operation rate is adopted choice of data or as 87.5% based on project developer s experience. description of measurement methods and procedures actually Any comment: B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions: Table B Annual Baseline Emissions from Grid Electricity Consumption Source a. Installed Capacity (kw) 800 Project b. Genset Operating Rate 87.50% Measured c. Daily Electricity Generation 16,800 Calculated (a x b x 24 hrs) (kwh/day) d. Annual Electricity Generation 6,132 Calculated (c x 365/1000) (MWh/year) e. Emissions Coefficient (tonne Cyprus Grid CO2e/MWh) Annual CO 2 emission reductions from electricity generation (tco2e/year) 4,910 Calculated (d x e) Table B Annual Baseline Emissions for utilizing non fossil fuel thermal energy (Diesel Fuel) Source Fuel Replaced 100 Tons/year Historical data Emission Factors-Diesel Fuel 74100kgCO 2 /Tj Default data 2006 IPCC Guidelines for NGHG inventories Chapter 2, Stationary Combustion table 2.5 Diesel Fuel KJ/Kg Reference 18

19 Tonnes CO 2 /ton diesel fuel 3.29 tonnes CO 2 Calculated Annual CO 2 emission reductions from using recovered Thermal energy (tco2e/year) 329 tonnes CO 2 Calculated Table B Annual Baseline Emissions from Methane Breeding Swine Source No. of swine in 2007/ /2100 Farm Daily Volatile Solids Excretion 0.5 IPCC 2006 T.10A-8 (kg/day) Bo, Maximum Methane IPCC 2006 T.10A-8 Producing Capacity (m3/kg VS) MCF, Methane Conversion 80% IPCC 2006 T.10A-8 Factor EF Annual Emission Factor (kg) Calculated Methane Density (kg/m3) 0.67 Default GWP Methane 21 Global Warming Potential for CH4 Annual CO2 emission reductions from methane recovery (tonnes CO2e/year) 1572/1942 Calculated Table B Annual Baseline Emissions from Methane Market Swine Source No. of market swine in 2007/ ,000/20,000 Farm Daily Intake per Head (MJ/day) Calculated Daily Volatile Solids Excretion 0.3 IPCC 2006 T.10A-7 (kg/day) Bo, Maximum Methane-Producing 0.45 IPCC 2006 T.10A-7 Capacity (m3/kg VS) MCF, Methane Conversion Factor.80 IPCC 2006 T.10A-7 EF, Annual Emission Factor (kg) Calculated Methane Density (kg/m3) 0.67 Default GWP Methane 21 Global Warming Potential for CH4 Annual CO2 emission reductions from methane recovery (tonnes CO2e/year) 8874/11093 Calculated Table B Annual Baseline Emissions from Methane Broilers Source No. of broilers in 2007/ ,000/70,000 Farm 19

20 Daily Volatile Solids Excretion 0.01 IPCC 2006 T.10A-9 (kg/day) Bo, Maximum Methane IPCC 2006 T.10A-9 Producing Capacity (m3/kg VS) MCF, Methane Conversion IPCC 2006 T.10A-9 Factor Methane Density (kg/m3) 0.67 Default GWP Methane 21 Global Warming Potential for CH4 Annual CO2 emission reductions from methane recovery (tonnes CO2e/year) 2007/ /19.4 Calculated Table B Annual Baseline Emissions from Methane Olive Processing Residue-Liquids Source Weight - tons 2007/2009 5,000 tons/ 7000 tons Plant Ǿ 0.9 Annex 14, EB26 f 0 Annex 14, EB26 GWP CH4 21 Default OX 0 Annex 14, EB26 F 0.5 Annex 14, EB26 DOC f 0.5 Annex 14, EB26 MCF 0.4 Annex 14, EB26 W jx 2007/2009 5,000 tons/ 7000 tons* Plant DOC j 0.15 Annex 14, EB26 k j 0.4 Annex 14, EB26 Annual CO2 emission reductions tco2/y Year calculated calculated calculated calculated calculated calculated calculated Total calculated *After 2009 the volume processed increases per schedule in Annex 3 (attached) Table B Annual Baseline Emissions from Methane Olive Processing Residue-Solids Source Weight - tons 2007/2009 5,000 tons/ 7000 tons* Plant 20

21 Ǿ.9 Annex 14, EB26 f 0 Annex 14, EB26 GWP CH4 21 Default OX 0 Annex 14, EB26 F 0.5 Annex 14, EB26 DOC f 0.5 Annex 14, EB26 MCF 0.4 Annex 14, EB26 Wj x2007/2009 5,000 tons/ 7000 tons Plant DOC j.38 Annex 14, EB26 k j 0.4 Annex 14, EB26 Annual CO2 emission reductions tco2/y Year Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Total Calculated *After 2009 the volume processed increases per schedule in Annex 3 (attached) Table B Annual Emissions Reductions G. & AF. Energy Ltd Year AMS-I.D (tco2e/year) Table b * 2008,,2014 AMS-I.C (tco2e/year) Table b * 2008, 2014 AMS-III.D (tco2/year) Table b * 2008,2009 AMS-III.D (tco2/year) Table b * 2010,..,2014 AMS-III.D (tco2/year) Table b * 2008,2009 AMS-III.D (tco2/year) Table b * 2010,,2014 AMS-III.D (tco2/year) Table b * 2008,-2010 AMS-III.D (tco2/year) Table b * 2011,,2014 Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b

22 Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b Annex 14 (tco2/year) Table b summary Year Table b Table b Table b Table b Table b Table b Table b TOTAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS (tco2e/year) Project Emissions (5%) = TOTAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS (tco2e/year) *The value applies for each year B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions: Table B.6.4 Project Emission Reductions Year Baseline (tco2e) Project Leakage Emission Methane Capture Power Emissions (tco2e) (tco2e) Reductions (tco2e) Total B.7 Application of a monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan: B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: 22

23 Data Number: 1 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied Description of measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Any comment: Electricity kwh Amount of electricity generated by the Project Electricity meter Electricity will be continuously metered through the use of an electricity meter. Meter calibration is to be conducted once per annum. Data Number: 2 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied Description of measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Any comment: Biogas m3 Amount of biogas captured and sent to the generator Flow meter Biogas will be monitored through the use of a biogas flow meter. Meter calibration is to be conducted once per annum. Data Number: 3 Data / Parameter: Methane content Data unit: % Description: The fraction of methane in the biogas Source of data used: Meter with gas analyzer Value applied Description of measurement The fraction of methane in the biogas will be monitored quarterly. methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Any comment: Data Number: 4 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Biogas flared m3 Amount of biogas sent to the flare Flow meter 23

24 Value applied Description of measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Any comment: Biogas will be monitored through the use of a biogas flow meter. This parameter will only be monitored when there is surplus gas from the Project and a flare in installed. Data Number: 5 Data / Parameter: Flare efficiency Data unit: % Description: The fraction of methane destroyed. The flare efficiency is defined as the fraction of time in which the gas is combusted in the flare, multiplied by the efficiency of the flaring process. Source of data used: Choose either (1) default valve 90%, or (2) periodical measurements Value applied 90% (default valve before actual measurement) Description of measurement If data source (1) is chosen, continuous check of compliance methods and procedures to be with the manufacturers specification of the flare device (temperature, biogas flow rate) should be done. If in any specific hour any parameters is out of the range of specification 50 % of default valve should be used for this specific hour. For open flare 50% default valve should be used, as it is not possible in this case to monitor the efficiency. If at any given time the temperature of the flare is below C, 0% default value should be used for this period. If data source (2) is chosen, the procedures described in the Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing QA/QC procedures to be Any comment: methane shall be used. Maintenance of the flare is to be conducted once per annum to ensure the optimal operation. Data Number: 6 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied Description of measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Quantity & type of olive waste residue processed Tons Amount & type of organic waste processed other than swine waste Weight of material processed Each load of organic material processed will be sampled and be weighed to determine the type and amount processed Each load will be sampled and weighted 24

25 Any comment: Data Number: 7 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied Description of measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Any comment: Fossil Fuel replaced by it use of excess thermal energy for electric generation using non-fossil fuel Tons Recovered Thermal Energy used to replace purchased Fossil Fuel Historical data maintained for the purchase of Fossil Fuel The recovered thermal energy consumed will be documented by the flow rate and temperature (i.e. calories consumed) of the engine coolant utilized The flow rate of the engine coolant will be totalized. The temperature drop of the coolant will be integrated with the quantity to develop the non-fossil thermal energy recovered. B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan: Shift Operator Shift Manager Farm Manager GAFE Project Participants monitor biogas production and electricity generation as part of standard operating procedure for the project activities. A monitoring workbook will be ready for GAFE to use to rigorously input and monitor these data. Project participants will keep electronic copies and paper copies for backup purposes. Furthermore, the operator personnel will be trained in equipment operation, data recording, reporting, and operation, maintenance, and emergency procedures. B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) HEI - Tel: (Contact: Robert Hoffland, rh@hoffland.net). Hoffland Environmental, Inc. is not a project participant. SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1 Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: 01/05/2006 (construction started) 25

26 C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: More than 25 years C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information: C.2.1. Renewable crediting period C Starting date of the first crediting period: 01/12/2007 C Length of the first crediting period: 7 years C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: C Starting date: N/A C Length: N/A SECTION D. Environmental impacts >> D.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been approved by Cyprus Ministry of Environment for this type of project. The aspects of environmental impacts were identified as a result of the wastewater treatment operation, as followings: Odour the CIGAR is a closed system, undesirable odor will be significantly reduced; Wastewater pollution the new wastewater system can remove more than 90% of organic matter in the wastewater so that environmental impacts will be minimal. The excess water will be utilized for crop irrigation direct at a rate that does not exceed the cultivated crop nutrient uptake; and; Safety since biogas will be stored in large quantity, the issue of gas safety becomes a concern. However, the risk of any explosion will be very unlikely because the biogas, once leaked from its storage, will disperse quickly upward and will not build up above ground surface. Overall, most environmental aspects are expected to improve after implementing the CIGAR system. 26

27 D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: >> SECTION E. Stakeholders comments >> E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: GAFE, in cooperation with the D & F Bros Afxentiou Farm conducted the CDM stakeholders consultation for the anaerobic digestion swine wastewater treatment with on-site power project for its application as a CDM project. Details of the stakeholders meeting are as follows: Meetings were held with the local city government and neighbours to discuss the biogas installation on the Afxentiou farm. The local citizens have voiced their disapproval of odors that have on occasions been emitted from the anaerobic manure storage basin. The town fathers were informed of the design of the installation and shown how the new enclosed anaerobic digester would contain the gaseous emissions, thus eliminating the odor. The local olive processing plants have a problem similar to the piggery. Olive processing produces an organic residue that becomes anaerobic when stored in open basins. This waste has become burden on the processing plants. GAFE has agreed to receive and digest the olive residue, thus eliminating an additional source of anaerobic odor. The processing plants were very pleased to work with GAFE to have the waste residue processed in an environmentally sound manner. E.2. Summary of the comments received: Questions raised by stakeholders. Issue/s Raised Will the project treat wastewater outside of Afxentiou farm? Will the project help to solve the odour issue? Will there be leakage from the CIGAR? Will there be any sludge discharged from CIGAR? Any impact to the local environment? Response/Recommended Measures to Address the Issue/s Yes. The CIGAR will treat Afxentiou farm s wastewater plus local broiler litter and olive processing residue Yes, since the CIGAR is a closed system, this will eliminate odour. Explained the design of the CIGAR and biogas will be tightly sealed within the system. Due to the long hydraulic retention time, essentially all of the sludge is digested in the system. It is very unlikely to have sludge removed from the CIGAR. However, Demetris Afxentiou indicated if there is a case of sludge removal, sludge will be used internally as fertilizer. 27

28 E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: No comments opposing the projects were received. 28

29 Annex 1 CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY Organization: G. & AF. Energy Limited Street/P.O.Box: Nicodimou Milona Building: Kariders Building, Block A, Office 559 City: Larnaca State/Region: Postfix/ZIP: 6010 Country: Cyprus Telephone: FAX: URL: Represented by: Title: Salutation: Sir Last Name: Afxentiou Middle Name: First Name: Demetris Department: Mobile: Direct FAX: Direct tel: Personal d.f.afxentiou@cytanet.com.cy 29

30 This project will not receive any public funding. Annex 2 INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING 30

31 Annex 3 BASELINE INFORMATION D & F Afxentiou Bros Farm Breeding Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year7 Swine Farrowing sows Boars Gilts Gestation Sows Total Breeding Market Swine 16,000 16,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Afxentiou Broiler Farm Broiler Positions 35,000 35, ,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Olive Processing Residue Liquid 5000 Waste Tons Solid 5000 Waste Tons 5000 Tons 5000 Tons 7000 Tons 7000 Tons 7000 Tons 7000 Tons 7000 Tons 7000 Tons 7000 Tons 7000 Tons 7000 Tons 7000 Tons 31

32 Annex 4 MONITORING INFORMATION Monitoring information is as described in section B.7 of the PDD