Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 1 JOINT IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM Version 01 - in effect as of: 15 June 2006 CONTENTS A. General description of the project B. Baseline C. Duration of the project / crediting period D. Monitoring plan E. Estimation of greenhouse gas emission reductions F. Environmental impacts G. Stakeholders comments Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on project participants Annex 2: Baseline information Annex 3: Monitoring plan
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 2 SECTION A. General description of the project A.1. Title of the project: Mine gas flaring at shaft Nordschacht Version (Date): 4, 17/03/2009 A.2. Description of the project: Evonik New Energies GmbH operates a facility for suction and compression of coal mine gas at the active mining site Nordschacht of Saar Coal mine of RAG Aktiengesellschaft (RAG Deutsche Steinkohle). By means of this facility all of the accruing mine gas both of active as well as shut down sectors of the mine - is being extracted for security reasons. On the one hand this mine gas is being used for the central heating system of the mine, on the other hand it is being compressed and transported via a Evonik New Energies-owned pipeline to Lebach, where it is being used in a heating station. As the extracting facility Nordschacht is not connected with the mine gas pipe network of Evonik New Energies, as the gas production and quality may vary considerably depending on the scale of underground mining and as the gas demand of the above mentioned heating stations is contingent on weather conditions, about 50 % of the extracted gas volume is being released to the atmosphere. Within this project it is planned to burn all excess mine gas in a flare station and thus to transform the methane into carbon dioxide (with a specifically lower global warming potential). Evonik New Energies will build and operate the flare station at the shaft Nordschacht. Mining activities will end at Nordschacht on 30 June 2012. As the shaft will remain open until the end of that year the project is also set to last until the end of 2012. A.3. Project participants: Table 1: Project participants Party involved Legal entity project participant Germany (host) Evonik New Energies GmbH no Please indicate if the Party involved wishes to be considered as project participant (Yes/No) To be determined To be determined Germany has ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 31 May 2002. The project activity shall be applied as a Track 1 project.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 3 A.4. Technical description of the project: A.4.1. Location of the project: A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): Germany Germany has ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 31/05/2002. A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: Federal State Saarland A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc.: Falscheid, belonging to Lebach community.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 4 A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of the project (maximum one page): The extracting and compressing facility Nordschacht is located at the factory premises of the Coal Mine Saar of DSK, approx. 1 km in western direction from the village of Falscheid (commune Lebach / district of Saarlouis / Federal State of Saarland / Germany). The exact location in coordinates is 49 22 23,5 N; 6 52 38,5 E. Figure 1: Location of Nordschacht (red line shows pipeline from project site to Lebach)
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 5 Figure 2: Detailed location of the suction /compression station and the planned area for the flare A.4.2. Technology(ies) to be employed, or measures, operations or actions to be implemented by the project: The project activity will include the installation of an enclosed high temperature flare with maximum capacity of about 6.25 MW. The mine gas will be burned in a thermal isolated burning chamber at temperatures of about 1,000 C. The type and the manufacturer of the flare is not yet specified as there s still a request for proposals. According to the request the technical data of the flare will be as follows: Volumetric control range: 125-1,250 Nm³/h Thermal control range: 275 6,250 kw Average CH 4 concentration: 30% CH 4 CH 4 fluctuation range: 22%-50% Height of the flare: at least 10m
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 6 A.4.3. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are to be reduced by the proposed JI project, including why the emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed project, taking into account national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances: In the absence of the proposed JI project, emission reductions would not occur, because there are no incentives for Evonik New Energies GmbH for installing a flare. There is no possibility to increase the share of utilized mine gas (CMM) in the existing facilities as it is dependent on the demand of heat in the heating station in Lebach and the heating system of the mine. All alternatives to increase the utilization ratio of mine gas require substantial additional investments and are economically not viable or technically not feasible as described in section B. The CMM has to be extracted in future for security reasons of the hard coal mine and there are no legal requirements for utilizing or destroying the extracted methane. This is confirmed by the Bergamt Saarbrücken in its letter from 14 February 2008 (attached as Annex 4 to this PDD). So the Baseline scenario is the continued release of all mine gas to the atmosphere that can not be utilized in the existing facilities. A.4.3.1. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the crediting period: The crediting begins on 1 st January 2009. In compliance with the rules provided by paragraph 5 (3) ProMechG, the crediting period lasts until 31 December 2012. The following table shows the estimated emission reductions for the crediting period. Table 2: estimated emission reductions Years Length of the crediting period 4 Year Estimate of annual emission reductions in tons of CO 2e * 2009 9,791 2010 9,791 2011 9,791 2012 9,791 Total estimated emission 39,163 reductions over the crediting period (tonnes of CO 2 equivalent) Annual average of estimated 9,791 emission reductions over the crediting period (tonnes of CO 2 equivalent) A.5. Project approval by the Parties involved: The German Focal Point issued a letter of endorsement on 02 June 2008 on the basis of a project idea note. With the PDD and the determination report from the AIE, the project approval will be applied at the German Focal Point (German Emissions Trading Authority).
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 7 SECTION B. Baseline B.1. Description and justification of the baseline chosen: The Baseline Scenario is the continuation of the existing situation, as neither a financial incentive nor a legal obligation exists so far that would justify the considerable investment into CH 4 abatement measures. This chapter describes the approach chosen to determine the baseline. The JISC Guidance, in accordance with decision 10/CMP.1, offers two basic options for the establishment of a baseline: 1. Using an approved CDM baseline methodology; 2. Establishing a project specific baseline that is in accordance with Appendix B of the JI Guidelines with the option of using selected elements or combinations of approved CDM methodologies or tools, as appropriate. The UNFCCC provides an approved CDM methodology ACM0008 Consolidated baseline methodology for coal bed methane and coal mine methane capture and use for power (electrical or motive) and heat and / or destruction by flaring. This methodology is applicable to the project proposed as it satisfies the following applicability criteria of ACM0008 in its current Version 5: The project activity is the destruction of coalmine gas at a operational mine. The baseline scenario to this project is the partial atmospheric release of the methane (status quo). It includes the following extraction activities named under ACM0008: underground boreholes in the mine to capture pre mining CMM underground boreholes, gas drainage galleries or other goaf gas capture techniques, including gas from sealed areas, to capture post mining CMM It includes the following methods to treat the gas captured named under ACM0008: the methane is captured and destroyed through flaring the remaining share of the methane, to be diluted for safety reason, may still be vented Identification of baseline Scenario For the identification of the baseline scenario, the 5 step approach of ACM0008 shall be used. Step 1. Identify technically feasible options for capturing and/or using CBM/CMM/VAM Step 1a. Options for CMM extraction Technically feasible options of CMM capture include: A. Ventilation air methane B. Pre mining CMM extraction including CBM to Goaf drainage and/or indirect CBM to Goaf only; C. Post mining CMM extraction; D. Possible combination of options A, B and C, with the relative shares of gas specified.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 8 Step 1b. Options for extracted CMM treatment The CMM treatment options at the proposed coal mines could include the following: i. Venting; ii. Using/destroying ventilation air methane rather than venting it; iii. Flaring of CMM; iv. Use for additional grid power generation; v. Use for additional captive power generation; vi. Use for additional heat generation; vii. Feed into gas pipeline (to be used as fuel for vehicles or heat/power generation) viii. Possible combination of options i to vii. All of these options are considered as possible alternatives for the baseline scenario. The project activity (without use of JI) is covered by the option iii flaring of CMM. Step 1c. Options for energy production The technically feasible options for energy production are included in the options iv to viii listed in step 1b. Step 2. Eliminate baseline options that do not comply with legal or regulatory requirements Of the technically feasible baseline options none can be eliminated because of legal or regulatory requirements. Whereas the need for direct gas extraction is the consequence of federal and local regulation concerning safety standards, the use of CMM is not prescribed by law. Therefore, all the alternatives listed in step 1b are in compliance with the existing regulations. The subterrestrial extraction of mineral coal is to be conducted in accordance with clause 15, para. 7 of the federal Bundesbergverordnung, taking into account gas emissions and corresponding dangers. Mine gas related dangers are to be reduced as far as possible. As use of electronic equipment for mineral coal extraction is not permissible with gas concentrations of more than 1% in the ventilation (clause 27 of the electronic mine regulation of the Oberbergamt for the federal state of Saarland) methane gas concentrations must be kept below this level. Legal basis for the gas extraction procedure from active coal mines are the gas extraction directives of the Oberbergamt for the federal state of Saarland. They contain provisions for the technical implementation of the gas extraction only, whereas provisions for the use of mine gas are not included. Further legal stipulations, which contain e.g a duty for utilization or destruction of mine gas, are not established. The aforementioned description of the legal situation has been cross-checked and approved by the Bergamt for the federal state of Saarland in a letter/approval which is attached to this PDD (Annex 4). Step 3. Formulate baseline scenario alternatives By legal standards none of the earlier mentioned technologically feasible baselines could be eliminated. The following alternatives can be considered for implementation at the project site and are in compliance with the options listed in step 1b and step 1c. No matter the scenario, the CMM has always to be extracted from the mine for safety reasons. This extraction is part of the status quo and not influenced by the project activity. Therefore the alternatives below assume extraction as described in step 1a while describing in detail the alternatives for treatment and utilization.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 9 All scenarios include partial thermal utilization as described in section A for the current situation. The alternative scenarios here describe only the utilization or destruction of excess CMM that cannot be utilized in the existing thermal heating facilities. The amount of utilized CMM is only dependent on the heating demand of the connected customers and it s assumed that all alternative scenarios won t influence this demand. This is due to the fact that Evonik New Energies GmbH is obliged to the delivery of heat to these customers and all alternatives to the current practice (e.g. heat generation by the use of natural gas or fuel oil) would be much more expensive than using the accruing CMM from the mine. Assuming an ERU price of 15 /tco 2, it can be calculated that the JI income per MWh mine gas burned at the flare is about 17 /MWh. Actual natural gas costs for the replacement are much higher (39 /MWh, based on NCV) and so it can be stated that even assuming higher ERU prices or in the unlikely case of lower natural gas prices, there are still no incentives to replace mine gas for thermal utilization. There are 7 identified scenarios for how the excess CMM can be used: Alternative Scenario 1 venting of excess CMM One possible baseline scenario is the continuation of the current methane ventilation and usage practices. In this case, about 50% of the annual methane volume from the mine is vented into the atmosphere while the rest is being used for heat generation on the site and at the pipe connected heating plant at Lebach. The electricity demand for the coal mine would continue to be based on national/regional grid supply and heat demand would be covered by existing CMM heat generation facilities. Alternative Scenario 2 using/destroying VAM Ventilation air methane (methane concentrations at < 1%) is not part of the extracted mine gas. Theoretically it could be extracted and destroyed. This would require special technology for the extraction and destruction of gas with very low concentrations. Alternative Scenario 3 flaring of excess CMM The recovered surplus volume of CMM could be destroyed through flaring at the mine. This requires the installation of flare technology at the site. Alternative Scenario 4 and 5 electricity generation for use as captive power or grid power This scenario includes the use of the surplus CMM in reciprocating engines that generate electricity for the local grid. Alternative Scenario 6 heat generation Surplus CMM could be used for additional thermal energy generation if new customers could be connected to the heating network. Alternative Scenario 7 - feed-in into pipe network Surplus CMM could be fed into a gas pipeline. For this purpose a connection to an existing CMM pipe network which is operated by Evonik New Energies could be built. Alternative Scenario 8 Possible combination of options i to vii like combination of flaring and electricity generation are theoretically feasible but as the volume of excess CMM are comparatively low, any combination of different alternatives would further lower the already negative profitability.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 10 Step 4. Eliminate baseline scenario alternatives that face prohibitive barriers Scenario 1 - venting There are no barriers to current practice. Scenario 2 using/destroying VAM For the time being this alternative is not technically feasible, neither for the use nor the destruction, due to the low concentrations of methane in the ventilation air and the low amounts of VAM. In the case of Nordschacht there is a general restriction to a VAM utilization: This is because the mine has only one downcast ventilating shaft, while a VAM installation requires the existence of at least one upcast ventilating shaft. Such an upcast shaft does not exist at Nordschaft. Consequently, using or destroying VAM faces technological barriers at Nordschacht. Scenario 4 and 5 electricity generation There are technological barriers to using surplus CMM for electricity generation. High variations in gas quality and quantity make gas utilization for electricity generation technologically impossible. Current technology would need a steady gas quality of at least 30 to 35%. In fact the quality of the gas at Nordschacht is not only unsteady but often below these critical values. Consequently, electricity generation at shaft Nordschacht faces technological barriers due to the high variations in gas quality. Scenario 6 heat generation Demand for further heat generation is limited or non-existent. During summer season only a small fraction of the CMM from the mine is being used for heat generation at the facility in Lebach. The demand for additional heat generation at the mine is limited as well. The heat generation in the existing facilities is dependent on the demand and cannot be influenced. There is no potential for steady heat consumers in the near area of the mine. Thus especially during summer time a high excess volume of CMM would still occur The next possible consumers beyond Lebach are located several kilometers away from Nordschacht and the existing pipe. Consequently, heat generation at shaft Nordschacht faces technological barriers due to lack of heat consumers. Scenario 7 - feed-in into pipe network There is no pipe network in the area of the project facility. The shortest distance to the regional mine gas pipe network is about 11.5 km linear distance. Consequently, feed-in into pipe network at shaft Nordschacht faces technological barriers due to lack of pipe network in the area. Step 5. Identify most economically attractive baseline scenario alternative A simple cost analysis is adequate, as none of the remaining alternatives, i.e. Scenario 1 venting of excess CMM, and Scenario 3 flaring does generate financial benefits. For this step, please refer to the identical sub-step 2b. simple cost analysis of section B.2 below. There it is shown that the least costly alternative among the baseline scenario alternatives and the only realistic option for the baseline scenario under consideration is the continuation of the current situation: venting of the excess CMM into the atmosphere.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 11 B.2. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the JI project: For information on the timeline to the project, please refer to section C.1. For the identification of additionality the Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 5) agreed by the Executive Board shall be used. It is also referred to in the baseline methodology ACM0008. Step 1. Alternatives In accordance with the methodology ACM0008, this step is ignored. Step 2. Investment analysis As the baseline scenario (continuation of venting) is the only alternative connected with no additional costs it is financially the most viable alternative. While the project activity demands investment it is not revenue generating and therefore economically or financially less attractive (cf. B1, Conclusion). Sub-step 2a. Determine appropriate analysis method The project generates no financial or economic benefits other than JI related income. As no benefit from any of the baseline alternatives can be expected the simple cost analysis shall be applied for identification of the most economically attractive baseline scenario alternative. Sub-step 2b. Simple cost analysis The proposed JI project is connected with additional investment costs for the flare of about 237,000. 1 This does not include further maintenance costs. In contrast to this, the most attractive alternative which is the continuation of the status quo, does not lead to any additional costs. Conclusion: The Proposed JI project activity is more costly than the baseline scenario and thus financially not attractive. Step 3: Barrier analysis As consequence of conclusion in sub-step 2b step 3 is omitted. Step 4 Common practice analysis The utilization of CMM is common practice in Germany where conditions are favourable. The German EEG supports the electricity generation from CMM and Evonik New Energies operates many facilities for electricity or heat generation. But nevertheless there are existing mines where utilization of CMM is economically not viable and the CMM is released to the atmosphere. As there are no regulations and no requirements it is not common practise in Germany to destroy these CMM amounts in flares. This has been confirmed by a statement of the Bergamt Saarbrücken (please refer to Annex 4). Furthermore to the knowledge of Evonik and DSK there aren t any similar activities of hot flaring in the Saar area. According to 1 Source of this information is the internal draft document on the project, submitted to the management board of Evonik New Energies GmbH for approval. Besides the investment into the flare (70,000 EURO), the given figure includes also the necessary further investments into connected technical installations, planning and infrastructure measures.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 12 statistics of Montan Grundstücksgesellschaft mbh in the Ruhr area, there aren t any flaring facilities at all at about two third of former coal mine shafts, whereas the rest includes only cold flaring facilities. Hence the flare station for the destruction of CMM would be one of the first of its kind in Germany.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 13 B.3. Description of how the definition of the project boundary is applied to the project: The project boundary is defined in compliance with ACM0008, Ver.5 The spatial extent of the project boundary comprises the flaring facility installed and used as part of the project activity. The equipment for the extraction, compression and storage of CMM is not affected by the project activity and is outside the project boundary as well as the pipeline to Lebach and the thermal boiler for heat generation at the coal mine facilities. All following gases are to be included or excluded from the project boundary: Table 3: overview of gases included and excluded from the project boundary Baseline Emissions Project Source Gas Justification/Explanation Emissions of methane as a result of venting Emissions from destruction of methane in the baseline, Grid electricity generation (electricity provided to the grid) Captive power and/or heat, and vehicle fuel use of methane as a result of continued venting EmissionEmissions CH 4 Included Main emission source. Recovery of methane from coal seams will be taken into account only when the particular seams are mined through or disturbed by the mining activity. Recovery of methane from abandoned coalmines will not be included. The amount of methane to be released does not depend on the amount used (for local consumption, gas sales, etc.) in the baseline as such activities lie beyond the project boundary. CO 2 Excluded No destruction of methane within the project boundary CH 4 Excluded No destruction of methane within the project boundary N 2 O Excluded No destruction of methane within the project boundary CO 2 Excluded There is no use of methane for grid electricity generation inside the project boundaries. CH 4 Excluded There is no use of methane for grid electricity generation within the project boundary. N 2 O Excluded There is no use of methane for grid electricity generation within the project boundary. CO 2 Excluded There is no use of methane for captive power and/or heat, and vehicle fuel use within the project boundary. CH 4 Excluded There is no use of methane for captive power and/or heat, and vehicle fuel use within the project boundary. N 2 O Excluded There is no use of methane for captive power and/or heat, and vehicle fuel use within the project boundary. CH 4 Excluded Only the change in CMM emissions release will be taken into account, by monitoring the methane used or destroyed by the project activity.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 14 On-site fuel consumption due to the project activity, including transport of the gas Emissions from methane destruction Emission from NMHC destruction Fugitive emissions of unburned methane Fugitive methane emissions from onsite equipment Fugitive emissions from gas supply pipeline Accidental methane release CO 2 Excluded The electricity consumption of the exhaustion facilities is not included in the project boundary as it is necessary for the extraction itself. Besides it is performed in the baseline and project scenarios alike. Electricity consumption for auxiliary equipment of the flare (i.e. for the measurement technology) is assumed to be very small and thus neglected. Anyway neglecting CO 2 -emissions resulting from electricity consumption in EU-ETS countries is necessary to avoid double counting. This is in line with the approach in other approved German JI projects like JIM-.NRW or RWE-WWE heat pump program. Calculations regarding the maximum expected consumption of ignition gas (propane) used for operating the flare show that emissions from this source are negligible. They only amount to less than 0.1% of the project emissions. CH 4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small. N 2 O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small. CO 2 Included From the combustion of methane in the flare. CO 2 Included From the combustion of NMHC in the flare, if NMHC accounts for more than 1% by volume of extracted coal mine gas. CH 4 Included Small amounts of methane will remain unburned in the flare CH 4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small. CH 4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small. CH 4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small. B.4. Further baseline information, including the date of baseline setting and the name(s) of the person(s)/entity(ies) setting the baseline: Date of completion of the baseline: 17/03/2009 Name of entity setting the baseline: FutureCamp GmbH Chiemgaustr. 116 81549 München FutureCamp is not a project participant.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 15 SECTION C. Duration of the project / crediting period C.1. Starting date of the project: The starting date of the project is 22/06/2008, the date of the investment decision by the management board of Evonik New Energies GmbH. The decision was done after the receipt of a LoE issued by the DEHSt. The exact timeline of relevant preparatory steps is as follows: The preparation of the Project Idea Note (PIN) was done in September 2007. The PIN was sent to DEHSt on 21 February 2008. The LoE to the project has been issued on 02 June 2008. An investment draft on the project has been submitted to management board of Evonik New Energies GmbH for approval on the 22 June 2008. C.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project: Beginning: 01/01/2009; end: 31/12/2012. Mining activities will end at Nordschacht on 30 June 2012. As the shaft will remain open and venting activities will have to be continued at least until the end of that year the project is also set to last until the end of 2012. C.3. Length of the crediting period: Beginning: 01/01/2009; end: 31/12/2012. In accordance with the project s lifetime the crediting period shall end on 31 st December 2012. According to correspondence with DEHSt, the crediting can start as soon as the global stakeholder process has started.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 16 SECTION D. Monitoring plan D.1. Description of monitoring plan chosen: The Monitoring is conducted according to established Monitoring Methodology ACM0008 / Version 5. In addition the provisions of the methodological Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane (as it is referred to in ACM0008) is also applied. The applicability of ACM0008 / Version 5 is generally discussed above in B.1. The tool is applicable, as it fulfils the following conditions: The residual gas stream to be flared contains no other combustible gases than methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen; The residual gas stream to be flared will be obtained from gases vented in coal mines (coal mine methane and coal bed methane). Option 1 of the tool to determine the flare efficiency (use of a 90% default value) has been applied. Thus a continuous monitoring of the methane destruction efficiency is not applied here and corresponding fields below (D.1.2) are left blank. There will be one adjustment to the standard procedures of the flaring tool regarding the determination of the efficiency in STEP 6 which is necessary due to the high variation in mine gas flow and short operating intervals of the flare. The time interval shall be lowered to increase the accuracy which is in line with the requirements of the tool. The calculation applied is described in detail in STEP 6 following. D.1.1. Option 1 Monitoring of the emissions in the project scenario and the baseline scenario: D.1.1.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project, and how these data will be archived: fv i,min Data / Parameter: Data unit: - Description: Volumetric fraction of component i in the residual gas in the minute min where i = CH 4, CO, CO 2, O 2, H 2, N 2 Source of data: Measurements by project participants using a continuous gas analyser Measurement procedures: Extractive procedure by use of infra-red analyser. Fraction of methane in the mine gas will be monitored continuously, using a gas analyser. The rest of the gas will be assumed to be N 2. The question in regards to basis (dry or wet) is irrelevant to the measurement of the volumetric flow rate and the methane fraction in the residual gas (FV RG,min ) as the residual gas temperature is less than 60 ºC. Monitoring frequency: Continuously. Values to be averaged minutely QA/QC procedures Analysers will be periodically calibrated according to the manufacturer s recommendation. A zero check and a typical value check will be performed by comparison with a standard certified gas. Any comment: A simplified approach is applied only methane content of the residual gas is measured. The remaining part is considered to be N 2
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 17 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data: Measurement procedures: Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures Any comment: FV RG,min m³/min Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas at normal (NTP, 101,325kPa, 273,15K) conditions in the minute min Measurements by project participants using a flow meter The question in regards to basis (dry or wet) is irrelevant to the measurement of the volumetric flow rate and the methane fraction in the residual gas (FV RG,min ) as the residual gas temperature is less than 60 ºC. Continuously. Values to be averaged minutely Flow meters will be calibrated according to the German calibration regulations. The calibration is valid for at least 5 years. Flow rate will be calculated at normal conditions. T flare Data / Parameter: Data unit: C Description: Temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare Source of data: Measurements by project participants Measurement procedures: Measure the temperature of the exhaust gas stream in the flare by a Type N thermocouple. A temperature above 500 ºC indicates that a significant amount of gases are still being burnt and that the flare is operating. Monitoring frequency: Continuously. QA/QC procedures Thermocouples should be replaced or calibrated every year. Any comment: An excessively high temperature at the sampling point (above specifications of manufacturer) may be an indication that the flare is not being adequately operated or that its capacity is not adequate to the actual flow. MM FL Data / parameter: Data unit: tch 4 Description: Methane measured sent to flare Source of data: Measurement procedures (if In order to calculate the amount of methane sent to the flare, the any): following parameters will be measured: Concentration of methane in coalmine gas (measured by gas analyzer) volumetric flow rate at normal conditions (measured by gas flow meter) Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: These parameters will be fed into a data logger that will calculate and record the mass of methane sent to the flare. Continuously Flow meters will be calibrated according to the German calibration regulations. The calibration is valid for at least 8 years. All other sensors will be subject to regular maintenance and calibration according to manufacturer s specifications. A data logger will record normalized gas volumes and concentrations.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 18 Data / parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data: Measurement procedures (if any): Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: CEF NMHC tco 2 e/t NMHC Carbon emission factor for combusted non methane hydrocarbons (various) To be obtained through annual analysis of the fractional composition of captured gas. If the NHMC concentration is less than 1%, its emissions can be ignored. Annually monitoring and analyzing NMHC concentration. If it is above 1%, determining each carbon emission factor of different components. Annually Analysis will be done at accredited external laboratories.. To be obtained through periodical analysis of the fractional composition of captured CMM PC CH4 Data / parameter: Data unit: % Description: Concentration (in mass) of methane in extracted gas (%),; please refer to Source of data: Measurement procedures (if any): Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: fv i,h Please refer to fv i,min Please refer to fv i,min Please refer to fv i,min PC NMHC Data / parameter: Data unit: % Description: Non methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) concentration in coal mine gas Source of data: To be obtained through annual analysis of the fractional composition of captured gas, if NHMC concentration is less than 1%, it is not accounted Concentration meters, optical and calorific Measurement procedures (if Annually monitoring NMHC concentration to determine whether its any): emissions to be included in the calculation. Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: The fractional composition analysis instruments will be subject to a regular maintenance regime before analysing gas components to ensure accuracy. Any comment: GWP CH4 Data / parameter: Data unit: tco 2e /t CH4 Description: Global warming potential of methane Source of data: Measurement procedures (if any): Monitoring frequency: Ex ante QA/QC procedures: Any comment: 21 tco 2e /tch 4
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 19 CEF CH4 Data / parameter: Data unit: tco 2e /t CH4 Description: Carbon emission factor for combusted methane Source of data: Measurement procedures (if any): Monitoring frequency: Ex ante QA/QC procedures: Any comment: 44/16 = 2.75 tco 2e /tch 4 In compliance with the methodological Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane, the only parameters not monitored are the constants used in equations, as listed below: Parameter SI Unit Description Value MM CH4 kg/kmol Molecular mass of methane 16.04 MM CO kg/kmol Molecular mass of carbon monoxide 28.01 MM CO2 kg/kmol Molecular mass of carbon dioxide 44.01 MM O2 kg/kmol Molecular mass of oxygen 32.00 MM H2 kg/kmol Molecular mass of hydrogen 2.02 MM N2 kg/kmol Molecular mass of nitrogen 28.02 AM c kg/kmol (g/mol) Atomic mass of carbon 12.00 AM h kg/kmol (g/mol) Atomic mass of hydrogen 1.01 AM o kg/kmol (g/mol) Atomic mass of oxygen 16.00 AM n kg/kmol (g/mol) Atomic mass of nitrogen 14.01 P n Pa Atmospheric pressure at normal conditions 101 325 R u Pa.m 3 /kmol.k Universal ideal gas constant 8 314.472 T n K Temperature at normal conditions 273.15 MF O2 Dimensionless O 2 volumetric fraction of air 0.21 GWP CH4 TCO 2 /tch 4 Global warming potential of methane 21 MV n m 3 /Kmol Volume of one mole of any ideal gas at normal 22.414 D.1.1.2. Description of formulae used to estimate project emissions (for each gas, source etc.; emissions in units of CO 2 equivalent): According to ACM 0008 the project emissions are defined by the following equation: PE y = PE ME + PE MD + PE UM where: PE y : Project emissions in year y (tco 2 e) PE ME : Project emissions from energy use to capture and use methane (tco 2 e) PE MD : Project emissions from methane destroyed (tco 2 e) PE UM : Project emissions from un-combusted methane (tco 2 e) Combustion emissions from additional energy required for CMM capture and use, PE ME PE ME can be considered zero as no significant amounts of additional energy will be needed for the flare operation. On this please refer to discussion of the project boundaries in B.3.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 20 Combustion emissions from use of captured methane, PE MD When the captured methane is burned in a flare, heat or power plant, or oxidized in a catalytic oxidation unit, combustion emissions are released. In addition, if NMHC account for more than 1% by volume of the extracted CMM/CBM or more than 0.1% by volume of the extracted VAM, combustion emission from these gases should also be included. The proposed project activity involves only gas for flaring. Therefore, the formula will be as following: PE MD with: = MD FL ( CEF 4 + r CEFNMHC ) CH r=pc NMHC /PC CH4 where: MD FL Methane destroyed through flaring (tch 4 ) CEF CH4 Carbon emission factor for combusted methane (2.75 tco 2 /tch 4 ) CEF NMHC Carbon emission factor for combusted non methane hydrocarbons (the concentration varies and, therefore, to be obtained through periodical analysis of captured methane) (tco 2 /tnmhc) r Relative proportion of NMHC compared to methane PC CH4 Concentration (in mass) of methane in extracted gas (%), measured on wet basis PC NMHC NMHC concentration (in mass) in extracted gas (%) The results of an ex-ante analysis from 28/08/2008 have shown that the NMHC account for more than 1%: table 2: Percentage of NMHCs and calculation of CEF Vol-% CEF Ethane 1,034 2,933 Propane 0,103 3,000 Butane 0,023 3,034 CEF NMHC 2,941 This value has been applied for the ex-ante estimation in section E. Regarding the monitoring periodical analysis will be done and the emission factor will be recalculated. MD FL where: = MM FL ( PEflare/ GWPCH4) MM FL Methane measured sent to flare (tch 4 ) PE flare Project emissions of non-combusted CH 4, expressed in terms of CO 2 e, from flaring of the residual gas stream (tco 2 e) GWP CH4 Global warming potential of methane (21 tco 2 e/tch 4 ) The project emissions of non-combusted CH 4 expressed in terms of CO 2 e from flaring of the residual gas stream (PE flare ) will be calculated following the procedures described in the Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing Methane (see next section).
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 21 Un-combusted methane from project activity PE UM Not all of the methane sent to the flare will be combusted, so a small amount will escape to the atmosphere. These emissions shall be calculated according to the methodology by use of the following equation: PEUM = [ GWPCH4 MM + + i i (1 Effi)] PEflare PEOX GWPCH4 where: i Use of methane (power generation, heat generation, supply to gas grid to various combustion end uses) MM i Methane measured sent to use I (tch4) Eff i Efficiency of methane destruction in use i (%) PE ox Project emissions of non oxidized CH 4 from catalytic oxidation of the VAM stream (tch 4 ) As the project activity includes neither use of methane nor catalytic oxidation (on this please refer to discussion of boundaries), the formula can be reduced as follows: PE UM = PE flare The project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream (PE flare ) shall be calculated following the procedures described in the Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing Methane. PE flare thus can be calculated on an annual basis or for the required period of time. The calculation procedures of the tool entail the following steps: STEP 1: Determination of the mass flow rate of the residual gas that is flared STEP 2: Determination of the mass fraction of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in the residual gas STEP 3: Determination of the volumetric flow rate of the exhaust gas on a dry basis STEP 4: Determination of methane mass flow rate of the exhaust gas on a dry basis STEP 5: Determination of methane mass flow rate of the residual gas on a dry basis STEP 6: Determination of the hourly flare efficiency STEP 7: Calculation of annual project emissions from flaring based on measured hourly values or based on default flare efficiency. The project activity applies an enclosed flare. The temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare is measured to determine whether the flare is operating or not. For enclosed flares, either of the following two options can be used to determine the flare efficiency according to the tool: (a) To use a 90% default value. Continuous monitoring of compliance with manufacturer s specification of flare (temperature, flow rate of residual gas at the inlet of the flare) must be performed. If in a specific hour any of the parameters are out of the limit of manufacturer s specifications, a 50% default value for the flare efficiency should be used for the calculations for this specific hour. (b) Continuous monitoring of the methane destruction efficiency of the flare (flare efficiency). The flare efficiency (η flare,h ) is calculated for each hour of a year based on continuous monitoring of the methane destruction efficiency of the flare. If there is no record of the temperature of the flare or if the recorded temperature is less than 500 C for any particular hour, it shall be assumed that during that hour the flare efficiency is zero. The project will use the 90% default value/option 1 for the monitoring of emissions.
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 22 The tool requires hourly monitoring of all relevant parameters. Due to the very unsteady mine gas flow at Nordschacht typical operating times of the flare will remain well below one hour in many situations. Therefore it is required that the flare efficiency is not calculated as zero whenever the flare is operating properly but the mine gas is flowing only at intervals that are too short for the required calculation of flare efficiency. In accordance with the guidance of the tool, all relevant parameters shall be monitored consequently at higher frequency than hourly. It is planned to increase the monitoring frequency and monitor intervals of 1 minute. The calculation of the flare efficiency shall be adapted accordingly as described in STEP 6. STEP 1. Determination of the mass flow rate of the residual gas that is flared This step calculates the residual gas mass flow rate in each minute min, based on the volumetric flow rate and the density of the residual gas. The density of the residual gas is determined based on the volumetric fraction of all components in the gas. Equation 1: FMRG, min = ρ RG, n,min FVRG,min where: and: FM RG,,min mass flow rate of the residual gas in minute min [kg/min] ρ RG,n, min density of the residual gas at normal conditions in minute min [kg/m 3 ] FV RG,,min volumetric flow rate of the residual gas at normal conditions in the minute min Equation 2: ρ RG, n,min = Pn Ru Tn MMRG,min where: ρ RG,n,min density of the residual gas at normal conditions in minute min [kg/m 3 ] P n atmospheric pressure at normal conditions (101,325) [Pa] R u universal ideal gas constant (8.314) [Pa.m 3 /kmol.k] MM RG,min molecular mass of the residual gas in minute min [kg/kmol] temperature at normal conditions (273.15)[K] T n and: Equation 3: MMRG, min = i, h ( fv MM ) i where: MM RG,min molecular mass of the residual gas in minute min [kg/kmol] fv i,min volumetric fraction of component i in the residual gas in the minute min [-] MM i molecular mass of residual gas components i [kg/kmol] i the components: CH 4 and N 2
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 23 A simplified approach is used, where only the volumetric fraction of methane is measured and it is considered the difference to 100% as being nitrogen (N 2 ). STEP 2. Determination of the mass fraction of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen in the residual gas Step 2 states: Determine of mass fractions of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen in the residual gas, calculated from the volumetric fraction of each component i in the residual gas are as follows: Equation 4: fmj,min = i fvi,min AMj NAj, i MMRG,min where: fm j,min mass fraction of element j in the residual gas in minute min [-] fv i,min volumetric fraction of component i in the residual gas in the minute min AM j atomic mass of element j [kg/kmol] NA j,i number of atoms of element j in component i [-] MM RG,min molecular mass of the residual gas in minute min [kg/kmol] j the elements carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen i the components: CH 4 and N 2 The following steps 3 and 4 are only applicable if continuous monitoring of the flare efficiency will be implemented. As this is not the case here, the following steps 3 and 4 are not relevant for the calculation and consequently omitted. STEP 3. Determination of the volumetric flow rate of the exhaust gas on a dry basis This step is ignored. STEP 4. Determination of methane mass flow rate in the exhaust gas on a dry basis This step is ignored. STEP 5. Determination of methane mass flow rate in the residual gas on a dry basis The quantity of methane in the residual gas flowing into the flare is the product of the volumetric flow rate of the residual gas (FV RG,h ), the volumetric fraction of methane in the residual gas (fv CH4,RG,h ) and the density of methane (ρ CH4,,n,h ).
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 24 Equation 5: TM RG, min = FVRG,min fvch4, RG,min ρch4, n where: mass flow rate of methane in the residual gas in the minute min [kg/min] volumetric flow rate of the residual gas on dry basis at normal conditions in the minute min [m 3 /min] fv CH4,RG,min volumetric fraction of methane in the residual gas on dry basis in the minute min (NB: this corresponds to fv i,rg,h where i refers to methane). ρ CH4,n,min density of methane at normal conditions (0.716) [kg/m 3 ] TM RG,min FV RG,min STEP 6. Determination of the hourly flare efficiency In the case of mine gas flaring at shaft Nordschacht, an enclosed flare is used and the default values regarding the flare efficiency will be applied. According to the tool the flare efficiency in the hour h shall be calculated as follows: 0% if the temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare (T flare ) is below 500 C for more than 20 minutes during the hour h. 50%, if the temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare (T flare ) is above 500 C for more than 40 minutes during the hour h, but the manufacturer s specifications on proper operation of the flare are not met at any point in time during the hour h. 90%, if the temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare (T flare ) is above 500 C for more than 40 minutes during the hour h and the manufacturer s specifications on proper operation of the flare are met continuously during the hour h. Due to the very unsteady mine gas flow at Nordschacht typical operating times of the flare will remain well below one hour in many situations. Therefore it is required that the flare efficiency is not calculated as zero whenever the flare is operating properly but the mine gas is flowing less than 20 minutes during one hour. In accordance with the guidance of the tool, all relevant parameters shall be monitored consequently at higher frequency than hourly. It is planned to increase the monitoring frequency and monitor intervals of 1 minute. Accordingly the flare efficiency shall be calculated as follows: 0% if the temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare (T flare ) is below 500 C during the minute 0%, if the manufacturer s specifications on proper operation of the flare are not met at any point in time during the minute 90%, if the temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare (T flare ) is above 500 C during the minute and the manufacturer s specifications on proper operation of the flare are met continuously during the minute. STEP 7. Calculation of annual project emissions from flaring Project emission from flaring are calculated as the sum of emission from each minute, based on the methane flow rate in the residual gas (TM RG,h ) and the flare efficiency during each minute (η flare,h ), as follows:
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 25 Equation 6: PEflare, y where: 525,600 GWP = ( 1 ) CH4 TMRG,min η flare,min 1000 min = 1 PE flare,y Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in year y [tco 2 e] GWP CH4 Global Warming potential of methane valid for the commitment period flare efficiency in the minute min. η flare,min
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee page 26 D.1.1.3. Relevant data necessary for determining the baseline of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources within the project boundary, and how such data will be collected and archived: MM FL Data / parameter: Data unit: tch 4 Description: Methane measured sent to flare Source of data: Measurement procedures (if In order to calculate the amount of methane sent to the flare, the any): following parameters will be measured: Concentration of methane in coalmine gas (measured by gas analyzer) volumetric flow rate of residual gas at normal conditions (measured by gas flow meter) Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: These parameters will be fed into a data logger that will calculate and record the mass of methane sent to the flare. Continuously Flow meters will be calibrated according to the German calibration regulations. The calibration is valid for at least 8 years. All other sensors will be subject to regular maintenance and calibration according to manufacturer s specifications. A data logger will record normalized gas volumes and concentrations. GWP CH4 Data / parameter: Data unit: tco 2e /t CH4 Description: Global warming potential of methane Source of data: Measurement procedures (if any): Monitoring frequency: Ex ante QA/QC procedures: Any comment: 21 tco 2e /tch 4 D.1.1.4. Description of formulae used to estimate baseline emissions (for each gas, source etc.; emissions in units of CO 2 equivalent): In compliance with ACM0008 the following equation for calculation of baseline emissions applies: BE y = BE MD,y + BE MR,y + BE Use,y where: BE y Baseline emissions in year y (tco 2 e) BE MD,y Baseline emissions from destruction of methane in the baseline scenario in year y (tco 2 e) BE MR,y Baseline emissions from release of methane into the atmosphere in year y that is avoided by the project activity (tco 2 e)