Anda di halaman 1dari 92

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board


page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM


PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)
Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006
CONTENTS
A.

General description of 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 project activity


Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: Baseline Information
Annex 4: Monitoring Information
Appendix 1: ISO 9001- Quality Management Certificate

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 2

SECTION A. General description of project activity


A.1.

Title of the project activity:

Fuel switch and Renewable Electricity to the Grid by Ubombo Sugar Ltd., Swaziland
Version of the document: 2

dated: 23 December, 2010

The first version was developed based on ACM0006, version 9, and AM_REV_169.

A.2.

Description of the project activity:

The project will avoid the combustion of coal imported from South Africa at the project site and will
replace the combustion of fossil fuels in grid connected power plants. This is achieved primarily by
introducing sugarcane trash as biomass fuel and the improvement of energy efficiency at the Ubombo
Sugar Mill, the project site. To implement these measures technically, the heat-and-power-plant at
Ubombo Sugar Mill will be retrofitted and expanded.
Built in 1965, the Ubombo Sugar Mill operates in Big Bend and is the oldest of three sugar mills in
Swaziland. Ubombo Sugar Limited, the owner of the mill, forms part of the Illovo Sugar Group, who has
a 60% share holding in Ubombo Sugar Limited. The remaining shares are held by Tibiyo Taka Ngawane
on behalf of the Swazi Nation.
Usually, sugarcane mills utilize bagasse during the milling season as fuel. Bagasse is the fibre remaining
after the extraction of sucrose from the sugar cane and dried by dewatering mills, enabling it to be used as
fuel. Sugarcane trash is the unwanted crop residue (tops and leaves) of the cane plant that at the site has
primarily been burnt off the standing cane plant to speed up the manual harvesting process. This
supplementary source of boiler fuel is made available as and when green cane harvesting takes place and
requires harvesting, transporting and preparation for use as boiler fuel.
Historical/ Current Situation
Currently, the Ubombo sugar mill processes approximately 1.85 Mt of sugar cane per year. The cane is
grown on 8,170 ha of irrigated company owned fields and on 11,917 ha of out-grower farmed fields. The
existing mill has 6 captive boilers which are historically fired with around 480 kt of bagasse and around
30 kt of coal per year. Bagasse is the fibre from the sugar cane which remains following the juice
extraction process and is dried by dewatering mills. The coal to feed the boilers is imported from South
Africa.
Generated energy is in the form of superheated steam that is used to drive sugar production prime movers
and steam turbines used to drive electrical generators. The heat output from these operations is used in the
sugar production process and electrical energy generated by these prime movers is also used to drive
equipment used in the sugar production process. The yearly generation of electricity is 62 GWh of which
52 GWh are for the mills own consumption and 10 GWh are exported for use within the company owned
estate.
Future Situation/ Expansion
In a memorandum of understanding concluded between Ubombo Sugar Limited and the Swaziland
Agricultural Development Enterprise (SWADE) who are responsible for implementing the Lower Usuthu

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 3

Smallholder Irrigation Project (LUSIP), Ubombo committed to process future cane from an additional
5,000 ha of smallholder sugar cane, developed by LUSIP. The expansion of the cane area will be phased
over a five year period culminating in the production year 2015/2016. By then the mill will process
2.59 Mt of cane instead of the current 1.85 Mt. This expansion corresponds to a production capacity
increase by 40% from 410 to 500 t of cane per hour (tch).
Reference Situation/ Baseline scenario
The mills capacity expansion was assessed by performing a feasibility study. The energy efficiency of
the mill would remain as it is and the installed spare energy generation capacity would be used. This
scenario has by far lower (investment and operating) costs than the proposed project activity, but results
in significantly higher GHG emissions.
The current margin of electricity generated for export to the estate would not compensate for the
increased power requirements of the factory. The share of coal as part of the overall fuel requirement
would remain at a similar level (as a percentage on bagasse), but increase in absolute values due to the
increased milling capacity.
Proposed project activity
The incentives given by the CDM allows Ubombo Sugar Ltd. to take a different approach from the
foreseen business-as-usual-scenario. If the project activity is implemented, the consumption of coal will
become obsolete while considerable amounts of renewable power will be available for grid export. In the
project activity, the co-firing of sugar cane trash (together with bagasse) will be established in the amount
of up to 77 kt by the year 2015/16 and 96 GWh of electricity will be replaced. Thereof 41 GWh are used
by the Ubombo estate and around 55 GWh are exported to the Swaziland electricity grid. In comparison
with the reference plant this situation decreases greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
The proposed project activity include the installation of a new sugarcane trash preparation line, fuel
stock-piling and reclaim systems, a new bagasse/ biomass boiler, the retrofit of the existing cogeneration
plant with a high efficiency steam turbine driven generator, and the establishment of cane trash logistics
from the cane fields to the mill. The proposed development has been awarded an Environmental
Compliance Certificate by the SEA. The SEA is the Swaziland Environmental Authority (SEA) which
requested an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) before awarding the mentioned certificate.
Sustainable Development
The project activity will have a positive impact on sustainable development as follows:
- Economic Benefits
The project activity has a positive effect on national economic development in terms of:
The project will contribute to national economic development by bringing foreign exchange into
the country through the sale of carbon credits.
The project will generate employment both during construction and operation. The majority of
these positions will be filled from the local community of Swaziland and surrounding districts.
There are very few existing projects using the envisaged technology with some technology being
the first of its kind in Swaziland and Southern Africa. The project will thus provide an
opportunity for technological and knowledge transfer.
The projects contribution to social development is centered around the reduction of harmful
emissions to the atmosphere, thus resulting in a cleaner and safer environment in the immediate
vicinity of the project.
On a wider scale, the project will also contribute towards the sustainable recovery, reuse and

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 4

recycling of waste gas by major industry and the combating of climate change.
- Social Benefits
The project will result in the creation of skilled professional-level jobs, technician-level jobs and semiskilled/unskilled jobs. The projects contribution to employment and the associated multiplier effect of
these jobs is difficult to monitor, but could be ascertained by an annual profitability review for the overall
project. (This would be based on the assumption that job creation and sustainability is directly related to
the ongoing profitability and success of the project). Because there are no similar technology installations
in the area, employees will require education and training in the operation and maintenance of the plant.
This will enhance information sharing and skills transfer from foreign parties to the local community.
- Environmental Benefits
The project activity will take place on an existing established industrial site, on previously utilized
available open land within the greater plant operation covered by the existing plant permit. There will be
a reduction in SO2-emissions and the NOx-emissions associated with the combustion of coal. On a
national scale the project will have a positive impact on air quality as carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will
be mitigated.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 5

A.3.

Project participants:

Name of Party involved (*)


((host) indicates a host Party)

Kingdom of Swaziland

Private and/or public


entity(ies) project
participants (*)
(as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the


Party involved wishes
to be considered as a
project participant
(Yes/No)

Private Entity:
Ubombo Sugar Ltd.

No

(*) In accordance with the CDM modalities and procedures, at the time of making the CDM-AR-PDD public at
the stage of validation, a Party involved may or may not have provided its approval. At the time of requesting
registration, the approval by the Party(ies) involved is required.

A.4.

Technical description of the project activity:


A.4.1. Location of the project activity:
A.4.1.1.

Host Party(ies):

Kingdom of Swaziland
A.4.1.2.

Region/State/Province etc.:

District of Lubombo
A.4.1.3.

City/Town/Community etc.:

Town of Big Bend


A.4.1.4.
Details of physical location, including information allowing the
unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):
Ubombo Sugar Ltd. is situated in the town of Big Bend in the eastern part of Swaziland (see map of
Swaziland). The town lies on the Lusutfu River between 26 49' 0" South and 31 56' 0" East.
The satellite image below contains the town of Big Bend, the Ubombo sugar mill, and surrounding
(irrigated) sugarcane fields.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 6

A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:


Sectoral Scope:
Category1, Energy industries (renewable / non-renewable sources)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 7

A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:


The proposed project activity will be established in the agro-industrial complex of the Ubombo sugar
mill. The mill can be separated into two functional parts: a) sugar extraction and sugar processing, and
b) energy plant, where heat and power are produced.
The emission level of the proposed project activity will be significantly less than of its alternative, the
retrofitted existing plant, i.e. reference plant. For clarification purposes, the technology in the reference
and the project plant will be compared to each other:
Current/ Historic Situation:
Energy for sugar extraction and processing is obtained from the combustion of bagasse and coal in six
captive boilers on-site. The mixing ratio of bagasse and coal varies throughout the year depending
primarily on the fibre content of processed sugar cane and the rateability of cane supply to the sugar mill.
Bagasse is dried in dewatering mills reducing the moisture content from approximately 80% to 50% by
mass to produce bagasse which is able to be combusted in the boilers.
Since the amount of bagasse is linked to the amount of sugar cane processed, i.e. ratio between cane and
accruing bagasse is fixed (with marginal variations), it means that the current cane trash and tops biomass
share in the fuel mix cannot be increased without increasing the amount of bagasse and consequently cane
crushed.
With respect to the harvesting of the raw material, the majority of cane is burned in the field before
harvesting in order to get rid of leaves and other unwanted biomass. Some cane is currently harvested
green with mechanical harvesters.
Reference Scenario:
Ubombo is obligated to expand the crushing capacity of the sugar mill by April 2011 with the cane crop
gradually increasing up to 2015/16 primarily due to the requirement to accommodate small holder farmer
cane from LUSIP. To supply the expansions energy demand, the steam generation capacity (Maximum
Continuous Rating, MCR) of the existing boilers would be exploited to a higher degree, i.e. 86.7%
instead of the current 70.0%, and the average heat-to-power-ratio (the relation between heat and
electricity output) would be shifted towards heat. The current margin of electricity generated for export to
the estate would not compensate for the increased power requirements of the expanded factory. The share
of coal as part of the overall fuel requirement would remain at a similar level (as a percentage on
bagasse), but would increase in absolute values due to the increased milling capacity.
The processing plant, in the absence of the project activity, would undergo modifications to handle the
increased throughput. These modifications/ retrofits would include expanding the equipment relating to
sugar cane preparation, extraction and sugar processing from the current capacity of 410 tch (tch: tons of
cane per hour) to 500 tch:
Equipment
Cane milling capacity
- Whereof Line 1
- Whereof Line 2

Current/Historic Setup
410 tch
Milling tandem capacity of
230 tch
DeSmet diffuser capacity of
180 tch

Reference Plant
500 tch
Removed and replaced by
300 tch Bosch diffuser
Capacity increased to 200 tch

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 8

Because of the installation of the new diffuser (300 tch Bosch diffuser), five of the six mills that
formed part of the existing milling tandem will become redundant and will be removed. The
remaining mills in addition to a new 84 mill will continue in service, de-watering bagasse
discharged from the new and existing diffuser. The properties of the bagasse are not affected by
this measure.
Additional sugar processing equipment such as a clarifier, evaporators, crystallisation pans and
centrifugals.

Project Scenario:
The project activity involves the establishment of a new cane trash receiving, handling and preparation
system. Cane trash will be co-fired at a ratio of up to 10% (mass volume) of the combined bagasse and
cane trash. Where possible the harvesting practice will be switched to green cane harvesting as opposed to
the current practice of burning of cane stalks in order to maximise the quantity of harvested trash and
tops.
Through the project activity electricity generation by the mill will be increased in absolute values (MWh),
but also the period of electricity production will be extended by building up a biomass stock-pile and by
installing a controlled extraction/condensing turbine that can be used efficiently for electricity production
during the off-season when sugar cane is not being crushed. The length of this off-season, i.e. when no
sugar cane is crushed by the sugar mill, depending on the year, is around 12 weeks.
The equipment installed and the buildings constructed due to the proposed project activity include the
following:
- New biomass boiler (No 8): Capacity of 105 t of steam per hour (at 31 bar), imported from South
Africa to Swaziland. It can be run on biomass only and will have a facility to fire coal for
emergency situations when unplanned interruptions in the biomass fuel supply occur. It will be
operated together with the existing boilers No. 5, 6, and 7. Boilers No. 2, 3, and 4 become
redundant. The new boiler features a higher efficiency than the existing ones.
Table 1: Data on Steam Boilers (Historic and Project Situation)
Item
Situation
2
3
4
5
6
Installed (year)
--1961
1965
1965
1968
1982
Manufacturer*
--B&W B&W B&W B&W
JTA
Capacity (t steam/h) --23
30
27
30
74
Use
Historic
X
X
X
X
X
Project
X
X
*B&W: Babcock and Wilcox, JTA: John Thompson, AJT: ACTOM John Thompson
-

7
1999
B&W
105
X
X

8
2011
AJT
105
X

Cane trash shredder: based on wood hogger technology; nominal capacity of 15 t/h. Powered by
330 kW motor. This will be incorporated into a biomass feeding system that may include some
trash and tops separation equipment in the future.
Controlled extraction/ condensing turbine: Capacity of 25 MW of power generation with flexible
heat-to-power-ratio. It will supply the majority of process steam during the season and produce
the majority of electricity during the off-season. It is supplementary to the existing turbine
alternator sets No. 2, 3, 4 and 5, which will be retained. During the cane processing season, the
turbine alternator sets No. 3 and 4 will be used in addition to the new extraction/ condensing
turbine.
Forced draught cooling tower: servicing the extraction and condensing turbine alternator.
Boiler feed water quarantine system and dedicated boiler feed water pumps supplying boiler 8.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 9

An open air biomass storage facility: on a surface of 66,000 m2 next to the Ubombo sugar mill
will be established. This surface offers sufficient space to store around 100,000 t of
bagasse/biomass. Walking floor or tipping trailers, front end loaders and excavators will enable
the transport of biomass between the storage facility and the fuel export/re-claim conveying
system. The biomass in the storage facility will be covered with tarpaulins to reduce degradation
and fire risk.

The table below shows the cane trash harvesting and supply machinery necessary for the 67,000 t of trash
harvested, as planned for the first year of the project activity 2011/12. At full capacity around 77,000 t
will have to be harvested.
Table 2: Provisional List of Equipment in the Cane Trash Chain
Activity
Machine
Powered by
Raking
rakes
tractors
Preparation for
balers
tractors
Transport
bale loaders
Self propelled
silage loaders (6.5t)
tractors
Transport
transport trucks (14t)
Truck horses
bale transport trailers
tractors
silage loaders (6.5t)
tractors
(same units as above)
(same units as above)

Power Rate
At 35 kW
At 54 kW
At 30 kW
At 140 kW
At 120 kW
At 54 kW
At 140 kW

The on-site transport of biomass from the mill to the storage facility (during the cane crushing season)
and from the storage facility to the mill (during off-crop-season) will be done by the following
equipment:
bull dozer (self propelled)
front end loaders (self propelled)
walking floor or tipping trailers (high capacity) (powered by truck horse)
excavators (self propelled)
The above list of vehicles is provisional since the investigations into appropriate cane trash haulage are
still ongoing. All vehicles in the cane trash provision (from field works over haulage to on-site recovery)
will, however, be included in the monitoring.
Summary:
In terms of electricity import by the mill the relation between the three scenarios can be summarized as
follows:
Table 3: Electricity Balance of Ubombo Mill with Off-Site Sources in Scenarios (Imports negative,
exports positive) (GWh/a)
Year
Existing
Reference
Project
2007/08 2009/10
+9.9
n/a
n/a
2011/12
n/a
-0.9
+77.8
2012/13
n/a
-0.8
+90.1
2013/14
n/a
-0.7
+102.6
2014/15
n/a
-0.7
+104.2
2015/16
n/a
-0.7
+110.5
Same as previous season
n/a
-0.7
+110.5

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 10

A schematic of the mills power plant is attached below showing how this would behave in the three
scenarios. The three colours represent:
- Red: The historic situation;
- Green: The reference plant/baseline scenario (for equipment this corresponds to the historic
plant);
- Violet: The project plant.
Equipment that is indicated in black is operated in the historic, the reference, and the project plant. Values
indicated in violet are for the project plant.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 11

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 12

Demand-Side Energy Efficiency:


The introduction of cane trash as new renewable fuel in parallel to supply-side and demand-side energy
efficiency improvement has been considered during the planning phase to achieve the objective of
maximising grid electricity export and to eliminate the combustion of coal during normal operations. Due
to specific conditions, the demand-side and the supply-side measures overlap. Therefore, a Request for
Deviation has been submitted.
At demand-side the most important measures are:
- Electrification of inefficient steam driven prime movers, e.g. steam drives of a shredder, dewatering mills and a boiler induced draft fan drive with high efficiency electric drives;
From an energy point of view, the above demand-side energy efficiency improvements alone are not
sufficient and need to be implemented together with the following process efficiency improvements to
balance steam demand:
- Installation of significantly increased heat exchanger capacity to enable the use of lower order
vapour as heating medium;
In the reference plant, the process steam demand increases to the point where superheated steam would
be let-down and saturated for process steam, as is the case in the historic plant. The limited capacity of the
installed co-generation equipment in the reference plant would also make further electrification of prime
movers impossible. In other words, the electrification of prime movers and process efficiency
improvements would not be possible in the reference plant and would not take place in the absence of the
project activity.
A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:
The option of renewable crediting periods is selected, with the first crediting period lasting seven years.
The proposed project activity is expected to generate the following amounts of emission reductions
starting in April, 2011:
Estimate of Annual Emission Reduction
Year
(in tonnes of CO2-equivalents)
100,364
04/2011-03/2012
109,135
04/2012-03/2013
116,703
04/2013-03/2014
04/2014-03/2015
118,499
117,493
04/2015-03/2016
117,493
04/2016-03/2017
117,493
04/2017-03/2018
Total estimated reductions
797,179
(tonnes of CO2e)
Total number of crediting years
7
Annual average of over the crediting period of
estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e)
113,883

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 13

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:


The proposed project activity will be financed by Ubombo Sugar Ltd. It is not running under a public
incentive scheme. The development of the PDD was financed by the Restructuring and Diversification
Management Unit (RDMU) financed by the European Commission. The RDMU coordinates the
implementation of the National Adaptation Strategy to the EU Sugar Reform in Swaziland
(EuropeAid/125214/C/SER/SZ). This financing does not lead to the diversion of Official Development
Aid.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 14

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology


B.1.
Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the
project activity:
The approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology ACM0006 in its most recent version,
version 11, will be applied.
It refers to the following methodology(ies) and tool(s):
Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of equipment (Version 01)
Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 05.2)
Tool to determine the baseline efficiency of thermal or electric energy generation
systems(Version 01)
Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02)
Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at solid waste disposal
sites(Version 05)
Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (Version 02)
Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption
(Version 01)
B.2.
Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project
activity:
According to the ACM0006, version 11,
(...) the project activity may include the following activities or combinations of these activities:
a) The installation of new plants at a site where currently no power generation occurs (greenfield
power projects); or
b) The installation of new plants at a site where currently power or heat generation occurs. The new
plant replaces or is operated next to existing plants (capacity expansion projects); or
c) The improvement of energy efficiency of existing plants (energy efficiency improvement projects)
which can also lead to a capacity expansion, e.g. by retrofitting the existing plant; or
d) The total or partial replacement of fossil fuels by biomass residues in existing plants or in new
plants that would have been built in absence of the project (fuel switch projects), e.g. by
increasing the share of biomass residues use as compared to the baseline, by retrofitting an
existing plant to biomass residues, etc.
The proposed project activity is a combination of the activities b), c), and d): An existing powerand-heat plant, where bagasse and fossil fuels are co-fired, will be retrofitted and new renewable
energy generation capacities be added. Power generation will be increased, partially due to
increased energy efficiency and partially due to added co-generation equipment capacity. The fossil
fuel used in the baseline plant will be replaced and a new type of biomass residues (cane trash) be
introduced at the site.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 15

ACM0006, version 11, is applicable under the following conditions:


1. No biomass types other than biomass residues are used in the project plant
In the proposed project only biomass residues are used.
2. Fossil fuels may be co-fired in the project plant. However, the amount of fossil fuels co-fired
does not exceed 50% of the total fuel fired on an energy basis.
Fossil fuels may be used as an auxiliary fuel during the project activity if extreme wet
weather conditions increase the moisture content of bagasse above around 55% after
dewatering or if logistical problems in the biomass supply would occur. These cases,
however, will be exceptional and the amount of fossil fuels combusted will remain clearly
below 50% of the total fuel on an energy basis during a certain year.
3. For projects that use biomass residues from a production process (e.g. production of sugar or
wood panel boards), the implementation of the project shall not result in an increase of the
processing capacity of raw input (e.g. sugar, rice, logs, etc.) or in other substantial changes (e.g.
product change) in this process;
The project will use biomass residues from a production process, namely bagasse from
sugar cane processing, which has also been utilised in the baseline.
In the sugar mill, where the project plant is located, the crushing capacity will be gradually
increased from currently 410 tch to 500 tch in 2015/16 (or from 1.85 Mt to 2.59 Mt of cane
per year). This is due to commitments made by Ubombo Sugar Limited to crush small
holder farmer cane from LUSIP. It is thus not a result of the proposed project activity.
The LUSIP programme is an agricultural programme assisting smallholders in Lower
Usuthu region to irrigate and grow sugar cane. In this context the Ubombo mill complied to
expand its sugar cane milling capacity. The decision for renewable energy generation from
sugar cane trash, however, is not attributable to the LUSIP.
4. The biomass residues used by the project facility should not be stored for more than one year;
The constructed storage capacity is designed to store biomass for less than one year. The
storage capacity is to build up sufficient biomass for the cane crushing period where the
fibre content of the cane is low and to cover the biomass residue demand during the offcrop season of the mill (around 12 weeks of the year). During the off-crop season electricity
shall be produced to satisfy estate requirements and export to the Swaziland electricity grid
(both replacing grid electricity).
In other words, the biomass storage is planned to bridge the gap in fuel supply during the
off season where no bagasse is generated by the mill and no harvesting of cane takes place
biomass and thus no cane trash harvested. This period is thus clearly below one year.
5. The biomass residues used by the project facility are not obtained from chemically processed
biomass prior to combustion. Moreover, the preparation of biomass-derived fuel do not involve
significant energy quantities, except from transportation or mechanical treatment so as not to
cause significant GHG emissions
The biomass residues used at the site are not obtained from chemically processed biomass,
but are directly recovered from the field (cane trash) or as bagasse. Transportation and
mechanical treatment is necessary for the cane trash, but no significant GHG emissions will
be entailed by these activities.
6. In the case of fuel switch activities, the use of biomass residues or the increase in the use of
biomass residues as compared to the baseline scenario is technically not possible at the project
site without capital investment.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 16

The proposed project activity also includes fuel switch components. The increased used of
biomass residues in the project scenario compared to the baseline scenario requires
significant capital investment. The additional use of cane trash requires investment in
harvesting and transport equipment, preparation equipment and fuel stock-piling and
reclaiming equipment. The baseline plant does not have the capacity to process the forecast
quantity of cane trash and the stock-piling and reclaiming facilities required.
Finally, the methodology is only applicable if the most plausible baseline scenario is a combination of
certain predefined baseline alternatives. This will be discussed in section B.4.
Disregarding the discussion in section B.4., up to here it can be concluded that ACM0006,
version 11, is applicable to the proposed project activity.
B.3.

Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary:

According to ACM0006, the proposed project activity includes the following GHG emission sources:
1. CO2 emissions from on-site fossil fuel consumption that is attributable to the project activity. This
includes fossil fuels co-fired in the project plant, fossil fuels used for on-site transportation or
fossil fuels used for the preparation of the biomass residues, e.g., the operation of shredders or
other equipment, as well as any other sources that are attributable to the project activity; and
2. CO2 emissions from off-site transportation of biomass residues that are combusted in the project
plant;
For the purpose of determining baseline emissions, the following emission sources are included:
3. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel fired power-and-heat plants at the project site and/or connected to
the electricity system, as far as displaced by the proposed project activity;
The project participants decided to exclude CH4 emissions from the uncontrolled burning or decay
of surplus biomass residues.
The spatial extent of the project boundary encompasses:
1. The sugar mill with all its heat-and-power plant at the project site;
2. All power plants connected physically to the electricity system that the CDM project power plant
is connected to. The spatial extent of the project electricity system, including issues related to the
calculation of the build margin (BM) and operating margin (OM), is defined in section B.6.,
where the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system is applied;
3. The means of transportation of cane trash to the site (bagasse accrues at the site);
4. The site where cane trash would have been left for decay (bagasse has a different baseline).

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 17

Table 4: Overview of Emission Sources in-/excluded in the Project Boundary

Baseline

Case

Source
Electricity and heat
generation

Gas
CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2

Decision
Included
Excluded
Excluded
Excluded

Uncontrolled burning
or decay of surplus
biomass residues

CH4

Excluded

N2O
CO2
CH4

Excluded
Included
Excluded

N2O

Excluded

CO2
CH4

Included
Excluded

N2O

Excluded

CO2

Excluded

CH4

Excluded

N2O

Excluded

CO2

Excluded

CH4

Excluded

N2O

Excluded

CO2

Excluded

CH4
N2O

Excluded
Excluded

On-site fossil fuel


consumption

Project Activity

Off-site
transportation of
biomass residues

Combustion of
biomass residues for
electricity and heat

Storage of biomass
residue

Wastewater from the


treatment of biomass
residues

Justification / Explanation
Main emission source
Excluded for simplification. This is conservative
Excluded for simplification. This is conservative
Carbon pools remains unchanged as CO2
originates from renewable resources
Project participants decided to exclude this
emission source
Conservatively excluded
May be an important emission source
Excluded for simplification. This emission source
is assumed to be small
Excluded for simplification. This emission source
is assumed to be very small
May be an important emission source
Excluded for simplification. This emission source
is assumed to be very small
Excluded for simplification. This emission source
is assumed to be very small
Carbon pools remains unchanged as CO2
originates from renewable resources
Excluded because CH4 emissions from
uncontrolled burning or decay of biomass in the
baseline scenario are also excluded
Excluded for simplification. This emission source
is assumed to be very small
It is assumed that CO2 emissions from surplus
biomass do not lead to changes of carbon pools in
the LULUCF sector
Excluded for simplification. Since biomass
residues are stored for not longer than one year,
this emission source is assumed to be small
Excluded for simplification. This emission source
is assumed to be very small
It is assumed that CO2 emissions from surplus
biomass do not lead to changes of carbon pools in
the LULUCF sector
Not applicable to the proposed activity
Excluded for simplification. This emission source
is assumed to be very small

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 18

B.4.
Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified
baseline scenario:
The baseline scenario is identified by assessing plausible alternatives to the proposed project activity.
Project Description:
The project heat-and-power plant is established at an agro-industrial facility, the Ubombo sugar mill in
Swaziland. The main purpose of the heat-and-power plant is to deliver process steam to the sugar
processing activities of the mill. In co-generation mode some electricity is generated, mainly for on-site
consumption of the mill. The heat-and-power-plant comprises heat generators and heat engines in the
form of backpressure and one small condensing turbine that operates as a backpressure turbine. A grid
connection to the national electricity grid of Swaziland does exist for power import purposes and thus
power production is of lower priority than process heat production.
In the heat generators (boilers) historically coal and bagasse is combusted to generate steam. The steam
leaves the boilers at 32 bar(a) and 365C. Some of this superheat steam is utilised directly by steam
driven prime movers such as shredders, mills, and the ID-fan of a boiler. The remainder of superheated
steam, excluding losses and let-down steam, is utilised by turbine alternators, where pressure and
temperature are reduced while electricity is generated. From there, the saturated exhaust steam, now at
2.15 bar(a) and ~125C is used for sugar processing.
Historic Fuel Utilization:
Historically, coal and bagasse are combusted at the Ubombo sugar mill for energy generation. In terms of
CDM historic refers to the last three years prior to the start of the CDM-activity. In the proposed project
activity historic must be defined in a different way. This is due to the following circumstance:
Up to the season 2004/05 coal was added to the extent necessary to balance the sum between energy
demand and energy supply from bagasse. Since the quantity and quality of bagasse is proportional to the
amount and quality of cane crushed, coal had to be added in varying amounts. Alternative fuels to coal
like bagasse from other sites or other biomass were and are not available at significant amounts.
In order to seek more sustainable ways of development and to ultimately become independent from coal
imports, the Ubombo sugar mill has initiated first of its kind trials on the co-firing of cane trash at its mill.
Cane trash, representing leaves and tops of the sugar cane, was taken from own plantations. In the region,
cane trash is usually left to decay in the fields or burnt in the field before harvest on the standing cane in
order to facilitate manual harvesting operations. Cane trash in comparison to bagasse or other typical
biomass fuels like wood chips features high contents of potash and low ash melting points and can
therefore cause serious problems when combusted such as extensive fire-side fouling. The handling of
cane trash as biomass fuel compares better to the combustion of cereal straw than to the combustion of
bagasse or wood. The combustion of cereal straw has even in the technically advanced European
countries caused many problems and a large number of studies have been conducted during the last years
to find out on the optimal preparation of straw in the field, best combustion conditions, boiler
modifications, and maximally acceptable boiler damage.
Against the aforementioned background, the trial phase has to be seen as a necessary step before the
implementation of the proposed project activity. Since the season 2004/05, varying shares of cane trash
were co-fired and various types of equipment used in efforts to prepare the tops and trash for firing, the
impact on combustion efficiency, boiler fouling and different cane trash harvesting methods and
transporting logistics were analysed. The trials have been continued up into the year 2010 and have

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 19

delivered the necessary results. The co-firing of cane trash in the quantities required by the project plant is
a first of its kind in Swaziland and Southern Africa and can be initiated at the Ubombo sugar mill
following a design developed from the extensive trails. Without the trials, co-firing of cane trash would
not have been possible at the Ubombo sugar mill.
Table 5 illustrates the long trial phase on the combustion of cane trash entailed by the problematic
characteristics this biomass. It can be seen that cane trash has only gradually been introduced and that the
initial share was far from the final share to be co-fired in the proposed project activity, i.e. around 10%.
Table 5: Cane Trash Trial Phase
Season
Bagasse (t fresh)
2005/06
515,044
2006/07
503,663
2007/08
501,729
2008/09
463,511
2009/10
473,907

Cane trash (t fresh)


4,225
12,474
16,885
22,604
20,140

Trash in total fuel (energy basis)


0.8%
2.3%
3.1%
4.9%
4.2%

The trial phase has been long and extensive, but necessary due to the significant associated technical and
financial risks. In case of unsuccessful trial phase, the co-firing of cane trash and therefore the proposed
project activity would NOT occur and the combustion of coal would be continued at historic levels.
Since during the trial phase, coal was only added in such quantities as to balance the gap between energy
demand and energy supply from bagasse and co-fired cane trash, the levels of coal combusted during the
period 2005/06 and 2010/11 do not represent the historic level. It is therefore considered reasonable to
claim the 3-years prior to the start of the trial phase on cane trash co-firing as historic situation, i.e.
2002/03 2004/05. A Request for Deviation has been submitted together with this PDD.
Reference Plant:
Currently the sugar mills cane crushing capacity is 410 tch. With the LUSIP-obligations (described
earlier on in the document), the mill committed to expand its crushing capacity to 500 tch. Because the
LUSIP contract has nothing to do with the CDM-project, but is an agricultural development programme,
this expansion would have happened anyway, i.e. also in absence of the proposed project activity. The
expansion of the crushing capacity entails an energy demand exceeding current demand. Thus, this
increased demand is the baseline, and not the current or historic one. Therefore a reference plant has been
defined in order to reflect this situation.
Technically the reference plant is obtained through a retrofit of the existing plant, but without installation
of a new boiler and other equipment related to energy generation (e.g., turbine alternators, cane trash
harvesting and preparation, and biomass fuel conveying systems). Only equipment related purely to
increased sugar processing throughput, such as sucrose extraction equipment and sugar processing
equipment would have to be expanded/ renewed. The reference plant represents an economically
attractive course of action (taking into account barriers to investment). Costs would be significantly lower
than for the project plant. The reference plant allows for the binding LUSIP capacity expansion.
In the definition of the reference plant it is taken into account that due to decreased (relative) power
generation in combination with increased absolute amounts of bagasse, more superheated steam would be
let-down to provide sufficient steam for process. Only the absolute amount of bagasse increases over the
current set-up while the relation between sugar cane crushing and bagasse accrual is a fixed one and
remains constant.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 20

The capacities and load factors of the existing mill would allow hosting the increased energy demand of
the expanded sugar mill (in the reference plant). However, because of limited availability of energy
generation capacity, after increasing boiler load factor to their limits, electricity generation in relative
values would decrease. This is a plausible alternative since electricity can be easily imported through the
existing grid connection. These imports would remain insignificantly small and would NOT justify the
investment into additional power generation capacities.
In summary and if disregarding the demand-side energy efficiency improvement proposed by the project
plant, then the reference plant would deliver the same heat service as the project plant, but reduced power
service. The fuels combusted would be bagasse and coal. The combustion of coal would continue since
the availability of biomass residues or biomass is very limited in Swaziland. So far, no other biomass
based power plants are operated in the Swaziland.
In the project plant coal will be displaced by cane trash and through increased energy efficiency.
Comparison of Historic, Reference, and Project Plant:
The schematic shown earlier on in this document, illustrates the links between the historic, the reference,
and the project plant including major replacement activities of equipment and modified operation
conditions. Only the parameters of the historic plant can be taken as metered values from recorded data.
The parameters of the reference and the project plant, as both are not or are not yet existing, have to be
calculated. This was done by means of an Energy and Mass Balance (EMB)-model of the Ubombo
sugar mill provided for by Illovo Sugar, South Africa. The design of the reference plant is fully in line
with the standard in the sugar sector in the region and it takes conservative assumptions, wherever
applicable.
According to ACM0006 plausible alternatives should be separately determined, regarding:
(A) How power would be generated in the absence of the project activity;
(B) How heat would be generated in the absence of the project activity;
(C) What would happen to the biomass residues in the absence of the project activity.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 21

Table 6: Analysed Alternatives for Power Generation


No.
P1
P2

P3

P4
P5

Description Alternative
The proposed project activity not
undertaken as a CDM project activity.
In case of existing plants, the continuation of
power generation in existing power plants
at the project site. The existing plants would
operate at the same conditions (e.g. installed
capacity, average load factors, fuel mixes) as
those observed in the most recent three years
prior to the starting date of the project
activity.
In case of existing plants, the continuation of
power generation in existing power plants
at the project site. The existing plants would
operate with different conditions from those
observed in the most recent three years prior
to the starting date of the project activity.
In case of existing plants, the retrofitting of
existing power plants. The retrofitting may
or may not include a change in fuel mix.
The installation of new power plants at the
project site different from those installed
under the project activity.

Project
No
No

Yes

Justification/Explanation
Not plausible because of the barriers
described in the PDD section B.5.
Not plausible because the processing
capacity will be increased over the
one observed during the most recent
three years. The operation of the
existing heat-and-power plant, also as
reference plant, would be under
different conditions (load factors,
heat-to-power-ratio, etc.).
Plausible for part of the electricity. In
the reference plant electricity
production would occur, but would
be lower than in the project activity.

No

This is the project activity.

No

Not plausible because the installation


of new power plants (or heat-andpower plants) without building on the
existing heat-and-power plant would
be more costly than the project
activity and is thus disregarded.
So far, this alternative has not been
taken up by Swazi based entities or
foreign entities for Swaziland. In the
proximity to the project site no such
activities can be found.
Plausible for two parts of the
electricity generated in the project
activity: 1. The power imported from
the grid in the reference plant, and
2. The power exported to the grid by
the project activity.

P6

The generation of power in specific off-site


plants, excluding the power grid.

No

P7

The generation of power in the power grid.

Yes

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 22

Table 7: Analysed Alternatives for Heat Generation


No.
H1
H2

H3

H4

H5

Description Alternative
The proposed project activity not
undertaken as a CDM project activity.
In case of existing plants, the continuation
of heat generation in existing plants at the
project site. The existing plants would
operate at the same conditions (e.g. installed
capacities, or average energy efficiencies,
fuel mixes, and equipment configuration) as
those observed in the most recent three years
prior to the project activity.
In case of existing plants, the continuation
of heat generation in existing plants at the
project site. The existing plants would
operate with different conditions from those
observed in the most recent three years prior
to the project activity.
In case of existing plants, the retrofitting of
existing plants at the project site. The
retrofitting may or may not include a change
in fuel mix.
The installation of new plants at the project
site different from those installed under the
project activity.

Project
No
No

Yes

No

No

H6

The generation of heat in specific off-site


plants.

No

H7

The production of heat from district


heating.

No

Justification/Explanation
Not plausible because of the barriers
described in PDD section B.5.
Not plausible because the processing
capacity will be increased over the
one observed during the most recent
three years. As a consequence also
the operation of the existing heatand-power plant would be at different
conditions (load factors etc.) as
defined for the reference plant.
The existing heat-and-power plant
would be operated at similar but not
the same conditions: higher load
rates, higher heat-to-power-ratio, and
a changed fuel mix (see description
of reference plant).
This is the project activity.

Not
plausible
because
the
construction of a new heat plant (or
heat-and-power) without building on
the existing plant would be more
costly than the project activity and is
thus disregarded.
Off-site heat plants are not available
in the region. Constructing one is less
cost efficient than the project activity.
There is no district heating system or
other external heat system of
sufficient extent in the country.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 23

The proposed project activity will use two categories of biomass residues, bagasse and cane trash. The
plausible alternative fate is different for both (see Table 88).
Table 8: Analysed Alternatives for Biomass Residues
No.
B1

B2

B3
B4

B5

B6
B7

B8

Description Alternative
The biomass residues are dumped or
left to decay under mainly aerobic
conditions. This applies, for example,
to dumping and decay of biomass
residues on fields.
The biomass residues are dumped or
left to decay under clearly anaerobic
conditions. This applies, for example,
to deep landfills with more than 5
meters. This does not apply to
biomass residues that are stock-piled
or left to decay on fields.
The biomass residues are burnt in an
uncontrolled manner without utilizing
it for energy purposes.
The biomass residues are used for
power or heat generation at the
project site in new and/or existing
plants.
The biomass residues are used for
power or heat generation at other sites
in new and/or existing plants.

Baga*
No

Trash*
Yes

Justification/Explanation
Cane Trash: It would be partly left
in the field to decay.
Bagasse: Would be used in the plant
for energy purposes.

No

No

Neither bagasse nor cane trash: No


deep landfills or other accumulations
with anaerobic conditions exist or
will be established.

No

Yes

Yes

No

Cane trash: It would be partly left in


the field and be burnt standing
before harvest.
Bagasse: It would be used on-site in
the reference plant for energy
purposes.

No

No

The biomass residues are used for


other energy purposes, such as the
generation of biofuels.
The biomass residues are used for
non-energy purposes, e.g. as fertilizer
or as feedstock in processes (e.g. in
the pulp and paper industry).
The biomass residues are used for
non-energy purposes, e.g. as fertilizer
or as feedstock in processes (e.g. in
the pulp and paper industry).

No

No

No

No

Neither bagasse nor cane trash are


used for non-energy purposes.

No

No

Neither bagasse nor cane trash are


used for non-energy purposes.

Bagasse is not sold. Experience with


the utilization and the logistics of
cane trash are not available in the
region outside the proposed project
activity. Cane trash is thus not
available to other energy plants.
Neither bagasse nor cane trash are
used for other energy purposes.

*The two types of residues: baga: bagasse, trash: cane trash.

Bagasse and cane trash are two different biomass categories. The three attributes, type, source, and fate,
are different in the absence of the project activity. Bagasse accrues on-site from the production process
and is currently used for energy purposes. Cane trash accrues on the cane fields and is currently burnt or
left for decay in the field (see Table 9).

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 24

Table 9: Biomass Categories and their Uses with/without the Project Activity
Outcome without
Category
Type
Source
Project
1
Bagasse
Sugar extraction
Energy generation
2
Cane trash
Field
Field decay or burnt

Outcome with
Project
Energy generation
Energy generation

Table 10: Quantities of Biomass Residues for Energy Generation (in 1,000t fresh)
Reference
Project Activity
Season
Bagasse
Cane trash
Bagasse
Cane trash
2011/12
579.6
0.0
579.6
67.8
2012/13
617.0
0.0
617.0
70.8
2013/14
647.3
0.0
647.3
74.5
2014/15
653.4
0.0
653.4
75.2
2015/16
666.3
0.0
666.3
76.6
As previous
666.3
0.0
666.3
76.6
ACM0006 remains applicable since the plausible alternatives represent an allowed combination of
alternatives for power, heat, and biomass residues:
For power:
For heat:
For biomass residues:

P3 and P7
H3
B4 (bagasse), B1 and B3 (cane trash)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 25

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 CDM project activity (assessment
and demonstration of additionality):
Prior consideration of CDM:
During its 48thmeeting the EB decided that for all projects with a start date on or after 2August 2008 that
the project participants must inform the Host Party DNA and the UNFCCC secretariat in writing of the
commencement of the project activity and the intention to seek CDM status (EB48, Annex 61). This
regulation applies in case the PDD has not been published for global stakeholder consultation before the
project activity start date.
For the planned project activity, the project participants informed the DNA of Swaziland and the
UNFCCC secretariat in writing about the activity. The UNFCCC confirmed the receipt of the official
form F-CDM-Prior Consideration on 15 December 2009. The Swaziland DNA was informed on
18 December 2009.
Earlier the project participants had successfully applied for a Letter of No Objection from the Swaziland
DNA received on 2 March 2009. The Letter of No Objection refers to the submitted Project Idea
Note (PIN) Fuel Switch, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Electricity to the Grid at the Ubombo Sugar
Limited, Swaziland.
Table 11: Schedule of CDM Consideration
Action
Type
Site visit
CDM Consultants
Submit
Project Idea Note
Receive
Letter of No Objection
Board meeting
Project approval
Submit
Order long lead
equipment
Submit
Submit
Receive

Date
09.09.2008
12.02.2009
02.03.2009
01.09.2009

Request for Revision AM_REV_0169


Project Start

04.09.2009
17.10.2009

From/ To
GFA ENVEST
DNA Swaziland
DNA Swaziland
Ubombo Sugar
Industries Ltd. Board
UNFCCC Secretariat
---

Form F-CDM-Prior Consideration


Form F-CDM-Prior Consideration
Final Response to AM_REV_0169

15.12.2009
18.12.2009
13.08.2010

UNFCCC Secretariat
DNA Swaziland
CDM Meth Panel

Lifetime Aspects:
Since the project activity builds on an existing heat-and-power plant, lifetime aspects of the existing
equipment are relevant to the baseline. The existing equipment forms the baseline only until the point in
time when it would have been replaced or retrofitted in the absence of the project activity:
-

The existing heat-and-power plant at the Ubombo sugar mill comprises boilers installed between
the years 1961 and 1999. All existing boilers could continue operation for at least another
25 years, as is the case with other boilers in the industry. This is because of constant overhaul and
maintenance activities. In terms of boiler lifetimes the most important variable is not the year of
installation/ commissioning, but the regularity and degree of maintenance activities. The
regularity and the dates of these activities will be proven to the DOE by details of maintenance
expenditure.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 26

The existing heat-and-power plant at the Ubombo sugar mill comprises turbine alternators (TAs)
installed between the years 1964 and 1976. Like the boilers, at the site the TAs are subject to
regular and duly maintenance and overhaul services. This fact will be proven to the DOE by
capital expenditure plans and details of maintenance expenditure.

Additionality:
In line with ACM0006 a stepwise approach is taken to select the baseline scenario and to demonstrate
additionality:
Step 1: Identification of alternative scenarios
Step 2: Barrier analysis
Step 3: Investment analysis (if applicable)
Step 4: Common practice analysis
Step1: IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
Sub-Step 1a: Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity
This step has already been begun above. The identified plausible baseline scenarios are:
1) For power: P3, P4, and P7; for heat: H3 and H4; for biomass residues: B4 (bagasse), B1 and B3
(cane trash)
To these plausible scenarios, the scenario The project activity not undertaken as CDM activity is to be
added for power and heat, i.e. P1 and H1.
Table 12: List of Potential Baseline Scenarios
Name
Power
Heat
H4
Proposed Activity P4
P1
H1
1st
P3 and P7
H3
2nd

Bagasse
B4
B4
B4

Cane Trash
B4
B4
B1 and B3

1st alternative: This is the proposed project activity not undertaken as CDM activity. Bagasse and cane
trash would be used for energy purposes.
2nd alternative: This is the generation of heat and power in the reference plant. The reference plant is the
retrofitted existing plant delivering a higher heat service due to the increased process heat demand of the
expanded cane crushing capacity at the adjacent sugar mill. Due to the increased heat generation with the
existing equipment, which has limited available capacities, there is still electricity generation, but no
power export and even more some small amounts of electricity are imported to the reference plant. This
means that the electricity exported to the grid by the proposed project activity plus the electricity
imported by the reference plant would be continued to be generated by grid connected fossil fuel fired
power plants.
Sub-Step 1b: Consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations
The first alternative is the proposed project activity without CDM and is, similar to the proposed project
activity, consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
The second alternative involves scenarios P3 and P7 for power generation and H3 for heat generation.
This would mean the continued combustion of coal and bagasse in the existing heat-and-power-plant. The
combustion of coal and bagasse is consistent with mandatory applicable laws and regulations.
Construction activities are not involved in this alternative and thus no permits for construction are

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 27

indicated. In terms of biomass, bagasse would have the same fate as in the proposed project activity, i.e. it
would be used for energy purposes. This is in line with mandatory applicable laws and regulations. Cane
trash would be partially burned in the cane fields and be partially left to decay. Both practices are
common in the region and are in line with mandatory laws and regulations. The government of Swaziland
does not have plans to change regulations and laws concerning this subject. Although the National Energy
Policy (2002) of Swaziland generally recommends the use of renewable energy, it does not stipulate its
use for energy production.
Table 13: List of Potential Baseline Scenarios that Comply with Mandatory Laws/Regulations
Name
Power
Heat
Bagasse
Cane Trash
H4
B4
B4
Proposed Activity P4
P1
H1
B4
B4
1st
nd
P3 and P7
H3
B4
B1 and B3
2
Further investigations into other biomass residues are ongoing and could be considered in the future as
additional supplementary fuel to sugarcane trash. In this case, the baseline and the monitoring for this
other biomass residue would be defined according to the stipulations in the utilized approved baseline
methodology.
Step 2: BARRIER ANALYSIS
Sub-Step 2a: Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of alternative scenarios
The identified barriers that prevent one or more of the above baseline scenarios are:
a) Technological barriers
b) Lack of prevailing practice
a) Technological barriers:
Proposed Activity:
The risk of technological failure for the proposed project activity is significant. This is due to two factors.
Firstly, the operation of a pure biomass cogeneration plant including cane trash is risky. In contrast to the
combustion of bagasse, the combustion of cane trash is problematic due to the properties of cane trash.
The chemical and physical properties of cane trash compare best to cereal straw and hence to a material
that even in the technically advanced European Union is difficult to handle in combustion processes.
Cereal straw has a long and difficult history of trials in combustion processes in the European Union.
Major problems involve but do not restrict to slagging, boiler tube fire-side fouling, and dust emissions.
The second factor representing a technological barrier is the cane trash logistics. Cane trash is contrast to
bagasse does not accrue from the sugar extraction at the sugar mill, but accrues in the cane fields. In
comparison to harvested sugar cane, its specific density is significantly lower (by more than 30%). This
increases costs of transport. Further, cane trash in the majority of cases is burned in the fields in the
baseline. Avoiding the burning of cane trash means exploring a new way of harvesting and collecting
cane and cane trash. A cost effective and practicable means of cane trash and cane harvesting and haulage
logistics has thus to be established. The experience in this field is not available in the region, but had to be
gathered by the Ubombo Sugar Industries itself. The concept has so far only been tested at trial level at
the project site. Therefore quite a number of uncertainties persist.
The significance of this barrier can be read from the started activities of the second sugar company
established in Swaziland, the Royal Swazi Sugar Company (RSSC). It had developed a similar project
idea involving cane trash, incentivised by the CDM, and got developed a PDD, but ultimately due to the
technological barriers refrained from implementing this activity.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 28

At Ubombo Sugar Industries Ltd. a long history of trials on both, the co-firing of cane trash and on the
cane trash logistics was necessary. This history of trials lasted for more than 5 years. The logistics of cane
trash provision including harvesting, transportation and preparation had to be modified several times.
Several completely different concepts of harvesting and preparation were investigated over the years from
baling of cut cane trash on the field and subsequent preparation at the mill with various types of
preparation equipment to partial preparation on the field with silage machines. For the co-firing of cane
trash different shares of cane trash in the fuel mix were explored and the combustion of different
components of the cane trash was analysed in order to minimize on boiler problems (slagging, fouling,
etc.).
In the proposed project activity there still remains a high degree of risk in terms of processing the cane
trash, despite these years of trials. Although improvements to the initial concept and some technical and
non-technical solutions have been identified, there still persists the risk of technical failure. The training
of staff and the cautious handling of technology with constant maintenance and control services will form
a key element of the operation of the project plant for at least several years.
Because of the considerable level of risk associated to the new concept of cane trash provision and
combustion, Ubombo Sugar Industries Ltd. might be required to further investigate and combust other
biomass residues in smaller quantities especially in unforeseen cases where the cane trash quality
decreases significantly (e.g. due to adverse weather conditions) or due to unforeseen logistical problems
experienced during cane trash harvest or haulage. This, however, requires the availability of biomass
residues featuring appropriate combustion properties. So far, the availability of biomass residues is not
given in significant amounts and no other biomass based power plants are operated in Swaziland.
Also against this background, the Ubombo Sugar Industries Ltd. has been looking for additional means to
alleviate the technological barrier. This is one of the reasons why the CDM has been included in the
design of the proposed project activity since the beginning. The CDM through the CER-revenues is
assumed to substantially alleviate the technological barrier.
1st Alternative: The technological barrier is the same as for the proposed project activity. The difference is
only that the incentives given by the CDM cannot be utilized and that in consequence the technological
barrier is not alleviated.
2nd Alternative: The second alternative is not facing any technological barriers and is thus not prevented
by any barrier.
In summary, a significant technological barrier is identified for the proposed project activity and
for the proposed project activity without being undertaken as CDM-activity (1st alternative).
Table 14: List of Potential Baseline Scenarios not facing Technological Barrier
Name
Technological Barrier
Significant barrier; The barrier is, however, alleviated by the CDM.
Proposed Activity
Significant barrier exists that would prevent this alternative.
1st
nd
No technological barrier.
2

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 29

b) Lack of prevailing practice barriers:


The proposed project activity is the co-firing of cane trash with bagasse in the cogeneration plant of a
sugar mill. In Swaziland this practice is not conducted by any of the other existing sugar mills. Also other
power or power and heat plants in Swaziland do not utilize sugar cane trash as fuel.
Therefore, it is considered that a first of its kind barrier exists.
Table 15: List of Potential Baseline Scenarios not facing a First-of-Its-Kind Barrier
Name
Technological Barrier
Significant barrier; The barrier is, however, alleviated by the CDM.
Proposed Activity
Significant barrier exists that would prevent this alternative.
1st
nd
No technological barrier.
2

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 30

Sub-Step 2b: Eliminate alternative scenarios which are prevented by the identified barriers
This step is to eliminate those alternative scenarios from further consideration which are prevented by one
or more of the identified barriers.
For the proposed project activity, the barrier analysis showed that two alternatives remain including the
proposed project activity, but excluding the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered
as CDM project activity.
For the case there are still several alternative scenarios remaining, but which do not include the
proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as CDM project activity ACM0006,
version 11, stipulates to show by means of qualitative and quantitative arguments how the CDM will
alleviate the barriers identified.
Already in 2008, as has already been illustrated in Table 11, the Ubombo Sugar Industries has begun to
seek CDM-status for the proposed project activity. Through the incentives given by the CDM, Ubombo
Sugar Industries continued the trials on the combustion of sugar cane trash and the trials on the sugar cane
trash logistics. The incentives of the CDM allowed for continuation of the trials and will ultimately
alleviate the barriers that prevent the implementation of the proposed project activity.
ACM0006, version 11, says If the CDM alleviates the identified barriers that prevent the proposed
project activity from occurring, project participants may choose to either:
Option 1: Go to Step 3 (Investment Analysis); or
Option 2: Identify the alternative with the lowest emissions as the baseline scenario, and
proceed to Step 4.
The alternative with the lowest emissions that is not prevented by any barrier is the 2nd alternative. The
proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as CDM project activity is prevented by
the identified barriers.
The baseline scenario is thus the 2nd alternative, i.e. the generation of heat and power in the
reference plant and the continued generation of the part of electricity exported by the proposed project
activity in the fossil fuel fired power plants connected to the electricity grid.
Since the CDM significantly alleviates the identified barriers that prevent the proposed project
activity, the proposed project activity is additional.
Step 3: INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
The investment analysis is not necessary following the steps defined by ACM0006, version 11, to
demonstrate the additionality of the proposed project activity. However, the project participants would
like to utilize the investment analysis to support the additionality argumentation presented in the previous
steps.
Generally, investment analyses are applied to explain how the registration as CDM project activity will
alleviate the barriers that prevent the proposed project activity from occurring. It is to show that the
proposed project activity is not economically or financially feasible without the revenue from the sale of
CERs. Here, the investment analysis is implemented following the guidance provided in Step 2 of the
Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality, version 05.2. Following this guidance a
benchmark analysis is applied.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 31

The proposed project activity will be assessed with and without CDM revenues on basis of the indicator
Internal Rate of Return (IRR):
- The IRR is taken as after-tax-IRR (excluding depreciation as non-cash flow items);
- The investment analysis is for a consideration period of 20 years; and
- The benchmark is the company internal benchmark of 25% (inflated IRR).
The application of a company internal benchmark is consistent with the guidance provided in the tool in
cases the company is the only possible project developer. This is the case for the proposed project
activity. No other company in the region or country would be willing to take up the substantial technical
and financial risk associated to this new activity. This also applies to the national electricity company
which would also face the technological barrier. Further, the Ubombo Sugar Industries Ltd. would not
like to outsource the generation of process heat to a third party. The heat-and-power-plant forms an
integral part of the Ubombo sugar mill. The dependency on the services of the heat-and-power-plant for
the sugar mill operations is too large. No outsourcing or joint ventures of sections of the sugar mill plant
have ever been done before either at Ubombo or the major share holder Illovo Sugar Ltd.
-

The benchmark for the IRR of 25% (inflated IRR) is a company internal hurdle rate for non-core
business or first of its kind projects. Due to the higher risk nature of this kind of projects the
benchmark is above the benchmark for core business projects which is 20%.
The company internal benchmark of 25% was predefined by the major shareholders of the
Ubombo Sugar Limited.
In the report of the Ubombo Board Meeting from 20 October 2009 it is stated that the
hurdle rate shall be 20% (inflated IRR) for conventional projects and 25% (inflated IRR)
for new activities (Meeting Report, 20 October 2009, p. 14).
The application of these two hurdle rates can be supported with historic examples. For
example, the new activity of pivot irrigation had to pass the 25% benchmark in order to be
approved by the Ubombo Board (Meeting Report, 15 April 2009, Pivot Conversion
Project).

The values in the feasibility study are as by the year 2009, the year when the board decided on the
proposed project activity. This is in line with 6, Annex 58, CDM EB 51 Guidelines on the Assessment
of Investment Analysis.
The investment cost for the relevant parts of the project is above 500 million ZAR (South African Rand).
The major equipment parts are a 24 MW condensing turbine and a 105 t of steam/h biomass boiler.
Without carbon revenues the inflated IRR is 1.4%-point below the benchmark, i.e. at 23.6%. Without
carbon revenues the proposed project activity would thus not be implemented. Including carbon revenues
at 13.00 US$/CER (and for the consideration period of 20 years) and as conservatively estimated before
the calculation of the emission factor of the national electricity grid the IRR improves to 25.2%. This was
the IRR including CER revenues at the time of the investment decision. Based on updated values for the
grid emission factor and other factors (i.e. the ex-ante values as described in this PDD), the IRR including
CER revenues is 26.0%. The CDM thus significantly alleviates the investment barrier.
To check on the stability of the before conclusions, a sensitivity analysis has been applied to the main
variables: a) cost of cane trash provision, b) electricity generation and c) investment costs. The electricity
price is not varied since it is fixed and only subject to modification in accordance with inflation. The
Guidance on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (EB39, Annex 10, version 02) suggests varying the
main variables at least by 10%. The results are shown in the following table:

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 32

Table 16: Inflated IRR (excl. CDM) for Variations in Main Variables (Sensitivity Analysis)
Variable
-20%
-10%
Initial
+10%
Cane trash provision
24.6
24.1
23.1
Electricity (amount)
22.4
23.0
24.2
23.6
New 105t/h Boiler
n/a
24.6
22.8
New 24 MW Turbine
n/a
24.6
22.7

+20%
22.6
24.8
n/a
n/a

The interpretation of the results of the sensitivity is the following:


- Cane trash provision: The project is sensitive to costs of cane trash provision. If the costs of cane
trash provision are 10% higher than assumed in the initial calculation, then the inflated IRR
would go down to 23.1% (If the costs are 20% higher, then the IRR goes even down to 22.6%).
On the opposite side, a decrease of the costs of cane trash provision by 10% would result in an
IRR of 24.1% which is still below the benchmark (If the costs are 20% lower, then the IRR still
achieves 24.6% only).
- Electricity amount: The influence of an assumed 10% variation of the electricity generation
shows that the IRR would vary between 23.0% and 24.2%. The benchmark would not be
achieved in any case. (Even for the unrealistic case of 20% more electricity than assumed, the
IRR would still remain below the benchmark and be at 24.8%. A 20% lower electricity
production would mean an IRR of 22.4%).
- Biomass boiler: The investment costs in the new boiler are more than 30% of the total
investment. A 10% deviation of the real investment costs from the assumed investment costs
varies the IRR from 22.8% to 24.6%. The benchmark is thus not achieved even if the boiler is
10% less expensive.
- Condensing turbine: The investment costs in the new condensing turbine are more than 30% of
the total investment. A 10% deviation of the real investment costs from the assumed investment
costs varies the IRR from 22.7% to 24.6%. The benchmark is thus not achieved even if the
turbine is 10% less expensive.
From the sensitivity analysis, it can be concluded that the requirement for CERs for the project to meet
the company IRR is robust. Even though variations in the main variables of up to 10% would occur, the
benchmark of 25% inflated IRR would still not be achieved! Only through the CER-revenues which
increase the IRR by 3%-points, the project participants have a financially and economically attractive
investment project.
The investment analysis showed that the proposed project activity without being registered as
CDM project activity does not achieve the companys internal benchmark of 25% IRR (post tax,
inflated). Only when including revenues from CERs the benchmark is achieved. The investment
analysis thus supports the before additionality argumentation.
Remark: The investment analysis is for the proposed activity involving the supply-side energy efficiency
improvements, the fuel switch, the renewable energy generation and export to the grid, and the demandside energy efficiency improvements. Excluding the demand-side energy efficiency improvements, the
IRR is by far lower. In this case the inflated IRR is 12.6% without CER-revenues and 15.8% with CERrevenues (assuming a conservative attribution of emission reductions to the demand-side components).

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 33

Step 4: Common Practice Analysis


The common practice analysis is a credibility check whether and to which extent similar activities have
already diffused in the relevant sector and geographical area.
In Swaziland the controlled combustion of cane trash for energy purposes is not practiced at all. The
biomass boiler that shall be installed under the proposed project activity is more efficient and specifically
designed to fire cane trash at a limited share in the fuel mix. The Ubombo Sugar Industries, however, is
not an electricity producer. The main activity of the company is sugar cane cultivation and sugar
production. Electricity production, so far, has only been for company needs with excess utilised for the
companys agricultural activities via a dedicated electrical bus. The export of electricity to the national
electricity grid is a new activity. The proposed project activity will also expand electricity production into
the sugar cane off-seasons. During this period biomass (bagasse and cane trash) will be taken from a
biomass storage constructed within the proposed project activity. This venture is also new to the Ubombo
Sugar Industries.
The sugar sector in the geographical area, even if not restricted to the host country Swaziland, does not
utilize sugar cane trash for energy purposes, although trials in this respect are undertaken and neither is
power generation of this magnitude practiced.
Thus, the proposed project activity cannot be deemed as common practice in Swaziland and is thus
additional.
Conclusion:
With the steps 1 4 the additionality of the proposed project activity has been demonstrated. Further, the
2nd alternative (reference plant and electricity generation by grid connected power plants) has been
identified as baseline scenario.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 34

B.6.

Emission reductions:
B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:

The emission reductions calculate according to Equation 1 of ACM0006, version 11:


Emission reductions are calculated as follows:

ER y

BE y

PE y

LE y

(1)

Where:
ERy

Emissions reductions in year y (tCO2)

BEy

Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2)

PEy

Project emissions in year y (tCO2)

LEy

Leakage emissions in year y (tCO2)

ACM0006 adopts a conservative approach and assumes that biomass residues would be used in the
baseline as a priority for the generation of power and heat and that the heat provided by heat generators is
used first in heat engines (operated in cogeneration mode), then second in thermal applications to satisfy
the heat demand, and then third in heat engines which operate for the generation of power only. This
assumption is in line with the heat utilization priorities in the baseline of the proposed activity.
Based on these assumptions, baseline emissions are calculated as follows:

BE y

EL BL,GR,y EFEG,GR,y

FFBL,HG, y,f EFFF,y,f

EL BL,FF / GR , y min( EFEG,GR,y , EFEG, FF,y )

Where:
BEy

Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2)

ELBL,GR,y

Baseline minimum electricity generation in the grid in year y (MWh)

EFEG,GR,y

Grid emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

FFBL,HG,y,f

Baseline fossil fuel demand for process heat in year y (GJ)

EFFF,f,y

CO2 emission factor for fossil fuel type f in year y (tCO2/GJ)

ELBL,FF/GR,y

Baseline uncertain electricity generation in the grid or on-site in year y (MWh)

EFEG,FF,y

CO2 emission factor for electricity generation with fossil fuels at the project site
in the baseline in year y (tCO2/MWh)

Year of the crediting period

Fossil fuel type

Baseline emissions due to disposal of biomass residues (BEBR,y) are not considered by the project
participants. Otherwise this would have to be added to the total baseline emissions (BEy).
The algorithm used to determine the data above can be summarized as follows:

(2)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 35

Step 1: Determine biomass availability, generation and capacity constraints, efficiencies and power
emission factors;
Step 2: Determine the minimum baseline electricity generation in the grid;
Step 3: Determine the baseline biomass-based heat and power generation;
Step 4: Determine the baseline demand for fossil fuels to meet the balance of process heat and the
corresponding electricity generation;
Step 5: Determine the baseline emissions due to uncontrolled burning or decay of biomass residues;
Step 6: Calculate baseline emissions.
Step1: Biomass availability, Generation and Capacity Constraints, Efficiencies and EF(power)
Step 1.1: Baseline Process Heat Generation [HC(BL,y)]
The amount of process heat that would be generated in the baseline in year y [HC(BL,y)] is determined as
the difference of the enthalpy of the process heat in the project activity minus the enthalpy of the feedwater, the boiler blow-down and any condensate return to the heat generators. At the sugar mill no heat is
used for the drying of biomass which otherwise would have to be subtracted.
The parameter HC(BL,y) is relevant as for the reference plant. This subject is also addressed in the
submitted Request for Deviation. The parameter cannot be taken from the project plant in which
process efficiency measures will be involved that altogether could not be implemented in the reference
plant due to technical reasons as argued above. HC(BL,y) is monitored in the project plant and is translated
accurately for the reference plant by the applied EMB model.
Step 1.2: Baseline Electricity Generation [EL(BL,y)]

EL BL,y

EL PJ,gross,y

EL PJ,imp, y

EL PJ,aux, y

(3)

Where:
ELBL,y

Baseline electricity generation in year y (MWh)

ELPJ,gross,y

Gross quantity of electricity generated in all power plants which are located at the
project site and included in the project boundary in year y (MWh)

ELPJ,imp,y

Project electricity imports from the grid in year y (MWh)

ELPJ,aux,y

Total auxiliary electricity consumption required for the operation of the power plants
at the project site in year y (MWh)

y
=
Year of the crediting period
ELPJ,aux,y will include all electricity required for the operation of equipment related to the preparation,
storage and transport of cane trash in the project activity and electricity required for the operation of all
power or heat generating plants which are located at the project site and included in the project boundary
(e.g. for pumps, fans, cooling towers, instrumentation and control, etc.).
Step 1.3: Baseline Capacity of Electricity Generation [CAP(EG,total,y)]
The heat engines at the Ubombo sugar mill (including the baseline reference plant) are all of the
cogeneration-type i. One heat engine is installed as a condensing type machine, however, it is run in cogeneration mode and only the necessary steam to drive the backend blades is passed through. The steam

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 36

going via the backend blades is condensed. This heat engine has and will never be operated in power-only
mode.
The heat engines load factors take into account seasonal operational constraints, i.e. only the load factors
during the crushing season are taken into account. Depending on the year the crushing season is around
35 weeks. Accordingly the length of the operational campaign can be calculated. The operation of the
project plant will only be at full capacity by the season 2015/16. During the previous seasons, due to
higher down-times in the project plant than in the reference plant, the length of the operational campaign
is around 1% less. For the emission reduction calculation, in order to be conservative, the ex-post
monitored length is increased by 1%.

CAPEG ,total,y

LOC y

CAPEG ,CG,i LFC EG ,CG,i


i

CAPEG ,PO, j LFC EG ,PO, j

(4)

Where:
CAPEG,total,y

Baseline electricity generation capacity in year y (MWh)

CAPEG,CG,i

Baseline electricity generation capacity of heat engine i (MW)

CAPEG,PO,j

Baseline electricity generation capacity of heat engine j (MW)

LFCEG,CG,i

Baseline load factor of heat engine i (ratio)

LFCEG,PO,j

Baseline load factor of heat engine j (ratio)

LOCy

Length of the operational campaign in year y (hour)

Cogeneration-type heat engine in the baseline scenario

Power-only-type heat engine in the baseline scenario

Year of the crediting period

Step 1.4: Baseline Availability of Biomass Residues


Bagasse is categorised as biomass category n, i.e. available for energy generation at the project site in the
baseline. In the proposed activity, the baseline availability of bagasse BR(B4,n,y) will be based on the
monitored amounts used for power and/or heat generation in the project boundary. In the baseline, as well
as in the historic situation, all bagasse is utilised for energy generation in the project boundary.
Should any other biomass residues be utilized during the crediting period at the project site for energy
purposes, i.e. biomass residues that are not yet available, the baseline for these biomass residues will be
established in accordance with ACM0006, version 11. In case the baseline is :B4, then the quantity has to
be considered under this step and be added to the quantity of bagasse.
Step 1.5: Efficiencies of Heat Generators and Heat Engines; Heat-to-power ratio of heat engines
EFFICIENCIES
The efficiencies of heat generators are calculated according to the formulae provided for by ACM0006,
version 11. This is one out of three options. This option is eligible to the proposed project activity since
the generators at the project site have an operation history of more than 3 years. The efficiencies are
calculated based on the measured values from the seasons 2002/03 to 2004/05, i.e. the historic period in
the context of the proposed activity.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 37

The efficiencies of heat engines cannot be calculated although they also have an operation history of
more than 3 years. This is due to the lack of data on heat input to and heat output from heat engines. This
is common in this industry sector. Therefore they are determined according to manufacturers indications
and to comparable efficiencies in the sector in the wider region (Southern Africa). This is also an eligible
option provided for by ACM0006, version 11.
HEAT-TO-POWER-RATIO (HPR)
The HPR is determined for the reference plant in which, compared to the historic situation, more power
and less electricity is produced in relative values, i.e. the HPR increased. As mentioned above, the
generation of heat has first priority since it cannot be bought from outside, e.g. from a district heat
system, and does thus not compare to power in this sense. Instead of the historic HPR the reference HPR
is calculated according to the design conditions of the reference plant.
Step 1.6: Emission Factor of On-Site Electricity Generation with Fossil Fuels
The calculation of the emission factor of on-site electricity generation with fossil fuels (EFEG,FF,y) is
calculated in dependency of the baseline scenario monitored ex-post. According to the baseline being:
a) No fossil fuel based power generation;
b) Fossil fuel based power generation in cogeneration mode; or
c) All other cases.
In cases a) and b) EFEG,FF,y is set equal to the grid emission factor EFEG,GR,y.
In case c) EFEG,FF,y is calculated as the emission factor of a fossil fuel fired power plant that would be
operated at the project site in the absence of the project activity. The efficiency of the power plant that
would be built in the project power plants stead is assumed to have the highest efficiency indicated in the
Annex 1 of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, version 02. This is
conservative. The power plant that would be installed would be of low standard since only small
generation capacities would be needed for this portion of electricity. Therefore, a reciprocant engine
system is assumed.
Table 17: Default Efficiencies of Off-Site Power Plants
kWel
<10
10-50
50-100
100-200
200-400
400-1000
BL,FF
28%
33%
35%
37%
39%
42%
Source: Annex 1, Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, version 02

EFEG ,FF

3.6

>1,000
45%

EFBL,CO2.FF
BL, FF

Step 1.7: Emission Factor of Grid Electricity Generation


The grid emission factor is calculated as Combined Margin for the national grids of the Kingdom of
Swaziland and the Republic of South Africa where the project plant is connected to. The calculation is in
line with the stipulations of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system,
version 02.
The mentioned tool foresees another 7 steps to calculate the Combined Margin (CM) apart from the steps
to determine the emission reductions in ACM0006. In order to avoid confusion, the steps of the tool
receive the prefix EF(grid)_.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 38

EF(grid)_Step 1: Identify the relevant electric power system:


The Project Electricity System (PES) is identified as the grid spanning Swaziland and the Republic of
South Africa.
Swaziland satisfies around 70% of its national consumption by imports from the Republic of South Africa
(see Figure 1). The grids of both countries are one system since various transmission lines between both
exist and these are not operated at their capacity limit during the majority of the year. Some of the
transmission lines are barely used, remaining as back-up and for additional transmission. The dispatch of
electricity in Swaziland and in the Republic of South Africa and between both countries is without
significant transmission constraints.
This definition is in line with the tool which states that the PES is the grid in which the power plants that
are physically connected through transmission and distribution lines to the project activity can be
dispatched without significant transmission constraints. Significant transmission constraints can reflect in:
-

In case of electricity systems with spot markets for electricity: Differences in electricity prices
(without transmission and distribution costs) of more than 5 percent between the systems
during 60 percent or more of the hours of the year;
Transmission lines which are operated at 90% or more of its rated capacity during 90% or
more of the hours of the year.

In Swaziland a spot market for electricity does not exist. The first criterion is thus not applicable. With
respect to the second criterion, there are three transmission lines between Swaziland and the Republic of
South Africa. The largest one is the so-called Motraco-line, a 400 kV transmission line with a
transmission capacity of 2,200 MW. Thereof maximally 1,125 MW are used up for the transmission of
electricity from South Africa to Mozambique (i.e. Swaziland as transit country). Of the remaining
capacity maximally 175 MW are used for transmission of electricity from RSA to Swaziland. The
maximum capacities are contractually fixed and are not exceeded. Even if referring to the maximum
transmission capacities, which are above the real transmission, still the transmission capacities of the
Motraco-line are only used up by maximally 60% (at any hour of the year). Further, the third transmission
line with a rated transmission capacity of 70 MW is operated at 0% of its capacity, i.e. it is out of use.
The PES is not expanded to Mozambique. The reason is that Mozambique has a strongly separated
electricity grid without significant transmissions lines between the single sections. Electricity imports
from Mozambique to Swaziland only happen with the Motraco line, designed as triangle connection
between the RSA, Swaziland, and Mozambique. Practically, imports through Motraco and from
Mozambique to Swaziland are thus re-imports of electricity originating from the RSA. This imports
would only lower the share of own generation in the Swazi PES. Excluding those imports, thus more
own generation is considered than is occurring in the actuality and since own Swazi generation is less
emission intensive than the generation in the RSA this is conservative.
The definition of the PES across host country borders is in accordance with a former EB decision. In its
28th Meeting, the EB clarified that the word regional, in the context of regional electricity system as
used in the approved methodology ACM0002, can also be interpreted as extending across several
countries. The Board further clarified that trans-national electricity systems are eligible under ACM0002
and the DNAs of countries in these regions, across which the electric system spans, shall be considered as
host Parties and shall provide a Letter of Approval stating that the project activity assists in achieving
sustainable development. Furthermore, the Board clarified that the grid emission factor in this context
shall be estimated for the regional electricity system. (EB Meeting 28, Meeting Report, 14)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 39

Figure 1: Average Net Electricity Generation and Imports to Swaziland (2006/07 2008/09) (Based on
data from Swaziland Electricity Company, SEC)
EF(grid)_Step 2: Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the PES (optional)
According to the tool project participants may choose between including
only grid power plants, or
both, grid and off-grid power plants.
For the proposed project activity, the project participants decided to include only grid power plants.
EF(grid)_Step 3: Select an Operating Margin (OM) method:
Out of the 4 optional methods for the determination of the OM, the Simple OM is selected by the
project participants:

The Simple Adjusted OM is not chosen since ESKOM data is not available for the required
level of detail, i.e. hourly generation of low-cost/must-runs and non-must-runs.
The Dispatch data analysis is not chosen since data for hourly generation required at facility
level is not available, neither for ESKOM nor for SEC units.
The Simple OM is eligible as low-cost/must-run sources (hydro, geothermal, wind, biomass,
nuclear and solar) in the grid have clearly represented below 50% of generation.

In terms of data vintage the ex-ante option, i.e. the emission factor is calculated ex-ante, is selected by the
project participants. This means that the emission factor is fixed for the crediting period during the
validation stage and monitoring during the crediting period spares.
Calculations are based on the data of the most recent three business years for which data is available. SEC
data is for the business years (01 April to 31 March) 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09. ESKOM data is for
2005 and the business years 2006/07 and 2007/08.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 40

EF(grid)_Step 4: Calculate the Operating Margin (OM) emission factor according to the selected
method
In the selected method Simple OM the emission factor (EFgrid,OMsimple,y) calculates as follows:

EG m , y
EFgrid ,OM

EFEL.m. y

m
simple, y

EG m , y
m

Where:
EFgrid,OMsimple.y
EGm,y

=
=

EFEL,m,y
m
y

=
=
=

(5)

Simple OM CO2-emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)


Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in
year y (MWh)
CO2 emission factor for power unit m in year y (tCO2e/MWh)
All power units serving the grid in year y except low-cost/must-run power units
The relevant year as per data vintage chosen in step 3

The calculation of the emission factor is based on Option A, which is the only one eligible here, since
data is available for each power unit. In more detail Option A1 is chosen, where data on fuel consumption
and electricity generation is necessary.
The emission factor EFEL,m,y for the power units m is calculated as follows:

FC i ,m ,y NCVi ,y EFCO 2,i ,y


EFEL ,m ,y

EG m ,y

Where:
FCi,m,y

NCVi,y

EFCO2,i,y
i

(6)

Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power unit m in year y (mass or


volume unit)
Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ/mass or
volume unit)
CO2-emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)
All fossil fuel types combusted in power unit m in year y

Net electricity imports are considered low-cost/must-run units k and are therefore excluded from the
calculation of EFgrid,OM-simple,y.
EF(grid)_Step 5: Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the Build Margin (BM)
According to the tool, the BM is defined as the generation-weighted average emission factor of either:
a. BM1: the set of five most recently built power plants; or
b. BM2: the set of power capacity additions that comprise 20% of all power generation and that
have been built most recently;
Whichever set of power units that comprises the larger annual generation.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 41

From the identified set of power units those units that are older than 10 years have to be excluded and
grid connected power projects registered as CDM projects have to be included instead if dispatched by
the dispatching authority.
In the Swaziland-RSA-grid the set of 5 power units built most recently is larger (BM1 > BM2). In this set
4 plants are built more than 10 years ago. However, only 1 power plant built under the CDM has been
registered in South Africa and Swaziland. Thus, only the oldest plant of the plants built more than
10 years ago can be exchanged by the CDM power plant.
Table 18: Power Units in the Build Margin
Country
Plant Name
Plant Type
Swaziland
Maguga
lc/ mr
RSA
Majuba
non-must-run
RSA
Kendal
non-must-run
RSA
Matimba
non-must-run
RSA
Bethlehem
lc/ mr

Fuel Type
Hydro
Coal
Coal
Coal
Hydro

Commission
2006
1996
1988
1987
2009

Capacity (MW)
20
3,843
3,840
3,690
7

In terms of data vintage the project participants decided to go with the ex-ante option. This means that for
the first crediting period, the BM is calculated based on the most recent available information at the time
of the PDD submission for validation. For the second crediting period, the BM emission factor should
be updated based on the most recent information available on units already built at the time of
submission of the request for renewal of the crediting period to the DOE. For the third crediting period,
the BM calculated for the second crediting period should be used. This option does not require
monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period.
EF(grid)_Step 6: Calculate the Build Margin (BM) emission factor
The build margin emissions factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of all
power units m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available, calculated as
follows:

EG m , y
EFgrid ,BM, y

EFEL ,m , y

(7)

EG m , y
m

Where:
EFgrid,BM,y
EGm,y

=
=

EFEL,m,y
m

=
=

Build Margin emission factor in year y (tCO2e/MWh)


Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in
year y (MWh)
CO2-emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2e/MWh)
Power units included in the build margin

EF(grid)_Step 7: Calculate the Combined Margin (CM) emission factor


The baseline emission factor is calculated as CM (EFgrid,CM,y):

EFgrid,CM, y

EFgrid,OM, y

OM

EFgrid,BM, y

BM

(8)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 42

Where:
EFgrid,CM,y
EFgrid,OM,y

Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in year y
(tCO2/MWh)
Operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

OM

Weighting of Operating Margin emissions factor (default value: 0.5)

EFgrid,BM,y

Build Margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

BM

Weighting of Build Margin emissions factor (default value: 0.5)

Thus:

EFgrid,CM, y

EFgrid,OM, y 0.5 EFgrid,BM, y 0.5

(9)

ACM0006, version 11, continued


Step 2: Minimum Baseline Electricity Generation in the Grid
The power plant in the project boundary of the proposed project activity is connected to the grid. The grid
emission factor is thus applicable. The amount of electricity generated on-site in the baseline cannot be
higher than the installed capacity of power generation in the baseline. Therefore:

EL BL,GR,y

max 0, EL BL,y CAPEG ,total,y

Where:
ELBL,GR,y

Baseline minimum electricity generation in the grid in year y (MWh)

ELBL,y

Baseline electricity generation in year y (MWh)

CAPEG,total,y

Baseline electricity generation capacity in year y (MWh)

Year of the crediting period

(10)

Step 3: Baseline Biomass-Based Heat and Power Generation


Step 3.1: Baseline Biomass-Based Heat Generation [HG(Bl,BR,y)]
ACM0006 assumes that the use of biomass residues of category n would be prioritized over the use of
fossil fuels. From that assumption, the equivalent amount of heat that would be generated with biomass
residues (HGBL,BR,y) in the baseline should be determined. The methodology proposes general principles
that should be adhered to in order to determine the prioritization and allocation of biomass to heat
generators, which still leave room for technical constraints to be reflected given specific site conditions.
At the project site, fossil fuels have since the year 2000 been combusted in boiler #7 and to a much lesser
extent (only in emergencies) in boiler #2 - #5. Boiler #7 is the one with the largest capacity and the
highest efficiency. This is documented. The allocation of bagasse to the available boilers, bagasse is the
baseline biomass residue, is done according to boilers heat generation capacities minus the capacity used
up by fossil fuel combustion in boiler #7 and then from the most to the least efficient boiler.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 43

After allocation baseline biomass residues to the boilers, the biomass-based heat generation is calculated
as follows:

HG BL,BR,y

BR B4,n,h, y NCVBR,n , y
h

BL, HG , BR , h

(11)

In the allocation it is observed that the allocated quantities do not exceed the total available biomass:

BR B4,n,h, y
h

BR B4,n, y

(12)

In the allocation it is observed that the allocated quantities and subsequently calculated heat generation
does not exceed the heat generation capacity of the baseline (here: reference plant):

BR B4,n,h, y NCVBR,n , y

BL, HG , BR , h

LOC y CAP HG, h LFC HG ,h

(13)

Where:
HGBL,BR,y

Baseline biomass-based heat generation in year y (GJ)

BRB4,n,h,y

Quantity of biomass residues of category n used in heat generator h in year y with


baseline scenario B4 (tonne on dry-basis)

NCVBR,n,y

Net calorific value of biomass residue of category n in year y (GJ/tonne on drybasis)

BL,HG,BR,h

Baseline biomass-based heat generation efficiency of heat generator h (ratio)

BRB4,n,y

Quantity of biomass residues of category n used in the project activity in year y for
which the baseline scenario is B4: (tonne on dry-basis)

LOCy

Length of the operational campaign in year y (hour)

CAPHG,h

Baseline capacity of heat generator h (GJ/h)

LFCHG,h

Baseline load factor of heat generator h (ratio)

Year of the crediting period

Heat generator in the baseline scenario

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 44

Table 19: Baseline Biomass Residues Allocation to Heat Generators (BRn,h,x) (in t dry)
Heat
Generator
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
#2
21,260
21,824
22,893
22,927
#3
34,015
34,918
36,628
36,684
#4
34,073
34,978
36,691
36,746
#5
46,392
47,623
49,955
50,031
#6
79,108
81,208
85,185
85,315
#7
79,052
85,457
91,749
92,445
TOTAL
293,900
306,006
323,101
324,148

2015/16
22,973
36,757
36,820
50,131
85,484
98,683
330,847

Step 3.2: Baseline Biomass-Based Co-Generation of Process Heat and Electricity and Heat Extraction
ACM0006 assumes that cogeneration of process heat and power using biomass-based heat (HGBL,BR,y)
would be prioritized over the use of fossil fuels for the generation of process heat and power on-site.
From that assumption the equivalent amount of electricity (ELBL,BR,CG,y) and process heat (HCBL,BR,CG,y)
that would be generated in cogeneration mode are determined.
At the project site all baseline heat engines are operated in cogeneration mode.
Table 20: Types of Heat Engines Operated at the Project Site
Heat Engine
Design Type
#2
Backpressure
#3
Backpressure
#4
Backpressure
#5
Condensing

EL BL,BR,CG,y

1
3.6

HC BL,BR,CG,y
i

(HPR BL,i

Operation Mode
Cogeneration
Cogeneration
Cogeneration
Cogeneration

1
HG BL,BR,CG,y,i
1 GGL default )

HPRBL ,i
HGBL,BR,CG,y,i
( HPRBL ,i 1 GGLdefault )

(14)

(15)

In order to calculate equation (14) it is necessary to first allocate baseline biomass residues to the different
cogeneration type heat engines. In doing so, it is observed that the biomass-based heat used in
cogeneration mode does not exceed the total biomass-based heat generated:

HG BL,BR,CG,y,i

HG BL,BR, y

(16)

Second, in the allocation it is observed that the process heat co-generated does not exceed the total
process heat demand:

HCBL,BR,CG, y

HCBL,y

Third, in the allocation it is observed that the electricity generation in each heat engine does not
exceed the total capacity of the heat engine:

(17)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 45

BL,EG ,CG,i

HG BL,BR,CG,y,i

LOCy CAPEG,CG,i LFCEG,CG,i

(18)

Where:
ELBL,BR,CG,y

Baseline biomass-based co-generated electricity in year y (MWh)

BL,EG,CG,i

Baseline electricity generation efficiency of heat engine i (MWh/GJ)

HGBL,BR,CG,y,i

Baseline biomass-based heat used in heat engine i in year y (GJ)

HCBL,BR,CG,y

Baseline biomass-based process heat co-generated in year y (GJ)

HPRBL,i

Baseline heat-to-power ratio of the heat engine i (ratio)

GGLdefault

Default value for the losses linked to the electricity generator group (set at 0.05)
(ratio)

HGBL,BR,y

Baseline biomass-based heat generation in year y (GJ)

HCBL,y

Baseline process heat generation in year y (GJ)

LOCy

Length of the operational campaign in year y (hour)

CAPEG,CG,i

Baseline electricity generation capacity of heat engine i (MW)

LFCEG,CG,i

Baseline load factor of heat engine i (ratio)

Cogeneration-type heat engine in the baseline scenario

Year of the crediting period

The allocation is up to the maximal capacity of each heat engine. This is calculated from the heat
generation capacity per hour (design capacity) multiplied by the load factor multiplied by the operational
hours of the plant (right hand side of equation 18). The calculated maximal capacity is shown in Table 22.
This ex-ante estimate has to be updated with the ex-post monitored values of LOCy.
Table 21: Design Heat Generation Capacity of Heat Engines (ex-ante)
Heat Engine (Cogeneration Type)
Heat Generation Capacity (CAPHG,CG,i)
#2
131.2 GJ/h
#3
107.6 GJ/h
#4
97.9 GJ/h
#5
76.8 GJ/h
Depending on the relation between, on one hand the total biomass based heat generation (HGBL,BR,y) and
the biomass based heat generation in cogeneration mode (HGBL,BR,CG,y,i), and on the other hand of total
biomass based process heat (HGBL,y) and the biomass based process heat from cogeneration engines
(HCBL,BR,CG,y), several cases are distinguished by the methodology. Each case defines specific steps to be
followed and specific formulae to be applied as listed in Table 23.
Table 22: Cases acc. to Relation between Total Heat and Cogeneration Heat
Case HG(BL,BR,y)
:
HG(BL,BR,CG,y,i)
HC(BL,y)
3.2.1
=
3.2.2
=
3.2.3
>
3.2.4
>

: HC(BL,BR,CG,y)
=
>
=
>

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 46

From the ex-ante consideration of the proposed project activity, the biomass-based heat generation will
always be greater than the biomass-based heat in cogeneration mode since also other superheat consumers
than co-generation engines are operated at the site and the demand for superheat of these direct
consumers is not satisfied by fossil fuels, alone. In such a situation, only cases 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 would be
relevant. However, in order to present all potential cases and to anticipate any potential ex-post values, all
potential cases are mentioned in the following:
Case 3.2.1:
Definition: All the heat that would be generated using biomass residues in the baseline would be used in
cogeneration-type heat engines and would suffice to serve all process heat demand. The use of fossil fuels
on-site in the baseline scenario would thus be uncertain.

ELBL, FF / GR , y

ELBL, y

ELBL,GR , y

ELBL, BR,CG, y

ELPJ,offset,y = 0
FFBL,HG,y,f = 0
Action: Proceed to Step 5.
Case 3.2.2:
Definition: All the heat that would be generated using biomass residues in the baseline would be used in
cogeneration-type heat engines but still some process heat demand would remain to be met. The process
heat balance that remains to be met would be met by using fossil fuels. The fossil fuel demand is then
calculated in Step 4.

HCbalance,FF , y
ELbalance , FF, y

HCBL, y
ELBL, y

HCBL,BR,CG, y
EL BL,GR , y

ELBL, BR,CG, y

Action: Proceed to Step 4.


Case 3.2.3:
This case is only relevant to situations in which power-only heat engines are available. At the project site
turbine#5 is by construction of the type power-only. Historically, in the baseline, and in the project
plant this turbines has never and will not be operated in power-only-mode. However, to include all
potential cases also this case is mentioned.
Definition: All process heat demand would be met with biomass-based heat in the baseline and still there
would be some biomass-based heat to be used. This heat would be used for generation of power in poweronly mode.

HG balance , BR, PO, y

HG BL, BR, y

HG BL,BR,CG, y,i
i

EL balance , PO, y

EL BL, y

EL BL,GR , y

EL BL, BR,CG, y

Action: Proceed to Step 3.3


Case 3.2.4:
For this case, the same applies as for case 3.2.3 w.r.t. to the proposed project activity. However for
completeness, this case is also mentioned, here.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 47

Definition: Biomass-based heat in the baseline would still remain after the previous allocation and could
be used to meet process heat demand. This balance of biomass-based heat would be extracted from the
heat header and used to meet the process heat demand without co-generation of power.
Depending on whether this balance of biomass-based heat equals, exceeds, or falls below the remaining
process heat demand, three cases are distinguished:
Table 23: Cases for Relation between Balance of Biomass-Based Heat and Remaining Process Heat
Demand
Case
3.2.4.1
3.2.4.2
3.2.4.3

HC(BL,y)-HC(BL,BR,CG,y)

h LOW
h HIGH

HG BL,BR, y

HG BL,BR,CG,y,i
i

=
>
<

Case 3.2.4.1:
Definition: The balance of biomass-based heat equals the remaining demand for process heat. No more
biomass-based heat is available and the demand for process heat has been met. The use of fossil fuels onsite would be uncertain in the baseline scenario.

ELBL, FF / GR , y

ELBL, y

ELBL,GR , y

ELBL, BR,CG, y

ELPJ,offset,y = 0
FFBL,HG,y,f = 0
Action: Proceed to Step 5.
Case 3.2.4.2:
Definition: The balance of biomass-based heat is less than the remaining demand for process heat. All
biomass-based heat is used, but process heat demand still remains to be met. This balance of process heat
demand would be met by fossil fuels in the baseline. The quantity of fossil fuels is then calculated in
Step 4.

HCbalance,FF , y

ELbalance , FF, y

HCBL, y

ELBL, y

HCBL,BR ,CG, y

EL BL,GR , y

hLOW
hHIGH

HGBL,BR , y

HG BL,BR,CG,y,i
i

ELBL, BR,CG, y

Action: Proceed to Step 4.


Case 3.2.4.3:
Definition: The balance of biomass-based heat is greater than the remaining demand for process heat. The
remaining balance could be used otherwise. This balance heat would be used to generate electricity in
power-only mode, i.e. without co-generation of process heat.

HGbalance,BR ,PO, y

HGBL,BR , y

HG BL,BR,CG,y,i
i

EL balance , PO, y

EL BL, y

EL BL,GR , y

hHIGH
hLOW

HCBL, y

HCBL,BR ,CG, y

EL BL, BR,CG, y

Action: Proceed to Step 3.3


Step 3.3: Baseline biomass-based electricity generated in power-only mode

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 48

This step is only relevant to cases 3.2.3 and 3.2.4.3, i.e. in case power-only type heat engines are available
and have remaining baseline biomass-based heat to be used in power-only mode. From the ex-ante view
this is not assumed to be relevant to the proposed project activity, but for reasons of completeness, this
case is mentioned here, as well.
At the project site, only one heat engine (turbine alternator) might theoretically be operated in poweronly-mode, although this is not the case for the baseline. This is turbine alternator #5. The balance of
biomass-based heat (HGbalance,BR,PO,y) would thus allocated to this one.
In the allocation it would be observed that the biomass-based heat used in the heat engines does not
exceed the biomass-based heat balance:

HG BL,BR,PO, y, j

HG balance, BR,PO, y

(19)
Further, the allocation should assure that the electricity generation in each heat engine does not exceed the
total capacity of the heat engine as follows:
i

HG BL,BR,PO,y, j

LOC y CAPEG,PO, j LFCEG,PO, j

BL,EG ,PO, j

(20)

The amount of electricity generated in power-only mode would be calculated as follows:

EL BL,BR,PO, y

HG BL,BR,PO, y, j

BL, EG , PO, j

Where:
ELBL,BR,PO,y

Baseline biomass-based electricity (power-only) in year y (MWh)

HGBL,BR,PO,y,j

Baseline biomass-based heat used in heat engine j in year y (GJ)

BL,EG,PO,j

Average electric power generation efficiency of heat engine j (MWh/GJ)

HGbalance,BR,PO,y

Baseline biomass-based heat balance after cogeneration in year y (GJ)

LOCy

Length of the operational campaign in year y (hour)

CAPEG,PO,j

Baseline electricity generation capacity of heat engine j (MW)

LFCEG,PO,j

Baseline load factor of heat engine j (ratio)

The following cases are possible depending on the results of the calculations above:
Table 24: Cases acc. to Relation between Baseline and Project Scenario Electricity Generation
Case
EL(balance.PO,y)
: EL(BL,BR,PO,y)
3.3.1

3.3.2
<
Case 3.3.1:
Definition: The electricity generated on-site in the baseline is equal to or less than the amount of
electricity generated in the project scenario.

ELBL, FF / GR , y

ELbalance , PO, y

ELPJ,offset,y = 0, FFBL,HG,y,f = 0

ELBL, BR, PO, y

(21)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 49

Action: Proceed to Step 5.

Case 3.3.2:
Definition: The amount of electricity generated on-site in the baseline exceeds the amount of electricity
generated in the project scenario. This indicates that the project activity entails a decrease of power output
which is likely to be supplied by the grid. As a consequence, project emissions in the form of generation
of electricity in the grid are accounted for via the parameter ELPJ,offset,y.
ELBL,FF/GR,y = 0
ELPJ,offset,y = EL balance , PO, y EL BL, BR, PO, y
FFBL,HG,y,f = 0
Action: Proceed to Step 5.
Step 4: Baseline demand for fossil fuels to meet the balance of process heat and the corresponding
electricity generation
This step is not relevant in case in the previous steps case 3.3 was relevant. Step 4 is only relevant in case
fossil fuels have been identified in the previous steps to meet remaining process heat demand.
Step 4.1: Baseline fossil fuel based cogeneration of process heat and electricity and the remaining
process heat demand
In order to determine the amount of heat and electricity that would be co-generated using fossil fuels, the
heat engines operated in cogeneration mode are listed excluding condensing turbines. In the proposed
project activity all heat engines are of the type cogeneration and are thus considered in the following.
In case of the proposed project activity, remaining baseline cogeneration capacities will not be available
in excess of the above utilised capacities. However, just for the case that the ex-post calculation shows a
different result, the proceeding will be explained in the following.
The process heat balance based on fossil fuels HC(balance,FF,y) calculated in the above steps is allocated to
the cogeneration heat engines up to the extent of remaining co-generation capacity.
First, in the allocation it is observed that heat balance is allocated to the most efficient heat engines.
Second, it will be allocated as not to exceed the balance of process heat demand as follows:

HC BL , FF ,CG, y ,i

HC balance, FF , y

(22)

Third, it will be observed that heat input from the boilers to the heat engines corresponding to the
allocated process heat from fossil fuels plus the baseline biomass-based heat directed to the cogeneration
heat engines do not exceed in their total the capacity of the heat engines. This is done via the following
formula:

1
3.6

HG BL,FF,CG,y,i

HG BL,BR,y,i

(HPR BL,i

1
1 GGL default )

LOC y CAP EG,CG,i LFC EG ,CG,i

(23)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 50

Based on the above allocation of HC(balance,FF,y) to cogeneration heat engines as HC(BL,FF,CG,y,i) the
following calculation can be performed:
The amount of fossil fuel based heat required to supply the cogeneration heat engines:

( HPR BL ,i

HG BL,FF,CG,y,i

1 GGLdefault )

HPR BL ,i

HC BL,FF,CG,y,i

(24)

Fossil fuel based electricity cogeneration is calculated as follows:

HC BL,FF,CG,y,i

EL BL,FF,y

HPR BL,i

(25)

From the above the total heat generation based on fossil fuels and used in cogeneration mode can be
calculated as:

HG BL,FF,CG,y

HGBL,FF,CG,y,i

(26)

Where:
HGBL,FF,y,i

Baseline fossil-based heat used in heat engine i in year y (GJ)

HCBL,BR,CG,y

Baseline biomass-based process heat co-generated in year y (GJ)

GGLdefault

The default value for the losses linked to the electricity generator group (turbine,
couplings and electricity generator. Set at 0.05) (ratio)

HPRBL,i

Baseline Heat Power Ratio of heat engine i (ratio)

ELBL,FF,y

Baseline fossil-based electricity generation in year y (MWh)

HGBL,FF,y,h

Baseline fossil-based heat generation in heat generator h in year y (GJ)

HCbalance,FF,y

Balance of process heat demand after cogeneration in year y (GJ)

HGBL,FF,CG,y,i

Baseline fossil fuel-based heat used in heat engine i in year y (GJ)

HGBL,BR,CG,y,i

Baseline biomass-based heat used in heat engine i in year y (GJ)

LOCy

Length of the operational campaign in year y (hour)

CAPEG,CG,i

Baseline electricity generation capacity of heat engine i (MW)

LFCEG,CG,i

Baseline load factor of heat engine i (ratio)

Fossil fuel type

Year of the crediting period

Cogeneration-type heat engine in the baseline scenario

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 51

As mentioned above, for the proposed project activity the co-generation capacity left after the allocation
of biomass-based heat to heat engines is assumed to be zero based on ex-ante estimates. This means the
remaining process heat balance could not be filled with heat based on fossil fuels and used in
cogeneration mode. Therefore, the process heat gap would be balanced with fossil fuels used directly in
the process, the so-called directly extracted heat (DHE).
If the balance of fossil fuel based process heat cannot be met in cogeneration mode, i.e. HCbalance,FF,y
exceeds HCBL,FF,CG,y then the remaining balance would be filled directly extracted fossil-fuel-based heat,
i.e. without co-generation. This direct heat extraction based on fossil fuels is calculated as:

HG BL,FF,DHE , y

(HC balance ,FF, y

HC BL,FF,CG, y ) *

h HIGH
h LOW

(27)

The total baseline heat generation from fossil fuels is then the sum of the heat generation from fossil fuels
and used in cogeneration plus the heat generation from fossil fuels directly extracted.
HGBL,FF,y = HGBL,FF,CG,y + HGBL,FF,DHE,y

(28)

Where:
HCbalance,FF,y

Balance of process heat demand after cogeneration in year y (GJ)

HCBL,FF,CG,y

Baseline fossil fuel-based process heat co-generated in year y (GJ)

hLOW

Specific enthalpy of the heat carrier at the process heat demand side
(GJ/tonnes)

hHIGH

Specific enthalpy of the heat carrier at the heat generator side (GJ/tonnes)

HGBL,FF,y

Baseline fossil fuel-based heat generation in year y (GJ)

HGBL,FF,DHE,y

Baseline fossil fuel-based heat used to meet baseline process heat demand via
direct heat extraction in year y (GJ)

HGBL,FF,CG,y

Baseline fossil fuel-based heat cogeneration in year y (GJ)

The following cases are possible depending on the results of the calculations above:
Table 25: Cases for Relation between Process Heat Balance and Process Heat Demand
Case
EL(balance,FF,y)
: EL(BL,FF,y)
4.1.1

4.1.2
<
Case 4.1.1: The amount of electricity generated on-site in the baseline is equal to or less than the amount
of electricity generated in the project scenario. In order to determine the resulting baseline emissions
project participants should define:

EL BL, FF / GR , y

EL balance , FF, y

ELPJ,offset,y = 0
Action: Proceed to Step 4.2.

EL BL, FF, y

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 52

Case 4.1.2: The amount of electricity generated on-site in the baseline exceeds the amount of electricity
generated in the project scenario. In order to determine the resulting baseline emissions project
participants should define:
ELBL,FF/GR,y = 0

ELPJ,offset , y

ELbalance , FF, y

ELBL, FF, y

Action: Proceed to Step 4.2.


Step 4.2: Baseline heat generation to meet the fossil-based cogeneration of heat and power and the
heat to meet the balance of process heat
The total heat generation based on fossil fuels calculated in the previous step is here translated into fossil
fuel demand. Therefore, the fossil fuel based heat generation in the baseline has to be allocated to the heat
generators.
In the baseline of the proposed project activity, fossil fuels are only combusted in heat generator #7. This
is the most efficient baseline heat generator. The allocation of HGBL,FF,y is thus only to this boiler. The
type of fossil fuel at the project site is only coal. No other fossil fuel has been used historically nor would
be used in the baseline reference plant. Diesel as alternative is more expensive and neither could natural
gas be stored in such quantities nor be combusted in the baseline heat generators, i.e. without retrofit.
The allocation is checked for its correctness by verifying the following relation:

HG BL,FF,y,h

LOC y CAPHG,h LFCHG ,h

(29)

The total amount of coal as corresponding fossil fuel FFBL,HG,y,f required to generate HGBL,FF,y is
calculated as follows:

HG BL,FF,y,h

HG BL , FF , DHE , y

HG BL, FF ,CG, y

(30)

HG BL,FF,y,h

FFBL,HG, y,f
h

(31)

BL, HG , FF, h

Where:
FFBL,HG,y,f

Baseline fossil fuel demand for process heat in year y (GJ)

HGBL,FF,y,h

Baseline fossil-based heat generation in heat generator h in year y (GJ)

BL,HG,FF,h

Baseline fossil-based heat generation efficiency of heat generator h (ratio)

LOCy

Length of the operational campaign in year y (hour)

CAPHG,h

Baseline capacity of heat generator h (GJ/h)

LFCHG,h

Baseline load factor of heat generator h (ratio)

Step 5: Baseline emissions due to uncontrolled burning or decay of biomass residues


Not applicable to the proposed project activity since the project participants decided to not claim emission
reductions from uncontrolled burning or decay of biomass residues. This is conservative.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 53

Step 6: Calculate baseline emissions


Baseline emissions are calculated as to equation 2 above.

BE y

EL BL,GR,y EFEG,GR,y

FFBL,HG, y,f EFFF,y,f

EL BL,FF / GR , y min( EFEG,GR,y , EFEG, FF,y )

4. Project emissions

PE y

PE FF,y

PE GR1, y

PE GR 2, y

PE TR,y

(32)

Where:
PEy

Project emissions in year y (tCO2)

PEFF,y

Emissions during the year y due to fossil fuel consumption at the project site (tCO2)

PEGR1,y

Emissions during the year y due to grid electricity imports to the project site (tCO2)

PEGR2,y

Emissions due to a reduction in electricity generation at the project site as compared to the
baseline scenario in year y (tCO2)

PETR,y

Emissions during the year y due to transport of the biomass residues to the project plant
(tCO2)
Project participants decided NOT to include emission reductions from the avoided combustion of biomass
residues. Thus also project emissions from this source are disregarded. Emission reductions from the
improved wastewater treatment of biomass residues are not applicable to the proposed activity.
For PEFF,y:
This source includes:
- Emissions from on-site fossil fuel consumption for the generation of electric power and heat
including fossil fuels combusted in on-site heat generators.
- Emissions from on-site fossil fuel consumption of auxiliary equipment and systems related to the
generation of power and heat including the operation of equipment related to the preparation,
storage, and transportation of fuels.
Due to the proposed project activity no additional fossil fuels will be consumed on-site, except in
transportation vehicles. However, emissions due to transportation are accounted for with PETR,y. Other onsite equipment operated due to the proposed project activity, will be run either on 100% biomass residues
or on electricity. Electricity consumed by this equipment is already taken into account in the parameter
EL(PJ,aux,y).

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 54

For PEGR1,y:
From the ex-ante view, the project activity is not supposed to import electricity from the grid. However,
this parameter will be monitored and is accounted for as follows:

PEGR1,y

EFEG,GR ,y EL PJ,imp,y

(33)

Where:
PEGR1,y

Emissions during the year y due to grid electricity imports to the project site (tCO2)

ELPJ,imp,y

Project electricity imports from the grid in year y (MWh)

EFEG,GR,y

Grid emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

Determination of PEGR2,y
Only in project activities in which the case 3.3.2 or 4.2.2 is relevant, it is necessary to calculate PEGR2,y.
For the proposed project activity, from the ex-ante view, it is not assumed that either case will become
relevant.
In case the parameter ELPJ,offset,y has to be defined. These emissions linked to greater power production in
the baseline than in the project scenario would be accounted for as follows:

PE GR2,y

EFEG,GR , y EL PJ,offset, y

(34)

Where:
PEGR2,y

Emissions due to a reduction in electricity generation at the project site as compared


to the baseline scenario in year y (tCO2)

EFEG,GR,y

Grid emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

ELPJ,offset,y

Electricity that would be generated in the baseline that exceeds the generation of
electricity during year y (MWh)

For PETR,y:
Cane trash accrues in the field. Before transportation from the field to the sugar mill cane trash might be
prepared with rakes or comparable equipment. All vehicles related to either the preparation of cane trash
in the field or the transportation itself will be accounted for as project emissions with PETR,y.
On-site the cane trash if not combusted directly during the cane crushing season will be transported to the
newly constructed biomass storage similar to the bagasse not combusted during the cane crushing season.
During the off-crop season cane trash and bagasse will be recovered from the biomass storage for energy
generation. All transportation activities on-site related to the biomass storage will be monitored and
accounted for as project emissions with PETR,y.
The project emissions PETR,y will be determined based on the total fossil fuel consumption by the
correspondent vehicles. Vehicles might be shared with other activities. However, the Ubombo Sugar
Industries Ltd. has already a computer based system established at the mill in which all vehicles are
equipped with a unique identification tag. Each time a vehicle is fuelled, the driver has to indicate which
activity will be performed by the vehicle. The computer system then records the activity performed and
the quantity of fuel fuelled by the vehicle. Thus fossil fuel consumption can be clearly attributed.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 55

The following formula will be applied to determine transportation emissions from on-site and off-site
vehicles if utilized for activities related to the proposed project activity, i.e. cane trash provision and onsite transportation of cane trash and bagasse to and from the on-site biomass storage:

PET R,y

FC i ,v ,y COEFi ,y

(35)

i ,v

Where:
PETR,y

CO2 Emissions from fossil fuel type i consumed by transportation vehicle v due to
the project activity during the year y (tCO2)

FCi,v,y

Fuel consumption of fuel type i by transportation vehicle v during the year y (litres)

COEFi,y

CO2 emission coefficient of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/litre)

Transportation vehicle v related to the project activity

Fuel types combusted during the year y

COEFi,y

NCVi, y EFCO2,i, y

Where:
COEFi,y

CO2 emission coefficient of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/litre)

NCVi,y

Net Calorific Value of the fuel type i in year y (GJ/litre)

EFCO2,i,y

CO2 emission factor of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)

(36)

5. Leakage emissions: LEy


Changes in carbon stocks in the LULUCF sector are expected to be insignificant by the methodology
since only biomass residues are eligible. The proposed project activity will only withdraw parts of the
cane trash from the field with the remainder staying in the field for decay. Currently the majority of cane
trash is currently burnt during cane harvesting operations and thus also not contributing to soil carbon
stocks.
ACM0006 describes the only relevant sources of leakage as for those biomass residues where the baseline
scenarios are B5, B6, B7, and B8. From the ex-ante view, the biomass baseline scenarios are B4 for
bagasse and B1 and B3 for cane trash in the proposed project activity.
Only for the biomass scenarios B5, B6, B7, and B8 leakage emissions would have to be calculated. This
is not the baseline scenario for any biomass used in the proposed project activity. However, the parameter
LEy will be monitored and calculated in case other biomass residues than bagasse and cane trash will be
utilized.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 56

6. Correction for Demand-Side Energy Efficiency: DSy


(see Request for Revision )
EFEG,GR,y

SPC BL

SPC PJ

hlow
hhigh

DS subtr,y

PQ y

EGE steam

Where:
DSsubtr,y

Demand-side energy efficiency correction (project specific) (tCO2e)

PQy

Project quantity of sugar cane crushed in year y (t fresh weight)

SPCBL

Steam-per cent-cane in baseline as indicator for process efficiency (ratio)

SPCPJ

Steam-per cent-cane in project plant as indicator for process efficiency (ratio)

EGEsteam

Specific consumption of heat engines at project site for electricity generation


(t superheated steam/MWh)

(37)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 57

B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:


Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures:
Any comment:

NCVFF,f,x
GJ/mass or volume unit
Net Calorific Value of the fossil fuel type f in the historic year x
Average value over the three historic years
27.0 GJ/t of coal (years 2002 2004)
NCV of the coal used in the existing plant and that would be used in the
reference plant.
---

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:

NCVBR,n,x
GJ/mass unit
Net Calorific Value of the biomass residue of category n
On-site laboratory analyses (documented)
2002/03: 14.64 GJ/t of bagasse (dry)
2002/03: 14.57 GJ/t of bagasse (dry)
2002/03: 14.24 GJ/t of bagasse (dry) Average: 14.48 GJ/t of bagasse (dry)

Measurement
procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Values applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):
Any comment:

--BRHIST,n,x
tonnes on dry-basis
Quantity of biomass residues of category n used for energy generation at the
project site in year x
On-site records
2002/03: 240,883 t of bagasse (dry)
2003/04: 244,561 t of bagasse (dry)
2004/05: 231,351 t of bagasse (dry)
Calculated from the mass balance based on cane crushed, fibre content of cane,
and moisture content of bagasse
Cane quantity is measured continuously with belt weigh
BRn,h,x
tonnes on dry-basis
Quantity of biomass residues of category n used in heat generator h in year x
On-site records
Bagasse: See attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
Assigned according to the stipulations in ACM0006, v11
Cane quantity is measured continuously with belt weigh. Total is crosschecked with total of biomass residues combusted in the heat-and-power plant.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 58

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):

FFf,h,x
mass unit/yr
Quantity of fossil fuel type f fired in heat generator h in year x
On-site measurements
Coal: see attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
Coal has only been combusted in boiler #7 and would only be combusted in
boiler #7 in the reference plant. FFcoal,HG7,x is thus equal to the total quantity of
coal combusted.
--HGh,x
GJ
Net quantity of heat generated in heat generator h in year x
On-site measurements
See attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
Difference of the enthalpy of the process heat (steam) generated by the heat
generators(s) minus the enthalpy of the feed-water, the boiler blow-down and
any condensate return.

Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):

Any comment:

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):
Any comment:

HGBR,CG/PO,x,i,j
GJ
Quantity of heat used in heat engine i/j in year x
Calculated
See attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
This parameter should be determined as the difference of the enthalpy of the
process heat (steam or hot water) generated by the heat generators minus the
enthalpy of the feed-water, the boiler blow-down and any condensate return.
The respective enthalpies are determined based on the mass flow of steam, the
temperatures and the pressure. Steam tables were used.
This parameter is not measured. This is common practice in the sector. The
OEM provides heat generation efficiencies which are applied to assign the
total heat generation to the heat engines. The total is thus equal to the sum over
all heat engines (cross-check).
HCBR,CG/PO,x,i/j
GJ
Quantity of process heat extracted from the heat engine i/j in year x
Calculated
See attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
Based on the indications by the OEM (original equipment manufacturer)
This parameter is not measured. This is common practice in the sector. The
OEM provides heat generation efficiencies which are applied to assign the
total heat generation to the heat engines. The total is thus equal to the sum
over all heat engines (cross-check).

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 59

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):
Any comment:

ELBR,CG/PO,x,i/j
MWh
Quantity of electricity generated in heat engine i/j in year x
On-site measurements
See attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
Electricity meters

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:

Px
Tonnes
Quantity of the sugar produced in year x
On-site measurements
2002/03: 215,067 t
2003/04: 215,760 t
2004/05: 209,818 t
On-site weighing bridges

Measurement
procedures:
Any comment:

---

---

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):
Any comment:

CAPHG,h
GJ/h
Baseline capacity of heat generator h
On-site measurements or reference plant design parameters
See attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
It reflects the design maximum heat generation capacity of the baseline heat
generators h. It is based on the installed capacity of the heat generator.
---

Data / Parameter:

Any comment:

CAPEG,CG,i
CAPEG,PO,j
MW
Baseline electricity generation capacity of heat engine i/j
On-site measurements or reference plant design parameters
See attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
It reflects the design maximum electricity generation capacity of the baseline
heat engines i (cogeneration turbines) and j (power-only turbine). The value
used is according to manufacturer indication.
---

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):

LFCHG,h
Ratio
Baseline load factor of heat generator h
On-site measurements or reference plant design parameters
See attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
It reflects the maximum load factor (i.e. the ratio between the actual heat
generation of the heat generator and its design maximum heat generation

Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 60

Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):

Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:

along one year of operation), taking into account downtime due to


maintenance, seasonal operational patterns, and any other technical
constraints.
--LFCEG,CG,i/j
Ratio
Baseline load factor of heat engine i/j (ratio)
On-site measurements or reference plant design parameters
See attached Excel file ER-ex-ante 2011
It reflects the maximum load factor (i.e. the ratio between the actual
electricity generation of the heat engine and its design maximum
electricity generation along one year of operation) of the baseline heat
engine i or j. The actual electricity generation of the heat engine should be
determined taking into account downtime due to maintenance, seasonal
operational patterns, and any other technical constraints.
--EFBL,CO2,FF
tCO2/GJ
CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel type that would be used for power
generation at the project site in the baseline
The IPCC default emission factor as by the IPCC 2006 National Inventory
Guidelines is taken.
0.0946 tCO2/GJ
The value will be updated with the update of the IPCC Guidelines.
In case of plants existing before project implementation, the lowest CO2
emission factor should be used in case of multi fuel plants
BL,FF
Ratio
Efficiency of the hypothetical fossil fuel power plant at the project site in
the baseline
Default factor from the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an
electricity system. To be conservative the efficiency value of a plant with
an installed electrical capacity of >1,000kW is taken.
0.45
----FCi,k,y
Mass or volume unit
Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by non-must-run power plant/unit k in
year y
Swaziland Electricity Company (SEC)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 61

Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures (if any):
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures:
Any comment:

23,771 litre Diesel (2006/07)


47,327 litre Diesel (2007/08)
5,014 litre Diesel (2008/09)
Simple Adjusted OM once for each crediting period using the most recent three
historic years for which data is available at the time of submission of the PDD
for validation.

See also attached Excel file EF(grid)_Ubombo Activity


EGn,h
MWh
Net electricity generated by power plant/unit n in the top of the dispatch in hour
h
Official publications from the Swaziland Electricity Company (SEC)
see attached Excel file EF(grid)_Ubombo Activity
In case hourly generation data is available it has to be utilised before yearly
data.
--GWPCH4
tCO2e/tCH4
Global Warming Potential of methane valid for the commitment period
IPCC
21
Value as valid for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol up to the
end of the year 2012. Shall be updated according to any future COP/MOP
decisions.
--PQy
t of cane (fresh weight)
Quantity of cane crushed in the project plant in year y
Projection
2,253,950
Measured with belt weigh
See Request for Deviation

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 62

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures:
Any comment:

SPCBL
Ratio
Steam % cane
Measured
0.584
Calculated from demand-side energy efficiency values

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied:
Measurement
procedures:
Any comment:

SPCPJ
Ratio
Steam % cane
Measured
0.501
Calculated from demand-side energy efficiency values

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:

EGEsteam
t steam/MWh
Electricity generation efficiency of turbines
Measured for all turbines in the baseline (total consumption of superheated
steam and total electricity generation)
7.89 t steam/MWh
---

Value applied:
Measurement
procedures:
Any comment:

See Request for Deviation

See Request for Deviation

See Request for Deviation

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 63

B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:


In the following, a complete list of equations with values as estimated ex-ante for the season 2011/12 is
shown, i.e. from 01 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. Acronyms and other explanation regarding the applied
equations have been provided in the above section B.6.1.
The calculation of Emission Reductions (ERy) is with the following formula:

ER y

BE y

PE y

LE y

The emission reduction thereby composes of the sum of baseline emissions minus project emissions
minus leakage emissions.
Baseline Emissions (BEy) are calculated with the following formula:

BE y

EL BL,GR,y EFEG,GR,y

FFBL,HG, y,f EFFF,y,f

EL BL,FF / GR , y min( EFEG,GR,y , EFEG, FF,y )

The single parameters composing the baseline emissions are calculated in a stepwise approach:
Step1: Biomass availability, generation and capacity constraints, efficiencies and EF(power)
Step 1.1:
- HC(BL,y)
The amount of process heat that would be generated in the baseline in year 2011 is determined as the
difference of the enthalpy of the process heat in the project activity minus the enthalpy of the feed-water,
the boiler blow-down and any condensate return to the heat generators.
HCBL,2011

= 3,747,891 GJ (process) 475,603 GJ (feed water) 187,395 GJ (blow-down)


3,084,893 GJ

Step 1.2:
- EL(BL,y)
The amount of electricity that would be generated in the baseline in year 2011 is determined as the
difference of gross generation in the project plus gross imports in the project minus consumption by
auxiliary equipment in the project.
ELBL,2011

= ELPJ,gross,2011 + ELPJ,imp,2011 - ELPJ,aux,2011


= 163,252 MWh+ 0 MWh 19,711 MWh
= 143,541 MWh

Step 1.3:
- CAP(EG,total,y)
The baseline capacity of electricity generation in the year 2011 is according to the heat engines that would
be run in the reference plant. During a year different seasonal operational constraints are to be taken into
account. The crushing season, i.e. the length of the operational campaign, is around 35 weeks with slight
deviations between the years.
CAPEG,total,2011

= LOC2011(i,CAPEG,CG,iLFCEG,CG,i)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 64

= 5,372 h( 5.0 MW0.860


+4.0 MW0.825
+3.5 MW0.800
+3.0 MW0.833)
= 69,294 MWh
Step 1.4:
- BR(B4,n,y)
The biomass residues that would also be available in the baseline for energy generation is bagasse.
Bagasse has thus the biomass baseline scenario B4:
BRB4,bagasse,2011

= 293,900 t dry

Step 1.5:
- (BL,HG,BR,h) and (BL,EG,CG,i)
The efficiencies of heat generators are calculated based on fuel input and energy output during the
historical period. The efficiencies of the heat engines are the efficiencies used in the sector in the region
for comparable heat engines.
Allocated Heat Generation in Heat Generators (Boilers #2 - #7):
Boiler h
HGBR,h,2002/03
BRbagasse,h,2002/03
#2
123,194 GJ
11,606 t dry
#3
295,666 GJ
27,855 t dry
#4
295,666 GJ
27,902 t dry
#5
369,582 GJ
37,990 t dry
#6
739,164 GJ
70,356 t dry
#7
755,753 GJ
65,173 t dry

NCVBR,bagasse,2002/03

14.64 GJ/t

BL,HG,BR,h

= MAX[ HGBR,h,2002/(BRn,h,2002 NCVBR,n,2002); HGBR,h,2003/(BRn,h,2003 NCVBR,n,2003);


HGBR,h,2004/(BRn,h,2004 NCVBR,n,2004) ]

BL,HG,BR,HG2

= MAX[ 123,194 GJ/(11,606 t 14.64 GJ/t); 127,608 GJ/(11,939 t 14.57 GJ/t);


120,332 GJ/(11,405 t 14.24 GJ/t) ]
= 0.741
= MAX[ 295,666 GJ/(27,855 t 14.64 GJ/t); 306,259 GJ/(28,653 t 14.57 GJ/t);
288,797 GJ/(27,371 t 14.24 GJ/t) ]
= 0.741
= MAX[ 295,666 GJ/(27,902 t 14.64 GJ/t); 306,259 GJ/(28,702 t 14.57 GJ/t);
288,797 GJ/(27,418 t 14.24 GJ/t) ]
= 0.739
= MAX[ 369,582 GJ/(37,990 t 14.64 GJ/t); 382,824 GJ/(39,078 t 14.57 GJ/t);
360,996 GJ/(37,330 t 14.24 GJ/t) ]
= 0.679
= MAX[ 739,164 GJ/(70,356 t 14.64 GJ/t); 765,647 GJ/(72,372 t 14.57 GJ/t);
721,991 GJ/(69,134 t 14.24 GJ/t) ]
= 0.733
= MAX[ 755,753 GJ/(65,173 t 14.64 GJ/t); 720,066 GJ/(63,817 t 14.57 GJ/t);
691,434 GJ/(58,694 t 14.24 GJ/t) ]

BL,HG,BR,HG3
BL,HG,BR,HG4
BL,HG,BR,HG5
BL,HG,BR,HG6
BL,HG,BR,HG7

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 65

= 0.827
Heat Engines (Turbine alternators i/j: #2 - #5):
(BL,EG,BR,TA2)
= 0.036 MWh/GJ
(BL,EG,BR,TA3)
= 0.036 MWh/GJ
(BL,EG,BR,TA4)
= 0.034 MWh/GJ
(BL,EG,BR,TA5)
= 0.033 MWh/GJ
- HPR(i,y)
The heat-to-power-ratio in heat engines has to be calculated. The baseline HPR is for the reference plant
that would be operated in year y. Therefore, the HPR is determined for the configuration identified as the
baseline scenario.
HPRi,2011

= (1/3.6) HCBR,CG,2011,i/ELBR,CG,2011,i

HPRTA2,2011

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

HPRTA3,2011
HPRTA4,2011
HPRTA5,2011

(1/3.6 MWh/GJ) 521,363GJ / 22,636 MWh


6.398
(1/3.6 MWh/GJ) 417,270 GJ / 17,372 MWh
6.672
(1/3.6 MWh/GJ) 375,093 GJ / 14,470 MWh
7.069
(1/3.6 MWh/GJ) 297,160 GJ / 13,161 MWh
6.272

Step 1.7 :
- EF(EG,FF,y)
In case of Step 4.2 is relevant, i.e. fossil fuel based generation of electricity which is not in co-generation
mode, then:
EFEG,FF,2011

Else
EFEG,FF,2011

= 3.6EFBL,CO2,coalBL,FF
= 3.6 GJ/MWh0.0946 tCO2e/GJ0.45
= 0.757 tCO2e/MWh
= EFEG,GR,y
= 0.987 tCO2e/MWh

Step 1.8:
- EF(EG,GR,y)
The emission factor for the grid to which the project will be connected to, is the national grid of the
Kingdom of Swaziland and of the Republic of South Africa. The Combined Margin has been calculated
as shown in the Annex 4.
EFEG,GR,2011

= 0.987 tCO2e/MWh

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 66

Step 2: Minimum baseline electricity generation in the grid


The project activity is connected to the grid and thus EL(BL,GR,y) has to be determined. The baseline
electricity generation EL(BL,y) actually does not express the baseline generation at the site, but the total
generation including imports from off-site plants/grid.
ELBL,GR,2011

= MAX( 0; ELBL,2011 CAPEG,total,2011)


= MAX( 0; 143,541 MWh 69,294 MWh )
= 74,246 MWh

Step 3: Baseline biomass based heat generation


Step 3.1:
- HG(BL,BR,y)
In the baseline all fossil fuels utilized, in our case only coal, are combusted in one heat generator #7. The
allocation of biomass residues of the category B4: was thus according to the efficiencies of all the other
generators first, i.e. biomass residues were allocated to the most efficient boilers at the maximum extent
possible. Following this assignment, presented already in section B.6.1, the biomass based heat
generation in the baseline (HGBL,BR,2011) can be calculated for the year 2011 as follows:
HGBL,BR,2011

= ( h; BRB4,bagasse,h,2011BL,HG,BR,h) NCVBR,bagasse,2011
=
(21,260 t0.741
34,015 t0.741
34,073 t0.739
46,392 t0.679
79,108 t0.733
79,052 t0.827)14.33 GJ/t
= 3,166,607 GJ

In the assignment of biomass residues to the heat generators the side conditions were observed:
A) That the sum of biomass residues used in each heat generator is equal to the total amount of
biomass residues: In the proposed activity this condition is complied.
BRB4,bagasse,2011
= (h; BRB4,bagasse,h,2011)
293,900 t
=
(21,260 t
34,015 t
34,073 t
46,392 t
79,108 t
79,052 t)
293,900 t
= 293,900 t
B) That the heat generation of each generator should be lower than its capacity: In the proposed
activity this condition is complied.
LOC2011CAPHG,hLFCHG,h
BRB4,bagasse,h,2011NCVBR,bagasse,2011BL,HG,BR,h
(HG2) 5,372 h 64.7 GJ/h0.650
21,260 t 14.33 GJ/t0.741
(HG3) 5,372 h101.3 GJ/h0.664
34,015 t 14.33 GJ/t0.741
(HG4) 5,372 h 84.4 GJ/h0.797
34,073 t 14.33 GJ/t0.739
(HG5) 5,372 h 84.4 GJ/h0.997
46,392 t 14.33 GJ/t0.679
(HG6) 5,372 h208.1 GJ/h0.808
79,108 t 14.33 GJ/t0.733
(HG7) 5,372 h295.3 GJ/h0.997
79,052 t 14.33 GJ/t0.808

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 67

Step 3.2:
- EL(BL,BR,CG,y)
The baseline electricity generation from biomass residues of the category B4: is only from heat engines
operated in cogeneration mode. The calculation of ELBL,BR,CG,y for the year 2011 is the following:
ELBL,BR,CG,2011
= (1/3.6)[i; (1/(HPRBL,i + 1 + GGLdefault))HGBL,BR,CG,2011,i]
= (1/3.6 MWh/GJ)
[1/(6.398+ 1+ 0.05)) 605,978 GJ
+ 1/(6.672+ 1+ 0.05)) 476,977 GJ
+ 1/(7.069+ 1+ 0.05)) 420,896 GJ
+ 1/(6.272+ 1+ 0.05)) 343,720 GJ]
= 67,199 MWh
- HC(BL,BR,CG,y)
The baseline process heat generated in cogeneration mode from biomass residues of the category B4: is
logically only from heat engines operated in cogeneration mode.
HCBL,BR,CG,2011
= [ i; (HPRBL,i/(HPRBL,i + 1 + GGLdefault))HGBL,BR,CG,2011,i ]
=
6.398/(6.398+ 1+ 0.05)) 605,978 GJ
+ 6.672/(6.672+ 1+ 0.05)) 476,977 GJ
+ 7.069/(7.069+ 1+ 0.05)) 420,896 GJ
+ 6.272/(6.272+ 1+ 0.05)) 343,720 GJ
= 1,593,559 GJ
In the assignment of biomass residues to the heat engines the side conditions were observed:
A) Biomass-based heat used in cogeneration mode should not exceed the total biomass-based heat
generated: In the proposed activity this condition is complied.
HGBL,BR,2011
( i; HGBL,BR,CG,2011,i)
3,166,607 GJ

(605,978 GJ
+476,977 GJ
+420,896 GJ
+343,720 GJ)
3,166,607 GJ

1,847,570 GJ
B) Process heat cogenerated should not exceed the total process heat demand: In the proposed
activity this condition is complied.
HCBL,2011
HCBL,BR,CG,2011
3,084,893 GJ
1,593,559 GJ
C) Electricity generation in each heat engine should not exceed capacity: In the proposed activity
this condition is complied.
BL,EG,CG,iHGBL,BR,CG,2011,i
LOC2011CAPEG,CG,iLFCEG,CG,i
(TA2)
(TA3)
(TA4)

0.036 MWh/GJ 605,978 GJ


21,959 MWh
0.036 MWh/GJ 476,977 GJ
17,282 MWh
0.034 MWh/GJ 420,896 GJ

5,372 h5.0MW0.860
23,098 MWh
5,372 h4.0MW0.825
17,726 MWh
5,372 h3.5MW0.800

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 68

(TA5)

14,513 MWh
0.033 MWh/GJ 343,720 GJ
11,364 MWh

15,041 MWh
5,372 h3.0MW0.833
13,429 MWh

Depending on the above relation between HGBL,BR,y and HGBL,BR,CG,y,i on one side, and between HCBL,y
and HCBL,BR,CG,y cases are distinguished by the methodology.
Case
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4

HGBL,BR,y

:
=
=
>
>

HGBL,BR,CG,y,i

HCBL,y

: HCBL,BR,CG,y
=
>
=
>

HCBL,y
3,084,893 GJ

: HCBL,BR,CG,y
> 1,593,559 GJ

For the proposed project activity case 3.2.4 applies.


Case
3.2.4

HGBL,BR,y
3,166,607 GJ

:
>

HGBL,BR,CG,y,i
1,847,570 GJ

Since for the proposed project activity case 3.2.4 applies, it is necessary to further distinguish the
following cases:
Case
3.2.4.1
3.2.4.2
3.2.4.3

HCBL,y-HCBL,BR,CG,y

h LOW
h HIGH

HG BL,BR, y

HG BL,BR,CG,y,i
i

=
>
<

For the proposed project activity case 3.2.4.2 applies.


Case
3.2.4.2

HCBL,y-HCBL,BR,CG,y

3,084,893 GJ 1,593,559 GJ >


1,491,334 GJ
>

h LOW
h HIGH

HG BL,BR, y

HG BL,BR,CG,y,i
i

(2.72 GJ/t / 3.15 GJ/t)( 3,166,607 GJ 1,847,570 GJ)


1,137,545 GJ

In the turn of case 3.2.4.2 the parameters HCbalance,FF,y and ELbalance,FF,y are defined and calculated as
follows for the proposed project activity:
HCbalance,FF,2011

= (HCBL,2011 HCBL,BR,CG,2011) (hlow/hhigh) (HGBL,BR,2011 [ i; HGBL,BR,CG,2011,i])


= (3,084,893 GJ1,593,559 GJ)(2.72 GJ/t / 3.15 GJ/t)(3,166,607 GJ1,847,570
GJ)
= 353,788 GJ

ELbalance,FF,2011

= ELBL,2011 ELBL,GR,2011 ELBL,BR,CG,2011


= 143,540 MWh 74,246 MWh 67,199 MWh
= 2,096 MWh

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 69

Step 4: Baseline demand for fossil fuels


Step 4.1:
For the proposed project activity, the baseline cogeneration capacities have already been used up in the
previous steps by biomass-based cogeneration. This can be followed since HGBL,BR,y exceeds
(i; HGBL,BR,CG,y,i). Therefore, it is not necessary and not possible to allocate the balance of process heat
to be met by fossil fuel based co-generation to heat engines. Fossil-fuel-based co-generation does not
occur in the proposed project activity in the considered year 2011.
Therefore:
HGbalance,FF,2011
And:
ELBL,FF,2011

= (i; HGBL,FF,CG,2011,i)
= 0 GJ
= 1/((i; HCbalance,FF,2011 HPRBL,i)
= 0 MWh

Since in the propose project activity for the considered year 2011 no cogeneration capacities are left for
fossil fuel based generation, the remaining process heat demand has to be met by direct heat
extraction (DHE). The fossil fuel energy equivalents necessary to generate the balance of process heat
demand are calculated as follows:
HGBL,FF,2011

= (HCbalance,FF,2011 - [i; HCbalance,FF,CG,2011,i]) (hhigh/hlow)


= (353,788 GJ 0 GJ) (3.15 GJ/t / 2.71 GJ/t)
= 410,234 GJ

Above, it was stated that due to the lack of co-generation capacities to be used in fossil-fuel-based
generation, the balance of fossil-fuel-based electricity generation in co-generation could not be met for
the proposed project activity and ELBL,FF,2011=0. Then it just remains to verify if balance of fossil-fuelbased electricity generation in the baseline exceeds the fossil-fuel-based cogeneration in the baseline. The
methodology distinguishes the following cases:
Case
4.1.1
4.1.2

ELbalance,FF,y

<

ELBL,FF,y

For the proposed project activity case 4.1.1 applies since ELBL,FF,y=0. Therefore, ELbalance,FF,y is defined as
ELBL,FF/GR,y.
ELBL,FF/GR,2011

= ELbalance,FF,2011
= 2,096 MWh

Step 4.2:
From the in the previous step calculated total heat generation based on fossil fuels, the energy equivalent
of fossil fuels in the baseline is calculated. In order to calculate the energy equivalent, it is first necessary
to allocate the total heat generation on fossil fuels to the heat generators. The only baseline fossil fuel heat
generator in the proposed project activity is boiler #7. Therefore:
HGBL,FF,2011,HG7

= HGBL,FF,2011

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 70

= 410,234 GJ
In the proposed project activity, coal was defined as the only relevant fossil fuel type and the energy
equivalent of coal are thus calculated as:
FFBL,HG,2011,coal

= HGBL,FF,2011 / BL,HG,FF,HG7
= 410,234 GJ /0.827
= 496,025 GJ

Step5: Baseline emissions due to uncontrolled burning/ decay of biomass residues


The project participants decided not to include this potential source in the project activity. Therefore:
BE(BR,2011)

= 0 tCO2e

Step6: Calculate baseline emissions


- BE(y)
The baseline emissions BE(y) for the year 2011, they calculate as described above at the beginning of this
section:
BE2011

= ELBL,GR,2011EFEG,GR,2011 + FFBL,HG,2011,coalEFFF,2011,coal +
ELBL,FF/GR,2011MIN(EFEG,GR,2011;EFEG,FF,2011)
= 74,246MWh0.987 tCO2e/MWh+496,025 GJ0.0946 tCO2e/GJ+
2,096 MWh MIN(0.987 tCO2e/MWh; 0.757 tCO2e/MWh)
= 121,791tCO2e

Project Emissions:
Fossil Fuel Combustion at the project site (PEFF,y):
PEFF,2011

= 0 tCO2e

Electricity Import from the Grid due to the PA (PEGR1,y):


PEGR1,2011

= EFEG,GR,2011 ELPJ,imp,2011
= 0.987 tCO2e/MWh 0 MWh
= 0 tCO2e

Electricity Offset due to baseline generation exceeding PA-generation (PEGR2,y):


This term is only if case 3.3.2 or 4.2.2 is applicable to a project activity. This is not the case for the
proposed project activity as by 2011. Therefore:
PEGR2,2011

= 0 tCO2e

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 71

Emissions from fossil fuel consumption for transportation (PETR,y):


PETR, 2011
= (i,v; FCi,v,2011 NCVi,2011 EFCO2,i,2011 )
=
(464,000 l diesel 0.03616 GJ/l 0.0741 tCO2/GJ diesel
= 1,245 tCO2e
Total Project Emissions:
PE2011
= PEFF,2011 + PEGR1,2011 + PEGR2,2011 + PETR,2011
= 0 tCO2e + 0 tCO2e + 0 tCO2e + 1,245 tCO2e
= 1,245 tCO2e
Leakage:
As mentioned above, leakage is not assumed to occur for 2011 from the ex-ante view. Therefore:
LE2011
= 0 tCO2e
Emission Reduction:
ER2011

= BE2011 - PE2011 - LE2011


= 121,791 tCO2e - 1,245 tCO2e 0tCO2e
= 120,546 tCO2e (for 12 months)

Correction for Demand-Side Energy Efficiency:


DSsubtr,2011

= PQ2011 EFEG,GR,2011 (SPCBL SPCPJ) (hlow/hhigh) / EGEsteam


= 2,253,950t 0.987tCO2e/MWh (0.584 0.501) (2.71/3.15)/7.89t steam/MWh
= 20,182 tCO2e (for 12 months)

ERcorr,2011

= ER2011 DSsubtr,2011
= 120,546tCO2e - 20,182tCO2e
= 100,364tCO2e (for 12 months)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 72

B.6.4

Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

The results of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions for all years of the crediting period are
summarized in the table B-9. The project emissions are added the parameter DSsubtr,y:
Table B-9: Ex-ante Estimate of Emission Reductions during 1st Crediting Period

Year
04/11-03/12
04/12-03/13
04/13-03/14
04/14-03/15
04/15-03/16
04/16-03/17
04/17-03/18
Total

B.7.

Estimation of
project activity
emissions
(tonnes of CO2e)
21,427
22,728
23,785
23,998
24,445
24,445
24,445
165,275

Estimation of
baseline emissions
(tonnes of CO2e)
121,791
131,863
140,488
142,498
141,938
141,938
141,938
962,454

Estimation of
leakage
(tonnes of CO2e)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Estimation of
overall emission
reductions
(tonnes of CO2e)
100,364
109,135
116,703
118,499
117,493
117,493
117,493
797,179

Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:


B.7.1

Data and parameters monitored:

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Measurement
procedures if any :
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:

FCi,v,y
Litres
Quantity of fuel type i consumed by on-site transportation vehicle v during the
year y
Volume meters
On-site transportation (biomass storage) by bulldozer, front end loaders, truck
horses, and excavators: 40,000 litres
Off-site transportation of cane trash by tractors, bale loaders, and truck horses:
420,000 litres
Volume meters installed at the fuel tanks will be utilized. The meters should be
calibrated at least once a year.
Continuously, aggregated weekly
The consistency of metered fuel consumption quantities should be crosschecked by an annual energy balance based on purchased quantities and stock
changes.
For cross-check purposes the number of running hours will also be monitored
and the hourly fuel consumption will be calculated. The hourly fuel
consumption can be checked for reasonability.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 73

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Measurement
procedures if any :
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:

NCVi,y
GJ/mass or volume unit
Weighted average net calorific value of fuel type i during the year y
IPCC default values
36.16 GJ/m3 of diesel
27.00 GJ/t of sub-bituminous coal

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Measurement
procedures if any :
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:

EFCO2,i,y
tCO2/GJ
Weighted average CO2 emission factor of fuel type i during the year y
IPCC default values
0.0946 tCO2e/GJ for sub-bituminous coal
0.0741 tCO2e/GJ for diesel

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:

QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:

Cane trash availability


Tonnes on dry basis
- Quantity of available biomass residues of type n in the region
- Quantity of biomass residues of type n that are utilized in the region
- Quantity of available and comparable biomass residues which is not used for
energy purposes currently or for other purposes in the region
Surveys or statistics
Cane trash: Available to the full extent consumed by the project activity. Only
from part of the fields harvested for the Ubombo mill are exploited as sources.
There is no alternative use of cane trash in the region.
At the validation stage for biomass residues categories identified ex-ante, and
always when new biomass residue categories are included during the project
activity lifetime
-----

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:

BRPJ,n,y
tonnes on dry-basis
Quantity of biomass residues of category n used in the project activity in year y

Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:

n/a
Any future revision of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines should be taken into account
n/a

n/a
Any future revision of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines should be taken into account
n/a

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 74

Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:

Bagasse: calculated through mass balance from cane


Cane trash: weighed with belt weigh at factory
Bagasse: 293,900 t (dry weight)
Cane Trash: 52,200 t (dry weight)
Monitored weekly for mass balance calculations of bagasse;
Monitored continuously for weighing of cane trash;
Aggregated at least weekly.
The weighing equipment will be calibrated according to the supplier
specifications.
Quantities will be monitored separately for each type of biomass residue and
each source (e.g. produced on-site, obtained from field). Calculated as actual
weight multiplied by (1 moisture content).
BRB4,n,y
tonnes on dry-basis
Quantity of biomass residues of category n used in the project activity in year y
for which the baseline scenario is B4
Calculated with mass balance based on quantity of cane crushed. Cane crushed
is measures with belt weigh.
Bagasse: 293,900 t (actual weight)
Calculated at least weekly
Check consistency with BRPJ,n,y, i.e. the total biomass used by the project
activity.

Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in

BRB1/B3,n,y
tonnes on dry-basis
Quantity of biomass residues of category n used in the project activity in year y
for which the baseline scenario is B1 or B3.
On-site measurements with belt weightometer at cane trash conveyor
Cane trash: 52,200 t (actual weight)
Continuously and aggregated weekly
Same value as BRTR,y. Should be in correspondence with the relevant biomass
residue in BRPJ,n,y. Calibration of the equipment will be done according to the
supplier specifications.
--BRB5/B8,n,y
tonnes of dry matter
Quantity of biomass residues of category n used in the project activity in year
y, for which the baseline scenario is B5, B6, B7 or B8.
On-site measurements
n/a

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 75

calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:

Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:

Continuously and aggregated weekly


Should be in correspondence with the relevant biomass residue in BRPJ,n,y.
Calibration of the equipment will be done according to the supplier
specifications.
--BRTR,y
tonnes (dry weight)
Quantity of biomass residues that has been transported to the project site during
the year y
On-site measurements with belt weightometer at cane trash conveyor receiving
cane trash from the field
Cane trash: 52,200 t (actual weight)
Monitored continuously and aggregated weekly
Crosscheck the measurements with an annual energy balance that is based on
purchased quantities and stock changes. BRTR,y composes of the cane trash
directly combusted in the mill and the cane trash first going to the biomass
store and then being reclaimed during off-crop season from the store.
Calibration of the equipment will be done according to the supplier
specifications.
--HCBL,y
GJ
Baseline process heat generation in year y
On-site measurements
3,084,893 GJ
Calculated based on continuously monitored data and aggregated as
appropriate, to calculate emissions reductions
--The monitoring is for the process heat generation in the year y in the project
plant. Departing from this value the process heat generation in the year y in the
reference plant is calculated with the Energy and Mass Balance model.
ELPJ,gross,y
MWh
Gross quantity of electricity generated at the project site in year y
On-site measurements
163,252 MWh
Continuously and aggregated as appropriate, to calculate emissions reductions

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 76

QA/QC procedures:

Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:

Any comment:

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:

The consistency of metered electricity generation should be cross-checked with


receipts from electricity sales (if available) and the quantity of fuels fired (e.g.
check whether the electricity generation divided by the quantity of fuels fired
results in a reasonable efficiency that is comparable to previous years)
--ELPJ,imp,y
MWh
Project electricity imports from the grid in year y
On-site measurements
0 MWh
Continuously and aggregated as appropriate, to calculate emissions reductions
The consistency of metered electricity generation should be cross-checked with
receipts from electricity purchases
--ELPJ,aux,y
MWh
Total auxiliary electricity consumption required for the operation of the power
plants at the project site in year y
Calculated
Co-generation plant: 14,200 MWh
(capacity 2.0 MW for auxiliary equipment multiplied with LOCy)
Related to cane trash: 5,512 MWh
(capacity 1.026 MW for cane trash shredder multiplied with LOCy)
Yearly
The consistency of metered electricity generation should be cross-checked with
receipts from electricity sales (if available) and the quantity of fuels fired (e.g.
check whether the electricity generation divided by the quantity of fuels fired
results in a reasonable efficiency that is comparable to previous years).
This approach is conservative. Should electricity meters be installed to the
shredder or the auxiliary equipment of the co-generation plant during the
crediting period, the metered values can be taken instead.
It shall include all electricity required for the operation of equipment related to
the preparation, storage and transport of biomass residues (not fired in the
baseline) and electricity required for the operation of the co-generation plant at
the project site (e.g. pumps, fans, cooling towers, instrumentation and control).
NCVBR,n,y
GJ/tonnes of dry matter
Net calorific value of biomass residue of category n in year y
On-site measurements
Bagasse: 14.33 GJ/t dry
Cane trash: 14.08 GJ/t dry
Monitored weekly and aggregated monthly

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 77

QA/QC procedures:

Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:

Check the consistency of the measurements by comparing the measurement


results with measurements from previous years. If the measurement results
differ significantly, then conduct additional measurements. Ensure that the
NCV is determined on dry basis.
--NCVFF,f,y
GJ/mass or volume unit
Net calorific value of fossil fuel type f in year y
Reliable data is provided by the seller of the coal
27.0 GJ/t for bituminous coal
Yearly
Value is set equal to the historic NCV of bituminous coal. Only in case during
the project activity coal is combusted at the project site, this value will be
updated.

Any comment:
Data / parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:

MCBR,n,y
(%)
Moisture content of biomass category n in year y
On-site measurements or laboratory analyses
Bagasse: 49.6%
Cane trash: 23.0%

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:

Py
Tonnes
Quantity of the main product of the production process produced in year y
On-site measurements
Not applicable (parameter not applied in B.5)

Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:

EFgrid,y
tCO2e/MWh
Grid emission factor during the year y for the electricity grid identified as
project electricity system
According to the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity
system

Source of data:

The moisture content will be determined at least weekly.


--The moisture content will be determined for each category of biomass residues.

Continuously
-----

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 78

Value applied in
calculating emission
reductions in B.5
Measurement
procedures if any:
Monitoring frequency:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:

0.987 tCO2e/MWh
n/a
Updated at the renewal of each crediting period.
-----

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 79

B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan:


The CDM Consultant developed an excel file together with the project participant. The file contains all
parameters relevant to the emission reduction calculation and the monitoring. Separate sheets are included
for the different categories of parameters, i.e. parameters provided at validation, parameters monitored
with ex-ante values for the year 2011 and sheets for the years of the crediting period. In the file each
parameter is listed as the abbreviation attributed by the methodology, a short description of its content,
the unit, and a column where to insert the actual value.
1. Structure and Responsibilities
1.1 Management Structure

CDM Operation Unit:


- Complete list for off-site values
(e.g. IPCC, grid EF)
- Over-check for consistency +
completeness check

Agric Biomass Manager:


Transport vehicles for cane trash
Field harvest of cane trash
On-site biomass transport
Leakage monitoring

Co Gen Manager:
- Produce energy balance
- Monitor fuel use: bagasse, cane
trash and others if applicable
- Monitor fuel stock
- Monitor on-site equipment related
to bagasse reclaim from store and
to cane trash (preparation and
reclaim)
- Check sampling units
- Archive monitoring data and
produce data back-ups

1.2 Responsibilities of the CDM Operation Unit


The CDM Operation Unit holds responsible for the entire monitoring requirements. The other positions
are sub-ordinate positions. This means the CDM Operation Units responsibilities include:
Supervise the monitoring of all parameters including completeness and consistency checks
Supervise the timely monitoring (monitoring frequency) and aggregation of data
Over-check data from sub-ordinate positions for completeness regularly throughout the year
Add data not monitored like IPCC default values
Perform or arranges the necessary training on the monitoring requirements
Formulate internal audit requirements

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 80

1.3 Responsibilities of the Agric Biomass Manager


The Agric Biomass Manager holds responsibility for the entire monitoring requirements of the cane trash
related activities. These include:
Monitoring of fuel consumption of transport vehicles utilized for the transport of cane trash
Monitoring of equipment involved in the preparation of cane trash
The coordination of the leakage monitoring involving market analysis for cane trash
Attending training courses on monitoring organised by the CDM Operation Unit
1.3 Responsibilities of the Co-Gen Manager
The Co-Gen Manager will be responsible for the monitoring of all on-site (sugar mill and cogeneration
plant) parameters of the proposed project activity. These include:
Production of an energy balance showing fuel consumption (cane trash and bagasse), heat and
power generation at the defined monitoring points:
o Heat in/out of the boilers and turbines
o Electricity generated, imported, exported and used by auxiliary co-gen equipment
Sample taking for cane trash and bagasse to determine the calorific value and the moisture
content
Quantity of bagasse combusted
Quantity of cane trash combusted
Monitoring of fuel stock
Manage and report on the functioning of installed monitoring units, maintenance and calibration
Monitoring of on-site equipment for the preparation of cane trash
Monitoring of all cane trash and bagasse stock piling and re-claim equipment
Attending training courses on monitoring organised by the CDM Operation Unit
Auditing of input data as per auditing procedure laid out by the CDM Operation Unit
Archives all monitoring data and produces data back-up
Stores the monitoring data for at least 2 years after the end of the corresponding crediting period
Note: If any of the designations or responsibilities of the allocated employees change in future, it will be
indicated in the monitoring report during verification. The monitoring protocol will be adopted within the
ISO9001 system at the Ubombo sugar mill. The responsible employees and their functions will be
updated in the ISO9001 documentation to reflect any changes in the management structure or
responsibilities allocated.
2. Installation of meters
Electricity meters will be installed that meter gross electricity generation, imported and exported
electricity. Consumption of auxiliary equipment power will be either metered or obtained from installed
power.
Heat generation at the boiler will be metered and apportioned to CDM-plant where appropriate.
Heat generation at the turbo alternator (in and out) will be measured/ calculated. All relevant temperatures
will be measured and steam flow calculated from the OEM performance curves.
Belt weightometers will be installed to weigh cane trash and bagasse supplied, stockpiled and reclaimed
from the store.
All transport vehicles related to cane trash provision will be equipped with hour meters and fuel
consumption measured.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 81

3. Calibration
The metering equipments will be checked periodically according to the relevant standards. Calibration
will be carried out by qualified third party companies or by Ubombo Sugar Limited via the ISO 9001
system, whichever is relevant to the standards.
4. Data Quality Control
4.1 Internal audits
The CDM Operation Unit will formulate internal audit procedures to assess the accuracy of the
monitoring variables. The audits will cover:
Data collection procedures
Quality of metering/ calibration methods
Quality of other monitoring data
Archiving of all electronic and paper based information
4.2 Corrective actions
The CDM Operation Unit will record all corrective actions, if any, and describe them in the monitoring
report naming the following:
1. Reasons for Corrective Actions (CA)
2. Options for CA
3. Data affected by the CA
4. Expected results
6. Verification by the DOE
The objective of verification is to independently verify if and to which extent the project has achieved real
emission reductions. The verifying DOE must be different from the validating DOE.
B.8.
Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology and
the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies):
The application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology was completed by November, 2010 by
GFA ENVEST GmbH, Hamburg (Germany) after having previously visited the project site.
The following persons are responsible for this application:
Daniel Blank, GFA ENVEST GmbH (No Project Participant), Hamburg (Germany)
Email: daniel.blank@gfa-envest.com
Gerald Kapp, GFA ENVEST GmbH (No Project Participant), Hamburg (Germany)
Email: gerald.kapp@gfa-envest.com

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 82

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:

The starting date of the project activity is the date on which the first major investment into the project
activity was done. For the project activity, this investment represents a new boiler, a main equipment of
the project, which was ordered on:
17/10/2009

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:


30 years
C.2.

Choice of the crediting period and related information:


C.2.1. Renewable crediting period:
C.2.1.1.

Starting date of the first crediting period:

01/04/2011 or date of registration (whichever will be later)


C.2.1.2.

Length of the first crediting period:

31/03/2018 or 7 years from date of registration (whichever will be later)


C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:
C.2.2.1.

Starting date:

C.2.2.2.

Length:

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 83

SECTION D. Environmental impacts


D.1.
Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary
impacts:
The environmental assessment procedure in Swaziland is governed by procedures and processes
described in the Environmental Audit, Assessment and Review Regulations (EAARR), No 31 of the year
2000.TheEAARR stipulates that any new proposed developments, as well as the extension or upgrading
of any existing development, requires an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the
Swaziland Environmental Authority (SEA) before any construction or implementation activities may
commence. The EAARR requires that prior to the commencement of major developments proponents
should prepare and submit a project brief to the SEA, indicating the scope of work and the magnitude of
the proposed development. The SEA then indicates what level of investigation is required for the
environmental assessment.
In conformity to the before EAARR, the Ubombo Sugar Limited compiled a Project Brief and an
Inception Report and submitted them to the SEA on 21 July 2006. However, after all specialty studies and
the Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) were completed by the sugar mill, it put the project on hold
before submitting the reports to the SEA.
After reinitializing the project, the Project Brief and Inception Report was updated and re-submitted to the
SEA on 09 January 2009. On 12 February 2009 the project was classified as aCategory-2 project by the
SEA. Category-2 projects do not require a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) but only an
Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE). The EAARR stipulates that an IEE shall be compiled and be
accompanied by a detailed Comprehensive Mitigation Plan (CMP).
The results of the Initial Environmental Evaluation indicate that the proposed CDM project will not have
any significant negative impacts on the natural environment as well as on social and economic life.
Hence, the SEA approved the implementation of the project on March 16th 2009 and awarded Ubombo
Sugar Ltd. the requested Environmental Compliance Certificate.
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:
According to the Initial Environmental Evaluation approved by the Swaziland Environmental Authority
the proposed project activity will not have any significant impacts. All negative impacts identified
through the IEE can be successfully mitigated to acceptable levels. Moreover, most of these insignificant
negative impacts identified (landscape and visual) are limited to the construction stage.
The Ubombo Sugar Limited will monitor the mitigation measures constantly after their implementation as
demanded by the SEA, so to allow the assessment of their application.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 84

SECTION E. Stakeholders comments


E.1.

Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:

In accordance with the Swaziland Environmental Management Act from 2002 (Act No 5, paragraph 32),
no person shall undertake any project that may have an effect on the environment without the written
approval by the authority. In this context a Project Brief was submitted to the Swaziland Environmental
Authority (SEA) which after assessing the proposed project activity issued an Environmental Compliance
Certificate in March 2009.
The independent environmental consultants of Strategic Environmental Focus (Pty.) sent in the name of
the Ubombo Sugar Limited a letter to interested and affected parties. In this letter the environmental
impact process was described. The letter was attached a description of the proposed project activity and
comments were invited. In order to facilitate comments, the addressed parties were also sent a form where
to insert comments/concerns/statements. The form only mentions four potential areas of issues, but leaves
comments open. The areas are socio-economic, cultural/historical issues, environmental issues and other
issues.
The following parties were identified and addressed in writing:
- Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy (Mr. Henry Shongwe and Mr. Peterson Dlamini),
- Swaziland Electricity Board (Ms. Constance Van Zydum and Mr. Vusi Simelane),
- Shell Oil Swaziland (Mr. Solly Nkabinde),
- Regional chief (Chief Mshikashika Mcgampalala),
- Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise (Ms. Lynn Kota, Mr. Mike Ogg, and
Mr. Sabelo Simande),
- Renewable Energy Association of Swaziland (Ms. Khetsiwe Khumalo),
- Department of Labour (Mr. Jinoh Nkambule),
- Ministry of Economic Planning and Development (Ms. Nomsa Tibane), and
- the adjacent landowner (Mr. Kingsley Mbuso).
Apart, flyers were erected at the site of the mill informing about the proposed development. The flyers
were in English and in the local language Isiswati.
In addition to the public participation exercise relating to the environmental compliance, all stakeholders,
interested and affected parties were invited to a meeting on 09 November 2010 where a presentation was
delivered on the proposed CDM activity and public representations sought. The notice was placed in the
local newspaper and on several community notice boards.
E.2.

Summary of the comments received:

The stakeholder process was initiated on 11 September 2006. Comments were invited to be submitted in
writing on the sent forms or via email. Only one email was received from the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Energy, namely from Mr. Peterson Dlamini. He queried about the project size of the plant
in MW and the exact locality of the plant.
During the CDM public participation meeting held on 09 November 2010 at 17h00 the following
comments have been recorded:

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 85

1. Dr. L. Breytenbach USA Fuel (Pty) Ltd.: He enquired details surrounding typical CDM-project
registration time lines.
The question was responded to by giving a brief run-down of requirements and timelines as
expected by Ubombo Sugar Ltd. for its planned activity.
2. Mr S. Cleasby Ubombo Sugar Ltd.: He queried whether a second public meeting would take
place.
Ubombo Sugar Ltd. responded by providing details of the extensive advertising that included the
date of one public meeting.
3. Dr. L. Breytenbach - USA Fuel (Pty) Ltd.: He queried whether Ubombo Sugar Ltd would be
interested in other sources of fuel and suggested a look into a torrification of bagasse or swapping
bagasse for another source of fuel.
Ubombo Sugar Ltd responded that torrification of bagasse was unknown to the sugar industry and
that any alternative fuel/swapping of fuel would have to be assessed separately and reemphasised
that the Ubombo CDM-project intents to fire mainly biomass residues in the form of sugar cane
tops and trash.
4. Ms T. Makandanje Ubombo Sugar Ltd.: She mentioned that she had missed half the
presentation due to the fact that she only knocked off work at 17h15 and that there may be other
employees experiencing the same problem.
Ubombo Sugar Ltd. responded that it had not received any concerns regarding timing of the
meeting via the invitation for any queries that was made on the public participation meeting
notice.
E.3.

Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:

Neither concerns nor negative comments were received.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 86

Annex 1
CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY
Organization:
Street/P.O.Box:
Building:
City:
State/Region:
Postcode/ZIP:
Country:
Telephone:
FAX:
E-Mail:
URL:
Represented by:
Title:
Salutation:
Last name:
Middle name:
First name:
Department:
Mobile:
Direct FAX:
Direct tel:
Personal e-mail:

Ubombo Sugar Limited


P.O. Box 23
Big Bend
L311
Swaziland
+268 363 8000
+268 363 6330
http://www.illovo.com
General Manager - Operations
Mister
Hulley
John

jhulley@illovo.co.za

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 87

Annex 2
INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING
The proposed project activity will be financed by Ubombo Sugar Ltd. It is not running under a public
incentive scheme nor is it required by law. The PDD development is financed by the project
Restructuring and Diversification Management Unit to coordinate the implementation of the National
Adaptation Strategy to the EU Sugar Reform, SWAZILAND (EuropeAid/125214/C/SER/SZ). However,
this does not imply any diversion of Official Development Aid.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 88

Annex 3
BASELINE INFORMATION
Category n
1

Type
Bagasse

Source
Production
process

Fate in BL
Energy
generation onsite (B4)

Fate in PA
Energy generation

Cane
trash

Field residue

Decay or burnt
in field (B1 or
B3)

Energy generation

Quantity (1,000 t dry)


(year)
293.3 (2011/12)
306.0 (2012/13)
323.1 (2013/14)
324.1 (2014/15)
330.8 (2015/16)
As previous
52.2 (2011/12)
54.5 (2012/13)
57.4 (2013/14)
57.9 (2014/15)
59.0 (2015/16)
As previous

BASELINE - GRID EF
Based on Version 02 of the Methodological Tool Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity
system the following was calculated:
Step 1: Identify the relevant electric power system
Project Electricity System: The national grid of Swaziland operated by SEC (Swaziland Electricity
Company) and the grid of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) are identified as the Project Electricity
System (PES).For reasons of simplicity it is assumed that the grid of the RSA is fully represented by the
ESKOM grid which accounts for 95% of the national generation capacity. The remaining 5% are by
municipally owned plants or generators embedded in large industrial operations. This proceeding is in
line with registered CDM-projects in the RSA.
Connected Electricity System: The ESKOM grid was identified as the Connected Electricity
System (CES).
Step 2: Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the PES (optional)
For the proposed project activity, it was decided to not include off-grid power plants into the PES.
Step 3: Select an Operating Margin Method
Out of four optional methods for the determination of the OM, the Simple OM was selected. In terms of
data vintage the ex-ante option was selected implying the utilization of data of three most recent years
before the submission of the PDD for validation.
Step 4: Calculate the Operating Margin emission factor according to the selected method
Following the guidance of the Simple OM, in a first step a categorization of plants into low-cost/ mustruns (k) and non-must-runs (j) power sources was done. Low-cost/must-runs are excluded from the
Simple OM and the power sources included in the Simple OM are obtained as shown in Table 28.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 89

Table 26: Power Sources in the Operating Margin


Country
RSA
RSA
RSA
RSA
RSA
RSA
RSA
RSA
RSA
RSA
RSA
RSA
SZ
RSA
RSA

Plant Name
Arnot
Duvha
Hendrina
Kendal
Kriel
Lethabo
Matimba
Majuba
Matla
Tutuka
Camden
Grootvlei
Edwaleni D6+D7
Acacia
Port Rex

Fuel Type
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Gas

Commission
(year)
1971
1980
1970
1988
1976
1985
1987
1996
1979
1985
1966
1969
1968; 1970
1976
1976

FC (05-07)
(kt or Ml)
19,730 kt
40,106 kt
23,424 kt
51,263 kt
31,301 kt
56,710 kt
42,307 kt
39,026 kt
43,592 kt
30,881 kt
5,213 kt
131 kt
0 Ml
18 Ml
11 Ml

EG (05-07)
(GWh)
39,338
79,653
42,250
87,144
60,741
80,253
92,407
64,130
79,197
60,871
8,744
237
0
48
30

For the years 2005, 2006/07 and 2007/08 the Simple OM emission factor is (generation weighted):
2005
:
0.976 tCO2e/MWh
2006/07:
0.994 tCO2e/MWh
2007/08:
1.013 tCO2e/MWh
The average Simple OM over the historic period is thus:
EFgrid,OMsimple = 0.994 tCO2e/MWh
Step 5: Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin (BM).
The BM is determined for the set of power capacity additions that comprise 20% of all power generation
and that have been built most recently. The ex-ante option of data vintage is chosen.
Table 27: Power Sources in the Build Margin
Country
Plant Name
SZ
Maguga
RSA
Majuba
RSA
Kendal
RSA
Matimba
RSA
Bethlehem
*In the year 2007.

Fuel Type
Hydro
Coal
Coal
Coal
Hydro

Commission
(year)
2006
1996
1988
1987
2009

FC (05-07)
(kt)
--39,026
51,263
42,307
---

EG (05-07)
(GWh)
149
64,130
87,144
92,407
37*

The imports from Mozambique make up for an accumulated average generation share of 19% (still being
below the requested 20%). Although the transmission line permitting imports from the RSA and from
Mozambique existed at the same time, the import from the RSA is included into the BM, since it occurred
first and it represents the larger source.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 90

Step 6: Calculate the build margin emission factor


The BM emissions factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of all power
units m included in the BM during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available.
The power units included in the BM are named in Step 5.
For the years 2005, 2006/07 and 2007/08 the BM emission factor is (generation weighted):
2005
:
2006/07:
2007/08:

0.966 tCO2e/MWh
0.980 tCO2e/MWh
0.993 tCO2e/MWh

The average BM over the historic period is thus:


EFgrid,BM = 0.979 tCO2e/MWh
Step 7: Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor.
The baseline emission factor is calculated as CM (EFgrid,CM,y), which is the simple average of the OM and
the BM. All margins are expressed in tCO2e/MWh. The default values for the weighting factors wOM and
wBM are 0.5 and 0.5. Thus:
EFgrid,CM,y

= 0.5 EFgrid,OM,y + 0.5 EFgrid,BM,y


= 0.5 0.994 tCO2e/MWh + 0.5 0.979 tCO2e/MWh
= 0.987 tCO2e/MWh

Thus, the Combined Margin Emission Factor is:


EFgrid,CM,y

= 0.987 tCO2e/MWh.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 91

Annex 4
MONITORING INFORMATION
-----

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03


CDM Executive Board
page 92

Appendix 1- ISO 9001 Quality Management Certificate