Greenhouse Gas Assessment Methodologydocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/234661468778782913/... ·...

Global Environment CoordInatlon DivisionEnvironment Department

The World Bank

30287GLOBALENVIRONMENT

COORDI NATION

Greenhouse Gas AssessmentMethodology

Irving MintzerDavid Von Hippel

Stan Kolar

June 1994

Early Release Version

FILE COPYTHE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433 USA

Telephone 202 473 1816

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Greenhouse Gas AssessmentMethodology

Assessment of Greenhouse Gas andOther Air Pollutant Emissions

from Projects Proposed for theGlobal Environment Facility

of the World Bank

Irving MintzerDavid Von Hippel

Stan Kolar

June 1994

This document was produced by the Global Environment Coordination Division (ENVGC) of theWorld Bank, a division of environmental and operational specialists and business managers set upIn the Environment Department to oversee the Bank's work as an implementing agency for theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF) and the Montreal Protocol (MP).

The document is part of a series of tools. guidelines and best practice notes being developed asa result of the World Bank's global environment work.

FINAL DRAFT February 8, 1994

GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

OVERVIEW

I. Introduction

The Framework Convention on Climate Change identifies the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as thefinancial mechanism for implementing the Climate Convention. To fulfill this role, the GEF must evaluate,select, and underwrite proposals for funding of projects to reduce the risks of rapid climate change. Tofacilitate the process of proposal evaluation and project selection, the GEF asked the Center for GlobalChange at the University of Maryland (CGC) and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) to developa spreadsheet-based tool for comparing the economic costs and air pollution implications of proposed GEFprojects. To meet this request, CGC and SEI have developed a new analytic tool, the Greenhouse GasAssessment Methodology (GGAM).

This report presents the GGAM along with instructions for its use. It illustrates the application of theGGAM to eight global warming projects developed during the GEF Pilot Phase. The report is divided intofour sections. The remainder of section I provides some background on the climate problem and theresponsibilities of the GEF under the Climate Convention. Section II presents an overview of the GGAMapproach, highlighting the context in which this tool may best be used. It also identifies some of the keymethodological issues that were encountered during the development of this new tool. Section III outlinesa set of unresolved questions, methodological limitations and persistent uncenainties that must be recognizedin order to use this new tool appropriately. Section IV highlights some of the lessons learned from thisinitial application of the GGAM. Section V provides a set of Conclusions and Recommendations for FurtherWork.

A. GREENHOUSE GASES AND THE RISKS OF RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE

The "greenhouse effect" is the name given to a geophysical process that has been essential to the evolutionof life on Earth. For two billion years. natural background concentrations of certain gaseous compoundshave trapped heat close to the Earth's surface, warming the planet. These gases, principally water vapor,ozone. and carbon dioxide, are transparent to incoming sunlight in the visible portion of the electro-magneticspectrum. But they absorb and re-emit some of the outbound, infra-red radiation from the Earth's surface.Pan of this infra-red radiation is re-emitted upward toward outer space; the remainder is re-emitteddownward toward the planet's surface.

For millennia. this downward re-emission has been sufficient to warm the surface by about 33° C (590 F)above what it would otherwise have been. Absent the natural greenhouse effect, Earth's average surfacetemperature would have been about -18' C (O° F) and water would have been present on the surface onlyas ice. The natural greenhouse effect allowed liquid water to remain stable over most of the Earth's surface.providing the fundamental substrate for biological activity as we know it.


Greenhouse Gases and the Climate Problem

Climate change, per se, is not a problem. Climate has been changing constantly for hundreds of millennia.As a result of the slow advance of natural processes, the planet has warmed and cooled, passing regularlyfrom cold "ice ages" to warm, interglacial periods. Most of these changes have been slow, in transitionsthat spanned thousands of years. These gradual transitions have allowed life on Earth to adjust relativelysmoothly to each new climatic equilibrium. Nonetheless, during these transitions, the boundaries ofecological communities have shifted; the associated human cultures have flourished and, occasionally,disappeared.

But recently something important has changed. During the last two centuries, the natural greenhouse effecthas become the "greenhouse problem." In the foreseeable future, rising concentrations of greenhouse gasesthreaten to induce rapid shifts in global and regional climate regimes, disrupting ecosystems and inducingsignificant economic damages on the affected societies.

A situation with uncertain and perhaps unpredictable levels of danger has evolved during this period. Sincethe beginning of the Industrial Revolution, greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have grownsteadily. Because the rates of emissions for these gases have exceeded the ability of natural processes toremove them from the atmosphere. their atmospheric concentrations have increased, enhancing the naturalgreenhouse effect.' The buildup of these gases creates the greenhouse problem and, if current trendscontinue, may warm the planet at an unprecedented rate.2 Most "business-as-usual" scenarios suggest awarming of 2°-5° C during the next century. If such scenarios unfold as expected, traditional regionalclimates could be changed dramatically over periods as short as a few decades.

Although the precise local manifestations of a global warming due to greenhouse gas buildup cannot bepredicted with confidence today, the potential magnitude and rate of change threatens extensive damage tovulnerable areas, especially in developing countries. The scale of the resulting damages and the associated"adjustment costs" are difficult to calculate. The problem is complicated because. in many cases, unmanagedecosystems and human communities will find it difficult or impossible to abandon their traditional homesand migrate to more hospitable conditions at a rate that is commensurate with the changes happening aroundthem.

Global Warming is an Accumulation Problem

Although most of the international debate on the greenhouse problem has focused on emissions of carbondioxide (CO2), global warming is not simply a CO2 problem. Although CO2 is the most importantcontributor to the greenhouse problem. emissions of a number of other anthropogenic compounds add tothe risks of rapid climate change. Among the other important greenhouse gases are methane (CH4 ). nitrousoxide (N20), tropospheric ozone. and the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Greenhouse gases have some of the characteristics of both stock and flow pollutants. but. on a time scaleof interest to investment decisions and to public policy, greenhouse gases are best treated principally asstock pollutants. The main risks of glohal wAanning are the effects of the long-term increase in atmosphencstocks of these gases. not the shon-tenn. inmonth-to-month. or year-to-year fluctuations in rates of emissions.Over the period of several decades to a > cntury. the risk is that the heat-trapping effect of the accunsulationof various greenhouse gases will exceed Aome critical but as yet indeterminate "threshold" of sensitivity.During the period of continuing disequilibrium in the climate system.crossing such a "threshold" could pushthe system into a dangerous domain of relatively rapid climate change. This period of instability could be

2


characterized by non-linear responses to even small additional changes in concentration, changes whichcould induce disproportionate regional shifts in precipitation, runoff, and the frequency of extreme weatherevents.

The fact that the risks are associated with the accumulation of gases in the atmosphere suggests that it isnecessary to see the problem in a context that goes beyond the pattern of current emissions and tounderstand the historical patterns of past emissions. King and Munasinghe point out that, in trying toestablish responsibility for the risks of global warming, "part of the equity question will be the past orhistorical responsibility of countries for the present accumulation."3

Who Contributes to the Increasing Risks?

The emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to the risks of rapid climate change occur in all countriesand in all sectors of national economies. Because the gases are relatively long-lived (and thus well-mixed)in the atmosphere. the risks associated with a unit of emissions are irrelevant to the location of the sourceor the type of activity that generated the pollutant in the first place.

Nonetheless, emissions are not evenly divided among countries, regions, or ethnic groups. Historically,more than 75% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have resulted from activities in developedcountries. Today. the per capita emission rates in the developed countries are from five to one hundred timeshigher than the per capita emissions rates of developing countries; about two-thirds of current anthropogenicemissions originate in the industrialized countries;. However, due to their faster rate of growth in populationand the on-going pattern of industrialization in the developing countries, if current trends continue, theaggregate annual emissions of the developing countries may exceed the aggregate emissions in thedeveloped countries by some time in the 21st Century.

Greenhouse gas emissions occur during nearly all economically important activities. The largest fractionof greenhouse gas emissions occur during the mobilization, transport, and use of commercial fuels.Approximately 75% of current global energy use involves fossil fuels. Whenever these fuels are burned,carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere.

Approximately 12% of global energy use is made up of traditional fuels (e.g.. fuelwood, crop waste, anddung). Combustion of fuelwood is often done in an unsustainable manner, leading to additional netemissions of CO2. By contrast, crop waste and dung are usually generated on an annually-cycled basis andthus result in a circulation of carbon through the atmosphere rather than a net increase of CO2. Hydropowerand nuclear electric systems account for most of the remainder of the world's annual use of commercialenergy. Operation of hydro and nucicar facilities contribute relatively small yet still significant amounts ofgreenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.

But greenhouse gas emissions are nol just a problem of energy supply. They are also a problem caused bycurrent patterns of energy use. An incrcasing fraction of emissions occur, for example. in the transportsector. Automobiles and airplanes are rcsponsible for large quantities of emissions of CO2. carbon monoxide(CO). and the chemical precursors of irolpupheric ozone.' Rising demands for personal mobility have leadto increasing rates of use for automohilc. .ind airplanes in the last several decades. This continuing trendis likely to result in increasing emissions Irom the transport sector for at least the next 30 years.

Agricultural activities are a major contributor to emissions of greenhouse gases and are responsible frw alarge fraction of the anthropogenic emissions of methane. Principal sources of emissions include anacerbic

3


digestion of organic material in wet soils (e.g., during paddy rice cultivation) and enteric fermentation ofgrains and other plants in the gut of domestic ruminants. Nitrous oxide emissions result mainly frombacterial denitrification of certain types of fertilizers especially those synthesized from anhydrous ammonia.

Activities in the forestry sector also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The decomposition of forestlitter produces emissions of both methane and CO2. Inefficient burning of biomass fuels (often under lessthan stoichiometric conditions) results in emissions of CO2, CH4, and carbon monoxide.

The activities of government agencies are themselves important sources of greenhouse gas emissions.Through the utilization of large vehicle fleets, the maintenance of office buildings, manufacturing facilities,military bases, and other operational units, government departments are the largest single emitters ofgreenhouse gases in many countries.

Industry also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Industry is the principal user of CFCs, althoughthese will soon be controlled by the terms of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the OzoneLayer. Industrial processes are major consumers of commercial energy and thus are a major source ofemissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and the chemical precursors of ozone.

Housing and households are also major emitters of greenhouse gases. Residential combustion for heat andlight results in emissions of CO, CO2, and ozone precursors. Household refrigeration often involvesapplications of CFCs. The fabrication of many household goods also involves CFCs. And the decompositionof household wastes ultimately produces methane.

Because the activities that cause greenhouse gas emissions are so pervasive in modern and traditionaleconomies, it will be difficult to control and impossible ever to "phase out" all greenhouse gas emissions.Indeed, greenhouse gas emissions are likely to rise in aggregate and on a per capita basis as incomes risein most developing countries. The only plausible near-term objective for developing countries with regardto the climate problem, therefore. is to slow -- to the extent possible -- the rate of growth in theseemissions while meeting national objectives for economic development.

Greenhouse Gases Have Different Fates in the Atmosphere

Each of the greenhouse gases has different chemical, physical, and biological properties in the atmosphere.The processes by which they are taken up by the terrestrial and aquatic biota or converted to differentchemical species is quite different. The average residence time of these pollutants varies significantly froma few years for methane to more than a century for nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and the CFCs.

Similarly, the radiative effect of their buildup varies from gas to gas. The relative strength of this time-integrated effect can be compared for each gas to the radiative effect of a unit increase in the concentrationof carbon dioxide. This relative strength is measured by an index called the global warming potential(GWP). 5 The aggregate effect of increasing emissions of any number of greenhouse gases can be roughlvestimated by applying the GWP index to the buildup of each greenhouse gas. sunmming the results. .udestimating the equivalent level of buildup for carbon dioxide alone which would have had about the sameoverall warming effect.

In practice. the calculation is more complicated than the above staLement suggests. It is complILatCJbecause in the real atmosphere. the overall radiation balance is a complex non-linear function of a w%i ofclosely coupled elements whose relationships are not well-understood at this time. Some recent es iden.nsuggests. for example. that thc estimated GWP of each greenhouse gas is sensitive not only to the tlme

4


horizon of integration but also to the assumed trajectory of future emissions for that gas and also to theassumed background concentrations of other greenhouse gases. As a consequence of these and otherinteractions, we may use the GWPs to estimate an approximate carbon-equivalent concentration, if werecognize that the resultant value is only a rough approximation of the relative strength of the effects onthe atmosphere.

In the development of the GGAM, we have used the estimated values of the GWPs for various greenhousegases as a way of putting aLl future emissions on a common footing. In this analysis, we use the estimatesof GWP developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and published in their 1990Scientific Assessment Report.6

GWP estimates for different gases vary according to the timeframe of integration used to perform theanalysis. The IPCC analysis, for example, gives values based on 20, 100, and 500 year periods ofintegration. By choosing a fixed common time horizon of integration for evaluating the fate of eachgreenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the analyst ignores the "tail" of the distribution describing futureconcentration increases due to a particular injection of gas to the atmosphere. The effect of leaving out thissmall "tail" can be simulated mathematically by applying an exponential decay function or "discount rate"to future physical flows of greenhouse emissions.

The GGAM includes a feature that allows the user to select the timeframe of integration to apply in eachanalysis. The choice of a 500 year timeframe of integration might be thought of as roughly correspondingto the application of a discount rate to physical flows of emissions of approximately 0%. A choice of a 100-year timeframe of integration corresponds roughly to using a discount rate for physical flows of emissionson the order of 0.7-1%. Using a 20-year time horizon is roughly equivalent to choosing a rate of discounton future emissions of 3-5%. For the purposes of this analysis, the default choice for the time horizon ofintegration is the set of 100-year values given by the IPCC, but this selection can be over-ridden by the userof the model.

Developing Countries are Especially Vulnerable to Rapid Climate Change

The effects of global warming due to the buildup of greenhouse gases will be small relative to the natural,background greenhouse effect (+330 C) but will still have a large effect on local and regional climates. TheScientific Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that, if current trendscontinue. the planet will be committed to a warming of 2-5° C by the middle of the next century.7 Thischange in average global surface temperature is only an index of the scale of the future changes in climate.A change of two or three degrees on average may not seem very large, but the effects of such a warmingcould be quite dramatic. As a comparison, the climate of the Little Ice Age, created conditions in whichEuropeans could, on occasion, walk across the Baltic Sea from Continental Europe to Scandinavia. Thisoccurred in conditions that, in terms of the global average surface temperature. differ from today by onlyabout 1° C.

The world has survived changes of up to five degrees in the past. But these earlier climate changes wereoften spread over periods of from 5-50 centuries. Now. we are debating the effects of realizing such changesin a period of 5-15 decades. Human and other natural systems have not increased their adaptive abilitiesto match that rate of change. Thus, the extent of the economic damages and the ecosystem disruptionswhich result from the associated changes in seasonal temperatures. wind regimes, ocean currents, andprecipitation patterns will be determined by a combination of the rate of change and the magnitude of futureeffects.

5


The effects of global warming will not be evenly distributed around the globe geographically. The changeswill be more severe in some regions and less in others. The IPCC analysis suggests that the warming atthe poles will be 2-3 times as large as the global average, while warming in the tropics is expected to beonly 50-75% of the global average. This does not mean that the effects of the warming will necessarilybe less severe in the low-latitude areas-. Some have argued. indeed, that the direct effects of the warmingmay be worse in tropical areas because human and other systems are already stretched closer to the limitsthey can readily tolerate.8

In any event. some of the effects of global warming will depend principally on the magnitude of the changeand others on the rate. On average, the extent of global sea level rise will be principally a function of themagnitude of the warming. Sea level rise will occur as a function of two processes: (1) thermal expansionof the upper mixed layer of the ocean and (2) melting of landed glaciers. The IPCC estimates that a eustatic(or average) sea level rise of 20-70 cm is likely to occur in the next century. 9

Most of the world's population lives within 75 kIn of the coast and thus seems to be exposed to high levelsof risk from sea-level rise. But it is not the global average sea level rise which will determine the extentof the damages in most countries. Developing countries as a group will be especially vulnerable to sea levelrise-- in particular, in the low-lying island states and in those countries with large, flat deltaic regions facingthe sea.

But. the extent and severity of the damages will be determined for each country by a combination ofregional factors and local conditions. Geologically speaking, some coastlines are rising while others aresubsiding. In areas where tectonic movements are causing an up-thrusting of underlying geologicalformations, the effects of sea-level rise will be minimal. Furthermore, Warrick and Rahman conclude that,even for countries like Bangladesh with a large fraction of its population living in a very exposed deltaicplain. the extent of the damages will be a complex function of the state of human preparations, the type ofdevelopment present along the coast, the character of natural ecosystems in coastal regions and the typescoastal defenses that are erected.'0

Other physical impacts of global warming will depend more critically on the rate of change than on theabsolute magnitude. Global warming will cause alterations in the patterns of upper atmospheric winds andocean currents in ways which may alter the timing, availability and distribution of precipitation. This, inturn. may affect the regional availability of fresh-water resources in significant ways. For regions withshared international fresh-water resources and, in particular, for regions where the average runoff is fullycommitted today and the demand for fresh water is rising, changes in precipitation may significantlyincrease cross-border tensions between states. It is unlikely that climate change will cause wars over water,but for regions like the Jordan-Litani River system, any future shortfall -- even if it is of limited duration -- could instigate a renewal of hostilities that have been simmering for years over other issues."

Perhaps the most important impacts on developing countries will result from the effects of global warmingon the frequency, severity, and duration of extreme weather events. Based on available damage data, thefrequency and the economic damages due to weather-related extreme events have been steadily increasingin this century for all types of weather-related disasters except hurricanes.'2 Recent analysis suggests thatthe severity of hurricanes may increase in a world warmed by the enhanced greenhouse effect.' 3 Developingcountries often are ill-prepared for extreme weather events and, partly as a result, suffer disproportionatelylarger damages than would result from a similar episode in a developed country."

6


Regional Impacts Will Remain Largely Unpredictable

Much time. money, computer resources, and talent have been invested in the modelling of future climatechange during the last ten years. Nonetheless, it is impossible today to predict the timing, severity, orpattern of regional distribution of theiimpacts with a high level of confidence. Despite the additionalresources that will be devoted to research on the regional impacts of climate change in the near future, theuncertainty about regional impacts is likely to persist for decades to come.

The only thing that can be said with certainty is that individual weather-related events occurring in thefuture will look somewhat similar to individual events that have been experienced in the past. Whether theworld is on the edge of a dramatic change in the global climate or not, droughts, floods, typhoons, coldsnaps, hot spells, and wind storms will continue to occur in the future. Nothing can be done to avoid suchepisodes, but prudent public policy can reduce the expected value of the damages by moving nationaleconomies toward situations of greater resilience and preparedness. And the rate at which the risk isincreased by greenhouse gas buildup can be moderated by policies that slow the rate of emissions growth.Measures can be taken now, as the Climate Convention suggests, to reduce future greenhouse gas emissionsand to enhance natural sinks. If carefully selected, these measures will return economic rewards to theimplementing country whether or not past emissions of greenhouse gases cause a rapid future climatechange.

The situation is somewhat analogous to the one facing a healthy, young family. One can be reasonablyassured that over the years, some members of the family will become ill. It is impossible to tell fromtoday's vantage point which members will fall ill or how severe and lasting will be there discomfort.Statistically, we can only determine which individuals are most likely to be vulnerable to different typesof diseases.

But from a practical standpoint, two things can be done to reduce the expected value of the damages thatmight otherwise result from the unexpected incidence of disease. Each strategy involves an application ofthe Precautionary Principle. The first strategy is to promote good health by making each member morerobust and resilient through nutrition. education, and exercise. These measures are likely to be mostsuccessful if complemented by the discipline of avoiding habits that are known to increase risks -- e.g.,smoking, excessive drinking, and the use of dangerous drugs. And whether or not any particular individualis going to experience disease in the future. these precautionary measures will add to the economic valueof his or her productivity.

The second strategy is to spread the risk over a pool of individuals larger than a single family by buyinghealth insurance. In this way, even if an extreme episode befalls one individual, the financial damages willbe cushioned by the effects of contnbutions from others.

The Climate Convention argues for a similar application of the Precautionary Principle at the global level.The GEF is charged with making investments that will strengthen national programs of economicdevelopment, improve resilience to unexpected weather events, alter patterns of industrialization to reducethe rate of emissions growth. and develop adaptive responses to conditions that could be triggered byanthropogenically-induced climatc change or could occur (perhaps with a different frequency) due to other.more "natural" causes. Given the fundwunentai and irreducible uncertainty in the present situation. thespecific challenge assigned by the Convention to the GEF is to underwrite the agreed full incremental costsof such investments, leaving the basic investmcnt (i.e., the part which delivers benefits captured solely bya local economy or enterprise) to be co, ered by local resources.

7


B. THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE GEF

The Framework Convention on Climate Change (referred to below as the FCCC or simply as theConvention) was signed by 154 countries and one organization for regional economic coordination at theUnited Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, I -15June 1992. This convention is the first of a new generation of international environmental agreements thatobligate the developed countries to provide new and additional funds to underwrite measures undertakenby developing countries to achieve particular global environmental benefits. Article 21, para. 3, of theConvention entrusts the Global Enviromnent Facility (GEF) with the operation, on an interim basis, of thefuiancial mechanism necessary for mobilizing and distributing these funds. Article 4 of the Conventionoutlines the specific responsibilities of the developed countries and of the financial mechanism forimplementing this agreement. This paper explores some of the issues facing the GEF as it takes up theseresponsibilities and begins to implement the Convention.

The Climate Convention will legally enter into force after it is officially ratified by at least 50 countries.During the interim period between the signing of the Convention and its legal entry into force, all activitiesassociated with the Convention will be guided by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for theFramework Convention on Climate Change (INC) and by the Climate Change Secretariat appointed by theSecretary-General of the United Nations. Once the Convention officially enters into force, the Conferenceof the Parties becomes its supreme governing body. The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties mustbe held within ninety days of the legal entry into force of the Convention. Until the first Conference of theParties, the Convention's financial mechanism will be guided by rules of operation that are to be workedout between the GEF and the INC.

The Objectives of the Convention and its Financial Mechanism

The formal objective of the Convention is quite broad. It is given in Article 2 as follows:

"The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conferenceof the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of theConvention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that wouldprevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should beachieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change.to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proccedin a sustainable manner."'5

The language of Article 2 suggests that the implementation of the Convention should be based on thePrecautionary Principle (i.e., that actions should be taken in the present to avoid dangerous conditions thatotherwise might occur in the future). Furthermore, in implementing the provisions of the Convention andany measures taken by the Parties to a.chie%e its objectives, Article 3. para. 2 specifies that the Parties shallbe guided by a continuing concern lor the special circumstances of developing countries and for theirvulnerabilities to the adverse future el fects of rapid climate change.

The implementation of the Convention dunng the interim period has begun with the establishment of thefinancial mechanism and the reorganmiauon of the INC. The primary purpose of the financial mechanismis defined broadly in the Convention. In its role as the financial mechanism of the Convention, the GlohalEnvironment Facility is charged with distrbuting the "new and additional resources" promised to developingcountries during the course of the negotiations.

8


The financial mechanism is given this broad charge in order to advance the overall objective of the ClimateConvention -- i.e., stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Recognizing that thisobjective can only be achieved through international cooperation on an unprecedented scale, the GEF isexpected by the INC to operate the financial mechanism in such a way as to promote the widest possibleparticipation in the international response to the risks of rapid climate change. Operationally, to fulfill thisresponsibility, the GEF must use the funds raised from developed countries to underwrite the agreed fullincremental costs of measures undertaken by developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions orto enhance greenhouse gas sinks beyond the levels that would have been achieved if these countries receivedno outside financial support for these activities.

C. THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM UNDER THE CLIMATECONVENTION

Article 4 of the Convention lays out the specific but differentiated commitments that apply to developedand developing country Parties to the Convention. One of the specific commitments made by the developedcountry parties to the Convention is to contribute the funds that are to be distributed by the financialmechanism of the Convention. These funding requirements are laid out in Article 4, Paragraph 3, whichstipulates that developed country Parties:

"shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurredby developing country Parties in complying with their obligations under Article 12,Paragraph 1. They shall also provide such financial resources, including (those) for thetransfer of technology, needed by developing country Parties to meet the agreed fullincremental costs of implementing measures that are covered by Paragraph I of thisArticle and that are agreed between a developing country Party and the international entityor entities referred to in Article I1, in accordance with that Article. The implementationof these commitments shall take into account the need for adequacy and predictability inthe flow of funds..."

The measures specified under Article 12, Paragraph I -- for which the full costs will be provided -- referto the activities associated with the preparation of national inventories of (1) anthropogenic emissions ofgreenhouse gases (identified by source) and (2) removals by sinks for these gases. These inventories willcover all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the OzoneLayer. In addition, Article 12, Paragraph I indicates that developed country Parties shall bear the full costsincurred by developing country Parties in the preparation of a national report describing steps taken orenvisaged by the developing country Party to implement the Convention and any other information that thedeveloping country Party "considers relevant to the achievement of the objective of the Convention".

The key clause of Article 4, Paragraph 3. refers to the provision by the financial mechanism of theConvention -- i.e. the GEF -- of the full incremental costs of measures implemented by developing countryParties and covered by Article 4. Paragraph 1. Under the terms of Paragraph 1, the full incremental cotLsof the following types of activities are eligible for funding by the GEF:

(a) Measures to develop, update, and publish the national inventories of sources and 'inksmentioned in Article 12;

(b) Measures to formulate, implement, publish and update national programmes to milig.iieclimate change by addressing either sources or sinks and to facilitate adaptation to c I im.techange;

9


(c) Measures to promote and cooperate in the development, application, and diffusion oftechnologies, practices, and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenicemissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol;

(d) Measures to promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in theconservation and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of the same gases;

(e) Measures to prepare adaptive responses to climate change, including the development ofintegrated management plans for coastal zones, water resources and agriculture, and forthe protection and rehabilitation of areas affected by drought, desertification and floods;

(f) Measures to take climate change into account in social, economic and environmentalpolicies in order to minimize adverse effects on national economies, public health and theenvironment of measures implemented to mitigate or adapt to climate change;

(g) Measures to promote scientific, technological, socio-economic and other research intendedto further the understanding of climate change and the social and economic consequencesof various response strategies;

(h) Measures to promote exchange of relevant scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and legal information related to the climate system and climate change;

(i) Measures to promote education, training and public awareness related to climate changeand to "encourage the widest participation in this process, including that of non-governmental organizations;" and

(j) Measures to "communicate to the Conference of the Parties information related toimplementation..."

Paragraphs 1-3 in Article 11 of the Framework Convention define how the financial mechanism will relateto the Conference of the Parties during the interim period. Article 11, Paragraph 4 specifies that, at its firstsession, the Conference of the Parties will evaluate the arrangements made by the GEF during the interimperiod and decide if these arrangements are to be maintained. Within four years thereafter, the Conferenceof the Parties will conduct an overall review of the financial mechanism and make any adjustments deemedto be appropriate at the time. During the Pilot Phase, the global warming activities of the GEF have beendesigned principally to support the measures outlined in sub-paragraphs (c), (d), and (h) of Article 4.Paragraph 1.

11. Methodological Approach

In order to facilitate the selection of GEF projects from among the many proposals that are made forfunding. CGC and SEI have developed an accounting tool for comparing the economic costs and thegreenhouse gas emissions of various investment alternatives. The fundamental idea underlying the use ofthis tool is a "twinning" approach that matches proposed projects that would reduce greenhouse gasemissions or enhance greenhouse gas sinks with the next best conventional alternative that would beimplemented by the host country in the absence of GEF support.

10


A. Context for the GGAM Approach

The GGAM approach was designed to support portfolio development by Task Managers in the World Bankduring the GEF Pilot Phase. The process of project selection during the Pilot Phase is driven by a need tomaximize several parallel objectives during this period. One of the principal objectives during this phaseis to maximize institutional learning about new technologies and their ability to support sustainabledevelopment. In this context, GEF global warming projects should promote local economic developmentwhile protecting the global environment. The GGAM approach is designed to facilitate the work of TaskManagers who are comparing alternative project ideas during the earliest stages of project development.Application of the GGAM gives the Task Manager a useful first-order estimate of the relative economiccosts and the environmental implications of competing project concepts. comparing each to the conventionaltechnology application that it is most likely to replace.

Clearly, there are additional objectives besides cost-effectiveness which guide the selection -of globalwarming projects during the GEF Pilot Phase. Consideration of the replicability of projects and of theirability to help overcome political, institutional, or infrastructural impediments to market penetration are alsoimportant issues for the Task Manager to consider. In addition, the GEF Operations Staff must consider thesocial impacts of proposed projects. the need to balance risks and opportunities of various kinds, and theeffects of project selection on the geographic balance of the GEF portfolio. The GGAM cannot help in theresolution of any of these important issues. But by providing a credible baseline for comparing economiccosts and environmental impacts, the GGAM can begin to promote increased realism in the cost estimatesof proposed future GEF projects and can help GEF Task Managers to develop a realistic assessment of theperformance levels that can be sustained by various technologies over time.

The GGAM consists of three basic components. The first component is the set of sample input data forms.These forms are used interactively by a Task Manager to assemble the data describing the proposed GEFproject. An illustrative set of these data forms is included in this binder, along with instructions onmounting the GGAM software on a personal computer, under Tab B.

The second component of the GGAM is the graphical and tabular comparisons of the GEF projects and theirconventional alternatives. Eight projects have been evaluated and are illustrated in this draft report. Theresults can be found under Tab C of this binder.

The third component is a reference technology database that contains the best available publishedinformation about the costs and environmental impacts of conventional technologies. The technologiesincluded in the database range from pulverized coal power plants to biomass-fired gas turbines. A completesummary of this database is included under Tab D of this binder.

This tool is designed for use on a personal computer running Microsoft Windows, version 3.1. The toolitself is an integrated application of Microsoft Excel, version 4.0. No other software is necessary to use thetool.

A. "Twinning": Comparing (;EF Projects and Their Conventional Alternatives

The basic unit of this analysis is a pair of technology descriptions. One describes the technical andeconomic characteristics (including the time stream of payments by the GEF and the trajectory of expected

11


future emissions) from the proposed GEF project. The second provides a similar suite of informationconcerning the conventional alternative that would be implemented if GEF funding were unavailable.

In developing these two technology characterizations, care must be taken to match up systems that candeliver equivalent quantities of the same economically valued service over the same time period to end-userslocated in the project's host country. In making the comparison, one must consider whether the fuel andother inputs for the principal energy conversion facility will be produced in the host country or will beimported. Care must also be taken to ensure that costs for the two projects are reported in comparableeconomic quantities, either in an annualized flow, in a single up-front investment, or as a discounted streamof future costs.

B. Basic Assumptions

Application of the GGAM requires the user to make a series of basic assumptions about the proposed GEFproject and its conventional alternative.

System Boundaries: The Full Energy Supply Cycle Approach

For both the GEF project and the conventional alternative, the GGAM is designed to look beyond the costsand impacts of the principal energy conversion step in the project. This approach encourages the TaskManager but rather to consider all the activities in the energy supply cycle (or in the proposed program ofenergy efficiency improvements) that contribute to reducing the risks of rapid climate change.

Data are collected on the full energy supply cycle but a screen or tolerance level approach is used todetermine which impacts are most important. In the current application of this tool, we have ignored theimpacts of any activities that produce less than 10% of the emissions released from the "dirtiest" stage ofthe cycle. In future revisions of the tool, we hope to provide an interactive capability for the user or TaskManager to set the tolerance level interactively for determining whether or not to include emissions fromother parts of the energy supply cycle.

Time Horizon

For the purpose of this analysis. we have chosen to use the economic life of the project as the time horizonof future emissions of greenhouse gases. This assumption distorts the full effects of some projects whichcontinue to operate and either absorb or release greenhouse gases long after all relevant investments arefully amortized. The data input screens allow the user or Task Manager to change this assumption. Undercertain circumstances. one might conceivably want to use either the period of GEF funancial support or theoperational lifetime of the facility to be used as the effective lifetime of the project.

Discount Rates and Global Warming Potential

The GGAM allows the user to select di.'hount rates for both ftnancial costs and physical flows of emissionsassociated with GEF projects. As mentioned above, the default assumption used for the Global WarmingPotentials in the GGAM is based on 1(M)-year timeframe of integration. This choice reflects the assumptionthat global warming is an atmospheric accumulation problem whose effects will not be fully observable fordecades to come. Choice of the 100-year time frame of integration suggests the application of a rate ofdiscount applied to future emissions of greenhouse gases of approximately 0.7-1%.

12


The GGAM allows the user to select alternative GWP values and corresponding discount rates for physicalflows of greenhouse gas emissions. For this first illustration of the GGAM approach, we have comparedthe relative cost-effectiveness of a sample of proposed GEF projects using discount rates for physical flowsof emissions of (-3)%, 0%. 3%, and 10%. A discount rate of -3% corresponds to a belief that futureemissions are more dangerous than emissions today, and is unlikely to be used for analysis of futureinvestment options. A discount rate of 0% implies that the risks from future emissions are of equalimportance to those which might occur today, i.e.. no time preference is given for the sequencing ofpotential greenhouse gas releases. By contrast, discount rates of 3% or 10% imply a belief that futureemissions are less risky than emissions which occur in the present. We believe that the most reasonable rateof discount to apply to future investment choices is 0%. If the user of GGAM deems it necessary andappropriate to apply a positive rate of discount to future flows of emissions, we believe that this rate shouldbe set at not more than 3% per annum.

Impacts of Interest

The principal impacts reported for this initial exercise are the volumes of greenhouse gases released by theproposed projects and their conventional alternatives. Some scanty additional data are available on potentialreleases of conventional air pollutants that could contribute to the buildup of tropospheric ozone, which itselfis a greenhouse gas. Additional data are needed on both the GEF projects and the conventional alternativesin order to provide a better indicator of these non-greenhouse emissions of atmospheric pollutants.

The present tool is designed to allow comparisons of projects including other impacts than their directrelease of greenhouse gases. Additional development effort is necessary to provide meaningful comparisonsof these additional environmental impacts. Other potential impacts include land requirements, water usecharacteristics, materials used during manufacturing or construction and operation of the facilities and healtheffects of the candidate technologies. This information is not currently available to the user from theGGAM database.

Marginal Costs of Abatement for GEF Projects in the Pilot Phase

The GGAM is designed to estimate the net present value of all economic costs associated with GEF projectsand their conventional alternatives. This tool allows the user to specify either the net present value of theagreed full incremental cost of a GEF project or a stream of future costs. If a stream of future costs isspecified by the user, the GGAM then prompts the user to specify an appropriate rate of discount for thesefinancial flows. Sensitivity tests can be conducted on the results of the GGAM analysis by changing thediscount rates for these flows.

For the purpose of this initiaJ application Of the GGAM. we did not discount any of the financial flows.We assumed that the GEF contribution to the proposed projects was exactly equal to the discounted valueof all future incremental costs. This .av.umption distorts the quahtitative results of the analysis but was theconsensus choice of the project team and the GEF managers for the analysis of GEF projects during thePilot Phase.

C. Comparing Projects and .Mleasuring Cost-Effectiveness

The principle purpose of the GGAM is to allow a GEF Task Manager to compare the relative bencfits oftwo alternative projects being considered as investments in a given country. A secondary usc for thts

13


methodology is to allow GEF Operations managers to compare the cost-effectiveness of a suite of proposedGEF projects, in order to establish a range of investment opportunities available at any point in time. TheGGAM provides two alternative metrics for comparing the cost-effectiveness of potential GEF projects.

The first measure is the cost per tonno of carbon dioxide emissions avoided by each project. This value iscalculated by dividing the net present value of the overall project cost by the (discounted) stream of futureCO2 emissions. This measure is useful in the context of the current round of negotiations in the INC inwhich most of the discussion of future emissions reductions has focussed on reducing emissions of carbondioxide to the atmosphere.

The second measure of the relative cost-effectiveness of GEF projects is their cost per tonne of carbon-equivalent emissions avoided. This is calculated by first estimating the (discounted) carbon-equivalentrelease of future emissions of greenhouse gases from the proposed project (including carbon dioxide), thenapplying the appropriate table of Global Warming Potentials and summing the results. This estimate ofdiscounted carbon-equivalent emissions is then divided into the net present value of future project costs.We believe that the most useful comparison among projects occurs when this second metric is appliedbecause its use gives the analyst the most complete estimate of the decrease (or increase) in risks of rapidclimate change that would likely result from the decision to implement the project or to pass up theproposed investment opportunity.

III. Key Issues, Limitations, Remaining Questions and Caveats

A number of important conceptual issues were raised during this initial exercise of the GGAM. As theproject proceeded, the inherent limitations of the GGAM began to emerge. Some questions remainunanswered.

A. Key Issues

Some of the key issues included the questions of whether to discount physical flows of future emissions.how to choose relevant costs for GEF support. and whether to evaluate the physical flows in either naturalunits or carbon equivalent units.

No consensus emerged among the project team and the GEF managers on the issue of how to discountphysical flows of future emissions. But all recognized that project comparisons could produce very differentrelative rankings if discount rates were applied to physical flows of future emissions, depending on theprofile of these emissions over the life of the project.

To illustrate the effects of applying a discount rate to these physical flows, four sensitivity tests wereconducted on each GEF project we analyzed. These future nows were discounted at -3%. 0%, 3%. and 1t7Y-rates of discount. The results are displayed graphically under the individual project sections. Tab C.

In terms of the question of relevant costs, a consensus did emerge among the project team and the GEFmanagers. We decided that future analyses should consider all capital and recurrent costs that %%erenecessary for the success of the proposed GEF project. These costs include not only the hardware .uidsoftware of the project. but also any expenditures necessary to train local personnel and institutions in theuse of the systems being deployed in the future. These costs may also include measures taken to lmpro-.ethe policy environment or strengthen local institutional capacity in order to increase the chantes ofsuccessfully completing the project.

14


There is a variety of ways in which the future impacts of GEF projects can be compared. One way to dothis is to report the physical flows of pollutants as they occur in their natural units. Another alternative isto put all impacts on an equivalent basis and to report them in terms of a single metric. In the case ofgreenhouse gases, the most common way to do this is to convert future emissions flows to their carbondioxide equivalents, using the global warming potentials (GWPs) estimated by the IPCC. With the GGAM,either approach can be chosen, at the discretion of the user. For the purposes of this analysis, futuregreenhouse gas emissions were reported both in terms of their natural units and in terms of tons of carbonequivalents.

B. Limitations of the GGAM Approach

The GGAM is a tool designed for the comparative evaluation of proposed project concepts. It is notcapable of evaluating the costs or benefits of national programs or strategies. But even when applied to thespecific purposes of assessing project concepts in the earliest stages of the project cycle, there are importantlimitations to the usefulness of the GGAM approach. The most important limitations of this approach fallinto three categories. These somewhat overlapping categories include: (1) limitations on the first use of themethodology that reflect the current status of the GEF, (2) limitations that can be overcome through furtherdevelopment of the methodology, and (3) limitations that are inherent to the structure of the approachchosen and are likely to be unavoidable for the foreseeable future.

There are several different types of limitations in the first category. Among those which have stronglyaffected this first application of the GGAM are (a) the limited information available concerning the technicaland engineering details of GEF global warming projects funded during the Pilot Phase, (b) the lack ofsystematic estimates of the incremental costs of GEF projects and the resulting assumption that the GEFcontribution to a global warming project was a useful estimate of the project's incremental cost, (c) thefrequency with which basic design concepts for GEF global warming projects were altered during the periodin which the GGAM analysis was conducted, and (d) the need to develop a portfolio which wasgeographically and technologiCally balanced in a very short period of time.

The principal limitation of first time use of a tool like the GGAM lies in the incomplete character of thedata available for the project comparisons. In several cases, the application of the GGAM was complicatedby the desire on the part of some Task Managers to incorporate innovative technologies in GEF projectssome of whose major components had not been fully specified or tested in similar applications. In othercases. the lack of information on the technical characteristics of conventional technologies typically usedin GEF recipient countries--and which might be built in the absence of the GEF global warming project--made it difficult to develop a precise estimate of the economic and environmental benefits of the proposedGEF project.

Some of the limitations of the GGAM approach fall into the second category and may be eliminated throughfurther development of the tool. The reference database on conventional technologies was constructed onthe basis of a comprehensive review of the literature on environmental assessment of energy technologies.Most of this literature was derived from environmental assessments conducted on energy technologies builtand operated in industrialized countries. There are little or no data available on the specific characteristicsof fuels or management practices that will be operational in the developing countries where GEF projectsarc actually built.

The paucity of data goes beyond the limitations of the reference technology database. For most of the GEFprojects in the Pilot Phase, the Task Managers had very limited data on the technical details of the proposedprojects. Without these fundamental technical data, many assumptions must be made by the user of GGAM.

15


Thus, the principal use of the GGAM should be as a screening tool for deciding which projects deservefurther analysis and more detailed design work prior to making a decision on GEF financing.

The GGAM software is designed to be upgraded easily as improved databases are developed. The accuracyof the GGAM estimates could be significantly improved by supplementing this database with informationon the environmental impacts of energy technologies deployed in developing countries where GEF globalwarming projects are likely to be built. Such a database development effort has been commissioned by theWorld Bank in conjunction with another project, the production of an Environmental Manual for the Energyand Industry Department. Introducing the database from the Enviromnental Manual to the GGAM wouldenhance the value of GGAM estimates of environmental impacts and increase the realism of the GGAMapproach.

Another limitation of this first use of the GGAM was the assumption that the GEF contribution to GEFprojects is a good measure of the incremental cost of implementing those projects. That assumption waschosen because of the absence of comparable. analytically developed estimates of the costs of these GEFprojects. But the World Bank is developing a sophisticated new methodology for estimating incrementalcosts of GEF projects, under the direction of the Program for Measuring Incremental Costs to theEnvironment (the PRINCE Program). Application of this new methodology by Bank Task Managers willprovide a valuable input to the GGAM approach. The GGAM software is already set up to receive suchestimates, either in the form of a single estimate for the net present value of future incremental costs or asa stream of future costs that can be discounted at a rate selected by the user.

A further limitation of the GGAM approach has been the focus on direct costs and direct impacts of GEFprojects. In some cases, it is conceivable that future GEF projects may have substantial indirect and systemiceffects on the countries in which they are deployed. These effects are currently ignored in the GGAM. Butthe accounting methodology used by the GGAM is flexible and easily modified. If such information couldbe developed in the future, it would be easy to incorporate it into the structure of GGAM comparisons.

Up to this point, GEF global warming projects have been conceptualized and funded in conjunction withlarger, conventional World Bank loans. The GGAM has been used to evaluate the GEF portion of theseprojects but has not been applied to the larger, conventional portion of these combined projects. Onepotential enhancement of the GGAM approach in the future might include a procedure for evaluating theconventional portion of these combined loans, using the same methodology that is applied to the GEFportion. This approach might give a more meaningful picture of the total environmental impacts of theproposed activity and make the GGAM analysis more useful to the general management staff of the WorldBank.

Despite future efforts to improve the GGAM. some structural limitations may be unavoidable in this typeof approach. These limitations fall into the third category. Among these limitations are the lack of agcnerally accepted algorithm for trading off costs and risks affecting portfolio balance in terms oftechnologies, geographical distribution. and opportunities to leam about and improve on advanced energytechnologies. Nonetheless. although no tool of this type can substitute for the sound judgment of skilledmanagers in the development of balanced portfolios of GEF projects. one hopes that improving the qualityof carly assessments of GEF project conccpts can help to ease the tasks of ponfolio managers.

16


C. Unanswered Questions

This analysis leaves a number of important questions unanswered. Additional work will be necessary todevelop a more systematic approach to the analysis of projects, like the Pakistani gas project, which haveactivities with greenhouse gas benefits accruing in more than one stage of the energy supply cycle. Wewere also left with questions as to how best to evaluate projects such as the Polish coal-to-gas transitionproject. In this project, costs and benefits related to the utility company operation are adequately accountedfor. but the implications of the project for other consumers (mostly residential users) who mustsimultaneously switch from coal to gas are ignored. Projects like the Ecuador afforestation project raiseother kinds of questions. We would like to account for all the changes in land use patterns that occur asresult of implementing this project. but only the barest data were available on the principal characteristicsof the main carbon sequestration elements of the project. Afforestation and other sink enhancement projectswill generate considerable analytic problems in the future, partly because it is very hard to "twin" suchprojects with a discrete conventional alternative.

IV. Highlighting Lessons Learned

This analysis compares the cost-effectiveness of eight proposed GEF investment projects that were includedin the First to Third Tranches of GEF funding. The set ranges includes a reforestation project in Ecuador(since permanently deferred), four electricity supply projects, two energy efficiency-improvement programs,and one industrial boiler retrofit program. The projects are located in Eastern Europe, Latin America. EastAsia, and South Asia.

The costs of carbon-equivalent emissions avoided by these projects (when evaluated at 0% discount rate forphysical flows) ranges from approximately US$ 2 per tonne of avoided emissions to approximately US$150 per tonne of carbon-equivalent emissions avoided. This is in good agreement for the expected costsof emissions reductions that have been estimated in a variety of other "bottom-up" studies. It is significantlylower than the typical estimates of the cost of emissions reductions estimated in large, "top-down", macro-economic studies.

Of the eight projects, six have cost of carbon-equivalent emissions reductions less than US$ 10 per tonne.Two. Pakistan and Poland, have substantially higher estimated costs of reduction. The most expensiveproject is the Poland Coal to Gas Conversion Project. This project has an estimated cost of emissionsreductions of approximately US$ 150 per carbon-equivalent tonne (at 0% discount rate for physicalemissions). Some (unknown) fraction of this unit cost is contributed by the expected costs of building a"total energy system" into a local. multi-fanily apartment building in Krakow, Poland. The cost of the boilerretrofit program would be expected to be significantly lower if the costs of the apartment complex couldbe treated separately.

In the case of Pakistan. the estimated .LOts of reductions is approximately US$ 22 per tonne (at 0% discountrate for physical emissions).The cosi tit this project seems high because of the small volume of mcthanegcnerated from the local municipal w.tstcs and the high costs of operating the project.

In order to deternine the effects of using diflerent discount rates for physical emissions. several sensitivitytests were performed. The cost-effectiveness of the various projects was evaluated at discount rates of -3%.0%, 3%. and 10%. As expected. becausL the timing of future emissions varies among the projects. the rank-ordering of the costs changes somewhat w ith the choice of discount rate. Table I illustrates the cost per

17


tonne of carbon-equivalent emissions avoided for the eight projects at each of the four discount rates. Itmakes the comparison first using the author's 'best estimate" of the costs and emissions factors associatedwith the conventional alternatives, then compares this to the effects of using the high and low values foundin the literature.

Figure I illustrates these effects graphically. To make the changes in rank-ordering as a function of thediscount rate more visible, Figures 2-5 compare the eight projects, with each graph illustrating thecomparison at one discount rate. Comparing these figures shows the small but not completely insignificantvariations in the order of merit that occurs as the discount rate changes. Finally, Figure 6 shows the changein ordering in the most striking case, a comparison of the Ecuador, Mexico, and Thailand projects.

The conclusion which we draw from these comparisons is that the choice of discount rate does not stronglyinfluence the rank-ordering of projects except in those cases where the annual stream of benefits changesdramatically over time and the differences in trajectory are large among the streams representing theprojects being analysed.

V. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work

The principal conclusion from this analysis is that it is possible to screen proposed GEF projects and to rankthem on a comparable basis in termis of their future costs and impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Todo so requires a clear specification of the proposed GEF project and of the conventional alternative thatit will replace. To generate meaningful and specific rankings, detailed design data are needed. Making thecomparisons will also require the application of expert judgment by the user or Task Manager who isfamiliar with the specific circumstances in the country where the project will be installed.

Substantial additional work is needed to improve the quality of this tool and the utility of the results whichit can provide. The most important additions are:

(I) additional data for the reference technology database, especially in reference to biomasstechnologies;

(2) improved capability to handle projects with multiple greenhouse gas benefits occurring at differentstages of the fuel cycle;

(3) more complete data on fuel cycle impacts and improved capability for interactively setting thetolerance level for emissions outside the principal energy conversion step;

(4) improved data on the special characteristics of technologies and fuels available in developingcountries:

(5) improved capability for dealing with combined heat and power projects; and

(6) improved ability to recognize and cvaluate the benefits from multiple use biomass development (vafforestation projects.

There are two additional areas in which funher refinement of the GGAM approach might be useful. Oneis with regard to the range of impacts and (}ther project interactions considered by the program. Expenenrcwith energy-related projects in many countnes demonstrates that these projects have significant impLts

18


beyond the airborne emissions of greenhouse gases that have been the focus of the GGAM approach so far.The GGAM approach could easily be extended to include other physical impacts including release ofconventional air pollutants, as well as water pollutants, materials requirements, land use impacts, andconsumptive water use. In addition, the GGAM could be readily extended to handle certain kinds of socialimpacts including occupational and public health effects of energy technologies. It is possible, but wouldbe more difficult to extend the GGAM to account for other kinds of social effects or infrastructuralrequirements such as the need for a substantial cadre of trained labor in order to accelerate deployment ofa particular technology.

A second direction in which the GGAM approach might be extended is the question of systemic effects.As now structured, the GGAM is designed to look only at the implications of a choice between two or moretechnological options for delivering the same energy or energy-related service. It is not now suitable forevaluating projects that are designed to alter the structure and function of other human activities andinstitutions (e.g.. a land-use project that incorporates housing programs, forestry components, and road-building activities). Extending the GGAM approach to such activities is technically feasible and mightprovide a broader basis for the evaluation of GEF projects.

19

FINAL DRAFT February B, 1994

REFERENCES FOR THE OVERVIEW

1. Houghton, J., et al., 1990. The IPCC Scientific Assessment, World Meteorological Organization and CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

2. Houghton, J. et al., 1990. Op cit.

3. King. K. and M. Munasinghe, 1992. _lohal Warmjng~ Key Issues for the Rank. Policy and Research Division,Environment Department, World Bank, Divisional Working Paper No. 1992-36, Washington, DC.

4. Although not itself a greenhouse gas, carbon monoxide is important to the greenhouse problem becauseof its effect on another atmospheric constituent, the hydroxyl radical (OH). Hydroxyl is the principal sinkfor methane (and many other pollutants) in the atmosphere, but it reacts preferentially with CO. Byscavenging OH from the atmosphere, emissions of CO increase the residence time and the effective rateof buildup of atmospheric methane.

5. Houghton, J. et al., 1990. Ibid.



B. Bhandyopadayaya, 1988.


10. Warrick, R. and A.A. Rahman, 1992. "Environmental and Socio-political Aspects of Sea-Level Rise," in 1.Mintzer, ed., Confronting Climate Change: Risks. Implications, and Responses, Stockholm EnvironmentInstitute and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

11. Gleick, Peter H., 1992. "Impacts of Climate Change on Internationally Shared Fresh-Water Resources," inI. Mintzer, ed., Op. Cit.

12. Mintzer, I., 1990. "Living in a Warming World: Effects of Global Warming on Weather-Related Disasters". Draftpaper prepared for the World Bank.

13. Emmanuel, K., 1992. Nature article.

14. Mintzer, 1., 1990. Op cit.

15. United Nations, 1992. Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, New York, NY. Article 2,Para. 1.

20

SUM-GPH.XLS 5/26/93

TNL L, .-ITitle: Summary of GEF Project Cost Comparisons as Prepared in December, 1992Author: David Von HippelDate Last Modified 26-May-93

USING BEST' ESTIMATE FOR USING -HIGH' ESTIMATE FOR USING 'LOW' ESTIMATE FORREFERENCE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY REFERENCE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY REFERENCE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGYNPV Cost of Emissions Reduction NPV Cost of Emissions Reduction NPV Cost of Emissions Reduction

(1992 $ US/Tonne Carbon Equivalent) (1992 $ US/Tonne Carbon Equivalent) (1992 $ US/Tonne Carbon Equivalent)at Discount Rates of: at Discount Rates of: at Discount Rates of:

Project Name -3% 0% 3% 10% -3% 0% 3% 10% -3% 0% 3% 10%Philippines $1 $2 $3 $6 $0 $1 $1 $2 $1 $2 $4 $38Mauritius (Scen 2) $2 $2 $3 $6 $2 $2 $3 $6 $2 $2 $3 $17Ecuador $2 $4 $7 $23 $1 $3 $6 $19 $4 $7 $11 $13Mauritius (Scen 1) $3 $4 $5 $9 $1 $1 $2 $3 $5 $6 $8 $6India $4 $6 $9 $15 $3 $4 $6 $10 $5 $7 $9 $26Mexico $6 $9 $12 $21 $2 $2 $3 $5 $8 $11 $15 $101Thailand $8 $10 $13 $20 $6 $8 $10 $16 $10 $13 $17 $7Pakistan $12 $22 $36 $97 $12 $21 $35 $94 $13 $22 $37 $464Poland $107 $151 $206 $374 $52 $76 $106 $197 $136 $187 5253 $26

SUM-GPH.XLS Chart 1 5/2s93

-F\GdR e 1-

Comparison of Proposed GEF Projects:Cost of GHG Reduction

$400

$350

Wj $300c0

L. ~ ~ . 4

05 $150CDCD

$100

D $50

Discount Rate0 ~~~~~~%Used For GHG

0 ~~~~~Emissions

-~0

En~~~~~CL..~~~~~~a

SUM-GPH.XLS Chart 3 5/26/93

FIURe Q

Comparison of Proposed GEF Projects: Estimated Cost'of GHG Reduction

Poland $151

Pakistan $22

Thailand $10

Mexico $9 |

lIndia

Mauritius (Scen 1) |S Mautiu (c I) Discount Rate Used for GHGEcuador $4 Emissions: 0.0% IEcuador t$

Mauritius (Scen 2) I$2

Philippines $2_~~~~~~~

-I

$0 S5 $10 $15 $20 $25$ US 19921Tonne Carbon Equivalent


FF I6 OR

IComparison of Proposed GEF Projects: Estimated Cost;

Pioland S206;

Pakistan

Thailand $13

Mexico $ $12

India $9

Mauritius (Scen 1) $5

Discount Rate Used for GHGEcuador $7 Emissions: 3.0%

Mauritius (Scen 2) 47

Philippines $3

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50

$ US 1992/Tonne Carbon Equivalent


|Comparison of Proposed GEF Projects: Estimaof GHG Reduction

Poland S374 |

Pakistan $97

Thailand $20

Mexico $21

India 5 Discount Rate Used for GHGEmissions: 10.0% I

Mauritius (Scen 1) $9 _

Ecuador

Mauritius (Scen 2) 56

Philippines S6

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100$ US 1992/Tonne Carbon Equivalent


c-I s-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Comparison of Proposed GEF Projects: Estimated Cost

of GHG Reduction

Poland | $107

Pakistan , $12z~~~~~~~~~~1

Thailand $8

Mexico $6

India $4

Mauritius (Scen 1) $3 __l

Ecuador $2 Discount Rate Used for GHGEcuador $2 ~Emissions: -3.0%

Mauritius (Scen 2) $2

Philippines $1

S0 $5 $10 $15 $20

$ US 1992/Tonne Carbon Equivalent

SUM-GPH.XLS 6/1/93

COMPARISON OF GEF PROJECTS:EFFECT OF USING DIFFERENT POLLUTANT DISCOUNT RATESFOR PROJECTS WITH DIFFERENT CURVES OF GHG REDUCTIONS OVER TIME

GEF Project Cost Comparison Sample at PollutantDiscount Rate of -3.0%

Thailand 1 _Mexico l~

Ecuador |

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8NPV Cost of Emissions Reduction (1992 $ US/Tonne Carbon Equivalent

GEF Project Cost Comparison Sample at PollutantDiscount Rate of 0.0%

Thailan d

Mexico

Ecuador

S0 $2 -$4 $6 $8 $10 $12NPV Cost of Emissions Reduction (1992 $ US/Tonne Carbon Equivalent


Thailand

Mexico p I

IEcuador'_ _ I

So $2 S4 S6 S8 $10 $12 $14NPV Cost of Emissions Reduction (1992 S US/Tonie Carbon Equivalent


Thailand

Mlexico

Ecuador

S19 $19 S20 $20 $21 $21 $22 $22 $23 $23NPV Cost of Emissions Reduction (1992 $ US/Tonne Carbon Equivalent

IF GETTING STARTED

GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY(GGAM)

While a formal User's Guide for GGAM is still in process at this writing, theinstructions that follows will help you to get started using GGAM.

You can start GGAM either directly from Microsoft Excel or from Windows. Tostart GGAM from Excel, start Excel as you would normally, choose "Open" from the"Files" menu, change the active directory to C:\GGAM, and choose the fileGGAM BEG.XLM from the list of files given. Opening this file (which is the programfile for GGAM) will automatically start GGAM. From there, you will be presented withmenu choices, activated by pressing buttons, that should be fairly self-explanatory.

You can also set up GGAM to be activated directly from Windows. To do this,start Windows, go to the box containing the Icons for your Windows Applications, amdchoose "New" from the "File" menu in the Windows Progran Manager. Choose "NewProgram Item" from the New Program Obiect Dialog Box. In the Program ItemProperties" Dialog Box, type Greenho'use Gas Assessment Methodology" (or "GGAM")as the Description, "EXCEL GGAM BEG.XLM as the Command Line, and "C:\GGAM"as the Working Directorv. Use the "Change Icon" option to pick an Icon that suits yourtaste, then choose "OK' to save your GGAM setup. An appropriately-labeled iconshould appear in your applications box. To start GGAM, simply double-click on thisicon.

The following pages in this introductory section include an overview of the flow ofthe GGAM menu and file handling system, a list of the files and file types in GGAM,general diagrams of the structure of the "Summary" and "Comparison" spreadsheet filesused in GGAM, and a printout of the Default Data Input Sheets that you will be filling outto accomplish project comparisons

Completed Data Input Sheets for each of the eight projects already compared, andcomparison results, are provided in the sections that follow. Printouts of the SummaryData for Reference Technologies are also provided.

REVIEW DRAFF: DECEMBER 15, 1992

INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS


GGAM files are provided on two 3.5", 1.44 MB floppy disks. In order to runGGAM, you will need a minimum of 5 MB of free space on your C: hard drive, MicrosoftExcel Version 4.0 running under Microsoft Windows Version 3.1 (GGAM will probablyrun under Windows 3.0, but some screens may not be positioned properly). An IBM PC-compatible computer of the '386" or "486" type is recommended, as is at least 4 MB ofRAM.

To install GGAM, place Disk I in your A: or B: floppy drive, go to that drive (bytyping "A:" or "B:'), and type

"MD-GGAM"

This comnmand starts a batch file that creates the necessary GGAM directories and sub-directories on your C: drive. When the directory creation processes finishes, return toyour A: or B: drive and type

"INSTGGAM"

This batch file uncompresses the files on the GGAM diskette, and copies them to your C:drive in the proper directories. When this process is complete, place Disk 2 in yourfloppy drive and type:

"INSTPROJ"

GOAM should now be installed on your hard drive in the directory C:\GGAM, andthe subdirectories GGAM\REF_DETL, GGAM\REF_SUM, and GGAM\PROJECTSThe instructions on the next page will help you get started in using GGAM.

REVIEW DRAFT: DECEMBER 15, 1992

GGAMFLOW.XLS

FILE NAMES USED IN GGAM

GENERAL DEFINITIONS:'DATA INPUT SHEETS' collect from user data describing GEF project and reference alternative

to which it will be compared.'SUMMARY WORKSHEETS" are linked to data input sheets and are used to calculate

and summarize emissions and other quanitities per unit output for GEF project.

'COMPARISON WORKSHEETS' are linked to both the Input and summary worksheets, and

are used to compare GEF project results with emission (and other quantities) per unit oUtput

from one of more reference alternative technologies.

File Name File Contents/FunctionC:\GGAM Directory

CMP XXX1.XLS Comparison worksheet template

SUM_XXX1.XLS Summary worksheet templateIPT_XXXi.XLS Data Input worksheet template

GWPFACTS.XLS Spreadsheet containing Global Warming Potential factors

ERT_UST.XLS Spreadsheet containing lists of GEF and reference technologies, fuels, and

projects for which GGAM sheets already exist.

GGAM BEG.XLM Fie of 'macro' commands that control GGAM menu functions.

TITLESCN.XLS Spreadsheet containing GGAM opening screen and first menu.

C:\GGAM\PROJECTS DirectoryCMP PRO1.XLS Comparison worksheet for projects, e.g. project 'PROl'

SUM PRO1 .XLS Summary worksheet for projects, e.g. project *PROl1

IPT PRO1.XLS Data Input worksheet for projects, e.g. project 'PRO1V

Page 1 of 3

GGAMFLOW.XLS


(

File Name File Contents/FunctionC:\GGAM\REF SUM Directory:

DETAILED COLLECTIONS OF ENWRONMENTAL AND OTHER DATA FOR THEFOLLOWING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES. EACH IS UNKED TO AFILE WiTH A CORRESPONDING NAME IN C:AGGAMIREF DETL (SEE BELOW)BLAGWS_S.XLS Heat-only boilers buming Agricultural WastesBLCCL_S.XLS Heat-only boilers buming coalBLDOIL_S.XLS Heat-only boilers buming distillate oilBLGAS_S.XLS Heat-only boilers buming natural gasBLROIL_S.XLS Heat-only boilers buming residual oilCONCLE S.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers burning coalCONGAS S.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers buming natural gasCONOIL S.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers buming oilDISGST_S.XLS Combustion turbines for electric"ty generation boilers buming distillate oilDISTIC S.XLS Intemal combustion engines t for electricity generation boilers buming diesel oilGEOTHD S.XLS Geothermal electricity generation: dry steam resourceGEOTHH_S.XLS Geothermal electricity generation: hydrothermal resourceHYDROL_S.XLS Hydroelectric generation: Large plantSOLRPV _S.XLS Solar Photovoltaic electricity generationWIND S.XLS Wind Powered electricity generation

Page 2 of 3

GGAMFLOW.XLS


File Name File Contents/Function

C:\GGAM\REF_DETL Directory:DETAILED COLLECTiONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DATA FOR THE

FOLLOWING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES

BLAGWS D.XLS Heat-only boilers buming Agricultural Wastes

BLCCL_D.XLS Heat-only boilers buming coal

BLDOIL_D.XLS Heat-only boilers buming distillate oil

BLGAS_D.XLS Heat-only boilers buming natural gas

BLROIL_D.XLS Heat-only boilers buming residual oil

* CCYGAS D.XLS Combined-cycle electricity generation systems buming natural gas

CONCLE D.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers buming coal

CONGAS D.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers burning natural gas

CONOIL D.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers buming oil

DISGST D.XLS Combustion turbines for electricity generation boilers buming distillate oil

DISTIC D.XLS Intemal combustion engines t for electricity generation boilers buming diesel oil

* FCNGMC_D.XLS Fuel Cell for electricity generation buming natural gas: Molten Carbonate Type

* FCNGPH D.XLS Fuel Cell for electricity generation buming natural gas: Phosphoric Acid Type

GEOTHD D.XLS Geothermal electricity generation: dry steam resource

GEOTHH D.XLS Geotherral electricity generation: hydrothermal resource

HYDROL D.XLS Hydroelectric generation: Large plant

MSW D.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers burning Municipal Solid Waste

* OTEC D.XLS Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion for electricity generation.

* RDF D.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers burning Refuse-Derived Fuel

SLRTHR D.XLS Solar Thermal electricity generation

* SOLRPV D.XLS Solar Photovoltaic electricity generation

* TEMPLT D.XLS Template for Detailed Data Sheet

WIND D.XLS Wind Powered electricity generation

* Starred files are not completely integrated into GGAM system as of 12/15/92

Page 3 of 3

GGAWFLOW. XLS

OVERALL FLOW DIAGRAM FORGREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (GGAM)

CENTER FOR GLOBAL CHANGE AND SEI-BOSTON

From DOS Prompt, type GGAM|or from Excel, openC:AGGAM\GGAM_BEG.XLM.

Automabc macro opens and hides macroand ubilty worksheet files, opens and showsTite screen file, offers opons:

Make New AccessProJect ExistIng Project

vOpens dialog box asking for four-characercoode for new project Offers choice ofentering annuaVtotal costs, annuaUannualaverage output Checks tD see th-t code is Opens dialog boxnot 'O(XX ' and is not the same as an existing listng file names andcode. descrptons for

existing projects inIf code is invalid. C:\GGAMXPROJECTSrequests new directory:code from user If code is ok...

; ~~~~~~~~~~Opens input template shoot 'IPT_XXX1 XLS'.I | _ ~~~~~~~~Pos(bons user in first data input screen.

Provides o,otios for choioe of GEFIfsoe technologies, fuel, emission factor type,I.. reference technologies, At end of input

screens: v

Save Data to ~~~~~~Opens trio ofFlies spreadsheets

corresponding toproject 'lPT ????,iSUM ??"" (hidden)V 'CMP ?7"'.

Opens summary template sheet 'SUM XXX1.XLS' andcompanson template sheet 'CMP XXXl XLS, copiesrelevnt reference technology data from files inC:%GGAM\REF_SUM\ directory to 'CMP_???? XLS'.recaulates files, and saves to c \GGAM\PROJECTDirectory under code provkde by usew

Pos,ons user at top of Compenson ('CMP_????.XLS') sheet. Providesmenu opbons to Vew (and after viewing Pnrnt) reports and graphs. retuimto Input sheet, make a New Scerano based on current project, Exitsystem, Save files, Change GWP factors in use. aoss area for andchange Reference technology ata.

REVIEW DRAFT 12)15/92

DESCRIPTION OF KEY INTERNAL CALCULATIONS IN THEGREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (GGAM)

SPREADSHEET SYSTEMPREPARED FOR THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY OF THE

WORLD BANK

This document provides brief descriptions of key calculations carried out as part of the GGAMspreadsheet system for evaluating the relative greenhouse gas reductions from proposed GEF projects.These descriptions are divided into two sections, one focusing on the SUM ????.XLS (where ?represents a character selected by the user for use in a filename) spreadsheets used to estimate inputs to,outputs from, and impacts of GEF projects, and the other detailing the calculations in theCMP ????.XLS spreadsheets, which are used to compare GEF project parameters with those forreference energy systems. Both of these spreadsheets obtain project data from completed input dataforms with filenames in the format IPT_????.XLS. The reader is urged to consult the document"Overall Flow Diagram for Greenhouse Gas Assessment Methodology (GGAM)" for an overview of howthese spreadsheets and others are used in GGAM. In addition, most of the variables used in theSUM ????.XLS and CMP ????.XLS have been given easily recognized names, so it is suggested thatreaders interested in more details on the calculations than are provided below should open thespreadsheet files in Microsoft Excel and thus directly review the formulae used. Note that the efforthere is not to provide a description of every calculation used in GGAM, but to provide an overvicw ofthe key mathematical relationships that underlie the project evaluations.

Calculations carried out in SUM ????.XLS Spreadsheets (GEF Project Calculations)

1. Calculation of Ileat Production or Savings

Description: This formula calculates Annual Heat production or savings as a function of electricityproduction or savings, as specified in Project Data Input Sheet DI or D2. If noelectricity is produced or saved by the proposed project, heat production or savings dataare taken directly from the input data sheets. These data can be specified as eitherannual average values (in sheet DI), or provided on a year-by-year basis (in sheet D2) bythe user.

Formula: IF Annual Electricity Output > 0Annual Heat Production = (GJ Heat/GJ Fuel Input) *

(Primary plus Secondary Fuel Consumption In GJ).

IF Annual Electricity Output = 0:Annual Heat Production = (as specified in Input data sheet).

Cell Locations: 152 to 184

I

2. Calculation of Primary and Secondary Fuel Inputs

Description: These formulae calculate the annual use of primary and secondary fuels by the proposedproject. The calculated fuel consumption are a function of the fraction of the energy forthe project provided by the primary or secondary fuel, the efficiency of electricitygeneration (entered in Project Data Input Sheet C), and the annual electricity productionor savings, if specified (from sheet DI or D2). If no electricity is produced or saved bythe proposed project, fuel use is calculated based on the fuel fractions, a fuel-to-heatconversion efficiency (also entered in sheet C), and annual heat production or savings(from sheet Dl or D2). Both electricity and heat production (or savings) data can bespecified as either annual average values, or provided on a year-by-year basis by the user.

Formulae: IF Annual Electricity Output > 0:Annual Use of Primary Fuel (GJ) = Annual Electricity Output (GWH) x

(Primary fuel fract. x 1 000000)/Electricity Gen. Effic.Annual Use of Second. Fuel (GJ) = Annual Electricity Output (GWH) x

(Second. fuel fract. x 1000000)/Electricity Gen. Effic.

IF Annual Electricity Output = 0 and IF Heat Production Eff. > 0Annual Use of Primary Fuel (GJ) = Annual Heat Productlon (GJ) x

(Primary fuel fract.) / heat production eff.Annual Use of Second. Fuel (GJ) = Annual Heat Production (GJ) x

(Secondary fuel tract.) / heat production eff.

IF Annual Electricity Output = 0 and IF Heat Production Eff. = 0Annual Use of Primary Fuel (GJ) = 0Annual Use of Secondary Fuel (GJ) = 0

Cell Locations: J52 to KS4

3. Calculation of CJ and Tonnes Methane Consumed as Primary or Secondary Fuel (in ThoseProjects that Reduce Mlethane Emissions)

Description: These formulae calculate the annual use of a methane-bearing fuel that would otherwisebe vented to the atmosphere. The GJ of methane consumed as a primary or secondaryfuel is simply the GJ of primary or secondary fuel uscd that is designated by the user (inProject Data Input Sheet A) as bcing either "biogas" or "methane". The tonnes ofmethane consumed is a function of the lotal GJ of methane consumed, the density ofmethane, the energy content of methane, and a conversion factor.

Formulae: IF Name of Primary Fuel = 'METHANE' OR Name of Primary Fuel = 'BIOGAS':Annual Consumption of Methane as Primary Fuel (GJ) = Annual Use of Primary Fuel (GJ)OTHERWISEAnnual Consumption of Methane as Primary Fuel (GJ) = 0

IF Name of Secondary Fuel = 'METHANE' OR Name of Secondary Fuel = *BIOGAS-:Ann. Consumption of Methane as Secondary Fuel (GJ) = Ann. Use of Second. Fuel (GJ)OTHERWISEAnnual Consumptlon of Methane as Secondary Fuel (GJ) = 0

2

Annual Total Consumptlon of Methane (Tonnes) =(Annual Consumption of Methane as Primary Fuel (GJ) +Annual Consumption of Methane as Secondary Fuel (GJ)) xDensity of CH4 x 0.001/CH4 energy content

Cell Locations: P52 to R84

4. Emissions from Combustion of Primary and Secondary fuels

Description: These formulae calculate annual use emissions of each of 14 different types of airpollutant and GHG emissions from the use of a primary and secondary fuels in theproposed GEF project. These annual emissions by compound are the product of anemission factor entered by the user (in Project Data Input Sheet F) and the use of eachof the two fuel types (in GJ). This product is divided by 1000 so that the total emissionsare given in Tonnes.

Formulae: Annual Emissions (by Pollutant), Primary Fuel Use (Tonnes) =Annual Use of Primary Fuel (GJ) xPollutant Emission Factor (kg/GJ)11000

Annual Emissions (by Pollutant), Secondary Fuel Use (Tonnes) =Annual Use of Secondary Fuel (GJ) xPollutant Emission Factor (kg/GJ)/1000

Cell Locations: B142 to AC177

S. Emissions from Use of Secondary Technology

Description: These formulae calculate annual use emissions of each of 14 different types of airpollutant and GHG emissions from the use of a "secondary technology" (e.g. a gaspipeline) in the proposed GEF project. These annual emissions by compound are theproduct of an emission factor entered by the user (in Project Data Input Sheet F) andthe use of the secondary technology (entered in Sheets DI or D2). This product isdivided by 1000 so that the total emissions are given in Tonnes. Units for the secondarytechnology are specified by the user in Project Data Input Sheet A.

Formulae: Annual Emissions (by Pollutant), Secondary Technology Use (Tonnes) =Annual Use of Secondary Technology (units) xPollutant Emission Factor (kg/unit)/1 000

Cell Locations: AD142 to AQ177

3

6. Annual Total Biomass Present Net of Initial Stocks (ror Projects Involving BiomnassPlantations)

Description: This column of calculations estimates the annual biomass present (that is, the amount ofwood and other biomass present on the plantation site at the end of a year) net of initialstocks by subtracting the initial (pre-project) stock of biomass, as entered by the user,from the stock of biomass in a given project year. The user may either specify an averagestock of biomass over the course of the project, or may enter the stock of biomass in eachproject year in project input data sheet S2. If year-by-year biomass stocks are supplied,they are used in preference to the average figure.Formulae: Annual Blomass Present Net of Initial Stocks (Dry T/ha) =

Annual Biomass Stock (Dry T/ha) -Pre-Project Biomass Stock (Dry T/ha)Cell Locations: B1142 to B1177

7. Annual Additional Biomass Stored (for Projects Involving Biomass Plantations)Description: This column of calculations estimates the annual incremental biomass stored in each yearof operation of the proposed project. In the first project year, this quantity is equal tothe stock of biomass in the first project year less the initial (pre-project) stock of biomass;as entered by the user. In subsequent years, the incremental biomass stored is equal tothe biomass present in that year minus the biomass present in the previous year.

Formulae: Annual Additional Biomass Stored In First Prolect Year (Dry T/ha) =Pre-Project Biomass Stock (Dry T/ha) -Annual Biomass Stock (Dry T/ha)

Annual Additional Biomass Stored In Subsequent Prolect Years (Dry T/ha) =Annual Biomass Stock (Dry T/ha) -Annual Biomass Stock, Previous Year (Dry T/ha)Cell Locations: BJ142 to BJ177

8. Incremental Tonnes Carbon Stored lBy Project (for Biomass Plantations)Description: These formulae convert the incremental biomass storage figures, calculated as above on aper-hectare basis, to estimatLs of the total annual incremental carbon stored in each yearof operation of the proposed project. This quantity is equal to the per-hectare biomassstored in each project year times the quantity of carbon pcr unit biomass times the area ofthe biomass plantation in hcct.arcs. For the purpose of this calculation, it was assumedthat there are approximately (1.5 tonnes carbon in each dry tonne of biomass. The arcaof the biomass plantation is entcrcd by the user in data input sheet Si.

4

Formulae: Incremental Carbon Stored By Project (Tonnes) =Pre-Project Biomass Stock (Dry T/ha) -Annual Biomass Stock (Dry T/ha)

Annual Additional Biomass Stored In Subsequent Prolect Years (Dry T/ha) =Annual Additional Biomass Stored (Dry T/ha) xTonnes Carbon/Dry Tonne Blomass xArea of Blomass Plantation (ha)

Cell Locations: BK142 to BK177

9. Incremental Tonnes CO2 Stored By Project (for Biomass I'lantations)

Description: This column simply converts the annual figures for incremental carbon stored by theproject (as above) to a CO2 basis by multiplying 44/12, the ratio of the weights of a carbondioxide molecule and a carbon atom.

Formula: Incremental CO2 Stored By Project (Tonnes) =Incremental Carbon Stored By Project (Tonnes) x44/12 (Mass C0 2/Mass Carbon) x

Cell Locations: BL142 to BLI77

10. Estimate of Discounted Air Pollutant and GIIG Emissions Per Unit Output

Description: This section of the spreadsheet summarizes the discounted emissions of each of the 14 airpollutant and GHG species tracked by GGAM and each of five different processes:primary and secondary fuel use, use of a secondary technology, use of an "othertechnology", and biomass plantations (CO2 only). The Net Present Value of streams ofannual emissions for each pollutant and each process are calculated using a pollutantdiscount rate provided by the user (in Project Data Input Sheet B). The streams ofannual emissions from primary and secondary fuel use, and from a secondary technology,are as calculated in items 4. and 5., above. The emissions from an additional "othertechnology" can be entered by the user (via a menu button on the Project Comparisonspreadsheets), and the incremental storage of carbon dioxide from plantation or biomassuse elements of the project arc as calculated as described in item 9., above. In each case,the discounted total emissions for each species was divided by the lifetime output ofelectricity from the proposcd project, or by the lifetime output of heat from the project, ifno electricity is produced.

Formulac: IF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, Tonnes/GWHelect (by Process) =Discounted Annual Emissions / Lifetime Output of Electricity (GWH)

OTHERWISEDiscounted Emissions Per Unit Output, Tonnes/GWHthermal (by Process) =Discounted Annual Emissions / Ufetime Output of Electricity (GWH)

5

WHERE *Process =Primary Fuel Use, Secondary Fuel Use,Secondary Technology Use, Other Technology Use, andBlomass Plantations.

Cell Locations: A186 to P193

11. GEF Project Data To Be Used For Comparison

Description: In this area of the Project Summary Spreadsheets the emissions by process totaled in item10. are further combined into two categories--primary technologies (sum of emissions fromprimary and secondary fuel use) and "other technologies" (sum of emissions fromsecondary technology, other technologies as entered by the user, and biomass plantations).In addition, values for a number of other categories of project inputs, emissions, andimpacts are calculated on a per-unit-output basis for comparison with ReferenceTechnology data. In each case, total project inputs, emissions, or outputs are divided byelectricity generation capacity, lifetime output, or annual output (as appropriate) if theproject produces or saves electricity, or by heat production capacity, lifetime output, orannual output in cases where no electricity is produced. Note that data on project inputs,emissions, and impacts with the exceptions of project costs, air pollutant, and GHGemissions can be entered by the user directly in the Project Summary Sheets, but are notentered in the Project Data Input Sheets. Project costs (capital, operating andmaintenance) are entered in Project Data Input Sheets El, E2, and E3, while projectlifetime and capacity data are entered in Project Data Input Sheet B, and project outputdata are entered in sheets DI and D2.

Formulae: FOR Air Pollutant and GHG Emissions:Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, T/GWH(th Of eteci (Primary Technologies) =Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, Primary Fuel Use +

Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, Secondary Fuel Use

Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, T/GWHLth or *lect (Other Technologies) Discounted Emissions Per Unit utput, secondary Technology Use +Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, Other Technology Use +Disc. Emissions/Storage (CO2) Per Unit Output, Biomass Plantations

FOR Project Capital CostsIF Electricity Generation Capacity > 0Discounted Capital Costs per Unit Capacity (S/MWe,ei)=

1000000 x Discounted Total Capacity Costs Over Project Life /Project Electricity Generation Capacity (MW)

OTHERWISEDiscounted Capital Costs per Unit Capacity (V/MWthermal)=

1000000 x Discounted Total Capacity Costs Over Project Life /(Project Heat Generation Capacity (GJ/yr) / (8.76 x 3600))

FOR Operations and Malntenance CostsIF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0Discounted O&M Costs per Unit Output (S/GWH 0,dJ=

1000000 x Discounted Annual Average O&M Costs /(Utetime Output of Electricity (GWH) / Project Ufetime)

6

OTHERWISEDiscounted O&M Costs per Unit Output ($/GWHthrma)=

1000000 x Discounted Annual Average O&M Costs /[(Lifetime Output of Heat (GJ) / 3600) / Project Lifetime]

FOR Project Construction PersonnelIF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0Total Construction Personnel per Unit Capacity (Worker-yr/GWH, 1,d=

Total Construction Labor to Build Project (Worker-yr/Lifetime Output of Electricity (GWH)

OTHERWISETotal Construction Personnel per Unit Capacity (Worker-yr/MWth.rma1)=

Total Construction Labor to Bulld Project (Worker-yr) /(Llfetime Output of Heat (GJ) / 3600)

FOR Operations and Maintenance PersonnelIF Ufetime Output of Electricity > 0Total O&M Personnel per Unit Output (Worker-yr/GWH,*1.)=

Annual Average O&M Personnel (Worker-yr/yr)/(Lifetime Output of Electricity (GWH) / Project Llfetime)

OTHERWISETotal O&M Personnel per Unit Output (Worker-yr/GWIthermal

Annual Average O&M Personnel (Worker-yr/yr)/[(Lifetime Output of Heat (GJ) / 3600) / Project Lifetime]

FOR Land Used for ProjectIF Electricity Generation Capacity > 0Total Land Use (Hectares/MWeled =

Total Land Used For Facility / Project Electricity Generation Capacity (MW)OTHERWISETotal Land Use (Hectares/MWthermal)=

1 000000 x Discounted Total Capacity Costs Over Project Life /Total Land Used For Facility / ((Project Heat Generation Capacity (GJ/yr) / (8.76 x 3600))

FOR Water Use (Consumptive and Recyclable)IF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0Water Use per Unit Output (Llters/GWH, 1*d)=

Annual Average Water Use (Consumptive and Recyclable, liters/yr) /(Lifetime Output of Electricity (GWH) / Project Lifetime)

OTHERWISEWater Use per Unit Output (Llters/GWHIherma)=

Annual Average Water Use (Consumptive and Recyclable, liters/yr) I[(Lifetime Output of Heat (GJ) / 3600) / Project Ufetime]

FOR Materials Use (Covers, as Separate Categories, Steel, Concrete, Aluminum, Silicon,Glass, Plastics, and Nonferrous Metals)

IF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0Material Use per Unit Output (Liters/GWHeled)=

Total Materials Use Over Project Lifetime (per Category, Tonnes) I(Lifetime Output of Electricity (GWH)

7

OTHERWISEMaterial Use per Unit Output (Llters/GWHth*ru,)=

Total Materials Use Over Project Lifetime (per Category, Tonnes) /(Lifetime Output of Heat (GJ) / 3600)

FOR Some Health and Safety Impacts (Covers, as Separate Categorles, Total InJurles,Total Deaths, Lost Work Days by Plan Personnel, Lost Work Days by General Public,Worker Deaths during Plant Construction, and Deaths Among the General Public)IF Lifetime Output of Electrlelty > 0Impacts per Unit Output (Number/GWH* 1.)=Total Impacts Over Project Lifetime (per Category, Number) /(Lifetime Output of Electricity (GWH)OTHERWISEImpacts per Unit Output (Number/GWHIhermal)=

Total Impacts Over Project Lifetime (per Category, Number) I(Lifetime Output of Heat (GJ) / 3600)

FOR Other Impacts and Emissions (Covers, as Separate Categories, Plant Injuries,Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Solid Waste Emissions, andWater-borne Pollutant Emissions)IF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0Other Impact or Emission per Unit Output (Number or Tonnes/GWHeled=

Annual Average Impact or Emission (Number or Tonnes/yr) /(Lifetime Output of Electricity (GWH) / Project Lifetime)OTHERWISEOther Impact or Emission per Unit Output (Number or Tonnes/GWHthermal)=

Annual Average Impact or Emission (Number or Tonnes/yr) /[(Ufetime Output of Heat (GJ) / 3600) / Project Lifetime]Cell Locations: A198 to D247

Calculations carried out in CMIP ????.XLS Spreadsheets (Comparison of GEF and ReferenceAlternative Technologies Spreadsheets)

12. Weighted Average Estimates of Inputs/Emissions/Impacts for Reference Technology (Best, 1ligh,Low estimates)

Description: In this part of the Comparison Spreadsheets, weighted average per-unit-output estimatesare calculated for each of the inputs, cmissions and impacts of the set of the referencetechnologies for which the proposed GEF project would substitute. This is done for thecategories 'EIectricity Generation" (which is compared with the GEF project "PrimaryTechnology") and 'Othcr Fuel Cycle Activities" (which are compared 'Other Technologies"values estimated for the GEF project). On GEF Project Data Input Sheet G, the usersclects up to five diffcrcnt Electricity Generation technologics, and their relativc share oftotal electricity generated, that will he supplantcd by the proposed GEF project. Datacorresponding to these selections, and derived from the Refcrence Technology DataSummaries that are a part of GGAM. are copied into the Comparison Spreadsheet, and aweightcd average over the tcchnologies sclected is performed. On Input Sheet H, theuscr makes a similar selection of up to two Heat-Producing Technologies. A weighted

8

average over these selections is summed with values (entered directly into the Comparison

sheet by the user, if applicable) for any other (non-electricity and non-heat) reference

technologies and methane-emitting systems for which the GEF project would substitute.

In addition, for Air Pollutant and GHG Emissions (only), reference technology emissions

are discounted using the pollutant discount rate entered by the user in Project Data Input

Sheet B.

Formulae: FOR Air Pollutant and GHG Emissions (14 Categories, for Best, High and Low Estimates):Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, T/GWH.IOCtd,i (Elect. Generatlon Technology)

Present Value at pollutant discount rate, over project life of:[ref.tech.1 x ref.tech.1.fract + ref.tech.2 x ref.tech.2.fract +ref.tech.3 x ref.tech.3.fract + ref.tech.4 x ref.tech.4.fract +ref.tech.5 x ref.tech.5.fract) / project lifetime)]

WHERE *ref.tech.[1 to 5], are the values of the per-unit emissions (by Category) forReference Technologles 1 to 5, and *ref.tech.[1 to 5].fract Is the fraction of the totalelectricity produced by the project that would have been produced using ReferenceTechnologies 1 to 5

IF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, T/GWH,I.ct (Other Fuel Cycle Technology) =

Present Value at pollutant discount rate, over project life of:[(((ref.tech.heat.1 x ref.tech.heat.fract.1 +ref.tech.heat.2 x ref.tech.heat.fract.2) xLifetime Output of Electricity / (3600 x Lifetime Output of Heat))+ ref.tech.other + ref.tech.CH4)/project lifetime]

OTHERWISEDiscounted Emissions Per Unit Output, T/GWHthermal (Other Fuel Cycle Technology) =

Present Value at pollutant discount rate, over project life of:[(ref.tech.heat.1 x ref.tech.heat.fract.1 +ref.tech.heat.2 x ref.tech.heat.fract.2 +ref.tech.other + ref.tech.CH4) /project lifetime]

WHERE *ref.tech.heat[1 to 2], are the values of the per-unit emissions (by Category) forReference Heat Production Technologies 1 and 2, *ref.tech.heat[1 and 2].fracr are thefraction of the total heat produced by the project that would have been produced usingReference Technologies 1 and 2, *ref.tech.other- are the values of per-unit emisslons forother fuel cycle activities In the Reference Technology, and ref.tech.CH4 are theemissions values for the methane-emitting reference technology to be avoided by theproposed GEF project (If any).

FOR All Other Input, Emission, or Impact Categories (Best, High and Low Estimates):InputVEmission/Impact Per Unit Output, T/GWHeiectric (Elect. Generation Technology) =

[ref.tech.1 x ref.tech.1.fract + ref.tech.2 x ref.tech.2.fract +ref.tech.3 x rel.tech.3.fract + ref.tech.4 x ref.tech.4.fract +ref.tech.5 x ref.tech.5.fract]

9

IF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0Input/EmissIon/impact Per Unit Output, T/GWH,* 1, (Other Fuel Cycle Technology) =

[((ref.tech.heat.1 x ref.tech.heat.fract.1 +ref.tech.heat.2 x ref.tech.heat.fract.2) xUfetime Output of Electricity / (3600 x Ufetime Output of Heat))+ ref.tech.other + ref.tech.CH4]

OTHERWISEInput/Emission/Impact Per Unit Output, T/GWHthermal (Other Fuel Cycle Technology) =

[(ref.tech.heat.1 x ref.tech.heat.fract.1 +ref.tech.heat.2 x ref.tech.heat.fract.2 +ref.tech.other + ref.tech.CH4)]

WHERE Variable definitions are as above.

Cell Locations: F24 to N74

13. Difference Calculations: GEF - Reference Technology

Description: These calculations simply compute the difference in per-unit-output inputs, emissions andimpacts between the proposed GEF project and the Reference Alternative. ReferenceAlternative Best. High, and Low Case values of for each comparison category, calculatedas in item 12 above, are subtracted from corresponding values for the proposed GEFproject, calculated as in item 12.

Formulae: FOR Differences Between GEF Project and Best, High, and Low Case Estimates forReference Alternative Technologies:

IF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0InpuVEmission/lmpact Difference Per Unit Output, T/GWH.I.ec (Electricity GenerationTechnologies, Other Fuel Cycle Technology, and Total) =

Reference Tech. Input/Emission/Impact Per Unit Output, T/GWHeI.l -GEF Project lnputVEmission/lmpact Per Unit Output, (T/GWH.1*c)

OTHERWISEInpuVEmisslon/impact Difference Per Unit Output, T/GWtherrrma (Electricity GenerationTechnologies, Other Fuel Cycle Technology, and Total) =

Reference Tech. InpuVEmission/lmpact Per Unit Output, T/GWHther,,malGEF Project InpuVEmission/Impact Per Unit Output, (T/GWHIIherma)

Cell Locations: P21 to X74

14. Carbon-Equivalence Culculations

Description: In order to be able to comnipre p)rojccts that produce varying amounts of the dillcrentGHG species, GGAM includcs a Facility for converting the mass of cach spccics to'Carbon Equivalents", which prou ides an estimate of what quantity of carbon dioxidewould have the same cifect on climate as the GHG species emitted. Making thiscalculation involves simply multiplying the mass of each GHG estimated to be emilied by

10

a GEF or Reference project (calculated as above) by a Carbon Equivalence Factor. Asthere are differing points of view as to which set of Carbon Equivalence factors is mostappropriate in different circumstances, GGAM allows the user to choose from severaldifferent sets of Carbon Equivalence factors, assembled by the IPCC and others, or toenter their own set of factors. These options are activated from the menu at the top ofthe Project Comparison Spreadsheets.

Formulae: FOR (Rows) Emissions of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, CFC-11,CFC.12, CFC-113, HCFC-22, Oxides of Nitrogen, Carbon Monoxide, and Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons

AND FOR (Columns) GEF Project (Electricity Generation, Other Fuel CycleTechnologies, and Total), Reference Alternative Project (Electricity Generation,Other Fuel Cycle Technologies, and Total, for Best, High, and Low CaseEstimates), and Differences Between GEF and Reference Alternative Project(Electricity Generation, Other Fuel Cycle Technologies, and Total, for Best, High,and Low Case Estimates):

IF Llfetime Output of Electricity > 0Emissions In Carbon Equivalents (by GHG Type, Tonnes Carbon/GWHe.cl) =Emission Per Unit Output (Categories as above, T/GWHelect) xCarbon Equivalence Factor (by GHG Type, Tonnes Carbon/Tonne GHG)OTHERWISEEmissions In Carbon Equivalents (by GHG Type, Tonnes Carbon/GWHthermad =Emission Per Unit Output (Categories as above, T/GWIlhermaI) xCarbon Equivalence Factor (by GHG Type, Tonnes Carbon/Tonne GHG)

Cell Locations: A98 to X114

15. Reduction in Emissions Over Life of Psroject

Description: A set of summary statistics provided in the Comparison Spreadsheets is the total reductionin GHG emissions from implementing the proposed GEF project, expressed in CarbonEquivalents and summed over all GHG species. To calculate these quantities, thedifferences between the Best, High and Low Case estimates of total GHG emissions fromReference Alternative Technologies and total GHG emissions from the proposed GEFproject are multiplied by the lifetimc output of the proposed project, either in GWH orelectricity or in GWH of heat. For projects that rely solely on biomass plantations toreduce GHG emissions, the difference between the Reference and GEF technologics ,.multiplied by the proposed arca of thc plantation.

l l

Formulae: FOR Best, High, and Low Estimates of Per-Unit-Output Emissions by ReferenceAlternative Technologies:

IF Ufetime Output of Electricity > 0Lifetime Reduction In GHG Emissions by Project (Tonnes Carbon Equivalent) =

Total Reference Tech. Emissions (Tonnes Carbon/GWHI 1ct) xLifetime Output of Electricity (GWH.Ict)

IF Lifetime Output of Electricity = 0 AND Ufetime Output of Heat > 0Lifetime Reduction In GHG Emissions by Project (Tonnes Carbon Equivalent) =

Total Reference Tech. Emissions (Tonnes Carbon/GWIh.r.mal) xLifetime Output of Electricity (GWHthermal)

OTHERWISELifetime Reduction In GHG Emissions by Project (Tonnes Carbon Equlvalent) =

Total Reference Tech. Emissions (Tonnes Carbon/Hectare) xPlantation Area (Hectare)

Cell Locations: A214 to X221

16. NPV Cost per Tonne Carbon Equivalent Emissions Reduced

Description: This final summary calculation provides estimates, again based on the differences betweenthe estimates of total GHG emissions from the proposed GEF project and from the Best,High and Low Case Reference, of the Net Present Value cost of the GEF project perunit emissions reduced. This is done by dividing the NPV GEF cost (as entered inProject Data Input Sheets El through E3, as applicable) by the total discounted tonnes ofcarbon equivalent reduced over the lifetime of the project (calculated as described in 15.,above).

Formulae: FOR Best, High, and Low Estimates of Per-Unit-Output Emissions by ReferenceAlternative Technologies:

NPV Cost per Tonne Carbon Equivalent Emissions Reduced (SIT Carbon Equiv.) =NPV Cost of GEF Project (Million $) x 1000000 /Lifetime Reduction In GHG Emissions by Project (Tonnes Carbon Equivalent)

Cell Locations: D214 to D221

12

DIAGR CS.XLS 8/28/92

OVERVIEW DIAGRAM OF GOAM SPREADSHEETSBLOCKS SHOW APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF INFORMATION

SPREADSHEET r7YPE COMPARISON (COM-)OO#.XLS)

11 to F4 Title, Projoct Name, Scenrirlo Doscriptlon

A5 to C14: Snlecrlon ofElectricity GennretlonTochnologies In ReferonceAlternativo, with fuol sharee.

P13toXOGG DIFFERENCE ol per-L.IilA1 6 to N66; Comparison1 of per- costs, land and watur ul, ftuLerlsunit costs, land and water use,

I materials use, air pollutants and uae, alr pollutants and GI-Ge ,emissions, health and safety and

GHG omlsslons, health and Iand other Impacts, for GEF other Impacts, for GEF vs. "best",

vsafety hir'h and low high" and "low" estimates forvs. "best", 'high' and 'low' I reoec eholg.Dfooc

ostimals for rforencoreforence technology. Dilfforoncoestoclimateor reference calculatod as Reference-GEF.

t ,,nloy .__I___-_

A70 to X106: Calculation of emissions of GHGs and pollutants withindirect offects on GHG concentrations on a carbon-equivalont basis.

A72 to D87: Set of GlobalWarming Potential factors In use.

A90 to X106: Report of Emisslois on a carbon equivalent basis perGWHe, for emissions irom GEF project and Reference Technology 1(best, high, low) plus dlfferences (Reference(best, higlh, low) mInusGEF).

Al110 to R163 Per-unit costs, land and water use, materials use,air pollutants and GHG emissions, health and safety and otherimpacts, for Dest", "high" and "low" estImates for each of the upto five refe,ei_e technololies selected In A5 to C14, above.

Ar65 to (varias): Ca:cuia:ion of per unit values of other fuel cycleImpacts tcr referoncs tec"1nooagIes, as necessary.

A, 9D to k227. Surnm3"y Tables and grap)hs contrasting air and GHGemissions fo- GEF and Reference technology range. Three types ofcomparisor graphs and tables are given: Non-GHG air pollutants Inphysical units. GHG emisslons In physical unhs (LOG SCALE PLOT).and GHG em.sslons on a carbon equlvalent basis. .

DIAGR SS.XLS 8/28/92

OVERVIEW DIAGRAM OF GGAM SPREADSHEETSDLOCKS SHOW APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF INFORMATION

SPREADSHECT T7YPE: SUMMARY ('SUM-)OX#.XI.S7

SG: Goneral Project P2 to (varlos): AddiltonalInformation: Name, assumptions and calculatlonsTochnologles useCd, expuctwd used In estimating technicalenergy/heat savings and paraeitnelers for which data IscapacItItes, costa. heat rates ...... not avallable (11 necstary).

84O to H76: Otlier proJuutiriformatlon: Additlonal costdata, land and water use,materials use, health andSafety and other (non-airemisslon) Impacts.

A78 to P85: Coefficients used to estimate amisslons of alr pollutants andGHGs.for each type of combustlon fuel used and secondary tecliiologyused in the project.

A87 to P95: EstImates of annual total emissions of air pollutants andGHGs, for each type of combustilon fuel used, secondary technologlesused, and other fuel cycle technologles.

A98 to P106: EstImates of annual total emissions of air pollutants andGHGs per unit output (GWHe) for each type of combustion fuel used,secondary technologles used. and other fuel cycle technologies.

Al11 to 0160: Preparatlon of GEFproject data for use Incomparison spreadsheet: costs.land and water use, materials, airpollutants and GHG emis66ons,other Impacts expressed In tormsof ElectrIcIty output (or capacity)Primary and secondarytechnology.

REVIEW DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE June 20, 1993

REFERENCES

1. Houghton, J., et al., 1990. The IPCC Scientific Assessment, World Meteorological Organization and CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.


3. King, K. and U. Munasinghe. 1992. Global Warming* Key sues for the Bank. Policy and Research Division.Environment Department. World Bank. Divisional Working Paper No. 1992-36. Washington, DC.

4. Although not itself a greenhouse gas, carbon monoxide is important to the greenhouse problem becauseof its effect on another atmospheric constituent, the hydroxyl radical (OH). Hydroxyl is the principal sinkfor methane (and many other pollutants) in the atmosphere, but it reacts preferentially with CO. Byscavenging OH from the atmosphere. emissions of CO increase the residence time and the effective rateof buildup of atmospheric methane.

5. Houghton, J. et al., 1990. [bid.



8. Bhandyopadayaya, 1988.


10. Warrick. R. and A.A. Rahiman, 1992. "Environmental and Socio-political Aspects of Sea-Level Rise." in 1.Mintzer, ed., Confronting Climate Chane Risks- Implications, and Responses, Stockholm EnvironmentInstitute and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

11. Gleick, Peter H., 1992. "Impacts of Climate Change on Internationally Shared Fresh-Water Resources," inI Mintzer, ed., Op. Cit.

12. Mintzer, L., 1990. "Living in a Warming World: Effects of Global Warming on Weather-Related Disasters". Draftpaper prepared for the World Bank.

13. Emmanuel, K., 1992. Nature article.

14. Mintzer, L., 1990. Op cit.

15. United Nations, 1992. Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, New York. NY. Article 2.Para. 1.

17

GGAM Project Input SheetsBLANK INPUT FORM

File: IPT XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET A

PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:1. Who es the Task Manager on thus project?2 In which Country will the project wiN be ocated?

Plase provide a name for the proposed GEF propet.d

hat will be the pnncipal technology used to generate

| or save electricty (press the button or type directly)? I-NONE'5i If another major technology wlN be rnKed. for this project

(e.g. gas transport, or ooal mining) and is epected to havesignificant environmental impacts, pease enter the name of the'secondary' technolgy here (press bufton or type directly): Coal mining-underground

6 How is the output of the secondary technology,

measured, e.g in GJlyr. or tonnes/yr?

What pollution control technologies. If any. wv0 beimplemrented in the proposed GEF project?

LEVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? [NO | GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETkUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? INO I

12 15,'92

- /


FUe: IPT X1l.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET B

E ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:B. What will be the first year of project operations? 1994. What is the expeded operating liftme of the project? Years Go To

10. Whet is the expected econormic lfetirre of the project7 25 Years Previous11. What is the expected lifetirme of the oan Input

sociatd wed h O project? brs Sheet12. This program uses the expected economic lifetime of the project erkut value.

This value determines how many years of cost and outp data are to be collected.If a differewt value is more appropriate peas enter t here Years

13. Whats the discount rate to be applied to monetary flows? 5 percn14. What is the discount rate to be applied to pollutant emissions? [ Percentyr15. What is the expected electricity generation capacity provided

or displaced by this project? I |MWGo To16. What Is the heat generation or savings capacity Next

ultimnately expected from the project? [|GJ/yr Input17. What Is tVe capacty of secondary technoogy Sheet

to be used (if applicable)? [ f l N/A

12/15/92


File: IPT XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET CPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18 What will be the primary input fuel for the propet (if applicable)7 ?Natrl Gas19. What will be the secondary input fuel for the project (if applicable)? iBnum Coal l

GJ per20 Please enteror edit the heat contents of the input Primary Fuel 0.03545 cubic meter

fuels, in GJ per unt shown t far right (if applicable). Secondary Fuel 29.31 Tonne.21 What fraction of the energy input to the project will the pn mary and Primary Fuel 100the secondary fuels provide (if applicable) in Percent of total? Secondary Fuel22 Press the appropriate button to entr the plant efficiency (electrity outputtfuel input) in:OR

Please ente; the plant efficiency here: 1 lkWh/VGJ Fuel Input23 What is the expected heat or steam generation efficiency

(heat energy output per unit fuel input)? Note that unless no elctricityis produced, GGAM assumfes that the project is a cogeneration system. [ GJ/G4 Fuel Input

(Go To Previous Input Sheet( Go To Next Input Sheet

12/15/92


Fie: IPT XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET Dl

PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:

4. What is the expected annual average electricity generation or savngs? [ GWh

25 What is the expected annual averWe heat generation or savings? [I -]|GJ26 What is the expected annual average use of the secondary technoo [ N/A

Go To Previous Input Go To Next Input SheetSheet

12/15/92


File: IPT X(X1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET D2 =I_ Prs~eviu het |Nx he24. to 26. YEAR41Y-YEAR PROJECT OUTPUTS _

Use of Use ofEkecd Prod. Heat Prod. Secondary Elect Prod. Heat Prod, Secondaryor Savings or Savings Tedchoogy or Sawings or Savings Technology

YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A) YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A)1994 1000 20091995 1000 2010* 1 1990 1000 20111997 1000- 20121998 1000 20131999 1000 20142000 1000 20152001 1000 20162002 1000 20172003 1000 20182004 10002005200620072008

12/15/92


Fie: IPT X)X1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET El

PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:

27 What will be the rnt present value of the total costs of GHGredui for the projed? | 1S Milon US 1992

28 What will be the net presert vahe of the capital costs

for the pnmary technology used this project? S Miion US 1992

29 What wil be the net preset vaiue of the opeatin costsncumed over the lietime the pr o ep t (priry technology)? S Mion US 1992

30 What will be the net prsenrt value of the capital costsfor the secondary technol used in this project? S Milion US 1992

31. What will be the not present value of the operatirg costs

incurred vr the lifetime of the propect (secondary technology)? [s Milon US 1992

Go To Previous Input Go To N.xt Input SheetSheet

12.'I' 1'2


Fie: IPT7XXXi.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET E2 N S27. to 29. Yeay-By-Year Project Cods (Primary.Tech.) Previous ._h_t_____Next_Sheet

COSTS COSTS(Million 1992 US Dllars) (Million 1992 US Dollars)

Cost of GHG Capital Operting & Cost of GHG Capital Operating &YEAR Reduction Costs Mairit. Costs YEAR Reduction Costs Maint. Costs1994 1 2009

1995 1 20101996 1 20111997 1 20121998 1 20131999 1 20142000 1 20152001 1 20162002 1 20172003 1 20182004 20052006

20072005

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET E330. to 31. Yeay-8y-Year Projed Costs (Secondary Technology)

COSTS COSTS(Million 1992 US Dollars) (MiHlion 1992 US Dollars)

Capital Operating Capital Operating 8 PreviousYEAR Costs Maint. Costs YEAR Costs Mairt. Costs Sheet

1994 20091995 20101996 20111997 20121998 20131999 2014Set2000 20152001 20162002 20172003 2018200642005200620072008

12/15/92

f .


FOe: IPT XXXI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET F

2. PLEASE ENTER ThE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORS

O BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGSIAIR POLLUTANTS

|Now Using: |Energy Units

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aklehyd.

Comb.: Prnmry Fuel k/WJ | .OE-01 1.0E-01 2.OE-01 2.OE-02 3.OE-04 2.OE-01 2.0E0ormb.: Secondary Fuel kcgGJ

Secondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22

Comb.: Primary Fuel kgtGJ 5.OE01 2.OE-01 2.OE-02 0.OE+00 0.OE-00 0.0E.00 0.OE+0

Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJ

Secondary Technology N/A _

Go to Previous Sheet Go to Next Sheet

t? ilS 92


File: IFr )XX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET G3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-

GENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Pres buttons Referwnce Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Electricity

Number from Tech list Chosen Generated---------- 1 CoalJ1ired boiler, conv. 100 PercentGo toPrevious 2 Choose Rol Tech 2 ()NONE) I |PercentInput

Sheet 3 CiooiRI 3 |(NONE) Percent

Go to 4 ( ChooseRefTech4 (INONE) PercentNextInput ( Chose Ref Tech t (jfNONE) PercentS hhetet

TOTAL I 1001

12,' 15/92

fto'


File: IPT XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET H

34 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-RODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGMITH THE GEF PROJECT

Relerence Pre" buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Heat

Number from Tech list Chosen Produced

Go to 1 Choose Ref Tech I (NONE) 100|PercentPrevious

InputSheet 2 Choose RefTech2 |(NONE) I |Percent

Write Data to File, Call Go To ProjectIn Ref Tech Data. and Comparison Sheet who -TOTAL

Go To Project Calling In Ref Tech DataComparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

12/15/92

f taGGAM Prolect Input Sheets

BLANK INPUT FORM

Fie: IPT XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET SI: BIOMASS

DOES THIS PROJECT INVOLVE PLANTING,HARVESTING, OR COLLECTING BIOMASS? | NO(Type In YES- or -NO to change choice)PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE BIOMASS PLANTATION/HARVESTING OPERATION PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT1 What is the area of the biornass or forestry plantation or

the area to be harvested. in hectares? lO0011. How would you charcterze the current (pre-project) state of the land that will be harvested or usedfor the biomass plantation (pros the button or type directly)? lAgroforestry Operation

Ill. What type of biomass plantation (or other land type) will Select Pr rojt ) Stiet Podt-Proctbe created as a result of the project (press the button LAl Type Land Typeor type directly)? iTree Plantation: Medium Trees

IV What is the current stock of biomass on the land to be used, in tonnes of dry wood per hectare? (Enter afigure directly or use the default value provided) 41.00

Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Sheet

[PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET S2: BIOMASSV What is expected to be the aewrae stock of biomasa on the pntation dueing te project, In tonnes of drywood per hectare? (Enter figure or use default value provided) | 40.00VI. If available, enter below the average annual stock of biomass on the plantation, by project year. over the lifeof the project, in dry tonnes of wood or biowras per hectare. Be sure to nter a value for each year in whichhe stock of biormass will be non-zero. If you lave this section blank, GGAM will ossune that the value that yountered (or accepted) for question V. Is the vrage annual stock for the life of the project.Stock Stock StockYEAR (dry te/ha) YEAR (dry tema) YEAR (dry te/ha)1994 10 2004 85 20t4

lad)1995 20 2005 90 20151996 30 2006 95 2016 891997 40 2007 100 2017

881998 50 2008 100 2018 81999 60 2009 100

2000 65 2010 1002001 70 2011 100

,> 75 12012 1002003 80 2013 100

Go To Previous Input SheetJ Go To Next Input Sheet

12/15.92


Fle: IPT )OOIl.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET S3: METHANE COLLECTION

DOES THIS PROJECT INVOLVE COLLECTING

METHANE FOR USE IN THE PRODUCING NO

LECTRJCITY OR HEAT? (Typei in YES' or 'N to change choiceI

E ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE METHANE COLLECTION

ERATION PROPOSED FOR THiS PROJECT:

I. What fraction of the methane colleted for use as a fuel would hae been reeased to the atmosphere

In the absence of the collection operation? This vakie wIN tplcaly depend on the pre-proqe

practices used for, for example, coal mine ventilation, treatnent of livestock wastes, or disposal

of municipal solid wastes

Enter a fraction in percent: [ C0Percent

Go To Previous Input Sheet _ Go To Next Input Sheet

12/15/92

IA -


(GGAM)

PROJECT:lECUADOR: REFORESTATION OF DEGRADED AMAZON LAND

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:

THE CENTER FOR GLOBAL CHANGE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

AND

THE STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE--BOSTON CENTER

REVIEW DRAFT 12/15/92

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITYPROJECT DESCRIPTION

ECUADOR: Bostrosa Carbon Sequestration ProjectJ ~~OVERVIEW1:

This GEF project is designed to reforest 5,000 hectares of degraded, formerly forested Amazonian landin the Esmeralda region of Ecuador. The GEF project will finance the development of wood plantationto restore the degraded lands and, in the process, store carbon in trees and wood products. In the absenceof the GEF project, the existing closed forest would be converted to agricultural land while pastures andfallow areas would remain undeveloped. The effective carbon sequestration potential of this project isthe difference between the carbon stored as a result of the plantation development and the carbon storedin the pastures, fallows, and converted agricultural lands. The project staff estimates that the net increasein carbon storage for the plantation scenario is approximately 830,000 tonnes of carbon, compared to theno project scenario. The GEF contribution to this project will include a grant of US$ 2.5 million. Thisgrant will supplement a conventional World Bank loan of approximately US$ 4 million.This project will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Ecuador but will increase carbon uptake andstorage in these degraded Amazon lands.

GIEFCONTRIBUTION 10PROJfECT COST: Grant of US$ 2.5 millionGEFLCOST OF AVOIDED CARBON EMISSIl(NSfatL20%discount rale foremission):

US$ 4/tonne

GMLOBAL 3YARMING(B. ENEFITS OF THE PROPO1!FD PRQ3E 1:

(1) This reforestation project will store carbon in the trees of a managed wood plantation and in thewood products produced from these trees.

UNRESOLVED QUESTIO[NS:

(I) The actual rate of carbon uptake on the plantation cannot be determined from the projectdocuments.

(2) The project documents do not clearly identify the fate of the degraded lands if the proposedproject is not implemented.

(3) The operation and maintenance costs of preserving the tree stock on the plantation cannot bedetermined with certainty from the project documents.

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

TECLHNICA_ ASSUMPTIONS UIJSD IN THIS ANALYSIS:

(1) The total ecosystem biomass for the degraded lands without the GEF project is assumed to be130 tonnes of carbon per hectare. -

(2) Plantation biomass is assumed to reach 200 tonnes of carbon per hectare at maturity.

(3) The carbon stored in wood products is assumed to be approximately 50% of the amount of woodharvested for this purpose at the end of an 18 year rotation. After 30 years, the wood productsare assumed to decompose.

CRITICAL FACTORS IN ANAL YSIS:

(1) Estimated rate of carbon storage in-plantations(2) Assumed rate of carbon storage with no intervention on the degraded lands(3) Rate of maturation of the managed plantation forest(4) Estimated level of carbon storage in forest litter and root biomass(5) Assumed rate of carbon storage in wood products(6) Survival rate of trees on the plantation(7) Extent to which natural forests must be cleared to make room for the plantation

z ~SPF('IAL NOTF:

The Bostrosa Carbon Sequestration Project is has been deferred indefinitely. It is no longer partof the GEF's active portfolio.

2

I

ii

iiIIi

ti3

GGAM Project Input SheetsECUADOR PROJECT

File: IPT ECUI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET SI: BIOMASS

DOES THIS PROJECT INVOLVE PLANTING,HARVESTING, OR COLLECTING BIOMASS? YES

ype In -YES' or NO' to change choice)SE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE BIOMASS PLANTATION/

STING OPERATION PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT1 What Is the rea of the biormass or forestry plntation or

the area to be harvested., in hectares? F -f. How would you characterze the current (pre-proect) state of the land that will be harvested or usedfor the biomss plantation (press the button or type directly)7 rDegradedf ntds

11. What type of biomass planWaion (or other land type) will Seledc Pr*KJect SWlect Post.ProTectbe created as a result of the project (press the button Land Type Typeor type directly)? [Tree Plantation: Large Trees

V. What is the current stock of biomss on the land to be used, in tonnes of dry wood per hectare? (Enter afigure directly or use the defult value provxded) r 42.00


12 14 92

1A'.


File: IPT ECUI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET S2: BIOMASSV What s oxpectd to be On verage stock of bomas on the platton dur"ng the prject hi tonne of drywood per hectare? (Ener figure or use default value provided) | 60.00VI. 11avaible. enter beow t ave anl stock of biomss on the pnttion, by mrect yar over the lif

of the proect. hi dry tonn of wood or b bmas per hectare. Be wre to enter a vkoe for each yer hi whiche stock of biomass will be non-zero. If ou Wave this section blank, GGAM vwW assume tht the value that you

entered (or accepted) for question V. Is the av'g annual stock for the W of the project.Stock Stock Stock

YEAR (dry teha) YEAR (dry teih) YEAR (dry taw)1993 0.00 2013 73.90 2033 7381994 3.38 2014 73.88 2034 73.41995 9.58 2015 73.84 2035 73.41996 17.53 2016 73.79 2036 73.41997 26.99 2017 73.74 2037 73.41998 37.73 2018 73.89 2038 73.41999 46.12 2019 73.65 2039 73.42000 52.52 2020 73.61 2040 73.42001 57.81 2021 73.58 2041 73.42002 62.07 2022 73.55 2042 73.482003 65.41 2023 73.53 2043 73 42004 67.97 2024 73.52 2044 73.482005 69.89 2025 73.52 2045 73.2006 7129 2026 73.49 2046 73.482007 72.28 2027 73.49 2047 73.42008 72.96 2028 73.48 2048 73.4a2009 73.40 2029 73.48 2049 73.482010 73.68 2030 73.48 2050 73.42011 73.82 2031 73.48

2012 73.19 2032 73.481


12/14/92


File: IPT ECU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET BLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

What will be tne first year of pect operations?What is the expected operating lifetime of the poiect? 5[ Years Go To10 What is the expeeded economic fetire of the proect? 5f Years Previous11. What is the expected lifetime oa the loan

Inputassociated with the project? def Y ms Sheet12. This program uses the expected economic ifetimf e of the project as the eitu viue.This value determines how mrray years of cost and output data are to be collected.If a different value is more appropriate. please enter It here y YeaYs

13. What is the discount rate to be applied to monetary flows? S Peroent/yr14. What is the discount rate to be applied to pollutAant emiss.on? 0 Peroent/yr15. What is the expected ectriciy generon capacity provided

or displaced by this propet? [jj 4JW Go To16. What is the heat generation or savings capacity Nextultimately expected fromn the project

Gyr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheetto be used (if applicable)?

NtA

12/114 92


Fle: IPT ECU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET C

PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. What wil be the prnmary InxA fuel for the proje (if applicable)? -<NONE>19. What will be th seconday kpA fuel for the pro,ct (f applicable)? I <NO EZ

0.1 per20 Pase enter or edit the hectwets of Pthe Iu | u|0

fuels, In GJ per uin shomm at fr rg (f applcable). SOoondary Fue | °1. What fraction of the enwegy pu to the projet will ten priaryn Fnaa 1Ot

the secondary fuels provde (f appiable) in Percent of totar? Seconday FuelPress the approprate button to ntr the plant etrmency (electricity ou tput/l input) h:

OR

Pleas ent the plant efficiency here: 100 Percent23. What is the ewpected het or steam geration efficiency

(het energy output per nt el input)? Note tht unkss no ectricityis produced, GGAM sumes that the pojct k a cogenertion system. |] GJJGJ Fuel Input

(Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Sheet

12/14/92

I -~


File: IPT ECUI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET DILEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:

4. What is the expected annual average elcticity getion or savings? LlO|GWh

25. What is the expected annual average heat generation or savings? 1IO|GJ

26. What is the expected annual average use of the secondary technoo [IWA

Go To Previous InputSheet Go To Next Input Sheet

12/14/92


Fie: IPT ECU1.XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:7. What wiU be the net present value of dt toa costs of GHG

reduction for the project? [$I Minion US 199228. What will be the net prsernt value of the capitl o

for the primary technology ued i this protd? [ M1 iliion US 1992, What vwill be the nt present vabie of the operting costs

icured ove th fetime of the pret wary technology)? S Million US 199230. What will be the net present value of the captal costs

for the secondary technology used in this projct? [S Millon US 199231. What will be the nt presert valu of th operaing costs

incurred over the lifetime of the projed (scondary technology)? |i|S Mioion US 1992


12/14/92

R.lGGAM Project Input Sheets

ECUADOR PROJECT

Fie: IPT ECUI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET F2. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORSO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGS/AIR POLLUTANTS

[Now Using: Energy Units

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOX CO Gas. Fl NMHCS AkIehyd.Comb.: Pnrmry Fuel kg/GJ O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OQ O.OE+O0 O.OE+OO O.OE+OCComb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Primary Fuel kg/GJ O.OE+O0 O.OE+OO O.OE+00 O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+O0 O.OE+0Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A


12/14/92

glc

GGAM Project Input SheotsECUADOR PROJECT

FUe: IPT ECUi.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET G3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-


Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Eectricity

Number from Tech list Chosen GeneatedGo to I ChooseReTech I r(WOE) I 100IPrceK

Previous 2 Choo Ref Tech 2 (|NONE) I PcentInp utSheet 3 Choose Ref Tech 3 (NON Percent

Go to 4 h( hooe Re Tech 4 ) (NONE) PercentNextInput 5 NChoose RelTech 6 ) (°ONE) PercentSheet

TOTAL 10

12,l1d 92


File: IPT ECU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET H3J. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-PRODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechndogy To choose Technology HeatNunber from Tech list Chosen ProducedGo to 1 Choos Tech I (|NONE

10 1PercentPrevious FoInputSheet 2 Choose Ref Tech2 (NONE)

Pement

WriteData to

TOTAL |Z 100File

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryECUADOR PROJECT

Fie: CMP ECU.XLS

SUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS Enissions discounted at 0.0%1yrEniisdons In teth

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Sest Re-igh Ref-LowPM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NMHC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Enrisions In teohaGHGS GEF Ref4Sest Ref-High Ret-Low

C02 1 0E-12 26E81 7.IE.1 1.OE-12CH4 I.0E-12 1.0E-12 1.OE-12 1.0E-12N20 1.0E-12 1.0E-12 1.OIE-12 1.0E-12

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Enissons discounted at O.%yrEmissions in to C .qJha

GAS GEF Ref-Seat Ref4-Hgh Ref-LowC02 -1.1 E+2 . .72E+0 ,1.9E-1 -l4.681CH4 0.OE+0 .O.E0840 - -. 0E. , 0 0.OE84N20

- .OE+O O.OEO 0.08E0 -O.OE+ONOx 0.0E0 O.OE+O O.OEO O.OE+OCO 0.0E0 O.OE+O 0.0E0 O.OE+ONMHC O.0E0 O.OE40 0.0EO0 O.OEOTOTAL -1.1E+2 7.2E80 1.9E-1 -4.6E81

COST OF ¢HG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted et O.@%tyrReduction in NPV Coat of

Emissions over ReductionProject Ulh (1992 t US per

CASE (T C Equhv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 5.65E+05 S3.54Reference-High minus GEF 6.27E+05 "3'9

Reference-Law minus GEF Z98E+05 s6.2

12 14 )12

GGAM Projec Comparison SummaryECUADOR PROJECT

File: CMP ECU1 .XLS

Comparison of Emlisons: GEF Project vs.Alternative Technology

1.00

0.8010.60 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ UGEF

0.60

0.20

0.00

Comparison of GHG Emisions: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

1.OE+2

1.OE+ 1 *GEFI .OE +

- Roe-Best1 .OE21.OE2

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emlisons in C Equiv.: GEF vs.Alornative Technology

2.OE+ I

O.OE + O P*2.OE + 1 -

4-0E+1 GEF_-6.0E +1 I CRef-Best-8.-OE +1 I

-1.OE+2 n

12 14.92


Fie: CMP ECU1.%LS

Reducton In GHG Emissions

m GEF

n*mw GEF

o.OOE l.ODE 2.ODE 3.00E 4.OOE 5.00E 6.COE 7.OOE+00 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05

Tonnes Carbon Equlv.

NPV Cost of Reducdon

minus GEF

POGFwbosffwfus GEF

inkasEF

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00I9M2S US per T Carbon Equbv.

12/14/92


FRe: CMP ECU1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 3J.0%tyrEmissions In to/haAIR POLLUTANTS GEF RefBest Ref-High Reft-LowPM

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NMHC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Emissions In to/haGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02

1.0E-12 5.1E+1 1.5E+2 t.DE-12CH4 1.0E-12 1i.OE-12 'lO-1 i.OE-12N20 1.OE-12 1.OE-12 t.OE-12 1.0E-12

CARBON EQUVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at -3.OiIJyrErissions in te C *qJhGAS GEF Ref4Best Ref-ligh Ref-LowC02

-24E+2 -1.4E+1 -4.IE.1 -1.5E+2CH4 O.OE+O O.OEO 6 0.06 - 0.0E+0N20 0.E+0 . 006.01 - 0.0E+O 0.OE40NOx 0.0E+0 O.OE+0 0.0.E+0 .OE+OCO 0.OE+0 O.E060 0.0E0 O.OE+ONMHC -O.OE0 0.0E40 :0.OE0+ O.OE+OTOTAL

-24E62 1.4E+1 4.iE+t -1.5.+2

COST OF GHG REDUCTiONS Emissions discounted at 4.30%yrReduction in NPV Cost of

Ernions over ReductionPropet Uie (19S2 $ US per

CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equ4v.)Referece-Best rnunus GEF 1.26E+06 S1.57Reference-High minus GEF 1.41E+06 S1.42Reference-Low minus GEF 4.52E4M S4.43

1?, 4 92

tt


File: CMP ECU1.XLS

Comparison of Emisbons: GEF Protct vs.AtNernaive Technology

1.000.80*

0.60 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ UGEF*~0.60

0.20

0.00

Comparion of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Atrmatve Technoogy

1tOE+2

I.OE +O

1 oE-1 0 Ref-Best

1.OE-2l

C02 CK4 N20

Comparson of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

5.OE * 1

O.OE + o 0 05.OE+ I-5.0E+ 1 XE° 5; ° <GEF

-1.OE+2-. 5E+2 Rof-Best-2.OE +2

-2.5E +2

12/14/92


File: CMP ECUI.XLS

Raductlon In GHG Emiaions

mnus GEF

minus GEF

minus GEF

O.OOE + X 5.OOE + 05 1.OOE + 06 1.50E+06


NPV Cost of Roductlon

minus GF_ _

minus GEF

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5001992 S US por T Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92


Fdle: CMP ECUl.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissios discounted at 3.0%lyr

Emissions In teihAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref4-Sd RefH4igh Ref-Low

PM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SOx 0.00 0.00 0O. 0.00

NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NMHC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Emissions in teih

GHGS GEF Ref-Bed Ref-ilgh Ref-Low

C02 .1.0E-12 -- 1.7E21 42E.1 l.OE-12

CH4 1E0E-12 1.0-E12 1.OE-12 1.0E-12

N20 1.0E.12 1.0E-i2 -1.0E-12 1.OE-12

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 3.0%lyr

Emissions In te C eqJha

GAS GEF Ref-Bed ReftHigh Ref-Low

C02 -5.5E.1- 4.52E0 1.2E21 -1.8E+1

CH4 0O.02.. ,. .OODE40. 0'02E0 O.OEO.0

N20 0.0.E*0 -O k-OOEi0 00E*0 .OEv02NOx O.OE40 O.OEO 0024'O.OE*o O.OEO

CO 0.0E.0 * 0.OE.0 0.0E20 O.OE40NMHC 0.0E+0 OlE.D ' 0.0E.0 O.OEO

TOTAL 4.51E+ 4.SE40 1.2E-1 -1.82E1

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at 3.0%Iyr

Reduction in NPV Cost of

Enusslons over Reduction

Protect Ufe (1392 3 US per

CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)

Reference-Best minus GEF 2.9BE*05 $1.70

Reference-High minus GEF 333E-W SC.OO

Referenoe.Low minus GEF I 54E+0 St0 88

12/14/92


File: CMP ECUI.XLS

Comparison of Elisions: GEF Project vs.Alternatve Technology

1.00

0.80

U GEF0.60

-~0.40 Cl Ref-Beat0.20

0.00 ___ _ __

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.AlternatIve Technorogy

I.OE + 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2149

-~~~ ~1.OE + 1.OE+1 U ~~~~~GEF

I. .OE+0 I1.OE-1 Cl ~~~~~~Ref-Best

1.OE-2 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

C02 CHAI N20

Comparison of Emissions in C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

I.OE+I0.OE + 0

o-1.OE+ IGE-2.OE+1I

~,-3.OE + I 0 Ref-Best

-4.OE + 1

12/14/92


File: CMP ECU1.XLS

Reductkon h GHG Emilslons

nmius GEFRot*mnm~4%hgminus GEF

minus GEF

O.OOE 5.OOE 1.OOE 1.50E 2.OOE 2.SOE 3.00E 3.50E+00 +04 +06 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05


NPV Co* of Redu_|on

minus GEFFstd ic44gh

ff% GEF

menus GEF

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.0 $12.00 0

1992 S US per T Carbon Equlv.

12 14 92

Fri-GGAM Project Comparison Summary

ECUADOR PROJECT

File: CMP ECU1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 1O.0%tyrEmissions In telha

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-8est Ret-High Ref-LowPM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NMHC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eniisions in telhaGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 1 0E-12 8.3E+O 2.0E.1 1.0E-12CH4 1 OE-12 1.0E-12 R.OE-12 I.OE-12N20 1.0E-12 1.0E-12 1.0E-12 1.0E-12

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 10.D%IyrEmissions In te C eqJha

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Rel-LowC02 -1.5E+1 23E.0 - 5.4E.0 -5.OE'0CH4 0.E+0 .OEO O.E40 O.OEQON20 O.OE.0 O.E0 O.OE+0 .OE40NOx 0.OE+O O.OE.0 0.OE+0 O.OE+OCo O.OE+O 0.OE40 O.OE+O Q.OE+0NMHC 0.OE+O 0.0E40 O.OE40 O.OE+0TOTAL -1.5E.1 23E+0 5.4E40 -5.OE+0

cosr OF GHG REDUCTIONS Ernissions discounted at 1O.O%tyrReduction in NPV Cost of

Erissions over ReductionPr oject Life (1992 S US per

CASE (1 C Equiv. TC Equiv.)Rererence-Best minus GEF a 83E-(A S266Referencer-igh minus GEF 104E+06 S1926Reference-Low minus GEF 5 20E 04 S3a 43

12/14/92


Fie: CMP ECU1.XLS

Comporison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.A|tantive Technology

1.00

0.50

S 1 n | * ~~~GEF

0.60GE

1 0.4 2o Ret-Best0.20

0.001

Comparison of GHG Emissaons: GEF vs.

Altermative Technology

1.OE+0I

-.OE+0 G GEF

I.OE-1 1 Rl-Bost

-20E+t2

C02 CH4 92

Comparison of Emisaions in C. Equly.: GEF vs.Alternativ Technology

5.OE+ 0

0.OE +0 U?

, 5.OE + 0 GEF

'- I.OE + I Ret-Sest

-1.5E +

*2.OE +

1? i4 92


File: CMP_ECU1.XLS

Roduction In GHG Emissions

Ref*ernc4-Lowmmus GEF

Rf*,*nc*44ighminus GEF

P.w rnc.Gwmwflm GEF

O.OOE 2.OOE 4.OOE 6.00E 8.00E 1.00E 1.20E+00 +04 +04 +04 +04 +05 +05

Tonnes Carbon Equhv.

NPV Cost of Reductlon

minus GEF

mmus GEF

$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 S30.00 S40.00

1992 S US p-.r TCarbon Equhv.

1 z4/92


(GGAM)

PROJECT:INDIA: NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY PROJECT

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND




INDIA: Non-conventional Energy Project

OVERVIEW:

This GEF project will promote increased deployment of wind electric and solar photovoltaic powersystems. The centralized windfarms are assumed to generate 75 MW of electricity and deliver it to theexisting electric utility grid. The wind electric power will replace the output of coal, hydroelectric andnuclear electric units on the grid, principally in the states of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and TamilNadu. The electric supply mix in these states is approximately 77% coal with the remainder generatedby hydro and nuclear facilities.

The photovoltaic (PV) component of this project will deploy 2.5-3.0 MWp of decentralized photovoltaicsin off-grid applications during the next decade. The photovoltaic power systems will be used principallyfor lighting, water pumping, and the provision of local community services. Approximately 80% of thephotovoltaics are assumed to be used in solar-powered lanterns, replacing kerosene lights burning, onaverage, 4 hours per day. The remainder of the photovoltaics will replace gasoline- and diesel-poweredgenerator sets. In calculating the emissions reductions associated with the photovoltaic component, allPV-generated electricity was assumed to replace kerosene. -

The local coal replaced by the non-conventional energy systems is of very low quality. As aconsequence, a supplemental mixture of coal and oil is sometimes used for plant start-up and flamestabilization. The additional emissions associated with the use of this supplemental mixture in existingplants has been ignored in this analysis.

Because the materials requirements for the manufacturing and use of the wind and photovoltaic systemsare low, the secondary greenhouse gas emissions from the project are not considered to be significant,compared to the effects on CO2 emissions reductions due to the substitution of renewable energy for thecombustion of coal or oil products. Since the methane emissions associated with avoided coal use andthe emissions from applications of the supplemental fuel mixture are ignored here, this analysis mayunderstate the benefits of the proposed project.

;I:FLCONTRILUTION ].QA!ROEFCT CEDSI: US$ 13 Million for wind systemsUSS 13 Million for PV systers(;EF C'OST OF AV'OIDED CARBtON EMISSIONvS

LOL0 dcounL rate foremissonis: US$ 6/tonne

l

G;LOB0AL WARMING-B-ZEN-EfFITS O-IF MPOPOSED PROJECT:

1) This wind power component of this project will reduce CO2 emissions due to coal combustionin the existing electric power plants, by substituting renewable energy for coal as the principalfuel.

2) The PV component of this project will reduce CO2 emissions due to the burning of kerosene forlighting in domestic applications in remote villages. It will also replace some combustion ofgasoline and diesel fuel in off-grid motor-generator sets.

UNRESOLVED OUESTIONS:

(1) The exact mix of applications and the proportion of fuels displaced by the PV systems is notclearly identified in the project documents. Therefore, to simplify the calculations, all PV-generated electricity was assumed to replace kerosene combustion.

(2) The proposed geographic distribution of the wind machines is not specifically identified in theproject documents. In addition, the extent of use of supplemental fuel mixtures in coal powerplants in these states is not specified. As a consequence, the emissions reductions due to the useof the wind power systems may be somewhat understated in this analysis.

(3) At the time that this analysis was prepared (December 1992), the distribution of the GEF fundsbetween the wind and PV components of this project was still under negotiation. In addition, thedecision as to whether the PV systems should be grid-connected or kept off the grid had beenmade and reversed at least once. As a result, the estimate of avoided emissions given here canonly be considered illustrative until greater specification of the distribution of funds and thelocation of the renewable energy systems has been determined.

(4) The precise emissions characteristics of Indian electric generating stations were unknown at thetime of this analysis. As a result, the emissions characteristics of a similar plant in the OECDwere assumed for this analysis.

TEfCHNICAL AS SUM PTIONS UOSED IN THIS ANALYSIS:

I) The fraction of electricity supplied to the Indian grid from coal-fired power plants isapproximately 779c. The remainder is supplied from hydroelectric and nuclear electric facilitiesuith insignificant emissions of greenhouse gases.

2) The average capacity factor of the wind electric systems is assumed to be 19%.

3) The photovoltaics are assumed to replace kerosene lamps burning 4 hours per day.

2

pi

iII

I

I

I

CRITICAL FACIORS IN> THIS ANAILYSIS:

(1) Mix of coal types used(2) Leakage rate for gas transport(3) Efficiency of new boilers and balance of outputs between heat and electricity(4) Fraction of GEF funds used for coal-to-gas conversion compared to allocation for total energysystem

3

i

i

I

GGAM Project Input SheetsINDIA PROJECT

FUle: IPT IND1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET ALEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

I Who is the Task Manager on ths project?In which Country wil the project will be located? IndiaPlease provkh a narme for the proposed GEF project: Non-Conventonwl Energy PrWhat will be the principal technology used to generateor save elericity (press the button or type directy)? FWind power and Solar Photovoltaics (EWctnciry)If another major technology wil be required for this project(e.g. gas transport, or coal mining) and i eq*cted to havesigniricant environnental Impact, plase nter the name of thesecondary technology here (pres buttn or type directly): |NONE

How is the output of the secondary technology,measured, e.g. In GJyr, or tonrnsyr?What pollution control technologies, if any, will be

implemented in the proposed GEF propectLEVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:

USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? YES GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? NO

1' *4 92

i

I

I


File: IPT IND1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET BLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

What will be thle first year of project operations? 994What is the expected operating lifetime of the project? 22 Years Go To

10. What is the expected economic lifetime of the project? 22 Years Previous11. What is the expected lifetirme of the loan Input

associated with the project? 22Years Sheet12. This program uses the expected economic lifetime of the proect as the defaul valueThis value determines how many years of cost and output data are to be collected.

If a different value is more appropriate, pease enter it here: Years13. What is the discount rate to be applied to monetary flows? 5 Percent/yr14. What is the discount rate to be applied to pollutant emissions7 0 PercentUyr15. What is the expected electricity generation capacity provided

or displaced by this project7 89MW Go To16 What is the heat generation or savings capacity Next Inpu

uftimatety expected from the project? | .|GJ.yr Sheet17, What is the capacity of the secondary technology

to be used (if applicable)7 0N/A

'14/92


File: IPT IND1.XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWiNG INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:

18. What wIll be the pirriary input fuel for the project (if applicable)7 |Wimd

19. What will be the secondary input fwl for the project (if applicable)7 |Solar

GJ per

20 Please enter or edi the heat contents of the input Primary Fuel 1 GJ

fuels. in GJ per unit shown at far right (If applicable). Secondary Fuel GJ

1. What fraction of the energy input to the proect will the pimary and Pnmary Fuel SOi

the secondary fuels provide (if applicable) in Peront of total? Secondary Fuel 20i

22 Press the appropriate button to enter the plant efficency (electricity output/fuel input) in:

OR

Please enter the plant efficiency here: 1 Percent

23 What is the expected heat or steam geration efficiency

(heat energy output per unit fuel input)? Note that unless no ectricity

is produced. GGAM assumes that the proect is a cogeneration system. I O|GJ/GJ Fuel Input

I Go To Previous Input Sheet )Go To Next Input Sheet

12/14/92


File: IPT IND1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET D2 Previous Sheet Next Sheet24. to 26. YEARABY-YEAR PROJECT OUTPUTS

Use of Use ofElect. Prod Heat Prod. Secondary Eled. Prod. Heat Prod. Secondary

or Savings or Savings Technology or Savings or Savings TechnologyYEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A) YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A)1994 63.99 2009 161.62

1995 127.98 2010 161.621996 129.56 2011 161.621997 131.14 2012 161.621998 132.71 2013 161.621999 138.50 2014 161.622000 144.28 2015 161.622001 150.062002 155.842003 161.622004 161.622005 161.622006 161.622007 161.622008 161.62

12/14/92


File: IPT IND1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET ElPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:27. What will be the ne present value of the total costs of GHG

reduction fr the project? Million US 1992

8. What will be the net present value of the capital costsfor the pnmuey technology used in this project? [S Million US 1992What will be te net pesent value of he operating costsincurred ovr the Efeime of te project (prirrary technology)? [S MiNlion US 199230. What will be fe net present value of the capital costsfor th secoWdary tchnology used in this proect [ Million US 1992

31. What will be the net prsent value of te operating costsincurred over the hfetime of the project (secondary technology)? [I Is Mlion US 1992


12 14/92


File: IPT IND1.XLS


2. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORSO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGS/AIR POLLUTANTS

INow Using: |Energy |Unts

SOURCE UNITS Part,c. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Comb.: Pnmary Fuel kg/GJ 6.6E-02 3.4E-03 3.9E-03 2.3E-01 3.4E-03 1.1 E-04 2.OE-03Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJ .Secondary Technology N/A .

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22omb.: Primary Fuel kg/GJ 1.9E+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+00 O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OO;

Comb.: Secondary Fuel kgtGJ ISecondary Technology N/A N


12/14/92


Fie: IPT IND1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET G

33. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-

GENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARING

WITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction of

Technology To choose Technology Electricity

Number from Tech list Chosen Generated

I (- so i R( Tch I )Coal-fired boiler. conv. | 77;241 Percent

Previous 2 Q C(NoO N E) Percent

Input C

Sheet C(I oR3fTch3) I(NONE) Percent

Go to 4 Choo. Ret Toch 4 1| NONE) Percent

NextInput ( Chooce Ret Tech S rINONE) Percent

Sheet ._ _TOTAL 1 77.241

14/92

-r


File: IPT IND1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET H4 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-PRODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU W1LL BE COMPARING|WITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Heat


Go to 1 Choo" Ref Tech 1 INONE) 100|PercentPreviousInputSheet 2 Choo" Ref Tech 2 (NONE) Percent

Write Data to File, Call Go To Projectin Ref Tech Data, and Comparison Sheet w/o TOTAL 100Go To Project Calling in Ref Tech Data

Comparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryINDIA PROJECT

File: CMP IND1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emislons discounted at 0.0%/yr

Emissions in te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

PM 0.19 3.69 28.20 0.05SOx 0.01 2.64 38.95 1.0NOx 0.01 3.13 55.81 0.60CO 0.67 47.97 81.08 0.06NMHC 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.48

Emissions in te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 5.5E+0 4.4E+3 4.5E+3 4.3E+3CH4 1.OE-12 7.7E-3 6.OE-3 4.7E-3N20 1.OE-12 7.OE-2 1.1E-1 6.6E-2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yrEmissions in te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.5E+0 1.2E+3 1.2E+3 1.2E+CH4 O.OE+O 4.4E-2 3.4E-2 2.7E-N20 O.OE+O 5.5E+0 9.OE+0 5.2E+NOx 1.2E-1 3.4E+1 6.IEt2 6.6E+CO 5.5E-1 3.9E+1 6.6E+1 4.8E-NMHC 9.9E-4 1.6E+0 1.6E +0 1.4E+TOTAL 2.2E+O 1.3E+3 1.9E+3 1.2E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of

Emissions over ReductionProject Ufe (1992 $ US per

CASE fT C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 4.21E+06 S6.17Reference-High minus GEF 6.27E +06 S4.15Reference-Low minus GEF 3.84E +06 S6.78

14/92


File: CMP_INDI.XLS

Comparison of Emisslons: GEF Prolct vs.Alternative Technology

5000

40.00 HEE30.00 GEF

20-00 | t 2Ref-Best

j o.oo1 l200 ____l

0.00k ~

Comparison of GHG Emisslons: GEF vs.Altrnative Technology

1.0E+41 .OE + 3

1 .OE +3

, 1.OE +2 | GEF

1.0E-1

1.OE-2 RBC02 CH4 N20

Comparlson of Emissions in C. Equiv: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

1.24E+3

1.2E +3I8- 1OE+3

6 8OE+2: 1 *GEF

I SO60E+2. E l7Ret-Best4 40E+2

! 20E.2 !lO.OE+0 ! . , - __:

14/92


File: CMP tND1.XLS

ReductIon In GHG Emissions

P.Eernc-L~

mnmus GEF

-,nus GEF

-muv GEf

O.OOE 1.O0E 2.00E 3.00E 4.00E 5.OOE 6.00E 7.OOE+00 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06

Tonnes Carbon Equih.

NPV Cost of Reduclon

minus GEFpwf(m.r-.ngh

minus GEf:Refvence

mnmu GEF _

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00


12/14/92

--3


Fle: CMP_INDl.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS -Emlsions discounted at -3.0S%/yr

Emissions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-BeSt Ret-High Ref-Low

PM 0.28 5.33 40.77 0.0SOx 0.01 3.82 56.33 1.5NOx 0.02 4.52 80.71 0.8CO 0.99 69.37 117.25 0.0NMHC 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.70


C02 8.1E+0 6.4E+3 6.5E+3 6.2E+3CH4 1.OE-12 1.1E-2 8.7E-3 6.8E3N20 1.OE-12 1.OE-1 1.6E-1 9.5E-

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emlssions discounted at -3.0%/yr

Emissions in te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 2.2E+O 1.7E+3 1.8E+3 1.7E+CH4 0.OE+0 6.4E-2 5.0E-2 3.9E-N20 0.OE+0 8.OE+0 1.3E+1 7.5E +NOx 1.8E-1 4.9E+1 6.8E+2 9.5E+CO 8.1E-1 5.7E+1 9.6E+1 7.oE-NMHC 1.5E-3 2.3E+0 2.3E+0 2.1E+TOTAL 3.2E+0 1.9E+3 2.8E+3 1.7E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emlssions discounted at -3 .0%/yr

Reduction In NPV Cost ofEmissions over Reduction

Project LUfe (1992 $ US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)

Reference-Best minUS GEF 6.09E+06 s4.27Reference-High minus GEF 9.06E + 06 s2.87Reference-Low minUS GEF 5.55E +06 $4.69

14 1/92


File: CMP_INDI.XLS

Conpa'ison of Emissions: GEF Profoct vs.Aternstv Technology

70.0060.00

50-00 ~ ~ ~ ~~UGEF40.00

j C02 C0 Rol-Bot20.00

10.000.00 m- m I m

I~~~~~~~

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Alternative Tochnology

1OE+410 +- 4

1.tE+3

e i.OE +2 | GEFI 1tOE+I

1.E+0 C RIf-Besti

| -SOE+2 1 t21

1.OE.2

C02 C_4 N20

Comparison of E-missions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Atternative Technolgy

2.OE:3,

KGEF

CD Ref-Bset5.OE +2S

12/14/92


File: CMP INDI.XLS

Reduction In GHG Emissions

-,.Us GEF

m.n,u GEF

mmns GEF

O.OOE+ 2.OOE+ 4.00E* 6.00E+ 8.00E+ 1.OOE+00 06 06 06 06 07

Tonnos Carbon Equlv.

NPV Cost of Reductlon

n GEF

mini GEF

mmus GEF

$0.00 S1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5001992 S US por T Carbon Equlv.

12!1 4,/92


File: CMP_IND1 .XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 3.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.13 2.67 20.42 0.04SOx 0.01 1 91 28.22 0.NOx 0.01 2.26 40.43 0.44CO 0.48 34.75 58.73 0.04NMHC 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.35

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 3.9E+O 3.2E+3 3.3E+3 3.1E+3CH4 1.OE-12 5.6E-3 4.4E-3 3.4E-3N20 1.0E-12 5.0E-2 8.3E-2 4.8E-.

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted st 3.0%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.1E+0 -&8E+2 - 6.9E+2 8.4E+CH4 00E+0 32E-2 2.5E-2 2.0E-N20 0.0E+0 4.0E+0 6.5E+0 3.8E+NOx 8.6E-2 2.5E+1 4.4E+2 4.8E+CO 3.9E-1 2.8E+1 4.8E+1 3.5E2NMHC 7.0E-4 1.1E+0 1.1E+0 1.OE+0TOTAL 1.5 +0 9.3E+2 1.4E+3 8.5E+



CASE (T C Equiv) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 3 05E+06 S8152Reference-High minus GEF 4.54E+06 S5.73Reference-Low minus GEF 2 78E+06 S9.36

12/14/92

-r


File: CMP IND1.XLS

Comnparison of Emisslons: GEF Project vs.A!ttrnative Technology

35.007

30.00

25.00 UGEF_20.00

15.00 ~RfSa10.00

5.000.00 r

Comparison of GHG Emisslons: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

1.OE+4

1.0E+3,

_1.OE +2 UGEF1 .OE+ 1|

1.OE +0 CRef-Sest1.0E-t f J1i0E-2

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

1.OE+3 3

8.0E +2 IT r{ 8.OE+24 {<U~~~~GEF

| 60E+2-!

4. - c .oE . 2 I s _ Ref-Best

20E+2-

12/14,'92

-r-


File: CMP IND1.XLS

Reductiofin GHG Erlnslons

Pwferneslt mmlLS GEF

nn GEF

rm,n,s GEF __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

OOOE+ 1.OOE+ 2.00E+ 3.00E+ 4.OOE+ 5.00E+00 06 06 06 06 06


NPV Cost of Reduction

P.0-*nc*-Lh

I ^s GEF _ _ _ __

$0.00 S2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00

1992 S US por T Carbon Equlv.

14,192


FUe: CMP_INDi .XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS E-missons discounted at 10.0%/yrEmissions in te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ret-LowPM 0.07 1.47 11.24 0.02SOx 0.00 1.05 15.53 0.43NOx 0.00 1.25 22.25 0.2CO 0.25 19.13 32.33 0.02NMHC 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.19

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 2.OE+0 1.8E+3 1.8E+3 1.7E+3CH4 1.OE-12 3.1 E-3 2.4E-3 1.9EN20 1 .OE-12 2.8E-2 4.5E-2 26E-

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yrEmissions in te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 5.5E^1 4.8E+2 4.9E+2 4.6E+ CH4 0.OE+0 1.8E-2 1.4E-2 1. 1E-2N20 0.OE+0 22E+0 3.6E+0 2.1E+NOx 4.5E-2 1.4E+ 1 2.4E+2 2.6E+CCO 2.OE-1 1.6E+1 2.6E+1 1.9E-NMHC 3.7E4 6.3E-1 6.3E-1 5.8E-1TOTAL 8.OE-1 5.1E+2 7.6E+2 4.7E+2


Emissions over ReductionProject Life (1992 $ US per

CASE (T C Equiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1 68E+06 S15.47Reference-High minus GEF 2.50E +06 S10.41Reference-Low minus GEF 1 53E +06 S17.00

.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~1,49


File: CMP INDI.XLS

Comparhlon of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Altrmadve Tochnology

20.00

15100 Fj 10.00

GEF

5.00 L ]RtSa0.00 r -

Aternadve Technology

1.OE +4.

1.0E+3

1.0E+ 2 U GEF1.OE+ 1

1.OE+O - Ref-Best1.OE-2

1 0E-2. _~ I _______

C02 CH4 N20

Comparlson of Emissions In C. EquIv.: GEF vs.Atternadve Tochnology

6 OE + 2

5.OE+2 _

~~ I; s , * ~~~GEF - 3 0E + 2I

' 20E+2 Ref-Best

1 OE+2 ,

OOE+O -

z _4

-. '492


Fie: CMP INDI.XLS

Reducton In GHG Emisaions

minus GEF

minus GEF

minus GEF

O.OOE+ 2.00E+ 4.00E+ 6.00E+ 8.00E+ 1.00E+00 06 06 06 06 07



minus GEF

minus GEF

m inus O3EF __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.001992 S US per T Carbon Equlv.

12 14 92

GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryINDIA PROJECT

Fie: CMP iND1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emisons dlsoounted at 3.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.13 2.67 20.42 0.04SOx 0.01 1.91 28.22 0.NOx 0.01 2.26 40.43 0.44CO 0.48 34.75 58.73 0.04NMHC 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.35


C02 3.9E+0 3.2E+3 3.3E+3 3.lE+CH4 1.OE-12 5.6E-3 4.4E-3 3.4E-3N20 1.OE-12 5.OE-2 8.3E-2 4.8E-2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissins disoounted at 3.0%/yrEmissions in to C. eq./GWHe

GAS . GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.1E+0 -18E+2 8.9E+2 8.4E+2CH4 0.OE+O 3.2E-2 2.5E-2 2.0E-N20 0.0E+0 4.OE+O 6.5E+0 3.8E+NOx 8.6E-2 2.5E+1 4.4E+2 4.8E+CO 3.9E-1 2.8E+1 4.8E+1 3.5E-NMHC 7.OE-4 1.1E+O 1.1E+0 1.OE+TOTAL 1.5E+0 9.3E+2 1.4E+3 8.5E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emislons discound at 3.o%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of


CASE (r C1Equiv.) T/C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 3.05E+06 S8.52Reference-High minus GEF 4.54E+06 S5.73Reference-Low minus GEF 2.78E +06 S9.36

12/14/92


Fiie CMP IND1.XLS

Comparison of EmIssions: GEF Project vs.AJhernative Technology

35.0030 0025.001GE

.5! ,,Z13R.f-Best'|15 000 J000 -_

! Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Alternative Tochnology

t.OE+4.

1OE+2 i GEF1.0E+1t

1.0E+ 0 Ref-Best1.0E21

I .OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

I OE-3

8 OE 2-

t e OE 2 * GEF

z: 2 Ret-Best

2 CO E: 9

2

r _E -0-

1.1 92


File: CMP IND1.XLS


-InVs GEF

-J GEF

000E+ 1.OOE+ 2.00E+ 3.00E+ 4.00E+ 5.OOE+0W 06 06 06 06 06



F,nsGEF

F.*'Ae-I.e

$0.00 S2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 S1000

1992 S US per T Carbon Equlv

12 14'92


File: CMP_INDI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yrEmissions in te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ret-High Ref-LowPM 0.07 1.47 11.24 0.0SOx 0.00 1.05 15.53 0.43NOx 0.00 125 22.25 0.2CO 0.25 19.13 32.33 0.0NMHC 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.19

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ret-Low

C02 2.OE+0 1.8E+3 1.8E+3 1.7E+CH4 1.OE-12 3.1 E-3 2.4E-3 1.9E-3N20 1.OE-12 2.8E-2 4.5E-2 2.6E-.

CARBON EQUVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yrEmissions in te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 5.5E-1 4.8E+2 4.9E+2 4.6E+2CH4 0.OE+0 1.8E-2 1.4E-2 1.1E-2N20 0.OE+0 2.2E+O 3.6E+O 2.1E+ONOx 4.5E-2 1.4E+1 2.4E+2 2.6E+0CO 2.OE-1 1.6E+1 2.6E+1 1.9E-2NMHC 3.7E-4 6.3E-1 6.3E-1 5.8E-1TOTAL 8.oE-1 5.1E+2 7.6E + 2 4.7E + 2

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions dlscounted at 10.0%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of


CASE (T C Equiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.68E + 06 15.47Reference-High minus GEf 2.50E +06 S10.41Reference-Low minus GEF 1.53E+06 S17.00

12/14/92


File: CMP IND 1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.A|rnative Technology

20.00

1 500 =UGEF

10.00 E ~~~~~~~R*f-Best5.00

000 -7

Comparison of GHG Emoisions: GEF vs.Altrnatve Technology

.tOE+4

1.OE+3

1.OE+2 UGEFEt OE+ 1

! 1.0E-t Rof-Best1.ODE-1

*-a 1.OE-2

C02 CHI N20

Comparison of Emisslons In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Atternaive Tochnology

6.OE+2 2

4 OE+2

g 4 0E + 2 H 0 *IGEFF30E+21

s 20E+2 Ref-Best

I OE *2'_

OOE+O

o . 1

12/14/92


File: CMP_IND1.XLS

Reduction In GHG Emlsslons

minm GEFA.6iunc_.High

minus GEF

m,us GEF

_O.0E+ 5.OOE+ 1.00E+ 1.50E+ 2.00E+ 2.50E+00 05 06 06 06 06


NPV Cost of ROductlon

minus GEFRF .1ne.44i9h

minus GEF

mkaGEF

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00

1992 S US per T Carbon Equhv.

12/14/92


PROJECT:]MAURITIUS: SUGAR ENERGY BIOTECHNOLOGY PROJECT (SCENARIO 1)

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND


REVIEW DRAFT 12115192

II

iiII


MAURITIUS: Bagasse Energy Development Project

OVERVIEW:

This GEF project will promote the development of new technology to convert sugar cane waste toelectric power. It will also support training and institutional building within the electric utility sectorand the sugar industry in Mauritius. The principal vehicle for these activities is the construction andoperation of three 22 MW cogeneration facilities associated with sugar mills in Mauritius. Duringthe cane crushing season, the plants would apply an experimental technology using sugar cane trashand cane tops (barbojo) and bagasse for fuel. During the off-season, coal would be burned in thepower plants and distilleries as usual.

This project was originally designed to finance, at a cost of approximately US$ 25 million, theconstruction and operation of five cogeneration plants for existing sugar distilleries on the island ofMauritius. However, once price reforms had been introduced, the plants themselves appeared to beeconomic and capable of self-financing. As a result, the project was redesigned, focusing on thedevelopment of innovative technologies for the use of barbojo to supplement conventionalapplications of bagasse and the GEF contribution was scaled back to US$ 3.3 million. Thejustification for the technology development side of the project is that the use of cane trash and topsis not currently a commercial technology. The justification for the institution building elements is thatGEF funding "buys down the transaction costs connected to creation of collaborative relationsbetween the public and the private sectors, reduces financial risks as percieved by the investors, andpromotes international dissemination" of the project results.

The use of barbojo will reduce traditional practises of uncontrolled burning of these biomass residuesin the field. If the barbojo and bagasse are grown and used on a sustainable basis, this applicationwill produce no net emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of biomass. In addition, substiutingbagasse and barbojo for coal will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide that result from theconventional combustion of fossil fuels. The controlled combustion of barbojo and bagasse willreduce emissions of methane that would have resulted if these residues were left uncollected in thefields. Since these avoided emissions are not included here, this analysis may understate the benefitsof the proposed project.

The collection and transport of the sugar cane residues will not add appreciably to the project'sestimated emissions of greenhouse gases. Assuming that 20-ton trucks are used to collect the residuesand that these trucks operate at fuel efficiencies of approximately 5 mpg while moving each load 20miles from the processing plant to the power plant, emissions from transport of the residues isestimated to be approximately 169 tons of carbon dioxide per year, compared to over 60,000 tonsof avoided emissions of CO. due to the reduced requirement for coal combustion.

1

ii

II

(i.F CONTRIBUTION TOcPR Q.ECT CO.ST: US$ 3.3 MillionGiEFCOST OF AVOIDED CARBON EMISSIONS

LaLO r discounl rate foremoisons): US$ 2-4/tonne

G1LOB AL ARMING. BENEFITS OIF THE PROPOSED .pRO.1ECT:

(1) This biomass-fueled cogeneration project will reduce CO2 emissions due to coal combustionin the existing distilleries by substituting renewable fuels for coal.(2) In addition, by collecting biomass residues systematically from the fields and burning themunder controlled conditions, emissions of methane and carbon monoxide will be reduced.(3) By successfully demonstrating the institutional and economic characteristics of thistechnology, the project will expand the production possibility frontier for other commercialuses of biomass residues.

UNRESOLVED OllE.NTLO_N5:

(1) The exact mix of bagasse and barbojo is not clearly identified in the project documents.Therefore, to simplify the calculations, the same assumption (based on a Costa Rican study)was made for the fraction of collected bagasse and barbojo that can be recovered as fuel (i.e.,approximately 40%).

(2) The success of the residue collection operation is not now known. Specifically, it is notpossible to determine from the project documents how much of the bagasse and trash will beleft in the fields after collection. The amount left determines the amount of expected methane- emissions due to bacterial decomposition in situ.

(3) Some of the bagasse and barbojo will substitute for coal combustion, some could substittuefor burning diesel fuel. Since the documents do not specify the mix, the analysis assumes thatall the biomass substitutes for coal.

TECHNC'AI. ASS-U-NIPTIONS USI) I li ANALYS1S:

(1) One ton of sugar cane is assumed to produce 300 kg of bagasse and 300-500 kg of cane-topand trash. This analysis assumes that 120 kg of bagasse and an equal amount of barboJo can

2

be recovered as fuel from each ton of cane.

(2) In coridensing mode, one tonne of barbojo or one tonne of baggasse is assumed to produce565 kWh of electricity. By comparison, one tonne of coal is assumed to produce 1800 kWhof electricity and one kg of diesel fuel is assumed to generate approximately 5 kWh. In non-condensing mode (i.e., during the grinding season), one tonne of bagasse or barbojo isassumed to produce 463 kWh.

(3) Each 22 MW facility is assumed to generate 69,400 MWh per year of electricity from bagasseand 65,000 MWh per year from coal. This production consumes 150,000 tonnes of bagasse(of which 77,000 is assumed to be transported from other sites) and 36,000 tonnes of coal.The conversion efficiency of the plant from heat to electricity is approximately 22% for coal,bagasse, and barbojo.

(4) The typical boiler used in these distilleries is a stoker-fired unit consuming 118 tons of fuelper hour, operating at 68 bar and 250 degrees C. The system produces approximately 4.2 kgof steam per kWh of electricity in condensing mode and 5.7 kg of steam per kWh ofelectricity in extraction mode. The heat rate for bagasse and barbojo is approximately 9.3 GJper tonne compared to a heat rate of approximately 30 GJ/tonne for coal.

CRITICAL FACTORSi IN THIS ANAILYSIS:

(I) Mix of coal, diesel, bagasse and barbojo burned in the boilers(2) Balance between steam and electricity outputs(3) Heat rates for coal, bagasse, and barbojo(4) Fraction of usable fuel collected from each tonne of biomass residue in the field(5) Fraction of biomass residues left in the fields after collection and removal to the processing

plant

i

I I

iI

2-z

GGAM Project Input SheetsMAURITIUS PROJECT

File: IPT MAU1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:1 Who is the Task Manager on this project? ,2 In which Country wil the project will be located? Maurntius I

Please provide a narne for the proposed GE F project: Sugar Energy Biotechnology Project4 What vill be the pnncipal technology used to generate

or save eWctncity (press the button or type directly)? Biomass-fired boiler (EecUCogen)5 If another major technology will be required for this project

(e.g. gas transport, or coal mining) and is expected to havesigniricant environmental impacts, plase enter the nane of the'secondary' technology here (press 6utton or type directly): Coal mining-undergroundHosv is the output of the secondary technology.mreasured, e.g. in GJlyr, or tonnesbyr? ltonnestyrWhat pollution control technologies, if any, will be I

Implemented in the proposed GEF project?EVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:

USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? |NO I GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? NO !

/

12/14/92

.J- 3


File: IPT_MAUI.XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

What will be the firt year of project operations? 1994

What is the expected operating lifetime of the project? 25Years Go To10 What is the expected economic lifetime of the project? 25|Yars Previous11. What is the expected ldetimne of the loan Input

associated wvth the proect? | a Years Sheet12. This program u the expected economic lifeime of the proecst VW default ntue)

This value determnes how nany years of cost and outu data are to be collected.If a different value Is more appropnate. please enter it here- [ Years

13. What is the discount rate to be appried to monetary fkos? ! Percenttyr14. What is the discourn rate to be applied to pollutant emissions? 0 Percentyr15. What is the expected electricity generation capacity provided

or displaced by this projecrt? ,1 2]2vvW Go To16. What is te heat generation or savings capacity Next

ultimately expected frorn the project? 623.000 GJtyr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheet

to be used (f applicable)? r 36.00Oitonnestr L

12/14/92


Fie: IPT MAU1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. What will be the primary input fuel for the proect Ctt applicable)? |Bse19. What will be the secondary input fuel for the proect (if applicable)? [Bitum Coal

GJ per20 Please enter or edit the hea contents f the o inpt Prmary Fuel 9.3 Towne

fuels, in GJ per unit shown at far rlgt (d appliable). ISecondary Fuel 29.8 Tonne1. What fraction of the energy kiput to the prject will the primary and Primry Fued 6 53

the secondary fuels provide (rf apcable) hi Perocent of total? Secday Fuel 43.4722 Press the appropriate button to enter the plant efficiency (electricity outputfluil input) in:

OR

Please enter the plant efficiency hre: 19 74 Perent23 What is the expected heat or steam generation efficiency

(heat energy output per unit fuel input)7 Note that unl no elctricity

is produced, GGAM asUmes that the proect is a cogeneration system. 02:31 |GJIGJ Fuel Input


12/14/92


File: IPT MAU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET DiPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATN ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:24. What is the eNxeced annual average eectricRty genration or savings? 134.41GWh

.What is the epeed annual average het generation or savings? [I 3.00 GJ

2. What is the epected annual average use of the seccrndary technoogy 36.0t tonnesiyr


12/14/92

GGAM Project Input SheetsMAURMUS PROJECT

Fle: IPT MAU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET ElPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:7. What will be the net present value of the total costs of GHG

reduction for the project? 3.31s Million US 19928. What will be the net present value of the capital costs

for the prnrary technology used in this project? [I $ Milion US 199229. What will be the net presern value of the operting cocts

Inrcurred over the lifetime of the proed (priunry technology)7? |EZ Million US 199230. What will be the net present vnlue of the capil costs

for the secondary technobgy used in this prqoect? [S Million US 19921. What will be the net prese value of the opratkn costs

incurred over the lifetime of the projed (secondary lechnolgy)? |Z Is Milion US 1992


12/14/92

GGAM Project Input SheetsMAURMUS PROJECT

Fie: IPT MAU1.XLS


INOW Using: |Erbergy Units

OURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aliehyd.Comb.: Primary Fuel kg/GJ 8.6E-01 0.0E+00 1.0E-01 2.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.1E-01 0.0E+00Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJ 1.7E-01 2.0E+00 3.3E-01 1.2E-01 0.0E+00 1 2E-03 0.0E+00Secondary Technology kgAonnes ___

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Prirnary Fuel kg/GJ 0.0E+00 1.7E-02 1.5E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00ormb.: Secondary Fuel kgtGJ 9.2E+01 7.4E-04 8.5E203 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.02E00Secondary Technology kgAonnesryr 1.2E+01


1 2 14/92

GGAM ProJect Input SheetsMAURITIUS PROJECT

File: IPT MAU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET G3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOllOilW INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTPiCITY-ENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology EbctrictyNumber from Tech list Chosen GeneratedGoto~ Rf ec 1 boied .1Cony. 00Percentrevious 2 Qi ) (N ) |PerCt

Sheet ( oONec I ( NE) Percent

Goto (4 7 o Tech 9 |(NONE) PeriIn put 5 Choose RefTech6 i (NONE) | PeretSet

TOTAL I 1001

12 14/92

GGAM ProJect Input SheetsMAURITIUS PROJECT

File: IPT MAU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET H34 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY).PRODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGVITH THE GEF PROJECT


Number trom Tech list Chosen Produced

Go to I ChooseRelTech |Agnic. wasle (bagasse)4ired boil 100|PercentPrevious

InputSheet 2 [Choose RefTech2 (NONE) | |Percerd

Write Data to File, Call Go To ProjectIn Ref Tech Data, and Comparison Sheet wlo TOTAL | 0o

Go To Project Calling In Ref Tech DataComparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

14/92

-3-

GGAM Prolect Comparison SummaryMAURmUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

Fie: CMP MAU1.XLSSUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discunted at 0.o%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 12.45 &10 36.74 8.0SOx 19.01 2.50 49.51 0.46NOx 4.44 3.27 60.37 1.21CO 26.05 9.87 19.62 1.0NMHC 1.36 0.90 0.90 0.84

Emissions in te/GWHeGHGS GEF Rel-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 8.9E +2 1.8E +3 1.9E+3 1.7E+3CH4 4.2E+0 5.2E+0 9.6E+0 2.1E+oN20 2.7E-1 2.3E-1 .2.9E-1 2.2E-1

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yr


C02 2.4E+2 '5.OE+2 5.2E+2 ..4.7E+CH4 2.4E+1 3.OE+1 5.5E+1 1.2E+1N20 2.1E+1 1.8E+1 23E+1 . 1.8E+1NOx 4.8E+1 3.6E+'1 6.6E+2 1.3E+1CO 2.lE+1 :8.1E+0 1.6E+1 '&4E-1NMHC 4.1E+0 2.7E+0 2.7E+0 2.5E+TOTAL '3.6E+2 6.OE+2 1.3E+3 5.2E+:

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at O.o%/yr

Reduction in NPV Cost ofEmissions over Reduction

Project Ufe (1992 $ US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)

Reference-Best minus GEF 7.86E +05 S420Reference-High minus GEF 3.05E+06 S1.08Reference-Low minus GEF 5.28E+05 S6.25

'2 14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMAURMUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

Fie: CMP MAU1.XLS

ConWarison of Emslslons: GEF Protect vs.Alternative Technology

30.00

25.00

20.00 UGEF

1 0 CRef-Beat5.000

0.00

Comparison of GHG Emlselons: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

1.0E .4

1 .OE + 3

1.0E+2 n GEF1.OE+1fl

- .1.oE O | Ref-Best11.1 E7C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equhv: GEF vs.Alterntive Technology

6.OE+2

5.OE +2

4.OE +2UGE

3.OE+2 IGE2.OEi2Ref-Beat

O.OE.2

12/14/92

J-v-

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMAURmUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

Ffe: CMP MAUI.XLS


vmnu,GEF

mmw GEF

n- sGEF t__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O.XE 5.00E 1.00E 1.50E 2.00E 2.50E 3.OOE 3.50E+00 +05 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06



.mn GEF

m GEF

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00


12/14/92


(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP_MAU1.XLSSUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS Emiasions discounted at -3.0%/yr


PM 20.80 12.34 55.92 12.21SOx 31.77 3.80 75.36 0.71NOx 7.41 4.98 91.87 1.84CO 43.54 15.02 29.86 1.56NMHC 2.28 1.36 1.36 1.28


C02 1.5E+3 2.8E+3 2.9E+3 2.6E+3CH4 6.9E+0 7.9E+0 1.5E+1 3.2E+0N20 4.5E-1 3.5E-1 4.4E-1 3.4E-1

CARBON EOUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yr_ Emissions In te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 4.1E+2 7.6E+2 7.9E+2 7.2E+CH4 4.OE+1 4.55-9 -8.3E+1 1.8E+ 1N20 3.6E+ 1 2.8E+1 3.5E+ 1 2.7E + 1NOx 8.1E+1 5.4E+1 1.OE+3 2.OE+1CO 3.6E+1 1.2E+ 1 2.4E+1 1.3E+NMHC 6.8E+0 4.1E+0 4.1E+0 3.8E+TOTAL 6.1E+2 9.IE+2 1.9E+3 7.9E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discountod at -3.0%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of

Emissions over ReductionProject Ufe (1992 S US per

CASE (T C Equiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.01E+06 S325Reference-High minus GEF 4.47E+06 S0.74Reference-Low minus GEF 6.23E+05 S5.30

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP MAU1.XLS

Comparlson of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alternative Technology

5000

40.00

3000 , GEF

e20C00 C Ref-Best

1000D

0.00

Comparison of GHG Emlslons: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

.OE *41.0E + 3

O.OE+2 GEF

i.OE:+o 1 7CRef-Best

i.012-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~2149

1.OE-2C02 C144 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technoliogy

1.OE .3

6.0E+2 GE

~,4.OE+2:*CRfBs

2.0E +2I m R A0.OE +0

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 1)

Fde: CMP MAUl.XLS

Rducton in GHG Emissions

mhna GEF

muu GEF

min GEF

0.OOE+ 1.00E+ 2.OOE+ 3.00E+ 4.OOE+ 5.OOE+00 06 06 06 06 06

Tonnes Carbon Equiv.

NPV Cost of Roduwtor

miu GEF ,

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00

1992 S US per T Carbon Equiv.

12/14/92

.-GGAM Project Comparison Summary

MAURMUS PROJECT(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP MAU1.XLSSUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS - Emissions dscounted at 3.0%/yrEmisions in te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 8.09 5.65 25.59 5.59SOx 12.35 1.74 34.49 0.32NOx 2.88 2.28 42.05 0.84CO 16.93 6.87 13.67 0.72NMHC 0.89 0.62 0.62 0.59

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Rel-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 5.8E+2 ,.13E+3 1.3E+3 12E+3CH4 2.7E+O -'3.6E+0 6.7E+0 1.5E+N20 1.8E-1 1.6E-1 2.OE-1 1.6E-1

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 30%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.6E+2 =;a5SE+2 ... -3.6E+2 3.3E+2CH4 1.6E+1 ' '12 ' T1 --3.8E+i 8.4E+0N20 1.4E+1 ..lV3E+1 .1.6E+1 1.2E+1NOx 3.1E+1 2.5E+1 4.6E+2 9.2E+OCO 1.4E+1 5.6E+0 1.1E+1 5.9E-1NMHC 2.7E+0 -19E+0 1.9E+0 1.8E+OTOTAL 2.4E+2 4.2E+2 8.9E+2 3.6E+



CASE (T C Equiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 6 04E + 05 S5.47Reference-High minus GEf 2.18E +06 S1.51Reference-Low minus GEF 4 25E +05 S7.77

12/14/92

l - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'I


(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP MAU1.XLS

Compasrsn of Emisslons: GEF Prole vs.Altrnative Technology

20.00

15.00-V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ UGEF

50.00

0.00 W

Comparlson of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Atrnative Technology

i0E +4

1.OE43

-V 1.OE +2 UGEF1.OE+ I

1-OI.OE +0 Ref-Beast

i.OE-2 l ~ .C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equlv.: GEF vs.rnaidve Technology

4.5E+24.OE+2 f]3.5E +2~3.OE.2 + 2

~.2.5E +2GE

O 2.OE+.2

_.OE E - :2

z

14/92

GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryMAURMUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

FUe: CMP MAUt.XLS

|Rducdon bI GHG Emisions

mflinuL4 GEF

m.nus GEF

MmUA GEF

O.OOE+ 5.OOE+ 1.00E+ 1.50E+ 2.00E+ 2.50E+00 05 06 06 06 06


NPV Cosl of Rduedon

GEF

mnw GEF

mw- n GEF

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00


I.' 14'92


(SCENARIO 1)

Fie: CMP_MAU1.XLSSUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions dlcounted at 10.0%/yr

Emissions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

PM 3.86 2.94 13.34 2.91SOx 5.90 0.91 17.98 0.17NOx 1.38 1.19 21.92 0.CO 8.08 3.58 7.12 0.37NMHC 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.31


C02 2.8E+2 6.7E+2 6.9E+2 6.3E+CH4 1.3E+0 1.9E+O 3.5E+0 7.7E-1N20 8.4E-2 8.3E-2 1.OE-1 8.2E-.

CARBON EQUIALENT UNITS Emissions dlscounted *t 10.0%/yrEmissions In to C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 7.6E+l .8E+2 1.9E+2 1.7E+2CH4 7.5E+0 1.1E+1 2.OE+1 4.4E+N20 6.6E+0 6.6E+0 8.2E+0 'AE+NOx 1.5E+1 1.3E+1 2.4E+2 4.8E+CO 6.6E+0 2.9E+0 5.8E+0 3.1E-1NMHC 1.3E+0 9.8E-1 9.8E-1 9.2E-1TOTAL 1.1E+2 2.2E+2 4.6E+2 1.9E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yr


Project Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)

Reference-Best minus GEF 3 49E+05 $9.45Reference-High minus GEF 1.17E+06 S2.81Reference-Low minus GEF 2 56E +05 S12.89

-J2


(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP MAUIXLS

ComPartu,n of Emrissons: GEF Paoet vs.Altenmnve Technology

10.00

8.00

-g 6.00 UGEF

0.00

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

1.OE +3

1 0E+2

- E 1 OE 1GEF

1 OE-1 L E| Re-Best

1.0E-2

C02 C14 iN20

Comparison of EmiWalons hI C. Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternativ Technology

2.5E+2

2.0E * 2

.~~ 15E+2~~ II E~GEF

Iv O E| Re-est |

5.0E +1l

O.OE+O

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMAURITIUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP MAU1.XLS

Roducton In GHG Emissions

m!i GEF,flc.04____

GmusGEF

m GEF

O.OOE 2.00E 4.00E 6.OOE 8.00E 1.00E 1.20E+00 +05 +05 +05 +05 +06 +06


NPV Cost of Roduction

mir" GEF

GEF

$S.OO $5.00 $10.00 $15.00

1992 $ US per T Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92

ii

Ii


(GGAM)

PROJECT:]MAURITIUS: SUGAR ENERGY BIOTECHNOLOGY PROJECT (SCENARIO 2)

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND


REVIEW DRAFT 12/15192

iiI

i

i

I

i

GGAM Prolect Input SheetMAURmUS, SCENARIO 2 PROJECT

File: IPT MAU2.XLS


3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-GENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWlTH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Pre" buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Eledricity

Number from Tech Ust Chosen GeneratedGo to C f sh ) DtiIillateo Cengines 100 Percent

Previous 2 ChooseRetTech2 ) NON) E |PercentInputSht J (3 ChoosR Tech 3 I(NONE) | Percent

Goto 4 ( Choose RefTech 4 ) (NONE) PercentNextInput 5 Choo Tech (NONE) PercentShet

TOTAL | 10

12/14/92

2


(SCENARIO 2)

Fiie: CMP MAU2.XLSSUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discountd at 0.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 912.45 - .- 954 9.54 9.54SOx 19.01 - 1.46 1.46 1.NOx 4.44 22.66 22.84 22.CO 26.05 14.41 23.09 5.7NMHC -1.36 2.33 2.33 2.


C02 -8.9E+2_-- - 1.9E+3 1.9E+3 1.9E+3CH4 4.2E+O 1.5E-1 1.6E-1 1.4E-1N20 2.7E-1 1.4E-1 1.4E-1 1.4E-1

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions disoounted at 0.0%/yr- - Emissions In te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 5--F.4E+2 -5..2E+2 5.2E+2 5.2E+CH4 2.4E+1 &6E-1 -92E-1 8.0E-1N20 --. E+1l l;r -. E+1I. 1;1E+1 IAE4+1NOx 4.8E+1 i -2.5E+2., .-- 5E+2 2.5E+CO 2.1E+l !-:1.2E+l 1.9E+1 4.7E+NMHC i.1E+0 7;0E+0 7.0E+0 7.0E+tTOTAL 3.6E+2 8.0E+2 8.1E+2 7.9E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emlsslons disoounted at OO%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of

Emissions over ReductionProject Ute (1992 S US per

CASE (TCEqulv.) TC Equlv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.45E+06 S7Reference-High minus GEF 1.49E+06 SReference-Low minus GEF 1.42E+06 - 2.32

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 2)

Fie: CMP MAU2.XLS

oducean In HG 1G Enl"lons

FlN GEF

mira GEF _ ________

1.38E 1.40E 1.42E 1.44E 1.46E 1.48E 1.50E+06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06

Tonns Cotbon Equhv.

NPY Cost of R.duedon

ff _ ___

wF _EF

.is GEF =

$2.15 $2.20 $2.25 $2.30 $2.351992 S US pe T Carbon Equwv.

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 2)

File: CMP MAU2.XLS

Comparison of Emlsions: GEF Project vs.A werntve Technology

30.00

25.00

Compwlaon od GHG EmIssons: GEF vs.Alenativ Technology

1. E+4

p 1.CE+12

- 10.OE.0 El Ref-Best

C02 CH44 N20

Comparson of Em rssns in C. Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternativ Technology

1 6.OE + 2 3 G

1.OE+2 I

c- .OE + C Ref-Best

1.0E+2 1,

1.OE+0

1 2/14/92

.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 ... _ 20


(SCENARIO 2)

FUe: CMP_MAU2.XLSSUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS Eminssons discounted at .3.0%/yr


PM 20.80 14.51 14.51 14.51SOx 31.77 2.22 2.22 2.NOx 7.41 34.49, .'34.76 3422Co 43.54 21.94 ,35.13 8.74NMHC 2.28 3.55 3.55 3.55


C02 1.5E+3 2.9E+3 2.9E+3 2.9E+3CH4 6.9E+0 '2.3E-1 '24E-1 2.1E-1N20 4.5E-1 2.1E-1 2.1iE-1 2.1 E-1]

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions disoounted at -30%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Bet Ref-High Ref-LowC02 4.1E+2 -7.9E+2r* 7Z9E+2- 7.9E+2CH4 4.OE+1 1.3E+O - 1:4E+O0 12E+N20 3.6E+1 -i.7E+1 1.7E+.1 1.7E+1NOx 8.1E+1 3.8E+2 '" 3.8E+2 3.7E+CO 3.6E+1 1.8E+1 29E+1 7.IE+NMHC 6.8E+O .1.1E+1 '1.1E+1 1.IE+1TOTAL 6.1E+2 1.2E+3 1.2E+3 1.2E+n

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at .3.0%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of


CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equlv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 2.03E + 06 S1.62Reference-High minus GEF 2.08E+06 S1.59Reference-Low minus GEf 1.99E +06 * 1.66

14/92


(SCENARIO 2)

Fie: CMP_MAU2.XLS

Comparison of Emlsions: GEF Prooect vs.Altetiv Technology

50.00

40.00

-30-00 EGEF

20.00 ~~~~~~~~Ref-aeat

I Comparison of GHG Embisions: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

Ae 1.OE.2 EGEF1.0E+1

1.OE+0 CRef-Sest1.OE-11 hl 11.OE.2

C02 CH4 N20

Comparson of Emisions in C Equlv.: GEF vs.Atenadive Technology

1AE + 3

1.2E +3J-~1.OE+31

I GEF8.0E+2 _g 60E+2 lJRef-n.si

60E+21

2.0E +2~IIO.OE +0 F

1 2/14/92


(SCENARIO 2)

FUe: CMP MAU2.XLS

Reductlon In GHG EmissionsR.E.mnux-Low '___

m_nus GEF

mninu GEF

mtinu GEf

1.94E 1.96E 1.98E 2.OOE 2.02E 2.04E 2.06E 2.08E+06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06

Tonnss Carbon Equiv.


mhius GEF

$1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.64 6 8 0 2 4 6 8


2? 14/92

-3


(SCENARIO 2)


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 3.0%/yrEmissions in te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 8.09 6.64 6.64 6.6SOx 12.35 1.01 1.01 1.01NOx 2.88 15.78 15.91 15.CO 16.93 10.04 16.08 4.00NMHC 0.89 1.63 1.63 1.6

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ret-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 5.8E+2 1.3E+3 1.3E+3 1.3E+CH4 2.7E+0 1.0E-1 1.1E-1 9.7E-2N20 1.8E-1 9.7E-2 9.7E-2 9.7E-.

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissons discounted at 3.0%/yr

Emissions in te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ret-High Ref-Low

C02 1.6E+2 .3.6E+2 3.6E+2 3.6E+2CH4 1.6E+1 6.0E-1 -6.4E-1 5.6E-1N20 1.4E+1 - 7.7E+0 7.7E+0 7.7E+NOx 3.1E+1 1.7E+2 1.7E+2 1.7E+Co 1.4E+1 8.2E+0 1.3E+1 3.3E+NMHC 2.7E+0 4.9E+0 4.9E+0 4.9E+TOTAL 2.4E+2 5.5E+ 2 5.6E+2 5.5E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted et 3.0 %/yvReduction in NPV Cost of

Emissions over ReductionProject Ute (1992 S US per

CASE (T C Equiv.) _T C Equiv.)Reference-Best rninus GEf 1.07E +06 S3.08Reference-High minus GEF 1.09E+06 S3.02Reference-Low minus GEF 1.05E +06 S3.15

1 4/92


(SCENARIO 2)

File: CMP MAU2.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.-Aharnative Technology

20.00

15.00UGEF

10.00 lRfBt

5.00

0.00

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Atetnatve Technology

1.0E + 4 1 CE 2

W 1.OE +2 U GElFi.OE +

-1I.0E El Ref-Best1.OE-1 -| OE.2 C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Aternativ Technology

6 OE + 2

5.0E+2

~~ 40E+2 T E~~~GEF

'j2.0E.2 E Ref-Best1.0E+02

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 2)

Fie: CMPMAU2.XLS

Reducdon In GHG Emissions

mlnu GF-

1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1,10E+O E+O E+O E+O E+O E+O E+0Eo E+06 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6


VPV Cost of Redution

Pk~ ________mm GEF

mkia GEF

$2.95 $3.00 $3.05 $3.10 $3.151992 $ US per T Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 2)


PHYSICAL UNITS Emisions discountod at 10.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 3.86 3.46 3.46 3.46SOx 5.90 053 0.53 0.53NOx 1.38 8.23 8.29 8.16CO 8.08 5.23 8.38 2.08NMHC 0.42 0.85 0.85 0.85

Emissions in te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 2.8E+2 6.9E+2 6.9E+2 6.9E+22CH4 1.3E+0 5.4E-2 5.8E-2 5.1 E-2N20 8.4E-2 5.1E-2 5.iE-2 5.1E-2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions dlsoounted at 10.0%/yrEmissions in te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 7.6E+1 --:1.9E+2 1.9E+2 1.9E+CH4 7.5E+0 3.1E-1 3.3E-1 2.9E-1N20 6.6E+O -4.OE+0 4.oE+0 4.oE+CNOx 1.5E+1 9.OE +1 9.OE+1 8.9E+ 1CO 6.6E+0 4.3E+0 6.9E+0 1.7E+CNMHC 1.3E+0 2.5E+0 2.5E+0 2.5E+CTOTAL 1.IE+2 2.9E+2 2.9E+2 2.9E+



CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equlv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 5.92E+05 S5.57Reference-High minus GEF 6.03E +05 S5.47Reference-Low minus GEF 5.81 E +05 S5.68

12/14/92

GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryMAURMUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 2)

Fle: CMP MAU2.XLS

Comprison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Aemativ Technoogy

10.00

8.00

| 600 U GEF

*~-4.00 RfBe

2.00

0.00

CompOrison of GHG Emisslons: GEF vs.Altematie Technoogy

1.OE +3

1.OE + 2

.1 OE.1 GEF

1.OE + i14

- 1.O0EE+-10 E l | O R-Bef|st

:1::;EIEil OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

ComPAron of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.AtrrAdv T ehnobgy

3 0E+2

GE 2.E+2 U GEF

'1.0E+2 2l Ref-Best

5.OE+0

0.OE + 0C z z < D I 1

1 2/14/92

3-3.GGAM Project Comparison Summary

MAURITIUS PROJECT(SCENARIO 2)

FUe: CMP MAU2.XLS

R|ductNo In GHG Emissions

RFWwonce-Low

minu GEFRefom~nce-Hogh

mmnu GEF

mninus GEF

5.70E 5.75E 5.80E 5.85E 5.90E 595E 6.0OE 6.05E+06 +06 +06 +05 +06 +06 +06 +05

:ah:

Toine: CCMPo MAU2.LS

S~ ~ ~~~~P Cost of GH.Educons

minus GEF

$5.30 $5.40 $5. 50 $5.60 $5.70


12/14/92

ii

I

Ii

IIIii


(GGAM)

PROJECT:MEXICO: HIGH-EFFICIENCY LIGHTING PILOT PROJECT

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND



I

i

i


MEXICO: High-Efficiency Lighting Pilot Project

OVERVIE;W:

This GEF project is designed to replace 3,000,000 incandescent lamps of 75 W average capacity withan equal number of high-efficiency compact fluorescents rated at 18 W each. The compactfluorescent lamps have an estimated average lifetime of 10,000 hours of operation compared to anaverage life of 750 hours for the incandescent lamps that they replace. The compact fluorescents willbe installed in Monterey and Guadalajara. The GEF contribution is approximately US$ 10 million,designed to cover the incremental costs of the fluorescent lamps.

This project will accompLish several goals. It will advance the development of compact fluorescentlamps for use under the variable line conditions present in many developing countries. In addition,and perhaps equally important, it will examine the effects of alternative marketing and deliverystrategies, strengthening the ability of the local utilities and national bureaucracies to implementconservation and efficiency programs.

The principle environmental effect of the project will be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions bylowering electricity demands for lighting in the residential and commercial sectors. Emissions&.reductions will accrue through reduced generating requirements and reduced losses in transmissionand distribution. Approximately 75% of electricity supply in Mexico is derived from thermal powerplants, the remainder is generated from hydroelectric facilities. Of the thermal power fraction,approximately 5% is coal-fired, the remainder is fueled with oil and gas. For comparison, the fuelcycle impacts of manufacturing, installation, and disposal of the compact fluorescent lamps are notconsidered to be significant relative to the emissions reductions which result from the avoidedgeneration.

This analysis was based on the original project design, i.e. on the basis of 3 million lamps with atotal project cost of approximately US$ 26 million. Due to financial constraints imposed by themacro-economic situation in Mexico, the project design is being re-evaluated and will probably bescaled back and delayed in implementation. This possible reduction in scale is not reflected in theanalysis which follows.

iFELFCONTRIBUTION TO PROJECT COST: US$ 10 MfillionGEF COST OF AVOIDE) CARB()N EMISSION

LaLt %discount rate foLreiksions1): US$ 9/tonne

1

GLOBAL WARMINGLBENEFITS OF THE PROPOSFD pRO.IECI:

(1) This energy efficiency program will reduce electricity demands in Mexico and willconsequently reduce electricity losses in transmission and distribution.

(2) Approximately 80% of the electricity savings will occur during the utility's peak demandperiod, when the least-efficient generating stations on the grid would otherwise be operating.

UNRESOLVED OUESTIONS:

(1) The hourly and seasonal mix of lighting demands in the identified sectors of the utility'sservice territory is not clearly identified in the project documents.

(2) The average efficiency of the displaced generating stations is not now known.

(3) The economic, engineering, and environmental tradeoffs between compact fluorescents andless expensive lineal fluorescents has not been systematically analyzed for the identifiedapplications.

(4) The institutional barriers to project implementation are not well characterized or understood.

(5) The performance characteristics of the compact fluorescents under conditions similar to thoseexpected in Mexico are not now known.

TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS USE2 ITHIS ANALYSIS:

(1) The compact fluorescent lamps are assumed to be in use for an average of 3 hours per day.

(2) The average lifetime of the 75 W incandescent lamps is assumed to be 750 hours comparedto 10,000 hours for the 18 W compact fluorescents.

(3) Mexican gas turbine power plants are assumed to achieve an average conversion efficiencyof 28% compared to 33% for oil-fired steam plants and 30% for coal plants. Transmissionand distribution losses in Mexico are assumed to be approximately 15-20% of generation.

CRITICAL FACTORS IN THIS ANALYSIS:

(I) Mix of coal-, oil-, and gas-fired electricity generation avoided by use of the high-efficiencylamps

(2) Heat rates for coal, oil, and gas generating stations in Mexico(3) Lifetime of the compact fluorescents under Mexican operating conditions(4) Average use rate of the compact fluorescents and the incandescent bulbs they replace

2

iII

I

GGAM Project Input SheetsMEXICO PROJECT

FHe: IPT MEX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET APLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:I Who is the Task Manaer on this proen

In which Country wiU the project will be located? Mexico. Plase provide a name for the proposed GEF project: Me;dco High Effncy Ughting Pilt Projc

What wil be the principal technology used to generate

or save eWctncity (pres the button or type directly)? iDemand-sioe mgt (EIC/H)If another maor technology will be required for this projet(e g gas transport, or coal mining) and is ected to havesignificant enwonmental impacts, please enter the name of the

secondary technology here (pr button or type direetly): |NONE-6 How is the output of te seoondary technology,

reasured, e.g. in GJ/yr, or tonne4yr?

7 What pollution control technolgies, If any, will be

implemented in the propowd GEF project7 iLEVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA7 NO

12/14/92


File: IPT_MEXi .XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFOFtMATION:i What will be the fiust year of proct operations? ,9941i What is the expected operating lifetime of the projet? [ I Z Years Go To10. What is the expected economic lifetine of the protect? 20 Years Previous11. What is Ute expected lifetinme of the oan Input

associated with the projec? 2[0|Years Sheet12. This progam uses the expected economic lifetime of the project as the default value.

This value determJnes how nuny years of cost and output data are to be collected.If a different value Is more appropriate, please enter it here: Years

13. What is the discount rate to be appreed to monetary fkws? X P enttyr14. What is the discount rate to be applied to pollutant emisson? C PerenUyr15. What is the expected eledtricity generation capacity provided

or displaced by this project? [205 2MW Go To16. What is the heat generation or savings capacity Next

ultimately expected from the project? |GJyr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheet

to be used (if applicable)? _ NIA

1 2/14/92

iiI

I

I

I

i

I


File: IPT_MEX1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOVING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18 What will be the primwry input fuel for the proeed (if applicable)? JDSMC n19. What will be the secondary input fuel for the proved (rf applicable)? [|NONE I

GJ per20 Pleae enter or edit the heat contents of the inptd Pnary Fued 1 GJ

fuels, In GJ per unit shown at fr rght (if applicable). S y Fud 01. What fraction of the energy input to the proct will the pr y a rmary Fud 100

the secondary fuels provide (f applicable) in Percent of tobit? Secondy Fuel2 Press the appropriate button to enter the plant efficiency (electricity outputfuel input) in:

OR

Pkase enter the plant efficiency here: 278 kWtVGJ Fuel Input23 What is the expected het or steam generatn efficiency

(heat energy output per unit fuel input)? Note that unless no ekecbtcty

is produced, GGAM assum that the proed is a rogeneration ytem. | i | ]GJ/GJ Fuel Input


12/14/92

IiiiI

I

I


Fie: IPT MEXI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET DlPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:24. Whart Is the eVected annual average electicity gerefation or savinigs? ~~ GWh

4 What Is th e,pected annual average heat generation or savings? I ZZ GJ

What is the eqpected annual avrg use of t secondary technoog? WA


12.14/92

k.


Fie: IPT MEX1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:

27. What will be the net present Vilue of the total costs of GHGreduction for the pro,ect? 10 $ Million US 1992

28. What wll be the rnt presert value of the captal costs

for the primary tcN used n this prjedt? ||S MIlion US 199229. What wii be the net present vlue of the operating cogs

Incurred over the etim of the proect (prinmay technology).? E Milkbn US 199230. What wil be the ned presert value of the captl cos

for the secondary tecoloy used in this project? JS Mition US 1992

31. What wiN be the not pre t vakue of the opran costs

hicued over theifemofthe projet (secondary technoogy)? |I Is MiOn US 1992


1: 14/92

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


File: IPT MEX .XLS


|Now Using: |Energy |Units

SOURCE UNITS Paric. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Akdehyd.Comb.: Pnmary Fuel kwGJ O.OE+OO O.OE+O O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OComb.: Seconary Fuel kaGJ

Secondary Technology WN/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Primary Fuel kGJ O.OE+.O O.OE O.O O.OE00 +O .OE+00 O.OE+D 0.E+0O

omb.: Secondary Fuel IC./JSecondary Technoogy N/A


1. 14/92


File: IPT_MEX1.XLS


3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-GENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Prss buttons Reference Fraction of

Technology To choose Technology EletricityNunber from Tech Ret Chosen Generated

Gt f (3josejejTschj ) 1°itfredboir, conv. 100 Percent

Previous 2 ChooseReTch]2 Coal-fired boiler, conv. PercetInput

t Sheet Choo"[Rat Tech 3 Hydroelectric large 0 Percent

Go to 4 f ChooReRdTech4 ) (NONE) PercentNextInput 5 Choos Ref Tech i r(NONE) |PacerSheet I

TOTAL 1001 4

i. i4/92


Fie: IPT MEXI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET H34 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-PRODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT



Go to ChooseRef'Techt i (NONE) 100 PercentPreviousInputSheet 2 Choose RefTech 2 (NONE) Percent

Write Data to File, Call Go To ProjecIn Ref Tech Data, and Comppeison Shet w/o TOTAL

Go To Project Calling In Rel Tech DataConparIson Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMEXICO PROJECT

Fie: CMP MEXI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emisions discounted at 0.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.00 0.04 -4.95 0.02SOx 0.00 6.50 - 146.38 0.26

NOx 0.00 2.20 65.30 0.1CO 0.00 0.15 0.17 0.03NMHC 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.OC


C02 1.OE-12 8.0E+2 ' 8.3E+2 7.3E + 2CH4 1.OE-12 1.OE-2 8.oE-3 7.6E3N20 1.OE-12 1.5E-1 1.6E-i 3.3E-

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 0o0%/yr

Emissions In te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 O.OE+O - 2.2E+2'-.-2.3E+2 2.OE+2CH4 O.OE+O 5.7E-2 '-4.6E-2 4.4E-2N20 0.OE+0 '1.2E+l -1.3E+, , 2.6E+NOx O.OE+O ; .2.4E+1 .- ;;S7.1E+2 :1.6E+CO O.OE+O'- 12E-1'-i1.4E-1 '2.5E-.

NMHC O.OE+O '6.OE-1 "7.6E-1 O.OE+TOTAL 0.OE+0 2.5E+2 9.5E+2 2.OE +

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONSReduction in NPV Cost of


CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.15E+06 S8.73

Reference-High minus GEF 4.28E+06 S2.34

Reference-Low minus GEF g o9E+05 S11.00

Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yr

12/12/92


FUe: CMP MEX1.XLS

Rduction In GHG Emissions

FWoernc-Lowmitn GEF

Pofefece.Hghminu, GEF

m.nu GEF_

O.OOE+ l00E+ 2.OOE+ 3.00E+ 4.OOE+ 5.00E+00 06 06 06 06 06


NPV Cost of Redudlon

iminu G-F I

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.0 $12.0


12/12/92


File: CMP MME1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alternative Tochnology

7.00

6.00H5.00 HUGEF

3.00

Comparison of GHG Emisalons: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

1.OE +3

I .OE +2 71.OE+ 1 j | GEF

1 .OE +0 ICRfBa1 .OE-1 j|1.OE-2 F

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.AlternaUve Technology

30E+2

2.5E +2~

2.OEz +2~~ 2.OE+2 U ~~~GEF

~1.5E +2i

1 OE+2 .~~~~~~~ Ref-Best

1OOE+25.OE __ oI ° _

0-0E - 0(0) 0 0 C>

z Z

12/12/92


Fie: CMP MEXI.XLS k

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Proqect vs.Atenatve Technology

| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Compvrlson ofWGHEmissions: GEF vs.* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Alterntive Technology

1 L a~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ . OE +4 C

10.E2 + 1n

4~1O.0 0 Ref-Beat

| ~~~~~~~~~~~C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissns in C Equl: GEF vs.AlternaUve Technology

4.OE + 4

4 0E+23.5E+2 c

55 20E + 3 1 .5E+2 EGEF2.OE+ I

1. 5E+2 n ID Ref-Best

-1.OE*2

4.OE+ 2

2.OE+0 2c-

o z ° Z o

12/12/92

<J


File: CMP MEXI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emlsons disounted at -3.0%/yr


PM 0.00 0.06 6.92 0.03SOx 0.00 9.09 -204.67 0.37NOx 0.00 3.08 '91.30 0.21CO 0.00 0.21 0.23 0.04NMHC 0.00 0.28 0.35 0.00


C02 1.OE-12 1.1E+3 1.2E+3 1.oE+3CH4 1.OE-12 1.4E-2 .1E-2 1.1E-2N20 1.OE-12 2.1 E-1 2.2E-1 4.6E-2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yr


C02 0.OE+0 3.1E+2 32E+2 2.8E+2CH4 0.OE+0 U&E-2 64E-2 6.1E-2N20 0.OE+0 1.7E+1 -1.8E+1 3.7E+NOx 0.OE+0 3.4E+1 1.OE+3 2.2E+CO 0.OE+0 1.7E-1 1.9E-1 3.4E-2NMHC 0.OE+0 8.4E-1 1.1E+0 0.0E+TOTAL 0.0E+0 3.6E+2 1.3E+3 2.8E+


Emissions over ReductionProject Life (1992 S US per

CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1 .60E + 06 $6.25Reference-High minus GEF 5.98E+06 $1.67Reference-Low minus GEF 1 27E + 06 $7.87Emissions discounlod at -3.0%/yr

12/12/92


FPe: CMP_MEX1.XLS


Rle

Pot*" c.i.ghmhn GEF

minus Gffmim.aGEF

O.OOE 1.00E 2.00E 3.OOE 4.00E 5.OOE 6.OOE+00 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06



Fl

wiEF

nus GEF

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00


1: 12/92


File: CMP_MEXi.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions dicounted at 3.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.00 0.03 3.68 0.02SOx 0.00 4.84 108.89 0.20NOx 0.00 1.64 48.57 0.11CO 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.02NMHC 0.00 0.15 0.19 0.00


C02 1.OE-12 6.OE+2 6.2E+2 5.4E+2CH4 1.OE-12 7.4E-3 6.OE-3 5.7E-3N20 1.OE-12 1.lE-1 1.2E-1 2.5E-2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discount*d at 3.0%/yrEmissions In to C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 0.0E+0 1.6E+2 1.7E+2- 1.5E+CH4 0.0E+0 - t:-4.3E-2 ;- '3.4E-2 3.2E-N20 0.0E+0 < 8.8E+0 9.3E+0 2.OE+NOx 0.0E+0 i1.8E+ 1 5.3E+2 1.2E+CO 0.0E+0 9.1E-2 1.OE-1 1.8E-NMHC 0.OE+0 4.5E-1 5.6E-1 0.OE+TOTAL 0.0E+0 1.9E+2 7.1E+2 1.5E+



CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 8 52E + 05 S11.74Reference-High minus GEF 3. 18E +06 S3.14Reference-Low minus GEF 6.76E + 05 S14.78Emissions disownted at 3.0%/yr

12/92


Fie: CMP MEX1.XLS

Comparison ol Emissions: GEF Proloct vs.Alternative Technoogy

5.00

4.00

3. 0 0 GEF- 2.00 0 | Ref-Best

Comparison of GHG Emissions. GEF vs.Alternatve Technology

1.OE +3

1.OE + 2

&W 15E+ I GEFl .0E+0 C) Ref-Best|1 .OE-1 j1.O)E-2

C02 CH44 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Atternative Technology

2.OE + 2

1.E 2

1.OE +2 EEI C~~~~~~ Ref-Best5.OE+ I

. 12/92

gcIs


Fie: CMP MEXI.XLS


minus GEF

minus &EF

m-n GEF

O.OOE 5.OOE 1.00E 1.SOE 2.00E 2.50E 3.00E 3.50E+00 +06 *06 +06 +06 .06 +06 +06



Feu t E n ________________fminus GEF

mmus GEF

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00


1I 12192


FRe: CMP_MEX1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yr


PM 0.00 0.02 2.11 0.01SOx 0.00 2.77 62.31 0.11NOx 0.00 0.94 27.80 0.06CO 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.01NMHC 0.00 0.09 0.11 0.0C


C02 1.OE-12 3.4E+2 3.5E+2 3.1E+2CH4 1.OE-12 4.3E-3 3.4E-3 3.2E3N20 1.OE-12 6.4E-2 6.7E-2 1.4E-2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discountod at 10.0%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 - 0.OE+0 9.3E+1 9.6E+1 8.4E+1CH4 0.OE+0 2.4E-2 2.OE-2 1.9E-N20 0.OE+0 5.1E+0 5.3E+0 1.1E+NOx 0.OE+0 1.OE+1 3.OE+2 6.8E-1CO 0.0E+0 5.2E-2 5.8E-2 1.OE-NMHC 0.OE+0 2.6E-1 3.2E-1 0.OE+OTOTAL 0.0E+0 1.1E+2 4.1E+2 8.6E+1

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS



Reference-Best minus GEF 4.87E +05 S20.51Reference-High minus GEF 1.82E +06 S5.49Reference-Low minus GEF 3.87E +05 S25.83Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yr

12/12/92


Fle: CMP MEXI.XLS

Comparison of EmisaSns: GEF Project vs.Altrnative Technology

3.00

2.50

2.00 1 GEF~1.50 Iefet

1.00 RfBst

0.50

0.00

Comparison of GmG EInClalons: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

1.OE + 3

1 .0E + 2

2.0E +1 i GEF1.OE .0 LI Ref-Best

1tOE-2 --

C02 CK4 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.

1.2E+2

1.OE+2.

8.6.0E+1-

N4.E,+ I Ref-Best

2.0E #I

CDC

12/12/92

K 2-


File: CMP MEX1.XLS


minus GEfi

mmnus GEF

Ref. il 4-6minus GEF

O.OOE+00 5.OOE+05 1.OOE+06 1.50E+06 2.OOE+06

Tonnes Cairbon Equlv.

NPV Cost of R*duction

Rslef.nc2&fgh_

minus GEF

$0.00 $5.00 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0


12/12/92

ii

I

I

It

iI


(GGAM)

if PROJECT:PAKISTAN: INTEGRATED COMMUNITY WASTE-TO-ENERGY SYSTEM

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND




PAKISTAN: Integrated Community Waste-to-Energy System

OVERVIEW:

This GEF project is designed to generate and collect landfill gas at a municipal solid waste facility.The landfill gas (primarily methane) will be burned at the site to produce heat, steam, and electricity.The electricity will be sold to the local electric utility grid. The heat will be used to raise thetemperature of the landfill and thus to increase the rate of methane generation. The steam has nocurrent market or application at present but could be used in future. As originally conceived, theproject would operate at five sites, handling approximately 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes of municipalwaste per year. The technical characteristics of the selected methane recovery and combustion systemwill require additional waste handling at the site, including possible heating of the leachate as wellas the operation of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide removal systems. The GEF contribution to thisproject is approximately US$ 11 million and is designed to cover the incremental costs of the,methane recovery, combustion, and waste handling systems.

This project will accomplish several goals simultaneously. It will advance the development ofmunicipal solid waste handling systerns. It will also reduce fugitive methane emissions compared tocontinued use of conventional open landfills and provide electricity for sale to the local grid. In thefuture the project could provide methane gas or steam to local industries.

The principle environmental effects of the project will be the reduction of local methane emissionsfrom uncontrolled landfills and the substitution of electricity generated from gas for electricitygenerated from coal.

(FFCONTRIB UTION TLOPROJECT COST: US$ 11 MillionGLEFC(1ST OF AVOIDED CARBON EMISSIONS

(at 0%_discount rate forneissons: US$ 22/tonne

GLOBAL WARMING- BENEFITS O)F THE PROPOSED PROJECT:

(I) This landfill gas recovery system will reduce methane emissions from municipal solid wastecompared to uncontrolled conventional dump sites.

(2) To the extent that electricity derived from landfill methane replaces coal in the local grid,carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector will be reduced.

11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UNRESOLVED EUESCTIONS

(1) The project assumes a collection rate for local waste in Lahore (75%) that is more than twicethe comparable estimate for other cities in Pakistan (e.g., Karachi estimate is 33%). How thiscollection rate will be achieved is not clearly identified in the project documents.

(2) The project assumes the operation of five very large dump sites. Project documents do notindicate why a larger number of smaller sites would not improve the chances for success andreplication of the technology.

(3) The project does not appear to be economic, even after pricing reforms. No estimates ofoperations and maintenance costs are provided in the project documents.

(4) Project documents do not detail any NGO or community-based organization will be involvedin operations of the project. No monitoring or evaluation component is identified. Projectdocuments do not identify why any local entity should be interested in operating the systemafter the subsidy lapses.

(5) The institutional barriers to project implementation are not well characterized or understood.

(6) The performance characteristics of the proposed technology have not been demonstrated.

TICHLICAL ASSCUTSPT IONS USNIAYSIS:NALYSS:

(I) Typical open dumps in Pakistan receive approximately 1600 tonnes of waste per day. Thetypical mixed waste stream is approximately 30% vegetable, 20% leaves and straw, 20%paper and wood, and 30% inorganic materials. In addition, approximately 400 tonnes ofhuman and animal waste are deposited each day.

(2) Uncontrolled open landfills release the energy equivalent of 250-300 kWh per tonne of waste.- Because of heating of the landfill in the Waste-to-Energy Project, the average recovery rate

for energy is assumed to be 500 kWh per tonne of waste.

(3) The design lifetime of each landfill site is sixteen years.

(4) The reduction in methane emissions is estimated to 0.95-1.5 million tonnes per year,compared to the release from a conventional, uncontrolled open landfill.

(1) Daily rate of local waste collection(2) Methane generation rates for uncontrolled and controlled landfills(3) Operations and maintenance for the controlled landfill

2

LZ-

GGAM Project Input SheetsPAKISTAN PROJECT

File: IPT PAK1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET ALEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

1 Who is the Task Manager on this proet? lIn wtiich Country will the proiect wvi be lcated? Paostan

3 Please provide a name for the proposed GEF project Integrated Communitty Wate-to-Ener System4 What will be the principal technology used to generateor save eectricity (press the buton or type directly)? IGas-fired boiler, oony. (Elect/Cogen)* If another major tochnology will be required for this projet(e.g. gas transport, or coal mining) and is exected to havesignifint environmental kmpacts, plese enter the name or thesecondary technology here (pres buon or type directly): |NONE.How is the output of the secondary technolgy,measured, e.g. in GJIy¶, or tonneuyr? F

7 What pollution control technologies, if any, will beimplemented in the proposed GEF prooct?

EVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:,USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? |YES I GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? INO

12/14/92

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L3


File: IPT PAKi.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET BLEASE ENTER THE FOULOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

What will be the first year of project operations? [994What is the expected operating lifetime of the project? 16 Years Go To

10 What is the expected economic lifetime of the project? 16 Years Previous11. Wht is the expected ifetime of the loan Input

associated with the proj*ct? [6 Years Sheet12. This program uses the expected economic lifetime of the project as WifutvleThis value determines how many years of cost and output da are to be coletedIf a different value is more appropriate, please enter It here: Years

13. What is the discount rate lo be applied to monetary flows? S Percentlyr14. What is the discount rate to be applied to poltutant emissions? O Percent/yr15. What is the exected eectricity generation capacity provkied

or displaced by this project7 |625|MW Go To16 What Is the heat generation or savings capacity Next

uftimatety expected from the project? r hIGJ/y r Input7. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheetto be used (if applicable)? F ] NIA

12/14/92

iI

II

Li


Fole: IPT_PAKI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET CPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. What will be the pnrmary input fuel for the proect (if applicable)? |Methane 119. What will be the secondary input fuel for the projed (if applicable)? 1'NONE' I

GJ pfar20. Please enter or edit the heat cordents o( the input Prmary Fuel 0.0359 Cubic mneterfuels, in GJ per unit shown at far tigtt (if apCble). ISeoday Fu 0O21. What fraction of the erwgy iriput to tew proe wi th fe pnmary and Primary Fuel 100the secondary fuels provide (if applicable) il Percent of total? Secondary FuelPress the appropriate button to enter the punrt eitciency (eleticity outputVful input) in:

OR

Please enter the plant eficiency here: 30 Percent23. What is the expected heat or steam generation efficiency(heat energy outp per und fuel input)7 Note that unless rno ebdkjyis produced, GGAM assumnes that the prqec is a cogeneration system. 1 GJ/GJ Fuel Input

| Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Sheet

1?/14/92

Ii

tI


File: IPT PAK1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET D2 Previous ShNext SheAet4. to 26. YEAR-BY-YEAR PROJECT OUTPUTS

Use of Use ofElect. Prod. Heat Prod. Secondary Elet. Prod. Heat Prod. Secondaryor Savings or Savings Technology or Savings or Savings Technology

YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A) YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (NIA)1994 0 2009 43.81995 10.951996 21.91997 32.851998 43.81999 43.82000 43.82001 43.82002 43.82003 43-82004 43 82005 43.82006 4382007 43.82008 43.8 _________ _____________________________________

12/14/92


Fle: IPT PAKI.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:7. What will be the net presert value of the total costs of GHG

reduction for the project? 11 S Million US 19928. What will be the net present value of the capital costs

for the prim tehnokgy ue i hs poject? I s Million US 199229. What wilN be the net present value of the operating cs

Inurred over the lifetime of the proect (pnmary technology)7 [ Z IS Million US 19920 Whet will be the net presnt vlue of the captal costs

for the secondary technology used in this project? Million US 19921. What wU be the net presern value of th openting costs

incurred ovr the lifime of the pro,ect (secondary technology)? [I Is Millon US 1992

Go To Previous Input Go To Next Input SheetSheet I

12/14/92


File: IPT_PAKi.XLS


2. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORSO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGS/AIR POLLUTANTS

INow Using: |Energy jUnits

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx Co Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Comb.: Primary Fuel kIgGJ 1.4E-03 2.7E-04 I.4E-01 1.4E-02 O.OE.O 1.7E.03 O.OE+00Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22omb.: Primary Fuel kg/J O.OE+00 1 .4E-03 3.3E-03 O.DE+00 0.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00

Comb.: Socondary Fuel kg/GJ


Go to Previous Sheet T Go to Next Sheet

2 14/92

L


File: IPT PAK1.XLS


33. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-GENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technobogy Edctricity

Nunber from Tech list Chosen Gwrated

Go to ( Choose Ref Tech I ) ydroeec trrge 6 67Percent

Previous 2 CGoss Re(Tech 2 FGas-fired boiler, conv. 3 PercentInputSheet 3 Choos RefTech 3 I(NONE) Percent

Go to 4 Choose Ref Tech 4 | (NONE) | PercentNextInput 5 Choos eRef ) INONE) Percent

I SheetITOTAL I 100

.214/92


File: IPT_PAK1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET H34 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-PRODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT



Go to 1 Choose Ref Tech I(NONE) 100|PercentPrevious

InputSheet 2 Choose Ref Tech 2 J(NONE) Percent

Write Data to File, Call Go To ProjedIn Ref Tech Data, and Comparison Sheet w/o TOTAL

Go To Project Calling in Ref Tech DataConparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

-1492

LJo

GGAM Project Input ShotsPAKISTAN PROJECT

FUe: IPT_PAK1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET S3: METHANE COLLECTION

DOES THIS PROJECT INVOLVE COLLECTING

METHANE FOR USE IN THE PRODUCING YESELECTRICITY OR HEAT? (Type in 'YES' or 'NO' to change choice)

PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE METHANE COLLECTIONOPERATION PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT:

II. What fraction of the methane collected for use as a fuel would hae been relased to the atnospherein the absence of the collctin operation? This value will typicall depend on the pro-projedpractices used for. for example, coal mine ventilation, treatment of hetockwates, or disposalof municipal solid wastes.

Enter a faction in percent: Percent


I'. 14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryPAKISTAN PROJECT

File: CMP_PAKI .XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Enissions discounted at 0.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Rel-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.02 0.02 004 0.0CSOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.OCNOx 1.69 0.55 1.05 0.06CO 0.16 0 05 0 09 0.01NMHC 0.02 0.00 000 0.0


C02 1.OE-12 1.9E+2 2.2E+2 i.6E+CH4 1.7E-2 1.4E+2 1.4E+2 1.4E+2N20 4.OE-2 3.2E-2 4.8E-2 1.7E-d

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions disounted at 0.0%/yr


C02 0.0E+0 5.1E+1 5.9E+1 4.4E+ 1CH4 9.8E-2 - 2E+2 8.2E+2 8.2E+2N20 3.1E+0 2.5E+0 3.8E+0 1.3E+CNOx 1.8E+1 6.OE+0 11.E+1 6.1E-1CO 1 .3E-1 4.3E-2 7.5E-2 1.1 E-2NMHC 6.1E-2 8.5E-3 1.4E-2 3.4E3TOTAL 2.2E+1 8.E+2 9.OE+2 8.7E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions dlcounted at 0.0%/yr



Reference-Best minus GEF 5.09E+05 S21.60Reference-High minus GEF 5.18E+05 S2124Reference-Low minus GEF 5.01E+05 S21.96

12/14/92

l


Fie: CMP PAKI.XLS

Compiiopron of Emlbions: GEF Pro$ect vs.AJtirntive Technology

2.00

1.50 U GEF

1I0 OE 2 El Ref-Beat

: I

Comparison of GHG Emishions: GEF vs.Ahemativ Technolgy

1.0E+3

1.0E+2 72-~1.OE + I GEF

Iz 1.OE+0 El Ref-Best1.OE-1

1.OE-2--

C02 CH44 1420

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

9OOE+28.OE+27.OE +26.OE +2GE

~.5.OE +2 IUGE4.OE+23.OE +2 . lRef-Best1.OE+2

o,01 2/14/92

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparlson SummaryPAKISTAN PROJECT

Fge: CMP PAK1.XLS

R.dueCiSo in GHG Emisions

mrnus GEFAsfw.nc.41~gh

minug GEF

minus GEF

4.90E 4.95E 5.OOE 5.05E 5.10E 5.15E 5.20E+05 +0 +05 +05 +05 +0O +05


NPV Cost of Rduetlon

minus GEF

$20.8 $21.0 $21.2 $21.4 $21.6 $21.8 $22.0O O 0 0 0 0 0


12/14/92


File: CMP PAKI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emlnlns discounted at .3.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ret-LowPM

0.02 0.03 0.06 0.01SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 2.29 0.72 1,37 0.0CO 0.22 0.07 0.12 0.02NMHC 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.OE-12 -.5E+2 2.8E+2 2.1E+2CH4 2.3E-2 2.SE+2 ' 2.5E+2 2.5E+ 2N20 5.4E-2 4.2E-2 6.2E-2 22E-2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emisatona diountd at -o%/yrEmissions In te C. oq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02

-0.OE+0 .:-,-,.7E+1 7.7E+1 6 5.7E+1CH4 1.3E-1 '1,3+3' `1iE+3'- 1.5E+N20

.4.2E+0D -3.3E+O 4.9E+0 1.7E+NOx 2.5E+1 7.9E+0 1.6E+1 8.0E-1CO

-1.E-1 5.6E-2 '.8E-2 1.4E-NMHC 8.2E-2 1.1E-2 1.8E-2 4.4ETOTAL

3.0E+1 1.5E+3 1.6E+3 1.5E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yr

Reduction in NPV Cost ofEmissions over ReductionProject Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 8.91 E + 05 $12/34Reference-HigJh minus GEF 9.02E+05

S12.19Reference-Low minus GEF 8.80E+05 S12-50

12/14/92

LI'GGAM Project Comparison Summary

PAKISTAN PROJECT

Fie: CMP PAK1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Projt v*.Atrnatv Tochnology

250

2.00

1.5 io GEF1.00 lefes

0.50

0.00

Conmparion of GHG Emlions: GEF vs.Altemative Technology

1 .OE + 3

1.OE:2 1 *GEF

1.OE-1

* .oe+ El| Ref-BEst| 1.O0E-2 -

C02 CH4 N20 -

Comparison of Emiselons In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternatve Technology

1.6E+3

1.4E+3

1.2E + 31 .OE+3

EGEFE'8.OE+2

c- 6.OE+2 ElRe-B-est4.OE+2

O.OE + 22.OE+2

c' V 2 ° V 2 11

12/14/92

LGGAM Project Comparison Summary

PAKISTAN PROJECT

File: CMP PAKI.XLS

Reductlon In GHG EmIsaions

mi GEF

8.65 8.70 8.75 8.80 8.85 8.90 8.95 9.00 9.05E+O E+O E+O E+O E+O E+O E+0 E+O E+O5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5



Am nGEF GF

$12.0 $12.1 $12.2 $12.3 $12.4 $12.5 $12.60 0 0 0 0 0 0

1992 S US perT Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92

Lx-

GGAM Project Comparlson SummaryPAKISTAN PROJECT

File: CMP PAKI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emislons discounted at 3.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 1.28 0.43 0.82 0.CO 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.01NMHC 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00


C02 1.OE-12 1.5E+2 1.7E+2 1.3E+2CH4 1.3E-2 8.5E+1 &5E+1 8.5E+1N20 3.OE-2 2.5E-2 3.7E-2 13-

CARBON EQUNALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 3.0%/yrEmissions In te C. .q./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 0.OE+0 4.OE+ 1 t4.6E+1 3.4E+ 1CH4 7.4E-2 4.9E+2 4.9E+2 - 4.9E+N20 2.4E+0 2.OE+0 3.OE+O 1.OE+NOx 1.4E+1 4.7E+0 9.0E+0 4.8E-1CO 1.OE-1 3.4E-2 5.9E-2 &3E3NMHC 4.6E-2 6.7E-3 1.1E-2 2.7E-TOTAL 1.7E+1 5.4E+2 5.5E+2 5.2E+



CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 3.07E+05 S35.84Reference-High minus GEF 3.1 4E + 05 S35.08Reference-Low minus GEF 3 OOE +05 S36.64

1: 1 4/92


Fle: CMP PAKI1.XLS

Comparlson of Elissions: GEF Project vs.Altrnative Technology

1.40120

1.00 U ~~~~~GEF0.40 I ~Rof-Best

0.200.00

Comparison of GH4G Emissions: GEF vs.Atfntertw Technology

t.OE+3

1.OE+2

1.OE+1 GEF

1.0 E+O Ref-Best

1 OE-1

1.OE.2 I _C02 CH4 120

Comparson of Emissions In C Equhv.: GEF vs.Alternatve Technology

6+OE +2

50E+2

4E2 | i EGEF

20E+2 C~~~~~~~ Ref-Bestl.OE+2

O OE+0

O {_ ;= .e v1z 1

12> Id 92

LtiGGAM Project Comparlson Summary

PAKISTAN PROJECT

Fie: CMP PAKI.XLS

RAductlon In GHG Emissions

minus GEF

minus GEF

minu GEF

2.90E+ 2.95E+ 3.00E+ 3.05E+ 310E+ 3.15E+05 05 05 06 05 05


NPV Cost of Reducton

P. ,. h

minW*m G _F

$34.0 $34.5 $35.0 $35.5 $36.0 $36.5 $37.00 0 0 0 0 0 0


¶2/14/92


File: CMP PAK1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emisions diounted at 10.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM

0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00SOx 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.72 0.27 0.51 0.03Co 0.07 -0.03 0.04 0.01NMHC 0.01 a.0 0.00 0.o

Emisions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.OE-12 - 9.2E+ I 1.1E+2 7.8E+ 1CH4 7.3E-3 3.OE+1 3.OE+1 3.OE+ 1N20 1.7E-2 1.6E-2 2.3E-2 8.2Ej

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emdsslons disoounted et 10.0%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ret-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02

- O.OE+O -2fi25E.1 2.QE+1 2.1E+1CH4 4.2E-2. - J7E+2 1.7E+2 1.7E+2N20

1.3E+0 -- '1.l2E+0 1.8E+0 6.5E-1NOx 7.9E+0,. - _2E+0 5.6E+0 3.0E-1CO 5.7E-2 .' 2.1E-2 3.7E-2 5.1E-NMHC 2.6E-2 4.2E-3 6.7E-3 1.7E3TOTAL

9.3E+0 2.OE+2 2.IE+2 1.9E+


Emissions over ReductionProject Ute (1992 S US perCASE (rCEquiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.13E+05

S97.19Reference-High minus GEF 1.17E+05 S93.75Reference-Low minus GEf 1.09E+05 S100.90 _

12.14,92

LZ4GGAM Project Comparison Summary

PAKISTAN PROJECT

FUe: CMP_PAKI.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.-Altrnatve Technology

0 800.700.60 0-~50 UGErE0.400- 030 2 Ref-Best0.200.10 0.00 =

Comparlson of GHG Enls"lons: GEF vs.Althmadve Technology

I .OE + 2

I.OE + 7] GEFi.OE+0-R-Bt

1.0E-1

I .OE-2 * - -

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emlssons In C. Equlv: GEF vs.Alternative Tochnology

25E+2 T

2.OE +2

1.5E*2 1EGEF1 .OE +2 2 Ref-Best

5.OE + I

I OOE+O

12/14/92


Flle: CMP_PAK1.XLS

Roducon hi GHG Emlissons

mtnws GEF

mhw% GEff

minu GEF

1.04E 1.06E 1.OSE 1.IOE 1.12E 1.14E 1.16E 1.18E+05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05

TonnM Carbon Equlv.

NPV Cost of ReductlonP.f.qsnc* 4ow____ow___

FtAlP. h

minus GEf

$90.0 $92.0 $94.0 $96.0 $98.0 $100. $102.0 0 0 0 0 00 00


12/14/92


(GGAM)

PROJECT:.PHILIPPINES: LEYTE GEOTHERMAL PROJECT

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND



i

ii

IIt1IiI


PHILIPPINES: Leyte Geothermal Energy Development Project

OVERVIEWV:

This GEF project is designed to generate to generate electricity at a geothermal power plant on Leyteisland in the Philippines. Since local demand on Leyte is expected to remain low for the foreseeablefuture and demand on adjacent Luzon island is growing rapidly, the geothermal electricity will betransmitted to Luzon using a new undersea cable. The cable will be laid as part of the geothermaldevelopment project. The geothermal power plant is designed to produce 600 MW of electricity witha plant capacity factor of 80%. The undersea cable will be a part of a high voltage transmission linestretching 480 km to the load centers on Luzon. Expected energy losses in transmission are estimatedto be 3.8%. The GEF contribution to this project was originally intended to include approximatelyUS$ 30 million in grants and US$ 40 million in loan funds. The GEF contribution will supplementa conventional World Bank loan on the project of more than US$ 1500 million.

This project will reduce greenhouse gas emnissions on Luzon island by substituting geothermalelectricity from Leyte for coal-fired electricity on Luzon. The emissions of greenhouse gases fromthe geothermal facility have not been estimated. Project staff expect that all geothermal waste gasescan be disposed of through re-injection at the geothermal site.

GF .CONTRIBUTION I PROJ.ECT COST: Loan of US$ 40 MillionGrant of US$ 30 million

W(ELCOST OF AVOTIDED CARBON EMISSIONS(at %_discount rate for emiss*ons): US$ 2/tonne

G;LOBAL WARMINGt BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJIECT:

(I) This geothermal project will eliminate the need to build a new coal-fired power plant onLuzon island, thus avoiding the expected emissions from the coal plant for the life of thegeothermal field.

UNRESOLVED QUESTI)NS:

(1) The technical parameters of the geothermal plant are not defined in detail in the projectdocuments. In particular, the environmental impacts of the geothermal development are notclearly identified. No discussion is provided conceming the effects of land-clearing in thesurrounding watershed or of the extent of expected emissions of hydrogen sulfide.

1

i

i

I

iii

(2) The materials requirements and energy intensity of the new transmission line are not detailedin the project documents.

(3) The project documents do not specify the estimated annual or lifetime emissions of carbondioxide from the geothermal development.

TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS USED ITHIS ANALYSIS:

(1) The geothermal plant will operate on dry steam, approximately 150-160 degrees C. Theexpected conversion efficiency of the geothermal plant is estimated to be 20-25%. Thecapacity factor of the geothermal plant is assumed to be 80%.

(2) Parasitic energy consumption at the geothermal site is assumed to approximately 8% of totalelectrical output.

(3) Energy losses in transmission are estimated to approximately 3.8%.

(4) The annual savings in carbon dioxide emissions is estimated to be approximately 2 milliontonnes compared to the conventional coal-fired alternative.

CRITICAL FATORS IN THIS ANALIYSI.:

(1) Capacity factor of the geothermal plant(2) Size, quality, and duration of the steam resource.(3) Operations and maintenance for the controlled landfill

2

GGAM Project Input SheetsPHILIPPINES PROJECT

File: IPT PHI1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET APLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:1 Who is the Task Manager on this project?*2 In which Country will the project will be kocated? Repubic of the Philippires3 Plase provide a name for the propoed GEF project: Phippnes Leyte Gothenmal Projc*4 What will be the principal technology usd to gerate

or save electricity (pre the button or type direcdly)7 Geodhermal, hydrotherm (EIC)*5 If another major technology will be required for this project(e.g. gas transport, or coal mining) and is expected to haves4gnificant environmental impacts, please enter the name of the'econdary technology here (pres button or type directly): |NONE>

M How is the output of the secondary technology,masured, e.g. in GJ/yr, or tonnes,yr?

*7 What pollution control tchnologies, if any, will beimplemented in the proposed GEF project? |

LEVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? rYES GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? INO

u2 '4 92

V3


Fie: IPT PHI1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET BPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:B. What will be the first year of projet operations? 1994. What is the expected operating lifetime of the project? Years Go To

10. What is the expected economic lifetime of the proct? 29 Years Previous11. What is the expected lifetme of the ban Input

associated with the projec? 2-9 Yebr Sheet12. This program uses the expected economic ifetime of the project .

This value determies how many yearsof cost and outprm d ae to be collected,If a different value is more appropriate, pease enter ll her: Years

13. What is the discount rate to be appled to monetary flows? 5 Percentyr14. What is the discount rate to be appied to polLtant emissions? 0 Pen y15. What is the expected electncity geneation capacity provided

or displaced by this project? [II I v vv Go To16. What is the heat gerwation or savings capacity Next

ultimately expected frorn the project? GJ/yr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheet

to be used (if applicable)? |NIA .

12/14/92

GGAM Project Input SheetsPHIUPPINES PROJECT

Fie: IPT PHI1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. What will be the primry kput fuel for th pct (if applicable)? iL ' ma19. What will be the seoondary unput fuel for te prjed (if applicable)? I<NONE Z 1

GJ per20Plas enter or edit the heat conent of the input Prnaiy Fuel 1 GJ

fuels, In GJ perunit shown at far right ( a ) secorxi" Fuel 0| 21. What fraction of the eergy hpul to the proet will the primary and Primary Fuel 10

the secondary fuels pvide (f applicable) in Peret of total? Se5mday FuelPress the apropriate button to enter the piant efrcincy (ectricity output/ueI input) in:

OR

Peas enter the plant eficiency here: 20.295s Proet23 What is the expected heat or steam generation eficiency

(heat eneWrgy output per uni kul input)? Note that unless no electricity

is produoed. GGAM assumes Vt the project is a cogenerateon sytem. [Z]GJ/GJ Fuel Input

( Go To Previous Input Sheet) Go To Next Input Sheet

12/14/92


Fie: IPT PHI1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET D2 =_(5~~~3!h~Peviu het Nx he4. to 26. YEAR-1BY-YEAR PROJECT OUTPUTS . .or Savngs or Savings TcnUsoeof UseofElect. Prod. Heat Prod. Secondary Elet. Prod. Heat Prod. Secondaryor Savings or Savings Technology or Savings or Savngrs Technology

YEAUR (GWH) (GJ) (NIA) YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A)1994 1976 2009 39531995 3953 2010 39531996 3953 2011 39531997 3953 2012 39531998 3953 2013 39531999 3953 2014 39532000 3953 2015 39532001 3953 2016 39532002 3953 2017 39532003 3953 2018 39532004 3953 2019 39532005 3953 2020 39532006 3953 2021 39532007 3953 20Q 39532008 3953 ._. _I

12/14/92


Fie: IPT PHI1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT L -EET ElPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:27. What wll be the net present value of the tot costs of GHG

reduction for the project? 70 S Million US 1992What wll be the net present value of the capital costs

for the primay technology ud this prssd? [S Mlion US 199229. What will be the net preset value of the operating costs

F.currod over the liftire of the prmojct (p ay technology)? | Z S Million US 199230. What wvl be the net presen value of the capital costsfor the secondary technology ted in tis projec? [ |lilhon US 1992

1. What will be the net prewt vnlu of th operatng coatsIcurrd over the Ifime of the proedt (secondary technology)? |S Miilon US 1992


I. 14/92


File: IPT PHI1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET F2. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INfORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORS0 BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGSIAIR POLLUTANTS

INow Using: |Energy |Units

SOURCE L UNITS Partic. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Comb.: Primary Fuel kg/GJ 9.6E-04 1.8E-03omb.: Secondary Fuel IkgGIJSecondary Technology MIA

I

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22amb.: Prmry Fuel k6 GJ 1.1 E+00 9.6E-04

Comb.: Secondary Fuel kgG

Secorndary Techrnlogy N/A


12/14/92

GGAM Prolect Input ShootsPHIUPPINES PROJECT

Fle: IPT PHI1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET G3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICrTY-GENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL SE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons Reference Fradion ofTechnology To choose Tecnoogy ElectricltyNunber tron Tech list Chown Generatedt |o W I~ T h] alrcdboir, convy | 100 Percent|Go to I Choose Ref Tech t -ie olr ov QPle Previous 2 Choose Rr Tech 2 (NONE) PercentInput

Sheet 3 (I(NE)PercntSheet ( ~~Choose Ref Tech 3 f) P

Go to 4 ( Choos RefTech4) (INONE) Percet|Next

Input Choose Re Tech 6 (NONE PercentSheet__ JTOTAL

100

I. 1492


Fie: IPT PHI1.XLS


34 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOVING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY).ROOUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARiN




Go to 1 Choose RefTech 1 r(NONE) _ 100|PercentPrevious

Input0 Sheet 2 Choose Ref Tech I (NONE) Percent

Write Data to File. Call Go To Project in Ref Tech Data, and Comparison Sheet w/o TOTAL

Go To Project Calling in Ref Tech DataCoffparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

.14/92

r

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryPHIUPPINES PROJECT

Fie: CMP PHII.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions disealnted t 0.0%/yrEmissions in te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM

0.02 0.13 28.77 0.05SOx 0.00 2.50 49.51 0.NOx 0.00 2.50 59.42 0.61CO 0.00 0.20 1.28 0.NMHC 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.01

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best* Ref-High Ref-LowC02 2.OE+1 1.0E+3 1.1E+3 9.OE+CH4

1.7E-2 29E+o -9.4E+0 2.0E+N20 1 .OE-12 9.OE-2 . 1.5E-1

CARBON EQUIALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02

5S.5E+O - Z7E+2 --2.9E+2 - 2 4E+CH4 9.8E-2 -1.7E+1 -5.4E+1 I.1E+1N20

O.OE+O 7.IE+0 1.2E+J' 6.7E+NOx O.OE+O - 2.7E+l . 6.5E+2 6.7E+CO OO.E+ 1.6E-1 J.OEf0 .2.5E-NMHC 9.4E-2 1.8E-1 1.8E-1 1.8E-TOTAL

5.7E+0 3.2E+2 1.OE+3 2.7E+2


Emissions over ReductionProject Ufe (1992 S US perCASE T v) TC Equlv)Reference-Best minus GEF 3.59E+07 S1.95Reference-High minus GEF 1.12E+08 S0.62Reference-Low minus GEF 2.96E + 07 S2.36

12/14/92

Mt


File: CMP PHI1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alternativ Technology

2.50

2.00

1.5.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ UGEF~1.00

~~71.00 El~~~~~ Ret-Best0.50

0.00 r----- - - -

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.AtWnative Technology

1 .OE +3

1.OE+2

gl.0E +1 EGEF

t 1 .OE + O RefBee

| C02 CH4 N20


3.5E+2

3.0E+2

1 2.5E+2

UGEF2 .OE + 2

E7 I.SE + 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ElRef-Best1.OE+2

5.OE+1

0.0E+0J -

14/92


Fie: CMP PHI1.XLS

Reducton In GHG Emissions

mrnhu GEF

usn. GEFFi _ _

minus GEF

O.OOE 2.00E 4.00E 6.00E 8.00E 1.OOE 1 .20E+00 +07 +07 +07 +07 +08 +08


NPV Coat of R _ductio

eylUi GEFX

miNfl GEF

minus GEF

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.501992 S US per T Carbon Equhv.

12/14/92

rMl


File: CMP PHI1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS -Esllons dIscountd at -3.0%/yr


PM -0.03 -021 46.92 0.08SOx 0.00 ' 4.08 80.76 0.76NOx 0.00 4.08 '96.91 0.CO 0.00 -0.33 "Z08 0.0NMHC 0.05 '0.10 *0.10 0.01

Emissions In te/G WHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 3.3E+1- 1.6E+3 1.7E+3 1.5E+CH4 2.8E-2 4.8E+0 - 1.5E+1 3.2E+N20 1.OE-12' 1.5E-1 2.4E-1 1.4E-1

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at .3O%/yrEmissions in te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 '9.IE+.0 '.4.4E+2 4.7E+2 4.OE+CH4 1.6E-1 ' . 7E+ 1 8.8E+1 - 1.8E+ 1N20 'O.OE+O 1.2E+1, 1.9E +1 1.1E+1NOx 0.OE+0 4.4E+1 1.1E+3 1.1E+1CO O.OE+'O 2.7E-1- 1.7E+0 4.OE-NMHC 1.5E- '' 2.9E-1 -2.9E-1 2a9E-2TOTAL 9.4E+0 5.3E+2 1.6E+3 4.4E+2

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of


CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 5.85E+07 S1220Reference-High minus GEF 1.83E+08 S0.38Reference-Low minus GEF 4.83E+07 S1.45 _


FNe: CMP PHI1.XLS

CompErison of Emissions: GEF Projet vs.Aenative Technology

5.00

4.00

13.00 r GEF

0.0 r [°EE2L L n1 T .-h .

2.00 Ref-Bst1.00

Comparson of GHN EmssCions: GEF vs.AtrnaItve Technology

I.0E + 4

.OE +3

I OE.2 EGEF

I .OE + I l 7 RfBs

I.OE .1.Uo1ffl

C02 C244 /20

Compariso of Emissions In CQ Equiv.: GEF vs.Awmltentv Technolog

6.OE +2

4SOE + 23.0OE+2 IF GEF

1.OE +2 El Ref-Best

0.OE+0

12/14/92

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~v,

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryPHILIPPINES PROJECT

File: CMP PHl1.XLS


mnu. GEF

mbtl GEf

mIinu GEF

O.OOE+00 5.OOE+07 1.OOE+08 1.SOE+08 2.OOE+08


NPV Cost of Reducton

- . mh GEF

m*" GEF

miGEF GEF

$0S00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50

1992 $ US per T Carbon Equhv.

12/14/92


Fie: CMP PHI1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emlslons discounted at 3.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ret-High Ref-LowPM

0.01 0.09 19.03 0.03SOx 0.00 1.66 32.76 0.31NOx 0.00 1.65 39.32 0.40CO 0.00 0.13 0.85 0.02NMHC 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00

Emissions in te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 21.3E+1 7.OE+2 5.9E+2CH4 1.IE-2 :..9E+0 6.2E+0 1.3E+N20 1.OE-12 6.OE-2 9.8E-2 5.6E-21

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emlssions disountd at 3.0%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 3.6E+0 1.i8E+2 1SE+2- 1.6E+2CH4 &4E-2 - j1.1E+ 1 - :3.6E+1 7.5E+ON20 O.OE+0 - 4.7E+0- 7.7E*0, 4.SE+NOx

- .OE+O ;: *'1X8E+1 -4.3E+2 4.4E+CO O.OE+O 1.lE-1 6.9E-i 1.6E-NMHC 6.2E-2 1.2E-1 1.2E-1 1.2E-2TOTAL 3.7E+0 2.1E+2 6.6E+2 1.8E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at 3.O%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of

Emissions over ReductionProject Ute (1992 S US perCASE (r C Equiv.) T C Equlv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 2 37E + 07 S2.95Reference-High minus GEF 7.43E+07 S0.94Reference-Low minus GEF 1.96E+07 S3.57

in 1492


File: CMP PHI1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alternative Technology

2.00

1.50 EGEFffl] []~~~~Ret-Best

0.00 - -

Comparison of GHG Emislons: GEF vs.Arnative Technology

I .OE + 3

1.OE+1 GEF

Z 1 .OE +0 0 Ref-Best1.OE-1

1.OE-2

C02 C144 N20

Comparison of Ernissions In C. Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternatve Technology

2.5E+2

2.OE + 2

15 E+2 GEFEr~~7, 1.OE+2 Ro lef-Best

5.OE + I

0.OE +0 no _ -S C o -c_>

1

1 2/14/92


Fle: CMP PHIh.XLS

| Reducon In GHG Esnisloans

mmLa GEF

R.f.w*4-ghmniu GEF

flnut GF

O.OOE+00 2.OOE+07 4.OOE+07 6.00E+07 8.00E+07


NPV Cost of Redualon

ml GF

nwA GEF

iY*, 5EF

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00


,.' 14/92


Fie: CMP_PHI .XLS



Emissions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ret-Low

PM 0.01 0.04 9.29 0.01SOx 0.00 0.81 16.00 0.1NOx 0.00 0.81 19.20 0.2CO 0.00 0.06 0.41 0.01NMHC 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00


C02 6.3E+0 3.2E+2 3.4E+2 2.9ECH4 5.3E-3 9.4E-1 3.0E+0 6.4E-1N20 1.OE-12 2.9E-2 4.8E-2 2.8E-:



C02 1.7E+0 &8BE+ 1 9.3E+ 1 7.9E+ 1CH4 3.1E-2 5.4E+0 1.7E+ 1 3.6E+CN20 O.OE+0 2.3E+O 3.8E+0 2.2E+NOx O.OE+O &8E+0 2.1E+2 2.2E+CO O.OE+O 5.3E-2 3.4E-1 7.9ENMHC 2.9E-2 '5.8E-2 5.8E-2 5.8ETOTAL 1.8E+0 1.0E+2 3.2E+2 8.7E+1

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yr



Reference-Best minus GEF 1. 16E + 07 S6.04Reference-High minus GEF 3 63E+07 S1.93Reference-Low minus GEF 9 58E + 06 S7.30

1 4/92

GGAM ProJct Comparison SummaryPHIUPPINES PROJECT

Fie: CMP PHI1.XLS

Comparison of Emisslons: GEF Pro*t vs.AtWnatv T.chnology

1.00

0.80

0.60 HUGEF0.40

0 o-Bs0.20 L0.00 i l fCRfBs

r Compobon of GHG Enmsions: GEF vs.Alternative Toechnoogy

ItOE+3

1.OE+2 2 ]I.OE + I ~ ~GEF

ZI.OE+0 CRef-Seat1.OE-1

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emliions in C Equiv.: GEF vs.AJternative Technology

1 .2E + 2

1.OE+2 2

8.OE + 1 GEF

6.OE + I

4 dOE + 1I Rot-Best

2.OE+0

0.OE+0 C

o-, I) Z ° :1 o

1 2/1 4/92


File: CMP_PHI1.XLS


minu, GEF

rinus GEF

mmnus GEF

O.OOE+00 1.OOE+07 2.ODE+07 3.OOE+07 4.OOE+07



m.A GEF

mrns GEF H$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00


12/14/92


(GGAM)

PROJECT:POLAND: COAL-TO-GAS BOILER CONVERSIONS

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND



. .....


POLAND: Coal-to-Gas Boiler Conversion Projects

OVERVIEVV

This GEF project will retrofit of three to five existing coal-fired industrial boilers ranging in sizefrom 0.5 to 5 MW of thernal capacity. A total of 10 MW of capacity will be affected. These boilers,currently fueled with low-quality black coal, will be reconfigured to use natural gas supplied via anew pipeline. (The pipeline will be built with funds from a sister World Bank loan.) Most of the gasused is expected to originate in Poland.

After conversion, these boilers will be set up as cogeneration units, with 25 percent of the heatcontent of the fuel going towards electricity generation, 64 percent going to meet existing steamloads, and the remaining 11 percent released as unrecoverable thermal discharges (i.e. stack losses).The coal boilers being replaced--as well as the new gas-fired units--are assumed to operate at athermal efficiency of approximately 65%.

Uncontrolled emissions from black coal mines in Poland are assumed to average approximately 20-25m3 per tonne of coal produced. Some of the gas delivered to the new boilers is assumed to be coal-bed methane. The new gas pipeline will conform to World Bank standards, and thus will have gasleakage rates less than or equal to 0.1% of throughput. As a result, the secondary greenhouse gasemissions from the project are not considered to be significant, compared to the effects on CO2emissions reductions due to the coal-to-gas conversion. This assumption may understate the benefitsof the project by ignoring the impacts of reduced methane emissions from the mines.

GEF CONTRIBUTION ITO PROJ.ECT COST: US$ 25 MillionGFT COST OF AiVOIDED CARBON EMIsSSIONS

L discount rate for eni*isons): US$ 151/tonne

GLOBAL WARMINGRENEFF] OF THF PROPO2SED PROJECT:

1) This project will reduce CO2 emissions due to coal combustion in the existing industrial andelectricity generation boilers, by substituting natural gas for black coal as the principal fuel.The use of gas in the new boilers allows higher efficiencies of energy conversion and haslower emissions of carbon dioxide per unit fuel energy consumed.

2) The project is expected to generate some small reductions in methane emissions from coal

mining and (to a lesser extent) from gas transport.

UNRESOLVED OUEIF IONS:

(1) The exact mix of gas sources is not clearly identified in the project documents. Therefore, anaverage of recent production for brown and black coal is used to estimate the benefits ofreducing fugitive emissions of coal-bed methane.

(2) The extent of new pipeline construction required for this project is unknown. As aconsequence, the emissions implications of materials acquisition for and construction of thepipeline cannot be calculated at this time.

(3) At the time that this analysis was prepared (December 1992), all GEF funds were expectedto be used in underwriting the coal-to-gas conversion aspects of the project. Since then, adecision has been made to use some of the funds to finance a total energy system in a localhousing project. The share of funds to be applied to the housing project was unknown at thetime of the analysis and, thus, no attempt was made to estimate the effects of this allocationon the calculation of the cost-effectiveness of the coal-to-gas conversion project.

ITECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS:

1) The amount of heat going to the turbines to generate electricity is equal to 25 percent of thefuel energy input to the system.

2) The efficiency of the turbine-generator set used in the project is approximately 43 percent(electricity output/heat input).

3) The effective average capacity factor for the plants is 80 percent.

4) Methane comprises 90 percent of the natural gas in Poland.

5) In order to estimate the methane emissions from coal mining in the "Best" ReferenceAlternative Technology, a weighted average was calculated based on the types of coals minedin Poland, thus, in essence, an "average" Polish coal is assumed.

CRITICAL FACTORS IN THIS ANAYIS:

(I) Mix of coal types used(2) Leakage rate for gas transport(3) Efficiency of new boilers and balance of outputs between heat and electricity(4) Fraction of GEF funds used for coal-to-gas conversion compared to allocation for total energy

2

GGAM Project Input SheetsPOLAND PROJECT

Fie: IPT POLI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET ALEASE ENTER ThE FOLLOWitNG GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION :. Who is the Task Monagwer on this proed7|

In which Country will the project will be locted? PdandPease provide a name for the proposed GEF project: Coal-io-Gs 8oilt Converson for cogen.p What will be the principal technology used to generateor save eecncy (press the button or type direly)? Gfired boilr, con. (EbcUCogen)It arnoher nmajor technology will be required for this project(e.g. gas transport or coal mining) and is expected to havesignificnt environmental impacts, pleas enter the name of the'secondary- lochnology here (press button or type directly) 1NNQNE>How as the output of the secondary technology,rneawrd, e.g. in GJ/yr, or ton n1

'What pollution rcontrol technologies, it any, will bxe,_impkfnented in the proposed GEF project7_I

EVEL OF DETI iCOTADUTPUT DATA: . . .USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUt OATA? NO _ 0OT NEXT INPUT SHEE JSINYEARBYYAR CSTDTA7IN _i

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2

i

Ii

I

IM3GGAM Project Input Sheets

POLAND PROJECT

File: IPT POL1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET BLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWVNG GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:* What will be the first year of project operations? 1994* What is the expected operating lifetime of the project? 25 Years Go To

10. What is the expected _oomr c lireime of the prqect? 25|Years Pevious1. Wht is theL expeeed lfetirne of he lan Input

associated with the project? heet12. This program U#Se the eteOde lifetime or the projec the debut valueThis valu deterrnines how rnm yw ofacostr noutpot d tbe tcolletedIf a different value is more appropriste, please entr Itwhere Years

13. What is the discount rate to be applied to monetary fos? S Percentwt14. What is the discount rate to be applied to pollutant eissions? O PercentPyr15. What is the expected eectricity g ation capacity provide

or displaced by this proec? MW Go To16. What is the het gererio or a pcityxt

uftimately expected from the projet? | 81,421 GJtyr Input17 What is the capacity of the oondary technolog Sheetto be used (if applicable)? N/A ,

14/92

IIiI

Ii


Fie: IPT POLl.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET CPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. What wi be the pmary ipt fuel for the roet (if applicable)? iNa Gm II9. What will be the secary hiput fuel for thw prject (if applicable)? 1eNONE3 1

GJ per20. Plase enter or edit the hea content of the inputi [tF Z F 0.03545 Cubic meterfuels, h GJ per unt shown at tar rgh ( applicable). S y OO

21. What fctrn of the energy hput to te project wll the plobary and _____ F t00the secondary fuds prvide (if applicable) in Percent of total? Secoridry Fuel __ _ _22. Press the appropriate button to enter the plant efriiency (electricty outpuel in hput) hi:

ORPlease enter the plant efficiency here: | 2.51$FW1GJ Fuel InputZ What is the pctod heat or steam geration effciency

(heat energy output per un tuel input)? Note that unme no elctrictyis produced. GGAM assne that the project is a cogeneration sytm. 0.64|G J/GJ Fuel Input

Go To Previous Input Sheet JGo To Next Input Sheet J

12/14/92

M3GGAM Project Input Sheets

POLAND PROJECT

File: IPT POL1.XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOVWNG GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:What will be the first year of project operations? 1994What is the expected operating ifeime of the projet? Years Go To

10. What is the expected economic lifetime of the project? X Years Previous11. What is the expected lIfetime of the loan Input

associated with the project? Sheet12. This program uses the wpcted economic lifetimee of the pjec Wdebult vale

This value determines how many yeam ocot and output dt are to be colbeted.If a different value is more approprate, plese enter it here: Years

13. What is the discount rate to be applied to netarry flows? 5 Percenttyr14. What is the discount rate to be applied to pollutrit emissions? 0 Perenet r15. What is the expected electricity geneatio capacity provid

or displaced by this pro,ect? [I1 9|AW Go To16. What Is the heat generation or savings capaty Next

ultimately exected from the project? 181. 42|GJ/yr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheet

to be used (if applicabie)? |N/A

1.' 14/92


Fge: IPT POL1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET DIPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:4 What is the expected annual average ekctricity generation or savings? 8.37 GWh

25 What is the expected annual average heat generation or savings7 181.421 GJ26 What is the expected annual average use of the secondary technoogy? N/A


12/14/92


File: IPT POLI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET ElPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWNG INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:27. What wil be th net presert value of th total costs of GHG

redcio for the proect? [ 2 SM;lion US 19928. What wl be the net presert value of the cap4a costs

for the pnmary technolg used in this proe? |S Miion US 1992What Wl be th net present value of the operng costsncurred ower the lifetime of the prolect (prmary technology)? I Million US 1992

30. What be the net prsert value of th capital cosfor the secondx tchnology used in this prect? [ ilon US 1992

31. What wvl be the net prsernt value of th operting costs

incuned over the lifetine of the project (secondary technology)? [S Milion US 1992

Go To Previous Input G T NSheet Go To Next Input Sheet

12/14/92


File: IPT POL1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET F2. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOW4NG INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORS

TO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGS/AIR POLLUTANTS IINow Using: Energy Units

SOURCE UNITS Part,c. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Comb.: Primary Fuel kg/GJ 1 .4E-03 2.7E-04 1 .4E-01 1.4E-02 O.OE+0. 1.7E-03 0.OE+00Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Primary Fuel kgVGJ 5.2E+01 1.4E-03 3.3E-03 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+Comb.: Secondary Fuel kWGJ


Go to Previous Sheet Go to Next Sheet 3

12/14/92

GGAM Project Input ShootsPOLAND PROJECT

Flle: IPT POL1.XLS


3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY.


Reference Pro" buttons Reference Fraction of

Technology To choose Technology Ekctricity

Number from Tech list Chosen Generated

Go to Choose Rf Tech red con. aPercent

Previous 2 Chooj Ref Tech 2 (NONE) PercentInputSheet 3 ChoQle Ref Tech 3 )|NONE) Percent

Go to 4 ChseReTech 4 ) (NONE) PerCentNextInput 5 Chose Re( Tech 6 (iNONE) PeroetSheet

TOTAL | 100

' 14/92


Fge: IPT_POL1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET H34 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWiNG INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-PRODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWiTH THE GEF PROJECT



Go to 1 Choose Ref Tech1 O ca ol-ired boiler. conv. 100 PercentPrevious

Input

Shee 2 Choose Ref Tech 2 (NONE) |Percent

Write Data to File, Go To ProjectCall in Ref Tech Data, Comparison Sheet w/o TOTAL [IZ 1and Go To Project Calling In Ref Tech Data

Comparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryPOLAND PROJECT

Fiie: CMP POL1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yrEmisions in te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Dest Ref-High Ref-LowPM

0.09 26.38 94.45 1.76SOx 0.02 65.96 187.84 12.NOx 9.52 21.05 121.68 4.17CO 0.91 4.78 10.39 0.5NMHC 0.11 0.58 1.07 0.01

Emissions in te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Re1-LowC02 3.5E+3 6.IE+3 6.2E+3 5.9E+CH4 8.8E-1 4.9E+1 6.1E+1 4.9E +1IN20 2.2E-1 3.1E-1 3.9E-1 3.OE-11

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Eml"iso discounted at -3.0%/yrEmissions in te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 -. 6E+2 - .7E+3 1.7E+3 1.6E+CH4 5.IE+0 28E+2 3.5E+2 2.8E+N20 1.8E+1 .2.4E+1 3.1E+1 .2.4E+1NOx 1.0E+2 -2.3E+2 1.3E43 4.6E+ 1CO 7.5E-1 3.9E+0 8.5E+0 4.5E-1NMHC 3.4E-1 i.7E+0 3.2E+0 2.7E-TOTAL 1.IE+3 2.2E+3 3.4E+3 2.OE+



Project Ufe (1992 $ US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 2.33E +05 S107.26Reference-Hiigh minus GEF 4.85E+05 S51.55Reference-Low minus GEF 1.84E+05 S135.73Emissions diseounted at -3.0%/yr

12 12/92


File: CMP_POL1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Aternativ Technology

70-00

60.0050.00 UGEF

g40.00

2z-0.00 ElRef-Best20.0010.00

l~~~~~~~~~~~ l

Comparison of GHG Emisions: GEF vs.Alternave Technology

1.,Ec4

125E+3

1OE+ I2 | GEF

1 OE+ J 2 Ref-Best1.OE fi1EIC02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions in C. Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternadive Technology

2.SE+3

LZ 1.5E+3 1 GE_1.OEt3 CRef-Best

5.OE +2

OO0E+0

'12?92

GGAM Project Comparlson SummaryPOLAND PROJECT

File: CMP POLI.XLS


R6" GEF

,l~ GEF

mGEF_

O.OOE+ 1.OOE+ 2OOE+ 3.OOE+ 4.OOE+ 5.OOE+00 05 05 05 05 06


NPV Cogt of Reducion

ml_ '

GE,:Rdwm4____

AlWA GF _

$0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.001992 S US per T Carbon Equhv.

12/12/92


File: CMP POL1.XLS



Emissions in te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ret-High Ref-Low

PM 0.06 17.33 62.06 1.16SOx 0.01 43.34 123.42 8.23NOx 5.73 13.83 79.95 2.74CO 0.55 3.14 6.83 0.36NMHC 0.07 0.38 0.70 0.01


C02 2.1E+3 4.OE+3 - 4.IE+3 3.9E+3CH4 5.7E-1 3.2E + 1 4.OE + 1 3.2E+lN20 1.3E-1 2OE-1 2.6E-1 2.0



C02 5.8E+2 1.1E+3 1.1E+3 1.1E+CH4 3.3E+0 1.8E+2 2.3E+2 1.8E+N20 1.lE+1 1.6E+1 2.OE+1 1.6E+1NOx 6.3E+ 1 1.5E+2 8.7E+2 3.OE+ ICO 4.5E-1 2.6E+0 5.6E+0 3.OE-1NMHC 2.1E-1 1.1E+0 2.1E+0 1.8E-TOTAL 6.6E+2 1.4E+3 2.2E+3 1.3E+



Project Ufe (1992 $ US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)

Reference-Best minus GEF 1.66E+05 $151.04Reference-High minus GEF 3.31E+05 $75.53Reference-Low minus GEF 1.33E+05 S187.42

12/92


Fle: CMP POL1.XLS

Compeason of Emialons: GEF Proloct vs.Alternatle Technology

50.00

4000 fl30.00H GEF

20.00 0~~~~~~ Ref-Best10.00 J

0.00~~~~~~~~~~~~.

Comparison of GHG Emrisions: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

l.OE+4

.. OE.3

* 1.OE+2 0 GEF

1 .0E21 [ g O 1l~

I.OE + 0 C3 Ref-Best

C02 CI$4 N420

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternativ Technology

1.6E + 31.4E.3

1.2E+3I .0E+3 UGEF8.0E + 2

.'6.0E+2 CRol-Best-4.OE22

2.02E.2

0.0E + 0' , Z C> O

12/12/92


Fie: CMP POLl.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 3.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM

0.04 1Z07 43.23 0.81SOx 0.01 30.19 85.97 5.73NOx 3.75 9.63 55.69 1.91CO 0.36 2.19 4.75 0.2NMHC 0.04 027 0.49 0.0(

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ret-LowC02 1l.4E+3 2.8E+3 .2.8E+3 2.7E+ 3CH4

i.OE-1 -2.o2E+i 2.8E+1 2.2E+1lN20 &8E-2 1.4E-1 1.8E-1 1.4E-1

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emisslons discountd at 3.0%/yrEmissions in to C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02

3.8E+2 ,.6E+ 2 7.7E+2 7.4E+,CH4 2.3E+0 '1.3E+2 1.6E+2 1.3E+N20 6.9E+0 1.1E+1 1.4E+1 1.1E+iNOx 4.IE+1 1.lE+2 6.IE+2 2.1E+ 1CO

2.9E-1 1.8E+0 3.9E+0 2.1E-1NMHC 1.3E-1 8.0E-1 1.5E+0 1.2E-2TOTAL

4.3E+2 1.0E+3 1.6E+3 9.OE+


Emissions over ReductionProject Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (TCEquiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.21 E + 05 S206.30Reference-High minus GEF 2.36E +05 S105.74Reference-Low minus GEF 9 88E +04 S253.03Emisslons dlscounted at 3.0%/yr

12/12/92


Fie: CMP POL1.XLS

Reduction In GHG Emislions

mha GEF

mrn GEF

m*inu GEF

O.OOE 5.OOE 1.00E 1.50E 2.OOE 2.50E 3.00E 3.50E+00 +0T4 +05 05 +06 +05 +05 +06


NPV Coat Of Roducon

n*AGEFrA ~ sn_ _'_ _

nunuA GEF

fnL GEF[

$0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00


12/12/92


File: CMP POLI.XLS

Comparison of Emilssons: GEF Project vs.Alternative Technobogy

35.0030.00

l~~~~~~~~~~~~E R l-B

15.00

10.00

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Alernative Technology

1 .OE + 4

1 OE+3

- .1OE+2 *GEF1.OE + I~f1.OE+0 El Ref-Best1lOE-13

1.E-C02 C144 1420

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alterrnaive Technology

1 .2E + 3

8.OE+2 1 UGE.2E+2

4>OE+2! E Ref-Best

2.OE. +2

OQ0E + 0 ___ ____________; C _ °0 O O 1

12/12/92


File: CMP POLI.XLS


minu GEF

minus GEF - -

minus GEF

O.OOE+ 5.OOE+ 1.OOE+ 1.50E+ 2.OOE+ 2S50E+00 04 05 0 0 05


NPV Cost of Reducion

P .T.n- .

minus GEF__

$0.00 S50.0 $100. $150. $200. $250. $300.

1992 S US pr T Carbon Equhv.

12 'i92


Fie: CMP_POL1.XLS

Comnpartaon of Emissions: GEF Pro oct vs.Afternative Technology

160014.0012-0010.00 GEF

-~6.00 Rof-Best4.00

2.00@ 0co0. 00 =

Comparison of GHG Emlsions: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

1 OE+4

I.OE+3L1OE | 2 GEFI.OE +1

-~I OE--o jj Ref-Best

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emlssios In C Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technoogy

6.OE +2

5.OE +2

4.OE+2 UGE3 0E + 2

2.OE +2 F! olBa1 .OE +2

0.OE+0

2; 3! 12 Cs I=--, 12/9

121t '92

Nlc


File: CMP_POL1 .XLS



Emissions In le/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

PM 0.02 6.29 22.53 0.42SOx 0.00 15.74 44.81 2.99NOx 1.80 5.02 29.03 1.00CO 0.17 1.14 2.48 013NMHC 0.02 0.14 0.25 0.00


C02 6.7E+2 1.5E+3 1.5E+3 1.4E+3CH4 2.1E-1 1.2E+1 1.5E+1 1.2E+1N20 4.2E-2 7.3E-2 9.4E-2 7.1 E-2



C02 1.8E+2 ::.-4.OE+2 4.OE+2 3.9E+2CH4 1.2E+0 6.7E+1 8.4E+1 6.7E+1N20 3.3E+0 5.8E+0 7.4E+0 5.6E+0NOx 2.0E+1 5.5E+1 32E+2 1.1E+1CO 1.4E-1 9.3E-1 2.OE+0 1.1E-1NMHC 6.5E-2 4.2E-1 7.6E-1 6.5E-3TOTAL 2.1E+2 5.3E+2 8.1E+2 4.7E+2



Project Ufe (1992 $ US perCASE (T C Equiv.)TCEqi.

Reference-Best minus GEF 6.68E +04 S374Reference-High minus GEF 1.27E+05 S197Reference-Low minus GEF 5.51E+04 S454Emissions discounted at 1o.0%/yr

12/12/92


File: CMP_POL XLS


minus GEFR.Ftw."n _

minus GEF

minus GEF

SO.E 2.OOE 4.OOE 6.00E 8.OOE 1.00E 1.20E 1.40E+00 +04 +04 +04 +04 +05 +05 +05

Tonnes Carbon Equmv.

NPV Cost of REdumison

minus GEF

minus GEF

GEFThfliSi GEF

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500


12/,' 12

I

I

tii

I


(GGAM)

PROJECT:THAILAND: DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND




THAILAND: Promotion of Electric Energy Efficiency

OVERVIEW:

This GEF project is designed to increase the efficiency of electricity use in the residential andcommercial sectors in Thailand. The project will involve programs affecting 10,000 new units of

residential housing plus more than 150 commercial buildings. The secondary goal of the project isto strengthen the institutional capability of Thai utilities to design, manage, and evaluate demandside management programs in the electricity sector. In addition to upgrading the utility's ability toengage in and implement the techniques of least-cost generation expansion planning, this programwill promote the widespread use of energy-efficiency ratings for appliances and energy audits forindustries throughout Thailand. Because a detailed project design was not available from the WorldBank Task Manager at the time that this analysis was carried out, the national action plan developedby the prime contractor for the project, the International Institute for Energy Conservation, was usedinstead. The GEF contribution to this project will include a grant of US$ 15 million. This grant willsupplement conventional World Bank loans and co-financing by the Australian government for thisproject.

This project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Thailand by reducing electricity demandthrough improvements in the energy efficiency of various end-uses in the residential and commercialsectors.

GEF C)ONTRIBUTION IQPRO-JECT COST: Grant of US$ 15 million

GLCOST OF AVOIDED CARBON EMISSIONS(atL0%_discount rate roLrem*snos): US$ 10/tonne

GL(OBAL WARMIN_G_RENFFITS OFTEPROPOSED S3ROJECT:

(1) This energy efficiency project will eliminate the need to build new gas- or coal-fired powerplants in Thailand, thus avoiding the expected emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

UNRFSOLVED OUESTIONS:

(I) The project documents do not separate the expected benefits of load shifting from of demandreductions due to efficiency improvements.

1

(2) The project documents do not specify the efficiency of equipment that will be replaced ormodified under the efficiency program.

(3) The project documents do not specify the life cycle cost of the proposed measures.

TECHNICAL AS SUMPTIONS USED INTHIS ANALYSIS:

(1) The energy savings due to each component of the demand side management program aregiven in the Executive Summary of the IIEC report.

CRITILAI1_FACTORS IN THIS ANALYSIS:

(1) Estimated energy savings due to the program(2) Composition of displaced energy due to energy efficiency improvements(3) Operations and maintenance costs for the efficiency measures

2

a L

GGAM Project Input SheetsTHAILAND PROJECT

File: IPT_THAi.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

1 Who is the Task Manaer on this project? I2 In which Country Will the project will be located? Thailand

* Please provide a nafm for the proposed GEF project: Demand-side Management

* What will be the pnncipal technology used to generate

or save electncity (press the button or type directly)? Demand-side mgt (ElecUCogen/Heat)If another major technology will be required for this project(e.g. gas transport, or coal mining) and is expected to havesignificnt environmental impacts, please nter the name of the

'secodary technology here (preo buhon or type directly) I-NONE'

*6 How is the output of the secondary technology,

rmeasured, e.g In GJtyr, or tonnyr ?

p What pollution control technologies, d any, will be

implemented in the proposed GEF projet?

LEVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:

USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? |YES GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? |YES I

12/14/92


Fie: IPT THA1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:

18. What will be the pimary input fuel r the project (if applicable)? IDS YCon ion19. What will be the secondary input fuel for the projet (if applicable)? |<NONE> =

GJ per

20 Please enter or edit the heat conterib of the input Prirtry Fuel GJ

fuels, in GJ per unit shown at far rig (if appickable) SFeenfry Fuel P '21 What fraction of the energy Input to the poect will the prnmary and 100

the secondary fuels provide (if applicable) In Percent of total? Seconday Fud2 Press the appropnate btLton to enter the plant etciency (electrcty output/fuel Wiput) in:

OR

4 Pkease enter the plant efficiecy hete: 100 Percent

23 What is the expected hed or stem generation efricicy

(heat energy outpLt per unit fud input)? Note that unless no delct y

is produced, GGAM assumes that the project is a cogeration system. |GJIGJ Fuel Input

Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Shoot

12/14/92

c


File: IPT THAI.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:a What will be the first year of project operations? 199,

wht is the expectd opeWting fifetime o the pro,ec? 1 Years Go To10. What is the exptd economic lifetime of the project? 15 Yars Previous11. What is the ewpected lifetime of the loan Input

associated wth the project? 1[5 Yea Sheet12. Thi progrmm uses the ecbed economc lifetme Of Ue poject U 1 dehultlvlue

This valu determines how many yeas of cod and output dat are to be colected.If a different value in nore appropriate, plea enter it here: Years

13. What is the disco ntte to be applied to montary flms? S PrcentPyr14. What is th discount rate to be applied to pollutant emissions? [ ZPercentGyrS5 What h the e#peced e cry g enio caMcy pvded

or dispboed by this proj|ect? 27 ]m B|W Go To |16. What is Omehat generation or savinp cap" 'Next Inpu

ultimately expected from the prqoec? rGJ.yr Sheet17. What is the capa of the secordary technology

to be used (it applicable)? | N/A

1. 14/92

GGAM Project Input SheotTHAILAND PROJECT

File: IPT THA1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET E2 PreviowSheet NextSheet27. to 29. Ye-y-By-Year Projet Costs (Prvnary Tech.) -

, _COSTS COSTS(Million 1992 US Dolars)

(Milln 1992 US DollA"s)Cost of GHG Capial Opeatsng & Cost of GHG C4aptl Openting &YEAR Reduction Coss Maint. Costs YEAR Reduction Cosbt Mainm. Costs1993 38.951 1 .5Z1 Cost of HG reducti are total of GEF grata nd GEF lon amounts1994 l5. ki5ted on page 24 of Draft Report, Thailand: Promotion of Energy

1995 44.881 Efficiency, Pr-invesuert Apr ar, Oober 1992. t was ssunmed1996 47.5t7 t these costs will be Incurred h the fi poject yar. but this nay nrot1997 55.4 be the case. Capita osts we those refctod hi te proect budget

1998 (page 24), but wil include a combiwtion of outlays for both capitl and

1999 other items. No cost were assumed hxcuwed after year five of the

2000 project, although thee would probably be some (perhps modest)2001 ongoing costs for propt mafntorn ud ealutin, ad for O0M, even

2002 if funding of the OSM pmgram coaes. Costs hI the 'Pre-Investment2003 appraisal are not isbeled, bLt ae assumed for ths eercise to be

2004 constant $1992.2005

20062007

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET E30. to 3 1. Yeay-Sy-Year Project Costs (Secondary Technology)

COSTS COSTS(Million 1992 US Dolars)

(Million 1992 US Dollars)Capial Operang capital operati & PreviousYEAR Costs Maint. Cots

YEAR Cods Mairt Costs Sheet1993199.41995

199|

Next1997e9M

Sheet20002001200220032004

200620062007

12/14/92

0


File: IPT THAI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET D2 sPrevous Sheet Next Sheet24. to 26. YEAR-BY-YEAR PROJECT OUTPUTS t ) |

Use of ~~~~~~~~~~~Use ofEkct. Prod. Heat Prod. Sondary Ebct Prod. Heat Prod. Secondaryor Savings or Savings Techrolog or Savings or Savngs Technology

YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A) YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A)1993 21994 154 Eetucity savings n year I to 5 ae assumed to be those indated on pagei 1995 468 3 dof 'Drft Report, Thabnd: Pronotion of Energy Efrciency, Pre-1996 1003 ivestment Appraisar, October 199Z 1 is unknown at this time (12 10/92)i 1997 1681 whher this figure inds eectry generation avoided due to reduction in1998 1681 Transmnssion and Distribution bsses. While figures are only given for the1998 1681 firt fie years of the program. sav s fmnm many of the DSM programs1999 1681 listed will persist for many year. In the sbtm of cod shown here, k was2000 1681 assumed th the average DSM meaure installed durn the project wiN2001 1681 continue to save energy for 10 years.2002 16812003 16812004 16552005 15272006 12132007 678

12 14/92


File: IPT THAI.XLS


2. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING IWORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORSO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGS/A1R POLLUTANTS U

I Now Using: |Energy |Un;tS

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx CO G.. Fl NMHCS Aldehyd.Comb.: Primary Fuel kgGJ O.OEV+O O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE*O O.OE+OO O.OE+O0 O.OE0

Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-1i CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Pnmary Fuel kgtGJ O.OE+00 0.0E00 O.OE+ OO O.OE.00 O.0E+00 O.OE+OO O OE+00Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJ

Secondaty Technobgy j N/A


12/14/92

GGAM Project Input SheetTHAILAND PROJECT

Fie: IPT THAI.XLS


3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-


Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Electricity

Number from Tech list Chosen GeneratedGoto I ChooseRftTech1I Gs- ired boiler, conv. Percent

Previous 2 ( (NONE) I PercentInput Choos Rol Tech 2

Sheet 3Sheet TOTAL l°°

12/14/92

oc


File: IPT THA1.XLS


4. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOW1NG INFORMATiON ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-RODUCiNG REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU W1LL BE COMPARING




Go to 1 Choose RefTch (NONE 100PerentPreviousInputSheet 2 ChooeRefTech 2 (NONE |Percent

Write Data to File. Call Go To Projectin Ref Tech Data, and Cornprison Sheet wlo TOTAL

Go To Project Calling In Ref Tech DataComparison Sheet (Exising Sheets Only)

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryTHAILAND PROJECT

Fie: CMP THA1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emnissins discounted at 10.0%/yr


PM 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.01SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.00 0.85 1.61 0.CO 0.00 0.08 0.14 00NMHC 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.


C02 1.OE-12 2.9E+2 3.3E+2 2.5E+CH4 1.OE-12 1.6E+0 2.1E+O 1.OE+N20 1 .OE-12 4.9E-2 7.3E-2 2.6E-

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 O.OE+O 7.9E+1 - 9.1E+1 6.7E+1CH4 O.OE+O 9.OE+0 1.2E+1 6.OE+N20 O.OE+O 3.9E+0 5.8E+0 2.OE+NOx O.OE+O 9.2E+0 1.8E+1- 9.4E-1CO O.OE+O 6.6E-2 1.2E-1 i.6ENMHC O.OE+O 1.3E-2 2.1E-2 5.2ETOTAL 0.OE+ 1 .0E+2 1.3E+2 7.6E+1



CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.87E + 06 S19 86Reference-High minus GEF 2.33E +06 S15.91Reference-Low minus GEF I 40E+06 S26.43

. 14/92


File: CMP THAI.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Atnative Tochnology

1.00

0.80

~0.60 UGEF

00.40 0 R0Ef-Bet

Comparison of GHG Emslsions: GEF vs.Alteralve Technoogy

1.OE +3

.OE + 2

~1.OE + E GEF

1 .OE +0 Cl Ref-Best1.OE-1

c .°E-2C02 .CH4 N20


1.2E+2

1.OE +2

8.OE + 1 - ' G

6.OE + 1ERfBs4.OE +I

2.OE+ 11 0O0E+0L-

z-

12/14/92

C


FUe: CMP THA1.XLS

RoduCdonS in GHG Emissions

m GEF

minus GEF P_

mk%w GEF

O.OOE+ 5.OOE+ i.OOE+ 1.SOE+ 2.OOE+ 2.50E+00 05 06 06 06 06


NPV Coat of Reduclon

GEF

mhu GEF _ _ _ _ _ _ _

$0.00 $5.00 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.00 0 0 0 0

1992 S US pr T Carbon Equiv.

1 '14/92


Fie: CMP_THAI .XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions diseounted at 3.0%/yr


PM 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.01SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.ONOx 0.00 1.33 2.52 0.1CO 0.00 0.13 0.22 0.0NMHC 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00


C02 1.OE-12 4.5E+2 5.2E+2 3.9E+ 2jCH4 1.OE-12 2.5E+0 3.3E+0 1.6E+ 0CN20 1.OE-12 7.7E-2 1.1E-1 4.OE-21



C02 0.OE+0 12E+2 -1.4E+2 1.1E+CH4 0.OE+0 1.4E+1 1.9E+1 9.4E+N20 0.OE+0 6.1E+0 9.1E+0 3.2E+NOx 0.OE+O 1.4E+ 1 2.8E+1 1.5E+CO 0.OE+0 1.OE-1 1.8E-1 2.5E-NMHC 0.OE+0 2.1E-2 3.3E-2 8.2ETOTAL 0.0E+0 1.6E+2 2.OE+2 1.2E+



CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 2.93E + 06 /12.65Reference-High minus GEF 3 66E +06 S10.13Reference-Low minus GEF 2.20E +06 S16.84

1 -|4/92

GGAM Project Compalson SummaryTHAILAND PROJECT

Fie: CMP THA1.XLS

Conparison of Emlnasons: GEF Project vs.Altemtve Technology

1.401.20

k .0 F]GEF0o.60

0.40 0RlBa0.20

Compweon of EmlnC E ulv.ons: GEF vs.Afterntive Technology

1.OE +3

1 OE+2

12E+ IGEF

1.0E+1 n Rf-BestIOE-1 jjIO0E-2 - -

C02 CH44 N20

Comparison of Emdisaons In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Nfternative Technology

1.GE + 21.4E2 .1.2E+2I 1.E.2 EGEF8.OE +

- 6.OE. + Ref-Seat4.OE +

0.OE +0 -

12/14/92

CIl


Fie: CMP THA1.XLS

Reducaon In GHG Emislons

mhu GEF

minus GEF

iygwui GEF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O.OOE+OO 1 .OOE+06 2.OOE+06 3.OOE+06 4.OOE+06



F 4L_fihnus GEF

m.a GEF

mi GEF

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00


'2 14/92

0f6


Fie: CMP THAI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.01SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0(NOx 0.00 1.67 3.17 0.1CO 0.00 0.16 0.28 0.04NMHC 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.0(


C02 1.OE-12 b 5.7E+2 6.6E+2 4.8E+2CH4 1.OE-12 3.1E+0 4.1E+0 2.1E+N20 1.OE-12 9.7E-2 1.4E-1 5.1E-:

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yrEmissions In to C. *q./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 0.OE+.0 _..6E.2 _ ,1.8E+2 1.3E+2CH4 0.0E+0 '4.8E+ 1 2.4E+1 1.2E+1N20 0.0E+0 7.7E+0 1.1E+1 4.OE+NOx 0.0E+0 1.8E+1 3.SE+1 1.9E+CCO 0.0E+0 1.3E-1 2.3E-1 3.2E-NMHC 0.0E+0 2.6E-2 4.2E-2 1.OE-2TOTAL 0.0E+0 2.OE+2 2.5E+2 1.5E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions dlsountod at 0o.%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of


CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 3.68E + 06 210.07Reference-High minus GEf 4.60E +06 S8.07Reference-Low minus GEF 2.77E +06 S13.40 _

12/14/92


fle: CMP THA1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alternative Technology

2.00

1.501 1<° >~70.50 El ~~~~~~~Ref-Sest

I ~ ~~~~~~~~ If Ff § Q I 0.00 '

Comparison of GHG Emnsalons: GEF vs.Altrnative Technology

1 .OE + 3

1 .OE +2.F

1. O ° U GEF

+0 E +El Ref-Best

1.OE2

C02 CH4 N420

Comparison of Enissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

2.OE.2

1.5E 2

UGEF

El Ref-Best50E+1

O OE .0 - __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

12/14/92

O/


File: CMP THA1.XLS

Roductlon In GHG Emissions

mnsGEFPffhnu

m*un GEF

m nu GEF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O.OOE+ 1.OOE+ 2.00E+ 3.00E+ 4.OOE+ 5.00E+00 06 06 06 06 06


NPV Cost of Reduc-I1n

F_n"m GEF

mnus GEF

"WK GEF

$o.00 $5.0 $10.00 S15.00


12/14/92

0 (


Fie: CMP_THAI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS EmAssions discounted at -3.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.02SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.NOx 0.00 2.15 4.08 0.22CO 0.00 0.20 0.36 0.05NMHC 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00


C02 1.OE-12 7.3E+2 8.4E+2 6.2E+2CH4 1.OE-12 4.OE+0 5.3E+O 2.6E+ON20 1.OE-12 1.3E-1 1.9E-1 6 5E-2

CARBON EQUlIALENT UNITS Emissions discounted et -3.0%/yr


C02 O.OE+ 0 2.OE+2 2.3E+2 1.7E+2CH4 0.OE+0 2.3E+1 3.OE+1 1.5E+1N20 O.OE+O 9.9E+0 1.5E+1 5.1E+NOx 0.OE+0 2.3E+1 4.4E+ 1 2.4E+CO O.OE+O 1.7E-1 2.9E-1 4.1E-_NMHC 0.OE+0 3.3E-2 5.3E-2 1.3E-TOTAL 0.OE+0 2.6E + 2 3.2E +2 1.9E +

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of


CASE (T C Equiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 4.74E + 06 27.83Reference-High minus GEF 5.92E +06 S6.27Reference-Low minus GEF 3.56E +06 S10.41 _

12/14/92|

0 2.t


FHe: CMP THAI.XLS

Comparlson of Emissions: GEF Project vs.AhtwrnaUve Technology

2.50

2.00

I1.S0 GEF

1.00 RfBa

0.0 I I

Comparison of GHG Eml"ions: GEF vs.AternaUve Technology

1.OE+ 3

1.OE 2

-Y 1.OE + E GEF

1 .OE +0 ~RfBa1.OE-I

1.OE-2 -

C02 CH4 N20

Comparlon of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

3.0E+2 2

2.SE + 2

~~ 2OE+2- E~ ~~GEFI 1.5E+2

~i1.OE +2j Ref-Best

50E+1 -

0.OE+0C - ' ° C I ;4

:.4/92


Fie: CMP_THA1.XLS

Reductlon in GHG Embsloins

minus GEFFP.s.nce4lgh

minus GEF

minus GEF

O.OOE 1.00E 2.00E 3.00E 4.QOE 5.00E 6.00E+00 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06

Tonnes Carbon Equv.


mhu,n GEF

minus GEF

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.0 $12.00 0

1992 S US pwr T Carbon Equhv.

12/14/92

CONCLE S.XLS

REFERENCE TECHNOLOGY DATA SUMMARY

Convenronal Coal (Eastern US-type)Stamn-BoIer-Eh.tcty Genraition

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best HIgh Low

AIR POLLUTANTSPariculates T/GWHe 1.30E01 2.88E + 01 4.63E-02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHF 2.5OE+00 4.95E+01 4.63E401Oxides of Nrtrogen T/GWHe 2.50E+0O 5.94E+01 6.10E41Cubon Monoxide T/GWHe 2.00E-01 1.28E+00 3.OOE-02Gaseous orides T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 QO E + 00 0.O E + 00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 6.00E-02 5.94E-02 5.96E03Aidehydes T/GWHe O.OOE +00 0.OOE + 00 O.OOE + 00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 1 .00E + 03 1.05E+03 8.95E + 02Methane T/GWHe 1.00E-02 7.78E-03 6.12E43Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 9.00E02 1.48E-01 8.53E-02CFC-i1 T/GWHe O.OOE + 00 O.OOE + 00 O.OOE + ODCFC-12 T/GWHF O.OOE+oo O.OOE+00 O.OOE.00CFC-113 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe O.ODE+oo O.OOE +00 0.OOE+00O

NOTES:Best values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specited in

detailed data compilation.


DISGST_S.XLS


DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED COMBUSTIONTURBINE-ELECTRICITY GENERATION

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High Low

AiR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 2.OE-01 2.08E41 1.52E-01Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 1.OOE+00 2.34E+00 2.54E-01Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 1.SOE+00 2.83E+00 7.37E01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 5.OOE-O1 6.41E01 1.12E-01Gaseous Florides T/GWHe O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OmE+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 1.70E41 1.97E-01 1.44E401Aldehydes T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 9.OOE+02 9.50E+02 8.21E+02Methane T/GWHe 1.OOE-02 1.90E02 8.91E-03Nitrous Oxide T/GWHF 1.80E-01 1.79E-01 1.79E-01CFC-1I T/GWHe M.O0E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00CFC-i 13 T/GWHe 0.OOE + 00 0.00E + 00 0.001E+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.O0E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.001E+00

NOTES:'Best values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


cz

DISTIC_S.XLS


Disdllate Oli-fired InternalCombustion Engine, Elect Generation

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High LoW

AJR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 1.56E + 00 1.56E+00 1.56E + 00Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 1.46E+00 1.46E+00 1.46E+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 2.19E+01 2.19E+01 2.19E+01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 4.74E+00 4.74E+00 4.74E+00Gaseous Fodes T/GWHs 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 1.50E+00 1.50E+00 1.50E+00AJd.hydes T/GWHOe 0.OE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 1.06E+03 1.06E+03 1.06E+ 03Methane T/GWHe 0.WE0+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 0.O0E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00CFC-11 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00HCFC-22 T/GWHie 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+ 00

NOTES:*Best values are avrages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


CONGAS S.XLS


Conventonal Gas (Stam Boiler)Electrlctty Generation

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High Lw

AIR POLLUTANTSPartictulates T/GWHF 7.38E-02 1.33E-01 11.49E6O=Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHF 2.07E-03 3.25E-03 8.85E-04Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 1.67E+00 3.17E+00 1.70E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 1.59E-01 Z79E-01 3.90E-02Gaseous Florides T/GWHb 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHF 8.63E-03 1.38E-02 342E-03Aldehydes T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+ 00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 5.70E+02 6.56E+02 4.84E+02Methane T/GWHe 2.64E-03 4.08E-03 1.20E-03Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 9.73E-02 1.44E-01 5.06E-02CFC-1I T/GWFb 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.OOE +00 0.00E +00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.00E +00 0.OOE + 00 0.00E +00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.OOE +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

NOTES:'Best valuet are averages of high and low values unles otherwise specifed indetailed data oompdation.


GEOTHD_S.XLS


Eketricty Generation: Geothermal: Dry Steam

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS est High LOW

AMR POLLUTANTSPartculates T/GWHe 2.17E-02 2.17E-02 2.17E-02Oxides of SulHur T/GWHe 0.00E+0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Gaseous Florides T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHF 3.97E-02 3.97E-02 3.97E502Aldehydes T/GWHe 0.OOE +00 0.00E+ 00 0.0DE+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 4.12E+01 5.68E+01 2.57E+01Methane T/GWHo 2.17E.02 2.17E-02 2.17E-02Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00CFC-11 T/GWHe)E 0.00E+00 0.0E+00 0.00E+00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.00E+ 00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 .0E + 00

NOTES:Best values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specfited in



GEOTHH_S.XLS


Electricty Gneratlon: Geothermal: Hydrothermal

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High LOw

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHF S.34E-02 5.34E-02 5.34E02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 3.51E-01 5.67E-01 1.36E01Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWH. O.OOE00E O.OOE+OD O.OOE+00Carbon Monoxide T/GWH* O.OOE+O00 QOOE+O00 OOOE+00Gaseous Florid.s T/GWH O.OO 0.E+00 0.WE+00 O.00E+WNon-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 6.04E-02 6.04E-02 6.04E-02Aldehydes T/GWHe O.OOE +W O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWH. 9.48E+01 t8E+02 1 35E +WMethane T/GWHF 6.99E+00 1.36E+01 3.54E101Nitrous Oxide T/GWHo O.OOE+OD O.WOE+00 O.OWE+00CFC-1 1 T/GWHe O.W0E+00 O.OOE +W 0.WOE+00CFC-12 T/GWHe O.ODE +W O.OE +W O.OOE+00CFC-113 T/GWHe O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE+O O.OOE +WHCFC-22 T/GWHe O.OE + 00 O.OOE + 00 O.OOE + O

NOTES:'6est values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified Indetailed data compilation.


HYDROL_S.XLS


HYDROELECTRICLARGE

DATA RANGE


AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe O.OOEE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE*00Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe O.OOE+00 .OOE+ 00 .OOE +00Carbon Monoxide T/GWFbe O.oE+00 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00Gaseous Florides T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHS O.COE+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00Aldehydes T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWbe 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+0DMethane T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.ODE+00Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00CFC-11 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE +00CFC-12 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00CFC-1 13 T/GWHe O.OOE +00 O.OOE +00 O.ODE +00HCFC-22 T/GWHF O.OOE +00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE +00

NOTES:'Best values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data oornpilation.


G&f-

CONOIL_S.XLS


Convendonal Oil SteamElcricIty Generadton

DATA RANGE


AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GW-S 4.00E-02 4.95E+00 2.28E-02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 6.50E+00 1.46E+02 2.63E-01Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 2.20E+00 6.53E+ O1 1.47E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 1.50E-01 1.66E-01 3.OOE-02Gaseous Florides T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OONon-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWWHe 2.00E01 2.53E-01 O.OOE+OOAldehydes T/GWH O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 8.00E+02 8.28E+02 7.26E+02Methane T/GWHe 1 .OOE-02 8.04E-03 7.61 E-03Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 1.50E01 1.58E-01 3.32E-02CFC-11 T/GWHe O.OOE+OO ODODE+OO O.OOE+OOCFC-12 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE +00 O.OOE +00CFC-1 13 T/GWH O.OOEO+ W O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE+O0 O.OOE + 00



SOLRPV_S.XLS


Solar Photovosaic PaneIsIncluding Manufacturing Impacts

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High LoW

AiR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHF 2.OOE-02 3.60E+00 1.54E-02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 2.OOE-02 3.49E41 8.64E-03Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 1.00E-02 6.48E402 1.22E-03Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 3.00E-01 3.46E +00 1.69E-04Gaseous Florides T/GWHe 3.67E02 6.48E02 8.64E-03Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 1.81E-03 1.81E403 1.81E-3Aldehydes T/GWHe 0.OOE+O0 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 5.00E+00 0.O0E+00 0.OE+00Methane T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.OOE + 00 0.OOE + 00Nitrous Oxide T/GWH* 0.OOE +00 0.00E +00 0.OOE+00CFC-11 T/GWHe .OOEE+00 0.00E + 00 0.OOE + 00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.O0E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.00E + 00 0.OOE + 00 O.00E + 00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E + 00



WIND_S.XLS


WIND ELECTRICIncluding Manufacturing Impacta

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS B"t Hlgh Low

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 3.OOE-01 6.12E-01 2.OOE-03Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 1.00E02 2.9E-02 8.64E04Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 1.SOE-02 3.00E-02 8.64E406Carbon Monoxide T/GWHb 1.00E +00 3.60E+00 3.46E401Gaseous Florides T/GWH-I- 5.OOE03 7.20E403 8.64E.04Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHF O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00Aldehydes T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHF 7.40E+00 4.84E+02 1.10E+01Methane T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00Nitrous Oxide T/GWHF O.OOE+00 O.OOE+OD 0.00E+00CFC-11 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.ODE+00 O.OOE+00CFC-12 T/GWHF O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 O.OOE +00HCFC-22 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 0.00E +00 M.ODE +00

NOTES:'Best values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data oompilation.


BLAGWS S.XLS


Conventional Agricultural Waste (Bagasse) SteamIndustrial Boller

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best Hbgh Low

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 5.16E+00 5.16E+00 5.16E+00Oxides of Sulfur T/GWI-e 0.00E+00 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 5.01E-01 6.14E-01 3.87E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 6.26E+00 1.19E+01 6.45E-01Gaseous Florides T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE +00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 5.41E-01 5.41E-01 5.41 E-01Aldehydes T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 5.45E+02 5.45E+02 5.45E+02Methane T/GWHe 9.70E-02 1.04E-01 9.01E-02NitrouOxide T/GWHe 9.01E-02 9.01E-02 9.01E.02CFC-1 I T/GWHe 0.OOE+ 00 0.OOE +00 0.OOE +00CFC-i2 T/GWHe 0.00E + 00 0.OOE + 00 0.OOE + 00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.00E + 00 O.OOE+00 0.00E + 00

NOTES:'Best values re averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


a /;2BLCCL S.XLS


Conv.ndonal Coal SteamIndustrial Boiler

DATA RANGE


AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHth 2.38E+00 4.61E+00 1.54E-01Oxides of Sulfur T/GWfth 5.65E+00 1.02E+01 1.OTE+OOOxides of Nitrogen T/GWHth 1.57E+00 2.84E+00 2.95E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWtHth 4.07E-01 7.68E01 4.61 E02Gaeous Florides T/GWHth O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OONon-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHth 4.45E-02 8.89E-02 O.OOE+OOAldehydes T/GWHIth O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHth 4.16E+02 4.16E+02 4.16E+02Methane T/GWHth 6.86E.03 1.09E-02 2.84E-03Nitrous Oxide T/GWHth 1.54E-02 1.54E-02 1.54E-02CFC-1I T/GWHith, O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OOCFC-12 T/GWHth O.OOE+ 0 O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE+OOCFC-113 T/GWHth O.OOE+ 0 O.OOE +00 O.OOE+OOHCFC-22 T/GWUrHh O.OOE+OO O.OOE + 00 O.OOE+OO

NOTES:'Best' values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


BLCOIL_S.XLS 7


Conventonal Distillate Oil SteamIndustrbl oiler

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High LOw

AIR POLLUTANTSPartkculats T/GWFbH 2.81 E02 9.84E-02 2.81 E-02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 7.96E-01 8.45E401 7.96E-01Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHF 2.60E-01 2.81E-01 2.38E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHF 6.63E-02 7.03E-02 6.23E-02Gaseous Florides T/GW-H O.OOE+00 O.ODE+00 O.OOE+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 1.90E-03 1.90E.03 1.90E-03AJdehydes T/GWHs O.OOE +00 O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHn 3.12E+02 3.12E+02 3.12E+02Methane T/GWHe 9.00E-04 9.11E-04 8.89E.04Nitrous Oxide T/GWHF 1.29E-02 1 2E-02 1.29E-02CFC-11 T/GWFb O..OOE+00 0.OOE.00 O.OOE+00CFC-12 T/GWHs O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00CFC-113 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE + 00 O.OOE + 00HCFC-22 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00

NOTES:'Best values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified in



c ,y

BLGAS_S.XLS


Conventional Natural Gas SteamIndustrial Boilor

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNri Best High LoW

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 2.38E+00 4.61E+00 1.54E-01Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 5.65E+00 1.02E+01 1.07E+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWH* 1.57E+00 2.84E+00 2.95E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHS 4.07E-01 7.68E-01 4.61 E-02Gaseous Florides T/GWHF 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 4.45E-02 8.89E-02 0.00E+00AJdehydss T/GWHe 0.OOE + 00 0.OOE + 00 0.00E+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 4.16E+02 4.16E+02 4.16E+02Methane T/GWHF 6.86E-03 1.09E-02 2.84E-03Nitrous Oxide T/GWHs 1.54E-02 1.54E-02 1.54E-02CFC-11 T/GWHF 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00CFC-12 T/GWHF 0.00E+ 0 0 00E + 00 0.00E +00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00

NOTES:'Best' values ase averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


c Is

BLROIL S.XLS


Conventional Residual Oil SteamIndustrial Boiler

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Beat High Low

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 8.48E02 9.25E-02 7.72E-02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 4.10E+00 4.10E+00 4.10E+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 4.08E-01 6.81E401 1.36E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 5.98E-02 6.23E02 5.74E-02Gaseous Florides T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 3.67E-03 3.67E403 3.67E-03Aldehydes T/GWH-e 0.OE + 00 0.00E + 00 0.OOE + 00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 3.12E+02 3.12E+02 3.12E+02Methane T/GWHe 1 25E02 1 .25E-02 1 .25E-02Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 1.29E-02 1.29E-02 1.29E-02CFC-1 1 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.00E + 00 O.OOE + 00 O.OOE + 00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.OOE + 00 0.O0E + 00 0.OOE + 00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.00E + 00 O.OOE + 00 0 O0E + 00

NOTES:Best' values are averages of high ard low values unless otherwise specified in

detailed data oompilation.


I

i

i

Greenhouse Gas Assessment Methodologydocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/234661468778782913/... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Greenhouse Gas Assessment Methodologydocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/234661468778782913/... ·...