PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 1
CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)
Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006
CONTENTS
A.
General description of project activity
B.
Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology
C.
Duration of the project activity / crediting period
D.
Environmental impacts
E.
Stakeholders’ comments
Annexes
Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: Baseline information
Annex 4: Monitoring plan
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 2
SECTION A. General description of project activity
A.1.
Title of the project activity:
Title of project activity: ES Bio Energy Wastewater Treatment and Energy Generation Project at
Srakaew, PDD Version 1, December 14, 2008
A.2.
Description of the project activity:
1. Purpose of the project activity, reduction of greenhouse gases
ES Bio Energy Co., Ltd.(ESB) is planning a wastewater treatment system to operate for treating
wastewater from ES Power’s Ethanol factory in Srakaew province in the Eastern part of Thailand.
Instead of implementing an open lagoon, which would emit methane gas directly into the atmosphere, the
proposed project intends to install a treatment system called anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR), which will
digest most organic matter in the wastewater, thus dramatically reducing the amount of COD in the
treated water. The project’s purpose is to prevent the release of methane into the atmosphere by capturing
the produced biogas for utilization. The captured biogas will be used to generate steam in boilers, thus
substituting heavy oil consumption and further reducing emissions. Therefore, the project will contribute
to an environmentally and socially sustainable development of ethanol production at Eastern Sugar Power
Co., Ltd. (ESP).
2. The review of project participants of the contribution of the project activity to sustainable
development
The proposed project is expected to activate sustainable development on the local, regional and national
scale in several regards:
Impacts prevention on the local and regional level
-
-
-
Usually the implementation of open lagoons to treat wastewater from ethanol factory creates an
offensive smell and emits a lot of methane, Green House Gas, into the atmosphere. Applying
digester or close system could capture produced biogas from wastewater, therefore, minimizing
odor problem and Green House Gas emission. This could help improving the working standard of
factory worker, employee, and the living standard of surrounding people.
The efficiency of digester is higher and operate more stable compare to an ordinary open lagoon.
The contamination in wastewater from production process using cassava could be reduced to
meet the Thai industrial effluent standard. This after treated wastewater will be reused in the
production process; therefore, there will be less amount of the water consumption for production
process. In another line, the after treated wastewater from Molasses feedstock will be used for
irrigation purpose, thus, will not contribute to an additional smell or harmful discharge to open
water bodies.
The captured biogas from digester will be utilized as an alternative fuel substituting approx. 7,590
tons of heavy oil to generate heat in boilers for the production process every year. The emission
of local air pollutant from fuel burning will, therefore, be reduced.
The treated sludge will be reused in the digester to enhance treatment efficiency of the system.
The construction, operation and maintenance of the digester system will create additional
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 3
employment opportunities. More jobs (technicians, laborers) will be created compare with the
open pond system.
Impacts on the national level
-
Implementing a modern technology and produce biogas to substitute the use of heavy oil could
help reduce the dependency on fossil fuel and reduce the needs of this fuel imports.
The project activity serves the industrial pollution prevention scheme of the government
1
according to the 10th National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) 2007 - 2011 .
The NESDP focuses, amongst others, on the promotion on renewable energy, improving energy
conservation, fighting air pollution and promoting eco-efficiency of the agro-industry of
Thailand.
On the global level,
The project activity reduces emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily of methane.
Sustainable development screen
According to requirements of the Gold Standard Version 2, the project activity must be assessed against a
matrix of sustainable development indicators. The contribution of the proposed project activity to the
sustainable development of the country is based on indicators for the broad components of local/global
environmental sustainability, social sustainability and development and economic and technological
development.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the sustainable development screen. The total indicator score of +5
reflects the positive anticipations of involved stakeholders. More comprehensive information on the
results of the sustainable development screen, as well as the stakeholder consultations can be found in
Annexes 5-6 of this document.
Table 1: Evaluation of the project activity based on sustainable development indicators
Component
Indicators (example)
Local/regional/global environment
Water quality and quantity
Air quality (emissions other than GHGs)
Other pollutants: (including, where relevant, toxicity, radioactivity,
POPs, stratospheric ozone layer depleting gases)
Soil condition (quality and quantity)
Biodiversity (species and habitat conservation)
Sub total
1
Score –2 to +2
0
+1
0
+1
0
+2
The National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) 2007 - 2011, National Economic and Social
Development Board (NESDB), Office of the Prime Minister, Bangkok 2007
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 4
Social sustainability and development
Employment (including job quality, fulfilment of labour standards)
Livelihood of the poor (including poverty alleviation, distributional
equity, and access to essential services)
Access to energy services
Human and institutional capacity (including empowerment, education,
involvement, gender)
Sub total
Economic and technological development
Employment (numbers)
Balance of payments (sustainability)
Technological self reliance (including project replicability, hard
currency liability, skills development, institutional capacity,
technology transfer)
Sub total
+1
0
0
0
+1
+1
+1
0
+2
+5
TOTAL
Remarks on Table 1:
-2: Major negative impacts, i.e. where there is significant damage to ecological, social and/or
economic systems that cannot be mitigated through preventive (not remedial) measures.
-1: Very minor negative impacts, i.e. where there is a measurable impact but not one that is
considered by stakeholders to mitigate against the implementation of the project activity or
cause significant damage to ecological, social and/or economic systems.
0: No, or negligible impacts, i.e. there is no impact or the impact is considered insignificant by
stakeholders.
+1: Minor positive impacts
+2: Major positive impacts
The overall timeline of project implementations will be as follows:
Item
Description
Date
1
August 2007
3
4
5
Advisory Services to Eastern Sugar Co., Ltd. referring
CDM in future Ethanol factory on Greenfield (several
meetings)
Date of Board of Directors’ Meeting to venture into
CDM projects
Proposal from CDM Consultant
Date of signing Agreement with ES Bioenergy
Initial Stakeholder meeting
6
7
Second Stakeholder Meeting
Global stakeholder hearing
2
Sept. 15, 2007
October 4, 2007
June 6, 2008
September 16,
2008
October 16, 2008
-
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 5
8
9
10
11
12
A.3.
On site validation of PDD
Date of signing ERPA with the buyer
Date for start of construction at site
Date of expected commissioning
Date of commercial operation
-
Project participants:
Name of Party involved (*)
((host) indicates a host Party)
Private and/or public entity(ies)
project participants (*)
(as applicable)
Private entity:
Thailand (host)
ES Bioenergy Co., Ltd.
78 Soi Kaptain Bush, New Road, Kwang
Bangrak, Khet Bangrak, Bangkok 10500
Kindly indicate if the Party involved
wishes to be considered as project
participant
(Yes/No)
No
Thailand has ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 28/08/02
A.4.
Technical description of the project activity:
A.4.1. Location of the project activity:
A.4.1.1.
Host Party(ies):
A.4.1.2.
Region/State/Province etc.:
Thailand
Srakaew province
A.4.1.3.
City/Town/Community etc.:
Tambon Huajoad, Amphur Watthananakorn
A.4.1.4.
Details of physical location, including information allowing the
unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):
The project site is located at Latitude 13.47° N and Longitude 102.11° E near highway number 33,
approximately 236 km east of Bangkok in Srakaew province.
The complete address is as follows:
279 Moo 1 Suwannasorn Road., Huayjoad, Watthananakorn, Srakaew, Thailand 27160
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 6
Tel: 037-262233, 037-262244
Fax: 037-262242
33
Figure 1: Plant location in Thailand
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 7
A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:
The project belongs to category 13: Waste handling and disposal as listed in the sectoral scopes for
accreditation of operational entities. (http://cdm.unfccc.int/DOE/scopes.html#13)
According to Gold Standard, the project activity is part of category A.1 Renewable Energy (Electricity,
Heat) with the subcategory A.1.1.2 Biogas from waste water treatment projects. The project activity does
not use Genetically Modified Organisms.
A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:
The project’s wastewater treatment system will consist of two anaerobic digesters of the type “anaerobic
baffled reactor (ABR)” which was first developed in New Zealand by Waste Solutions Ltd. With this
system the wastewater enters the ABR tank through the inlet structure, which directs the flow to the
bottom of the first compartment. Due to the nature of wastewater under anaerobic conditions, a granulated
sludge blanket is formed. As the wastewater flows up through the sludge blanket, the solids are trapped in
the granulated sludge blanket where anaerobic bacteria consume the organics as food. The result is that a
partially clarified effluent flows up over the baffle to the next compartment where the same action is
performed. In each subsequent compartment, the effluent is clarified further until the final compartment in
which the anaerobic effluent is relatively free of suspended solids and the BOD level is greatly reduced.
Figure 2: Simplified layout of an anaerobic baffled reactor (Source: UNEP Train-Sea-Coast GPA)
This ABR system will be adapted to specifically enhance the treatment efficiency of the wastewater from
ESP ethanol factory. Thus it will be unique from other ABR systems. The produced biogas will be
captured and conveyed via a pipe system from the digester to the boiler to generate steam for the ethanol
production process. A flare will be installed as well. If at any time the produced biogas exceeds the
demand, it will be flared.
The ethanol production will utilize Cassava and Molasses as feedstock.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 8
Cassava will be used as raw material for 7 months (210 days), with an approximate wastewater volume of
1,200 m3/day with 50,000 mg COD/l. The wastewater will be treated in an anaerobic baffled reactor
(reactor #1) with a 90% COD reduction efficiency. After the reactor, the wastewater will undergo
secondary treatment in a Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) and tertiary treatment (reverse osmosis). The
SBR consists of an aeration chamber with coarse bubble diffusers designed to impart dissolved oxygen to
the effluent prior to discharge. The SBR is controlled by a process logic controller (PLC) that first
aerates, then settles the wastewater under quiescent conditions, and finally discharges the supernatant to
the media filtration system. The discharge structure is at a preset level and connected to a lamella
clarifier, which is a settling tank with inclined plates to further reduce suspended solids. A blower is used
to deliver atmospheric oxygen under pressure through the network of diffusers placed at the bottom of the
aeration tank.
With the SBR system, the wastewater will have less than 200 mg COD/l and the treated water after the
reverse osmosis system (with less than 15 mg COD/l) will be reused in the ethanol production process.
The sludge from the aerobic treatment will be pumped back into the mixing tank and thus recycled into
the treatment system, with no sludge being removed.
Molasses will be used as a feedstock for 4 months (120 days), with an approximate wastewater volume of
1,000 m3/day with 180,000 mg COD /l. An additional storage lagoon will be used to store some of the
molasses wastewater and gradually release it to the reactor throughout the 210 days of cassava operation.
However the two wastewater streams will remain completely separate, each treated in its own reactor. The
wastewater will be treated in an anaerobic baffled reactor (reactor #2) as well, with a 70% COD reduction
efficiency. Due to its significant remaining COD content, the treated water will be mixed with filter cake
from the nearby sugar mill and lied out to dry for 45-60 days in a thin layer (thus the process is aerobic
and will produce no methane emissions). The dried mixture will be distributed to local farmers as organic
fertilizer thereafter.
The biogas from the two ABRs will be captured and used as fuel to generate steam in boilers. Two fuel
oil / bio-gas dual fuel boilers (fired tube) with an efficiency of about 89% will be used, so that fuel oil can
be used in case of unexpected outages of the biogas system. Excess biogass will be combusted in an open
flare.
Table 2: Wastewater characteristics
Parameter
COD (mg/l)
BOD (mg/l)
pH
Temperature (°C)
Days of operation/yr
COD removal efficiency
Cassava
2,100
50,000
4
Approx. 82
210
90 2 %
Molasses
1,000
180,000
4
Approx. 82
120
70%
2
Total organic material removal ratio of the lagoon at Korat Waste to Energy project was measured at 87.88%.
The project applies a similar technology to treat ethanol wastewater from cassava feedstock. Cited in: PDD, Korat
Waste To Energy Project. http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/8KIIP4K8B7CKT5X4RKAKZ4EVB8RKI
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 9
Figure 3: Aerial view of ESP factory and surrounding area in 2006, including 25 rais of ESB project area
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 10
Figure 4: Process layout of ESB wastewater treatment system
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 11
A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:
Year
Annual estimation of emission
reductions in tonnes of CO2e
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
Total estimated reductions
(tonnes of CO2e)
920,177
Total number of crediting
years
10
Annual average over the
crediting period of estimated
reductions (tonnes of CO2e)
92,018
A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:
Through the Ministry of Energy, ES Bioenergy applied for a loan from Krung Thai Bank of 50 million
THB with the condition of maximum interest at 4%. The rest of the investment will be realized by
shareholder loaning. No loans from international financial institutions (IFIs) are included.
SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology
B.1.
Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the
project activity:
ACM0014 – “Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from treatment of industrial wastewater” (Version
02.1 adopted at EB39)
Tools used:
- Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (version 5)
- Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane (EB Meeting Report 28,
Annex 13)
- Tool to estimate the baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption (version
01)
- Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 01)
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 12
B.2.
Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project
activity:
From the scenarios ACM0014 is applicable to, the proposed project falls under scenario 1:
Table 3: Scenario applicable to the project
Scenario
1
Description of the
baseline situation
The wastewater is not treated, but
directed to open lagoons that have
clearly anaerobic conditions.
Description of the project activity
The wastewater is treated in a new anaerobic
digester. The biogas extracted from the anaerobic
digester is flared and / or used to generate electricity
and / or heat. The residual from the anaerobic
digester after treatment is directed to open lagoons or
is treated under clearly aerobic conditions (e.g.
dewatering and land application).
The baseline situation description applies to the project because:
- As demonstrated in section B.4, anaerobic open ponds are the most likely scenario for the wastewater
treatment in absence of the CDM project activity.
The project activity description applies to the project because:
- The project activity consists of installing an anaerobic digester to treat the wastewater from the
Ethanol plant.
- The collected biogas will be used to generate steam in boilers. Excess biogas will be flared in an open
flare.
Further applicability conditions laid out in ACM0014 are fulfilled by the project activity as detailed
below:
Table 4: Applicability conditions for scenario 1 of ACM0014
Applicability condition
The average depth of the open lagoons or
sludge pits in the baseline scenario is at
least 1 m.
Heat and electricity requirements per unit
input of the water treatment facility remain
largely unchanged in the baseline scenario
and the project activity.
Data requirements as laid out in this
methodology are fulfilled.
The residence time of the organic matter in
the open lagoon system should be at least
30 days.
Local regulations do not prevent discharge
of wastewater in open lagoons.
Project case
The selected baseline scenario has an
average lagoon depth of 6 m.
Heat requirements remain unchanged.
Required electricity does not change at a
substantial amount (for details refer to
section B.6.)
Refer to the appropriate sections of this
PDD.
The residence time in the selected baseline
scenario exceeds 30 days.
In accordance with the Enhancement and
Conservation of National Environmental
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 13
Quality Act of 1992 3 , discharge of
wastewater to open lagoons is permitted. It
is the most common way of treating
industrial wastewater in Thailand.
B.3.
Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary:
The physical project boundary includes the emission sources and greenhouse gases as detailed in Table 5
below. Refer to
3
http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/en_reg_envi.html
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 14
Figure 4 above for an overview of the project boundary.
Table 5: Sources and gases included in the project boundary
Baseline
Source
Wastewater
treatment
processes or
sludge
disposal
Gas
CH4
N2O
Included
Excluded
CO2
Excluded
CO2 emissions from the decomposition of organic waste
are not accounted for.
CO2
Excluded
Excluded as the baseline open lagoon system has an
insignificant electricity demand. This is conservative.
Electricity
consumption /
CH4
generation
N2O
Excluded
Excluded
Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.
Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.
CO2
Included
CH4
N2O
Excluded
Excluded
Thermal energy generation is included in the project
activity.
Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.
Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.
CH4
Included
The treatment of wastewater / sludge under the project
activity causes different emissions:
(i) Methane emissions from the lagoons;
(ii) Physical leakage of methane from the digester
system;
(iii) Methane emissions from flaring;
CO2
Excluded
CO2 emissions from the decomposition of organic waste
are not accounted for
N2O
Included
CO2
Included
On-site
CH4
electricity use
N2O
Excluded
CO2
Excluded
In case of projects that involve land application of
sludge: although no land application of sludge is
expected, it will be accounted for in case it does arise.
Some additional electricity will be consumed from the
grid due to the project activity.
Excluded for simplification. This emission source is
assumed to be very small.
Excluded for simplification. This emission source is
assumed to be very small.
No fossil fuel consumption by the project.
CH4
Excluded
No fossil fuel consumption by the project.
N2O
Excluded
No fossil fuel consumption by the project.
Thermal
energy
generation
Project Activity
Wastewater
treatment
processes or
sludge
treatment
process
On-site fossil
fuel
consumption
Excluded
Justification / Explanation
The major source of emissions in the baseline
Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 15
B.4.
Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified
baseline scenario:
The baseline scenario is determined according to the four steps laid out in ACM0014.
Step 1: Identification of alternative scenarios
The following are the identified realistic and credible alternatives for the treatment of the wastewater:
W1. The use of open lagoons for the treatment of the wastewater;
W2. Direct release of wastewaters to a nearby water body;
W3. Aerobic wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., activated sludge or filter bed type treatment);
W4. Anaerobic digester with methane recovery and flaring;
W5. Anaerobic digester with methane recovery and utilization for electricity or heat generation (the
proposed project activity without registration as a CDM project).
As the proposed project activity is a Greenfield project, the W1 scenario was developed by according to
the steps given in ACM0014. Details on this process and the resulting open lagoon design can be found in
Annex 3.
As the project includes heat generation for on-site usage, realistic and credible alternatives for heat
generation are identified as follows:
H1. Co-generation of heat using fossil fuels in a captive cogeneration power plant;
H2. Heat generation using fossil fuels in a boiler;
H3. Heat generation using renewable sources.
Step 2: Eliminate alternatives that are not complying with applicable laws and regulations
Regulations in Thailand prohibit the direct discharge of untreated wastewater into water bodies such as
rivers and lakes, primarily through the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental
Quality Act of 1992. Therefore, alternative W2 is not in compliance with local laws and regulations and
is not further considered.
Open lagoons, aerobic treatment and anaerobic digesters are in compliance with host country regulations
and remain as possible alternatives.
Step 3: Eliminate alternatives that face prohibitive barriers
As required by ACM0014, step 3 from the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality”
(version 5.1 EB39) is applied to eliminate alternatives that face prohibitive barriers.
The following barriers are considered in the following analysis:
a) Investment barriers
b) Technological barriers
c) Barriers due to prevailing practice
d) Other barriers
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 16
W1: Anaerobic open lagoons are by far the least costly option, as little technology is required apart from
excavating the ponds and installing pipes and pumps. In addition, the maintenance and operation costs
incurred are also very low. Consequently, the majority of wastewater treatment systems in Thailand are
open lagoons. Overall, there is no significant investment barrier and no associated investment risks.
Anaerobic open lagoons are the prevalent wastewater system in Thailand and an adequate techonology
(Metcalf&Eddy, 1991 4 ) and have been installed and operated for several decades. The Ministry of
Industry in cooperation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment have elaborated and
promoted guidelines for open lagoon anaerobic systems as economic solutions with resulting nutritive
waste water for irrigation 5 . The required technology is available locally and there is ample local expertise
in design, construction and maintenance of such systems. Overall, no technological barriers are identified.
W3: Aerobic systems require investment to purchase machinery such as aerators, sludge handling
systems, mixing devices etc. Apart from these investment costs, operation is significantly more expensive
than simple anaerobic lagoons, partly due to the vastly larger energy requirements when compared to
anaerobic lagoons. In addition, the large amount of sludge produced and its disposal places further burden
on the project operators. Since there is neither a legal requirement to implement such a system, nor any
economic benefit, these barriers have even more weight.
W4, W5: Closed anaerobic treatment digesters are not common practice in Thailand. Both the initial
investment and the operation and maintenance costs are high, especially in comparison with open
lagoons. There is little experience with biodigesters in general, and particularly in the Ethanol industry.
Because of that, there is still considerable uncertainty about the long-term functioning of these systems
and the amount of biogas that can be produced.
Because of the very few examples of utilization of anaerobic digestion technology in Thailand, there is a
lack of technical skills. This affects the construction, operation and maintenance of the project. Anaerobic
systems require a certain degree of automation in the operation of the reactor which requires a significant
skills upgrade. Additional training has to be provided and new staff to be recruited (e.g.
biotechnologist/waste treatment specialist for the operation of the digester).
Another risk stems from the uncertain political situation, which, if it deteriorates, may have a strong
impact on the economy and the value of the Thai Baht 6 .
Furthermore, since anaerobic open lagoons are the prevailing practice as well as by far the cheapest one,
there is little incentive to change to another system. The tendency to stick to the prevailing practice also
means that finding investors who are willing to invest in such a novel and unproven technology is
difficult.
Conclusion for wastewater treatment: Alternatives W3, W4 and W5 face significant barriers, in terms
of investment, technology, and prevailing practice/managerial culture. W1 is the prevailing practice, is
inexpensive and employs simple and proven technology, and therefore does not face significant barriers.
4
Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse: Third Edition by George Tchobanoglous, Frank Burton,
and Metcalf & Eddy (Paperback - 1991).
5
GTZ, Department of Industrial Works (1997). Environmental Management Guideline for the Palm Oil Industry.
http://www.elaw.org/assets/pdf/th.palm.oil.industry.guidelines.pdf
6
http://www.economist.com/countries/Thailand/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Data and
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11920648m , both accessed on Aug 16th 2008
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 17
H1: The project participants wish to generate the heat required to drive the ethanol production process.
Installing a cogeneration system would result in a more complex, costly and difficult to maintain
installation. There is ample grid electricity available at the project location; therefore on-site generation of
electricity is not necessary. If a turbine were installed to harness additional steam and steam leaving the
production process, significantly more fuel would need to be burnt.
Because only a larger cogeneration system makes economic sense, there would be an overcapacity of
electricity generation. Therefore, the investment into cogeneration equipment is not justified and would
not make economic sense for the project owner.
H2: Generating heat with fossil fuels in a boiler is the least costly option and does not face any specific
investment barriers. While the fuel price is high and may increase further, there is less economic
uncertainty about the availability of fuel oil than there is about the regional availability of biomass.
Therefore, using fossil fuels remains a more attractive choice.
Using boilers with heavy fuel oils such as bunker oil C is the common practice in Thailand. The
technology is widely available locally and there is a lot of experience in construction and maintenance of
such systems. Consequently, no technological barriers are identified.
H3: Renewable technologies such as solar power require especially high upfront costs and therefore face
significant investment barriers. A credible alternative is biomass. However, biomass availability in the
project’s region has decreased markedly in recent years. At the same time, biomass prices have hiked
dramatically and several biomass power plants have been forced to shut down 7 . Rice husk prices have
risen from about 400 THB/ton in 2002 to about 1200 THB/ton in mid-2008, and a further increase seems
likely 8 . With the high uncertainty due to supply problems and high prices, investment in such a system
carries too much risk and faces significant barriers.
Conclusion for heat generation: All three alternatives face high and increasing costs of fuel. However,
the fuel cost is especially prohibitive for H3 as there is only a limited supply of biomass available locally.
Alternative H1 faces additional investment barriers as is it little suited for the situation at hand. H2 has the
advantage of being the prevailing practice and having the lowest investment costs.
Overall conclusion: Alternatives W3, W4 and W5 as well as alternatives H1 and H3 face significant
barriers, technologically, economically as well as otherwise. The only remaining alternatives are W1 (the
use of open lagoons for the treatment of the wastewater) and H2 (heat generation using fossil fuels in a
boiler). Therefore, W1 and H2 are considered to be the baseline scenario.
Step 4: Compare economic attractiveness of remaining alternatives
As only one set of alternatives (W1 & H2) remains after step 3, no comparison of economic attractiveness
is performed.
7
As relayed by Natee Sithiprasasana, CEO of A.T. Biopower Co Ltd in Thailand, the CDM project in Thailand to
be issued CERs, plant operation would not be economically feasible anymore without revenue from CDM.
8
Matichon (Daily Newspaper), 10. March 2008, last accessed 1. September 2008 at
http://www.matichon.co.th/prachachat/prachachat_detail.php?s_tag=02p0105100451&day=2008-0410&sectionid=0201
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 18
B.5.
Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below
those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment
and demonstration of additionality):
The “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (version 05 EB39 Annex 10) is applied
and updates Version 05.1 and 05.2 are considered to demonstrate and assess additionality of the project
through the following steps:
Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations
Step 2: Investment analysis
Step 3: Barrier analysis
Step 4: Common practice analysis
Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations
Sub-step 1a: Define alternatives to the project activity:
As detailed in section B.4, the realistic and credible alternatives for wastewater treatment are as
follows:
W1. The use of open lagoons for the treatment of the wastewater;
W2. Direct release of wastewaters to a nearby water body;
W3. Aerobic wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., activated sludge or filter bed type treatment);
W4. Anaerobic digester with methane recovery and flaring;
W5. Anaerobic digester with methane recovery and utilization for electricity or heat generation
(the proposed project activity without registration as a CDM project).
The alternatives for heat generation are as follows:
H1. Co-generation of heat using fossil fuels in a captive cogeneration power plant;
H2. Heat generation using fossil fuels in a boiler;
H3. Heat generation using renewable sources.
Sub-step 1b.: Consistency with mandatory laws and regulations:
As detailed in section B.4, alternative W2 does not comply with local regulations and is therefore
not further considered.
Step 2: Investment analysis
No investment analysis is performed, as per the tool, only a barrier analysis is used to demonstrate
additionality.
Step 3: Barrier analysis
Sub-step 3a: Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of the proposed CDM
project activity:
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 19
The following are realistic and credible barriers that would prevent the implementation of the
proposed project activity from being carried out if the project activity was not registered as a
CDM activity:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Investment barriers, other than the economic/financial barriers in Step 2 above
Technological barriers
Barriers due to prevailing practice
Other barriers
a. Investment barriers
Cost-effective current practice: An open pond system is considered as the most
economic attractive alternative for ES Bio Energy as it complies with all regulations and
requires the least investment, operation and maintenance costs. In addition, open ponds
provide for the most flexibility in case of future expansions and therefore minimize
potential future investments. Very little investment is needed, and O&M costs are low.
Size and transaction costs: Most biogas projects within the industrial sectors of Ethanol,
Starch and Palm Oil Industry in Thailand, but not limited to these sectors are relatively
small in terms of investment requirements (especially when compared to other power
generation projects). Therefore, their transaction costs are relatively high. In addition
these projects are considered to be high-risk investments by the financiers due to
uncertainties of continued performance of the bio-technology and thus revenues and
financial advantages in comparison to conventional and long-term approved technolohies
have a higher risk. Nevertheless, most biogas energy projects require high capital
investment compared with other mature conventional energy technologies in terms of
generated fuel and output security 9 . Hence, biogas project developers face more difficulty
in getting their projects financed. Similar projects in the palm oil industry have
demonstrated that even when additional income is secured from the generation of
electricity, investors view the generation and sale of electricity as marginal to the core
business 10 .
Fuel price uncertainty: The standard investment plan is based on constant fuel prices for
heavy oil on recent high level. In case fuel prices decrease in the future from historically
high values, competitive disadvantages could result for ES Bio Energy compared to
competitors utilizing traditional fuels. Just recently fuel price decreased again back to the
price of 2005, by -66%.
b. Technological barriers
First of its kind: Anaerobic digesters require technology that has only recently been
available in Thailand and for which little long-term experience exists. Especially for the
wastewater from ethanol plants from two different feedstocks, there is no prior experience
with biodigesters, therefore the project is a first-of-its-kind project in Thailand. Quote
from the supplier: "This is the first twin reactor system of this type to handle two different
9
Orathai Chavalparit (2006). Clean Technology for the Crude Palm Oil Industry in Thailand. PhD Thesis
Wageningen University (Sept 2006). http://library.wur.nl/wda/dissertations/dis4003.pdf
10
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)(2007). Generating Renewable Energy from Palm Oil Wastes.
http://www.energyandenvironment.undp.org/undp/index.cfm?module=Library&page=Document&DocumentID=64
51
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 20
-
-
-
effluent streams from different ethanol feedstocks while remaining independent of one
another and incorporating latent energy storage in a dedicated lagoon. It is the first of its
kind as far as we are aware, anywhere in the world. The basic anaerobic reactor design,
however, is similar to the Thai Agro Energy biogas system which treats effluent from an
ethanol plant using molasses as a feedstock. We can supply an ABR project reference
list". A similar technology, but not a twin reactor has been implemented in the “Korat
Waste to Energy Project, Thailand”, March 2005 which is implemented in the Starch
Industry has been registered already.
Lack of trained staff and know-how: There is a lack of locally available know-how and
a lack of skilled laborers for operation and maintenance 11 . The contractor installing the
wastewater treatment system has qualified personnel but they are not available for full
support services. Therefore, additional training has to be provided and new staff to be
recruited (e.g. biotechnologist/waste treatment specialist for the operation of the digester).
Lack of experience with ethanol wastewater in anaerobic digesters: The performance
of the digester is influenced by numerous variables, such as the COD content and yeast,
fibres and other solids contained in the wastewater13. Because no prior experience exists
in applying the ABR with ethanol wastewater from two different feedstocks in Thailand,
these variables pose a significant barrier. The digester performance is dependant on a
biological system (bacteria) which is sensitive to the chemical composition and
temperature of the wastewater. If any mismanagement or suboptimal operation of the
system were to occur, the efficiency of treatment and the amount of generated gas could
be lowered significantly. This poses the additional problem of a higher-than-anticipated
COD count of the post-treatment wastewater and possible problems with its re-use or
disposal. Altogether, the long-term stability of operation can therefore not be guaranteed,
which poses a significant barrier. In comparison to the open ponds alternative, a
sophisticated monitoring and control system is necessary, which must be skillfully
operated to ensure the optimal operation of the treatment system.
Risks regarding low biogas production: From the perspective of the installed boilers,
there is the risk of unstable or lower than anticipated heating values of the produced
biogas. The boilers need a minimum level of heating value for proper operation. The risk
of non- or insufficient delivery of biogas led to the decision to install dual fuel boilers,
being able to utilize heavy fuel oil in case there are problems with biogas delivery.
c. Barriers due to prevailing practice
Traditional management mindset: As wastewater treatment is not the core competence
of ES Power, the plant owner has been skeptical to invest in such a new, untraditional
approach (closed pond systems are not common practice in Thailand, also see below).
Pond systems most common in the ethanol industry: Open ponds are the most
common wastewater treatment system to treat wastewater from industrial activities in
Thailand. For the nascent ethanol industry in Thailand, 9 out of 10 factories use open
ponds 12 (and the digester projects is applying as CDM projects). It is very important to
demonstrate successful cases in order to build confidence in biomass energy, both for the
ethanol industry and for affected local communities.
11
Prasertsan, S.B. Sajjakulnukit (2006). Biomass and biogas energy in Thailand : Potential, opportunity and
barriers. Renewable Energy 31
12
DIW, Devision 1, Mr.Sanae Sakornoi, 17.09.2008
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 21
-
Limited technology adoption in the host country: Overall, open ponds remain the most
prevalent practice for wastewater treatment in Thailand. There is no successful digester
system applied with two lines of wastewater from an ethanol factory in Thailand in order
to demonstrate performance of digester or biogas production efficiency and real life time
of such technology locally.
d. Other barriers
There is a significant risk that the amount of available wastewater will be lower than
anticipated due to:
- Market competition: Market competition as a result of an increased number of
suppliers in the ethanol industry may result in lower prices of ethanol. This may in
turn lead to lower ethanol production and therefore less wastewater at the project.
- Material costs: Raw material cost is hiking, which may lead to an uneconomic
production and a decrease of production or temporary halt of operation. 13
- Policy uncertainties: The uncertainty regarding the host country’s government
policy and economy could effect to the amount of ethanol produced. Since year 2004,
the government policy aims to introduce gasohol (gasoline mixed with ethanol) to the
transportation sector in Thailand. The second phase, started in 2006, is to encourage
an increase in gasohol consumption. Due to these policies there have been a total of
45 factories approved to produce ethanol with a total capacity of 10,875,000
liters/day. The first one is operating since 2004 and until now there are 11 factories
operating with a capacity of 1,575,000 liters/day. A further 11 factories are under
construction, with combined capacity of 2,400,000 liters/day 14 . The demand of
gasohol however reached only 0.8 million liters/day (June, 2008) 15 . In addition,
overall gasoline consumption decreased due to high oil prices and the promotion of
Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV). This means that the growth of NGV and LPG
consumption (up 20.5% during the first six months of 2008 16 ) was partly invading
the market share originally planned for gasohol vehicles. If this trend continues, there
may soon be an overcapacity of ethanol production and therefore, significant
uncertainties regarding production volumes and amount of wastewater at the project
site.
Sub-step 3b: Show that the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of at least
one of the alternatives (except the proposed project activity):
13
Personal Interview with the Manager of Thai Ethanol Manufacturing Association. Thai Ethanol Manufacturing
Association office. 14/08/08.
14
Ethanol factory licenses list and production capacities. http://www.dede.go.th/dede/index.php?id=172, accessed
13/08/08
15
Amount of gasohol consumption per month for the years 2004-2008.
http://www.dede.go.th/dede/fileadmin/usr/bers/gasohol_2008/2-510722_Monthly_selling_gasohol_47_51.xls,
accessed 13/08/08
16
Energy Policy & Planning Office, Ministry of Energy, Thailand, Nation Channel.
http://breakingnews.nationchannel.com/read.php?newsid=333839&lang=&cat=business, accessed 13/08/08
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 22
As shown in section B.4, the identified barriers do not affect alternatives W1 and E2. The use of
open ponds for wastewater treatment and the use of fossil fuel fired boilers for heat generation are
well-established practice in the host country, which clearly demonstrates that their
implementation would not be prevented by the identified barriers.
Step 4: Common practice analysis
Sub-step 4a. Analyze other activities similar to the proposed project activity
The proposed project is “first of its kind” in both in Thailand and in the industrial sector referring
technology application, even though parts of the technology, but not exactly the same have been
applied in other industrial sectors, but all of them are applying for CDM due to investment and
technology barriers.
The ethanol industry is still relatively new to Thailand and many plants have not started operation
yet. Just thirteen plants started operation within the last 4 years (2004-2008) of which 4 have
installed anaerobic digester, each of them with different technology from different supplier. The
remaining 9 factories are still operating traditionally open lagoons. Thailand already gave licenses
for 45 plants with expectation of operation of all of them within the next 4 years. Nine of these
are under construction.
In the following the above generic additionality tests has been complemented with an analysis of
the extent to which the proposed project type (e.g. technology or practice) has already diffused in
the relevant sector and region. This certain technology as applied in this project activity has not
been diffused in Thailand at all. In a few starch factories ABR covered lagoons are implemented
but in different configuration and for one feedstock only. All existing systems independent from
technology are not old enough to prove long-term experiences on the functionality and life-time
of this technology.
The ABR systems are less technically sophisticated systems in comparison to other anaerobic
digester types used in the agro-industrial waste water treatment, such as complete stirred tank
reactors or UASB. The ABR system has lower investment costs as the others but as well a higher
uncertainty factor on its long-term performance. Only few studies investigated the total amount of
anaerobic systems in the industry. In a study in 2004 a total of only 15 anaerobic digester waste
water treatment systems have been identified as newly installed, non of the ABR systems so far
has been installed in the new emerging ethanol industry in Thailand and especially not any twin
reactor of an ABR system. So far, no ABR system is installed in the ethanol industry and no ABR
system in Thailand is handling cassava and molasses feedstock at the same time in a twin reactor
system.
Sub-step 4b. Discuss any similar options that are occurring:
There are no similar options occurring in Thailand at all.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, the project activity is additional.
B.6.
Emission reductions:
B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:
As per the methodology ACM0014, version 02.1, emission reductions of the project activity are equal to
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 23
baseline emissions minus project emissions. No leakage is estimated.
Baseline emissions
Baseline emissions are estimated as follows:
BEy = BECH4,y + BEEL,y + BEHG,y
(1)
Where:
BEy
BECH4
BEEL,y
BEHG,y
Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e/yr)
Methane emissions from anaerobic treatment of the wastewater in open lagoons (scenario
1) in the absence of the project activity in year y (tCO2e/yr)
CO2 emissions associated with electricity generation that is displaced by the project
activity and / or electricity consumption in the absence of the project activity in year y
(tCO2e/yr)
CO2 emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion for heating equipment that is
displaced by the project in year y (tCO2 / yr)
According to ACM0014, baseline emissions are calculated in three steps, as follows:
Step 1: Calculation of baseline emissions from anaerobic treatment of the wastewater or sludge;
Step 2: Calculation of baseline emissions from generation and consumption of electricity (if applicable);
Step 3: Calculation of baseline emissions from heat generation (if applicable);
Step 1: Calculation of baseline emissions from anaerobic treatment of the wastewater or sludge
The methodology proposes two methods for the estimation of methane emissions from open lagoons. As
the proposed project activity is a Greenfield project, the methane conversion factor method was chosen.
The baseline methane emissions from anaerobic treatment of the wastewater in open lagoons (scenario 1)
are estimated based on the chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the wastewater that would enter the lagoon
in the absence of the project activity (CODPJ,y), the maximum methane producing capacity (Bo) and a
methane conversion factor (MCFBL,y) which expresses the proportion of the wastewater that would decay
to methane, as follows:
BECH4,y = GWPCH4 × MCFBL,y × Bo × CODBL,y
(2)
Where:
BECH4
GWPCH4
Bo
MCFBL,y
CODBL,y
Methane emissions from anaerobic treatment of the wastewater in open lagoons (scenario
1) in the absence of the project activity in year y (tCO2e / yr)
Global Warming Potential of methane valid for the commitment period (tCO2e / tCH4)
Maximum methane producing capacity, expressing the maximum amount of CH4 that can
be produced from a given quantity of chemical oxygen demand (tCH4 / tCOD)
Average baseline methane conversion factor (fraction) in year y, representing the fraction
of (CODPJ,y x Bo) that would be degraded to CH4 in the absence of the project activity
Quantity of chemical oxygen demand that would be treated in open lagoons (scenario 1)
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 24
in the absence of the project activity in year y (tCOD/yr)
Determination of CODBL,y
In principle, the baseline chemical oxygen demand (CODBL,y) corresponds to the chemical oxygen
demand that is treated under the project activity (CODPJ,y) because the wastewater (scenario 1) or sludge
(scenario 2) treated under the project activity would in the absence of the project activity be directed to
the open lagoon (scenario 1) or the sludge pit (scenario 2), and thus CODBL,y = CODPJ,y.
If there would be an effluent from the lagoons (scenario 1) or the sludge pit (scenario 2) in the baseline,
CODBL should be adjusted by an effluent adjustment factor which relates the COD supplied to the lagoon
or sludge pit with the COD in the effluent, as follows:
CODBL,y = ADBL × CODPJ,y
(3)
Where:
CODBL,y
Quantity of chemical oxygen demand that would be treated in open lagoons (scenario 1)
or in sludge pits (scenario 2) in the absence of the project activity in year y (t COD / yr)
Quantity of chemical oxygen demand that is treated in the anaerobic digester or under
clearly aerobic conditions in the project activity in year y (t COD / yr)
Effluent adjustment factor expression the percentage of COD that is degraded in open
lagoons (scenario 1) or in sludge pits (scenario 2) in the absence of the project activity
CODPJ,y
ADBL
ADBL is determined as follows:
AD BL = 1 −
COD out,design
COD in,design
(4)
As required by ACM0014 for a Greenfield project: In the case of project activities implemented in
Greenfield facilities, where the baseline is a new to be built anaerobic lagoon, ADBL is determined based
on the design features that were identified as the baseline in the procedure outlined in Step 1 of the
“procedure for the identification of the most plausible baseline scenario”, by using in equation (4) the
design COD inflow for CODin and the design effluent COD flow for CODout.
CODPJ,y is determined as follows:
12
COD PJ,y =
∑F
PJ,dig,m
× wCOD,dig,m
m=1
(5)
Where:
CODPJ,y
FPJ,dig,m
Quantity of chemical oxygen demand that is treated in the anaerobic digester or under
clearly aerobic conditions in the project activity in year y (t COD / yr)
Quantity of wastewater or sludge that is treated in the anaerobic digester or under clearly
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 25
wCOD,dig,m
m
aerobic conditions in the project activity in month m (m³ / month)
Average chemical oxygen demand in the wastewater or sludge that is treated in the
anaerobic digester or under clearly aerobic conditions in the project activity in month m (t
COD / m³)
Months of year y of the crediting period
Determination of MCFBL,y
The quantity of methane generated from COD disposed to the open lagoon (scenario 1) or in sludge pits
(scenario 2) depends mainly on the temperature and the depth of the lagoon or sludge pit. Accordingly,
the methane conversion factor is calculated based on a factor fd, expressing the influence of the depth of
the lagoon or sludge pit on methane generation, and a factor fT,y expressing the influence of the
temperature on the methane generation. In addition, a conservativeness factor of 0.89 is applied to
account for the considerable uncertainty associated with this approach. MCFBL,y is calculated as follows:
MCFBL,y = fd × fT,y × 0.89
(6)
Where:
MCFBL,y
fd
fT,y
0.89
Average baseline methane conversion factor (fraction) in year y, representing the fraction
of (CODPJ,y x Bo) that would be degraded to CH4 in the absence of the project activity
Factor expressing the influence of the depth of the lagoon or sludge pit on methane
generation
Factor expressing the influence of the temperature on the methane generation in year y
Conservativeness factor
Determination of fT,y
In some regions, the ambient temperature varies significantly over the year. Therefore, the factor fT,y is
calculated with the help of a monthly stock change model which aims at assessing how much COD
degrades in each month. For each month m, the quantity of wastewater directed to the lagoon or sludge
directed to a pit, the quantity of organic compounds that decay and the quantity of any effluent water
from the lagoon is balanced, giving the quantity of COD that is available for degradation in the next
month: The amount of organic matter available for degradation to methane (CODavailable,m) is assumed to
be equal to the amount of organic matter directed to the open lagoon or sludge pit, less any effluent, plus
the COD that may have remained in the lagoon or sludge pit from previous months, as follows:
CODavailable,m = CODBL,m + (1 – fT,m) × CODavailable,m-1
CODBL,m = ADBL × CODPJ,m
CODPJ,m = FPJ,dig,m × wCOD,dig,m
Where:
CODavailable,m
CODBL,m
and
with
(7)
(8)
(9)
Quantity of chemical oxygen demand available for degradation in the open lagoon or
sludge pit in month m (t COD / month)
Quantity of chemical oxygen demand that would be treated in open lagoons (scenario 1)
or in sludge pits (scenario 2) in the absence of the project activity in month m (t COD /
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 26
CODPJ,m
ADBL
FPJ,dig,m
wCOD,dig,m
fT,m
m
month)
Quantity of chemical oxygen demand that is treated in the anaerobic digester or under
clearly aerobic conditions in the project activity in month m (t COD / month)
Effluent adjustment factor expressing the percentage of COD that is degraded in open
lagoons (scenario 1) or in sludge pits (scenario 2) in the absence of the project activity
Quantity of wastewater or sludge that is treated in the anaerobic digester or under clearly
aerobic conditions in the project activity in month m (m³ / month)
Average chemical oxygen demand in the wastewater or sludge that is treated in the
anaerobic digester or under clearly aerobic conditions in the project activity in month m (t
COD / m³)
Factor expressing the influence of the temperature on methane generation in month m
Months of year y of the crediting period
The carry-over calculations are limited to a maximum of one year. In case the residence time in the open
lagoon or the sludge pit is less than one year, carry-on calculations are limited to the period where the
wastewater remains in the lagoon or the sludge remains in the sludge pit. I.e., in the case of the emptying
of a sludge pit, the accumulation of organic matter restarts with the next inflow and the COD available
from the previous month should be set to zero. Project participants should provide evidence of the typical
residence time of the organic matter in the lagoon or the sludge pit.
In the case of project activities implemented in Greenfield facilities, where the baseline is a new to be
built anaerobic lagoon, use the residence time of organic matter according to the design features of the
lagoon that was identified as the baseline in Step 1 of the section “Procedure for the identification of the
most plausible baseline scenario”.
The monthly factor to account for the influence of the temperature on methane generation is calculated
based on the following “van’t Hoff – Arrhenius” approach:
fT,m
⎧0
⎪
⎪⎪ ⎛ E × (T − T ) ⎞
2,m
1
= ⎨exp⎜
⎟
R
×
T
×
T
⎝
1
2,m ⎠
⎪
⎪
⎪⎩1
⎧if T2,m < 283 K
⎪
⎪⎪
⎨if 283 K < T2,m < 303 K
⎪
⎪
⎪⎩if T2,m > 303 K
(10)
Where:
fT,m
E
T2,m
T1
R
m
Factor expressing the influence of the temperature on the methane generation in month m
Activation energy constant (15,175 cal / mol)
Average temperature at the project site in month m (K)
303.16 K (273.16 K + 30 K)
Ideal gas constant (1.987 cal / K mol)
Months of year y of the crediting period
As indicated in equation (10) above, the value of fT,m cannot exceed 1 and should be assumed to be zero if
the ambient temperature is below 10°C.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 27
Based on the monthly values fT,m the annual value fT,y is calculated as follows:
12
fT,y =
∑f
T,m
× COD available,m
m=1
12
∑ COD
BL,m
m=1
(11)
Where:
fT,y
fT,m
CODavailable,m
CODBL,m
m
Factor expressing the influence of the temperature on the methane generation in year y
Factor expressing the influence of the temperature on the methane generation in month m
Quantity of chemical oxygen demand available for degradation in the open lagoon or
sludge pit in month m (t COD / month)
Quantity of chemical oxygen demand that would be treated in open lagoons (scenario 1)
or in sludge pits (scenario 2) in the absence of the project activity in month m (t COD /
month)
Months of year y of the crediting period
Step 2: Baseline emissions from generation and/or consumption of electricity
The project will not generate electricity. Furthermore, since the baseline scenario consists of an open
lagoon system with little electricity demand, emissions due to electricity use are not taken into account.
This is a conservative approach.
Step 3: Baseline emissions from the generation of heat
Since the proposed project activity will generate steam in two boilers, the baseline emissions from the
generation of heat are considered. Because scenario H2 applies, fossil fuels from the generation of heat in
boilers are displaced and baseline emissions are calculated as follows:
BE HG,y =
HG PJ,y × EFCO2,FF,boiler
ηBL,boiler
(18)
Where:
BEHG,y
HGPJ,y
EFCO2,FF,boiler
ηBL,boiler
CO2 emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion for heating equipment that is
displaced by the project in year y (tCO2 / yr)
Net quantity of heat generated in year y with biogas from the new anaerobic digester
(TJ)
CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel type used in the boiler for heat generation in the
absence of the project activity (tCO2 / TJ)
Efficiency of the boiler that would be used for heat generation in the absence of the
project activity
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 28
Project emissions
The following are included in the calculation of emissions from the project activity (scenario 1):
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
Methane emissions from the lagoons or dewatering process (applicable if effluent from the
treatment under the project activity is directed to either a lagoon system or to a dewatering
facility);
Physical leakage of methane from the digester system;
Methane emissions from flaring;
Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from land application of sludge (if applicable);
CO2 emissions from consumption of electricity and or fossil fuels in the project activity.
PEy = PECH4,effluent,y + PECH4,digest,y + PEflare,y + PEsludge,LA,y + PEEC,y + PEFC,y
(19)
Where:
PEy
PECH4,effluent,y
PECH4,digest,y
PEflare,y
PEsludge,LA,y
PEEC,y
PEFC,y
Project emissions in year y (tCO2e / yr)
Project emissions from treatment of wastewater effluent from the anaerobic digester in
year y (tCO2e / yr)
Project emissions from physical leakage of methane from the anaerobic digester in year y
(tCO2e / yr)
Project emissions from flaring of biogas generated in the anaerobic digester in year y
(tCO2e / yr)
Project emissions from land application of sludge in year y (tCO2e / yr)
Project emissions from electricity consumption in year y (tCO2e / yr)
Project emissions from fossil fuel consumption in year y (tCO2e / yr)
(i) Project methane emissions from effluent from the digester
The project will not treat effluent in open lagoons or a dewatering facility. No emissions are therefore
calculated. The treatment paths of effluent from the digesters will be monitored and deviations will be
reported.
(ii) Project emissions related to physical leakage from the digester
The project involves the construction of a new anaerobic digester. Therefore, methane emissions from the
new digester are calculated as follows:
PECH4,digest,y = Fbioas,y × FLbiogas,digest × wCH4,biogas,y × GWPCH4 × 0.001
(30)
Where:
PECH4,digest,y
Fbiogas,y
FLbiogas,digest
wCH4,biogas,y
Project emissions from physical leakage of methane from the anaerobic digester
(tCO2e / yr)
Amount of biogas collected in the outlet of the new digester in year y (m3/ yr)
Fraction of biogas that leaks from the digester (m³ biogas leaked / m³ biogas produced)
Concentration of methane in the biogas in the outlet of the new digester (kg CH4 / m³)
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 29
GWPCH4
Global Warming Potential of methane valid for the commitment period (tCO2e / tCH4)
(iii) Methane emissions from flaring
The project will produce methane, the majority of which will be combusted for heat generation purposes.
However, a small amount of the produced methane will be flared in an open flare, for instance during
maintenance of the boilers. For the ex-ante calculations, the flare is estimated to operate 300 hours per
year, but the actual amount of flared gas will be monitored.
Methane may be released as a result of incomplete combustion in the flare. To calculate project emissions
from flaring of the biogas (PEflare), the “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing
methane” (version approved at EB28) is applied. The tool specifies 7 steps to for calculation.
Step 1: Determination of the mass flow rate of the residual gas that is flared
This step calculates the residual gas mass flow rate in each hour h, based on the volumetric flow rate and
the density of the residual gas. The density of the residual gas is determined based on the volumetric
fraction of all components in the gas.
FMRG,h = ρRG,n,h × FVRG,h
(Flaring: 1)
Where:
FMRG,h
ρRG,n,h
FVRG,h
Mass flow rate of the residual gas in hour h (kg/h)
Density of the residual gas at normal conditions in hour h (kg/m3)
Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas in dry basis at normal
conditions in the hour h (m3/h)
As stated in the tool, as a simplified approach only the volumetric fraction of methane is measured and
the difference to 100% is considered as being nitrogen (N2).
Step 2 is not applicable because of the simplified approach taken where only the volumetric fraction of
methane is measured.
Steps 3 & 4 are only applicable if the combustion efficiency of the flare is continuously monitored and
are therefore not considered.
Step 5: Determination of methane mass flow rate in the residual gas on a dry basis
The quantity of methane in the residual gas flowing into the flare is the product of the volumetric flow
rate of the residual gas (FVRG,h), the volumetric fraction of methane in the residual gas (fvCH4,RG,h) and the
density of methane (ρCH4,n,h) in the same reference conditions (normal conditions and dry or wet basis).
TMRG,h = FVRG,h × fvCH4,RG,h × ρCH4,n
Where:
TMRG,h
Mass flow rate of methane in the residual gas in the hour h (kg/h)
(Flaring: 13)
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 30
FVRG,h
fvCH4,RG,h
Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas in dry basis at normal conditions in hour h (m3/h)
Volumetric fraction of methane in the residual gas on dry basis in hour h (NB: this
corresponds to fvi,RG,h where i refers to methane).
Density of methane at normal conditions (0.716 kg/m3)
ρCH4,n
Step 6: Determination of the hourly flare efficiency
As the project uses an open flare, the flare efficiency in the hour h (ηflare,h) according to the tool is:
-
0% if the flame is not detected for more than 20 minutes during the hour h.
50%, if the flare is detected for more than 20 minutes during the hour h.
Step 7: Calculation of annual project emissions from flaring
Project emissions from flaring are calculated as the sum of emissions from each hour h, based on
the methane flow rate in the residual gas (TMRG,h) and the flare efficiency during each hour h
(⎜), as follows:
8760
∑ TM
PE flare,y =
h =1
RG,h
× (1− ηflare,h ) ×
GWPCH4
1000
(Flaring: 15)
Where:
PEflare,y
TMRG,h
ηflare,h
GWPCH4
Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in year y (tCO2e)
Mass flow rate of methane in the residual gas in the hour h (kg/h)
Flare efficiency in hour h
Global Warming Potential of methane valid for the commitment period (tCO2e/tCH4)
(iv) Project emissions from land application of sludge
No sludge will be applied to land. Therefore, no emissions are calculated. The little sludge generated in
the system will be pumped back into the mixing tanks just before the reactors. This will be monitored and
deviations reported.
(v) Project emissions from electricity consumption and combustion of fossil fuels in the project
No fossil fuels are combusted under the project.
Because the project activity will consume electricity, the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or
leakage emissions from electricity consumption” (version 1) is applied to calculate project emissions from
electricity consumption (PEEC,y).
Scenario A (electricity consumption from the grid) from the tool applies and emissions are calculated as
follows:
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 31
∑ EC
PE EC,y =
PJ,j,y
× EFEL, j,y × (1+ TDL j,y )
j
(Electricity: 1)
Where:
PEEC,y
ECPJ,j,y
= Project emissions from electricity consumption in year y (tCO2/yr)
= Quantity of electricity consumed by the project electricity consumption source j in year
y (MWh/yr)
= Emission factor for electricity generation for source j in year y (tCO2/MWh)
= Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity to
source j in year y
EFEL,j,y
TDLj,y
Since grid electricity will be used, EFEL,j,y = EFgrid,CM,y. Refer to Annex 3 for calculation of the combined
margin grid emission factor for Thailand.
Leakage
As per ACM0014, no leakage is estimated.
Emission reductions
Emission reductions for any given year of the crediting period are obtained by subtracting project
emissions from baseline emissions:
ERy = BEy – PEy
(32)
Where:
ERy
BEy
PEy
= Emissions reductions of the project activity in year y (tCO2e / year)
= Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e / year)
= Project emissions in year y (tCO2e / year)
B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
CODout,design
%
Design COD in the effluent from the open lagoons in the baseline scenario
As per the baseline lagoon design
1,852 mg/l
See baseline lagoon design in Annex 3
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 32
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
CODin,design
%
Design COD in the digester effluent flowing into the open lagoons in the
baseline scenario
As per the baseline lagoon design
126,000 mg/l
See baseline lagoon design in Annex 3. Only 70% of the COD inflow is taken,
in order to account for the fact that not all the COD is biodegradeable.
fD
Fraction
Factor expressing the influence of the depth of the lagoon or sludge pit on
methane generation
Calculated from baseline lagoon design
0.7
See baseline lagoon design in Annex 3
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
D
meters
Average depth of the lagoon
As per the baseline lagoon design
6m
See baseline lagoon design in Annex 3
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
EFCO2,FF,boiler
tCO2e/TJ
CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel type used in the boiler for heat generation
in the absence of the project activity
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 33
Source of data used:
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 2:
Energy, Tables 1.4 and 2.2)
77.4
Residual heavy fuel oil, default value according to IPCC: 21.1 tC/TJ
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
( 21.1 / 12 ) * ( 12 + 16 + 16 ) = 77.366 tCO2/TJ
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
ηBL,boiler
%
Efficiency of the boiler that would be used for heat generation in the absence of
the project activity
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners Whitepaper (2003), average value for new
oil boilers at full capacity
0.8
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
FLbiogas,digest
m³ biogas leaked / m³ biogas produced
Fraction of biogas that leaks from the digester
Default value
0.15
The emissions directly associated with the digesters involve:
Physical leakage from the digester system. IPCC guidelines 1996 specify
physical leakage from anaerobic digesters as being in the order of 5- 15% of
total biogas production. A default value of 15% must be used as conservative
assumption.
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
ηflare,h
%
Efficiency of flare
Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane
50
Default value of 50% for open flares used according to the “Tool to determine
project emissions from flaring gases containing methane”
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 34
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
EFEL,y
tCO2/MWh
Emission factor for electricity generation in year y
Calculations based on publicly available data on electricity generation in
Thailand
0.490
See Annex 3 for details on emission factor calculation
TDLy
%
Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity
to the project in year y
DEDE Thai Electricity Report 2006
8%
Calculated as the ratio of total power generation to lines losses, from DEDE
Thai electricity report 2006, table 21/22, values for the year 2006.
B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:
Baseline emissions
BEy = BECH4,y + BEHG,y
BEy
BECH4
BEHG,y
= 113,335 tCO2e/yr
= 81,702 tCO2e/yr
= 31,632 tCO2e/yr
Calculation of baseline emissions from anaerobic treatment of the wastewater
See Annex 3 for details on the calculation of baseline emissions from anaerobic treatment of the
wastewater.
(1)
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 35
Baseline emissions from the generation of heat
BE HG , y =
HGPJ , y × EFCO 2, FF ,boiler
η BL,boiler
(18)
BEHG,y
HGPJ,y
EFCO2,FF,boiler
ηBL,boiler
= 31,632 tCO2 / yr
= 327.373 TJ
= 77.3 tCO2 / TJ
= 0.8
Project emissions
PEy = PECH4,digest,y + PEflare,y + PEEC,y
PEy
PECH4,digest,y
PEflare,y
PEEC,y
(30)
= 21,317 tCO2 / yr
= 17,158 tCO2 / yr
= 1,841 tCO2 / yr
= 2318 tCO2 / yr
Project emissions related to physical leakage from the digester
PECH4,digest,y = Fbioas,y × FLbiogas,digest × wCH4,biogas,y × GWPCH4 × 0.001
PECH4,digest,y
Fbioas,y
FLbiogas,digest
wCH4,biogas,y
GWPCH4
(30)
= 17,158 tCO2 / yr
= 12,678,960 m3/ yr
= 0.15 m³ biogas leaked / m³ biogas produced
= 0.4296 kg CH4 / m³
= 21 tCO2e / tCH4
Methane emissions from flaring
Step 5: Determination of methane mass flow rate in the residual gas on a dry basis
TMRG,h = FVRG,h × fvCH4,RG,h × ρCH4,n
TMRG,h
FVRG,h
fvCH4,RG,h
ρCH4,n
= 584.58 kg/h
= 1,361 m3/h
= 60%
= 0.716 kg/m3
Step 6: Determination of the hourly flare efficiency
(Flaring: 13)
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 36
For the purpose of ex-ante calculations and due to the fact that an open flare will be used, the flare
efficiency throughout its operation time will be calculated with 50% 17 . During monitoring, the efficiency
will be 0% if the flame is not detected for more than 20 minutes during the hour h.
ηflare,h
17
= 50%
Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane, EB28, Annex 13
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 37
Step 7: Calculation of annual project emissions from flaring
8760
∑ TM
PE flare,y =
RG,h
× (1− ηflare,h ) ×
h =1
GWPCH4
1000
8760
∑ TM
(Flaring: 15)
RG,h
h =1
The term
is set to = 300 hours/year for the purpose of ex-ante calculations, according to
the assumption of flare operating time during a typical year.
PEflare,y
= 1,841 tCO2e / yr
Project emissions from electricity consumption in the project
∑ EC
PE EC,y =
PJ,j,y
× EFEL, j,y × (1+ TDL j,y )
j
(Electricity: 1)
= 2318 tCO2e / yr
= 4,380 MWh / yr
= 0.490 tCO2 / MWh
= 8%
PEEC,y
ECPJ,j,y
EFEL,j,y
TDLj,y
Emission reductions
ERy = BEy – PEy = 92,018 tCO2e / yr
B.6.4
Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:
Emission reductions are calculated as the difference between baseline emissions and project emissions.
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Estimation of
project activity
emissions
(tCO2e)
21,317
21,317
21,317
21,317
21,317
21,317
21,317
21,317
21,317
Estimation of
baseline
emissions
(tCO2e)
113,335
113,335
113,335
113,335
113,335
113,335
113,335
113,335
113,335
Estimation of
leakage (tCO2e)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Estimation of
emission
reductions
(tCO2e)
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
92,018
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 38
B.7.
2018
21,317
113,335
0
92,018
Total
213,170
1,133,347
0
920,177
Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:
B.7.1
Data and parameters monitored:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
FPJ,dig,m
m3 / month
Quantity of wastewater that is treated in the anaerobic digester in the project
activity in month m
Measurement
Cassava: 36,000 m3/month
Molasses: 30,000 m3/month
Any comment:
Flow rates will be continuously recorded with Flow Meters, installed at least 5
diameters of discharge pipe up- and downstream away from any flow
disturbance (e.g. sample points, valves, etc.). An isolating valve will be
installed upstream of the meter for maintenance purposes. Accuracy < ± 1 % of
actual flow at the lowest typical flow. Hourly values will be transferred online
and recorded on computer
Calibration: The flow meter will be calibrated by manufacturer or approved
company at the time of installation. Frequency of subsequent calibration will be
appropriate to the application. Each time the meter is calibrated, an On-SiteCalibration-Report will be submitted to ES Bio Energy.
Inspection and Maintenance: Meters will be installed such to enable easy
inspection. Installation will also facilitate separation valves for meter removal
and repair and recalibration. A spare meter will be held on stock, to avoid long
time loss of data record. O&M staff of the digester will be trained to maintain
the meters in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. Meters will be
inspected on daily frequence by the staff. Laboratory and QA/QC staff will
train O&M staff for data reading in parallel to online data transfer.
Data storage: Online transfer to computer. Weekly data backup on CD of CDM
specific data will be carried out by data management staff. Data will be stored
for 10 years of CDM project duration and 2 years afterwards. Data backup
procedure valid for the overall monitoring.
Aggregation to 24 hrs average, weekly, monthly and quarterly rates by
automated calculation routines. Monthly aggregated reports will be printed –
two copies will be filed at factory and headquarters respectively.
-
Data / Parameter:
wCOD,dig,m
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 39
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
t COD/m3
Average chemical oxygen demand in the wastewater that is treated in the
anaerobic digester in the project activity in month m
Laboratory tests (at least monthly)
Cassava: 0.05 t COD/m3
Molasses: 0.18 t COD/m3
Sample points at digester inlets. Method US EPA 410.4.
Laboratory tests contracted by ES Bio Energy “Potassium Dichromate
Digestion” – analysis. Accuracy according US EPA Standard Range Method
Sampling will be carried out adhering to internationally recognized procedures,
which could be manual sample and laboratory analysis or automatic continuous
measurement.
Calibration regularly by manufacturer or approved company
Data capture/storage: Data capture at the laboratory/IT-center resp. online
transfer, if continuous monitoring system will be used. Regular data backup on
CD of CDM specific data will be carried out by data management staff. Data
will be stored for 10 years of CDM project duration and 2 years afterwards.
Data backup procedure valid for the overall monitoring.
T2,m
K
Average temperature at the project site in month m
Thailand Meteorological Department
Average monthly values for Srakaew from the year 2007:
Month
Temp. [°C]
Jan
25.40
Feb
27.00
Mar
29.50
Apr
29.30
May
28.00
Jun
28.60
Jul
27.40
Aug
27.80
Sep
27.40
Oct
26.80
Nov
24.80
Dec
25.70
Measured continuously by weather service, aggregated in monthly average
values
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 40
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
Double-check of using the correct values a) internally, and b) through
verification process (DOE)
-
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
FPJ,effl,dig,m
m3 / month
Quantity of effluent from the digester in month m
Measurement
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
wCOD,effl,dig,m
t COD/m3
Average chemical oxygen demand in the effluent from the digester in month m
Laboratory tests
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
HGPJ,y
TJ / year
Net quantity of heat generated in year y with biogas from the new anaerobic
digester.
Measurements
Source of data to be
N/A
See description at FPJ,dig,m
See description at FPJ,dig,m
-
N/A
See description at wCOD,dig,m
See description at wCOD,dig,m
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 41
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
327.373 TJ / yr
Measured from the heat received by the heating process
Alternative 1: Continuous measurement with automated temperature sensor
(accuracy will be < ± 1 %) and data transfer to computer
Alternative 2: Calculated on the basis of measurement of the volume of biogas
captured and used for heat generation multiplied by the methane content of the
gas, CV methane, and the efficiency of the boiler during the project (i.e. with
biogas).
Monitored daily.
For calculations, double-check of calculating the correct values a) internally
and b) through verification process (DOE)
Calibration: Regular calibration by manufacturer or approved company
(frequency of calibration as recommended by manufacturer) – calibration report
to ES Bio Energy.
Data capture/storage: Data capture at IT-center of ES Bio Energy through
online transfer, if continuous monitoring system will be used. Weekly data
backup on CD of CDM specific data will be carried out by data management
staff. Data will be stored for 10 years of CDM project duration and 2 years
afterwards. Data backup procedure valid for the overall monitoring.
Monthly aggregated reports will be printed – two copies will be filed at factory
and headquarters respectively.
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Fbiogas,y
m3/yr
Amount of biogas collected in the outlet of the new digester in year y
Measurements
12,678,960 m3/yr
Application Mass Flow Meter with appropriate range of measurement. Measure
points at each digester line outlet. Accuracy <± 1 %. Hourly values will be
transferred online and recorded.
Regular Calibration of flow meter by manufacturer or approved company
(frequency of calibration as recommended by manufacturer) – calibration report
to ES Bio Energy (ESB). QC staff of ESB will be trained on calibration control
and on malfunction recognition.
QC of meter function: One flow meter for each outlet will be installed. Data of
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 42
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
the meter will be sent to a computer. Computer program will cross-check the
sum of all digester outlets with Sum of all inlets at of boilers and flares. Flow
meter malfunction or leakages can thus be detected. Daily flow meter function
inspection. Cross-check accuracy set to ± 2 %. A spare flow meter will be held
on stock for immediate change if needed at any place of gas pipes. Separation
valves and bypasses will allow deviation of gas flow through second line
during exchange of meter. Range of meter will allow to measure full flow.
Data capture/storage: Data capture at IT-center of ES Bio Energy through
online transfer, if continuous monitoring system will be used. Weekly data
backup on CD of CDM specific data will be carried out by data management
staff. Data will be stored for 10 years of CDM project duration and 2 years
afterwards. Data backup procedure valid for the overall monitoring.
Monthly aggregated reports will be printed – two copies will be filed at factory
and headquarters respectively.
wCH4,biogas,y
kg CH4 / m3 biogas
Concentration of methane in the biogas in the outlet of the new digester
Measurements (at least quarterly)
60%
CH4 content will be determined through electronic probe and analysis, e.g.
Non-Dispersion Infrared method (NDIR). Application of portable analyzer
could be possible
Any comment:
Control measurements for use of portable analyzer required. Accuracy of
equipment < ± 1 % at full scale. Accuracy of Method (portable analyzer): < ±
2 % due to relatively stable production process and low variation of CH4
production.
Calibration: Regular calibration by manufacturer or approved company
(frequency of calibration as recommended by manufacturer) – calibration report
to ES Bio Energy.
Data capture/storage: Data capture at IT-center of ES Bio Energy through
online transfer, if continuous monitoring system will be used. Weekly data
backup on CD of CDM specific data will be carried out by data management
staff. Data will be stored for 10 years of CDM project duration and 2 years
afterwards. Data backup procedure valid for the overall monitoring.
Monthly aggregated reports will be printed – two copies will be filed at factory
and headquarters respectively.
-
Data / Parameter:
FVf,inlet
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 43
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
m3/yr
Flow rate/amount of the biogas entering the flare
As open flare will be considered, measurements according to the Tool to
determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane
Expected value is based on the period of time biogas will not be burnt in boiler
due to maintenance. Flare is configured to cover the daily rate of produced
biogas
12,678,960 m3/yr / 365 days = 34,737 m3/day
Application of Mass Flow Meter at inlet of flare. Accuracy <± 1 %. Hourly
values will be transferred online and recorded.
Regular Calibration of flow meter by manufacturer or approved company
(frequency of calibration as recommended by manufacturer) – calibration report
to ES Bio Energy (ESB). QC staff of ESB will be trained on calibration control
and on malfunction recognition.
QC of meter function: One flow meter at inlet will be installed, a bypass with
separation valves will be prepared to enable exchange of flow meter without
data losses. Daily flow meter function inspection.
Data capture/storage: Data capture at IT-center of ES Bio Energy through
online transfer, if continuous monitoring system will be used. Regular data
backup on CD of CDM specific data will be carried out by data management
staff. Data will be stored for 10 years of CDM project duration and 2 years
afterwards. Data backup procedure valid for the overall monitoring.
Monthly aggregated reports will be printed – two copies will be filed at factory
and headquarters respectively.
Flame detection in flare through temperature measurement
Flame detector to determine when the flare is operating
Measurement
500°C
Flame detector will measure the temperature. From 500°C upwards a timer will
record the operation time of the flare.
Flame detector will undergo periodic maintenance and calibration according to
manufacturer’s specifications by manufacturer or accredited company.
Calibration Report to ESB.
Data capture/storage: Data capture at IT-center of ES Bio Energy through
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 44
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
online transfer, if continuous monitoring system will be used. Regular data
backup on CD of CDM specific data will be carried out by data management
staff. Data will be stored for 10 years of CDM project duration and 2 years
afterwards. Data backup procedure valid for the overall monitoring.
Monthly aggregated reports will be printed – two copies will be filed at factory
and headquarters respectively.
FVe,inlet
m3/yr
Flow rate of the biogas entering the heat generation equipment
Measurement
12,678,960 m3/yr
Application of Mass Flow Meter at inlet of heat generation equipment.
Accuracy <± 1 %. Hourly values will be transferred online and recorded
Regular Calibration of flow meter by manufacturer or approved company
(frequency of calibration as recommended by manufacturer) – calibration report
to ES Bio Energy (ESB). QC staff of ESB will be trained on calibration control
and on malfunction recognition.
QC of meter function: One flow meter at inlet will be installed, a bypass with
separation valves will be prepared to enable exchange of flow meter without
data losses. Daily flow meter function inspection.
Data capture/storage: Data capture at IT-center of ES Bio Energy through
online transfer, if continuous monitoring system will be used. Regular data
backup on CD of CDM specific data will be carried out by data management
staff. Data will be stored for 10 years of CDM project duration and 2 years
afterwards. Data backup procedure valid for the overall monitoring.
Monthly aggregated reports will be printed – two copies will be filed at factory
and headquarters respectively.
ECPJ,y
MWh/yr
Amount of electricity in the year y that is consumed at the project site for the
project activity
Measurements
4,380 MWh
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 45
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
Standard electricity meter (separate meter for waste water plant); continuous
measurement. A separate and officially calibrated electric meter will be
connected to the main electricity supply of the overall biogas plant.
Data recording and storage: Online transfer to computer if possible or data
logger to be read out daily and save on computer. Weekly data backup on CD
of CDM specific data will be carried out by data management staff. Data will
be stored for 10 years of CDM project duration and 2 years afterwards. Data
backup procedure valid for the overall monitoring.
Data preparation and reporting: Aggregation to 24 hrs average, weekly,
monthly and quarterly rates by routines. Monthly aggregated reports will be
printed – two copies will be filed at factory and headquarters respectively.
Yearly calibration by official organization or authorized company. No further
steps are applicable due to external quality control (electricity provider).
-
B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan:
Figure 5 shows an overview of the monitoring system and includes all monitored parameters.
X
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
Figure 5: Monitoring system layout
page 46
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 47
All data will be kept for at least two years following the end of the crediting period or the last issuance of
CERs (whatever is the later). For all monitoring supervision, maintenance, data storage, data handling and
plausibility check measures, operation procedures (OP) will be elaborated by ES Bio Energy for their
monitoring and management staff.
Reconstruction/calculation of data in case of instrument failure
Missing monitoring data from instrument failure or during replacement of broken instruments will be
reconstructed from former and subsequent series of measurement by monitoring. Within the first month
of monitoring, missing data will not be reconstructed and losses accepted accordingly. After one month of
monitoring and one month data record respectively, missing data will be reconstructed from the average
of the lowest measured values of the previous and the following months, if the monitoring interruption is
longer than one week (5 working days).
This method is appropriate and conservative, since the flow rates of waste water and biogas as well as the
COD content in the waste water and CH4 content in the biogas are not subject to huge variations in such
production processes. To avoid suspicion referring bridging of complete production interruptions and in
case the flare system will not operate as well, corresponding data from parallel instruments (e.g. waste
water flow rate, COD content of waste water) and proved production data from the Ethanol factory (e.g.
flow rate waste water outlet factory, consumption of raw material, production of ethanol) from the same
period of the instrument failure will be recorded in order to prove the continuity of the production
process. Reconstructed values will be marked in the record and monitoring reports accordingly.
Monitoring organisation and management
The staffs will be trained in the operation of all monitoring equipment and all readings will be taken in a
systematic and transparent manner under the supervision of management. All monitored data will be
safely kept in an electronic database and submitted to the DOE for verification purposes. The key
manager of the wastewater plant will be the responsible person for monitoring all of the above mentioned
parameters and for recording all data appropriately. ES Bio Energy QA/QC staff will be in charge and
responsible for the accuracy of the data collection and processing. Data will be recorded as part of the
daily responsibilities of QA/QC staff. The management structure as well as implementation and operation
management of the efficient monitoring system will be as follows:
External Services
(sub-contracted)
Supplier: Instruments
Maintenance, Calibration
Accredited Lab: Control
Sample Taking and Analysis
Instruments Control
Support on elaboration of
SOPs, Maintenance,
Calibration, reporting of
malfunctions
QA Responsibility:
Instrument Department will
take care about internal
calibration and maintenance
Figure 6:
Monitoring Project
Manager of CPI QA Dept.
Supervision, QA/QC
responsibility, elaboration
of Standard Operation
Procedures (SOP)
Accredited Institute
Yearly Monitoring and
Verification acc. UNFCCC
Laboratory Unit
Support on elaboration of
SOPs, Measurements
Data Management
Support on elaboration of
SOPs, Reporting
QA/QC Responsibility:
QA Department will control
according to international
standards
QA/QC Responsibility:
Management Information
Team will record and process
monitoring data and generate
monitoring reports
Management Structure of Monitoring System
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 48
Training
To assure the correct handling of the equipment and correct monitoring, training of the local staffs will be
organized. A minimum of two persons will be trained on:
ƒ
general knowledge about the applied equipment at the digesters and biogas utilization units;
ƒ
reading, recording and processing data and preparation of monitoring reports;
ƒ
inspection and maintenance of equipment
ƒ
calibration methodology;
ƒ
emergency situation (complete exchange of equipment).
Chosen trainees must have a good understanding of the processes and technology of the digester and the
biogas utilizing units. Verification and training starts parallel with preparation works for the installation.
The main course of the training will be carried out by staff of the monitoring equipment supplier. ES Bio
Energy staff will attend the installation of the equipment, calibration and start up operation.
Guidebooks for the monitoring system and a handbook of the digester operation are provided in local or
English language by the suppliers. The operator and the monitoring management team can find
information about:
ƒ
operation and maintenance of the monitoring instruments
ƒ
operation manual of the digester;
ƒ
design parameters of the biogas composition, temperature, pressure, flow rate, etc..
ƒ
drawings;
inspection, maintenance and simple emergency repair instructions;
ƒ
ƒ
description of parts of the equipment.
B.8.
Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology and
the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies):
This baseline and the monitoring methodology have been prepared by ENVIMA (Thailand) and were
completed on 30. November 2008. ENVIMA is not a project participant in the sense of Annex I.
Company name:
Adress:
Contact person:
Telephone number:
Fax number:
Email:
ENVIMA (Thailand) Co., Ltd.
1023 TPS Building, 4th Floor
Pattanakarn Road, Suan Luang
Bangkok 10250, Thailand
Mr. Magnus A. Staudte
+66 2 717 8114
+66 2 717 8115
staudtem@envima.com
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 49
SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period
C.1.
Duration of the project activity:
C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:
Start of Construction:
Start of Operation:
October 2007
1. February 2009
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:
20 years
C.2.
Choice of the crediting period and related information:
C.2.1. Renewable crediting period:
C.2.1.1.
Starting date of the first crediting period:
C.2.1.2.
Length of the first crediting period:
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:
C.2.2.1.
Starting date:
C.2.2.2.
Length:
31. July, 2009
10 years, 0 months.
SECTION D. Environmental impacts
D.1.
Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary
impacts:
Environmental Assessment for the Bio-Digester has been conducted as it is required by Department of
Industrial Work for ethanol license which included wastewater treatment system in the scope of the study.
Below is a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) is not required for the underlying
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 50
project activity 18 .
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Criteria
Project Status
Will there be a large change in environmental conditions?
Will new features be out-of-scale with the existing environment?
Will the effect be unusual in the area or particularly complex?
Will the effect extend over a large area?
Will there be any potential for transfrontier impact?
Will many people be affected?
Will many receptors of other types (fauna and flora, businesses, facilities) be affected?
Will valuable or scarce features or resources be affected?
Is there a risk that environmental standards will be breached?
Is there a risk that protected sites, areas, features will be affected?
Is there a high probability of the effect occurring?
Will the effect continue for a long time?
Will the effect be permanent rather than temporary?
Will the impact be continuous rather than intermittent?
If it is intermittent will it be frequent rather than rare?
Will the impact be irreversible?
Will it be difficult to avoid, or reduce or repair or compensate for the effect?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
(Adapted from: CEC, 1993, Environmental Manual, Annex 1)
However, the Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) has been conducted follow the requirement of Thai
DNA and the standards and requirements on sustainable development and environmental impact
screening from the Gold Standard Scheme.
Environmental Effect- As mentioned in the project activity description on the project benefits in several
levels include:
1. Green House Gas and odor emission reduction
2. Reduce fossil fuel consumption The planned project will contribute to
energy conservation during the entire life span of the system. By utilize 7.6
Mio m3/yr of methane (12,678,960 m3/yr biogas with 60 % Methane
content) to substitute approx. 7,464,600 liter/year of heavy oil.
3. Reduce water consumption in the production process by reuse the
wastewater.
4. Increase employment opportunity.
5. Encourage sustainable development of project area and nearby.
D.2.
If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host
Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental
impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party:
18
Legal requirements for conducting EIAs are defined under the “Enhancement and Conservation of the Natural
Environmental Quality Act of 1992”, Part 4, Section 46-51. This Act lists project types that require an EIA. The
adoption of a different technology for an existing waste water treatment plant is not subject of this law.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 51
This project will create no significant negative environmental impacts. There will be no water discharge
from any of project activities.
SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments
E.1.
Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:
>>> Scope of the local stakeholder consultations
The stakeholder and public consultations have been carried out in three steps: the initial stakeholder
consultations, the publications of a non-technical PDD, IEE and draft-PDD, and a final stakeholder
meeting. Although there is formally no legal requirement for public participation under Thai law, it is
common practice of the governmental agencies responsible for licensing factories or large projects to call
for such. With the initial stakeholder consultations, these requirements are met. The additional steps of
local stakeholder consultation have been conducted to meet the requirements of the Gold Standard.
A more detailed description of the individual steps is provided below.
Step 1: Initial stakeholder consultations
ƒ
The initial local stakeholder consultations was conducted in September 16, 2008 at the factory of
Eastern Sugar Co., Ltd., the same location where the Ethanol Plant is built. Invitation has been made
by direct invitation of selected groups of stakeholders, considering public sector, NGOs and
population as well as representatives of different groups of the population (e.g. teacher, monks,
representatives of health centers) and through public announcement through newspaper, mail and
poster at public areas.
ƒ
The consultations covered the information of and consultation with people living within 3 kilometers
from the production site.
ƒ
Involved stakeholders include different groups of people. A total of 30 people - governmental
officers, school teachers, monks, officers of the Tambon Authority Office (TAO), community‘s
leaders, factory‘s workers, general villagers – were included.
ƒ
Stakeholders have been briefed on the project purpose and interviewed concerning their perception
of the impacts of the waste water treatment plant of the Ethanol factory on the environment, social
systems and general economics. Their opinions on future impacts through the planned project
activity and operation of the plant have been gathered and evaluated. The results have been
summarized in E.2.
ƒ
The initial stakeholder consultation process was finalized by September 16, 2008.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 52
Step 2: Publication of a non-technical PDD, IEE and draft PDD at office and factory of ES
Bioenergy Co., Ltd. and ENVIMA (Thailand) Co., Ltd. office.
ƒ
Public access to all documents at Eastern Sugar Factory, Eastern Bioenergy Offices in Bangkok, and
ENVIMA Office in Bangkok from September 16 –October 16, 08.
ƒ
Public access to all documents at Eastern Sugar Factory, Eastern Bioenergy Offices in Bangkok, and
ENVIMA Office in Bangkok.
ƒ
Announcement of the project and access to all documents through press publications on Sept 19,
2008, including invitations for comments to the project.
Step 3: Final Stakeholder Meeting in ES Bioenergy
ƒ
This meeting was held on October 16, 2008 - 4 weeks after the first publication of the project
documents at Eastern Sugar canteen, which is located nearby the biodigester system location,
Srakaew province.
ƒ
The consultations covered the same topic as the first meeting; information of project activities,
technology will be employed, environmental issue and CDM. In this time more stakeholder
attended in the meeting.
ƒ
Involved stakeholders include different groups of people. A total of 178 people - governmental
officers, school teachers, monks, officers of the Tambon Authority Office (TAO), community‘s
leaders, health center officer, factory‘s workers, general villagers, farmers attended.
ƒ
The first stakeholder meeting, questions and discussion were briefed for stakeholders at the end
of the question and answer session of the meeting. The results have been summarized in E.2
E.2.
Summary of the comments received:
>>During publication of the project documents from September 16 till date no comments have been
submitted.
The second stakeholder consultation meeting with more than 180 participants. Constructive discussions
came up despite the huge amount of people. Concerns have been addressed referring impacts during
construction period and during, maintenance of biogas system, environmental monitoring plan including
training, and safety and occupational health plan for employee/operators of this project. The participant
raised questions and also received clearly answers during the meeting. Most of participants agree with
this project – concerns of impacts could be explained how due consideration will be taken (as already
considered in the planning and within the licensing procedure) to reduce emission and maintaine
environmental friendly operation. It has been welcomed new and more job opportunities for local people
within the surrounding communities. However, participants remind the project owner to carry out the
project carefully at every step regarding planning and operation. Non of the comments caused
requirements on changing the project approach. The overall comments will be considered by the project
owner and will be applied within the project activity in order to protect people, environment and natural
resource within the community and in the surroundings.
During this 2nd stakeholder meeting additional a questionnaire has been handed out to all 182 participants
for receiving comments and statements to the planned project. 138 questionnaires have been handed back.
The outcome of this questionnaire is in evaluation process.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 53
E.3.
>>
Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 54
Annex 1
CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY
Organization:
Street/P.O.Box:
Building:
City:
State/Region:
Postcode/ZIP:
Country:
Telephone:
FAX:
E-Mail:
URL:
Represented by:
Title:
Salutation:
Last name:
Middle name:
First name:
Department:
Mobile:
Direct FAX:
Direct tel:
Personal e-mail:
Organization:
Street/P.O.Box:
Building:
City:
State/Region:
Postfix/ZIP:
Country:
Telephone:
FAX:
E-Mail:
URL:
Represented by:
Title:
Salutation:
Last Name:
Middle Name:
First Name:
Department:
Mobile:
Direct FAX:
Direct tel:
Personal E-Mail:
ES Bioenergy Co., Ltd.
78 Soi Kaptain Bush, New Road
Kiatnakin Building, 2nd Floor
Kwang Bangrak, Khet Bangrak, Bangkok
10500
Thailand
+66 2 237 3050-4
+66 2 237 5990
Mr.
Karnchanatana
Pariwat
pariwat@espower.co.th
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 55
Annex 2
INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING
The project is financed by Es Bio Energy Co., Ltd. through own financial sources and commercial bank
loans. However, the Energy Planning and Policy Organization (EPPO) of the Ministry of Energy provides
funds for Renewable Energy Projects. EPPO confirm that the fund’s origin is exclusively from domestic
sources, such as from gasoline taxes.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 56
Annex 3
BASELINE INFORMATION
Procedure to determine W1 scenario
As per ACM0014, the W1 scenario (use of open lagoons for the treatment of the wastewater) is
developed by following four steps:
(a) Define several lagoon design options
Two different options are considered. Both options consist of 4 anaerobic ponds and 1 facultative pond.
The wastewater goes through a grit collector, equalizing tank and neutralization tank before flowing into
the lagoons. The designs are based on an effluent inflow of 1200 m3 per day with a COD of 180,000 mg/l,
since this is the maximum that will be encountered at the project and the lagoons are therefore sized
appropriately.
Option 1 has an average lagoon depth of 4 m.
Option 2 has an average lagoon depth of 6 m, thus making the lagoons smaller in size. Option 2 is the
preferred design option because the space available for the lagoons at the project size is limited.
The layout of option 1 is depicted below:
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 57
Figure 7: Option 1 lagoon layout
(b) Carry out an economic assessment
The economic assessment is carried out as per step 4, and the resulting costs (all in THB) are documented
below:
Cost
Land cost (1)
Construction cost (2)
Engineering cost (3)
Procurement cost (4)
Labor cost
Administration cost (5)
Fuel cost
Interest cost (6)
TOTAL
Option 1
26,592,573.00
54,237,205.00
8,520,000.00
963,225.00
Included in Construction cost
406,779.00
Included in Procurement cost
4,535,989.00
95,255,771.00 THB
Option 2
22,693,761.00
51,165,870.00
8,520,000.00
963,225.00
Included in Construction cost
383,744.00
Included in Procurement cost
4,186,330.00
87,912,930.00 THB
Option 2 has lower costs and is therefore selected. No IRR analysis is performed as the two options differ
in costs but not in income.
(c) Verify the average depth of the baseline lagoon design
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 58
The selected option (option 2) has an average lagoon depth of 6 meters. A review of published literature
is conducted, since there is little information available on Ethanol plants recently completed or under
construction in Thailand.
The Department of Industrial Works (DIW) of Thailand’s Ministry of Industry has published a guideline
for Ethanol Industrial Factory 19 and recommends a lagoon depth of 3-6 meters. The United States EPA
has published a guideline 20 and recommends 2.4-6 meters, while specifically recommending that lagoon
depths should approach 6 meters: “depths approaching 6.0 m (20 feet) are recommended to
reduce the surface area and to conserve heat in the reactor (lagoon).”
(d) Compare identified average depth with the selected baseline design
The surveyed literature recommends lagoon depths up to 6 m. The average depth of the selected design is
therefore not deeper than the depth identified through the literature survey.
Conclusion
Following the procedures laid out in ACM0014, option 2 is selected as the baseline lagoon design.
19
DIW, Guideline for Ethanol Industrial Factory – 2.3 Environmental Management Consideration , 2008,
http://www2.diw.go.th/I_Standard/index.html.
20
U.S. EPA, Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Anaerobic Lagoons, September 2002
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 59
Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation of grid emission factor for Thailand
The “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (Version 01, EB 35) is used.
As per the tool, the grid emission factor is developed by following six steps.
STEP 1. Identify the relevant electric power system
The project electricity system is defined by the spatial extent of the power plants that are physically
connected through transmission and distribution lines to the project activity and that can be dispatched
without significant transmission constraints.
As no DNA guidance on delineation of the project electricity system is available in Thailand and there is
no layer dispatch system, the grid boundary of the project electricity system is defined at the national
level.
STEP 2. Select an operating margin (OM) method
The simple OM (a) is chosen, as the low-cost/must-run (LCMR) resources constitute less than 50% of
total grid generation in the average of the five most recent years (see Table 6).
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 60
The ex-ante option is chosen as data vintage, so a generation-weighted average OM over the 3 most
recent years will be calculated.
Table 6: Grid generation and low-cost/must-run (LCMR) resources from 2003-2007, Source: EPPO Energy
statistics, TABLE 5.2-2Y 21
Yearly generation [GWh]
Fuel type
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Diesel Oil
Lignite
Imported
Coal
Power
Imports
Hydro
Renewables
2003
85688
2434
75
16856
2004
90289
5468
233
17994
2005
94468
7640
177
18335
2006
94398
7808
77
18028
2007
98148
2967
28
18498
2445
2411
2280
6441
12383
2473
7208
1231
3378
5896
1842
4372
5671
1856
5152
7950
2065
4488
7961
2553
LCMR
Total
LCMR/Tota
l
8439
118410
7738
127511
7527
134799
10015
141919
10514
147026
7.13%
6.07%
5.58%
7.06%
7.15%
STEP 3. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method
The simple OM emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per unit
net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generating sources serving the system, not including lowoperating cost and must-run power plants / units.
It is calculated based on data on the total net electricity generation of all power plants serving the system
and the fuel types and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system (Option C). Option C is
applicable because no data on fuel consumption or efficiency of individual power plants is available, and
only renewable power generation (hydropower) is considered as low-cost/must-run power sources while
the quantity of electricity supplied to the grid by these sources is known.
The simple OM emission factor is calculated as follows:
EFgrid,OMsimple,y =
∑ FC
i,y
× NCVi,y × EFCO2,i,y
i
EG y
(Emission factor: 5)
21
http://www.eppo.go.th/info/stat/T05_02_02-2.xls
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 61
Where:
EFgrid,OMsimple,y Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)
FCi,y
Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed in the project electricity system in year y (mass or
volume unit)
Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ / mass or volume
NCVi,y
unit)
CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)
EFCO2,i,y
EGy
Net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by all power sources serving the
system, not including low-cost / must-run power plants / units, in year y (MWh)
i
All fossil fuel types combusted in power sources in the project electricity system in year y
y
Either the three most recent years for which data is available at the time of submission of
the CDM-PDD to the DOE for validation (ex ante option) or the applicable year during
monitoring (ex post option), following the guidance on data vintage in step 2
This calculation is conducted for three years to produce a generation-weighted average OM emission
factor. Data for the fuel consumption is sourced from EPPO 22 , data for NCV is based on data from a
“Study on Electricity Sector Baseline in Thailand” 23 and data for the fuel emission factors comes from
IPCC 24 .
Table 7: Calculation of simple OM emission factors for 2005-2007
2005
Fuel type
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Diesel Oil
Lignite
Imported
Coal
Power
Imports
Hydro
Renewables
22
Thailand Grid Operating Margin
94468
Fuel
consumpt.
1740
7640
1851
177
49
18335
16.57
2280
2.073
Generation
[GWh]
Unit
MMSCFD
million
liters
million
liters
million
tons
million
tons
372300
EF_CO2,i,
y [tCO2/GJ]
0.0543
39770
NCV
[GJ/Unit]
Emissions
EF_simple,
y
[tCO2]
[tCO2/MWh]
35'175'649
0.372355174
0.0755
5'557'877
0.727470862
36420
0.0726
129'561
0.731980271
10470000
0.0909
15'770'050
0.86010636
26370000
0.0895
4'892'518
2.145841401
4372
5671
1856
EPPO Energy Statistics, TABLE 5.4-1Y, http://www.eppo.go.th/info/stat/T05_04_01-2.xls
23
Study on Electricity Sector Baseline in Thailand, December 2005,
http://www.onep.go.th/CDM/0038829_GridEmissions.pdf
24
IPCC 2006 Vol 2 Table 1.4 (IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence
interval)
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 62
NonLCMR &
Imports
LCMR
TOTAL
2006
Fuel type
Natural Gas
127272
7527
134799
94398
Fuel
consumpt.
1766
7808
1895
77
21
18028
15.82
6441
3.462
Generation
[GWh]
Diesel Oil
NonLCMR &
Imports
LCMR
TOTAL
2007
Fuel type
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Diesel Oil
Lignite
Imported
Coal
Power
Imports
Hydro
Renewables
NonLCMR &
0.500615582
Emissions
EF_simple,
y
[tCO2]
[tCO2/MWh]
Thailand Grid Operating Margin
Fuel Oil
Lignite
Imported
Coal
Power
Imports
Hydro
Renewables
Total EF =
Unit
MMSCFD
million
liters
million
liters
million
tons
million
tons
372300
EF_CO2,i,
y [tCO2/GJ]
0.0543
39770
NCV
[GJ/Unit]
35'701'262
0.378199345
0.0755
5'689'993
0.728738899
36420
0.0726
55'526
0.721116
10470000
0.0909
15'056'258
0.835159633
26370000
0.0895
8'170'718
1.268548072
Total EF =
0.510238552
Emissions
EF_simple,
y
[tCO2]
[tCO2/MWh]
5152
7950
2065
131904
10015
141919
Thailand Grid Operating Margin
98148
Fuel
consumpt.
1715
2967
780
28
8
18498
15.81
12383
5.434
Generation
[GWh]
Unit
MMSCFD
million
liters
million
liters
million
tons
million
tons
372300
EF_CO2,i,
y [tCO2/GJ]
0.0543
39770
NCV
[GJ/Unit]
34'670'251
0.353244604
0.0755
2'342'055
0.78936815
36420
0.0726
21'153
0.755454857
10470000
0.0909
15'046'741
0.813425269
26370000
0.0895
12'824'865
1.035683187
Total EF =
0.491615653
4488
7961
2553
136512
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 63
Imports
10514
147026
LCMR
TOTAL
Table 8: Calculation of average simple OM emission factor
Average Simple OM Emission Factor [tCO2/MWh]
2005
2006
2007
Average
0.501
0.510
0.492
0.501
The average simple OM emission factor is calculated as 0.501 tCO2/MJ.
STEP 4. Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin
As per the tool, the sample group of power units m used to calculate the build margin consists of either:
(a)
(b)
The set of five power units that have been built most recently, or
The set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system
generation (in MWh) and that have been built most recently.
Option (b) is chosen, because it comprises the larger annual generation in Thailand.
For data vintage, option 1 from the tool is chosen (ex-ante calculation). The most recent available
information is sourced from the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency
(DEDE) 25 and the Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO) 26 , as EGAT does not publish information
on specific power plants.
The selected power plants are detailed in Table 9 (step 5).
STEP 5. Calculate the build margin emission factor
The build margin emissions factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average emission factor
(tCO2/MWh) of all power units m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is
available, calculated as follows:
EFgrid,BM,y =
∑ EG
m
m, y
× EFEL,m,y
∑ EG
m ,y
m
(Emission factor: 12)
Where:
25
http://www.dede.go.th/dede/index.php?id=830
26
http://www.eppo.go.th/power/data/index.html
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 64
EFgrid,BM,y
EGm,y
EFEL,m,y
m
y
Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)
Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y
CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh)
Power units included in the build margin
Most recent historical year for which power generation data is available
The selected power plants and the data used for calculation are detailed below:
Table 9: Build margin data
STEP 6. Calculate the combined margin emissions factor
The combined margin emission factor is calculated as follows:
EFgrid,CM,y = EFgrid,OM,y × wOM + EFgrid,BM,y × wBM
wOM and wBM are both 0.5, the default values as per the tool.
Operating Margin
Margin
Weight
0.501
0.5
Build Margin
Margin
Weight
0.480
0.5
Combined Margin
0.490
(Emission factor: 13)
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 65
Therefore, EFgrid,CM,y is 0.49 tCO2/MWh.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 66
Annex 4
MONITORING INFORMATION
Pls refer to Section B 7.2.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 67
Annex 5
Detailed Results of the EIA Pre-Screen
Summary of the Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE)
Non-Technical PDD
Detailed Results of the EIA Pre-Screen
Besides site evaluation and assessment of secondary data and information on related topics, additional
information from the stakeholder interviews and discussions have been gathered and are considered in the
EIA pre-screen process as below:
Environmental Impacts
1. Will construction, operation or
decommissioning of the Project use or
affect natural resources or ecosystems
such as land, water, forests, habitats,
materials or, especially any resources
which are non-renewable or in short
supply?
Yes / No / ? . Briefly
describe
Yes. The project location is
on the properties of the plant.
Land use is already for
industrial purposes.
2. Will the Project involve use, storage, Yes. The project will handle
transport, handling, production or release and use methane gas and
of substances or materials (including solid organic laden waste water.
waste) which could be harmful to the
environment?
3. Will the Project release pollutants or
any hazardous, toxic or noxious
substances to air?
No. The project boundaries
are focused on the digester
which will capture methane
gas for utilization.
4. Will the Project cause noise and
No. The planned biogas
vibration or release of light, heat energy or reactor will operate without
electromagnetic radiation?
noises. There will be no
additional impacts.
Is this likely to result in a significant
effect? Yes/No/? – Why?
No. The land provided for the project is
part of the operation license of the
factory and therefore already approved
to not significantly effect the
environment. The project will provide
renewable energy resources through
methane capturing, thus avoid the use of
fossil resources and reducing fugitive
methane emission.
No. The operation of the waste water
treatment plant will capture and utilize
the fugitive methane gas. The waste
water treatment will be reuse in the
production process and some will be
applied for irrigation purpose. There will
be no other changes of the operation,
input and output parameters remain the
same.
No. Through the capture of climate
impacting methane gas, fugitive
emission of climate harmful pollutants
deriving from the emission will be
avoided. There will be no significant
affect from the occurrence of emission
through methane gas burning for heat
generation.
No. The noises from the biogas reactor
are deriving from a little pump and thus
no impact would occur.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 68
Environmental Impacts
5. Will the Project lead to risks of
contamination of land or water from
releases of pollutants onto the ground or
into surface waters, groundwater, coastal
wasters or the sea?
6. Are there any areas on or around the
location which are protected under
international or national or local
legislation for their ecological value,
which could be affected by the project?
7. Are there any other areas on or around
the location, which are important or
sensitive for reasons of their ecology, e.g.
wetlands, watercourses or other water
bodies, the coastal zone, mountains,
forests or woodlands, which could be
affected by the project?
Yes / No / ? . Briefly
describe
No. Sludge and effluent from
molasses digester of the
waste water treatment will be
used as fertilizer. Effluent
from cassava digester will be
reused in the ethanol Plant.
No. The area is approved
industrial and agricultural
area; the project location is
on the factory’s own
property.
No. The river, Klong Yang,
is in the vicinity (appx 1 km.)
of biogas plant. The Klong
Yang is already used by the
surrounding communities as
a water resource but not
consumed by the project.
Is this likely to result in a significant
effect? Yes/No/? – Why?
No. The operation of the new waste
water treatment plant will not change the
handling of the effluents, which in the
future as well will be used as fertilizer.
An improvement of the treated waste
water quality can be expected.
No. The factory’s area and the
surroundings comprise of some
agricultural area and most empty area
without activity use value.
No. The conditions of the river will not
be affected through the project. Treated
water will be used as liquid fertilizer and
reused in the ethanol plant as the factory
is already doing it under the licensed
operation since founding of the
company. The effluent will be not
discharged through the water resource.
It is expected that the project will be
bringing along a reduction of the number
of open lagoons and a general
improvement of the remaining lagoons,
thus securing the wastewater treatment
plant against leakages.
8. Are there any areas on or around the
There is no specific
No. But the construction and operation
location which are used by protected,
investigation done on the
of the new wastewater treatment
important or sensitive species of fauna or appearance of protected,
component will improve the quality of
flora e.g. for breeding, nesting, foraging, important or sensitive species the post treated wastewater from ethanol
resting, over-wintering, migration, which in this area. No material is
process. Thus the environment of the
could be affected by the project?
available. Anyway, the
location will be protected by the project
location of the anaerobic
activities of reducing odor, fugitive
digester is in the middle of
methane emission and improving the
agricultural and nearby
water quality in the remaining open
industrial area of Eastern
lagoons.
Sugar Co., Ltd.
9. Are there any inland, coastal, marine or No. Ground water under the No. No negative change of the effluent
underground waters on or around the
factory’s area does not exist. quality will be expected. The project
location which could be affected by the
activities will not harm the groundwater.
project?
The bottom of biogas plant consists of
the plastic (HDEP) sheet to prevent the
leakage into the ground water. The river
will not be affected, since the
wastewater will be reused in the ethanol
plant and used for fertilizer purpose.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 69
Environmental Impacts
10. Is the project location susceptible to
earthquakes, subsidence, landslides,
erosion, flooding or extreme or adverse
climatic conditions e.g. temperature
inversions, fogs, severe winds, which
could cause the project to present
environmental problems?
Yes / No / ? . Briefly
describe
No. Normal geological and
climate conditions.
Is this likely to result in a significant
effect? Yes/No/? – Why?
No. The weather and earthquake
statistics and the landscape conditions
are not proving any endangering
incidents in this area.
Socioeconomic and Health Impacts
11. Will the Project involve use, storage, Yes. The project plans to
transport, handling, production or release handle and use methane gas.
of substances or materials (including solid
waste) which could be harmful to human
health or raise concerns about actual or
perceived risks to human health?
No. The existing fugitive methane gas
will be captured and utilized as a
renewable fuel resource, thus reducing
impacts on human health through
avoiding the utilization of fossil fuels.
There will be no other changes of the
operation. Input and output parameters
remain the same.
12. Will the Project releases pollutants or Yes. Through the utilization No. Through the utilization of climate
any hazardous, toxic or noxious
of the methane gas as a
impacting methane gas, emission of
substances to air that could adversely
renewable fuel for operating harmful pollutants deriving from the use
affect human health?
steam boilers, emission from of fossil fuels and fugitive emission of
the burning of methane gas
methane will be avoided. The
will occur.
occurrence of emission through burning
methane gas in comparison to the
existing fugitive methane emission will
be negligible.
13. Will the Project cause noise and
Yes. The planned biogas
No. The noises from the biogas reactor
vibration or release of light, heat energy or reactor will create noises
are deriving from a little pump and
electromagnetic radiation that could
from little pump. There will stored in the close insulated room to
adversely affect human health?
be no additional impacts.
prevent the noise thus no impact would
occur.
14. Will the Project lead to risks of
No. Sludge and effluent from No. The effluent from wastewater
contamination of land or water from
the waste water treatment
treatment system will be used as
releases of pollutants onto the ground or
will be used as fertilizer.
fertilizer. The fertilizer and thus
into surface waters, groundwater, coastal
remaining organics will be absorbed by
wasters or the sea that could adversely
the plantations. The plastic sheet
affect human health?
(HDPE) will be used as ponds liner to
prevent any leakage of wastewater out of
the ponds thus no soil, groundwater will
be affected by wastewater.
15. Will there be any risk of accidents
No. The methane gas
No. The low pressure technology will
during construction or operation of the
capturing during operation is keep the gas storage, under very low
Project which could affect human health? based on low pressure
pressure. The storage is completely
technology.
oxygen evacuated. Damages of the
storage covering foil will cause very low
outflow of the gas, which will
immediately spread out while the
concentration will decrease below
explosive concentrations.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 70
Environmental Impacts
16. Will the Project result in social
changes, for example, in demography,
traditional lifestyles, employment?
17. Are there any areas on or around the
location, protected or not under
international or national or local
legislation, which are important for their
landscape, historic, cultural or other value,
which could be affected by the project?
18. Are there any transport routes or
facilities on or around the location which
are used by the public for access to
recreation or other facilities and/or are
susceptible to congestion, which could be
affected by the project?
19. Is the project in a location where it is
likely to be highly visible to many people?
Yes / No / ? . Briefly
describe
No. There will be no adverse
affect on demography,
lifestyle or employment due
to its small scale industrial
internal characteristics.
No. There are no protected
and important areas, which
could be affected by the
project.
No. The project will not have No. The project will not cause additional
any affect on transport. The traffic.
road is not susceptible to
congestion.
No. There are small amount
of villagers and farmers
around the factory. The
technical installations and
buildings associated with the
project activity will be lower
than the surrounding factory
buildings and forest area.
20. Are there existing or planned land
Yes. The surrounding is
uses on or around the location e.g. homes, characterized by the village
gardens, other private property, industry, Moo 1, Huayjod sub-district,
commerce, recreation, public open space, approx. 2 km away from the
community facilities, agriculture, forestry, factory. Directly close to the
tourism, mining or quarrying which could project are some settlements.
be affected by the project?
21. Are there any areas on or around the
location which are densely populated or
built-up, or occupied by sensitive uses e.g.
hospitals, schools, places of worship,
community facilities, which could be
affected by the project?
Is this likely to result in a significant
effect? Yes/No/? – Why?
No. The project purpose is the change of
wastewater treatment technology in
small scale on the factory’s terrain. In
contrary, additional 20 jobs will be
created.
No. The wastewater treatment and gas
capture will not have direct effects
beyond the factory’s boundaries. The
plant is completely located on factory
terrain.
Yes, the village Moo 1 is 2
km close to the factory. The
area around the factory is
mainly empty area with
scattered settlements and
some agricultural area.
No. The wastewater treatment and gas
capturing will not be visible from
villages or the surrounding streets and
roads. The gas storage is constructed
under ground and will not be higher than
factory’s building and surrounding
Plantations thus avoids visibility of the
plant.
No. The next village is in approx. 2 km
distance from the factory site.
Villages, schools and temples within a
radius of 2 km will not be affected
negatively. The project’s side effects are
reduction of water contamination,
fugitive methane emission reduction and
reduction of odor. Through the
introduction of the new wastewater
treatment, the odor will be prevented and
avoided.
The new wastewater treatment can not
be seen from the village, no noises and
odors are reaching the village. No
sensitive use is close to the project
location.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 71
Environmental Impacts
22. Are there any areas on or around the
location which contain important, high
quality or scarce resources e.g.
groundwater, surface waters, forestry,
agriculture, fisheries, tourism and
minerals, which could be affected by the
project?
23. Is the project location susceptible to
earthquakes, subsidence, landslides,
erosion, flooding or extreme or adverse
climatic conditions e.g. temperature
inversions, fogs, severe winds, which
could cause the project to present
socioeconomic problems?
Yes / No / ? . Briefly
describe
Yes. Nearby the factory and
crossing the overall
surrounding is the river
Klong Yang, providing
sufficient water resources to
the villagers and farmers. The
area around the factory is
characterized by typical
agricultural use.
Is this likely to result in a significant
effect? Yes/No/? – Why?
No. The project will not affect the
quality or quantity of the existing water
resources. The project purpose is the
wastewater treatment plant with methane
capturing. The effluent is not discharged
to the water resource. Existing and
potential future air emission will be
reduced.
No, normal geological and
climate conditions
No. The weather and earthquake
statistics and the landscape conditions
are not proving any endangering
incidents in this area.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 72
Summary of the Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE)
This report presents the initial environmental evaluation of “CDM Gold standard ES Bio-Energy Wastewater
Treatment and Energy Generation Project” for ES Bio-Energy Co., Ltd. which is mainly focus on the impacts to
the location of plant and surrounding areas that caused by the activity of applying biogas technology for advanced
wastewater. ES Bio Energy Co., Ltd. (ESB) is planning a wastewater treatment system to operate for treating
wastewater from ES Power’s Ethanol factory in Srakaew province in the Eastern part of Thailand. The objective of
this project is to prevent the release of methane into the atmosphere by capturing the produced biogas for utilization.
The captured biogas will be used to generate steam in boilers of ethanol process, thus substituting heavy oil
consumption and further reducing emissions. Therefore, the project will contribute to an environmentally and
socially sustainable development of ethanol production at Eastern Sugar Power Co., Ltd. Primary data was collected
through the stakeholder consultation meetings and opinion survey of people living in the nearby area. Map and
other basic information of the study area were also collected as secondary data. The plant’s location and
surrounding area comprised of most empty area and some agricultural area, Klong Yang River, community, schools
and temples within 2 kilometres. Also, there are 868 people living in Moo 1 Huay-joad sub district. To make an
initial environmental evaluation, the stakeholder consultation meeting and opinion survey had been organized in
order to inform stakeholder and receive comments and concerns from the surrounding people’s opinion.
Governmental officers from local government sector, representative from medical center, schools’ representative,
farmers, people who lives nearby the factory area were invited. All information obtained is considered in the study.
The evaluation study found that the applied biogas technology cause negative impacts during construction period
such as dust and noise problems but rarely found during operation period. Moreover, the biogas technology would
render positive impact. As the methane emission will be reduced by biogas system so that the impact of bad odour
will be decreased. Furthermore, air pollution will be reducing as the substitution of heavy-oil by biogas in the
combustion process of the ethanol plant. In addition, the effluent of wastewater system will not be released to
receiving water area; however, this will be reused and composted as a fertilizer into the agricultural area without
harming the sub-water and ground water. The sludge will be reused into the wastewater treatment system. These
will improve water quality as well as quality of live of human.
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 73
Non-Technical PDD (Thai-version)
โครงการซีดีเอ็มโกลดแสตนดารด
การประยุกตใชเทคโนโลยีในการสกัดกาซชีวภาพจากระบบบําบัดน้ําเสี
ย
บริษัท อีเอส ไบโอเอ็นเนอรยี่ จํากัด
เอกสารโครงการฉบับประชาชน
(Non-Technical Project Design Document)
นําเสนอโดย
บริษัท เอ็นวีมา (ประเทศไทย) จํากัด
ในฐานะตัวแทนของ
บริษัท อีเอส ไบโอเอ็นเนอรยี่ จํากัด
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 74
1. ชื่อโครงการ
โครงการซีดีเอ็มโกลดแสตนดารดการประยุกตใชเทคโนโลยีในการสกัดกาซชีวภาพจากระบบบําบัด
น้ําเสีย บริษัท อีเอส ไบโอเอ็นเนอรยี่ จํากัด
2. ประเภทของโครงการ
การกักเก็บกาซมีเทนที่เกิดจากระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียเพื่อเปนเชื้อเพลิงสําหรับหมอไอน้ํา (Boiler)
ในโรงงานผลิตเอทานอล
โครงการนี้จัดเปนโครงการซีดีเอ็มหรือโครงการกลไกการพัฒนาที่สะอาดขนาดใหญ 27 ดานสิ่งแวดลอมโดยก
ารแปลงน้ําเสียเปนพลังงาน และจัดอยูภายใตโครงการซีดีเอ็มประเภท 13 เรื่องการจัดการของเสีย (Scope
13: Waste handling and disposal 28 ) ตามขอกําหนดคณะกรรมการบริหารซีดีเอ็ม-CDM Executive
Board (EB)
3. ผูดําเนินโครงการ
บริษัท คลีนเอ็นเนอรยี่ ดีเวลลอปเมนท (ไทยแลนด) จํากัด
บริษัท
คลีนเอ็นเนอรยี่
ดีเวลลอปเมนท
(ไทยแลนด)
จํากัด
เปนบริษัทผูออกแบบจัดการดานวิศวกรรมและเปนผูพัฒนาโครงการกาซชีวภาพในประเทศไทย
บริษัทคลีนไทยมีการประยุกตใชเทคโนโลยีขั้นสูงในการเปลี่ยนแปลงของเสียใหเปนพลังงานเพื่อนําไปใชทด
แทนพลังงานน้ํามันเตา
หรือพลังงานกระแสไฟฟา
นอกจากนี้คลีนไทยยังเปนเจาของลิขสิทธิ์การบําบัดน้ําเสียใหเปนพลังงานของกลุมโรงงานอุตสาหกรรมหลาย
ประเภท โดยสามารถนําพลังงานชีวภาพที่ไดไปใชใหเกิดประโยชนอยางคุมคาได
4. เจาของโครงการ
บริษัท อีเอส ไบโอเอ็นเนอรยี่ จํากัด
จํากัด
บริษัท
อีเอส
ไบโอเอ็นเนอรยี่
2539
จดทะเบียนตามประมวลกฎหมายแพงและพาณิชยเปนนิติบุคคลประเภทบริษัทเมื่อป
ประกอบกิจการผลิตกาซชีวภาพ
ปจจุบันกําลังอยูระหวางดําเนินการขออนุญาตประกอบกิจการโรงงานประเภทที่
89
โรงผลิตกาซซึ่งไมใชกาซธรรมชาติกับอุตสาหกรรมจังหวัดสระแกว
โดยจะดําเนินการผลิตกาซชีวภาพจากน้ําเสียโรงงานผลิตเอทานอลบริษัท
อีเอสพาวเวอร
จํากัด
เพื่อนํากาซชีวภาพที่ไดใชเปนเชื้อเพลิงสําหรับหมอน้ําในโรงงานผลิตเอทานอลอีเอสพาวเวอรแทนการใชน้ํา
มันเตา
5. ระยะเวลาในการดําเนินโครงการ
ใชเวลาในการกอสรางทั้งหมด 270 วันคาดวาจะแลวเสร็จภายในประมาณเดือนตุลาคม พ.ศ. 2551
6. วัตถุประสงคของโครงการ
วัตถุประสงคของโครงการเพื่อประยุกตใชเทคโนโลยีกาซชีวภาพในการจัดการน้ําเสียโรงงานผลิตเอ
ทานอล โดยนํากาซชีวภาพที่ไดมาผลิตเปนเชื้อเพลิงสําหรับหมอไอน้ําแทนการใชน้ํามันเตา
7. หลักการและเหตุผลของโครงการ
บริษัท
อีเอสไบโอเอ็นเนอรยี่
จํากัดจะดําเนินการผลิตกาซชีวภาพโดยนําน้ําเสียจากโรงงานผลิตเอทานอลของบริษัท อีเอสเพาเวอร จํากัด
27
28
ปริมาณกาซเรือนกระจกสุทธิที่ลดไดประมาณ (CERs) 69,280 ตันเทียบเทาคารบอนไดออกไซด (tCO2e) ตอป
http://cdm.unfccc.int/DOE/scopes.html#13
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 75
ซึ่งมีกําลังการผลิตเอทานอล
150,000
ลิตรตอวัน
ณ
จังหวัดสระแกว
โรงงานผลิตเอทานอลแหงนี้สามารถผลิตน้ําเสียที่เกิดจากกระบวนการผลิตเอทานอลจากกากน้ําตาลไดปริมา
ณ 1,000 ลูกบาศกเมตรตอวัน และจากมันสําปะหลังไดปริมาณ 1,200 ลูกบาศกเมตรตอวัน
ปจจุบันการจัดการระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียแบบบอเปดที่ดําเนินการอยูในโรงงานอุตสาหกรรมทั่วไปนั้นมีประสิทธิ
ภาพต่ําและทําใหเกิดกาซชีวภาพซึ่งกอใหเกิดปญหากลิ่นเหม็นตอผูอยูอาศัยและชุมชนที่อยูบริเวณใกลเคียง
อีกทั้งกาซชีวภาพประกอบดวยกาซมีเทนซึ่งเปนหนึ่งในกาซเรือนกระจกตัวสําคัญที่ควรมีการจัดการเพื่อลดก
ารปลอยออกสูบรรยากาศ
จากการศึกษาการจัดการระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียจากกระบวนการผลิตเอทานอลพบวาน้ําเสียจากโรงงาน
ผลิตเอทานอลมีคาปริมาณความสกปรกของน้ําเสีย
(ซีโอดี)
และมีคาปริมาณของเสียชีวภาพ
ดวยเหตุนี้การพิจารณาถึงปจจัยในการบําบัดน้ําเสียจากกระบวนการผลิตดังกลาวจึงมีความสําคัญอยางยิ่ง
ดังนั้นการจัดการระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียใหมีประสิทธิภาพเพื่อปองกันผลกระทบที่จะเกิดจากปญหากลิ่นเหม็นอันเ
นื่องมาจากกาซชีวภาพ บริษัท อีเอสไบโอเอ็นเนอรยี่ จํากัด จึงดําเนินโครงการซีดีเอ็มโกลดแสตนดารด
(Clean Development Mechanism - CDM) หรือโครงการกลไกการพัฒนาที่สะอาดมาตรฐานระดับสูง
โดยอยูระหวางดําเนินการกอสรางระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียเทคโนโลยีกาซชีวภาพแบบระบบปดหรือโรงผลิตกาซชี
วภาพบนพื้นที่
25
ไรของโรงงาน
ระบบดังกลาวจะจัดการบําบัดน้ําเสียที่เกิดขึ้นจากกระบวนการผลิตเอทานอลสงผลใหน้ําเสียที่ผานระบบบอบํา
บัดนี้มีคุณภาพน้ําที่ดีขึ้น สวนกาซชีวภาพที่เกิดขึ้นจากการบําบัดจะถูกเก็บกักไวไมปลอยใหออกสูบรรยากาศ
กาซดังกลาวยังสามารถนําไปใชเปนกาซเชื้อเพลิงสําหรับหมอไอน้ํา
ในสวนของน้ําเสียจากขั้นตอนสุดทายที่ผานกระบวนการบําบัดจากระบบแลวจะสามารถนํากลับไปใชในโรงง
านผลิตเอทานอลอีเอสพาวเวอร และบางสวนจะนําไปผสมกับวัสดุเหลือทิ้งจากโรงงานน้ําตาล (Filter Cake)
เพื่อผลิตเปนปุย
อีกทั้งกากตะกอนที่เกิดขึ้นจากระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียเทคโนโลยีกาซชีวภาพสามารถหมุนเวียนนํากลับไปใชในระ
บบไดอีกจึงทําใหไมมีของเสียเหลานี้ออกสูนอกระบบ
จากกิจกรรมของโครงการนี้สามารถชวยลดการปลอยกาซเรือนกระจก
ชวยลดคาใชจายดานพลังงานซึ่งเปนการตอบสนองนโยบายในการลดการนําเขาเชื้อเพลิงของประเทศ
และยังมีสวนชวยในการพัฒนาคุณภาพชีวิตของผูอยูอาศัยบริเวณใกลเคียงดวยการพัฒนาสภาพแวดลอมให
ดีขึ้น
8. ที่ตั้งโครงการ
พื้นที่โครงการคือ บริษัท อีเอส ไบโอเอ็นเนอรยี่ จํากัด ตั้งอยูในอําเภอวัฒนานคร จังหวัดสระแกว
ภาคตะวันออกของประเทศไทย หางจากกรุงเทพฯ ประมาณ 236 กิโลเมตร เลขที่ 279 หมู 1 ตําบลหวยโจด
อําเภอวัฒนานคร จังหวัดสระแกว โทร +662-2349298, แฟกซ +662-2345990 แผนที่แสดงดังรูปที่ 1
9. ผลประโยชนทางดานสิ่งแวดลอม
โครงการนี้สนับสนุนใหเกิดการพัฒนาที่ยั่งยืนทั้งในระดับทองถิ่น ภูมิภาค
และระดับประเทศในหลายดานดังนี้
ผลประโยชนระดับทองถิ่นและภูมิภาค
-
-
ผลจากการประยุกตใชระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียแบบปดจะชวยลดการปลอยกาซมีเทนซึ่งเปนหนึ่งในกาซเรื
อนกระจกตัวสําคัญที่ทําใหเกิดภาวะโลกรอนออกสูบรรยากาศได
และเปนการปองกันปญหาดานกลิ่นเหม็นรบกวนที่จะเกิดขึ้นเนื่องจากน้ําเสียจากกระบวนการผลิตเอ
ทานอล
กาซชีวภาพที่ผลิตไดจากระบบบําบัดน้ําเสีย
สามารถนําไปใชเปนเชื้อเพลิงสําหรับหมอน้ําในโรงงานผลิตเอทานอลทดแทนการใชเชื้อเพลิงจาก
น้ํามันเตาซึ่งเปนการชวยการปองกันการลดมลพิษทางอากาศได
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 76
-
-
ระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียแบบปดนี้จะสงผลใหคุณภาพน้ําที่ออกจากระบบมีคุณภาพดีขึ้นสามารถนํากลับไป
ใชในกระบวนการผลิตของโรงงานผลิตเอทานอลได
และน้ําเสียบางสวนที่ออกจากระบบบําบัดยังสามารถนําไปผสมกับวัสดุเหลือทิ้งจากโรงงานน้ําตาลเพื่
อผลิตเปนปุยสําหรับพื้นที่การเกษตรไดอีกทาง
การกอสรางโครงสราง
การเดินระบบ
และการบํารุงรักษาระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียของโครงการชวยสรางงาน สรางรายไดใหแกคนในชุมชน
รูปที่ 1 ขอบเขตพื้นที่ศึกษาและแผนที่ที่ตั้งโครงการ
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03
CDM – Executive Board
page 77
ผลประโยชนระดับประเทศ
-
-
กิจกรรมของโครงการชวยลดการพึ่งพาการใชน้ํามันเตาและเชื้อเพลิงพาณิชยจากตางประเทศเพื่อเป
นเชื่อเพลิงในการผลิตไอน้ําสําหรับหมอน้ํา
การประยุกตใชระบบบําบัดน้ําเสียเทคโนโลยีกาซชีวภาพที่ทันสมัยซึ่งสามารถใหผลผลิตกาซชีวภาพ
และสามารถนํากาซที่ผลิตไดเปนเชื้อเพลิงสําหรับการผลิตไอน้ําของโรงงานอุตสาหกรรมได
กิจกรรมของโครงการสามารถเปนตัวอยางที่ดีใหกับโรงงานอื่นๆ ในประเทศไทยได
กิจกรรมของโครงการตอบสนองนโยบายการปองกันมลภาวะจากอุตสาหกรรม
จากแผนการพัฒนาเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแหงชาติฉบับที่ 10 ป (พ.ศ .2550-2554)
ซึ่งสนับสนุนการยกระดับการจัดการสิ่งแวดลอมใหดีขึ้นกวาเดิม การเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพการใชพลังงาน
และพัฒนาพลังงานทางเลือกเพื่อรองรับความตองการใชพลังงานในประเทศ