project design document (pdd) - cdm loan...

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM

FOR CDM PROJECT ACTIVITIES (F-CDM-PDD)

Version 04.0

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (PDD)

Title of the project activity Partial Fuel Switching to Agricultural Wastes,

Sewage Sludge & Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

at Arabian cement plant.

Version number of the PDD 01

Completion date of the PDD May 2012

Project participant(s) Arabian Cement Company (Private Entity)

Host Party(ies) Egypt

Sectoral scope and selected methodology(ies) Sectoral Scope 4: Manufacturing Industries

Selected Methodology: ACM0003/Version

07.4.1 entitled “Emissions reduction through

partial substitution of fossil fuels with

alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels

in cement or quicklime manufacture”.

Estimated amount of annual average GHG

emission reductions

66,602 tCO2e / year over 10 years period.

SECTION A. Description of project activity

A.1. Purpose and general description of project activity

1) Project Purpose:

Arabian cement plant operates 2 identical production lines with a total production capacity of 4.2 Million

tonnes of clinker per year. Line I started its operation in year 2008, while line II started its operation in

year 2011.The plant operates 24 hours/day, 3 shifts per day 8 hours each and approximately 330

days/year. Both the pre-calciner and kiln burning system can operate on natural gas or diesel oil (sular)

burning. Arabian cement plan is utilizing natural gas as the main and only source of fuel while diesel oil

(sular) will be available only as an emergency standby. In 2010 and 2011 due to delay in issuance of the

business licence for the second production line, natural gas supplies were not sufficient to cover the two

production lines needs. Therefore, diesel oil (sular) was temporarily combusted as a secondary fuel.

However, after the issuance of the business licence for the second line, natural gas supplies have been

raised to cover the two lines consumption. Both production lines operate fully on natural gas now.

The annual clinker production and fuel consumption for the past 3 years are presented in Table 1 and

Table 2 .

Table 1: Clinker production in Arabian Cement Plant

Year Clinker production ( tons/year )

2009 2010 2011

Production line #1 1,996,800 1,963,540 2,124,240

Production line #2 0 0 1,176,480

Table 2: Fossil fuel combustion in Arabian Cement Plant

Year 2009 2010 2011

Natural Gas ( m3/year )

Production line

#1

173,303,69

8

171,545,45

2

175,720,75

9

Production line

#2

0 0 35,318,111

Diesel Oil (Sular) ( m3/year )

Production line

#1

0 3,189 15,570

Production line

#2

0 0 69,985

The purpose of the project is the partial substitution of Natural Gas used in the clinker production

process in the production lines of Arabian cement plant. The alternative fuels, which are planned to be

used, will be a mixture of agricultural wastes (rice straw and cotton stalk), municipal sludge, and Refuse

Derived Fuel (RDF). The starting date of the fuel substitution project is expected to occur in year 2013

with a starting equivalent energy replacement percentage of 5.4% to reach a maximum of 15.1% from

2015 onward as detailed in Table 3 and Table 4 below.

Table 3: Alternative Fuels Mix in Arabian Cement Plant

Alternative Fuel

Type 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

RDF (t/year) 35,280 62,020 82,000 82,000 82,000

Municipal Sludge

(t/year)

10,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Agricultural

Waste (t/year)

5,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

Total (t/year) 50,280 97,020 142,000 142,000 142,000

Table 4: Equivalent energy replacement with alternative fuels in

Arabian Cement Plant

Years

20

13

20

14

20

15

- 2

02

2

Total Replacement % 5.4% 10.3% 15.1%

2) GHGs Reduction:

The objective of the project is to partially switch the natural gas used in Arabian Cement Plant to

alternative fuels (agricultural wastes, municipal sludge and RDF). Since agricultural wastes and sludge

are CO2-neutral emission sources and RDF has a lower CO2 emission factor than the used natural gas, the

project will result in an average annual emissions reduction of approximately 66,602 tons of CO2e/yr

(over 10 years period).

3) Contribution to Sustainable Development:

The project will help contribute to the sustainable development globally through the reduction of CO2

emissions from the displaced natural gas combustion.

The project activity intends to utilize sludge as a fuel instead of its unsafe handling as untreated fertilizer,

which will bring huge benefits to the local community. Untreated sludge has a high content in heavy

metals and parasites that are transferred to the land and human body when applied as untreated fertilizer.

In addition, using RDF in the project activity will improve the health conditions in the community since

municipal solid wastes are usually dumped in managed or unmanaged landfills releasing CH4 emissions,

and sometimes they are disposed in open dumpsites and burnt emitting CO2 and other hazardous

emissions such as dioxins/furans, particulate matter, etc. Similarly, using rice straw as fuel instead of

being uncontrollably burned in the fields will contribute in mitigating the black cloud episodes that

significantly affects Egypt nowadays.

Furthermore, it is expected that other local benefits like helping to mitigate the black cloud in Egypt will

be achieved,, use of renewable resources and solid waste utilization.,.

Ultimately, the utilization of alternative fuels results in energy diversification which is necessary for

sustainable economic growth. Furthermore, using alternative fuels will reduce the financial burden on

the Egyptian Government since natural gas is subsidized. Since the technology of using alternative fuels

instead of conventional fossil fuels is a new know-how in Egypt, applying this project will lead to

technology transfer.

Based on the above, the project activity is associated with positive impacts on the three pillars of

sustainable development: environmental, economic, and social. Therefore, the project will complement

the goals of the Government of Egypt to achieve sustainable development.

A.2. Location of project activity

A.2.1. Host Party(ies)

>> Egypt

A.2.2. Region/State/Province etc.

>> Suez Governorate

A.2.3. City/Town/Community etc.

>> Suez City

A.2.4. Physical/Geographical location

>> Arabian cement plant is located in the eastern Egyptian desert plain, within Suez Governorate, at the

intersection of longitude 32° 09′ 12.02″ E & latitude 29° 48′ 12.21″ N as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1: Location of the Arabian Cement Company

Figure 2: Arabian Cement Plant

A.3. Technologies and/or measures

>> The objective of the project is to reduce CO2 emissions from Arabian Cement plant through partial

fuel substitution of natural gas by alternative fuels (agricultural wastes, sludge, and RDF). A new

environmentally safe and sound technology will be transferred to Egypt through the implementation of

the project activity as detailed below.

Prior to the start of the implementation of the project activity, Arabian cement plant would be burning

natural gas. The equipment and system in operation at that time are typical for cement industry as

illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Typical equipment installed at cement plant

The alternative fuels injection technology to be employed by Arabian Cement Company is a new know-

how in Egypt. Switching to this new technology will require new equipment and facilities that will be

necessary to handle the alternative fuels. This would interrupt the production process and in turn the

production capacity, especially in the start-up phase of the project.

The alternative fuels used that will be used in the project activity are:

Agricultural wastes (rice straw, cotton stalks) collected from various agricultural areas in

the surrounding regions.

Sewage sludge from municipal wastewater treatment.

Refused derived fuels (RDF) from municipal solid waste.

Implementing this technology will require additional facilities and equipment in order to adapt the

combustion system in the cement production lines to the new alternative fuels as suitable. The technical

specifications for the proposed project equipment are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Technical Details of the for the proposed project equipment (per line)

Project Phase Equipment Number of

Units Technical Specifications

1. Conveying and Dosing

system

Drag chain conveyor 1 Power installed: 11 kW

Length: 26.5 m

Width: 1290 mm

Mass flow rate design:

30 t/hr

Dedusting Filter 1 Capacity: 7500 Nm3/hr

Filter area: 22 m2

Fan for dedusting filter 1 Volume flow rate: 10000

m3/hr

Power: 11 kW

Speed: 2900 1/min

Double discharge screw

conveyor

1 Power: 2x15 kW

Screw diameter: 2x400

mm

Length: 6000 mm

Drag chain conveyor 1 Power installed: 9.2 kW

Length: 21 m

Width: 990 mm

Mass flow rate design:

12 t/hr

Dedusting Filter 1 Capacity: 2500 Nm3/hr

Filter area: 12.6 m2

Fan for dedusting filter

ATEX

1 Volume flow rate: 2500

m3/hr

Power: 2.2 kW

Speed: 2900 1/min

Pipe Conveyor 1 Capacity: 12 t/hr

Pipe diameter: 200 mm

Lifting height: 42 m

Length: 152 m

Inclination: 16 ˚

Belt width: 780 mm

Motor power: 22 kW

Rotary valve 1 Diameter: 900 mm

Motor Power: 7.5 kW

2. Storage Reception Bunker Unit 1 Opening Size: 5500 x

5500 mm

Support height: 1500

mm

Height total: 6130 mm

Volume: 50 m3

Outlet size: 3500 x 3500

mm

Height: 4500 mm

Screw Bottom Discharge

Unit

1 Capacity: 6 t/hr

Power installed: (4x7) +

11 kW

Inlet size: 3500 x 3500

mm

Length: approximately

3500 mm

Diameter: 500 mm

Overhead reclaimer

storage

2 Power: 2x4 + 18 kW

Width: 4200 mm

Shaft centers: 26.7 m

Volume: 1000 (live) m3

3. Shredding Belt Conveyor 1 Capacity: 12 t/hr

Motor power: 5.5 kW

Belt width: 1400 mm

Length: 20 m

Inclination: 30 ˚

Shredder 1 Width: 3000 mm

Power consumption: 255

kW

Rotor diameter: 800 mm

Dedusting filter 1 Capacity: 2500 Nm3/hr

Filter area: 12.6 m2

Fan for dedusting filter 1 Volume flow rate: 2500

m3/hr

Power: 2.2 kW

Speed: 2900 1/min

Figure 4: Plant Layout

The alternative fuels will arrive by trucks and will be unloaded using special wheel loaders. The

unloaded bales will be placed on wide conveyer on floor level transporting the bales to the shredder. The

shredder will open the bales and shred the material down to >50 mm. The shredder installation is

dedusted. The shredded material is transported to the overhead reclaimer storage system.

Figure 5: Shredder

Shredded material will be discharged by a drag chain conveyor to an overhead reclaimer storage whose

capacity is 1000 m3.which will give a buffer time of approximately 25 hours

Figure 6: Drag Chain Conveyor

The prepared alternative fuels fuel will be extracted from the overhead reclaimer storage with dosing

screws integrated into the storage. The alternative fuels will then be transferred to the burner section by

pipe conveyors.

After the pipe conveyor, the alternative fuels will be transported up to the pre-feeding hopper for the

feeder. The alternative fuels are proportioned by the pre-feeding system to the surge hopper. The rotary

sluice will continuously feed the alternative fuels to the calciner while maintaining a low intake of false

air.

Figure 7: feeder with pre-hopper

Figure 8: Rotary Sluice

..

Figure 9: Feed Chute

A.4. Parties and project participants

Party involved

(host) indicates a host Party

Private and/or public

entity(ies) project participants

(as applicable)

Indicate if the Party involved

wishes to be considered as

project participant (Yes/No)

Egypt (host) Arabian Cement Company

(Private entity)

No

A.5. Public funding of project activity

>> There will be no public funding involved in the project.

SECTION B. Application of selected approved baseline and monitoring methodology

B.1. Reference of methodology

>> The approved consolidated methodology ACM0003 entitled "Emissions reduction through partial

substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels in cement or quicklime

manufacture", Version 07.4.1, is applied to this project activity.

This methodology also refers to the latest approved version of the following tools:

“Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality”, Version 04.0.0;

“Emissions from solid waste disposal sites”, Version 06.0.1;

“Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”, Version 02;

“Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity consumption, Version 01;

B.2. Applicability of methodology

>>

The methodology is applicable to the cement industry with the following conditions:

Fossil fuel(s) use in cement manufacture is partially replaced by one or more less carbon

intensive fossil fuel(s) and/or alternative fuels.

Natural used in the cement manufacturing process in Arabian Cement Plant will be partially replaced by

municipal sludge, agricultural waste, and RDF.

A significant investment is required to enable the use of the alternative fuel(s) and/or the less

carbon intensive fossil fuel(s).

Significant investment is required in process modifications, construction of alternative fuel storage and

purchase of equipment to implement the system. This includes equipment for AFR receiving area,

shredding, storage and conveying the alternative fuels from the storage to the dosing and feeding point in

the pre-calciners. An approximate investment of 9,931,101USD is required which is equivalent to about

59,983,863EGP.

Table 6: Investment required for the Implementation of the Project Activity in the two Lines in Arabian

Cement Plant

Item Cost (USD)

Mechanical Deliveries 4,795,186

Overall Engineering 129,320

Low Voltage & USP 309,592

Additional Overhead Reclaimer bunker 1,055,251

Reception bunker unit with screw bottom 313,924

Automation Packet 191,135

Supervision 405,612

Commisioning 209,434

Civil engineering 297,436

Steel structure 1,474,248

Sea Transportation (from Hamburg to

Alexandria)

387,960

Inland transport 62,074

Customs 299,929

Total 9,931,101

During the last three years prior to the start of the project activity, no alternative fuels have been

used in the project plant.

Natural gas and diesel oil (sular) have been the only fuel type used at the plant for the last three years.

The CO2 emissions reduction relates to CO2 emissions generated from fuel combustion only and

is unrelated to the CO2 emissions from decarbonisation of raw materials (i.e. CaCO3 and MgCO3

bearing minerals).

Arabian Cement Company is only claiming emission reductions from the replacement of natural gas in

the combustion process only and no emission reductions are claimed from de-carbonization of raw

materials.

The methodology is applicable only for installed capacity (expressed in tons clinker/year) that

exists by the time of validation of the project activity.

The emission reductions calculations are only based on installed capacity by the time of validation of the

project activity which is 4.2 Million tonnes of clinker per year for each of Line I and Line II, where the

production capacity of each line is 2.1 Million tonnes of clinker.

The biomass is not chemically processed (e.g. esterification to produce biodiesel, production of

alcohols from biomass, etc) prior to combustion in the project plant but it may be processed

mechanically or be dried at the project site. Moreover, any preparation of the biomass, occurring

before use in the project activity, does not cause other significant GHG emissions (such as, for example,

methane emissions from anaerobic treatment of waste water or from char coal production).

The biomass (agricultural wastes and sludge) and RDF received at Arabian Cement Plant are not

chemically processed before combustion in the project plant, but are mechanically processed through

baling, shredding and crushing at the project site. The project activity will not result in other significant

GHG emissions other than those related to the energy consumption for the transportation of AFR,

shredding, operation of storage and conveying, dosing and feeding systems.

The biomass used by the project facility is stored under aerobic conditions.

The daily receiving area in Arabian Cement Plant is shed with adequate openingsto keep the biomass

under aerobic conditions. The storage in the intermediate storage area will not exceed 2 days to avoid the

occurrence of anaerobic fermentation of the biomass.

Therefore, the project activity meets the applicability conditions outlined by the approved

consolidated methodology ACM0003.

B.3. Project boundary

The physical project boundary covers all production processes related to clinker production, including:

The pre-heaters, where the heat of exhaust gas is used to heat the inputs for clinker production;

The pre-calciner, where fuels are fired for the pre-calcination of the inputs for clinker production;

The kiln , where fuels are also fired and where the calcinations process takes place;

On-site storage and on-site transportation;

The vehicles used for transportation of alternative fuels (rice straw, sewage sludge, and RDF) to

the project site;

The sites where the biomass residues would be dumped, left to decay or burnt in the absence of

the project activity;

The sites where the municipal solid waste used in manufacturing the RDF would be dumped in

controlled or uncontrolled landfills or even dumpsites.

The emission sources and gases included in or excluded from the project boundary are described in Table

7. Figure 10 illustrates the project boundary for the project activity.

Table 7: Emissions sources included in or excluded from the project boundary

Source GHGs Included? Justification/Explanation

Ba

seli

ne

Sce

na

rio

Emissions from

fossil fuels

displaced in the

project plant

(BEFF,y)

CO2 Yes Main emission source

CH4 No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.

N2O No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity.

Methane emissions

avoided from

preventing disposal

or uncontrolled

burning of biomass

residues

CO2 No It is assumed that CO2 emissions from

surplus agricultural residues do not lead

to changes of carbon pools in the

LULUCF sector.

CH4 Yes Significant emission source from the

municipal solid waste disposed as well

as emissions from decay, dumping or

burning of agricultural residues

N2O No Minor source

Pro

ject

Sce

nari

o

Emissions from the

use of alternative

fuels and/or less

carbon intensive

fossil fuels (PEk,y)

CO2 Yes Main emission source



Emissions from

additional electricity

and/or fossil fuel

consumption as a

result of the project

activity (PEFC,y and

PEEC,y)

CO2 Yes Can be a significant emission source



Emissions from

combustion of fossil

fuels for

transportation of

alternative fuels to

the project plant

(PET,y)

CO2 Yes Can be a significant emission source



Preparation of

alternative fuels

Landfills where agricultural wastes

and MSW are dumped or burnt

Unloading in the

Receiving Station

CombustionConveying Dosing

Transportation

of the AFR

Agricultural Residues

RDF

Project Boundary

Sludge

Intermediate Storage in Overhead Reclaimer

Figure 10: Project Boundary

UNFCCC/CCNUCC

CDM – Executive Board

B.4. Establishment and description of baseline scenario

>> Identification of the baseline scenario was made using the latest Version (0.4.0.0) “Combined tool to

identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality’’. The following steps have been applied to

identify the baseline scenario and to demonstrate the additionality of the project:

STEP 0. Demonstration whether the proposed project activity is the First-of-its-kind

STEP 1. Identification of alternative scenarios;

STEP 2. Barrier analysis;

STEP 3. Investment analysis;

STEP 4. Common practice analysis.

STEP 0: Demonstration whether the proposed project activity is the First-of-its-kind

The proposed project activity is not the First-of-its-kind. CEMEX has a registered CDM project using

biomass fuels at Assiut Cement Plant. Suez Cement Company has 2 CDM projects that are currently

under validation.

STEP 1. Identification of alternative scenarios prohibitive

This Step serves to identify all alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity which can be

the baseline scenario via the following sub-steps:

Step 1a: Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity

In applying step 1a of the tool, the alternatives to be analyzed for the fuel mix for cement

manufacturing may include, inter alia:

F1 The proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity i.e. uses of

alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels.

The project participants are proposing the use of alternative fuels, namely, agricultural wastes,

sludge and RDF in the production process which complies to all the legal and regulatory

requirements. However, the project implementation is not economically feasible as will be

demonstrated in Step 3.

The estimated alternative fuels mix and the fossil fuel consumptions are illustrated in Table 8.

Table 8: The estimated alternative fuels mix and the fossil fuel consumptions

Year Natural Gas

(m3/year)

Agricultura

l Wastes

(tons/year)

Sludge

(tons/year)

RDF

(tons/year)

1 358,446,669 5,000 10,000 35,280

2 339,691,681 20,000 15,000 62,020

3 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

4 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

5 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

6 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

7 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

8 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

9 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

10 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


F2 Continuation of current practice, i.e., a scenario in which the company continues cement

production using the existing technology, materials and fuel mix.

This alternative is the most likely scenario to occur. The pre-calciner and kiln burning system in

Arabian Cement Plant can operate on natural gas or diesel oil (sular). However, Arabian cement

plan is currently utilizing natural gas only as the main source of fuel while diesel oil (sular) will be

available only as a standby. In 2010 and 2011, due to delay in issuance of the licence for the second

production line, diesel oil (sular) was temporarily combusted as a secondary fuel as shown in Table

9 and Table 10. However, after the issuance of the business licence for the second line, natural gas

supplies have been raised to cover the two lines consumption and both lines operate fully on natural

gas now.

Table 9 and Table 10 represent the fossil fuels consumption in the two production lines for

the past 3 years.

Table 9: Natural Gas Consumption of the 2 Production Lines in Arabian Cement Plant

Fossil Fuel Type I: Natural Gas

Fossil Fuel

Consumption

Year Unit

2009 2010 2011

Production Line #1: 173,303,698 171,545,452 175,720,759 [m3/year]

Production Line #2: 0 0 35,318,111 [m3/year]

Total 173,303,698 171,545,452 211,038,870 [m3/year]

Table 10: Diesel oil (sular) Consumption of the 2 Production Lines in Arabian Cement Plant

Fossil Fuel Type II: Diesel Oil (sular)

Fossil Fuel Consumption

Year Unit

2009 2010 2011

Production Line #1: 0 3,189 15,570 [m3/year]

Production Line #2: 0 0 69,985 [m3/year]

TOTAL = 0 3,189 85,555 [m3/year]

Table 11 represents the clinker production rates for the past 3 years. The production capacity of the 2

lines in Arabian Cement Plant is 4.2 Million tonnes of clinker per year. However, Line II has started

operation in year 2011 and operated for 190 days only. Therefore, the production rate in Arabian

Cement plant in 2011 was 3.3 Million tonnes of clinker.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Table 11: Clinker Production Rates in Arabian Cement Plant

Arabian Cement Plant

Year Unit

2009 2010 2011

Production Line #1: 6,240 6,334 6,360 [t/day]

Average days of

utilization

320 310 334 [day]

Production Line #1: 1,996,800 1,963,540 2,124,240 [t/year]

Production Line #2: 0 0 6,192 [t/day]

Average days of

utilization

0 0 190 [day]

Production Line #2: 0 0 1,176,480 [t/year]

Total production rate= 1,996,800 1,963,540 3,300,720 [t/year]

F3 The continuation of using only fossil fuels and no alternative fuels, however, with a different fuel

mix portfolio, taking into account relative prices of fuels available. The scenario(s) may be based

on one fuel or a different mixes of fuels.

As illustrated in F2, the current practice in Arabian Cement Plant involves the utilization of natural

gas as the main fuel and diesel oil (sular) will be available as a standby only in the production

process. In 2010 and 2011, due to the delay of the issuance of the license for the new line, diesel oil

(sular) was temporarily combusted as a secondary fuel. This issue has been resolved and both lines

operate fully on natural gas from the beginning of year 2012 and natural gas is recognized as the

least carbon intensive fossil fuel. Moreover, using diesel oil (sular) in the combustion process is

more expensive than natural gas and it has been used temporarily due to shortage in natural gas

supplies. It is also important to note that the facility is not able to combust Mazout (heavy fuel oil

#6) since the infrastructure for doing so is not available at the facility in addition to its higher price

compared to natural gas.

On the other hand, other fossil fuels, such as coal, are not widely available or common to use in

cement industry in Egypt.

F4 The currently used fuels are partially substituted with alternative fuels and/or less carbon

intensive fossil fuels other than those used in the CDM project activity and/or any other fuel

types, without using the CDM. If relevant, develop different scenarios with different mixes of

alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels and varying degrees of fuel-switch from traditional

to alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels.

Arabian cement company has started operation in 2008 utilizing natural gas only as shown in F2

and diesel oil (sular) has been used temporarily in years 2010 and 2011 after the operation of the

second production line due to the delay in the issuance of the license as previously stated..

Currently, there are no other alternative fuels available to Arabian Cement plant other than those

proposed under the CDM project. If there were other possibilities available, they would have been

considered in the same project by Arabian Cement company in the same project.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


F5 The construction and operation of a new cement plant.

Arabian Cement Plant is a relatively new plant, where Line I has started its operation in 2008 and

Line II has started its operation in 2011. This scenario is not a likely scenario to occur, since it

involves the abandonment of the current plant for the transfer of the project activity to a new built

plant designed to meet the requirements to achieve GHG emission reduction. Undertaking such a

large and costly project makes this option not an obvious choice for operating the company during

the crediting period.

Where Wastes originating from fossil sources are used as the alternative fuel, the alternatives to be

analyzed may include, inter alia:

W1 Incineration of the waste in a waste incinerator without utilizing the energy from the

incineration

Currently, there are no waste incineration facilities in Egypt. The only type of waste that is

incinerated without energy recovery in Egypt corresponds to medical waste. Therefore, this is

not a plausible scenario for the waste.1

W2 Incineration of the waste in a waste incinerator with use of the energy (e.g. for heat and/or

electricity generation)

Currently, there are not waste to energy facilities in Egypt that are used to recover energy from

these types of waste. This technology is considered to be a new know-how technology in Egypt

and it requires huge investment. Therefore, this is not a plausible scenario.2

W3 Disposal of the waste at a managed or unmanaged landfill

This alternative is a highly likely scenario for municipal waste in Egypt, where the constituents

of RDF (plastic bags, rags, etc) are usually dumped in managed or unmanaged landfills, and

sometimes they are disposed in open dumpsites.3

W4 The use of the waste at other facilities, e.g. other cement plants or power plants, as a

feedstock or for the generation of energy

This scenario is not a likely alternative for municipal waste in Egypt due to the high investment

related to waste transportation & handling and necessary modifications in the cement plants or

power plants to inject it as a fuel. Moreover, since fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by the

government, such projects are not economically feasible. Using RDF will interrupt the

production process and in turn the production capacity. Furthermore, there are no regulations in

Egypt that require the use of waste in cement plants or power plants for the generation of energy.

Therefore, there are no plants utilizing waste in Egypt except one plant, which is a registered

1 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian

Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010 2 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian

Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010 3 SWEEP REPORT: COUNTRY REPORT ON THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN EGYPT, The Regional

Solid Waste Exchange of Information and Expertise network in Mashreq and Maghreb countries, July 2010

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


CDM project.4

W5 The recycling or reutilization of the waste

The current common practice in Egypt is landfilling of the waste. A very small fraction of waste

is being recycled in Egypt by scavengers before the municipal waste reaches the landfills. No

recycling activities occur in the landfills where the RDF will be sourced from. The recycling or

reutilization of this material would require performing a lobbying process with the authorities in

order to modify the applicable regulations. Unfortunately this process would yield significant

results probably not before a decade.5

W6 The proposed project activity, not undertaken as a CDM project activity, i.e. the use of the

waste in the project plant.

The replacement of the conventional Natural gas (fossil fuel) with RDF is a new technology in

Egypt that has been used by only 1 plant in Egypt, which is a registered CDM project. In

addition, alternative fuels usage in cement kiln requires several modifications to the plant facility

and research and development capabilities which poses operational risks to the company. There

are no other similar projects implemented in Egypt. The project implementation is not

economically feasible as will be demonstrated in Step 3.

Regarding the biomass residues, the types of biomass residues that will be utilized in the project may

consist of agricultural waste (rice straw and cotton stalk) from the farms in the Delta region as well as

sludge. The estimated amount of crop residues in Egypt is over 33.4 million dry tonnes in year 20106.

The five crops with the highest amount of residue are rice, corn, wheat/barley, cotton, and sugar cane7. In

general, about 30% of the agricultural residues in Egypt are not utilized especially in priority

governorates and about 79% - 84% of this quantity is estimated to be rice straw. Sharkeya is the only

governorate in which a majority of rice straw is utilized; this is because of 2 composting facilities that

have been implemented recently (2005 and 2006). Table 12 identifies the quantities of agricultural

residues under analysis that are being utilized and the quantity that remains unutilized in Egypt.

Table 12: Estimated Management of crop residues in Egypt in year 2004 (000’s tonnes)

8

Type of

Biomass

Residue

Residue

generation

Estimated utilization Estimated tonnes

not utilized (%

not utilized)

Total

utilization Utilization on farm

Utilization off-

farm

Cotton

stalks 1,252 626 626

(use as fuel) ----- 626 (50%)

Rice straw 4,968 1,900

1,540 (composting, animal bedding,

vegetable storage, and animal

feed after treatment with urea)

360 (composting and

vegetable storage)

2,500 – 3,000

(50 -60%)

4 Draft Report EPAP II, The Use of Alternative Fuels In the Egyptian Cement Industry, Richard WF Boarder,

Cement Consult Associates February 2011 5 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian

Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010 6 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian

Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010. 7 Source: Agricultural Waste as an Energy Source in Developing Countries: A Case Study in Egypt on the Utilization

of Agricultural Waste through Complexes (2001) by El-Haggar, Ghirbi, and Longo. 8 Source: Technical/Policy Report on Agricultural Waste Management in Egypt (May 2006) prepared by GTZ

International Services.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Where biomass residues are used as the alternative fuel the alternatives to be analyzed may include,

inter alia:

B1 The biomass residues are dumped or left to decay under mainly aerobic conditions. This

applies, for example, to dumping and decay of biomass residues on fields.

This scenario is not a likely alternative for cotton stalks and rice straw residues in the region,

where they are usually burned in an uncontrolled manner. This is because it causes a fire and

safety threat for farmers to store it or dump it for a long duration in the agricultural fields.9

As to sewage sludge, it is highly likely that it would be left to decay under aerobic conditions in

the wastewater treatment plant in shallow ponds to reduce its volume before final disposal or

utilization.10

B2 The biomass residues are dumped or left to decay under clearly anaerobic conditions. This

applies, for example, to deep landfills with more than 5 meters. This does not apply to

biomass residues that are stock-piled or left to decay on fields.

This alternative is not a likely scenario for the agricultural residues, since they are usually burnt

in open fields. Transferring agricultural wastes to the landfills is more costly for farmers than

burning the waste due to baling and transportation expenses to transfer the residues from the

farm to the landfills. This alternative is preferred to open burning which is believed by the

Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) to contribute to the ‘black cloud’ yearly

episode occurring in Greater Cairo11

B3

The biomass residues are burnt in an uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for

energy purposes.

This alternative is a highly likely scenario, where the biomass residues are usually burned in the

open field. This is currently a common practice by the farmers, especially for rice straw, despite

the efforts of EEAA to prevent this practice as it is the easiest option for the farmers to get rid of

this waste12

. The reason is that farmers must clear their land rapidly in preparation for the next

growing season. Farmers believe that burning crop residues eliminates various pests that might

otherwise have negative impacts on the yields and overall sanitary conditions.

In rural areas, about 50% of the crop residues are used as a fuel by farmers through direct

9 Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian

Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010. 10

Source: Sewage Sludge Management in Egypt: Current Status and Perspectives towards a Sustainable

Agricultural, Use, M. Ghazy, T. Dockhorn, and N. Dichtl, World Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology, 2009 11

Source: Egypt State of the Environment Report, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian

Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010 12


Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


combustion in low efficiency traditional furnaces. The traditional furnaces are primitive mud

stoves and ovens that generate significant local air pollution and are extremely energy

inefficient.13

As to other energy utilizations, such as biogas, a wide variety of these technologies

have not been applied at a commercial scale in Egypt yet. The investment required, low

awareness of farmers about these technologies, timely opportunity to sell/utilize the residues

contributes as well to crop residues non-utilization for energy purposes.

B4 The biomass residues are sold to other consumers in the market and used by these

consumers, such as for heat and/or electricity generation, for the generation of biofuels, as

feedstock in processes (e.g. the pulp and paper industry), as fertilizer, etc.

This scenario is not a likely alternative for these types of biomass residues in Egypt. Unlike

wheat and barley residues that are usually used for animal fodder, the residues that will be used

in Arabian Cement Plant, mainly rice straw and cotton stalks are not currently of interest to any

other market consumers. Uses for rice straw are minimal mainly for composting and vegetable

storage. Worldwide, there are technologies to utilize biomass residues for various purposes such

as animal fodder, generate biogas, gasification, composting, etc. However, most of these

practices are not common in Egypt but only exist under pilot or research phases. This is due to

investment required in crop residue utilization and limited infrastructure for collection, delivery,

processing, and marketing. Furthermore, there are no regulations in Egypt that require the use of

biomass residues as a fuel or feedstock since other fossil fuels are subsidized by the Egyptian

government.14

And regarding the sewage sludge, it is mainly used for land application as a fertilizer by farmers

or it is rarely dumped into landfills.15

B5 The biomass residues are used for other purposes at the project site, such as for heat

and/or electricity generation, for the generation of biofuels, as feedstock in processes (e.g.

the pulp and paper industry), as fertilizer, etc.

This scenario is not a likely alternative for this type of agricultural wastes and sludge in Egypt.

In addition, this is not of interest to the company as it does not fall within its core business which

is cement manufacturing. Also, the high capital investment required for such option is another

barrier.

B6 The proposed project activity, not undertaken as a CDM project activity, i.e. the use of the

biomass residue in the project plant.

The replacement of the conventional fossil fuel with biomass is not a common practice in Egypt.

Agricultural wastes and sludge usage in cement kilns requires several modifications to the plant

13

Source: Agricultural Waste as Energy Source in Developing Countries. A Case Study in Egypt on the Utilization

of Agricultural Waste through Complexes, El-Haggar Salah M., Ghribi Mounir, Longo Gennaro, The American

University in Cairo, Egypt, International Center for Science and High Technology, Trieste, Italy 14

Source : Technical/Policy Report on Agricultural Waste Management in Egypt (May 2006) prepared by GTZ

International Services 15

Source: Sewage Sludge Management in Egypt: Current Status and Perspectives towards a Sustainable

Agricultural, Use, M. Ghazy, T. Dockhorn, and N. Dichtl, World Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology 57 2009

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


facility and a research and development capability which poses operational risks to the company.

There is currently only 1 partial fuel switching to biomass project implemented by Cemex

Egypt, which is registered as CDM project. There are no other similar projects implemented in

Egypt16

. The project implementation is not economically feasible as will be demonstrated in Step

3.

The use of renewable biomass from a new dedicated plantation is not relevant to Arabian cement

plant case. Therefore, it will be omitted from the analysis.

Sub-step 1b. Consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations:

The alternatives should be in compliance with all mandatory applicable legal and regulatory

requirements, even if these laws and regulations have objectives other than GHG reductions, e.g. to

mitigate local air pollution.

In Egypt, there are no environmental law or regulation that bans the usage of certain fuels in industrial

areas. As to biomass residues, the Egyptian Environment Law 4/1994 bans the open burning, dumping, or

treatment of solid waste unless in special areas in accordance with the specifications, conditions and

minimum permissible distances from such areas indicated in its executive regulation. However, open

burning of garbage and agricultural waste is widespread in the country as these regulatory requirements

are systematically not enforced.

Step 2. Barriers Analysis

This step serves to identify barriers and to assess which alternatives are prevented by these barriers. The

following tables show the barriers preventing the implementation of each of the alternatives discussed in

Step 1.

Step 2a. Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of alternatives

The tables below identify barriers other than the insufficient financial returns which will be demonstrated

in step 3.

Table 13: Barriers analysis for fuel mix alternatives

Alternative

scenario

Investment

barriers

Technological barriers Barriers due to

prevailing practices

Other barriers

F1: Proposed

project activity not

undertaken as a

CDM project

activity

NO NO

NO

NO.

F2: Continuation of

current practice

NO

There is no initial

capital investment

required.

NO

Natural gas has been the

usual practice in the plant,

therefore, no technological

barriers.

NO

There are no barriers,

as this is the

prevailing practice.

NO

16

Source: Draft Report EPAP II, The Use of Alternative Fuels In the Egyptian Cement Industry, Richard WF

Boarder, Cement Consult Associates February 2011

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Alternative

scenario

Investment

barriers



Other barriers

F3: Use of evolving

fuel mix portfolios

(but using only

fossil fuels and no

alternative fuels)

NO NO

NO

YES

The current practice

in Arabian Cement

Plant involves the

utilization of natural

gas as the main fuel

and diesel oil (sular)

will be available as a

standby only in the

production process.

In 2010 and 2011,

due to shortage in

natural gas supplies

due to the delay in

the issuance of the

license of the new

line, diesel oil

(sular) was

temporarily

combusted as a

secondary fuel. This

issue has been

resolved and both

lines operate fully

on natural gas now. Moreover, using

diesel oil (sular) in

the combustion

process is more

expensive than

natural gas and it

has been used

temporarily due to

shortage in natural

gas supplies. It is

also important to

note that the facility

is not able to

combust Mazout

(heavy fuel oil #6)

since the

infrastructure for

doing so is not

available at the

facility in addition to

its higher price

compared to natural

gas.. On the other

hand, other fossil

fuels, such as coal,

are not widely

available or

common to use in

cement industry in

Egypt.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Alternative

scenario

Investment

barriers



Other barriers

F4: Partial

switching to

alternative fuels

and/or less carbon

intensive fossil

fuels

NO

NO

NO

YES

Currently, there are

no other alternative

fuels available to

Arabian Cement

plant other than

those proposed

under the CDM

project. If there were

other possibilities

available, they

would have been

considered in the

same project by

Arabian Cement

company in the

same project.

F5: Construction

and operation of a

new cement plant

YES

High capital

investment for new

factory which is

not justified to be

undertaken for an

alternative fuel

project.

NO

NO

YES

Possible lack of

incentive and on

Arabian cement

behalf to undertake

this scenario since

Arabian Cement

Plant is relatively

new.

Table 14: Barriers analysis for RDF

Alternative

scenario

Investment

barriers



Other barriers

W1: Incineration of

the waste in a waste

incinerator without

utilizing the energy

from the incineration

YES

Investment required

for marketing and

technology

implementation.

NO

YES

It is not common

practice in Egypt.

NO

W2: Incineration of

the waste in a waste

incinerator with use

of the energy e.g.

for heat and/or

electricity

generation

YES

Investment required

for marketing and

technology

implementation.

YES

Technology not available in the

country.

YES

It is not common

practice in Egypt.

NO

W3: Disposal of the

waste at a managed

or unmanaged

landfill

NO

NO

NO

NO

W4: The use of the

waste at other

facilities, e.g. other

cement plants or

power plants, as a

feedstock or for the

generation of energy

NO

NO

YES

It is not common

practice in Egypt.

YES

These projects are

not economically

feasible since

natural gas is

subsidized.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


W5: The recycling

or reutilization of

the waste

YES

Lack of

infrastructure for

collection and

management of

waste.

NO

YES

It is not common

practice in Egypt.

YES

There is no

market interest.

W6: The proposed

project activity, not

undertaken as a

CDM project

activity

NO

NO

NO

NO

Table 15: Barriers analysis for biomass residues

Alternative scenario Investment

barriers



Other barriers

B1: The biomass

residues are dumped

or left to decay

under mainly

aerobic conditions

NO

NO

NO

YES

Fire & safety

hazard for farmers

to store in fields.

B2: The biomass

residues are dumped

or left to decay

under clearly

anaerobic conditions

Yes.

It is more costly for

farmers than

burning the waste

due to

transportation

expenses to transfer

the agricultural

wastes from the

farm to the

dumpsites.

NO

NO

NO

B3: The biomass

residues are burnt in

an uncontrolled

manner without

utilizing them for

energy purposes

NO

NO

NO

NO

B4: The biomass

residues are sold to

other consumers in

the market and used

by these consumers

YES

Investment

required for

marketing and

technology

implementation.

YES

Most technologies are under

research or pilot phases only.

YES

It is not common

practice in Egypt.

YES

There is no

market interest.

B5: The biomass

residues are used for

other purposes at the

project site

YES

High capital

investment

required.

NO YES

It is not common

practice in Egypt.

YES

Not of interest

to the company

as it does not

fall within its

core business

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


which is cement

manufacturing

B6: The proposed

project activity, not

undertaken as a

CDM project

activity

NO

NO

NO

NO

From applying step 2a, the alternatives that are facing barriers are as follows:

For fossil fuels mix, the alternatives that are facing barriers are F3, F4 and F5

For wastes originating from fossil sources, the alternatives that are facing barriers are W1, W2,

W4 and W5

For biomass residues (agricultural residues and sludge) , the alternatives that are facing barriers

are B1, B2, B4 and B5

Sub-step 2b. Eliminate alternative scenarios which are prevented by the identified barriers

In applying step 2b of the tool, the alternatives remaining for the fuel mix for cement manufacturing

are F1 and F2 which include the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as

a CDM project activity, then proceed to step 3.

In applying step 2b of the tool, the alternatives remaining for using waste originating from fossil

sources are W3and W6 which include the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered

as a CDM project activity, then proceed to step 3.

In applying step 2b of the tool, the alternatives remaining for using biomass residues (agricultural

wastes and sludge) as alternative fuel are B3 and B6which include the proposed project activity

undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity, then proceed to step 3.

Scenarios W6 and B6 are the same as scenario F1, which is “the proposed project activity not undertaken

as a CDM project activity”.

Scenario W3 is associated with either scenario F2. Similarly, Scenario B3 is associated with either

scenario F2. Therefore the possible combinations of remaining scenarios are as follows:

F1, W6 and B6

F2, W3, and B3

In step 2b, there are 4 possible outcomes. The outcome in the case of this project is the third outcome

which is “several alternative scenarios remaining, including the proposed project activity undertaken

without being registered as a CDM project activity, proceed to Step 3 (investment analysis)”.

Therefore, the outcome of Step 2b is a list of alternative scenarios to the project activity that are not

prevented by any barrier (other than insufficient financial returns which is analyzed in step 3). These

alternatives include :

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


For fossil fuels mix, the alternative scenarios that are not prevented by any barrier are F1 and F2,

which include the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM

project activity

For wastes originating from fossil sources, the alternative scenarios that are not prevented by any

barrier are W3 and W6 which include the proposed project activity undertaken without

being registered as a CDM project activity

For biomass residues (agricultural residues), the alternative scenarios that are not prevented by

any barrier are B3 and B6 which include the proposed project activity undertaken without

being registered as a CDM project activity

According to the combined tool, if there are still several alternative scenarios remaining, including the

proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity, proceed to

Step 3 (investment analysis). In step 3, the baseline scenario is determined after conducting the

investment analysis.

Step 3: Investment analysis

The identified financial indicator most suitable for the investment analysis is the net present value

(NPV). The Weighted average cost of capital (WAAC) has been provided by Arabian Cement Company.

Scenario F2 “continuation of current practice” does not involve any investment and therefore it’s

NPV=0.

Scenario F1 “The proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity” involves the

investment in the following:

1. Construction of Alternative Fuel storage

2. Purchasing and installation of new equipment for handling, conveying and dosing systems

for the alternative fuels

3. Biomass and RDF procurement and transportation

4. Monitoring and control systems

A financial analysis has been conducted based on the assumptions and data illustrated in Table 16.

The agricultural wastes (rice straw and cotton stalks) will be transported to the plant site using the fleet

of Arabian Cement Company.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Table 16: Data and Assumptions used for the Financial Analysis

Arabian Cement

Plant

(2 lines)

Investment Required 59,983,863EGP

Natural Gas Price 4$/MMBTU

Agricultural Residues Cost (without

transportation)

Rice straw

(unshredded)

300 EGP/ton

Cotton stalks 370 EGP/ton

RDF cost (including transportation) 400 EGP/ton

Sludge cost (including transportation) 185 EGP/ton

Benchmark IRR 10.62%

Depreciation Rate 10%

Exchange Rates 1 USD= 6.04 EGP

1 EURO = 1.29 USD

Scenario F2 “The continuation of using only fossil fuels and no alternative fuels” involves no capital

investment. Since the forecasted price of the fossil fuel is not available, the current fuel price has been

used in the analysis and hence the analysis is done on real terms.

Using the company WAAC of 10.62 % as the discount rate in estimating the NPV, an NPV of

-13,880,758 USD is obtained for scenario F1. Scenario F2 is associated with an NPV of 0 as this is the

continuation of current practice which does not involve any investment.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Sensitivity Analysis

According to the “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality” a

sensitivity analysis is included in order to assess whether the conclusion regarding the financial

attractiveness of the proposed project activity is robust to reasonable variations in the critical

assumptions.

Sensitivity analysis is conducted based on the variations in the investment and the alternative fuels price.

The investment amount and fuel prices used in the NPV calculations are taken as reference (100%) and

the variation in the NPV is calculated and explained in the following tables:

Table 17: Sensitivity of NPV to change in Project (Investment) Costs

Investment Scenario F1 NPV

(USD)

Scenario F2 NPV

(USD)

90% -12,938,743 0

100% -13,880,758 0

110% -14,823,693 0

Table 18: Sensitivity of NPV to change in Alternative fuel cost

Alternative Fuel Cost

change

Scenario F1 NPV

(USD)

Scenario F2 NPV

(USD)

90% -8,189,351 0

100% -13,880,758 0

110% -19,897,043 0

Table 19: Sensitivity of NPV to change in fossil fuel cost

Fossil Fuel Cost change Scenario F1 NPV

(USD)

Scenario F2 NPV

(USD)

90% -20,053,462 0

100% -13,880,758 0

110% -8,042,339 0

As can be seen from the sensitivity analysis, the conclusion is robust with the changes in capital

investment, fossil fuel prices and alternative fuel prices as the NPV of scenario F1 is always negative.

Since scenario F2 “The continuation of using only fossil fuels and no alternative fuels” has 0 NPV which

is more financially attractive than the negative NPV of scenario F1, then F2 is the baseline scenario.

Since F2 is not the proposed project activity without being registered as a CDM project, then proceed to

step 4.

According to the investment analysis, the baseline scenario is F2 associated with W3 and B3 and the

least attractive scenario is F1 associated with W6 & B6.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Step 4: Common practice analysis

This analysis is a credibility check to demonstrate additionality and complements the barrier analysis

(Step 2) and the investment analysis (Step 3)

The Guidelines on Common Practice, version (01.0) has been used to prove that the proposed project

activity is not a common practice in Egypt. The following steps have been applied.

Step 1: Calculate applicable output range as +/-50% of the design output or capacity of the proposed

project activity.

Arabian Cement Company’s production capacity is 4.2 Million tonnes of cement per year. Therefore, the

applicable output range will be 2.1 to 6.4 Million tonnes of cement per year.

Step 2: In the applicable geographical area, identify all plants that deliver the same output or capacity,

within the applicable output range calculated in Step 1, as the proposed project activity and have

started commercial operation before the start date of the project. Note their number Nall. Registered

CDM project activities shall not be included in this step.

The default geographical area is the host country. The cement plants in Egypt that will be taken into

consideration are that of production capacity that is +/-50% of Arabian Cement Plant production

capacity.17

Plant Production Capacity (1000 metric tonnes)

Amirya Cement Co. (Cimpor) 4,450

Suez Cement Co. (Cements Français S.A.,

54.2%)

4,200

Arab Swiss Engineering Co. (ASEC)

(Suez Cement Co., 68.7%)

3,615

Helwan cement Co. (Suez Cement Co., 98.69%) 4,500

TITAN Cement Egypt (TITAN Cement Co.,

100%)

3,300

Torah Portland Cement Co. (Suez Cement, Co.,

66.12%)

4,625

National Cement Co. (Government, 77%, and

private interests, 23%)

3,100

Misr Beni Suef Cement Co. 2,800

Therefore, N all = 8

17

Source: 2009 Minerals Yearbook, Egypt [Advance Release], USGS,

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Step 3: Within plants identified in Step 2, identify those that apply technologies different that the

technology applied in the proposed project activity. Note their number Ndiff.

Within the plants identified in Step 2, no plants that utilize alternative fuels in the cement manufacturing

process i.e. all plants utilize different technologies. Therefore, N different = 8.

Step 4: Calculate factor F=1-Ndiff/Nall representing the share of plants using technology similar to

the technology used in the proposed project activity in all plants that deliver the same output or

capacity as the proposed project activity.

F = 1 – 8/8

F = 0

Nall-Ndiff = 8 – 8 = 0

The proposed project activity is a not a common practice since the factor F is not greater than 0.2 and

Nall-Ndiff is not greater than 3.

Since step 4 is satisfied, where similar activities cannot be observed, then the proposed project activity is

additional.

.

Conclusion:

Based on the barrier analysis, financial analysis and common practice analysis, it has been concluded that

the baseline scenarios are as follows:

Regarding the fuel mix for cement manufacturing, the baseline scenario is F2: “The Continuation

of current practice, i.e., a scenario in which the company continues cement or quicklime

production using the existing technology, materials and fuel mix”.

Regarding the use of wastes origination from fossil fuel sources, the baseline scenario is W3:

Disposal of the waste at a managed or unmanaged landfill

Regarding the use of biomass (agricultural wastes and sludge) residues, the baseline scenario is

B3: The biomass (agricultural wastes and sludge) residues are burnt in an uncontrolled manner

without utilizing them for energy purposes.

B.5. Demonstration of additionality

>>

Additionality has been demonstrated in section B.4 as the combined tool is used to determine the

baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality.

. The following dates reveal the chronology of events for Arabian Cement plant’s project.

1. 11th March, 2012: The Prior Consideration of the CDM project was made available on the

website www.cdm.unfccc.int.

2. March 2012: Development of the CDM Documentation

3. 1st March, 2012: Arabian Cement Company submitted a request for the issuance of the Letter of

Approval and the Letter of No Objection to the Egyptian DNA for the CDM project.

4. 12th

April, 2012: The Environmental Impact Assessment of the project has been submitted to the

Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA, Suez Office) and was handed to the Egyptian

Environmental Affairs Agency (Cairo's Office) on 17th April, 2012.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


B.6. Emission reductions

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices

>>

In the baseline, natural gas was combusted at Arabian cement plant in the clinker production lines

generating CO2 emissions.

The project activity reduces CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion in the cement manufacturing

process. Emission reduction is achieved through substituting a portion of natural gas with alternative fuel

mix. Alternative fuels are agricultural wastes, sewage sludge and RDF. Agricultural wastes and sewage

sludge are considered renewable sources and CO2 emissions from these sources are equal to zero. RDF

will emit CO2 during its combustion from the components of fossil origin. These emissions are counted

as project emissions.

Project emissions

Project emissions include project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive

fossil fuels (PEk,y), project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a result

of the project activity (PEEC,y and PEFC,y), project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for

transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant (PET,y):

yTyECyFCyk PEPEPEPE ,,,,yPE (1)

Where:

PEy = Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e)

PEk,y = Project emissions from combustion of alternative fuels and/or less carbon

intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2)

PEFC,y = Project emissions from additional fossil fuel combustion as a result of the

project activity in year y (tCO2)

PEEC,y = Project emissions from additional electricity consumption as a result of the


PET,y = CO2 emissions during the year y due to transport of alternative fuels to the

project plant (tCO2)

Project emissions are calculated in the following steps:

Step 1. Calculate project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil

fuels

Step 2. Calculate project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a result

of the project activity

Step 3. Calculate project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels

to the project plant

Step 4. Calculate project emissions from the cultivation of renewable biomass at the dedicated plantation

(This step is not applicable to Arabian project since no biomass is sourced from dedicated

plantation)


fuels

Project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project

plant are calculated as follows:

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


k

yk,CO2,yk,yk,PJ,yk, EFNCVFCPE (2)

Where:


intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2).

FCPJ,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k used in the

project plant in year y (tons).

EFCO2,k,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for alternative or less carbon intensive fossil

fuels type k in year y (tCO2/GJ). For rice straw and sewage sludge it will be

equivalent to zero (0); as to RDF it will be equal to 36 tCO2/TJ.

NCVk,y = Net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k in

year y (GJ/tonne). Rice straw= 0.014 TJ/t dry, cotton stalk = 0.0154 TJ/t dry,

sewage sludge = 0.0168 TJ/t dry, and RDF = 0.0143 TJ/t.

K = Alternative fuel types and less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the

project plant in year y. There are three alternative fuel types: a) agricultural

wastes (rice straw and cotton stalk), b) sewage sludge, and c) refuse derived fuel

(RDF).

Step 2. Calculate project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a

result of the project activity

The use of the biomass alternative fuel results in additional fossil fuel and/or electricity consumption at

the project site. This includes the following emission sources:

Belt conveyors used in the transportation of alternative fuels from the shredders to the pre-

calciners

Biomass shredding and biomass injection to the pre-calciners/kilns;

CO2 emissions from on-site electricity consumption (PEEC,y) is calculated using the latest approved

version of the “Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity consumption”. Electricity

consumption from each relevant source should be monitored and summed up to ECPJ,y.

PEEC,y = ECPJ,y * ECgrid,y * (1+ TDLy) (3)

Where:

PEEC,y are the project emissions from electricity consumption by the project activity during the

year y (tCO2/yr);

ECPJ,y is the quantity of electricity consumed by the project activity during the year y (MWh);

EFgrid,y is the emission factor for the grid in year y (tCO2/MWh), for Egypt national grid the

emission factor is 0.551 tCO2/MWh as calculated in Annex 3.

TDLy are the average technical transmission and distribution losses in the grid in year y for the

voltage level at which electricity is obtained from the grid at the project site, the default

value of 20% will be used as per the “Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity

consumption”.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Step 3. Project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the

project plant

For Arabian cement plant, Option 2 is chosen to calculate CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels.

ykm,CO2,y

y

k

yk,T,

yT, EFAVDTL

AF

PE

(4)

Where:

PET,y = CO2 emissions during the year y due to transport of alternative fuels to the project plant

(tCO2/yr)

AVDy = Average round trip distance (from and to) between the alternative fuel supply sites and

the site of the project plant during the year y (km).

EFkm,CO2,y = Average CO2 emission factor for the trucks measured during the year y (tCO2/km); for

diesel oil (sular) = 0.0017 tCO2/km

AFT,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel type k that has been transported to the project site during the

year y (mass or volume units).

TLy = Average truck load of the trucks used (tons or liter) during the year y; the average truck

is 20 tons/truck

k = Types of alternative fuels used in the project plant and that have been transported to the

project plant in year y

Baseline emissions

The project reduces CO2 emissions by using alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in

cement kilns. The project also reduces CH4 emissions from preventing disposal or uncontrolled burning

of biomass residues. Baseline emissions are calculated as follows:

ybiomass,CH4,yFF,y BEBEBE (5)

Where:

BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2)

BEFF,y = Baseline emission from fossil fuels displaced by alternative fuels or less carbon

intensive fossil fuels in year y (tCO2)

BECH4,biomass,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing disposal

or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)

Baseline emissions are determined in the following steps:

Step 1. Estimate the project specific “fuel penalty”

Step 2. Calculate baseline emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the alternative or less carbon

intensive fuel(s)

Step 3. Calculate baseline emissions from decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues

Step 4. Calculate baseline emissions from the disposal of solid waste at solid waste disposal sites


A project specific fuel “penalty” is applied because the combustion of typically coarser biomass or other

alternative fuels will reduce the heat transfer efficiency in the cement or quicklime manufacturing

process. The use of alternative fuels will therefore require a greater heat input to produce the same

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


quantity and quality of cement clinker. The chemical content and ease of absorption into cement clinker

of all fuel ashes also differs, and this also contributes to the need for a project specific “fuel penalty”.

However, this fuel penalty will be included during the monitoring period of the project activity and it will

slightly reduce the emission reductions.

The project specific fuel penalty will be determined as follows:

)SEC(SECx PFP yBL,clinker,yPJ,clinker,y clinker,y (6)

Where:

FPy = Fuel Penalty in year y (GJ)

Pclinker = Production of clinker in year y (tons)

SECclinker,PJ,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year y (GJ/ton clinker)

SECclinker,BL,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in the absence of the project

activity (GJ/ton clinker)

The specific energy consumption in the project is calculated based on the quantity of all fuels used in the

project plant and the quantity of clinker produced in year y, as follows:

y clinker,

yk,

i

y k,PJ,yi,

i

y i,PJ,

yPJ,clinker,

P

)NCVx (FC )NCVx (FC

SEC

(7)

Where:

SECclinker,PJ,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year y (GJ/ton clinker)

FC PJ, i, y = Quantity of fossil fuel type (i) fired in the project plant in year y (tons)

NCV i,y = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type (i) in year y (GJ/ton)

FC PJ, k, y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fuel type (k) used in the

project plant in year y (tons)

NCV k,y = Net calorific value of the alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fuel type (k) in

year y (GJ/ton)


k = Alternative fuel types and less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the


i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in year y that are not less carbon

intensive fossil fuel types

As a conservative approach, the specific energy consumption in the absence of the project activity is

calculated as the lowest annual ratio of fuel input per clinker production among the most recent three

years prior to the start of the project activity, as follows:

][2- xclinker,

2-x

1- xclinker,

1-x

xclinker,

xyBL,clinker,

P

HG ,

P

HG ,

P

HG MIN SEC

(8)

With:

HGx = ΣFC i, x × NCVi (9)

Where:

SECclinker,BL,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in the absence of the project

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


activity (GJ/ton clinker)

HG x = Heat generated from fuel combustion in the project plant in the historical year x

(GJ)

NCV i,x = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type (i) in year x (GJ/ton)

FC i, x = Quantity of fossil fuel type i used in the project plant in year x (tons)


x = Year prior to the start of the project activity

i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior to the start



intensive fuel(s)

Baseline emissions from displacement of fossil fuels are calculated as follows:

yBL,CO2,y

k

y,ky,k,PJyFF, EFFPNCVFCBE

(10)

Where:




project plant in year y (tons), please refer to Table 8.

NCVk,y = Net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon intensive fuel type k in year y

(GJ/tonne). Rice straw = 0.0134 TJ/t dry, cotton stalk = 0.016 TJ/t dry, sewage

sludge = 0.014 TJ/t dry, and RDF = 0.0125 TJ/t.

FPy = Fuel penalty in year y (GJ)

EFCO2,BL,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of

alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y

(tCO2/GJ)

k = Alternative fuel types and less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the


The baseline emissions factor (EFCO2,BL,y) is estimated as the lowest of the following CO2 emission

factors:

A. The weighted average CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s) consumed during the most recent

three years before the start of the project activity, calculated as follows:

i

ixi,1xi,2xi,

i

iFF,CO2,ixi,1xi,2xi,

yBL,CO2,NCVFCFCFC

EFNCVFCFCFC

EF (11)

Where:


alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in

year y (tCO2/GJ)

FCi,x = Quantity of fossil fuel type i used in the project plant in year x (tons)

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


NCVi = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type i (GJ/ton)

EFCO2,FF,i CO2 emission factor for fossil fuel type i (tCO2/GJ)

x Year prior to the start of the project activity

i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior to the

start of the project activity

B. the weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel(s) that are not less carbon

intensive fossil fuels and that are used in the project plant in year y, calculated as follows:

i

iy,i,PJ

i

yi,FF,CO2,yi,y,i,PJ

yCO2,BL,NCVFC

EFNCVFC

EF (12)

Where:


alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in

year y (tCO2/GJ)

FCPJ,i,y = Quantity of fossil fuel type i fired in the project plant in year y (tons)

NCVi,y = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ/ton)

EFCO2,FF,i,y = Carbon dioxide emission factor for fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)

i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in year y that are not less carbon

intensive fossil fuel types


The calculation of baseline methane emissions from biomass residues dumped left to decay or burnt in an

uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for energy purposes depends on the applicable baseline

scenario (B1, B2 or B3). If for a certain biomass residue type k, leakage cannot be ruled out by using one

of the approaches L1, L2 or L3 outlined in the leakage section, then no baseline methane emissions can be

claimed from decay, dumping or uncontrolled burning of that biomass quantity. Baseline emissions from

decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues are calculated as follows:

y,2B,4CHy,3B/1B,4CHy,biomass,4CH BEBEBE (13)

Where:



BECH4,B1/B3,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from aerobic decay and/or

uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)

BECH4,B2,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from anaerobic decay of

biomass residues at a solid waste disposal site (tCO2e)

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Uncontrolled burning or aerobic decay of the biomass residues (cases B1 and B3)

The most likely baseline scenario for the use of biomass residue type k, used as alternative fuel in the

project plant, is burning in an uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for energy purposes (B3).

Therefore, baseline emissions are calculated as follows:

yk,4,burning,CHyk,

k

yk,PJ,CH4yB1/B3,CH4, EFNCVFCGWPBE (14)

Where:

BECH4,B1/B3,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from uncontrolled

burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)

GWPCH4 = Global Warming Potential of methane valid for the commitment period

(tCO2e/tCH4)


project plant in year y (tons)

NCVk,y = Net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon intensive fuel type k in year y

(GJ/tonne)

EFburning,CH4,k,y = CH4 emission factor for uncontrolled burning of the biomass residue type k

during the year y (tCH4/GJ)

k = Types of biomass residues used as alternative fuel in the project plant in year y

for which the identified baseline scenario is B3 and for which leakage effects

could be ruled out with one of the approaches L1, L2 or L3 described in the

leakage section.

A default emission factor has been used in order to determine the CH4 emissions of 0.0027 tCH4 per ton

of biomass as default value for the product of NCVk and EFburning,CH4,k,y. The uncertainty can be deemed to

be greater than 100%, resulting in a conservativeness factor of 0.73. Thus, in this case, an emission factor

of 0.001971 tCH4/t biomass will be used.

Anaerobic decay of the biomass residues (case B2)

The latest approved version of the “Emissions from solid waste disposal sites” is used to estimate

methane emissions avoided from the disposal of waste used in the production of RDF

The variable BECH4,SWDS,y calculated by the tool then corresponds to BECH4,B2,y in this methodology. Use as

waste quantities prevented from disposal (Wj,x) in the tool, those quantities of biomass residues (BFPJ,k,y)

for which B2 has been identified as the most plausible baseline scenario and for which leakage could be

ruled out using one of the approaches L1, L2 or L3 described in the leakage section.

Where:

BECH4,SWDS,y = Methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing waste disposal at

the solid waste disposal site (SWDS to the end of the year y (tCO2e)

Φ = Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties

F = Fraction of methane captured at the SWDS and flared, combusted or used in

another manner

GWPCH4 = Global warming potential of methane, valid for the relevant commitment period

OX = Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS that is oxidized

in the soil or other material covering the waste

F = Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction)

DOCf = Fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can decompose

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


MCF = Methane correction factor

Wj,x = Amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the SWDS in the

year x (tons)

DOCj = Fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste type j

kj = Decay rate of the waste type j

J = Waste type category (index)

X = Year during the crediting period: x runs from the first year of the first crediting

period (x=1) to the year y for which avoided emissions are calculated (x=y)

Y = Year from which methane emissions are calculated

F 0.5

DOCf 0.5

MCF 0.4

16/12 1.33

f or AF 0%

Φ 0.75

OX 0.1

GWPCH4 21

Leakage

For this type of project activity, the first source of leakage is considered. Since the project activity may

result in an increase in emissions from fossil fuel combustion or other sources due to diversion of

biomass residues from other uses to the project plant as a result of the project activity, it has to be

demonstrated that such diversion will not occur.

Step 1: Calculation of leakage emissions related to the use of biomass residues

This step is only applicable if biomass residues are used in the project plant. In this case, project

participants shall demonstrate that the use of the biomass residues does not result in increased fossil fuel

consumption elsewhere. For this purpose, project participants shall assess as part of the monitoring the

supply situation for the types of biomass residues used in the project plant. Options L1 is used to

demonstrate that the biomass residues used in the project plant will be burnt in the fields by the farmers

in the absence of the project activity.

L1 Demonstrate that at the sites where the project activity is supplied from with biomass residues, the

biomass residues have not been collected or utilized (e.g. as fuel, fertilizer or feedstock) but have

been dumped and left to decay, land-filled or burnt without energy generation (e.g. field burning)

prior to the implementation of the project activity. Demonstrate that this practice would continue in

the absence of the CDM project activity, e.g. by showing that in the monitored period no market has

emerged for the biomass residues considered or by showing that it would still not be feasible to

utilize the biomass residues for any purposes (e.g. due to the remote location where the biomass

residue is generated).

This approach is applicable to situations where project participants use only biomass residues from

specific sites and do not purchase biomass residues from or sell biomass residues to a market.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Geographical Boundary

The geographical boundary of the project will cover a radius around the project of 200 km to include

some of Lower Egypt governorates as well as the Canal governorates as demonstrated in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Lower Egypt and Canal Governorates

In the absence of the project activity, the biomass residues will be dumped in landfills, burnt causing the

black cloud episode or left to decay. Therefore, the project will contribute in an environmental friendly

management system for the biomass residues without increasing the fossil fuel consumption elsewhere.

Official letter was obtained from a potential supplier supporting the aforementioned information that the

agricultural residues will be collected from sites that do not utilize the biomass and that the biomass is

burnt in the fields by the farmers in the absence of the project activity.

This can be also supported by the following facts obtained from other reports and studies. For example, a

study conducted by the department of economics at the American University in Cairo confirms the fact

that burnt agricultural wastes including rice ashes, wheat straw, cotton straw, beans straw, residues of

fruits, vegetables residues, and barley straw account for 42% of the Black Cloud phenomenon. Moreover,

another study conducted by METAP states that the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has previously

recommended the burning of crop residues. Although EEAA identifies that the burning of crop residues

is contrary to the law, effective enforcement has not been achieved and poses practical constraints given

the number of farmers in the country and the limited resources of EEAA. As a result, the burning of crop

residues is commonly practiced by farmers, notwithstanding legal requirements. Furthermore, the state of

the environment report in Egypt states that the current practice of the farmers is to burn the agricultural

waste openly, which one of the major sources of the “Black Cloud” phenomena18

.

Therefore, no leakage penalty related to the use of biomass residues will be applied.

Emission Reductions

Emission reductions are calculated as follows:

yy yy LEPEBEER (17)

18


Environmental Affairs Agency, 2010

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Where:

ERy = Emission reductions during the year y (tCO2/yr)

BEy = Baseline emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr)

PEy = Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr)

B.6.2. Data and parameters fixed ex ante

Data / Parameter EFCH4,BB

Unit tCH4/tonne of dry matter

Description CH4 emission factor for field burning of biomass

Source of data 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Vol. 4, Ch. 2, Table 2.5.

Value(s) applied 2.7 x 10-3

tCH4/tonne of dry matter

Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

EFCH4,BB

Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the field

burning of biomass in the baseline activity.

Additional comment -

Data / Parameter φdefault

Unit -

Description Default value for the model correction factor to account for model

uncertainties

Source of data -

Value(s) applied 0.75

Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

-

Purpose of data To calculate the amount of methane emissions generated from the solid

waste disposal sites


UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter OX

Unit -

Description Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS that is

oxidized in the soil or other material covering the waste)

Source of data Based on an extensive review of published literature on this subject,

including the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories


Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

-




Data / Parameter F

Unit -

Description Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction)

Source of data IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories


Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

-




Data / Parameter DOCf,default

Unit Weight fraction

Description Default value for the fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) in

MSW that decomposes in the SWDS



Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

-




UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter MCFdefault

Unit -

Description Methane correction factor


Value(s) applied 0.4 For unmanaged-shallow solid waste disposal sites or stockpiles that

are considered SWDS. This comprises all SWDS not meeting the criteria

of managed SWDS and which have depths of less than 5 meters. This

includes stockpiles of solid waste that are considered SWDS (according

to the definition given for a SWDS)

Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

-




Data / Parameter DOCj

Unit -

Description Fraction of degradable organic carbon in the waste type j (weight

fraction)


Value(s) applied For MSW, the following values for the different waste types j should be

applied:

Waste type j DOCj (% wet

waste)

Wood and wood products 43

Pulp, paper and cardboard (other than sludge) 40

Food, food waste, beverages and tobacco 15

(other than sludge)

Textiles 24

Garden, yard and park waste 20

Glass, plastic, metal, other inert waste 0

Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

-




UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter kj

Unit 1/yr

Description Decay rate for the waste type j


Value(s) applied

Waste type j

Tropical

(MAT>20°C)

Dry

(MAP<

1000mm)

Slowly

degrading Pulp, paper, cardboard

(other than sludge), textiles

0.045

Wood, wood products and

straw

0.025

Moderately

degrading Other (non- food) organic

putrescible garden and

park waste

0.065

Rapidly

degrading Food, food waste, sewage

sludge, beverages and

tobacco

0.085

Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

-




UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter FCi,x, FCi,x-1 and FCi,x-2

Unit Tons/year

Description Quantity of fossil fuel of type i used in the project plant in year x, x-1 and

x-2, where x is the year prior to the start of the project activity and i are

the fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior

to the start of the project activity

Source of data Three years data from fuel consumption data logs at the project site

Value(s) applied Year 2009 2010 2011

Natural Gas (m3/year )

Production line

#1

173,303,69

8

171,545,45

2

175,720,75

9

Production line

#2

0 0 35,318,111

Diesel oil (sular) ( m3/year )

Production line

#1

0 3,189 15,570

Production line

#2

0 0 69,985

Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

Measured through the metered fuel consumption quantities and cross

checked with the purchased fuel invoices from the financial records.

Purpose of data To calculate the specific energy consumption of the project plant in years

x, x-1, x-2 in order to determine the fuel penalty.


Data / Parameter Pclinker,x, Pclinker,x-1 and Pclinker,x-2

Unit Ton/year

Description Production of clinker in year x, x-1 and x-2 where x is the year prior to the

start


Source of data Three years data from production data logs at the project site

Value(s) applied Year Clinker production ( tons/year )

2009 2010 2011

Production line #1 1,996,800 1,963,540 2,124,240


Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

Measured through the metered clinker production.


x, x-1, x-2 in order to determine the fuel penalty.

Additional comment

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter NCVi

Unit GJ/mass or volume units

Description Net calorific value of fossil fuel type i where i are the fossil fuel types

used in the project plant in the last three years prior to the start of the

project activity

Source of data Measurements done by the Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute (EPRI)

for Arabian Cement Company.

Value(s) applied 0.049 TJ/tonne for Natural gas

0.0457 TJ/tonne for Gas/Diesel oil (sular)

Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

Obtained from the lab measurements that are reported monthly by the

project participants.


x, x-1, x-2 in order to determine the fuel penalty and the baseline

emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the alternative or less carbon

intensive fuel(s).

Additional comment

Data / Parameter EFCO2,FF,i

Unit tCO2/GJ

Description Weighted average CO2 emission factor for fossil fuel type i where i are

the fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior

to the start of the project activity

Source of data For Gas/Diesel Oil (sular), the CO2 emission factor is calculated using lab

measurements done by third party for Arabian Cement Company. While

for Natural Gas, 2006 IPCC default values have been used at the

lower/upper limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as

provided in table 2.5 of Chapter 2 of Vol. 2 (Energy).

Value(s) applied For fossil fuels:

56.1 tCO2/TJ for Natural Gas

69.8 tCO2/TJ for Diesel Oil (sular)

Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

-

Purpose of data To calculate the baseline emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the

alternative or less carbon intensive fuel(s).

Additional comment

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter EFgrid,y

Unit tCO2/MWh

Description Ex-ante emission factor of the grid in year y

Source of data Calculated using the latest approved version of “Tool to calculate the

emission factor of an electricity system”

Value(s) applied 0.551 tCO2/MWh

Choice of data

or

Measurement methods

and procedures

Ex-ante emission factor is used, which is simpler.

Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions generated from additional electricity as

a result of the project activity

Additional comment

B.6.3. Ex ante calculation of emission reductions

>>

Project emissions

Project emissions include project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive

fossil fuels (PEk,y), project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a result

of the project activity (PEEC,y and PEFC,y), project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for

transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant (PET,y:

yTyECyFCyk PEPEPEPE ,,,,yPE (1)

Where:

PEy = Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e)


intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2)

PEFC,y = Project emissions from additional fossil fuel combustion as a result of the


PEEC,y = Project emissions from additional electricity consumption as a result of the


PET,y = CO2 emissions during the year y due to transport of alternative fuels to the

project plant (tCO2)


fuels

Project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project

plant are calculated as follows:

k

yk,CO2,yk,yk,PJ,yk, EFNCVFCPE (2)

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Table 20: Project Emissions from Alternative Fuels Combustion in Arabian Cement Plant

Year FCagricultural

wastes

[dry t/year]

PEagricultural

wastes

[tCO2/year]

FCsludge

[dry

t/year]

PEsludge

[tCO2/year]

FCRDF

[dry

t/year]

PERDF

[tCO2/year]

PEk,y

[tCO2/year]

2013 5,000 0 10,000 0 35,280 18,135 18,135

2014 20,000 0 15,000 0 62,020 31,880 31,880

2015 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150

2016 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150

2017 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150

2018 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150

2019 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150

2020 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150

2021 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150

2022 40,000 0 20,000 0 82,000 42,150 42,150

Step 2. Calculate project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a

result of the project activity

2.1. Calculations of CO2 emissions from on-site combustion of fossil fuels (PEFC,y):

According to the “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”,

version 02, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j are calculated based on the quantity

of fuels combusted and the CO2 emission coefficient of those fuels, as follows:

i

yiyjiyjFC COEFFCPE ,,,,, (3)

The trucks will deliver the alternative fuels directly to the receiving area, where the alternative fuels will

be conveyed mechanically to the shredder, also there will not be any on-site fossil fuel combustion in

process. Therefore, the CO2 emissions resulting from on-site combustion of fossil fuels will be neglected.

2.2. Calculations of CO2 emissions from on-site electricity consumption (PEEC):

According to the “Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity consumption”, version 01, project

emissions from electricity consumption (PEEC,y) include CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil

fuels at any power plants at the project site and, if applicable, at power plants connected physically to the

electricity system (grid) from where the CDM project is consuming electricity. Option A is selected since

Arabian cement plant consumes electricity from the grid.

Case A: Electricity consumption from the grid

Project emissions from consumption of electricity from the grid are calculated based on the power

consumed by the project activity and the emission factor of the grid, adjusted for transmission losses,

using the following formula:

PEEC,y = ECPJ,y * ECgrid,y * (1+ TDLy) (4)

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


In Arabian cement plant, the project activity will involve the following on-site electricity consumption:

Alternative fuels transportation within the different areas in the plant by belt conveyor

Alternative fuels shredding at the biomass shredding & storage area

Alternative fuels injection to the pre-calciners/kilns inside the cement factory

The electricity emissions from the use of the equipment in Arabian plant are calculated in Table 21

through Table 22.

Table 21: Project emissions from additional on-site electricity consumption per line in Arabian

cement plant

New Equipment Numbe

r of

Units

Installed

Capacity per

Unit

(kW)

Electricity

Consumption

(MWh/year)

Working

hours per

equipment

(hours/day)

Working

days per

equipment

(d/year)

Shredder 1 255 1616 24 330

Belt Conveyors 1 5.5 12 24 330

Dedusting filters fans 1 2.2 5 24 330

Screw discharge unit

(for reception bunker

unit)

1 39 1318 24 330

Overhead reclaimer

storage

2 52 329 24 330

Drag chain conveyor 1 11 70 24 330

Fan for dedusting

filter

11 70 24 330

Double discharge

screw conveyor

1 30 190 24 330

Draig chain conveyor 1 9.2 58 24 330

Fan for dedusting

filter ATEX

1 2.2 14 24 330

Pipe conveyor 1 22 139 24 330

Rotary valve 1 7.5 48 24 330

Table 22: Total project emissions from additional on-site electricity consumption

Year EC PJ, y (MWh/year) EF grid,y (tCO2/MWh) Total PEEC,y [tCO2/year]

2013 3,712 0.551 2,455

2014 3,712 0.551 2,455

2015 7,425 0.551 4,909

2016 7,425 0.551 4,909

2017 7,425 0.551 4,909

2018 7,425 0.551 4,909

2019 7,425 0.551 4,909

2020 7,425 0.551 4,909

2021 7,425 0.551 4,909

2022 7,425 0.551 4,909

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Step 3. Project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the

project plant

CO2 emissions resulting from transportation of the biomass residues and RDF to the project plant are

calculated. For Arabian cement plant, Option 2 will be chosen to calculate CO2 emissions from

combustion of fossil fuels for the off-site transport of biomass residues and RDF to the project plant as

summarized in

ykm,CO2,y

y

k

yk,T,

yT, EFAVDTL

AF

PE

(5)

Table 23: Project emissions due to transport of alternative fuels to Arabian cement plant

Type of Alternative

Fuels

Transportation

mean

Capacity of each

type of transport

(i.e. tons/truck)

Transportation

distance (km)

Agricultural wastes Trucks 20 200

RDF Trucks 20 130

Sludge Trucks 20 200

Variable Value Unit Data Source

T l,y 20 [ton/truck] Arabian Cement

EF km, CO2, y 0.0017 [tCO2e/km] Calculated

Specific fuel

consumption

0.45 [lit/km] IPCC 1996 Guidelines

1 ton diesel oil (sular) 1200 lit diesel oil

(sular)

Lab Analysis

Table 24: Total project emissions due to transport of alternative fuels

Yea

r Number of Trucks/

day

k

yk,T,AF Total PET,y

[tCO2/year]

2013 6 50,280 458

2014 12 97,020 909

2015 17 142,000 1,368

2016 17 142,000 1,368

2017 17 142,000 1,368

2018 17 142,000 1,368

2019 17 142,000 1,368

2020 17 142,000 1,368

2021 17 142,000 1,368

2022 17 142,000 1,368

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Baseline emissions

The project reduces CO2 emissions by using alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in

cement kilns/pre-calciners. The project also reduces CH4 emissions from preventing disposal or

uncontrolled burning of biomass residues. Baseline emissions are calculated as follows:

ySWDS,CH4,ybiomass,CH4,yFF,y BE BEBEBE (6)

Where:

BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2)






)SEC(SECx PFP yBL,clinker,yPJ,clinker,y clinker,y (7)

Table 25: Specific Energy Consumption of the Fossil Fuels during the Project Activity

Yea

r

[m3

NG/year]

[TJ/year

]

Total Fossil

Fuels[TJ/year]

1 358,446,669 13,202 13,202

2 339,691,681 12,511 12,511

3 321,550,450 11,843 11,843

4 321,550,450 11,843 11,843

5 321,550,450 11,843 11,843

6 321,550,450 11,843 11,843

7 321,550,450 11,843 11,843

8 321,550,450 11,843 11,843

9 321,550,450 11,843 11,843

10 321,550,450 11,843 11,843

Table 26: Specific Energy Consumption of the Alternative Fuels during the Project Activity

Year [t Agricultural

residues /year]

[Agricultural

residues

TJ/year]

[t Sludge

dry/year]

[SludgeT

J/year]

[t RDF

/year]

[RDF

TJ/year]

Total Alternative

Fuels [TJ/year]

1 5,000 74 10,000 168 35,280 506 748

2 20,000 298 15,000 252 62,020 890 1,439

3 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107

4 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107

5 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107

6 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107

7 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107

8 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107

9 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107

10 40,000 595 20,000 336 82,000 1,177 2,107

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Table 27: Annual Ratio of Fuel Input per Clinker Production Among the Most Recent Three Years Prior to

the Start of the Project Activity

Year FCP Dieseloil,i,y

[t diesel

oil/year]

∑(FCPDieseloil,i,y*NCVi

,y) [TJ/year]

FCP NG,i,y

[m3/year]

∑(FCNG,i,y*NCVi,y

) [TJ/year]

SECclinker,BL [TJ/t

Clinker]

2009 0 0 173,303,698 6,613 0.00331203

2010 3,189 146 171,545,452 6,546 0.00340819

2011 85,555 3,910 211,038,870 8,053 0.00362457

The specific energy consumption of the project activity (SECclinker,PJ,y) has been assumed to be 1 % greater

than the lowest fuel input per clinker production among the most recent three years prior to the start of

the project activity.

Table 28: Fuel Penalty

Year Pclinker,y [t

Clinker/ year]

SECclinker,PJ,y[TJ/t

Clinker]

FPy[TJ/

year]

1 4,200,000 0.00332 13

2 4,200,000 0.00332 13

3 4,200,000 0.00332 13

4 4,200,000 0.00332 13

5 4,200,000 0.00332 13

6 4,200,000 0.00332 13

7 4,200,000 0.00332 13

8 4,200,000 0.00332 13

9 4,200,000 0.00332 13

10 4,200,000 0.00332 13


intensive fuel(s)

Baseline emissions from displacement of fossil fuels are calculated as follows:

yBL,CO2,y

k

y,ky,k,PJyFF, EFFPNCVFCBE

(8)

The baseline emissions factor (EFCO2,BL,y) is estimated as the lowest of the following CO2 emission

factors:

A. The weighted average CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s) consumed during the most recent

three years before the start of the project activity, calculated as follows:

i

ixi,1xi,2xi,

i

iFF,CO2,ixi,1xi,2xi,

yBL,CO2,NCVFCFCFC

EFNCVFCFCFC

EF (9)

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


B. The weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel(s) that are not less carbon

intensive fossil fuels and that are used in the project plant in year y, calculated as follows:

i

iy,i,PJ

i

yi,FF,CO2,yi,y,i,PJ

yCO2,BL,NCVFC

EFNCVFC

EF (10)

C. If F3 has been determined as the most likely baseline scenario: the weighted average annual CO2

emission factor for the fossil fuel(s) that would have been consumed according to fuel mix

determined in “Procedure for the selection of the most plausible baseline scenario” above, as

follows:

i

iyi,BLF3,

i

yi,FF,CO2,yi,yi,F3,BL,

yCO2,BL,NCVFC

EFNCVFC

EF

(11)

Method A:

The diesel oil (sular) and natural gas consumption is as follows in the last three years prior to the start of

the project activity:

Table 29: Diesel oil (sular) and Natural Gas Consumption for the Most Recent Three Years

Year Diesel oil (sular)

t/yr

Natural Gas

(m3/year)

2009 0 173,303,698

2010 3,189 171,545,452

2011 85,555 211,038,870

Table 30: Emission Factor and Net Calorific Value of Diesel oil (sular) and Natural Gas

Fuel Type NCV

(TJ/t)

EF CO2

(tCO2/TJ)

Diesel oil

(sular)

0.0457 69.8

Natural gas 0.049 56.1

Method B:

The weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of natural gas in Arabian cement plant is 56.1

tCO2/TJ. Since Method B is lower than Method A, therefore Method B will be used to calculate the

baseline emissions from fossil fuels displaced by renewable biomass (BEFF,y) as shown in Table 30.

Method C:

Since F3 is not determined as the baseline scenario, therefore, this method will not be used.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Table 31: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factor for the Fossil Fuels Displaced by the Use of Alternative Fuels or

Less Carbon Intensive Fossil Fuels in the Project Plant

Options EFCO2,BL,y

(tCO2/TJ)

Option A 58.36

Option B 56.1

Table 32: Baseline emissions from fossil fuels displaced by renewable biomass (BEFF,y)

Year

∑(FCPJ,k,y*NCVk,y

)

[TJ/year]

FPy [TJ/year] BEFF,y

[tCO2/year]

2013 748 13 41,234

2014 1,439 13 79,987

2015 2,107 13 117,471

2016 2,107 13 117,471

2017 2,107 13 117,471

2018 2,107 13 117,471

2019 2,107 13 117,471

2020 2,107 13 117,471

2021 2,107 13 117,471

2022 2,107 13 117,471


The calculation of baseline methane emissions from biomass residues dumped left to decay or burnt in an

uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for energy purposes depends on the applicable baseline

scenario (B1, B2 or B3). If for a certain biomass residue type k, leakage cannot be ruled out by using one

of the approaches L1, L2 or L3 outlined in the leakage section, then no baseline methane emissions can be

claimed from decay, dumping or uncontrolled burning of that biomass quantity. Baseline emissions from

decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues are calculated as follows:

y,2B,4CHy,3B/1B,4CHy,biomass,4CH BEBEBE (12)

Where:



BECH4,B1/B3,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from aerobic decay and/or

uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e)

BECH4,B2,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from anaerobic decay of

biomass residues at a solid waste disposal site (tCO2e)

According to the baseline scenario analysis, B3 is the most likely scenarios to occur. Therefore,

BECH4,B2,y will be equal to zero and only the calculations for BECH4,B1/B3,y will be developed.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Uncontrolled burning or aerobic decay of the biomass residues

Baseline emissions avoided from aerobic decay and/or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues are

calculated as follows:

yk,4,burning,CHyk,

k

yk,PJ,CH4yB1/B3,CH4, EFNCVFCGWPBE (13)

GWPCH4 = 21 [dimensionless]

EFCH4,BB 0.0027 [tCH4/t dry matter]

Conservativeness factor 0.73 [dimensionless]

Table 33: Baseline methane emissions avoided from preventing uncontrolled burning of biomass

residues

Year ∑(FCPJ,biomass,y*NC

Vbiomass,y)

BECH4,biomass,y

[tCO2/year]

2013 74 207

2014 295 828

2015 589 1,656

2016 589 1,656

2017 589 1,656

2018 589 1,656

2019 589 1,656

2020 589 1,656

2021 589 1,656

2022 589 1,656

Anaerobic decay of the biomass residues

The amount of methane produced in the year y (BECH4,SWDS,y) is calculated as follows:

y

1x j

k-x)-(yk-jxj,fCH4ySWDS,CH4, )e1.(.e.DOCW.MCF.F.DOC 16/12. OX). -(1 .GWP).f1.(BE jj

(14)

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Table 34: Baseline emissions from the disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site

Year BECH4,SWDS,y

[t CO2/year]

2013 542

2014 1,203

2015 2,198

2016 2,684

2017 3,153

2018 3,605

2019 4,041

2020 4,460

2021 4,863

2022 5,252

Therefore, total baseline emissions will be:

ySWDS,CH4,y, biomassCH4,yFF,y BEBEBEBE (15)

Table 35: Total baseline emissions in the 2 production lines of Arabian Cement Plant

Years BECH4,biomass,y

(tCO2e/year)

BEFF,y

(tCO2/yr)

BECH4,SWDS,y

(tCO2e/year)

BEy

(tCO2/yr)

2013 41,234 207 542 41,983

2014 79,987 828 1,203 82,017

2015 117,471 1,656 2,198 121,325

2016 117,471 1,656 2,684 121,811

2017 117,471 1,656 3,153 122,280

2018 117,471 1,656 3,605 122,732

2019 117,471 1,656 4,041 123,167

2020 117,471 1,656 4,460 123,587

2021 117,471 1,656 4,863 123,990

2022 117,471 1,656 5,252 124,379

Leakage

It has been demonstrated in section B.4 that the agricultural residues utilized by Arabian Cement Project

will be collected from sites that do not utilize the biomass and that the biomass is burnt in the fields by

the farmers in the absence of the project activity. Therefore, no leakage penalty related to the use of

biomass residues will be applied.

The other source of leakage includes mainly fugitive CH4 emissions and CO2 emissions from associated

fuel combustion and flaring.

The project does not involve the utilization of less carbon intensive fuels. Therefore, upstream leakage

emissions from fossil fuels will not be considered.

Therefore, leakage is considered to be zero for the project activity.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


B.6.4. Summary of ex ante estimates of emission reductions

Year Baseline emissions

(t CO2e)

Project emissions

(t CO2e)

Leakage

(t CO2e)

Emission reductions

(t CO2e)

1 41,983 21,047 0 20,935

2 82,017 35,244 0 46,774

3 121,325 45,973 0 75,352

4 121,811 48,427 0 73,384

5 122,280 48,427 0 73,853

6 122,732 48,427 0 74,305

7 123,167 48,427 0 74,740

8 123,587 48,427 0 75,159

9 123,990 48,427 0 75,563

10 124,379 48,427 0 75,951

Total 1,107,271 441,256 0 666,016

Total

number

of

crediting

years

10

Annual

average

over the

crediting

period

110,727 44,126 0 66,602

B.7. Monitoring plan

B.7.1. Data and parameters to be monitored

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter FCPJ,k,y and FCPJ,i,y

Unit Mass or volume units

Description Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel of type k

(FCPJ,k,y) and fossil fuel of type i (FCPJ,i,y) used in the project plant in year y

Source of data Plant records

Value(s) applied Refer to Table 8.

Measurement methods

and procedures

Use mass or volume meters

The consistency of metered fuel consumption quantities will be cross-

checked by an annual energy balance that is based on purchased quantities

and stock changes.

Regarding the agricultural wastes, RDF and sludge quantities, they will be

measured using Weighbridges to weigh the alternative fuels before

entering the calciner.

Monitoring frequency For the fossil fuels, they will be recorded monthly.

For alternative fuels, they will be recorded with the arrival of each truck

and aggregated at least annually

QA/QC procedures According to ISO 9001 system.

The mass or volume flow meters will be calibrated internally each 3

months and calibrated by a 3rd party each three years.

Purpose of data To calculate the following:

1) Project emissions resulting from the use of alternative fuels and/or less

carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant

2) Specific energy consumption in the project which will be further used

to calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels

displaced by the alternative fuels

3) Baseline emissions resulting from the uncontrolled burning or aerobic

decay of the biomass residues


UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter EFCO2,k,y , EFCO2,FF,i,y

Unit tCO2/TJ

Description Weighted average CO2 emission factor for alternative or less carbon

intensive

fuels of type k (EFCO2,k,y) and for fossil fuel of type i (EFCO2,FF,i) in year y

Source of data For diesel oil (sular), the following data source is used:

Data Source Conditions for using the

data source

b) Measurements by the project

participants

If a) is not available

For natural gas and wastes originating from fossil sources for which W3

has been identified as the most likely baseline scenario, the following data

source us used:


data source

d) IPCC default values at the lower

limit of the uncertainty at a 95%

confidence interval as provided in

table 1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2

(Energy) of the 2006 IPCC

Guidelines on National GHG

Inventories.


Value(s) applied

For fossil fuels:

56.1 tCO2/TJ for Natural Gas

69.8 tCO2/TJ for Diesel Oil (sular)

For the alternative fuels:

0 tCO2/TJ for Agricultural Wastes

0 tCO2/TJ for Sludge

36 tCO2/TJ for RDF

Measurement methods

and procedures

For a) and b): Measurements should be undertaken in line with national or

international fuel standards

Monitoring frequency For a) and b): The CO2 emission factor should be obtained for each fuel on

a monthly basis by sending samples to the Egyptian Petroleum Research

Institute, from which weighted average annual values should be calculated.

For d): Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines should be taken into

Account



1) Project emissions resulting from the use of alternative fuels and/or

less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant

2) Project emissions based on the actual quantity of fossil fuels consumed

for the alternative fuels transportation

3) Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the

use of alternative fuels (EFCO2, BL,y) which will be further used to

calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels


UNFCCC/CCNUCC



Data / Parameter NCVk,y and NCVi,y

Unit TJ/tonne

Description Weighted average net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon

intensive fuel types k (NCVk,y) and fossil fuel types i (NCVi,y).

Source of data For Natural Gas and Diesel Oil (sular), the following data source will be

used:


data source

b) Measurements by the project

participants


For Agricultural wastes, Sludge and RDF, the following data source will

be used:


data source

b) Lab measurements by the project

participants


Value(s) applied 0.0144 TJ/tonne for rice straw

0.0154 TJ/tonne for cotton stalks

0.0143 TJ/tonne for RDF

0.0168 TJ/tonne for sludge

0.049 TJ/tonne for Natural gas

0.0457 TJ/tonne for Diesel oil (sular)

Measurement methods

and procedures

For a) and b): Measurements should be undertaken in line with national or

international fuel standards

Monitoring frequency For a) and b): The NCV should be obtained for each fuel on a monthly

basis by sending samples to the Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute,

from which weighted average annual values will be calculated.



1) Project emissions resulting from the use of alternative fuels and/or

less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant

2) Project emissions based on the actual quantity of fossil fuels consumed

for the alternative fuels transportation

3) Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year y that will be

used to estimate the fuel penalty

4) Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the

use of alternative fuels (EFCO2, BL,y) which will be further used to

calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels


Additional comment

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter ECPJ,y

Unit MWh

Description Onsite consumption of electricity provided by the grid and attributable to

the project activity during the year y

Source of data Plant Records

Value(s) applied Refer to Table 21

Measurement methods

and procedures

Use electricity meters.

Monitoring frequency Continuously, and aggregated at least monthly

QA/QC procedures The consistency of metered electricity consumption will be cross-checked

by the purchased electricity invoices

Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions resulting from additional electricity

consumption as a result of the project activity

Additional comment

Data / Parameter TDL y

Unit -

Description Average technical transmission and distribution losses in the grid in year y

for the voltage level at which electricity is obtained from the grid at the

project site in year y

Source of data As per the “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil

fuel

Combustion”.”

Value(s) applied Default value of 20%

Measurement methods

and procedures

For a): TDLj/k/l,y should be estimated for the distribution and transmission

networks of the electricity grid of the same voltage as the connection

where the proposed CDM project activity is connected to. The technical

distribution losses should not contain other types of grid losses (e.g.

commercial losses/theft). The distribution losses can either be calculated

by the project participants or be based on references from utilities, network

operators or other official documentation.

Monitoring frequency Annually. In the absence of data from the relevant year, most recent figures

should be used, but not older than 5 years.

QA/QC procedures Technical distribution losses do not contain other types of grid losses (e.g.

commercial losses/theft).

Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions resulting from additional electricity

consumption as a result of the project activity

Additional comment

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter BECH4,B2,y

Unit tCO2

Description Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing

disposal of biomass residues at a solid waste disposal site during the period

from the start of the project activity to the end of the year y

Source of data As per “Emissions avoided from solid waste disposal sites”, Version 06.

Value(s) applied Refer to Table 33.

Measurement methods

and procedures

As per “Emissions avoided from solid waste disposal sites”, Version 06.

Monitoring frequency

QA/QC procedures As per “Emissions avoided from solid waste disposal sites”, Version 06

and also according to ISO 9001 system.

Purpose of data To calculate the baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y

from preventing disposal of biomass residues at a solid waste disposal sites

Additional comment

Data / Parameter AVDy

Unit Km

Description Average round trip distance (from and to) between the alternative fuel

supply sites and the site of the project plant during the year y

Source of data Transportation data logs.

Value(s) applied Refer to

Table 23

Measurement methods

and procedures

-

Monitoring frequency With the arrival of each truck

QA/QC procedures Check consistency of distance records provided by the truckers by

comparing recorded distances with other information from other sources

(e.g. maps).

Purpose of data To calculate the project emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil

fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant.

Additional comment If alternative fuels are supplied from different sites, this parameter should

correspond to the mean value of km travelled by trucks that supply the

alternative fuels to the plant

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter EFkm,CO2,y

Unit tCO2/km

Description Average CO2 emission factor for the trucks measured during the year y

Source of data 2006 IPCC default values have been used at the lower/upper limit of the

uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table 1.4 of

Chapter1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) and 1996 IPCC default value as provided in

Table 1-32, Energy Chapter.

Value(s) applied Gas/Diesel oil (sular)= 0.0017 tCO2/km

Measurement methods

and procedures

Monitoring frequency At least annually

QA/QC procedures Cross-check measurement results with emission factors referred to in the

Literature



Additional comment

Data / Parameter AFT,k,y

Unit mass or volume units

Description Quantity of alternative fuel type k that has been transported to the project

site during the year y.

Source of data Measurements by project participants

Value(s) applied Please refer to

Table 24

Measurement methods

and procedures

Regarding the agricultural wastes, RDF quantities, they will be measured

as follows:

Trucks transporting the alternative fuels will be weighed before entering

the facility after leaving the facility as a double check.

Monitoring frequency Recorded with each truck arrival and reported monthly.




Additional comment

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter TLy

Unit mass or volume units

Description Average truck load of the trucks used during the year y

Source of data Transportation data logs.

Value(s) applied 25 ton/truck

Measurement methods

and procedures

-

Monitoring frequency Continuously

QA/QC procedures -



Additional comment Applicable if Option 1 is chosen to estimate CO2 emissions from

transportation.

Data / Parameter Pclinker,y

Unit Tons

Description Production of clinker in year y

Source of data Production data logs from plant records

Value(s) applied Refer to Table 1

Measurement methods

and procedures

Weighing feeders

Monitoring frequency Recorded/calculated and reported monthly


Purpose of data To estimate the Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year

that will be used to estimate the fuel penalty


UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter EFCO2,BL,y

Unit tCO2/TJ

Description Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of

alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant

Source of data Calculated as follows as the lowest of the following CO2 emission factors:

- the weighted average annual CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s)

consumed and monitored ex ante during the most recent three years

before the start of the project activity;

- the weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel(s)

consumed in the project plant in year y that are not less carbon

intensive fossil fuels,

Value(s) applied 56.1 t CO2/TJ

Measurement methods

and procedures

-

Monitoring frequency Continuously, aggregated at least annually

QA/QC procedures -

Purpose of data To calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels


Additional comment

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter FCBL,i,y

Unit Mass or volume unit

Description Quantity of fossil fuel type i displaced in the project plant as a result of the

project activity in year y

Source of data The quantities and types of fossil fuels i that are displaced as a result of the

project activity (FCBL,i,y) should be determined consistent with the

guidance above on the determination of the baseline CO2 emission factor

(EFCO2,BL,y).

Value(s) applied Please refer to Method B. Table 36: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factor for the Fossil Fuels Displaced by

the Use of Alternative Fuels or Less Carbon Intensive Fossil Fuels in the

Project Plant

Options EFCO2,BL,y

(tCO2/TJ)

Option A 58.36

Option B 56.1

Measurement methods

and procedures

-

Monitoring frequency Annually

QA/QC procedures -

Purpose of data To calculate the baseline emissions resulting from the fossil fuels


Additional comment

Data / Parameter EFburning, CH4, K ,y

Unit tCH4/GJ

Description CH4 emission factor for uncontrolled burning of the biomass residue type k

during the year y

Source of data IPCC 2006 Guidelines

Value(s) applied 0.0027 tCH4/t dry matter

Measurement methods

and procedures

-

Monitoring frequency Review of default values: annually

QA/QC procedures -

Purpose of data To calculate the baseline methane emissions from biomass residues

dumped, left to decay or burnt in an uncontrolled manner without utilizing

them for energy purposes.

Additional comment Monitoring of this parameter for project emissions is only required if CH4

emissions from biomass combustion are included in the project boundary.

Note that a conservative factor shall be applied, as specified in the baseline

methodology.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Data / Parameter Biomass residue type k

Unit -

Description Demonstration that the biomass residue type k from a specific source

would continue not to be collected or utilized, e.g. by an assessment

whether a market has emerged for that type of biomass residue (if yes,

leakage is assumed not be ruled out) or by showing that it would still not

be feasible to utilize the biomass residues for any purposes

Source of data Information from the site where the biomass is generated

Value(s) applied

Measurement methods

and procedures

-

Monitoring frequency Annually

QA/QC procedures -

Purpose of data To demonstrate that the biomass residue type K from a specific source will

be burnt in the fields by the farmers in the absence of the project activity

Additional comment Monitoring of this parameter is applicable if approach L1 is used to rule

out Leakage

B.7.2. Sampling plan

>> Described in sections B.7.1 & B.7.3

B.7.3. Other elements of monitoring plan

>>

The monitoring plan should include all the methods related to the collection and archiving of all relevant

data necessary for determining the baseline, anthropogenic GHG emissions within the project boundary,

and leakage. The monitoring plan will be integrated to the existing ISO 9001:2000 system.

Through accurate book-keeping and IT-based systems, the percentage of each fuel used and the amount

of cement clinker made in a fixed time period will be recorded. Fuel heat values will be systematically

measured and applied and emission factors used are laboratory tested for each fuel type. Since it is a

normal priority for a cement company to track the fuel split, an additional fuel can be easily absorbed

into an existing tracking system.

Monitoring System

A continuous monitoring system is used to measure the emissions from the stacks. This monitoring

system includes the following measurements:

1. Gas Analysis

Carbon monoxide, oxygen, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides are constantly measured using

electrochemical detectors as this measurement is indispensable to control the production process inside

the kiln and the measurement of carbon monoxide is very important for the safety of the electrostatic

filters.

2. Dust

The dust in the flue gases emitted from the stacks is measured where the appropriate measurement points

are determined for the passage of flue-gas on a regular basis.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


3. Heavy metals

Minerals in the alternative fuels are not flammable and they are either vaporized due to rising

temperatures in the kiln and emitted to the atmosphere or discharged with a dust of the by-pass or mixed

with the clinker and finished in cement. The heavy metals will be analyzed on a regular basis by the

Central Laboratory of the plant.

4. Dioxins / furans

They will be measured by a certified laboratory and the measurements will be conducted at least twice a

year to assess the level of these pollutants in the emissions.

Periodic inspections will be conducted for the storage area of the alternative fuels, the section of

alternative fuels supply to the furnace and the quality of the emissions resulting from the project activity.

Arabian Cement Company has an environmental record that includes all the results of the periodic

monitoring. The following table illustrates the monitoring plan and the follow-up plan that will be

followed during the project activity.

Procedures Frequency Authority

Periodic Inspection

1. Inspection on the storage area of alternative fuels and the

section of alternative fuels supply to the furnace

Daily Plant

2. Inspection on the pumps and motors Monthly Plant

3. Periodic medical examinations of workers and conducting

the necessary tests.

Every 6 months Specialized entity

4. Periodic inspection and maintenance of the devices and

equipment of fire fighting

Weekly Plant

Measurements

1. Dust emissions from the main stacks (rotary kiln stack,

cooler stack and the by-pass stack)

Daily Monitoring

devices that are

connected to the

national network

of the EEAA in

Cairo

2. Gaseous emissions from the main stackes: SOx, NOx, CO. Daily

3. Dust inhalants for the occupational health and safety within

the workplace, TSP - PM10

Twice per

month

The plant using

mobile devices

4. Outdoor gaseous air pollutants for the safety, occupational

health and the protection of the working environment inside

the plant’s workplaces

Daily The plant using

mobile devices

5. Particulate matter emissions for the safety, occupational

health and the protection of the working environment inside

the plant’s workplaces

Twice per week The plant using

mobile devices

6. Monthly reports to the EEAA in Cairo Monthly The plant using

mobile devices

7. Monthly reports of the environmental record of the plant

and the top management of the company

Monthly Plant

8. Measurements inside the workplaces (light intensity - noise

- heat stress)

Monthly The plant using

mobile devices

Furthermore, Arabian Cement Company has established implemented and maintained procedures to

identify and evaluate the performance of their processes. The company has established a documented

procedure for each process called process document. Each document is established and reviewed by the

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


process owner himself. To monitor the process, each document contains the process criteria in the form

of the key performance indicators. Each manger evaluates his process monthly. In case of deviation from

stated indicators, the corrective and /or preventive action will be taken.

Internal Audit

Comprehensive, planned and documented audits are carried out to verify whether quality activities and

related results comply with planned arrangements and to determine the effectiveness of the system.

Audits are scheduled according to an annual plan on the basis of the status and importance of the activity.

Identified nonconforming conditions are brought to the attention of the responsible manager to initiate

the necessary corrective action.

The Quality Assurance department will be responsible for planning, following up and keeping records.

Management Representative /Quality Assurance Manager will be responsible for leading the audit, audits

team and issuing the audit report. The auditors will conduct the audit, issue the nonconformity report,

and get the agreement of Auditee on the required actions and to follow up the closing of the corrective

actions. Implementation and effectiveness of the action are verified by a follow-up audit. The internal

audits (QMS/SMS audits) are carried out at least twice a year or as needed on the basis.

The following chart summarizes the internal audit procedure at Arabian Cement Plant.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Figure 12: Internal Audit Procedure at Arabian Cement Plant

Calibration

Arabian Cement Company established, documented and maintained a procedure to ensure the calibration

of lab measuring instruments according to the annual calibration plan. The lab measuring instruments are

listed and proper measurements required for each instrument are defined to keep its precision according

to the international and local standards. The certified calibration organization is determined and all

calibration activities are documented to ensure the achievement of the calibration plan. Calibrated

instruments are certified and calibration data is posted on each instrument.

The quality control manager sets up the quality plan and follows up the quality control

parameters of each raw material

The calibration officer prepares the lab measuring instruments list.

The calibration officer defines the proper measurements required for each instrument to keep its

precision according to the international and local standards.

The calibration officer prepares the annual calibration plan. .

Calibration of the lab measuring instruments before due time.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


After receiving the calibration certificates, they are revised by the calibration officer and signed

for revision to consider any comments during usage. Calibration officer will maintain copy of the

calibration certificate of the calibration equipment used from authorized institute.

Posting poster on each instrument shows the calibration data.

Documentation of all of the calibration activities.

Maintenance

The Maintenance Department maintain all plant equipment and follow up maintenance activities in case

of outsourcing, aiming to keep the plant equipment in a perfect condition to ensure maximum plant

availability with minimum stoppages and cost, attaining the production targetsand applying the most

advanced maintenance system.

Types of Maintenance

1. Corrective maintenance.

2. Systematic (periodic) maintenance.

3. Preventative maintenance.

4. Predictive maintenance.

The Maintenance Manager follows up and evaluates the maintenance process performance via the KPIs

set and issues monthly reports to the Plant Manager

The maintenance department is responsible for maintaining all the plant equipment (follow up in case of

outsourcing the plant maintenance), keeping the plant machinery in a perfect conditions; plant

availability with minimum stoppages attaining the production targets through the teams; and is also

responsible for establishing and applying the most advanced maintenance system.

The Maintenance Team consists of Maintenance Manager as a head of the department and the team

reporting to him.

Operational & Management Team

The chart below describes the operational and management team that will responsible for monitoring the

emissions reductions generated by the project activity.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Figure 13: Operational and Management Structure of the CDM Project

Documents Management & Control

Arabian Cement Company has established documented operating procedures to control all documents,

data and forms that relate to the requirements of the quality management system. Appropriate documents

are available at locations where they are intended to be used. Obsolete documents are removed from

locations of use. Document controller is responsible for implementing document control procedure.

Quality system documentation comprises the following types of documents:

1. Quality Policy / Quality Manual

2. Process Documents (Pr)

3. Operating Procedure (P)

4. Work Instructions (W)

5. Forms (F)

The Process Owner identifies, stores, maintains, and determines the retention time and disposition of

records. The Quality Assurance Manager maintains the updated quality and safety records control list.

Records are established and maintained to provide evidence of conformity to requirements and to provide

the effective operation of the quality and safety management systems.

While filling the record, each process owner shall remain his / her records:

Legible.

Readily identifiable.

Retrievable.

Traceable.

Each process owner lists his / her records and defines the retention time of each record and copy to

Quality Assurance Manager. Quality Assurance Manger in cooperation with the concerned manager will

survey the records on annually and obsolete records are discarded.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Each manager collects the data from the records and analyzes it in order to set his objectives and in order

to measure the effectiveness of the performance of his department.

Records are either hard copies or electronic media

Emissions Monitoring and Calculations Procedures

Data source and collection • Data is available from the plant records

• Most data are archived and maintained

according to the existing ISO 14001 &

9001 systems

• The data is monitored by the monitoring

engineers in Arabian Cement Plant then

reviewed and forwarded by the technical

and operations department.

• The frequency of the monitored data will

be according to the existing management

systems and the requirements of the

methodology

Data compilation • All data necessary for the CO2 reporting

are entered into the SAP modules and the

additional monitoring spread sheet.

• The data is then collected by the CDM

assessment team to calculate the emissions

reductions and elaborate the monitoring

report.

Emission calculation and monitoring report • Emission reductions calculations are

conducted on a yearly basis from the data

collected monthly by the CDM assessment

team

• All the data are inserted in excel

spreadsheets by the CDM assessment

team. Monitoring report will be elaborated

from the results obtained from the

calculations.

Emission data review and approval • Emissions calculations and monitoring

reports will be reviewed and approved by

the CDM Coordinator

Records maintaining • All the data will be recorded and

maintained according to the existing data

management systems.

Training

Implementing this project activity at Arabian Cement Plant will lead to the transfer of a new technology

to Egypt. The operation of this project will require training for the employees of Arabian Cement

Company. The employees responsible for running the alternative fuel project will be subject to the

company training policies and procedures.

Training needs are identified according to the following criteria/assumptions:

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Employees: ACC employees are entitled to participate in training after 6 months of employment.

The training can be given following or lying on the following categories:

Annual Department Training Plan

Non-plan Training as per changes on working conditions: Promotion, Change of tasks ...etc.

General Company training: Soft skills and languages.

New Employees: If specific Training needs are detected upon the interview and are a

requirement for the hiring.

The Annual Training Plan contains the whole training actions set up by each department according to

their training needs and the outcome of the annual appraisal. There are 3 kinds of training needs:

Need to develop competencies:

Enable employee with a professional improvement enhancing their qualifications. Heads of Departments

will determine what skills are most pertinent to the company's current or future needs and will provide

the biggest payback.

Need of adjustment with the job:

List key goals and the top competency gaps of his/her staff. Enable employees with the competencies

required to fulfil business achievements.

Need of Compliance with the job evolution and new requirements:

Training to update employees’ skills in order to maintain their adaptability with their job (new project,

changes in the organization, mobility, tasks evolution…).

Head of Department should assure and justify on his proposed Training needs Plan Form the reason of

the course, manager decision assumptions and the benefits that the Manager expects this course will

bring for the employee and the company in order to make fair decisions taking all staff development in

consideration. The Head of Department will be guided by HR Development and Training Officer on the

training needs identification, through meetings with the concerns Heads of Department.

Each Head of Department will present his/her Final Training Plan to HR development and training

officer in order to be compiled on a Company Annual training plan check suitability as per the Company

training budget, and presented to the CEO for approval. The Administration Manager and HR

Department notify the relevant departments of the company about the training plan, once approved by the

CEO.

In case the need of a training course is not included in the plan (sudden need appearing or unexpected

training course found), this course is determined by the head of department in the appropriate application

Form to be submitted to the CEO for approval and include it in the training plan

The Company trainings can be classified as:

Internal

External

Local

International

Long term Education

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


SECTION C. Duration and crediting period

C.1. Duration of project activity

C.1.1. Start date of project activity

>>

The starting date of the project activity is expected to be in 01/06/2012

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of project activity

>>

20

C.2. Crediting period of project activity

C.2.1. Type of crediting period

>>

Fixed crediting period (A single 10-year)

C.2.2. Start date of crediting period

>>

>> 01/03/2013

C.2.3. Length of crediting period

10 years

SECTION D. Environmental impacts

D.1. Analysis of environmental impacts

>>

>> An environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been conducted for Arabian Cement Plant fuel

switching project in accordance with the Egyptian Environmental Law 4/1994. The purpose of the study

was to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed fuel switching project on the surrounding

environment.

Different impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed project, and mitigation measures to

reduce these impacts were identified. The issues/impacts which were addressed are as follows:

1. Particulate matter impacts

2. Gaseous emissions impacts

3. Air quality impacts

4. Noise impacts

5. Waste Transportation impacts

6. Traffic impacts

7. Waste Storage impacts

8. Ecology (flora and fauna) impacts

9. Socio-economic impacts

D.2. Environmental impact assessment

>>

Control measures, mitigation measures and the environmental impacts resulting from the project activity

are outlined as follows:

1. Particulate matter impacts

Particulate emissions resulting from the cement kilns will be controlled via electrostatic filters so that the

emissions will not exceed 50 mg / cubic meters.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


2. Gaseous emissions impacts

The combustion of natural gas produces carbon dioxide and water vapour, taking into

account that a small percentage of carbon monoxide may be produced from the incomplete

combustion of natural gas. Using the aforementioned alternative fuels will also result in the

emission of the same gas in addition to small amounts of hydrochloric acid and sulphur

dioxide due to the presence of chlorine and sulphur in the fuel and vaporization of alkaline

metals (sodium and potassium) also may occur. These gases are made to pass through the

pre-heater where the raw materials (lime) pass in the opposite direction which leads to the

neutralization of any acidic gases such as hydrochloric acid and sulphur dioxide resulting in

the formation of calcium sulphate and calcium chloride in the process. Gaseous emissions

will be monitored in order to demonstrate compliance with Law 4/1994 environmental limits

related to gaseous emissions from stacks.

3. Air Quality Impacts

Fugitive dust during waste feeding to the kilns will be mitigated through using a well closed tightly

covered belt will be used and the fuels will be transmitted directly to the pre-heaters and thus air quality

will not be affected.

4. Noise Impacts

The noise in the kiln area will not be affected by using alternative fuels since the combustion process will

not change and dealing with the alternative fuels and their feeding system will not represent a new source

of noise in the plant. Therefore, it is not expected that any changes in the level of noise will occur.

5. Waste Transportation impacts

The alternative fuels will be transported to the plant according to the following conditions:

The transportation trucks will be fitted with all the safety equipment, and trucks must be in a

good working condition

The capacity of these trucks and their schedules must be proportionate to the amount of waste

being transported.

The trucks are driven by two trained drivers, able to take independent initiatives, particularly in

cases of emergency.

The trucks must be clearly marked to indicate the nature of its cargo, and the best way to deal

with it in emergency situations.

The routes of the trucks transporting the waste will be determined in order to take the necessary action

quickly and decisively in emergency situations.

6. Traffic impacts

The road linking the plant to Suez City and Cairo is adequate to accommodate the additional traffic

resulting from the transfer of the alternative fuels.

It is expected that on burning about 500 tons / day of waste, the additional number of trucks will be18

trucks/day and the capacity of each truck is about 25 tons. For 10 working hours per day, the traffic load

will increase by 2 trucks per hour. So, there is no significant change in the traffic load.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


7. Waste storage impacts

The wastes will be stored in covered storage areas that are made of concrete and stainless

steel and they will be equipped with fire fighting system.

The storage areas of the wastes will be lined with non porous and leak proof material.

The storage areas of the wastes will be monitored 24 hours per day

8. Ecology (flora and fauna) impacts

The flora is very limited within the surrounding region of the plant. The plants and animals species

within the surrounding region of the plant have not been mentioned in the list of plants and animals that

are threatened with extinction and there are no natural protectorates close to the project site. It is

expected that no ecological impacts will occur.

9. Socio-economic impacts

There is no permanent residence area around the plant. The proposed new activity will give the

opportunity to hire new workers, in addition to the indirect job opportunities related to wastes handling

and transport which would lead to economic boost on the long-term.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the use of wastes as alternative fuels in kilns of Arab Cement Company Cement

is environmentally compatible due to the following reasons:

1. There will be no change in emissions.

2. Significant savings in energy used.

3. No residues will be left behind

4. The quality of cement produced is not expected to be affected.

SECTION E. Local stakeholder consultation

E.1. Solicitation of comments from local stakeholders

>>

A stakeholders meeting was held in Cairo where representatives from various organizations were invited.

The list of invitees included representatives from the following organizations:

Governmental Organizations

Climate Change Unit, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA)

CDM Awareness & Promotion Unit, EEAA

CDM Unit, EEAA

Egyptian DNA

3rd

National Communication Project

Regional Branch for Greater Cairo, EEAA

Central Unit for Environmental Impact Assessment, EEAA

General Authority for Foreign Investment (GAFI)

Environmental Compliance Unit, Federation of Egyptian Industries

Ministry of Electricity, Minster Consultant for Environmental Studies and Renewable

Energy

Neighbouring Universities and Research Centers

Tabbin Institute for Metallurgical Studies

Environment and Research Centre, Cairo University

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)

Arab Office for Youth and Environment (Non-Governmental Organizations)

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Invitations were sent to the invitees and an announcement was publicized in one of the most popular

newspapers (Gomhouryia News paper) in 24/04/2012 to invite interested organizations and personnel

from the public. The meeting was held in Dusit Thani in New Cairo on 3rd

of May, 2012. The Alternative

Fuel Manager from Arabian Cement presented an overview of the company’s activities and its

commitment to environmental improvement and sustainable development. A representative from Integral

Consult, the company’s CDM consultant, presented a description of the project activity to the attendees.

After the presentation, a discussion session was held. The consultant and company representatives

replied to questions from the audience. A questionnaire was distributed to the audience to provide any

comments they have on the project. The questionnaire contained the following questions:

1. Do you think that the project activity will contribute to the sustainable development of the area?

Please indicate reasons for your answer.

2. Do you think that the project activity will result in positive environmental effects in the

surrounding area? Please indicate reasons for your answer.

3. Do you agree on the implementation of the project activity? Please indicate reasons for your

answer.

4. Do you think that the industrial area and Arab Republic of Egypt will benefit from this project

activity? Please indicate reasons for your answer.

5. Do you have any further comments?

E.2. Summary of comments received

>>

The list of participants who provided comments is presented in Table 37.The replies of attendees on the

questionnaire are presented in Table 38.

Table 37 : List of Persons Providing Comments

Organization Position Name

1 Egyptian Environmental Affairs

Agency

Head of Climate Change

Central Department

Dr. Ezzat lewis


Agency

Manager of 3rd

National

Communication Project

Dr. Elsayed Sabry


Agency

Environmental Specialist Yasser Samir Mohamed


Agency/Egyptian DNA CDM Specialist Wael Farag Bassiouny


Agency / CDM Awareness and

Promotion Unit

Technical Specialist Ahmed Bahaa El-Dein

Mohammed

6 ASEC Group Consultant Major General Eng. Ismail

Hassan

7 Arabian Cement Company Projects Manager Karim Mohamed Abdel

Monsef

8 Pharaohs Group Chairman Ahmed Shireen Korayem

9 Arabian Cement Company Chief Operations Officer Fernas El-Hakim

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Table 38: Consolidation of Replies to Questionnaire

Q1 Do you think that the project activity will contribute to the sustainable development of

the area? Please indicate reasons for your answer.

1 Yes, achieve environmental, economic and social benefits.

2 Yes, due to its sustainable development benefits (Environmental, Social & Economic

benefits)

3 -

4 Yes, economically, it will reduce the subsidy allocated by the government to the fossil fuels

and will generate CER revenues. Environmentally, it will reduce emissions from the black

cloud episode. Socially, the project will create job opportunities.

5 Yes, avoidance of unsafe handling of sludge and reallocation of subsidies paid to natural gas.

6 Many benefits will be achieved from this project

7 Yes, by providing more jobs in the area in addition to decreasing emissions in the area, thus

allowing the development of more industries.

8 -

9 -

Q2 Do you think that the project activity will result in positive environmental effects in the

surrounding area? Please indicate reasons for your answer.

1 Yes, reducing GHGs and solid wastes

2 Yes, reducing the GHG emissions, and avoidance of burning agricultural wastes and RDF.

3 -

4 Yes, as referred in question 1

5 Yes, emission reduction in CO2, some CH4 and uncontrolled burning of rice straw

6 Yes, it will decrease the emissions

7 Yes, the decreased emissions will decrease the effect of the harmful emissions on the

surrounding wildlife.

8 -

9 Yes, the project will result in reduced emissions than those resulting from natural gas and

diesel oil

Q3 Do you agree on the implementation of the project activity? Please indicate reasons for

your answer.

1 Yes, for achieving sustainable development

2 Yes, due to its environmental, social and economic benefits

3 -

4 Yes, due to its contribution to sustainable development through the 3 pillars; social,

economic and environmental.

5 Yes, the project will contribute to the sustainable development of Egypt

6 Yes

7 Yes, it will save natural gas quantities that are much needed in addition to several

opportunities for handling the fuels in terms of employment and proper disposal of wastes.

8 -

9 Yes, due to the expected shortage of fuel

Q4 Do you think that the industrial area and Arab Republic of Egypt will benefit from this

project activity? Please indicate reasons for your answer.

1 Yes, by achieving environmental, economic and social benefits and also the transfer of a new

technology

2 Yes, due to its contribution in reducing the subsidies allocated for the fossil fuels and for the

technology transfer as well.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


3 -

4 Yes, due to technology transfer and saving of fossil fuels

5 Yes, Egypt will benefit from solving the problem of large amounts of unsafely handled waste

and sludge.

6 Yes, the project will result in environmental, economic and social benefits.

7 Yes, due to all above mentioned reasons, the project will bring benefits to the industrial

sector of Egypt.

8 -

9 The project will reduce the normal fuel consumption and the open burning of agricultural

wastes

Q5 Do you have any further comments?

1 Hope to finalize this project according to the time table.

2 No

3 -

4 Accelerate the registration of the project before the end of 2012.

5 No

6 No

7 No

8 -

9 No

Most of the replies showed that the attendees totally agree that the project will contribute to the

sustainable development of the area due to contribution to environment enhancement in the surrounding

areas, reducing the GHGs, increasing of employment, economic utilization of waste, reducing the

financial burden on the Egyptian Government by reducing the subsidies allocated for the fossil fuels and

also transfer of a new technology.

Most replies showed that the attendees totally agree that the project will have positive environmental

impacts in the surrounding areas. The environmental aspects reflected in their replies were the reduction

of greenhouse gases, reduce open burning of agricultural residues which will have effect on reducing the

black cloud episode severity and duration. It will reduce as well the unsafe handling of sludge All replies

showed that the attendees agree to the implementation of the project activity. All the replies agreed that

the project will assist EEAA efforts to reduce the uncontrolled burning of agriculture residues and

uncontrolled handle of MSW.

However some concerns aroused from the attendees during the discussions and were reflected in some

comments. These concerns were the emission of dioxins and furans from the combustion of alternative

fuel specially RDF, emission of pollutants due to combustion of alternative fuel, the effect of the fuel

mix on the production process and product quality and the guarantee of continuous supply of alternative

fuels.

E.3. Report on consideration of comments received

>>

The comments received were addressed as follows:

(i) Emission of dioxins and furans from the combustion of alternative fuel specially RDF

There are no threats of emission of dioxins and furans since dioxins and furans which are formed at 300 -

400 ˚C will be thermally destructed due to the high temperatures in the kilns that reaches 1300 – 1400 ˚C

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


(ii) Emission of pollutants due to combustion of alternative fuel and increase of bypass dust

Quantities

The submitted EIA addresses all the mitigation measures to ensure that the emissions resulting from the

project activity will not exceed the allowable limits determined by the Egyptian Law. Electrostatic

precipitators will be used for the reduction of dust particulates to reach the allowable limit. Regarding the

produced bypass dust quantities, it is not expected to increase; the bypass dust production is dependant

on the chlorine amount in the raw materials combusted, Chlorine will only be present in the PVC found

in the RDF with a negligible amount, that will not affect the amount of produced bypass which is

pelletized with water and sent to a landfill.

(iii) The greenhouse gases that are taken into consideration in the project activity

The greenhouse gases that are included in the project activity are CO2 resulting from the baseline

emissions and project emissions as well as CH4 emissions resulting from the open burning of agricultural

wastes and from solid waste disposal sites. Other CO2 emissions resulting from the calcinations process

or other activities that are not

(iv) Effect of the fuel mix on the production process and product quality

There will not be major changes in the production process and the production capacity. The substitution

percentage will not exceed 15% to avoid major changes in the ID fans which will require further

investment.

Regarding the product quality, the supplied alternative fuels have to pass the acceptance criteria before

being used by the plant. Moreover, Arabian cement is applying stringent quality control plan to assure

the product quality as well.

(v) The guarantee of continuous supply of the alternative fuels

This is one of the main risks of the project activity, due to the absence of a mature market for the

alternative fuels. The revenues generated from the CERs are expected to slightly alleviate this risk.

Furthermore, the contracts with the alternative fuels suppliers will be based on the net calorific values of

the alternative fuels and not the quantity only.

(vi) Risk of blockage in the dosing system

The dosing system will be mechanical to avoid the risk of blockage of the dosing system. Furthermore, a

comprehensive study has been made to detect the injection point of the alternative fuels because the

wrong allocation of the injection point is the main reason for blockages in the dosing system and also

may lead to an increase the CO level.

SECTION F. Approval and authorization

>>

The EIA has been submitted to the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) on 11/04/2012 for

approval and authorization.

- - - - -

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Appendix 1: Contact information of project participants

Organization name Arabian Cement Company

Street/P.O. Box El-Teseen Street – Blom Bank Building, 2nd

floor, Fifth Settlement

Building 61

City New Cairo

State/Region Cairo

Postcode -

Country Egypt

Telephone +202 26133623/4/5

Fax +202 26133626

E-mail [email protected]

Website www.arabiancementcompany.com

Contact person Adel Ezzat

Title Engineer

Salutation Mr.

Last name Adel

Middle name

First name Ezzat

Department Alternative fuels

Mobile +201066600239

Direct fax

Direct tel.

Personal e-mail [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.arabiancementcompany.com/

mailto:[email protected]

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Appendix 2: Affirmation regarding public funding

The project implementation is completely dependent on private entities. The project has not received and

will not receive any public funding from any international development funding agency or local

governorate.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Appendix 3: Applicability of selected methodology

The approved consolidated methodology ACM0003 entitled "Emissions reduction through partial

substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels in cement or quicklime

manufacture", Version 7.04.1, is applied to this project activity.

This methodology also refers to the latest approved version of the following tools:

“Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality”, Version 03.0.1;

“Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal

site”, Version 06;

“Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”, Version 02;

“Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity consumption, Version 01;

B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project

activity:

The methodology is applicable to the cement industry with the following conditions:

Fossil fuel(s) use in cement manufacture is partially replaced by one or more less carbon

intensive fossil fuel(s) and/or alternative fuels.

Natural used in the cement manufacturing process in Arabian Cement Plant will be partially replaced by

municipal sludge, agricultural waste, and RDF.

A significant investment is required to enable the use of the alternative fuel(s) and/or the less

carbon intensive fossil fuel(s).

Significant investment is required in process modifications, construction of new storage areas and

purchase of equipment to implement the system. This includes equipment for shredding, transportation,

and conveying the alternative fuels from the daily storage area to the pre-calciners and kilns. An

approximate investment of 9,931,101USD is required which is equivalent to about 59,983,863EGP.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Table 39: Investment required for the Implementation of the Project Activity in the two Lines of Arabian

Cement Plant

Item Cost (USD)

Mechanical Deliveries 4,795,186

Overall Engineering 129,320

Low Voltage & USP 309,592

Additional Overhead Reclaimer bunker 1,055,251

Reception bunker unit with screw bottom 313,924

Automation Packet 191,135

Supervision 405,612

Commisioning 209,434

Civil engineering 297,436

Steel structure 1,474,248

Sea Transportation (from Hamburg to

Alexandria)

387,960

Inland transport 62,074

Customs 299,929

Total 9,931,101

During the last three years prior to the start of the project activity, no alternative fuels have been

used in the project plant.

Natural gas and diesel oil (sular) have been the only fuel type used at the plant for the last three years.

The CO2 emissions reduction relates to CO2 emissions generated from fuel combustion only and

is unrelated to the CO2 emissions from decarbonisation of raw materials (i.e. CaCO3 and MgCO3

bearing minerals).

Arabian Cement Company is only claiming emission reductions from the replacement of natural gas in

the combustion process only and no emission reductions are claimed from de-carbonization of raw

materials.

The methodology is applicable only for installed capacity (expressed in tons clinker/year) that

exists by the time of validation of the project activity.

The emission reductions calculations are only based on installed capacity by the time of validation of the

project activity which is 4.2 Million tonnes of clinker per year for each of Line I and Line II, where the

production capacity of each line is 2.1 Million tonnes of clinker.

The biomass is not chemically processed (e.g. esterification to produce biodiesel, production of

alcohols from biomass, etc) prior to combustion in the project plant but it may be processed

mechanically or be dried at the project site. Moreover, any preparation of the biomass, occurring

before use in the project activity, does not cause other significant GHG emissions (such as, for example,

methane emissions from anaerobic treatment of waste water or from char coal production).

The agricultural wastes, sludge and RDF received at Arabian Cement Plant are not chemically processed

before combustion in the project plant, but are mechanically processed through baling, shredding and

crushing at the project site. The project activity will not result in other significant GHG emissions other

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


than those related to the energy consumption for the preparation of AFR, transportation, shredding,

operation of storage and feeding systems.

The biomass used by the project facility is stored under aerobic conditions.

The daily storage area in Arabian Cement Plant is shed with adequate openings, designed and equipped

with ventilation system to keep the biomass under aerobic conditions. The reclaimer storage has a total

capacity of 2000 m3 will not exceed 2 days to avoid the occurrence of anaerobic fermentation of the

biomass.

Therefore, the project activity meets the applicability conditions outlined by the approved

consolidated methodology ACM0003.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Appendix 4: Further background information on ex ante calculation

of emission reductions

1. Calculation of the Emission Factor of Egypt’s Electricity Grid

The methodological “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (Version 2.2.1) has

been used to calculate the emission factor of the electricity grid.

The information and data used in the calculations have been obtained from publically available

information published by the Egyptian Ministry of Electricity & Energy.19

The following steps have been applied to determine the grid emission factor:

STEP 1. Identify the relevant electric power system.

STEP 2. Select an operating margin (OM) method.

STEP 3. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method.

STEP 4. Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin (BM).

STEP 5. Calculate the build margin emission factor.

STEP 6. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor.

STEP 1. Identify the relevant electric power system.

The Egyptian DNA hasn’t published a delineation of the project electricity system which could be used

by Arabian Cement Plant. In Egypt, all the power plants are connected to the unified Egyptian National

Grid in which the Egyptian Electricity Transmission Company (EETC) acts as a single buyer of bulk

power, purchasing electricity from the generating companies through Power Purchase Agreements

(PPAs) and selling it to the distribution companies and UHV and HV customers. Similarly, Arabian

Cement Plant is connected to the Egyptian National Grid which is considered as the relevant electric

power system for Arabian Cement Plant. The Egyptian transmission lines are not operated at 90% or

more of its rated capacity during 90% percent or more of the hours of the year, and as a result, there are

no significant transmission constraints.

STEP 2. Select an operating margin (OM) method.

The calculation of the operating margin emission factor (EFgrid,OM,y) is based on one of the following

methods:

(a) Simple OM, or

(b) Simple adjusted OM, or

(c) Dispatch data analysis OM, or

(d) Average OM.

19

Source: http://www.moee.gov.eg/English/e-fr-main.htm

http://www.moee.gov.eg/English/e-fr-main.htm

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Any of the four methods can be used, however, the simple OM method (option a) can only be used if

low-cost/must-run resources

constitute less than 50% of total grid generation in: 1) average of the five

most recent years, or 2) based on long-term averages for hydroelectricity production.

For the simple OM, the simple adjusted OM and the average OM, the emissions factor can be calculated

using either of the two following data vintages:

Ex ante option: A 3-year generation-weighted average, based on the most recent data

available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE for validation, without

requirement to monitor and recalculate the emissions factor during the crediting period, or

Ex post option: The year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the

emissions factor to be updated annually during monitoring. If the data required to calculate

the emission factor for year y is usually only available later than six months after the end of

year y, alternatively the emission factor of the previous year (y-1) may be used. If the data is

usually only available 18 months after the end of year y, the emission factor of the year

proceeding the previous year (y-2) may be used. The same data vintage (y, y-1 or y-2) should

be used throughout all crediting periods.

The following values are provided by the Egyptian Electricity Holding Company annual reports for years

2005/2006, 2006/2007, 2007/2008, 2008/2009, 2009/2010.

Table 40: Electricity Generation for the past 5 years

Electricity Generated (GWh)

2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Hydro Power Plants 12,538 12,814 15,375 14,545 12,738

Wind Parks 542 612 828 924 1,113

Private sector (BOOT

plants)

12,816 11,915 11,918 12,495 12,428

Total - low-cost/must run 25,896 25,341 28,121 27,964 26,279

Total Net - all plants 104,378 111,036 120,568 126,283 134,243

Low-cost/must-run

portion

24.81% 22.82% 23.32% 22.14% 19.58%

Five -year averagefor

low-cost/must-run

plants:

22.54%

Since low cost/must run electricity generation sources resources are about 23% of the total grid

electricity generation and constitute less than 50% of total grid generation in average of the five most

recent years, therefore, Simple OM can be applied.

STEP 3. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


(a) Simple OM

The simple OM emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per unit

net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generating power plants serving the system, not including

low-cost / must-run power plants / units. It may be calculated:

• Based on data on fuel consumption and net electricity generation of each power plant / unit

(Option A), or

• Based on data on net electricity generation, the average efficiency of each power unit and the

fuel type(s) used in each power unit (Option B),

Option A should be preferred and must be used if fuel consumption data is available for each power plant

/ unit. For the purpose of calculating the simple OM, Option B should only be used if the necessary data

for option A is not available and can only be used if only nuclear and renewable power generation are

considered as low-cost / must-run power sources and if off-grid power plants are not included in the

calculations.

Where Option B is used, the simple OM emission factor is calculated as follows:

y

yi,,COyi,i,

y,i,

y Simple, OM grid,

EG

.EF.NCVFCER

2

(1)

Where:

EFgrid,OMsimple,y = Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

FCi,,y = Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power plant / unit m in year y (mass or

volume unit)

NCVi,y = Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ / mass or

volume unit)

EFCO2,i,y = CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)

EF,y = 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 plant / unit m 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

Table 41: Net Electricity Production for the most recent 3 years including low-cost/must-run

power plants

Net Electricity Production GWh

2007/200

8

2008/200

9

2009/201

0

Hydro 15,375 14,545 12,738

Thermal 92,433 98,302 107,938

Generated Energy from Wind (Zafarana) 828 924 1,113

Purchased Energy from IPPs 14 17 26

Generated from private sector (BOOT) 11,918 12,495 12,428

Total Net electricity generated (excluding isolated units),

(GWh)

120568.2 126283 134243

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Table 42: Net Electricity Production for the most recent 3 years excluding low-cost/must-run

power plants

Net Electricity Production GWh

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Thermal 92,433 98,302 107,938

Purchased Energy from IPPs 14 17 26

Total Net electricity generated (excluding isolated units)

(GWh)

92,447 98,319 107,964

Table 43: Fossil fuels amounts consumed in the project electricity system in the most recent 3 years

Fossil Fuels Consumption

Fuel type Units 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

HFO Tonnes 4,774,000 5,321,000 5,929,000

NG m3 21,907,000,00

0

23,013,000,00

0

24,314,000,00

0

NG tonnes

*

17,048,249 17,908,949 18,921,401

LFO Tonnes 2,700 5,370 4,400

Special

LFO

Tonnes 102,000 116,000 170,810

Table 44: Simple Operating Margin for Year 2009/2010

Fuel

type

Fuel

Consumption

Units NCV TJ/Tonne * CO2 emisisons factor

(tCO2/TJ) *

CO2 Emissions

(tCO2/t fuel)

HFO 5929000 Tonnes 0.0404 75.5 18084636

NG 24314000000 m3 0.0000

NG 18921401 tonnes 0.0480 54.3 49316739.

LFO 4400 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 13736

Special

LFO

170810 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 533235

CO2 emissions, 2009/2010 (tCO2) 67948345

Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor 2009/2010 (tCO2/MWh) 0.6294


Fuel

type

Fuel

Consumption

Units NCV

TJ/Tonne

CO2 emisisons factor

(tCO2/TJ)

CO2 Emissions

(tCO2/t fuel)

HFO 5321000 Tonnes 0.0404 75.5 16230114

NG 23013000000 m3 0.0000

NG 17908949 tonnes 0.0480 54.3 46677886

LFO 5370 tonnes 0.0430 72.6 16764

Special

LFO

116000 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 362129

CO2 emissions, 2008/2009 ( tCO2/t fuel) 63286892.8248


UNFCCC/CCNUCC



Fuel

type

Consumption Units NCV TJ/Tonne CO2 emisisons

factor (tCO2/TJ)

CO2 Emissions

(tCO2 / t fuel)

HFO 4774000 Tonnes 0.0404 75.5 14561655

NG 21907000000 m3 0

NG 17048249 tonnes 0.0480 54.3 44434556

LFO 2700 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 8429

Special

LFO

102000 Tonnes 0.0430 72.6 318424

CO2 emissions, 2007/2008( tCO2) 59323064


The Simple OM is then calculated as the average Net CO2 emissions from electricity generation / Net

electricity supplied to the grid in the most recent 3 years.

Simple OM = 0.638

STEP 4. Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin (BM).

The sample group of power units (m) used to calculate the build margin consists of either

(a) The set of five power units that have been built most recently, or

(b) 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.

Project participants should use the set of power units that comprises the larger annual generation. Option

(B) will be chosen to calculate the build margin (BM).

The set of power units that have been built most recently are specified in the following table.

Table 47: 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.

Power Plant No. of

Units

Installed

capacity

(MW)

Fuel Net

Electricity

generated

(GWh)

Commissioning

Date

Most recent

commissioning

date

% of

System

Net

Total

Kurraymat 2

(CC)

2×250 +

1×250

750 N.G –

L.F.O

5,035 2007-2009 2009 3.8%

Kurraymat

3* (CC)

2×250 +

1×250

750 N.G –

H.F.O

2,784 2009 2009 2.1%

Sidi krir *

(CC)

2×250 +

1×250

500 N.G –

H.F.O

3,080 2009 2009 2.3%

El-ATF *

(CC)

2×250 +

1×250

500 N.G –

L.F.O

2,991 2009 2009 2.2%

Cairo North

(CC)

4×250 +

2×250

1500 N.G –

L.F.O

9,346 2005-2006-2008 2008 7.0%

Talkha 750 2×250 +

1×250

750 N.G –

L.F.O

4347 2006 - 2008 2008 3.2%

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


In terms of vintage of data, Option 1 will be chosen which states that for the first crediting period,

calculate the build margin emission factor ex-ante based on the most recent information available on

units already built for sample group m at the time of CDM-PDD submission to the DOE for validation.

For the second crediting period, the build margin emission factor should be updated based on the most

recent information available on units already built at the time of submission of the request for renewal of

the crediting period to the DOE. For the third crediting period, the build margin emission factor

calculated for the second crediting period should be used. This option does not require monitoring the

emission factor during the crediting period.

STEP 5. Calculate the build margin emission factor.

The build margin emissions factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of

all power units m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available, calculated

as follows:

m

ym,

mym,EL,ym,

y BM, grid,

EG

.EFEG EF

(2)

Where:

EFgrid,BM,y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

EG m,y = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in

year y (MWh)

EF EL, m, y = CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh)

m = Power units included in the build margin

y = Most recent historical year for which power generation data is available

Table 48: CO2 emissions from each power unit per MWh

Power

Plant

Power

Station

type

Primary

energy

source

Net

Electricity

Generated

(MWh)

Fuel energy

consumtpio

n (ktoe) *

Fuel energy

consumptio

n (TJ)

tCO2

(NG)

tCO2

(F.O)

tCO2/MWh

Kurraymat

2 (CC)

(CC) N.G –

L.F.O

5,034,780 760 31768 138000

2

461271 0.366

Kurraymat

3* (CC)

(CC) N.G –

H.F.O

2,784,000 755 31559 137092

3

476541 0.664

Sidi krir *

(CC)

(CC) N.G –

H.F.O

3,080,265 750 31350 136184

4

473385 0.596

El-ATF *

(CC)

(CC) N.G –

L.F.O

2,991,000 646 27003 117300

2

392081 0.523

Cairo

North (CC)

(CC) N.G –

L.F.O

9,346,249 1577 65919 286350

4

957138 0.409

Talkha 750 (CC) N.G –

L.F.O

4,347,000 784 32771.2 142358

1

475838 0.437

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Build Margin Emissions Factor (tCO2/MWh) = 0.464

STEP 6. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor.

The combined margin emissions factor is calculated as follows:

EF grid,CM,y = EF grid, OM,y x wOM + EF grid, BM,y x wBM (3)

Where:

EFgrid,BM,y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

EF grid,OM,y = Operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

w OM = Weighting of operating margin emissions factor (%)

w BM = Weighting of build margin emissions factor (%)

The following default values should be used for wOM

and wBM

:

All projects other than wind and solar power generation projects: wOM = 0.5 and wBM = 0.5 for the first

crediting period, and wOM = 0.25 and wBM = 0.75 for the second and third crediting period unless

otherwise specified in the approved methodology which refers to this tool

EF grid,CM,y = 0.551 tCO2/MWh

2. IPCC Default Values used in calculating the Baseline Emissions from solid waste disposal at

landfills

IPCC Default Values

F (fraction of methane in LFG) 0.5

DOCf (fraction of DOC to LFG) 0.5

MCF (methane correction factor) 0.4

16/12 1.33

f or AF (fraction of CH4 captured & flared or used at the SWDS) 0%

GWP methane 21

Oxidation Factor (OX) 0.1

Model Correction Factor 0.75

Power Plant Net Electricity Generated

(MWh)

tCO2/MW

h

tCO2

Kurraymat 2 (CC) 5,034,780 0.366 1841273

Kurraymat 3*

(CC)

2,784,000 0.664 1847464

Sidi krir * (CC) 3,080,265 0.596 1835229

El-ATF * (CC) 2,991,000 0.523 1565082

Cairo North (CC) 9,346,249 0.409 3820642

Talkha 750 4,347,000 0.437 1899419

TOTAL 23,236,294 1280910

9

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


3. Degradable organic content and decay order of each waste component

IPCC guidelines, 2006: DOCj

(%

wet

waste)

DOCj

(% dry

waste)

k

A. Wood and Wood Products 43% 50% 0.025

B. Pulp, Paper & Cardboard (other than sludge) 40% 44% 0.045

C. Food, Food Waste, Beverages & Tobacco (other than

sludge)

15% 38% 0.085

D. Textiles 24% 30% 0.045

E. Garden, Yard & Park Waste 20% 49% 0.065

4. Plant records for clinker production

Year Clinker production ( tons/year )

2009 2010 2011

Production line #1 1,996,800 1,963,540 2,124,240


5. Plant records for fossil fuels consumption

Year 2009 2010 2011

Natural Gas (m3/year )

Production line

#1

173,303,69

8

171,545,45

2

175,720,75

9

Production line

#2

0 0 35,318,111

Diesel oil (sular) ( m3/year )

Production line

#1

0 3,189 15,570

Production line

#2

0 0 69,985

6. Alternative fuels and fossil fuels consumption during the project activity

Yea

r

Natural

Gas

(m3/year)

Agricultural

Wastes

(tons/year)

Sludge

(tons/year

)

RDF

(tons/year

)

1 358,446,669 5,000 10,000 35,280

2 339,691,681 20,000 15,000 62,020

3 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

4 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

5 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

6 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

7 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

8 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

9 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

10 321,550,450 40,000 20,000 82,000

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


7. Net Calorific Value of each fuel type

Fuel NCV

(TJ/t)

Natural Gas 0.049

Diesel Oil

(sular)

0.0457

Rice Straw 0.0144

Cotton Stalk 0.0154

Sludge 0.0168

RDF 0.0143

8. Emission factor of each fuel type

The emission factor of each fuel type has been calculated from the following equation:

CO2 Emissions = CLi * OF i * 44/12

Where:

CLi = Carbon Content of each fossil fuel type (fraction)

OF i = Oxidation factor for each fossil fuel type (fraction) = 1

44/12 = Conversion factor from Carbon to Carbon dioxide

Fuel EF CO2

(tCO2/TJ)

tCO2/t

fuel

Natural Gas 56.1 2.75

Diesel Oil

(sular)

69.8 3.19

Rice straw 0 0

Cotton stalk 0 0

Sludge 0 0

RDF 34 0.42

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


9. RDF Composition

Component Average % Fossil Carbon Content

(IPCC Default Values,

Volume 5, Table 2.5)

Paper 11% 1%

Card board 2% 1%

Baby diapers 5% 10%

Textiles 6% 40%

Grocery plastic

bags

25% 100%

Plastic bottles 3% 100%

Plastic food

container

3% 100%

Woods 3% 0%

Glasses 1% N/A

Bones 1% 0%

Stones 4% 100%

Tines 2% N/A

Woven plastic 2% 100%

Shoes Sole 1% 20%

Coarse organic

matter

34% 0%

Total 100%

Organic

Fraction

58%

Inorganic

Fraction

39%

Inerts 3%

The CO2 emission factor of the RDF with the above composition is 36 ton CO2/TJ, calculated from the

following equation.

EF RDF = Non-biomass fraction of RDF * Effective CO2 emission factor of non-biomass fraction of

municipal waste.

Where:

Non-biomass fraction of RDF = 39%

Effective CO2 emission factor of non-biomass fraction of municipal waste is 91.7 ton CO2 /TJ

UNFCCC/CCNUCC


Appendix 5: Further background information on monitoring plan

Please refer to section B.7.

Appendix 6: Summary of post registration changes

- - - - -

History of the document

Version Date Nature of revision

04.0 EB 66 13 March 2012

Revision required to ensure consistency with the “Guidelines for completing the project design document form for CDM project activities” (EB 66, Annex 8).

03 EB 25, Annex 15 26 July 2006

02 EB 14, Annex 06 14 June 2004

01 EB 05, Paragraph 12 03 August 2002

Initial adoption.

Decision Class: Regulatory

Document Type: Form

Business Function: Registration