clean development mechanism project design document form

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)

Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006

CONTENTS

A. General description of project activity

B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

D. Environmental impacts

E. Stakeholders‘ comments

Annexes

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan



page 2

SECTION A. General description of project activity

A.1. Title of the project activity:

Changshu Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Project

Document version 5

Date completed: 17 January 2011

A.2. Description of the project activity:

The Changshu Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Project (the Project) developed by Changshu Pufa

Thermal Power Energy Co., Ltd. (CPTPE) (the Project Developer) is a municipal solid waste

incineration project located in the city of Changshu, province of Jiangsu, China.

The Project‘s purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by diverting organic waste from

disposal at the Nanhu landfill where anaerobic processes would have caused methane (CH4) emissions.

The Project will incinerate the waste and generate electricity using heat that is a by-product of the

incineration process. This electricity will feed into the Eastern China Power Grid. Thus, in addition to

directly eliminating the methane, the Project will also displace fossil fuel-based electricity generation

that would have emitted additional CO2.

Since 1992, the city of Changshu has been disposing off its waste in an open dumpsite. The waste mainly

comes from residents, but also includes floating debris on rivers, waste materials from business

establishments, trash from the streets and gardens, as well as fiber and cloth scraps from the textile

industry. There is no sorting or recycling of waste being done in the landfill and neither there is a landfill

gas capturing and flaring. In the absence of the project, the waste would continue being filled in the

landfill. The CDM revenues have provided an alternative to uncontrolled or improperly managed

landfills, which is common practice in China1.

The Project will be comprised of two different components: (i) the installation of a waste incinerator

system with a combined capacity of 660 tonnes of waste per day to achieve complete combustion and

restrict dioxin/furan generation. This component will also include the installation of a flue gas cleaning

technology to address pollutant emissions so as to meet international environmental standards; and, (ii)

the use of heat resulting from the incineration to run one electricity generator with an installed capacity

of 12 MW. Total GHG emission reductions (ERs) from the Project are estimated ex-ante around 570,562

tonnes of CO2e for the first 7-year crediting period.

In addition to GHG mitigation, the Project will make a number of additional positive environmental

contributions, as follows:

1 World Bank Working Paper 9, Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations, p. 30, May 2005

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPURBDEV/Resources/China-Waste-Management1.pdf




page 3

- The Project will dispose off around 219,780 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) per year through

incineration technology that allows ―hygienization2‖ and reduction in the volume of waste to be disposed

off.

- The Project will provide a model for sustainable and environmentally friendly approaches for local and

provincial governments to better manage MSW and an efficient way to reduce the volume of waste and

demand for landfill space, while helping governments comply with local regulations and environmental

standards.

- Enhanced environmental compliance, which would not occur in the absence of the Project, will bring

about process benefits, such as the mitigation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the prevention

of harmful leachate from entering underground aquifers or waterways. VOCs and leachate are negative

impacts of open dumpsites that typically are not controlled.

In addition to such environmental improvements, the Project will also contribute to sustainable

development by bringing about a range of local social and economic benefits. For example:

the Project will provide for both short- and long-term employment opportunities for local people;

i.e. long-term staff will be used to operate and maintain the system;

by bringing economic development to the area, the Project will make it a better and safer place in

which to live and do business;

the host community in the city of Changshu will have a healthier environment in general because

of improved local air quality, as well as the abatement of water and soil pollution;

the electricity generated using heat from the incineration process will provide an indigenous,

cheap and renewable source of energy, diversifying the country‘s energy sources while

displacing electricity that would otherwise be generated by fossil fuel-fired power plants;

financial returns will be provided to local entities and to local government; and,

proven and reliable renewable energy technology, which also serves as a waste management

process, will be transferred to local counterparts.

A.3. Project participants:

Name of Party involved

(*) ((host) indicates a

host Party):

Private and/or public entity(ies)

project participants(*) (as

applicable)

Kindly indicate if the Party

involved wishes to be considered as

project participant (Yes/No)

China (host)

Changshu Pufa Thermal Power

Energy Co., Ltd No

United Kingdom Endesa Generación S.A

No

2 Advanced treatment (thermal) which results in a higher reduction of E. Coli concentration in waste than conventional treatments



page 4

A.4. Technical description of the project activity:

A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

China

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

China

A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:

Province of Jiangsu

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc.:

City of Changshu

A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the

unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):

The Changshu Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Project is located on the south-eastern part of Jiangsu

province in China, bordering on Wuxi on the West, Shanghai on the east and Suzhou on the south. The

geographic coordinates of the project are 31°35‘37‘‘N 120°39‘33‘‘E. The Yangtze River crosses through

the north of the city. Jiangsu province consists of 13 districts and counties and covers an area of 1,264

square kilometres (km2) with a population of 1,318 million residents. On the southwest area of urban

Changshu lies the factory site, and on the north, the Nanhu Landfill, close to the Nantang Lake for

fishing and irrigation purposes. The factory site is located 800 meters (m) from the Nanhu Farm and 15

kilometres (km) from Changshu urban area, and occupies a total estimated area of 49,333 m2.

Figure 1: Location of Changshu



page 5

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

This category would fall within 2 sectoral scopes:

Category 13: Waste handling and disposal; and,

Category 1: Energy industries (renewable / non-renewable sources)

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

The proposed project activity will install two grate incinerator units with MSW handling and incineration

capacity of 330 tonnes per day per unit. The boiler unit associated with the waste incineration and the

electrical generator nameplate is rated at 12 MW, with the total system average output rated at 8.5 MW

based on the 660 tonnes per day of the specified MSW fuel. The Project‘s annual power generation is

expected to be 68,000 MWh3. The Project will deliver approximately 80% of this electricity to China‘s

Eastern Power Grid. The specifications of the equipment are as follows:

Table 1. Equipment specifications

Equipment Supplier Specifications

Waste

incinerator

Keppel Seghers (Belgium) Processing capacity: 660 tonnes per day

Annual accumulated running time: 8,000 h;

Waste combustion temperature: ≥ 850°C ;

Flue gas detention time ≥ 2s;

Heat ignition loss rate of clinker ≤ 5%;

Furnace efficiency: 96.1%;

Maximum Continuous Rating:13.75 t/h,

5,500 kJ/kg;

Waste material liquid water content: 45 -

55%;

Waste density: 0.5 tonnes per m3

Boiler Shanghai Sifang Boiler (Group)

Co., Ltd.

SLC 300-4.0/400

Steam turbine Guangzhou SKODA-JINMA

Turbine Co., Ltd.

Extraction condensing steam turbine N12-

3.8/390

Generator Nanyang Explosion Protection

Group Co.Ltd.

QFW-12-2

Outlet voltage:10.5 kV

DSC equipment Beijing HollySys Co.Ltd. MACs SmartPro

The process of MSW incineration and power output is as follows: About 660 tonnes of waste is daily

delivered to the incinerator and weighted in the weighbridge. The collected waste is unloaded in the

3The electrical generator is nameplate rated at 12 MW, based on equipment manufacturer specifications and energy

content studies of MSW, the incinerator only provides enough raw energy for 8.5 MW of electrical power

generation. Generation could reach 12 MW only with the additional waste handling and incineration equipment

coupled with additional boiler capacity. Thus the plant‘s electrical output on an integrated design basis is 8.5 MW.



page 6

waste handling area. Then it is fed into the charging conduit by grab bucket and pushed by feeder

machine into the two grate lines, the place where waste is rolled and stirred for desiccation and then

incinerated. Both of the waste flaring lines are imported from Keppel Seghers of Belgium, each with a

330 tonnes per day nominal capacity, and producing superheated steam with maximum furnace

temperature over 850 degrees Celsius. The waste is usually burned within 2 days. To start up the process

of ignition, diesel oil will be used as auxiliary ignition fuel in case of low temperature of incinerator.

After incineration, all the clinkers will be removed out by the slag remover. The flue gas from MSW

incineration will flow into boiler for steam production and then vented into the atmosphere after

purification. Waste gas is treated in three fields: semi-humid treatment lines, a reactor and a bag filter. A

charcoal injection system has also been installed to treat dioxins and furans. The stack gas from the

incineration may contain small amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. Emissions of N2O and CH4 are

estimated in section B 6.3 and B 6.4. The steam, which totals 88 tonnes per hour from the two furnaces,

supplies one turbo-alternator of 12 MW capacity. Two cooling towers help to condensate the water. The

annual electricity to be produced is 68 GWh of which 80% is expected to be supplied to the grid. All

operation management is automated through centralized computer controls.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the waste treatment process.

The leachate from the project is diverted for treatment in aerobic conditions. The leachate is first drained

though the filter to screen for any bulky waste and then sent to the first aerobic denitrifying tank for

settlement. The tank is aerated to ensure that the process is aerobic and there is no methane generation. In

the second stage, more purified leachate flows into the second nitrating tank where it also undergoes the

aerobic process. After the leachate flows to the third nitrating tank to undergo the final stage of

purification and then it is discharged into the urban sewage pipeline network where the wastewater is

Waste storage pit

Leachate pit Grate incinerator

Waste heat boiler

Steam turbine

Electric generator

Electricity grid

Leachate treatment

station

WWT Plant

Pump

Drainage

pipeline

networks

Slag pit

Main

condenser

Cooling tower

Landfill

Lime slurry

drying tower

Flue gas

Draft

fan

Steam

Chimney



page 7

treated in Chengxi Sewage Wastewater Treatment Plant. Any leftover mud is sent back to the

incineration process. Schematic representation of leachate treatment process is provided below.

Figure 3. Schematic representation of leachate treatment process.

The Project will transfer environmentally sound technology to Jiangsu by:

training local labor on operation and maintenance;

providing an example of one of the most environmentally beneficial ways of solid waste

management (SWM);

expanding the knowledge on CDM potential for this type of activity.

A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:

Table 2:Estimated Emission Reductions

Years Annual estimation of emission

reductions in tCO2e

(year 1) 1/08/2011- 31/07/2012 57,545

(year 2) 1/08/2012- 31/07/2013 67,874

(year 3) 1/08/2013- 31/07/2014 76,766

(year 4) 1/08/2014- 31/07/2015 84,445

(year 5) 1/08/2015- 31/07/2016 91,100

(year 6) 1/08/2016- 31/07/2017 96,887

(year 7) 1/08/2017- 31/07/2018 101,941

Total estimated reductions (tCO2e) 576,558

Total number of crediting years 7

Annual average over the crediting period of

estimated reductions (tCO2e) 82,365

Concentrated solution

Filthy mud back to waste

pit

Leachat

e

Automatic filter Bag filter Denitrifying pot Nitrating pot 1

Nitrating pot 2 Hyperfiltration Hyperfiltration pot

Sewage tank Waste pit

Residue



page 8

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

There is no public funding involved in the project.

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the

project activity:

The following approved methodology and tools will be applied in the project:

- AM0025 ―Avoided emissions from organic waste through alternative waste treatment processes‖

Version 12;

- ―Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system‖ Version 2;

- ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at the solid waste disposal

site‖ Version 5;

- ―Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality‖ Version 05.2.

B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project

activity:

AM0025 is applicable under the following conditions:

The project activity involves one or a combination of the following waste treatment options for the fresh

waste that in a given year would have otherwise been disposed of in a landfill:

a. a composting process in aerobic conditions;

b. gasification to produce syngas and its use;

c. anaerobic digestion with biogas collection and flaring and/or its use. The anaerobic digester

processes only the waste for which emission reductions are claimed in this methodology. If the

biogas is processed and upgraded to the quality of natural gas and it is distributed as energy via

natural gas distribution grid, project activities may use approved methodology AM0053 in

conjunction with this methodology. In such cases the baseline scenario identification procedure

and additionality assessment shall be undertaken for the combination of the two components of

the project activity i.e. biomethane emission avoidance and displacement of natural gas;

d. mechanical/thermal treatment process to produce refuse-derived fuel (RDF)/stabilized biomass

(SB) and its use. The thermal treatment process (dehydration) occurs under controlled conditions

of up to 300 degrees Celsius. In case of thermal treatment process, the process shall generate SB

that would be used as fuel or raw material in other industrial process. The physical and chemical

properties of the produced RDF/SB shall be homogenous and constant over time;

e. incineration of fresh waste for energy generation, electricity and/or heat. The thermal energy

generated is either consumed on-site and/or exported to a nearby facility. Electricity generated is

either consumed on-site, exported to the grid or exported to a nearby facility. The incinerator is

rotating fluidized bed of hearth or grate type.



page 9

The Changshu Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Project involves the treatment of fresh waste that in a

given year would have otherwise been disposed of in a landfill, and the project activity is based on the

incineration of fresh waste with energy generation for own consumption and for supply to the grid –

option e.

In case of anaerobic digestion, gasification or RDF processing of waste, the residual waste from

these processes is aerobically composted and/or delivered to a landfill.

- This applicability condition is not applicable to the Project activity.

In case of composting, the produced compost is either used as soil conditioner or disposed of in

landfills.

-This applicability condition is not applicable to the Project activity.

In case of RDF/stabilized biomass processing, the produced RDF/stabilized biomass should not

be stored in a manner that may result in anaerobic conditions before its uses.

- This applicability condition is not applicable to the Project activity.

If RDF/SB is disposed of in a landfill, project proponent shall provide degradability analysis on

an annual basis to demonstrate that the methane generation, in the life-cycle of the SB is below

1% of related emissions. It has to be demonstrated regularly that the characteristics of the

produced RDF/SB should not allow for re-absorption of moisture of more than 3%. Otherwise,

monitoring the fate of the produced RDF/SB is necessary to ensure that it is not subject to

anaerobic conditions in its lifecycle.

-This applicability condition is not applicable to the Project activity.

In the case of incineration of the waste, the waste should not be stored longer than 10 days. The

waste should not be store in conditions that would lead to anaerobic decomposition and, hence,

generation of CH4.

- The waste shall not be stored for more than 10 days as capacity of waste handling area is 8,874 m3 and

considering that the waste density is 0.5 m3, the waste would be stored for maximum 6 days.

The proportion and characteristics of different types of organic waste processed in the project

activity can be determined, in order to apply a multiphase landfill gas generation model to

estimate the quantity of landfill gas that would have been generated in the absence of the project

activity.

- The composition analysis of organic waste processed in the project has been done by Department of

Environmental Science and Engineering, Environmental and Chemical Science, Shanghai University.

Copy of the analysis done provided to the DOE.

The project activity may include electricity generation and/or thermal energy generation from

biogas, syngas captured, RDF/stabilized biomass produced, combustion heat generated in the



page 10

incineration process, respectively, from the anaerobic digester, the gasifier, RDF/stabilized

biomass combustor, and waste incinerator. The electricity can be exported to the grid and/or used

internally at the project site. In the case of RDF produced, the emission reductions can be

claimed only for the case where the RDF used electricity and/or thermal energy generation can

be monitored.

-The Project activity includes electricity generation from incineration process.

Waste handling in the baseline scenario shows a continuation of current practice of disposing the

waste in a landfill despite environmental regulation that mandates the treatment of the waste, if

any, using any of the project activity treatment options mentioned above.

- The fact that the MSW would be disposed of in landfill sites is demonstrated in section B.4.and B5. In

addition, there are no enforced regulations for treatment of MWS using any of the project activity

treatment options mentioned above in China.

The compliance rate of the environmental regulations during (part of) the crediting period is

below 50%; if monitored compliance with the MSW rules exceeds 50%, the project activity shall

receive no further credit, since the assumption that the policy is not enforced is no longer

tenable;

- At present, there are no enforced regulations with regards to the MSW and sewage sludge treatment.

Local regulations do not constrain the establishment of RDF production plants/thermal treatment

plants nor the use of RDF/stabilized biomass as fuel or raw material.

- This applicability condition is not related to the Project activity.

In case of RDF/stabilized biomass production, project proponent shall provide evidence that no

GHG emissions occur, other than biogenic CO2, due to chemical reactions during the thermal

treatment process (such as Chimney Gas Analysis report).

- This applicability condition is not related to the Project activity.

The project activity does not involve thermal treatment process of neither industrial nor hospital

waste ;

- The Project activity does not involve thermal treatment process nor hospital waste.

In case of waste incineration, if auxiliary fossil fuel is added into the incinerator, the fraction of

energy generated by auxiliary fossil fuel is no more than 50% of the total energy generated in the

incinerator.

- The fraction of energy generated by auxiliary fossil fuel is no more than 50% of the total energy

generated in the incinerator. The project uses diesel only for the start-up, the rest of the process is self

burning process where no additional fossil fuel is added.



page 11

The Project therefore fulfils the conditions of option (e) above, (i.e., incineration of fresh waste for

energy generation electricity) and all above criteria, and thus AM0025 is considered to be applicable to

the project activity.

B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary:

According to AM0025, the project boundary is the site of the project activity where the waste is treated.

This includes the facilities for processing the waste, on-site electricity generation and/or consumption,

onsite fuel use and the landfill site. The project boundary does not include facilities for waste collection,

sorting and transport to the project site.

Since the Project provides electricity to a grid, the spatial extent of the project boundary will also include

those plants connected to the energy system, to which the plant is connected.

Table 3: Project Activities and Emission Sources within the Project Boundaries:

Source Gas Justification/explanation

Base

lin

e

Emissions from

decomposition of

waste at the landfill

site

CH4 Included Major emission source in the baseline.

N2O Excluded

N2O emissions are small compared to CH4

emissions from landfills. Exclusion of this

gas is conservative.

CO2 Excluded CO2 emissions from the decomposition of

organic waste are not accounted.

Emissions from

electricity

consumption

CO2 Included Excluded as there is no electricity

generation or consumption in the baseline

CH4 Excluded Excluded as no electricity generation or

consumption in the baseline

N2O Excluded No electricity generation or consumption

in the baseline

Emissions from

thermal energy

generation

CO2 Included Excluded as no thermal energy generation

in the baseline.

CH4 Excluded No thermal energy generation in the

baseline

N2O Excluded No thermal energy generation in the

baseline

Emissions from

transportation CO2

Included Emissions from transportation could be

major source of emissions.

CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification.

N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification.

Emissions from

residual waste

CO2 Excluded No residual waste in the baseline scenario

CH4 Excluded No residual waste in the baseline scenario

N2O

Excluded No residual waste in the baseline scenario



page 12

P

roje

ct A

ctiv

ity

On-site fossil fuel

consumption due to

the project activity

other than for

electricity

generation

CO2 Included Diesel fuel is used in the project for

ignition and thus it will be account for.

CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission

source is assumed to be very small.

N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission


Emissions from

onsite electricity

use

CO2 Included This parameter is excluded since electricity

is generated from waste incineration.

CH4 Excluded This parameter is excluded since electricity

is generated from waste incineration.

N2O Excluded

This parameter is excluded since

electricity is generated from waste

incineration.

Emissions from

thermal energy

generation

CO2 Included Excluded since there is no thermal energy

generation in the project activity

CH4 Excluded excluded since there is no thermal energy


N2O Excluded Excluded since there is no thermal energy


Direct emissions

from the waste

treatment

processes.

N2O

Included

Maybe an important source of emissions.

N2O can be emitted from incineration.

CO2

Included Can be a major source of emissions

CH4

Included

CH4 may be emitted from stacks from

incineration.

Emissions from

waste water

treatment

CO2

Excluded

CO2 emissions from the decomposition of

organic waste are not accounted.

CH4 Excluded The wastewater is treated aerobically.

N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission


Lea

ka

ge

emis

sio

ns

Emissions from

residual waste

CO2 Excluded

CO2 emissions from the combustion of

biomass are not accounted as GHG

emissions.

CH4 Included Could be potential source of emissions

N2O Included Could be potential source of emissions

Emissions from

transportation

CO2 Excluded There are no incremental emissions due to

transportation in the project activity.

CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification

N2O Excluded Exclude for simplification



page 13

B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified

baseline scenario:

Step 1: Identify alternative scenarios

For the baseline identification, AM0025 states that Step 1 of the latest version of the ―Tool for the

demonstration and assessment of additionality‖ shall be used to identify all realistic and credible baseline

alternatives. In doing so, relevant policies and regulations related to the management of landfill sites

shall be taken into account to determine realistic and credible alternatives for: (i) disposal of MSW in the

absence of the project activity; and (ii) power generation in the absence of the project activity.

In the case of disposal of MSW, in the absence of the project activity, the alternatives to provide the

same output or services that the project activity would provide are to include:

- M1: the proposed project activity (i.e. implemented without CDM revenues);

- M2: disposal of the waste at a landfill where the captured LFG is flared;

- M3: disposal of the waste at a landfill without the capture of landfill gas,

In case of power generation in the absence of the CDM project activity, to provide the same output or

services comparable with the proposed CDM project activity, there would be the following alternatives:

- P1: power generated from by-product of the waste treatment as listed in M1 (i.e. incineration of

waste) above, not undertaken as a CDM project activity;

- P2: existing or construction of a new on-site or off-site fossil fuel fired cogeneration plant;

- P3: existing or construction of a new on-site or off-site renewable based cogeneration plant;

- P4: existing or construction of a new on-site or off-site fossil fuel fired captive power plant;

- P5: existing or construction of a new on-site or off-site renewable based captive power plant ; and,

P6: existing and/or new grid-connected power plants

The credible and realistic scenarios for heat generation are not included as heat generation is not a part of

the baseline neither of the proposed project activity.

Step 2: Identify the fuel for the baseline choice of energy source taking into account national and/or

sectoral policies as applicable

The baseline for the energy source is the Eastern China Grid, whose fuel mix for the year 2005 is

summarized in the table below:

Table 4: Fuel Mix in the Eastern China Grid 2005

Fuel Unit Shanghai Jiangsu Zhejiang Anhui Fujian Total

Thermal MW 13113.5 42506.4 27688.1 11423.2 9345.4 104076.6

Hydroelectric MW 0 142.6 6952.1 749.8 8224.9 16069.4

Nuclear MW 0 0 3066 0 0 3066



page 14

Wind and others MW 253.3 58.8 37.2 0 52 401.3

Total MW 13366.8 42707.8 37743.4 12173 17622.3 123613.

3

Source: China Electricity Yearbook 2006

Therefore, there will not be any supply constraint for the identified baseline scenario source of fuel.

Step 3: Investment analysis - step 2 of the latest approved version of the ―Tool for demonstration and

assessment of additionality‖ is applied in this step to show that the Project activity scenario (M1 and P1)

is not financially attractive scenario. The details of the investment analysis are described in the section

B.5 below.

Step 4: There is only one plausible alternative remains for each baseline scenario— M3 and P6 and thus

this step is not applicable.

B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below

those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment

and demonstration of additionality):

AM0025 Version 12 states that the Project‘s additionality should be demonstrated and assessed using the

¨Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality¨, Version 5.2 The following table shows the

timeline of the events of the proposed project showing that the CDM benefits were taken into account

when making decision to implement the project.

Table 5. Chronology of events and CDM consideration

Milestones Date Reference

Letter from project sponsor

requesting to consider CDM

revenues to make the project

viable.

3 September 2003 Please refer to Annex 29

FSR is approved 2 January 2004 Please refer to FSR

EIA is approved 8 October 2004 Please refer to Annex 16

Meeting between company Jumbo

Consulting and Shanghai Pudong

Group to discuss the opportunity

of pursuing the project as a CDM

project.

6 July 2004 Please refer to Annex 21

Contract is signed between

Changshu Pucheng Thermal

Power Ltd.‘ (the PP) and

Shanghai Pudong Engineering

Construction Company Ltd where

the PP entrusts the later company

with responsibility for all the

construction management from

5 August 2004 Please refer to Annex 39



page 15

the initial design to final

acceptance of construction.

The board of directors takes

decision to pursue the project as a

CDM project.

25 September 2004 Please refer to Annex 22

Meeting of the project sponsor

with AHL Carbono re sale of

CERs from the project.

20 January 2005 Please refer to Annex 23

Facility setting was signed

between Shanghai Pudong

Engineering Construction

Company and the Shandong

Industrial Facility Setting

Company.

31 March 2005 Please refer to Annex 24

Start of construction 17 October 2005 Please refer to Annex 40

Submission of a new

methodology for incineration of

MSW

22 June 2006 http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PA

methodologies/publicview.html?status=

pending&meth_ref=NM0174

The plant is commissioned 25 September 2006 Please refer to Annex 28

The project sponsor signs an LOI

with ENDESA

4 December 2006 Please refer to Annex 30

The methodology for incineration

is approved

4 May 2007 EB 31, Annex 5, 04 May 2007

The sponsor signs ERPA with

ENDESA

December 2007 Due to confidentiality of the

information, only made available to the

DOE

PDD of the project is published

for public comments on CDM

website

4 March 2008 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation

/DB/G6IGK3UBY9D81QBH2S72JCE2I

M7E22/view.html

LOA issued by host country DNA 18 March 2009 Please refer to Annex 31

LOA issued by UK DNA 18 November 2010 Please refer to Annex 43

As per Additionality Tool, the following steps are done:

Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and

regulations

Step 2: Investment analysis

Step 3: Barriers analysis

Step 4: Common practice analysis

Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and

regulations

Sub-step 1a: Define alternatives to the project activity

http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/publicview.html?status=pending&meth_ref=NM0174



http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/G6IGK3UBY9D81QBH2S72JCE2IM7E22/view.html





page 16

In the absence of the project activity, the alternatives to provide the same output or services that the

project activity would provide are to include:

- M1: the project activity (i.e. incineration of waste not implemented as a CDM project);

- M2: disposal of the waste at a landfill where the captured LFG is flared;

- M3: disposal of the waste at a landfill without the capture of landfill gas;

M1 is a plausible option however its financial viability is further discussed in step 2 investment analysis.

M2 is not a plausible scenario since LFG flaring alone, without the electricity generation component,

only adds to project costs without bringing in revenues.

M3 is a common practice and does not involve any additional cost but the cost which would occur in the

baseline scenario. It is the most likely scenario as it constitutes common practice in China due to the

absence of enforced regulations.

In case of power generation in the absence of the CDM project activity, to provide the same output or

services comparable with the proposed CDM project activity, there would be the following alternatives:

- P1: power generated from by-product of the waste treatment as listed in M1 (i.e. incineration of

waste) above, not undertaken as a CDM project activity;

- P2: existing or construction of a new on-site or off-site fossil fuel fired cogeneration plant;

- P3: existing or construction of a new on-site or off-site renewable based cogeneration plant;

- P4: existing or construction of a new on-site or off-site fossil fuel fired captive power plant;

- P5: existing or construction of a new on-site or off-site renewable based captive power plant ; and,

- P6: existing and/or new grid-connected power plants.

Alternative P1 is a plausible scenario however its financial attractiveness is discussed further in Step 2.

The alternatives P2 and P4 are not plausible scenarios and are excluded since there is no heat / electricity

demand in the baseline. Furthermore, no fossil fueled power plants below 135 MW are permitted in

China4.

The Alternative P3 and P5 are also excluded since there is no demand for heat or electricity in the

baseline scenario. No heat or electricity was consumed in the baseline scenario and there was no grid

connection. The only plausible scenario for power generation is alternative P6 - ―Existing and/or new

grid-connected power plants‖.

The credible and realistic scenarios H1 to H7 for heat generation are not included as heat generation is

not a part of the baseline neither of the proposed project activity.

4 General Office of the State Council, Decree no. 2002-6, Notice on Strictly Prohibiting the Installation of Fuel-fired

Generators with the Capacity of 135MW, http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2002/content_61480.htm

http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2002/content_61480.htm



page 17

Sub-step 1b: Ensure consistency with mandatory laws and regulations

All remaining alternatives comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The following is a list of

applicable laws on SWM in China:

- Policy 120 on Urban Waste Treatment and Pollution Prevention Technology5: This policy was put

into effect by the Ministry of Construction on 26 June 2000 in order to provide guidelines on

technology and equipment selection for waste collection, establishment of sanitary landfills and

incineration plants, and composting. It sets the criteria for the choice of technology and equipment

depending on local conditions, feasibility of the technology, reliability of the equipment reliability,

and system management. For example, in cities where land resource and natural conditions are

appropriate, landfills are adopted as the basic plan, whereas in cities where economic and waste heat

value conditions are met but where there is a shortage of land, incineration technology is developed.

Proper biological treatment technologies are being actively developed and comprehensive treatment

is encouraged. Random dumping and uncontrolled piling of garbage is forbidden. Waste heat

recovery from garbage incineration, LFG capture, high temperature composting and methane gas

production from organic garbage are encouraged.

- Standard for Pollution Control in MSW Incineration: It was adopted by the State Environmental

Protection Administration and came into effect on 1 January 2002. It sets standards and requirements

for site selection and design of waste incineration plants, waste entry, waste storage technology,

technological performance of incinerators, and pollutant discharge levels, as well as testing methods.

- Standard for Pollution Control on the Landfill Site of Municipal Solid Waste (GB16889-2008)6.

According to the Standard for Pollution Control on the Landfill Site of Municipal Solid Waste, the

LFG recovery facilities and flare should be installed when the landfill design capacity are more than

2.5 millions tonne and the landfill body depth are more than 20 meters, and for small scale landfill

the flare or measures to reduce methane emissions should be also used. However, due to financial

and technological difficulties, these regulations have not been widely enforced in China. This is

confirmed by World Bank Report ¨Waste management in China: Issues and Recommendations¨7

published in 2005. In addition, in 2007, the China Ministry of Construction inspected 372 landfill

sites in 31 provinces, cities and autonomous regions in China and it revealed that only 7.24%8 of the

total number of landfills has installed landfill gas recovery and utilization facilities. Therefore, it is

assumed that in the baseline there is no landfill gas capture and flaring and the Adjustment Factor is

assumed to be zero.

The following are China‘s laws on electricity generation using renewable energy sources:

5Policy 120 on Urban Waste Treatment and Pollution Prevention Technology www.mohurd.gov.cn

6 Standard for Pollution Control on the Landfill Site of Municipal Solid Waste (GB16889-2008)

http://www.gov.cn/zxft/ft108/content_957156.htm.

7 World Bank Report ¨Waste management in China: Issues and Recommendations¨ 2005


8 Ministry of Construction of China: Notification of Inspection Outcome on China National Sanitary Landfill Site, Page1, 6 Feb

2007

http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/

http://www.gov.cn/zxft/ft108/content_957156.htm




page 18

- Energy Regulation 13, Management of Electricity Generation from Renewable Energy9: Under the

auspices of the China National Development and Reform Commission, this law has been in effect

since 1 January 2006, governing hydroelectric, wind, biomass10

, solar, geothermal and ocean power

generation. It dictates that such power generation should follow principles of planned construction,

comply with all other laws and regulations, obtain the requisite permits, and take into full

consideration factors such as resource characteristics, market demand and environmental protection.

Annual reports are to be provided to the Energy Administration Department of the Provincial

Government on capacity and power generation.

- Order 33 of the President of the People‘s Republic of China, Law of Renewable Resources of

People‘s Republic of China11

: In effect since 1 January, 2006, this Order establishes the legal

requirements for exploration and development, application, price management/ cost sharing,

economic stimulation, technical support and monitoring measures for renewable energy resources.

It also stipulates state support for

grid connection of renewable resources, compliance with

permitting and licensing policies in accordance with State Council laws - including bidding

procedures, and state backing of clean biomass use - including energy crops - and economic

incentives for projects in rural areas.

Since alternatives to the Project that are consistent with current laws and regulations have been

identified, the Project is considered to be additional under Step 1.

Step 2: Investment analysis

Per the ―Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality‖, there are three options that can be

used for investment analysis: (I) simple cost analysis, where no benefits other than CDM income exist

for the Project; (II) investment comparison analysis, where comparable alternatives to the Project exist;

or (III) benchmark analysis.

Sub-step 2a: Determine the appropriate analysis method

Determine whether to apply simple cost analysis, investment comparison analysis or benchmark

analysis (Sub-step 2b).

According to the tool, if the CDM project activity and the alternatives identified in Step 1 generate no

financial or economic benefits other than CDM related income, then apply the simple cost analysis

(Option I). Otherwise, use the investment comparison analysis (Option II) or the benchmark analysis

(Option III). As the Project will generate revenues from electricity sales thus benchmark analysis is

applied. The project‘s internal rate of return (IRR) will be compared against an established benchmark.

Sub-step 2b: Option III. Apply benchmark analysis

The project IRR was calculated in order to provide a comparison with established norms and

expectations in China for comparable investment projects. The assumptions used in this analysis include:

9 Energy Regulation 13, Management of Electricity Generation from Renewable Energy http://www.martinot.info/china.htm

10 Including power generation through direct burning and gasification of agricultural and forest waste, waste incineration and

LFG.

11 Order 33 of the President of the People‘s Republic of China, Law of Renewable Resources of People’s Republic of China,

http://fdi.gov.cn/pub/FDI_EN/Laws/GeneralLawsandRegulations/BasicLaws/P020060620320783430128.pdf

http://www.martinot.info/china.htm

http://fdi.gov.cn/pub/FDI_EN/Laws/GeneralLawsandRegulations/BasicLaws/P020060620320783430128.pdf



page 19

Total static investment cost: 297,500,000 RMB (FSR)

Debt amount: 187,940,000 RMB (FSR)

Plant O&M costs: 622,810,000 RMB (FSR)

Power generation rate: 8,500 kW (FSR)

Total operating hours: 8,000 (FSR)

Total power output: 68,000 MWh (FSR)

Self consumption rate: 20% (FSR assumes 25%, however for conservativeness, the

project assumes 20% for self consumption rate)

Tariff: 0.50 RMB per kWh (FSR)

Tipping fee: 98 RMB per tonne of waste (Jiangsu Province Price Bureau.)

Income tax: 33 % (FSR)

The project includes 64% debt and the rest is equity financing. Under the assumptions above and in the

absence of CDM revenues, investment in the MSW incineration system and generation capacity results in

an IRR of 5.82 % after taxes. This return is not considered by the Project Developer to be adequate to

compensate for the risks and uncertainties of the Project. Furthermore, this IRR compares very poorly to

a comparative IRR hurdle rate for the country. In this case, the financial benchmark rate of return, after

tax, is adopted to be 8% of project IRR for Chinese Power Industries.12

In this comparison, the Project‘s

IRR compares quite unfavorably.

A sensitivity analysis was also applied to the IRR calculation to measure the impact of any potential

changes in the indicated parameters.

Table 6: Sensitivity Indicators (after taxes)

Sensitivity

indicator

Investment Self consumption

rate

O&M

costs

Tariff Production

+10% 4.94% 4.71% 5.15% 6.68% 6.68%

-10% 6.88% 6.89% 6.48% 4.94% 4.94%

-19% 8.15% - - - -

+26 - - 8.00 % 8.00%

-35% - - 8.06% - -

0% 7.92%

The sensitivity analysis shows that even significant beneficial changes across a range of project

performance parameters do not result in the Project‘s IRR surpassing the stated IRR benchmark rate. The

sensitivity on the pessimistic side of the same parameters results in very low returns. As a result of

project volatility, where these performance expectations cannot be definitive, but rather only estimated at

the investment decision point, these results would clearly lead to a no-invest decision by the Project

Developer.

The self-consumption rate is inherently self-limiting: while there is an incentive for the operator to

maximize sales to the grid to maximize revenue, the internal electrical requirements of the plant are

relatively fixed based on design engineering, and the known internal loads of the plant must be met either

12 Interim Rules on Economic Assessment of Electrical Engineering Retrofit Projects, 2003.



page 20

by self-consumption or by purchases from the grid. As the sensitivity analysis showed, changing the self-

consumption rate from 20% to 10% (which is actually a reduction of 50% in the overall SC rate) only

increased the IRR to 6.89%. Even total removal of self-consumption only increases the IRR to 7.92%.

Thus, there is no likelihood that any foreseeable change in the self consumption rate would help the

project reach the benchmark.

The IRR reaches the benchmark when there is a decrease of investment costs by 19% and operations and

maintenance costs by 35%. The likeliness of decrease in investment and operation and maintenance costs

is very unlikely as incinerator equipment is imported from Keppel Seghers, Belgium, world known

producer of waste to energy technology. The incinerator requires proper maintenance to keep the

incinerator functioning properly and longer. Therefore, the O&M costs for these kinds of projects is quite

high and the costs cannot be reduced.

The project IRR reaches the benchmark when electricity tariff increases by 26%. The electricity tariff

(0.50 RMB/kWh) used at the time of investment decision is derived from the FSR. The electricity tariff

can be further confirmed through PPA. Based on historical electricity tariff trend13

, the variation in the

tariff by 26% is very unlikely. In China electricity tariff is strictly controlled by the central government.

The electricity tariff cannot be significantly changed without the permission of the central government. In

order to ensure the stability of the price for the whole country, the central government has very strict

control for the basic price such as the tariff and commodity price. The adjustment of electricity tariff

needs to be realized by negotiation of several government departments. Thus, the electricity tariff used

for financial analysis of projects cannot be forecasted and only fixed tariff can be adopted.

The project IRR also reaches the benchmark when the plant production goes up by 26% and it reaches

the 10.7 MW rating capacity. This is very unlikely because the plant has only two incineration lines with

capacity for treating max amount of 660 tonnes of waste per day which can produce steam only to fuel

maximum 8.5 MW of electricity. Increasing the production of electricity by 26% would imply adding

another line of incineration and increasing the amount of waste that can be treated per day. This is would

imply additional investment for the project and securing more volume of waste coming to the incinerator.

The prospect of CDM revenues provides the only significant mitigating factor against the above-

mentioned investment barriers in front of the Project. CDM revenues help the Project overcome these

investment barriers by:

a. offsetting the plant turnkey cost, including both the generation equipment and the MSW

incineration system that provides the fuel source, which in this case heavily front-load the project

economics;

b. improving the financial characteristic of the Project, including an improved debt coverage ratio,

and strengthening project cash flows with more liquid, international hard currency; and,

c. using the CDM future revenues to collateralize potential loans, thus providing the necessary

capitalization for investing in the Project. The combination of energy revenues and CER sales,

along with the use of ERPA revenues as collateral, is key to making overall project financing

viable.

13NDRC Economic Research Institute, A Study of Electricity Tariff Policy for Promoting Energy Conservation and

Renewable Energy Development. June 2005

http://www.efchina.org/csepupfiles/report/2006102695218562.184880057102.pdf/Pricing_IER_EN_final.pdf

http://www.efchina.org/csepupfiles/report/2006102695218562.184880057102.pdf/Pricing_IER_EN_final.pdf



page 21

Summarizing for the proposed Changshu Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Project, the most plausible

baseline scenario would be the business-as-usual scenario in China, i.e. the continued release into the

atmosphere of the landfill gas, which is a common practice in China. Landfills in China are often not

well operated, despite regulations calling for controlled management of LFG. The main shortcomings

are: (i) the presence of waste pickers, (ii) inadequate slopes, (iii) over-design and premature construction

of subsequent phases, arising in synthetic liners being exposed to the elements and huge additional

volumes of leachate being generated, (iv) inadequate collection and treatment of leachate, (v) insufficient

compacting and waste covering, and (vi) little, if any, landfill gas collection14

. In the absence of the

Project, the landfill would continue to release GHG emissions to the atmosphere from the fresh waste

disposed in the landfill. The proposed project will, at the least, avoid the generation and emission of new

LFG and thus reducing its greenhouse gas impact. Furthermore, in the absence of the project, the

business-as-usual scenario would include fossil fuel-fired electricity from the grid. With the electricity

generation component, electricity generated by the Project and sold to the grid will therefore displace

fossil fuel consumption from baseline levels.

Step 3: Barrier analysis

This step is skipped as step 2 is applied

Step 4: Common practice analysis

Sub-step 4a: Analyze other activities similar to the proposed project activity

As of May 2005, according to the World Bank Study15

, in China, 85% of MSW is treated through

landfilling, 12% through composting, and only 3% by incineration. Most landfills do not meet national

standards16

and projects that capture and/or utilize LFG are very few and limited in China. Currently, the

majority of all MSW is dumped into landfills, most of it in inappropriate dumps, which causes a severe

burden on the environment. The few secured landfill sites are overloaded long before the end of the

planned running time for the site, partly due to the use of unsuitable waste compactors and partly due to

the unexpectedly rapid increase in the volume of waste. Similar project occurring the in region are

discussed in Sub-step 4b. The common practice test is limited to Jiangsu region due to the following

reasons:

The tipping fee (subsidies) and the electricity tariffs are not the same across China and differ based on

economic development of each region, the electricity grid the plant is connected to, etc. As a result, local

government finance and local price levels are different. MSW incineration in China still very much relies

on financial support from the government. For example, the tipping fee in Changshu is 98 RMB/tonne, in

Shandong it is 100 RMB/tonne17

, and in Guangzhou it is 200 RMB/tonne18

.

14 World Bank Working Paper 9. Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations, p.40. May 2005. 15 World Bank Working Paper 9, Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations, p. 130. May 2005

16 World Bank Working Paper 9, Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations, p. 130. May 2005

17 Tonne Yi Bin, Hangzhou, Changzou Report, 21st Century herald, 4 April 2010

http://www.21cbh.com/HTML/2010-4-21/yNMDAwMDE3MzcyNQ.html

18 China Solid Waste Network, Too low waste subsidy in China. 5 May 2008

http://news.solidwaste.com.cn/k/2008-5/2008551314087288.shtml

http://www.21cbh.com/HTML/2010-4-21/yNMDAwMDE3MzcyNQ.html

http://news.solidwaste.com.cn/k/2008-5/2008551314087288.shtml



page 22

In addition, the treatment approach for ash/clinker/wastewater is different and may have different cost

impacts on the company. In some provinces, the government is responsible for the treatment of ash,

clinker and the wastewater. In some provinces the local governments require on-site treatment of ash,

clinker and the wastewater. Jiangsu province has higher requirements for treatment of ash, clinker and

wastewater19

. Changshu project has to treat ash/clinker/wastewater on the site.

Sub-step 4b: Discuss any similar options that are occurring

According to the study done by Institute for Applied Environmental Technology, Germany20

, there were

only 19 municipal waste incinerators as of 2002 in China that treated only 2% of all the MSW produced

in China. Later, the World Bank study conducted in 2005 showed that only 3% of MSW was treated in

MSW incinerators. The list of identified incinerator plants which are operational is provided in Jiangsu

region in the below Table 7.

Table 7. List of incineration projects operational in Jiangsu region

Project name

Location

Invest.

costs

(RMB)

Type

of

contra

ct

Waste

(t/day)

Power

capaci

ty

(MW)

Start

of

opera

tions

Technolo

gy

CDM

projec

t

Project

owner

Costs

(RMB/t

of

waste)

1.Yiduo

Incineration

Project21

Wuxi,

Jiangsu

258,000,

000 BOT 1000

24

MW

Nov

2003

Circulatin

g

Fluidized

Bed

Combusto

r

No

Wuxi

Yiduo

Environ

mental

Protecti

on

Thermal

Power

Co, Ltd.

258,000

2. Suzhou

Waste-to-

energy project,

Phase I22

Suzhou,

Jiangsu

489,443,

000 BOT 1050

18

MW

July

2006

Moving

grate

Incinerati

on

No

China

Everbrig

ht

Internati

onal

Limited

466,136

3. Suzhou

Waste-to-

energy project,

Phase II23

Suzhou

Jiangsu

450,000,

000 BOT 1000

18

MW

June

2009

Moving

grate

Incinerati

on

No

China

Everbrig

ht

Internati

onal

Limited

450,000

19 China Environmental Health Forum, Jiangsu Province Recommendations for Waste Treatement

http://www.huanke.com.cn/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardid=26&id=1592&page=0&move=next

20 Balz Solenthaler, Rainer Bunge; Waste Incineration in China, Institute for Applied Environmental Technology, Germany, http://umtec.hsr.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/umtec.hsr.ch/Dokumente/Doku-Download/Publikationen/Waste_Incineration_China.pdf 21 Integrated Solid Waste Management, Wuxi New District, PRC, International Environmental Technology Center

http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/SPC/news-oct09/WNDmanagement.pdf Page 13-14 22 China Everbright International China, http://www.ebchinaintl.com/e/business_energy.php

23 China Everbright International China, http://www.ebchinaintl.com/e/business_energy.php

http://www.huanke.com.cn/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardid=26&id=1592&page=0&move=next

http://umtec.hsr.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/umtec.hsr.ch/Dokumente/Doku-Download/Publikationen/Waste_Incineration_China.pdf

http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/SPC/news-oct09/WNDmanagement.pdf

http://www.ebchinaintl.com/e/business_energy.php




page 23

4. Yixing24

Waste-to-

energy project

Yixing

Jiangsu

238,300,

000 BOT 500 9 MW

June

2007

Moving

grate

Incinerati

on

No

China

Everbrig

ht

Internati

onal

476,600

5.

JiangyinWaste-

to-energy

project Phase

I25

Jiangyin

Jiangsu

388,740,

000 BOT 800

12

MW

May

2008

Moving

grate

Incinerati

on

No

China

Everbrig

ht

Internati

onal

Limited

485,925

6. Changzhou

Waste-to-

energy project26

Changzh

ou

Jiangsu

412,560,

000 BOT 800

12

MW

Nov

2008

Moving

grate

Incinerati

on

No

China

Everbrig

ht

Internati

onal

Limited

515,700

7.

QidongTianyin

g Waste

Incineration for

Power

Generation

Project27

Qidong

Jiangsu

243,840,

000 BOT 600

15

MW

Dec

2008

A two-

phase

grate

furnace of

domestic

technolog

y

Yes

Qidong

Tianyin

g

Environ

ment

Protecti

on Co.,

Ltd

406,400

8. Project

activity

Changsh

u,

Jiangsu

297,500 BOT 660 12

MW

Sep

2006

Two

grate

incinerato

r units

Yes

Changs

hu Pufa

Therma

l Power

Energy

Co.Ltd

428,485

The project 1, Yiduo incineration plant was a first-of-a-kind plant built in the Jiangsu region as a pilot

effort (supported with special incentives28

provided by the government and exempted from paying taxes).

Further, the electricity generated is purchased by the government at 0.57 RMB/kWh29

to encourage

incineration based electricity generation. This project uses Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor, which

has only half of investment required per tonne of waste treated as it can be seen from the table above

compared with proposed project activity. The Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor (CFB)30

can burn

other fuels like coal, which other incinerator technologies cannot handle, and as a result it can enjoy a

higher profit from electricity sales. This is one of the big advantages of CFB combustor. The proposed

Changshu incineration plant uses moving grate technology that cannot burn coal and thus only relies on

the waste as a fuel.




27 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/BMS7L6NKEMVG8EIL670J1CWTVN27E0/view.html 28Integrated Solid Waste Management, Wuxi New District, PRC, International Environmental Technology Center

http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/SPC/news-oct09/WNDmanagement.pdf Page 13-14 29 Integrated Solid Waste Management, Wuxi New District, PRC, International Environmental Technology Center

http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/SPC/news-oct09/WNDmanagement.pdf Page 13-14

30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_combustion




http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/BMS7L6NKEMVG8EIL670J1CWTVN27E0/view.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_combustion



page 24

The next projects in the table (numbers 2,3,4,5,and 6) are all developed, capitalized, owned, and operated

by a single Hong Kong-registered company (Everbright Environment Co., Ltd31

), which enjoys a unique

tax status which significantly influences their viability. The 5 projects are fully invested by Everbright

Environment Co.,ltd itself, which means they do not need to borrow money from a bank and pay back the

interests. For that reason, they can have a much higher IRR. Everbright is China‘s largest environment

company and is a stock listed company in Hong Kong stock market; it has invested 5.05 trillion RMB on

environment projects in China. The company enjoys a preferential policy with investment in China

mainland (i.e. when the operation period is over 10 years, income tax years 1-5 is tax-free; and from year

6-10, income tax is reduced by 50%32

). And most importantly, considering its equity structure, the

company is considered to be a foreign company and thus cannot apply for an LoA in China for a CDM

project.

Project 7 is a CDM project, so does not need to be considered in the baseline.

To summarise, the primary competitive element in the market (Everbright) can avail itself of a

significantly different regulatory and pricing environment, a situation in which Changshu‘s only method

of achieving the same benefits is to apply for CDM. Other than Changshu, the only other project to

successfully enter the market has been Yiduo, which uses a less expensive domestic technology at lower

cost.

Thus, it can be concluded that the project is additional.

B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:

Methodology AM0025, Avoided emissions from organic waste through alternative waste treatment

processes- Version 12, addresses project activities where fresh waste originally intended for land filling

is treated either through:

a) Composting process in aerobic conditions;

b) Gasification to produce syngas and its use;

c) Anaerobic digestion with biogas collection and flaring and/or its use;

d) Mechanical/thermal treatment process to produce RDF/SB and its use. The thermal

treatment process (dehydration) occurs under controlled conditions of up to 300 degrees

Celsius. In case of thermal treatment process, the process shall generate SB that would

be used as fuel or raw material in other industrial process. The physical and chemical

properties of the produced RDF/SB shall be homogenous and constant over time;

e) Incineration of fresh waste for energy generation, electricity and/or heat. The thermal

energy generated is either consumed on-site and/or exported to a nearby facility.

Electricity generated is either consumed on-site, exported to the grid or exported to a

nearby facility. The incinerator is rotating fluidized bed of hearth or grate type.

31 China Everbright International China, http://www.ebchinaintl.com/e/business_energy.php 32 China Through a Lens, http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/55645.htm , Article 17


http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/55645.htm



page 25

The Project consists of the diversion of MSW from disposal at the Nanhu landfill and its controlled

incineration. It therefore fulfils the conditions of option e), and thus AM0025Version 12 is considered as

an appropriate methodology for the Project.

―Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system‖ (Version 2) and the ―Tool for determine

methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at solid waste disposal site‖ Version 5 has been used

to calculate the emission reductions.

Project Emissions:

The project emissions in year y are:

PEy = PEelec,y + PEFuel, on-site,y + PEc,y+PEa,y+PEg,y +PEr,y +PEi,,y +PEw,y +PEco-firing,y (1)

where:

PEy = is the project emissions during the year y (tCO2e)

PEelec,y = Is the emissions from electricity consumption on-site due to the project activity in

year y (tCO2e). This parameter is not included since the electricity consumed onsite is produced by on-

site.

PEfuel, on-site,y = Is the emissions on-site due to fuel consumption on-site in year y (tCO2e). Included

PEc,y = Is the emissions during the composting process in year y (tCO2e). This parameter is excluded

since there is no composting in the project.

PEa,y = Is the emissions from the anaerobic digestion process in year y (tCO2e). This parameter is

excluded since there is no anaerobic digestion in the project.

PEg,y = Is the emissions from the gasification process in year y (tCO2e). This parameter is excluded since

there is no gasification process in the project.

PEr,y = Is the emissions from the combustion of RDF/stabilized biomass in year y (tCO2e)

This parameter is excluded since there is no RDF/stabilized biomass in the project.

PEi,y = Is the emissions from waste incineration in year y (tCO2e). Included

PEw,y = Is the emissions from wastewater treatment in year y (tCO2e). Excluded. The wastewater will be

treated aerobically.

PEco-firing,y= Is the emissions from thermal energy generation/electricity generation from on-site fossil fuel

consumption during co-firing in year y (tCO2e). Excluded. There is no co-firing in the project.

Emissions from fuel use on-site (PEFuel, on-site,y)

PEFuel, on-site,y = Fcons,y * NCVfuel * EFfuel (3)

where:

PEFuel, on-site,y is the CO2 emissions on-site due to fuel consumption on-site in year y (tCO2e);

Fcons,y is the fuel consumption on site in year y (kg);

NCV fuel is the net caloric value of the fuel (MJ/kg);

EFfuel is the CO2 emissions factor of the fuel (tCO2/MJ);



page 26

Emissions from waste incineration (PEi,y)

PEi,,y = PEf,y + PEi,y (11)

where:

PEi,,y is the emissions from waste incineration in year y (tCO2e);

PEf,y is the fossil-based waste CO2 emissions from waste incineration in year y (tCO2e); and,

PEi,y is the N2O and CH4 emissions from the final stacks from waste incineration in year y

(tCO2e).

Emissions from fossil fuel based waste (PEi,fy) is calculated using option 1.

PEf,y=

i Ai * CCWi * FCFi * EFi * 12

44

(12)

where:

PEf,y is the fossil-based waste CO2 emissions from waste incineration in year y (tCO2e);

Ai is the amount of waste type i fed into the waste incineration plant (t/yr);

CCWi is the fraction of carbon content in waste type i (fraction);

FCFi is the fraction of fossil carbon in waste type i (fraction);

EFi is the combustion efficiency for waste type i (fraction); and,

44/12 is the conversion factor (tCO2/tC).

Baseline emissions:

According to AM0025 to calculate the baseline emissions the following equation is used:

BEy = (MBy - MDreg,y) + BEEN,y (19)

where:

BEy is the baseline emissions during the year y (tCO2e);

MBy is the methane produced in the landfill in the absence of the project activity in year y

(tCH4);

MDreg,y is methane that would be destroyed in the absence of the project activity in year y (tCH4);

BEEN,y is the baseline emissions from generation of energy displaced by the project activity in

year y (tCO2e).

Adjustment factor (AF)

MDreg,y = MBy *AF (20)

Where AF = is adjustment factor for MBy (%)

The AF is assumed to be 0 since the landfill in the baseline had no landfill gas capture and flaring and

neither it was mandated by the contractual agreement. The regulations in the country require new landfill



page 27

to install the landfill gas capture system where possible but does not specify the amount of methane to be

captured and this regulation is systematically not enforced. The compliance rate in the country is below

7% according to the study performed in 2007 by the China Ministry of Construction, which inspected

372 landfill sites in 31 provinces, cities and autonomous regions in China and it revealed that only

7.24%33

of the total number of landfills has installed landfill gas recovery and utilization facilities.

The ‗Adjustment Factor‘ shall be revised at the start of each new crediting period taking into account the

amount of GHG flaring that occurs as part of common industry practice and/or regulation at that point in

the future.

Rate of compliance

In cases where there are regulations that mandate the use of one of the project activity treatment options

and which is not being enforced, the baseline scenario is identified as a gradual improvement of waste

management practices to the acceptable technical options expected over a period of time to comply with

the MSW Management Rules. The adjusted baseline emissions (BEy,a) are calculated as follows:

BEy,a = BEy * ( 1 RATECompliance

y) (21)

Where:

BEy= Is the CO2-equivalent emissions as determined from equation 14

RATECompliance

y=Is the state-level compliance rate of the MSW Management Rules in that year y. The

compliance rate shall be lower than 50%; if it exceeds 50% the project activity shall receive no further

credit.

In such cases BEy,a should replace BEy in Equation (25) to estimate emission reductions. The compliance

ratio RATECompliance

y shall be monitored ex post based on the official reports for instance annual reports

provided by municipal bodies.

Methane generation from the landfill in the absence of the project activity (MBy)

MBy = BECH4,SWDS,y (22)

The amount of methane that is generated each year (MBy) is calculated as per the latest version of the

approved ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal

site‖ considering the following additional equation:

Methane generation from the landfill in the absence of the project activity (MBy) will be calculated

according to the ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste

disposal site Version 5. The calculation is based on a multi-phase first order decay (FOD) model, where

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

33 Ministry of Construction of China: Notification of Inspection Outcome on China National Sanitary Landfill Site, Page1, 6 Feb

2007



page 28

BECH4,SWDS,y = φ (1-f) ·GWPCH4 · (1-OX) · F · DOCf · MCF ·

y

x 1

j Wj,x · DOCj · e

-Kj (y-x) · (1- e

-Kj)

where:

BECH4,SWDS,y are methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing waste disposal at

the solid waste disposal site (SWDS) during the period from the start of the project activity to the

end of the year y (tCO2e);

φ is the model correction factor to account for model uncertainties (0.9)

f is the fraction of methane captured at the SWDS and flared, combusted or used in another

manner;

GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane, valid for the relevant commitment period;

OX is the oxidation factor, reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS that is oxidized in the

soil or other material covering the waste;

F is the fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction) (0.5);

DOCf is the fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can decompose;

MCF is the methane conversion factor;

Wj,x is the amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the SWDS in the year x

(tonnes);

DOCj is the fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste type j;

kj is the decay rate for the waste type j;

j is the waste type category (index);

x is the 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); and,

y is the year for which methane emissions are calculated.

Baseline emissions from generation of energy displaced in Scenario 1 is determined by:

BEEN,y = BEelec, y + BEthermal,y (23)

where:

BEelec, y is the baseline emissions from electricity generated utilizing the biogas collected in the

project activity and exported to the grid (tCO2e); The EF is fixed for the crediting period. and,

BEthermal,y is the baseline emissions from thermal energy produced utilizing the biogas collected in

the project activity displacing thermal energy from on-site/off-site fossil fuel fueled boiler

(tCO2e)

BEelec, y = EGd,y * CEFd (24)

where:

EGd,y is the amount of electricity generated utilizing combustion heat from incineration and

exported to the grid in the project activity during the year y (MWh); and,

CEFd is the carbon emissions factor for the displaced electricity source in the project scenario

(tCO2e/MWh).

As the proposed project activity does not include a thermal component BEthermal,y equals zero.



page 29

As per AM0025, CEFd is calculated according to the ¨Tool to calculate the emission factor for an

electricity system¨ since the generated electricity from incineration will displace the electricity that

would have been generated by other power plants connected to the baseline grid. The procedure for

calculating CEFd is as follows:

Step1. Identify the relevant electric power system

Using the boundary definitions of the Chinese NDRC34

, The spatial extent of the project boundary

includes the proposed project and all power plants connected physically to the East China Power Grid

that the CDM project power plant is connected to. The East China Power Grid is defined as the project

electricity system, which consists of independent province-level electricity systems including Shanghai,

Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui and Fujian province that can be dispatched without significant transmission

constraints. The connected electricity system is Centre China Power Grid and Yangcheng Power Plant,

which is connected by transmission lines to the project electricity system. Power plants within the

connected electricity system can be dispatched without significant transmission constraints but

transmission to the project electricity system has significant transmission constraint.

Step 2.Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity systems (optional)

The project chose not to choose this option.

Step 3. 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.

Dispatch data is unavailable for the East China Power Grid; therefore, this PDD selects option (a), the

Simple OM method, to calculate this parameter. The low-cost/must-run resources constitute less than

50% of total East China Power Grid generation in each of the five most recent years for which data is

available. Therefore, the option a) Simple OM is applicable.

In calculating the simple OM, the ex-ante option of a 3-year generation-weighted average is chosen,

and is based on the most recent data available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE

for validation, thus removing the requirement to monitor and recalculate the emissions factor during

the crediting period. For the calculation, 2003, 2004 and 2005 are chosen as the data for these is the

most recent.

Step 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method

34 http://cdm.ccchina.gov.cn/web/index.asp.

http://cdm.ccchina.gov.cn/web/index.asp



page 30

The simple OM emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per unit

net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generation power plants serving the system, not including

low-cost/must-run power plants/units. It is calculated based on data on the total net electricity generation

of all power plants serving the system and the fuel types and total fuel consumption of the project

electricity system (option B) because (a) the necessary data for option A is not available, (b) nuclear and

renewable power generation are considered as low-cost/ must-run power sources and the quantity of

electricity supplied to the grid by these sources is known and (c) off-grid power plants are not included in

the calculation. Electricity imports are treated as one power plant m.

y

i

yiCOyiyi

yOMsimplegridEG

EFNCVFC

EF )( ,,2,,

,, (7)

Where:

EFgrid, OMsimple, y = Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

FCi,y = Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed in the project electricity system in year y (mass or volume

unit)

NCVi,y = Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ / mass or volume unit)

(country-specific values are used)

EFCO2, i, y = CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)

EGy = Net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by all power sources serving the

system, not including low-cost / must-run power plants / units, in year y (MWh)

i = All fossil fuel types combusted in power sources in the project electricity system in year y

y = The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in Step 3

Step 5. Identify the group of power units to be included in the build margin

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.

However, due to the fact that data on electricity generation of each power plant / unit in the grid is

currently not available in P. R. China option (b) the set of power capacity additions in the electricity

system that comprises 20% of the system generation capacity (in MW) and that have been built most

recently is selected.

Since data on the electricity generation of each individual power plant / unit in the grid is not available in

P.R. China, power plants registered as CDM project activities cannot be isolated and are taken into

account in the build margin. The ―Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system‖ offers

the choice between two data vintages to calculate the BM:

Option 1. For the first crediting period, the build margin emission factor is calculated 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



page 31

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.

Option 2. For the first crediting period, the build margin emission factor shall be updated annually, ex

post, including those units built up to the year of registration of the project activity or, if information up

to the year of registration is not yet available, including those units built up to the latest year for which

information is available. For the second crediting period, the build margin emissions factor shall be

calculated ex ante, as described in Option 1 above. For the third crediting period, the build margin

emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used. The BM emission factor

(EFgrid, BM, y) is calculated ex-ante using the data from 2003, 2004 and 2005 available in the China

Energy Statistics Yearbook of 2004, 2005 and 2006. These data from the yearbook remains fixed during

the first crediting period and will be updated for the second crediting period.

Option 1 is selected.

Step 6. Calculate the build margin emission factor

According to the ―Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system‖, EFgrid,BM,y is the

generation-weighted average emission factor of all power units m during the most recent year y for which

power generation data is available. However, due to the fact that data on both electricity generation and

emission factor of each power plant / unit in the grid is currently not available in P.R. China (see Step 3),

EB guidance on the estimation of the build margin in P.R. China can also be applied for the purpose of

estimating the BM emission factor and EFgrid, BM, y is calculated as follows:

m

ym

mi

ymELym

EG

EFEG

,

,

,,,

yBM, gridEF (13)

Where:

EFgrid,BMs, y = Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh);

EGm, y = Net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by m in year y;

EFEL, m, y = Emission factor 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.

The CO2 emission factor of each power unit m (EFEL,m,y) should be determined as per the guidance in

Step 4 (a) for the simple OM, using options A1, A2 or A3, using for y the most recent historical year for

which power generation data is available, and using for m the power units included in the build margin.

For off-grid power plants, EGm,y should be determined as per the guidance in Step 4.

Because capacities of technologies using coal, oil and gas cannot be separated from the total thermal

power generation from publicly available statistics, the following method is used for the calculation:

first, use the energy balance data of the most recent year available and calculate the percentages of CO2



page 32

emissions of power generation using solid, liquid and gas fuel in the total CO2 emission. Second,

calculate grid thermal power emission factors, using the percentages (as weights) and emission factors of

technologies corresponding to best available efficiencies. Lastly, the thermal power emission factor is

multiplied by the percentage of thermal power in the newest 20% capacity in the grid, and the result is

the Build Margin emission factor of the grid. Note that the data used can not distinguish the capacity

installed in coal, fossil fuel, and gas from total fire power generation. Therefore, the calculation used as

following:

Detailed steps and formulas are shown below:

Step 1: Calculate the proportions of CO2 emissions corresponding to solid, fluid and gas fuels used for

power generation to the total emissions.

ji

jiyji

jCOALi

jiyji

COEFF

COEFF

,

,,,

,

,,,

Coal

ji

jiyji

ji

jiyji

COEFF

COEFF

,

,,,

,Oil

,,,

Oil

ji

jiyji

ji

jiyji

COEFF

COEFF

,

,,,

,GAS

,,,

Gas

where:

Fi, j, y represents the consumption of fuel i (tce) of the jth

province in the yth year.

COEFi, j, y represents the emission factors of fuel i (tCO2/tce). Here the carbon content and oxidation rate

of fuel i consumed in the y year are considered.

COAL, OIL and GAS are the subscript sets for solid, fluid and gas fuels respectively.

Step 2: Calculate the corresponding thermal power emission factor.

Adv,GasGasAdv,OilOilAdv,CoalCoalThernal EFEFEFEF

EFCoal,Adv, EFOil,Adv and EFGas,Adv correspond respectively to the emission factors of coal, fuel oil and gas

power generation technologies with commercialized optimal efficiencies. For specific parameters and

calculation, please see Appendix 2.



page 33

Step 3: Calculate the grid BM.

Thernal

Total

Thernaly,BM EF

CAP

CAPEF

Here, CAPTotal is the total new capacity, and CAPThermal is the new thermal power capacity.

Step 7. Calculate the combined margin emission factor

The combined margin emission factor is calculated as follows:

EFgrid, CM,y = EFgrid, OM,y × wOM,y + EFgrid,,BM,y × wBM,y (14)

Where:

EFgrid,BM,y Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

The following default values should be used for wOM and wBM:

• Wind and solar power generation project activities: wOM = 0.75 and wBM = 0.25 (owing to their

intermittent and non-dispatchable nature) for the first crediting period and for subsequent crediting

periods;

• All other 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.

The following default values will be applied for wOM and wBM for the project:

wOM = 0.5 and wBM = 0.5 for the crediting period.

Leakage:

The sources of leakage considered in the methodology are CO2 emissions from off-site transportation of

waste materials In case of waste incineration, leakage emissions from residual waste of MSW incinerator

should be accounted for. Positive leakage that may occur through the replacement of fossil-fuel based

fertilizers with organic composts are not accounted for. Leakage emissions should be estimated from the

following equation:

Ly = Lt,y + Lr,y + Li,y + Ls,y (28)

Where:

Lt,y = Is the leakage emissions from increased transport in year y (tCO2e). Not included.

Lr,y = Is the leakage emissions from the residual waste from the anaerobic digester, the gasifier, the

processing/combustion of RDF/stabilized biomass, or compost in case it is disposed of in landfills in year

y (tCO2e). Not applicable.



page 34

Li,y = Is the leakage emissions from the residual waste from MSW incinerator in year y

(tCO2e). Included

Ls,y = Is the leakage emissions from end use of stabilized biomass. Not included, not applicable.

The incineration plant is located on the site of the landfill where the waste would otherwise be disposed

off, thus there are no incremental emissions due to transportation of waste as the waste would have been

transported to the site in the baseline scenario. Thus only the leakage from residual waste of MSW

incinerator is accounted for.

Leakage emissions from the residual waste from MSW incineration (Li,y)

In case of waste incineration, leakage emissions from the residual waste of MSW incinerator should be

accounted for using the following equations:

If the residual waste from the incinerator contains up to 5% residual carbon, then:

Li,y = A residual *FC residual*44/12 (31)

If the residual waste from the incinerator contains more than 5% residual carbon, then;

Li,y= A residual,y *0.05*44/12+Aresidual,y *(FC residual – 0.05) *16/12*21 (32)

Where:

L1,y = is the leakage emissions from the residual waste of MSW incinerator in year y (tCO2e)

Aresidual = is the amount of the residual waste from the incinerator (t/yr)

FCresidual=is the fraction of residual carbon contained in the residual waste (%)

44/12= is a factor to convert from carbon to carbon dioxide

16/12 = is factor to convert from carbon to methane

21= is the global warming potential of methane (tCO2/tCH4)

Emission Reductions:

To calculate the emission reduction from the anaerobic digestion and electricity generation project

activity, the following equation is applied:

ERy = BEy – PEy – Ly (36)

where:

ERy is the emissions reductions in year y (tCO2e);

BEy is the emissions in the baseline scenario in year y (tCO2e);

PEy is the emissions in the project scenario in year y (tCO2e); and

Ly is the leakage in year y (tCO2e).

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

Data / Parameter: Φ

Data unit: -

Description: Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties



page 35

Source of data used: Default value from ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from

disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site‖

Value applied: 0.9

Justification of the

choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied :

Default value from ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from


Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: OX

Data 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 used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 3

Table 3.2

Value applied: 0.1


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

The baseline landfill is managed and covered with CH4 oxidising material.

Using IPCC default value which is conservative

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: F

Data unit: -

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

Source of data used: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, volume 5,

page 3.15

Value applied: 0.5


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

A default value of 0.5 is recommended by IPCC.

Any comment: This factor reflects the fact that some degradable organic carbon does not

degrade, or degrades very slowly, under anaerobic conditions in the SWDS.

Data / Parameter: DOCf

Data unit: -

Description: Fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can decompose



page 36

Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Value applied: 0.5


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Using 2006 IPCC Guidelines for default value

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: MCF

Data unit: -

Description: Methane conversion factor

Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Value applied: 1.0


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied :

The following IPCC definition is used:

1.0 for anaerobic managed solid waste disposal sites. These must have

controlled placement of waste (i.e., waste directed to specific deposition

areas, a degree of control of scavenging and a degree of control of fires)

and will include at least one of the following:

(i) cover material;

(ii) (ii) mechanical compacting; or

(iii) (iii) leveling of the waste;

The placement of waste at the landfill is controlled and cover material and

levelling of the waste. Therefore, 1.0 for anaerobic managed solid waste

disposal sites is justified.

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: DOCj

Data unit: -

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

Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (adapted from

Volume 5, Tables 2.4 and 2.5) Value applied: Waste type DOCj wet waste

Pulp, paper and cardboard 40

Wood & Straw (excl. lignin) 43

Garden/Park Waste (organic putrescibles) 20

Food, food waste, beverages and tobacco 15

Textiles 24

Glass, plastic, metal and other inert waste 0


choice of data or

Using 2006 IPCC Guidelines for default value



page 37

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: K

Data unit: -

Description: Decay rate for the waste type j

Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (adapted from

Volume 5, Table 3.3)

Value applied: Determined as per ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from

disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site‖.

MAT-20 C35

MAP-1,000 mm36

PET-923 mm37

Based on this data the climate is classified as Boreal and Temperate Wet.

Waste type Kj

Pulp, paper and cardboard 0.060

Wood & Straw (excluding lignin) 0.030

Garden/Park Waste (organic putrescibles) 0.100

Food, food waste, sewage sludge,

beverages and tobacco 0.185


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Recommended by IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories (adapted from Volume 5, Table 3.3)

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: CEFelec

Data unit: tCO2/MWh

Description: Emission factor of displaced electricity by the project activity

Source of data used: As per ‖Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system‖

Value applied 0.9047


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied :

Calculated as per above tool. The EF recalculated at the renewal of each

crediting period.

35 http://www.jiangsu.net/city/city.php?name=changshu#Geography_Resources_Climate


37 http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/21737/3/gupea_2077_21737_3.pdf, Page 34. Figure 3

http://www.jiangsu.net/city/city.php?name=changshu#Geography_Resources_Climate


http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/21737/3/gupea_2077_21737_3.pdf



page 38

Any comment: Calculated as per appropriate methodology at start of crediting period

Data / Parameter: NCVfuel

Data unit: MJ/ kg of fuel

Description: Net calorific value of fuel

Source of data used: China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2006

Value applied: 42.6


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Fixed ex-ante

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: EFfuel

Data unit: tCO2/MJ

Description: Emission factor of the fuel

Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Value applied: 74,800 kg/TJ


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

2006 IPCC Guidelines. Volume 2: Energy, Chapter 2: Stationary Combustion.

Table 2.2. Fixed ex-ante

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: AF

Data unit: %

Description: Methane destroyed due to regulatory or other requirements

Source of data used: Local and/or national authorities

Value applied 0%


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

The AF was set at 0%. This value is justified based on the fact that the

regulatory requirements do not indicate any specific amount of gas collection

and destruction or utilization and that in practice, no amounts of LFG are

actually flared. It represents the common practice in China. Changes in

regulatory requirements, relating to the baseline landfill(s) will be monitored in

order to update the adjustment factor (AF). This is done at the beginning of each

crediting period.

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: CCWi

Data unit: Fraction



page 39

Description: Fraction of carbon content in waste type i

Source of data used: 2006 IPCC guidelines

Value applied: MSW Component

Total carbon content in % of dry

weight

Paper/Cardboard 46

Textiles 50

Food waste 38

Wood 50

Garden & Park waste 49

Plastic 75


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Default values from 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories. Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 2: Waste Generation, Composition and

Management Data, Table 2.4

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: EFN2O

Data unit: kg N2O/tonne waste

Description: Aggregate N2O emission factor for waste incineration.

Source of data used: Default values from 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories. Volume 5, Chapter 5, Table 5.6 Continuous incineration

Value applied: 0.05 kg N2O/tonne waste (on wet weight basis)


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Default data for continuous incineration for stoker technology

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: EFCH4

Data unit: Kg CH4/ tonne waste

Description: Aggregate CH4 emission factor for waste incineration.

Source of data used: Default values from 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories. Volume 5, Chapter 5: Continuous incineration . Table 5.3

Value applied: 0.0002 kg CH4/tonne waste (on wet weight basis)


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Default data for continuous incineration for stoker technology

Any comment: N/A



page 40

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

Baseline emissions:

There are two gases and two sources associated with the baseline:

a. CH4 emissions from waste diverted to the incineration facility, which would have otherwise been

disposed at Nanhu landfill;

b. CO2 emission from the displacement of fossil fuel-based grid electricity generation.

The baseline emissions from the anaerobic digestion project activity are determined by the following

formula:

BEy = (MBy - MDreg,y) + BEEN,y

The methane produced in the landfill in the absence of this specific project activity in year y (MBy) is

calculated according to the Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a

solid waste disposal site based on a multi-phase first order decay (FOD) model where the amount of

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

BECH4,SWDS,y = φ · (1-f) · GWPCH4 · (1-OX) · 12

16

· F · DOCf · MCF ·

y

x 1

j Wj,x · DOCj · e

-Kj (y-x) · (1- e

-Kj)

Input values to the multiphase model are specified in table below:

Table 8: Inputs to the Multi-phase Model

Parame

ter

Note Value Used

Φ Model correction factor 0.9

F

Fraction of methane captured at the SWDS and

flared, combusted or used in another manner

0

GWP Global Warming Potential of methane 21

OX Oxidation factor IPCC 2006, Volume 5 Chapter

3 Table 3.2

0.1

F Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas 0.5

DOCf Fraction of degradable organic carbon 0.5

MCF Methane conversion factor 1

Aj,x Amount of organic waste type j prevented from

disposal in the SWDS in the year x

173,626 tonnes (79% of total waste)

DOCj

Fraction of degradable organic carbon

Waste type DOCj for wet

waste

Pulp, paper and cardboard 40


Garden/Park Waste (organic

putrescibles) 20

Food, food waste, beverages

and tobacco 15



page 41

Textiles 24

kj

Decay rate for the waste type

adapted from IPCC 2006 Guidelines for

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (adapted

from Volume 5, Table 3.3)

Waste type Kj

Pulp, paper and cardboard 0.06

Wood & Straw (excl. lignin) 0.03

Garden/Park Waste (organic

putrescibles) 0.10

Food, food waste, beverages

and tobacco 0.185

J Waste type category -

MAT38

Mean annual temperature 20 degrees Celsius

MAP39

Mean annual precipitation 1,000 mm

PET40

Potential evapo-transpiration 923.3 mm

Table 9: Composition of the Changshu MSW % (on wet basis)

Test time Kitchen

leftover Paper Fabric Plastic Rubber

Incombustible

Material

2007-10-25 52.41% 7.93% 12.93% 12.37% 2.24% 12.12%

2007-10-26 68.14% 6.48% 9.10% 8.92% 0.42% 6.94%

2007-10-27 63.26% 8.73% 8.95% 11.53% 0.72% 6.81%

2007-10-28 68.02% 8.74% 6.96% 8.80% 1.19% 6.29%

2007-10-29 60.24% 7.04% 6.09% 9.98% 3.81% 12.84%

Max. 68.14% 8.74% 12.93% 12.37% 3.81% 12.84%

Min. 52.41% 6.48% 6.09% 8.80% 0.42% 6.29%

AVG 62.41% 7.78% 8.81% 10.32% 1.67% 9.00%

Source: Sample taken at Changshu Incineration Plant Waste Receiving Area

Table 10: Waste Content by Type (wet basis)

Waste Type Percentage (%)

Pulp, paper and Cardboard 7.78


Garden/Park Waste (organic putrescibles) 0

Food, food waste, beverages and tobacco 62.41

Textile 8.81

Total 79

Inorganic 21

According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 5, Chapter 5: Incineration and Open Burning of Waste,

Table 5.2, the combustion efficiency of incineration plants for municipal solid waste is 100%.



40 http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/21737/3/gupea_2077_21737_3.pdf Page 34, Figure 3





page 42

Table 11. Emission reductions from waste decomposition in the baseline

Year Methane avoidance using FOD

model (tCO2e)

Year 1 89,385

Year 2 99,714

Year 3 108,605

Year 4 116,285

Year 5 122,940

Year 6 128,728

Year 7 133,779

Total 799,437

Project Emissions:

The project emissions in year y are:

PEy = PEFuel, on-site,y + PEi,,y +PEw,y

Emissions from fuel use on-site (PEfuel, on-site,y)

PEFuel, on-site,y = Fcons,y * NCV fuel * EFfuel

where:

PEfuel, on-site,y = Is the CO2 emissions due to on-site fuel combustion in year y (tCO2)

Fcons,y = Is the fuel consumption on site in year y (l or kg)

NCVfuel = Is the net caloric value of the fuel (MJ/l or MJ/kg)

EFfuel = Is the CO2 emissions factor of the fuel (tCO2/MJ)

For the ex-ante calculations it is estimated an amount of light diesel consumption on-site for the

incinerators‘ auxiliary burners of:

Fcons,y = 100,000 kg

NCV fuel = 42.6 MJ/kg 41

EFfuel = 74,800 kg/TJ 42

Emissions from waste incineration (PEi,y)

PEi,,y = PEf,y + PEs,y

Emissions from fossil fuel based waste (PEf,y), Option 1

PEf,y=

i Ai * CCWi * FCFi * EFi * 44/12

41 China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2006

42 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 2: Energy, Chapter 2: Stationary Combustion. Table 2.2



page 43

Table 12. Component of dry weight used for CCWi calculations

Table 13. Default dry matter content, total carbon content and fossil carbon fraction of different

MSW components.

Content

Dry matter

content in % of

wet weight

Total carbon content

in % of dry weight

Fossil carbon fraction

in % of total carbon

Paper/cardboard 90 46 1

Textiles 80 50 20

Food waste 40 38 -

Wood 85 50 -

Garden and park

waste 40 49 0

Diapers 40 70 10

Rubber and leather 84 67 20

Plastic 100 75 100

Metal 100 NA NA

Glass 100 NA NA

Other, inert waste 90 3 100

Source: 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Volume 5, chapter 2: Waste Generation, Composition and Management

Data. Table 2.4

According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 5, Chapter 5: Incineration and Open Burning of Waste,

Table 5.2, the combustion efficiency of incineration plants for municipal solid waste is 100%.

And using Option 2 from AM0025 for the Emissions from waste incineration (PEi,y)

Test time Kitchen

leftover paper Fabric Plastic Rubber

Incombustible

Material

2007-10-25 43.94% 3.80% 11.50% 11.01% 4.54% 25.22%

2007-10-26 45.66% 8.26% 14.79% 10.93% 1.14% 19.21%

2007-10-27 46.30% 11.69% 12.37% 12.46% 1.62% 15.53%

2007-10-28 48.71% 11.54% 11.23% 10.51% 2.80% 15.21%

2007-10-29 38.49% 7.85% 7.41% 10.74% 8.00% 27.52%

Max. 48.71% 11.69% 14.79% 12.46% 8.00% 27.52%

Min. 38.49% 3.80% 7.41% 10.51% 1.14% 15.21%

AVG 44.62% 8.63% 11.46% 11.13% 3.62% 20.54%



page 44

PEi,y = Qbiomass,i * (EFN2O * GWPN2O + EFCH4 * GWPCH4) * 10-3

For the ex-ante calculations, 2006 IPCC Guidelines default values are used:

Q biomass,i = 660 tonnes

EFN2O = 0.05 kg N2O/tonne waste43

(on wet weight basis)

EFCH4 = 0.2 Kg CH4/Gg waste44

(on wet weight basis)

With the above assumptions, the ex-ante Project emissions per year during the first crediting period are

summarized in the table below:

Table 14. Ex-ante project emissions for the first crediting period

Year

Project emissions

due to fuel

consumption on-

site (tCO2e)

Project emissions

from waste

incineration

(tCO2e)

Project emissions

from waste

incineration

stacks (tCO2e)

Emissions

from

wastewater

treatment

Total

project

emissions

(tCO2e)

Year 1 319 71,786 2,547 0 74,652

Year 2 319 71,786 2,547 0 74,652

Year 3 319 71,786 2,547 0 74,652

Year 4 319 71,786 2,547 0 74,652

Year 5 319 71,786 2,547 0 74,652

Year 6 319 71,786 2,547 0 74,652

Year 7 319 71,786 2,547 0 74,652

Total 2,233 502,502 17,829 0 522,564

For the amount of methane destroyed in the baseline scenario, we use the following equation:

MDreg,y = MBy * AF

where:

MDreg,y is methane that would be destroyed in the absence of the project activity in year y (tCH4);

MBy is the methane produced in the landfill in the absence of the project activity in year y

(tCH4); and,

AF is the adjustment factor in percentage (%).

The AF was considered to be zero. This value is justified based on the fact that the regulatory

requirements do not indicate any specific amount of gas collection and destruction or utilization and that

is common practice in China that no LFG is actually collected and flared. Therefore, MDreg,y will be equal

to zero for the ex-ante ER calculation. Nevertheless, laws and regulations will be reviewed at the renewal

of the crediting period and the AF will be modified accordingly in case any law or regulation requires a

minimal amount of methane to be captured and/or destroyed.

43 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 5, Chapter 5: Table 5.6 Continuous Incineration

44 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 5, Chapter 5: Table 5.3 Continuous Incineration.



page 45

Rate of compliance

The adjusted baseline emissions (BEy,a) are calculated as follows:

BEy,a = BEy * ( 1 RATECompliance

y)

The rate of compliance is considered to be zero. This value is justified based on the fact that the

regulation is not enforced. However, the rate of compliance shall be monitored ex-post and adjusted.

Emissions from electricity displacement

The baseline emissions from the displacement of fossil fuel-based grid electricity generation are

determined using the grid emission factor calculated in detail in Annex 3 (Baseline Information) and an

estimation of the net quantity of electricity displaced by the project. The amount of power to be exported

to the grid for the purposes of ex-ante calculations is 8.5 MW. Emission reductions will only be claimed

for the net electricity supplied to the grid. However, the actual electricity exported to the grid will be

monitored and taken into account for the ex-post project emissions calculation.

According to the ¨Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system¨, the electricity baseline

emission factor is calculated as the weighted average of the Operating Margin emission factor (EFOM,y)

and the Build Margin emission factor (EFBM,y) where the weights wOM and wBM, by default, are 50% (i.e.,

wOM = wBM = 0.5). This is presented below.

Eastern China Grid OM Ex-Ante (tCO2/MWh) 0,9421

Eastern China Grid BM Ex-Ante (tCO2/MWh) 0,8672

Eastern China Grid CM Ex-Ante (tCO2/MWh)) 0,9047

The baseline emissions are the sum of emissions due to the landfilling of MSW in the absence of the

proposed project activity and those due to the displacement of grid-connected electricity during year y.

The GHG emissions from waste diverted to incineration facility and from the displacement of fossil fuel-

based grid electricity generation in tCO2e per year, for the first crediting period are summarized in the

table below. The emission factor is calculated ex-ante and fixed for the crediting period.

Table 15: ERs from Electricity Displacement

Year Baseline emissions – Electricity

displacement (tCO2e)

Year 1 49,216

Year 2 49,216

Year 3 49,216

Year 4 49,216

Year 5 49,216

Year 6 49,216

Year 7 49,216

Total 344,512

Leakage:

The sources of leakage considered in the methodology are CO2 emissions from off-site transportation of

waste materials. Since the project is located next to the landfill where the waste would otherwise be



page 46

disposed off, there are no incremental emissions due to transportation of the waste. In case of waste

incineration, leakage emissions from residual waste of MSW incinerator should be accounted for.

If the residual waste from the incinerator contains up to 5% residual carbon, then:

Li,y = A residual *FC residual*44/12

If the residual waste from the incinerator contains more than 5% residual carbon, then;

Li,y= A residual,y *0.05*44/12+Aresidual,y *(FC residual – 0.05) *16/12*21

Where:

Li,y = is the leakage emissions from the residual waste of MSW incinerator in year y (tCO2e)

Aresidual = is the amount of the residual waste from the incinerator (t/yr)

FCresidual=is the fraction of residual carbon contained in the residual waste (%)

44/12= is a factor to convert from carbon to carbon dioxide

16/12 = is factor to convert from carbon to methane

21= is the global warming potential of methane (tCO2/tCH4)

For ex-ant estimations, the value adopted for residual carbon from residual waste is 2,93%, which is

based on actual lab test done by Environmental and Chemical Engineering Department of Shanghai

University. The average volume of residual waste produced is 59,605 tonnes per year. Using the formula

above for residual waste containing up to 5% residual carbon, the emission reductions are calculated as

follows:

Li,y = A residual *FC residual*44/12

Li,y =59,605 * 2,93%*44/12 = 6,404 tonnes of CO2 per year

Table 16. Leakage emissions

Year Leakage emissions from residual carbon

Year 1 6,404

Year 2 6,404

Year 3 6,404

Year 4 6,404

Year 5 6,404

Year 6 6,404

Year 7 6,404

Total 44,828

The actual emissions due to residual waste will be monitored ex-post and any adjustments to leakage

emission will be done ex-post.



page 47

Emissions from wastewater treatment are not considered since it is treated under aerobic conditions and

thus CH4 emissions are assumed to be zero. However, the possible methane emissions are monitored ex-

post.

B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

Emission Reductions:

To calculate the emission reductions the following equation is applied:

ERy = BEy – PEy – Ly

where:

ERy is the emissions reductions in year y (tCO2e);

BEy is the emissions in the baseline scenario in year y (tCO2e);

PEy is the emissions in the project scenario in year y (tCO2e); and

Ly is the leakage in year y (tCO2e).

Table 17. Emission reductions

Year

Baseline

emissions

(tCO2e)

Project

emissions

(tCO2e)

Baseline

emissions –

electricity

displacement

(tCO2e)

Leakag

e

(tCO2e)

ERs

(tCO2e)

(year 1)

1/08/2011- 31/07/2012 89,385 74,652

49,216 6,404

57,545

(year 2)

1/08/2012- 31/07/2013 99,714

74,652 49,216 6,404

67,874

(year 3)

1/08/2013- 31/07/2014 108,605

74,652 49,216 6,404

76,766

(year 4)

1/08/2014- 31/07/2015 116,285

74,652 49,216 6,404

84,445

(year 5)

1/08/2015- 31/07/2016 122,940

74,652 49,216 6,404

91,100

(year 6)

1/08/2016- 31/07/2017 128,728

74,652 49,216 6,404

96,887

(year 7)

1/08/2017- 31/07/2018 133,779

74,652 49,216 6,404

101,941

Total 799,437 522,564 344,512 44,828 576,558

B.7. Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:



page 48

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:

Data / Parameter: Fcons,y

Data unit: tonnes of fuel

Description: Diesel consumption on-site during year y of the crediting period.

Source of data to be

used:

Purchase invoices

Value of data applied

for the purpose of

calculating expected

emission reductions in

section B.5

100 tonnes

Description of

measurement methods

and procedures to be

applied:

Annually, based on actual consumption and invoices

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

The amount of fuel will be derived from the paid fuel invoices (administrative

obligation).

Any comment: This parameter includes the auxiliary fossil fuel that is needed for start-up of

incineration process.

Data / Parameter: AMSW.y

Data unit: Tonnes / year

Description: Amount of waste fed into the waste incineration plant


used:

Project developer


for the purpose of



section B.5

219,780 tonnes

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Measured with weighbridge continuously, aggregated quarterly

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

Weighbridge will be subject to annual calibration

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: Pn,i,y

Data unit: -

Description: Weight fraction of the waste type i in the sample n collected during the year y


used:

Sample measurements by project participants


for the purpose of Waste Type Percentage (%)



page 49



section B.5

Pulp, paper and

Cardboard 7.78

Wood & Straw

(excl. lignin) 0

Garden/Park Waste

(organic putrescibles) 0

Food, food waste,

beverages and tobacco 62.41

Textile 8.81

Total 79

Inorganic 21

Description of

measurement methods


applied

Sample the waste prevented from disposal using the categories j, as provided in

the table for DOCj and kj, and weigh each waste fraction. Monitored quarterly

with uncertainty range of 20% at 95% confidence level.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

Statistically significant with a max uncertainty range of 20% at 95% confidence

level

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: CCWi

Data unit Fraction

Description: Fraction of the carbon content in waste type i


used:

IPCC 2006, Table 2.4, chapter 2, Volume 5 and table 5.2


for the purpose of



section B.5

Content Total carbon content in

% of dry weight

Paper/cardboard 46

Textiles 50

Food waste 38

Wood 50

Garden and park waste 49

Diapers 70

Rubber and leather 67

Plastic 75

Metal NA

Glass NA

Other, inert waste 3

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Annually

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

IPCC 2006, Volume 5, Chapter 2, Table 2.4

Any comment: N/A



page 50

Data / Parameter: FCFi

Data unit: Fraction

Description: Fraction of fossil carbon in total carbon of waste type i


used:

Sample measurements by project participants


for the purpose of



section B.5

Content

Fossil carbon

fraction in % of

total carbon

Paper/cardboard 1

Textiles 20

Food waste -

Wood -

Garden and park

waste 0

Diapers 10

Rubber and leather 20

Plastic 100

Metal NA

Glass NA

Other, inert waste 100

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Quarterly. The size and frequency of sampling shall be statistically significant

with a maximum uncertainty range of 20% at a 95% confidence level. The

following standards shall be used:

• ASTM D6866-08: ―Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased

Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis";

• ASTM D7459-08: ―Standard Practice for Collection of Integrated Samples for

the Speciation of Biomass (Biogenic) and Fossil- Derived Carbon Dioxide

Emitted from Stationary Emissions Sources".

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

N/A

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: SGi,y

Data unit: m3/year

Description: Total volume of stack gas from incineration


used:

Project site


for the purpose of



section B.5

0

Description of

measurement methods


The stack gas flow rate will be measured directly quarterly.



page 51

applied:

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

Maintenance and calibration of equipment will be carried out annually.

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: MCN2Oi,y

Data unit: tN2O/m3

Description: Monitored content of nitrous oxide in the stack gas from waste

incineration in year y


used:

Project site


for the purpose of



section B.5

0

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Quarterly. Sample of the stack gas will be taken to the laboratory to determine

the content of N2O.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

A laboratory which follows rigorous standards shall be selected.

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: MCCH4,i,y

Data unit: tCH4/m3

Description: Monitored content of methane in the stack gas from waste incineration in year y


used:

Project site


for the purpose of



section B.5

0

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Quarterly. Sample of the stack gas will be taken to the laboratory to determine

the content of CH4.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:


Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: EGd,y

Data unit: MWh

Description: Amount of electricity generated utilizing the combustion heat from incineration

in the project activity displacing electricity in the baseline during the year y.



page 52


used:

Electricity meter


for the purpose of



section B.5

68,000 MWh

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Continuous. To be measured from electrical meters installed at the plant. The

proportion of data to be monitored is 100% and the data will be archived

electronically.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

Electricity meter will be maintained and calibrated annually to assure high

levels of accuracy. The amount of electricity exported will be matched with

electricity invoices.

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: Qbiomass,y

Data unit: Tonne/year

Description: Amount of waste incinerated in year y


used:

Project Developer


for the purpose of



section B.5

219,780 tonnes of waste.

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Daily and aggregated yearly. All trucks entering the site will be weighed

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

Weighbridge will be subject to annual calibration.

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: Aj,x

Data unit: Tonnes/year

Description: Amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the landfill in the

year x (tonnes year)


used:

Project participants


for the purpose of



section B.5

173,626 tonnes of waste

Description of Annually



page 53

measurement methods


applied:

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:


Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: Z

Data unit: -

Description: Number of samples collected during the year y


used:



for the purpose of



section B.5

0

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

At least quarterly, in accordance with measurement procedures in indicated in

this MP for FCFi and Pn,i,y

QA/QC procedures As above

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: Aresidual

Data unit: Tonnes/year

Description: The amount of the residual waste from the incinerator


used:



for the purpose of



section B.5

59,605 tonnes

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Daily and aggregated monthly

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:


Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: FCresidual

Data unit: %

Description: Fraction of residual carbon in the residual waste of MSW incinerator

Source of data to be Sample measurements by the project participants



page 54

used:


for the purpose of



section B.5

2.93% based on actual lab test done by Environmental and Chemical

Engineering Department of Shanghai University.

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Quarterly test will be done in a laboratory. The size and frequency of sampling

should be statistically significant with a maximum uncertainty range of 20% at

a 95% confidence level.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:


Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: fi

Data unit: %

Description: fraction of waste diverted from the landfill to incinerator


used:

Plant records


for the purpose of



section B.5

100%

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Daily and aggregated monthly. Weighbridge

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

The weighbridge will be subject to annual calibration

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: MBy

Data unit: tCH4

Description: Methane produced in the landfill in the absence of the project activity in year y.


used:

Calculated as per the ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from

disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site‖.


for the purpose of



section B.5

38,068 tCH4 for 7 years

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

As per the ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of

waste at a solid waste disposal site‖



page 55

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

As per the ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of

waste at a solid waste disposal site‖

Any comment: Calculated as per the ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from


Data / Parameter: AF

Data unit: %

Description: Methane destroyed due to regulatory or other requirements


used:

Local and national authorities


for the purpose of



section B.5

0%

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

At the renewal of the crediting period.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

N/A

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: Rate compliance

Data unit: Number

Description: Rate of compliance


used:

Municipal bodies


for the purpose of



section B.5

0

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

At the renewal of the crediting period

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

N/A

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: EFi

Data unit: Fraction

Description: Combustion efficiency for waste type ‗i‘.


used:

Default values from 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories.



page 56


for the purpose of



section B.5

1 for all waste types

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

To be monitored annually.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

N/A

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: GWPCH4

Data unit: tCO2e/tCH4

Description: Global warming potential of CH4


used:

IPCC


for the purpose of



section B.5

21

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

21 for the first commitment period. Shall be monitored annually.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

N/A

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: GWPN2O

Data unit: tCO2e/tN2O

Description: Global warming potential of N2O


used:

IPCC


for the purpose of



section B.5

310

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

310 for the first commitment period. Shall be monitored annually.



page 57

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

N/A

Any comment: N/A

Data / Parameter: -

Data unit: MJ

Description: Energy generated by auxiliary fossil fuel added in the incinerator


used:

Project site


for the purpose of



section B.5

0.

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Estimated annually. This parameter will be estimated multiplying the amount of

auxiliary fossil fuel added in the incinerator to the net calorific value of this

auxiliary fossil fuel.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

N/A

Any comment: This parameter will be used to assess that the fraction of energy generated by

fossil fuel is no more than 50% of the total energy generated in the incinerator.

Energy generated by fossil fuel <0.50 x (Qy + EGd,y)

B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan:

The Monitoring Plan (MP) details the actions necessary to record all the variables and factors required by

the AM0025, version 12, as explained in section B.7.1 above. All data will be archived electronically,

and backed up regularly. Moreover, this information will be kept for the full crediting period, plus two

years after the end of the crediting period or the last issuance of CERs for this project activity, whichever

occurs later.

The details of the Monitoring Plan is provided in Annex 4.

Project staff will be trained regularly in order to satisfactorily fulfil their monitoring obligations. The

authority and responsibility for project management, monitoring, measurement and reporting will be

agreed between the project participants and formalized.

Regular calibration will be performed according to the manufacturer‘s guidelines, or according to the

applicable regulations, by a suitably skilled technician at the required frequency (at least once a year). A

certificate of calibration will be provided for each piece of equipment after completion.

B.8. Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology

and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies):

The baseline study was completed on 27 February 2008 by:



page 58

Francisco Fernández Asín

[email protected]

SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

C.1. Duration of the project activity:

C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:

31 March 2005. This is when the contract was signed for construction of the incinerator facility.

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

The Project is expected to have an operational lifetime of 30 years.

C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information:

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period:

C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period:

01/08/2011 or the date of project registration.

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:

Seven (7) years with the option of two renewal periods.

C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:

C.2.2.1. Starting date:

>> N/A

C.2.2.2. Length:

>> N/A

SECTION D. Environmental impacts

>>

D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary

impacts:

The objectives of the Project are to minimize the environmental impact of current waste disposal

practices, to introduce proper waste handling in China, and to set an example of GHG reduction at

landfills through MSW incineration and valorization.

mailto:[email protected]



page 59

The Project is in compliance with environmental standards and regulations, particularly the ―Technical

Policy on Urban Waste Disposal and Pollution Prevention‖ stipulated by the state. The Environmental

Impact Study (EIA) for the Project was completed in April 2004, and was approved by the Jiangsu

Province Environment Protection Bureau in October 2004. The EIA includes the following: (1) detailed

descriptions of the project phases, such as construction, and operations; (2) baseline environmental

parameters, such as topography, land use, soil, geology, hydrology, meteorology, air quality, noise, and

biological environment; (3) assessment of potential environmental impacts; (4) the environmental

management plan; and (4) social benefits. Copy of the EIA is made available to the DOE.

D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host

Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental

impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party:

The construction of the incineration power plant has a limited impact on surroundings because the major

emission is NOx, and the major pollutant is dioxin. The Project is located in a rural area and has little

impact on the Shanghu Scenic zone and Changshu urban areas, based on the monitoring of the most

frequent local wind direction and frequency. The Project not only has insignificant impact on the

environment, but rather, has positive environmental impacts. For example, waste incineration can reduce

the amount of waste by over 90%, such that through 30 years of operation of the plant, 3,720,000 m2

of

land will be saved from being used as a landfill whereas currently 4,120,000 m2 of land is being used for

piling waste up to 4 m high.

The Project will also bring about social benefits. Building on the experience with the existing Pudong

Yuqiao Waste Incineration Power Plant, the Changshu City Project will set a positive early example for

China‘s fledgling SWM industry. It will also give impetus to improving the environmental status of

Changshu City by improving the outdated SWM practices that currently exist, matching SWM with the

pace of urbanization and economic development, and creating a comfortable investment and living

environment.

This Project employs advanced incineration technology that allows for the elimination of pollutants from

the waste gas and compliance with EU emission standards for flue gas, dust and dioxin, which are more

stringent than Chinese national standards. The leachate produced from waste, is high density organic

wastewater. It will be pre-treated with an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) system and enters

the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) treatment system together with other sewage water before

discharged into the municipal water supply upon reaching the acceptable levels of the Chengxi Sewage

Water Treatment Plant.

Noise pollution, which mainly results from the turbine generator, water pump and air compressor, can

meet the standards once measures are taken such as insulation and the installation of noise barriers. The

noise level slightly exceeds the standards at the western side of the plant bordering Nanhu Lake.

However, this is an area with no inhabitants within 500 m, therefore, noise is not an issue.

Odor is controlled through isolation, for example through the use of enclosed garbage trucks. With such

controls, the level of odor may drop to Class 2 of the ―Emission Standards for Odor Pollutants‖.



page 60

According to the most recent monitoring results, the environmental quality of the air at the project

construction site is classified at Category II, which meets national air quality standards.45

Sewage water

and water quality can reach Category IV, which meets water quality standards, while noise levels at the

plant boundary are better than Category II, meeting noise level standards. Finally, the analysis of impact

on the ecological environment shows that the Project has little impact on soil quality, land plants and

water plants at the completion of construction.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2), flue gas and dust emitted by the Project all meet pollution standards. Various solid

wastes in the plant will be disposed of effectively such that there will be no negative environmental

impacts by the Project in this regard. It is, thus, feasible to control the amount of industrial solid wastes

and achieve zero solid waste output.

Design principles and adopted environmental standards for the Project are as follows:

Data on Process-Provided Pollutant Source;

Standards on Waste Incineration Pollution Control;

Standards on Comprehensive Treatment Discharge of Sewage;

Specifications on Sewage Recycling Projects;

Emission Standards for Odor ; and,

Standards on Plant Boundary Noise of Industrial Enterprise.

Regular reporting will provide periodic online monitoring of compliance with environmental standards.

SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments

E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:

The Project Developer made information about the Project publicly available, held a consultation, and

conducted a questionnaire.

In order to inform local stakeholders of the details of the Project, the Project Developer posted the

relevant information on the website of the Changshu Construction Bureau at

http://www.csbuild.gov.cn/view.php?type=new&news_id=10002104, as well as on the Changshu

Construction Information website.

A notice regarding the public consultation was sent to all surrounding villages and towns in advance.

Representatives of residential committees also received invitations and were recommended to attend. In

addition, representatives of relevant government bodies and business enterprises were invited as well.

The consultation was held on 15 November 2007 at the Changshu Waste Incineration Plant. Attendees

included representatives from the Environmental Protection Office of Changshu City Construction

Bureau, Changshu City Municipal Waste Disposal Administration Station, Environmental Protection

Waste Industry Co., Ltd, Yisheng Blow Molding Factory, two local towns and six villages. In total, 37

45 Except that PM10 at the land planned for the construction and the landfill slightly exceeds standards.

http://www.csbuild.gov.cn/view.php?type=new&news_id=10002104



page 61

people attended the consultation, including representatives from Changshu Pufa Thermal Power Energy

Co., Ltd and Shanghai Pucheng Thermal Power Energy Co., Ltd. The consultation first provided an

introduction to the waste incineration plant and the proposed CDM project. Next, Mr. Li Ming, Director

of the Changshu City Waste Disposal Management Station spoke about the significance of the Project

from the point of the supervisory body. Subsequently, the floor was opened to questions and comments

from the attendees, which was followed by the administration of a questionnaire soliciting further input

from the attendees.

E.2. Summary of the comments received:

At the public consultation, 29 attendees received the questionnaire and 26 filled it out. The findings of

the questionnaire are as follows:

1. Satisfaction with the surroundings:

Very

satisfied

14 satisfied 11 Not satisfied 1

2. Knowledge about national standards on energy conservation and pollution reduction

during the 11th five year plan:

Quite clear 14 Heard of 12 Not clear 0

3. Knowledge about power generation from waste:

Clear 23 Heard of 3 Not clear 0

4. Approval of construction of the power generation project with the waste incinerator:

Approve 25 Not approve 0 Not clear 0

5. Will the construction of the Project improve local waste treatment practices?

Obvious

improvement

24 Little impact 1 Not clear 0

6. Impact on the surrounding water environment by the construction and operation of the

Project (More than one answer is allowed):

The

underground

water will be

improved

14 Little impact 12 Not clear 0

7. Has the Project reduced local air pollution ?

Yes 19 No 3 More

observation

is needed

4

8. Has the Project improved employment?

Yes 19 No 4 Not clear 2

9. Has the Project improved the economic situation of the local community?

Yes 6 No 11 Not clear 9

10. Do you have other opinions and suggestions?

23 answered ―no‖, 1 hoped to increase investment in technological innovations, 1 suggested

supplying the surplus heat to the surrounding enterprises, and 1 suggested the chimney be

built underground.



page 62

The key questions raised at the consultation are listed below. All of these were clearly and thoroughly

answered by the Project Developer.

1. Are dioxin emissions regularly monitored? Could the Project Developer publicize the emission

levels as they are monitored and measured?

2. How will the Project Developer control odor from the plant? What results can be expected?

3. Does the chimney discharge black smoke? Do flue gas emissions pose harm to human health?

4. What measures are taken by the Project Developer to protect the environment?

5. Is it possible to supply the surplus heat to the neighbouring Shenbang Village?

6. Will there be noise from flushing the pipe in the future?

7. Do emissions from the plant reach or exceed national and local standards?

8. Is the sewage treated before being discharged? If so, where is it discharged? Will the sewage

have an adverse impact on the surrounding fish ponds?

9. What role does the construction of the plant play in the urbanization of Changshu City?

E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:

According to the results of the questionnaire, and as evident from the ensuing discussion, the

consultation was viewed by the participants as successful. Many valuable comments and suggestions

were raised during the discussion, and no major objections were voiced by any of the local stakeholders.

None of the participants were against the proposed project, which is due to the fact that many were

already familiar with waste incineration and power generation technologies. Most of the stakeholders

consider that the proposed project will bring a number of benefits to the community, especially in terms

of creating employment opportunities. They also believe that the few, if any, potential negative impacts

of the Project, can be mitigated through various measures to be taken by the Project Developer.



page 63

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: Changshu Pufa Thermal Power Energy Co., Ltd.

Street/P.O. Box: Southern Nanhu Farm

Building:

City: Xinzhuang Town, Changshu

State/Region: Jiangsu Province

Postfix/ZIP: 215562

Country: China

Telephone: +86-512-52422702

FAX: +86-512-52444569

E-Mail: [email protected]

Represented by: Mr. Ruimin Jian

Title: President

Salutation: Mr.

Last Name: Jian

Middle Name:

First Name: Ruimin

Department:

Mobile: 13901770645

Direct FAX: +86-21-68932303

Direct tel: +86-21-68932303

Personal E-Mail: [email protected]

Organization: Endesa Generación S.A.

Street/P.O.Box: Ribeira del Loira, 60

Building:

City: Madrid

State/Region:

Postfix/ZIP: 28042

Country: Spain

Telephone: +34.91.213.1414

FAX: +34.91.213.1052

E-Mail: [email protected]

URL:

Represented by: Mr. Jesús Abadía Ibanez

Title: Director Environment and Sustainable Development Department

Salutation: Mr.

Last Name: Abadía Ibanez

First Name: Jesús

Department:

Mobile:

Direct FAX: +34.91.213.1052






page 64

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

There is no public funding involved in the projects.



page 65

Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

Step1. Identify the relevant electric power system

Using the boundary definitions of the Chinese NDRC46

, The spatial extent of the project boundary

includes the proposed project and all power plants connected physically to the East China Power Grid

that the CDM project power plant is connected to.

Step 2.Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity systems (optional)

The project chose not to choose this option.

Step 3. 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.

Dispatch data is unavailable for the East China Power Grid; therefore, this PDD selects option (a), the

Simple OM method, to calculate this parameter. The low-cost/must-run resources constitute less than

50% of total East China Power Grid generation in each of the five most recent years for which data is

available. Therefore, the option a) Simple OM is applicable.

Step 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method

The simple OM emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per

unit net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generation power plants serving the system, not

including low-cost/must-run power plants/units. It is calculated based on data on the total net

electricity generation of all power plants serving the system and the fuel types and total fuel

consumption of the project electricity system (option B) because (a) the necessary data for option A is

not available, (b) nuclear and renewable power generation are considered as low-cost/ must-run power

sources and the quantity of electricity supplied to the grid by these sources is known and (c) off-grid

power plants are not included in the calculation. Electricity imports are treated as one power plant m.

y

i

yiCOyiyi

yOMsimplegridEG

EFxNCVxFC

EF

)....( ,,2,,

,, (7)

46 http://cdm.ccchina.gov.cn/web/index.asp.

http://cdm.ccchina.gov.cn/web/index.asp



page 66

Table A.1. Thermal Power Generation Capacity of the Eastern Power Grid in 2003

Province Power generation Power consumption

rate Power supply

MWh % MWh

Shanghai 69,444,000.00 5.14 65,874,578.40

Jiangsu 133,277,000.00 5.9 125,413,657.00

Zhejiang 83,089,000.00 5.31 78,676,974.10

Anhui 54,156,000.00 6.06 50,874,146.40

Fujian 42,146,000.00 5.07 40,009,197.80

Total 360,848,553.70

Source: China Electric Power Yearbook 2004

Table A.2. Thermal Power Generation Capacity of Eastern Power Grid in 2004


rate Power supply

MWh % MWh

Shanghai 71,127,000 5.22 67,414,170.60

Jiangsu 163,545,000 5.93 153,846,781.50

Zhejiang 95,255,000 5.68 89,844,516.00

Anhui 59,875,000 6.03 56,264,537.50

Fujian 50,490,000 6.07 47,425,257.00

Total 414,795,262.60


Table A.3. Thermal Power Generation Capacity of the Eastern Power Grid in 2005


rate Power supply

MWh % MWh

Shanghai 74,606,000 5.05 70,838,397

Jiangsu 211,429,000 5.96 198,827,832

Zhejiang 108,110,000 5.59 102,066,651

Anhui 62,918,000 5.9 59,205,838

Fujian 48,600,000 4.57 46,378,980

Total 477,317,698



CDM – Executive Board page 67

Table A.4. Marginal Emission Factor Calculation for the Eastern Power Grid in 2003

Fuel Type Unit Shanghai Jiangsu Zhejian

g Anhui Fujian Total

Emission

factor

(tC/TJ)

Carbon

oxidation

rate (%)

Average low

heating

value

(MJ/t,km3)

CO2 Emissions

tCO2eJ=G*H*I*F*4

4/12/10000mass unit

A B C D E

F=A+B+

C+D+E G H I

J=G*H*I*F*44/12/1

000 (volume unit)

Coal

10

kT 2618

6417.7

4 3442.4

2669.6

7 1754 16901.81 25.8 100 20908 334,300,359.13

Refined coal

10

kT 0 25.8 100 26344 - Other

washed coal

10

kT 0 25.8 100 8363 -

Coke

10

kT 0 25.8 100 28435 -

Coke gas

100

million

m3 1.99 0.06 2.05 12.1 100 16726 152,125.76

Other gases

100

million

m3 66.34 66.34 12.1 100 5227 1,538,454.90

Oil

10

kT 0 20 100 41816 -

Gasoline

10

kT 18.9 100 43070 -

Diesel fuel

10

kT 1.26 14.71 13.99 29.96 20.2 100 42652

946,463.80

Fuel oil

10

kT 95.49 0.76 174.48 18.89 289.62 21.1 100 41816

9,369,683.52 Liquid

petroleum

gas

10

kT

0 17.2 100 50179

-

Refinery dry

gas

10

kT 0.49 0.96 1.45 18.2 100 46055

44,564.35



Natural gas

100

million

m3 0 15.3 100 38931

- Other

petroleum

products

10

kT 18.91 5.3 15.04 39.25 20 100 38369

1,104,387.72

Other coke

products

10

kT 0 25.8 100 28435

- Other

energy

sources

10,000

tce 5.68 7.08 12.76 0 100 0

-

347,456,039.18

Source: China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2004


Fuel

Type Unit Shanghai Jiangsu Zhejiang Anhui Fujian Total

Emission

factor

(tC/TJ)

Carbon

oxidation

rate (%)

Average low

heating

value

(MJ/t,km3)

CO2 Emissions

tCO2e

J=G*H*I*F*44/12/10000

mass unit

A B C D E

F=A+B+C+

D+E G H I

J=G*H*I*F*44/12/1000

(volume unit)

Coal

10

kT 2779.6 7601.9 4008.9 2906.2 2183.7 19480.3 25.8 100 20908

385,300,230.33

Refined

coal

10

kT 0 25.8 100 26344

-

Other

washed

coal

10

kT

5.46 4.63 10.09 25.8 100 8363

79,826.01

Coke

10

kT 0 25.8 100 28435

-

Coke gas

100

million

m3 2.59 2.59 12.1 100 16726

192,197.91



Other

gases

100

million

m3 72.46 72.46 12.1 100 5227

1,680,380.49

Oil

10

kT 0 20 100 41816

-

Gasoline

10

kT 0 18.9 100 43070

-

Diesel

fuel

10

kT 2.69 27.17 6.23 36.09 20.2 100 42652

1,140,116.11

Fuel oil

10

kT 58.52 55.07 202.89 23.26 339.74 21.1 100 41816

10,991,147.99

Liquid

petroleu

m gas

10

kT 0 17.2 100 50179

-

Refinery

dry gas

10

kT 0.77 0.55 1.32 18.2 100 46055

40,568.93

Natural

gas

100

million

m3 0.14 0.14 15.3 100 38931

30,576.41

Other

petrol

products

10

kT 21.22 1.37 24.89 47.48 20 100 38369

1,335,957.42

Other

coke

products

10

kT 0 25.8 100 28435

-

Other

energy

sources

10,000

tce 6.43 15.48 21.91 0 100 0

-

400,791,001.59





Fuel

Type Unit Shanghai Jiangsu Zhejiang Anhui Fujian Total

Emission

factor

(tC/TJ)

Carbon

oxidation

rate (%)

Average

low

heating

value

(MJ/t,km3)

CO2 Emissions

tCO2e

J=G*H*I*F*4

4/12/10000

mass unit

A B C D E F=A+B+C

+D+E G H I

J=G*H*I*F*4

4/12/1000

(volume unit)

Coal

10

kT 2847.31 9888.06 4801.52 3082.9 2107.69 22727.48 25.8 100 20908

449,526,099.6

4

Refined

coal

10

kT 0 25.8 100 26344

-

Other

washed

coal

10

kT

0 25.8 100 8363

-

Coke

10

kT 0.03 0.03 25.8 100 28435

806.99

Coke gas

100

million m3 1.68 1.38 1.71 4.77 12.1 100 16726

353,970.67

Other

gases

100

million m3 83.72 24.97 0.06 30 138.75 12.1 100 5227

3,217,675.86

Oil

10

kT 27.01 27.01 20 100 41816

828,263.45

Gasoline

10

kT 0 18.9 100 43070

-

Diesel

fuel

10

kT 1.25 16 4.52 1.67 23.44 20.2 100 42652

740,491.04

Fuel oil

10

kT 59.39 13.22 153.22 7.45 233.28 21.1 100 41816

7,546,991.82

Liquid

petroleu

m gas

10

kT 0 17.2 100 50179

-

Refinery 10 0.57 0.83 1.4 18.2 100 46055



dry gas kT 43,027.65

Natural

gas

100

million m3 1.09 1.85 0.62 3.56 15.3 100 38931

777,514.36

Other

petroleu

m

products

10

kT

21 8.38 34.8 64.18 20 100 38369

1,805,849.77

Other

coke

products

10

kT 0 25.8 100 28435

-

Other

energy

sources

10,000 tce

12.36 15.29 27.65 0 100 0

-

464,840,691.2

5


Table A.7. Emission Factor of the Eastern China Power Grid in 2003

Total electricity to the grid

(MWh)

Total emission

(tCO2e)

Emission factor

(tCO2e/ MWh)

385,310,464 368,593,903 0.956615

Table A. 8. Emission Factor for the Eastern China Power Grid in 2004


(MWh)

Total emission

(tCO2e)

Emission factor

(tCO2e/ MWh)

453,378,723 434,050,485 0.957368



Table A. 9. Emission Factor of the Eastern China Power Grid in 2005


(MWh)

Total emission

(tCO2e)

Emission factor

(tCO2e/ MWh)

714,971,698 661,062,081 0.924599

And therefore the three-year weighted average emission factor is: 0.942102tCO2e/ MWh



page 73

Table 1-1: Parameters for the low calorific value, oxidation rate and potential emission factor of

individual fuels

Fuel Type Low calorific

value

Emission factor

(tc/TJ) Oxidation rate

Raw coal 20908 kJ/kg 25.80 1

Refined coal 26344 kJ/kg 25.80 1

Other washed coal1 8363 kJ/kg 25.80 1

Coke 28435 kJ/kg 29.50 1

Crude oil 41816 kJ/kg 20.00 1

Gasoline 43070 kJ/kg 18.90 1

Kerosene 43070 kJ/kg 19.60 1

Diesel oil 42652 kJ/kg 20.20 1

Fuel oil 41816 kJ/kg 21.10 1

Other petroleum

products2

38369 kJ/kg 20.00 1

Natural gas 38931 kJ/m3 15.30 1

Coke-oven gas3 16726 kJ/m

3 12.10 1

Other gases4 5227 kJ/m

3 12.10 1

Liquefied petroleum

gas 50179 kJ/kg 17.20 1

Refinery day gas 46055 kJ/kg 18.20 1

Source: The caloric value of each kind of fuel is from p.287 of China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2006.

The potential emission factor of each kind of fuel is sourced from the Table 1.3 and Table 1.4,

p.1.21,1.24, Chapter 1 of ―2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories‖ Volume2

Energy.

____________________________

1. The calculation is carried out based on the low calorific values of middlings stated in p.287 of China

Energy Statistical Yearbook 2006. Since the average low calorific value of coal sludge is higher than

that of middlings, such handling is conservative.

2. Low calorific values of other petroleum products are not provided in the China Energy Statistical

Yearbook of each year. In this appendix, the low calorific value obtained by converting the actual values

and standard values in the energy balance sheet of each year is 38,369 kJ/kg, i.e.1.3108 tce/t.

3. The calculation is carried out based on the lower value in the caloric value range of 16,726-17,981

kJ/m3 of coke-oven gas provided in p.287 of China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2006.



page 74

The calculation is carried out based on the lowest values of the low calorific values of generator gas,

heavy oil catalytic cracking gas, heavy oil thermal cracking gas, pressure gasified gas or water gas

provided in p.287 of China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2006.

According to data for the new thermal power projects during the 10th Five-Year Plan period issued by the

State Electricity Regulatory Commission, among the new thermal power projects during 2000-2005,

units with the capacity of 600 MW or above per machine account for 24%; units with the capacity of

300MW per machine account for 60%; and the rest are the units with the capacity of 300 MW or below

per machine. The capacity of power generated by new large-medium thermal power projects in 2005

total 54 GW, where 600 MW units total 15 sets, accounting for 17% of the power generated by the new

large-medium thermal power projects of that year. Based on the analysis above, in this calculation, the

domestic sub-critical unit of 600 MW is adopted as the technology for identifying the commercialized

optimal efficiency of coal-fired electricity. In this calculation, the weighted average of the net coal

consumption rate of the 15 sets of new 600 MW units in 2005 is used as the approximation of the

technology of commercialized optimal efficiency. The net coal consumption rate of the 600 MW

domestic sub-critical unit is 343.33 gce/kWh, i.e. the power supply efficiency is 35.82%.

According to data on gas turbine power plants in 2004, 200 MW combined cycle (9E type units of

technology level equal to GE) is determined as the technology of commercialized optimal efficiency of

gas turbine power plant (including oil- and gas-burning). The gas turbine power plant of the highest

actual power supply efficiency is taken as the approximation of the technology of commercialized

optimal efficiency. The net coal consumption rate (converted according to caloric value) of the gas

turbine power plant is estimated as 258 gce/kWh, i.e. the power supply efficiency is 47.67%.

Variables

Power

supply

efficiency

Fuel

emission

factor

(tc/TJ)

Oxidation

rate

Emission factor

(tCO2/MWh)

A B C

D=3.6/A/1000*B*C*44/

12

Coal-fired

power plant EFCoal,Adv 35.82% 25.8 1 0.9508

Gas-fired

power plant EFGas,Adv 47.67% 15.3 1 0.4237

Oil-fired

power plant EFOil,Adv 47.67% 21.1 1 0.5843

Step 5. Identify the group of power units to be included in the build margin

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.

However, due to the fact that data on electricity generation of each power plant / unit in the grid is



page 75

currently not available in P. R. China option (b) the set of power capacity additions in the electricity

system that comprises 20% of the system generation capacity (in MW) and that have been built most

recently is selected.

Step 6. Calculate the build margin emission factor

According to the ―Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system‖, EFgrid,BM,y is the

generation-weighted average emission factor of all power units m during the most recent year y for

which power generation data is available. However, due to the fact that data on both electricity

generation and emission factor of each power plant / unit in the grid is currently not available in P. R.

China (see Step 3), EB guidance on the estimation of the build margin in P.R. China can also be

applied for the purpose of estimating the BM emission factor and EFgrid, BM, y is calculated as follows:

m

ym

mi

ymELym

EG

EFEG

,

,

,,,

yBM, gridEF (13)

Calculate the proportions of CO2 emissions corresponding to solid, fluid and gas fuels used for power generation

to the total emissions.

Fuel Type Unit Shangh

ai Zhejiang

Jiangs

u Anhui Fujian Total

Caloric

value

Emission

factor

Oxida

tion

rate

Emissi

on

A B C D E

F=A+

…+D

+E

G H I

J=F*G

*H*I*4

4/12/10

0

Raw coal 10 kT 2847.3

1 4801.52

9888.

06 3082.9

2107.6

9

2272

7.48

20908

kJ/kg 25.80 1

449,52

6,100

Refined

coal

10 kT 0 0 0 0 0 0

26344

kJ/kg 25.80 1 0

Other

washed

coal

10 kT

0 0 0 0 0 0 8363

kJ/kg 25.80 1 0

Coke 10 kT

0 0.03 0 0 0 0.03 28435

kJ/kg 29.50 1 807

Sum

449,52

6,907

Crude oil 10 kT

0 27.01 0 0 0 27.01 41816

kJ/kg 20.00 1

828,26

3

Gasoline 10 kT

0 0 0 0 0 0 43070

kJ/kg 18.90 1 0

Kerosene 10 kT

0 0 0 0 0 0 43070

kJ/kg 19.60 1 0

Diesel oil 10 kT

1.25 4.52 16 0 1.67 23.44 42652

kJ/kg 20.20 1

740,49

1

Fuel oil 10 kT

59.39 153.22 13.22 0 7.45 233.2

8

41816

kJ/kg 21.10 1

7,546,9

92



page 76

Other

petroleum

products

10 kT

21 34.8 8.38 0 0 64.18 38369

kJ/kg 20.00 1

1,805,8

50

Sum

10,921,

596

Natural

gas

10

millio

n m3

10.9 6.2 18.5 0 0 35.6 38931

kJ/m3

15.30 1 777,51

4

Coke-

oven gas

10

millio

n m3

16.8 0 13.8 17.1 0 47.7 16726

kJ/m3

13.00 1 353,97

1

Other

gases

10

millio

n m3

837.2 0.6 249.7 300 0 1387.

5

5227

kJ/m3

13.00 1 3,217,6

76

Liquefied

petroleum

gas

10

kiloto

nne

0 0 0 0 0 0 50179

kJ/kg 17.20 1 0

Refinery

day gas

10

kiloto

nne

0.57 0 0.83 0 0 1.4 46055

kJ/kg 18.20 1 43,028

Sum

4,392,1

89

Total

464,84

0,691


Adopting tables above and formula (2), (3) and (4): Coal=96.71%, Oil

=2.35%, Gas=0.94%.

Step 2: Calculate the corresponding thermal power emission factor.

Step 3: Calculate the grid BM.

Installed capacity of East China Grid in 2005

Installed

capacity Unit Shanghai Jiangsu Zhejiang Anhui Fujian Total

%

Thermal power MW 13113.5 42506.4 27688.1 11423.2 9345.4 104076.6 84.2%

Hydro power MW 0 142.6 6952.1 749.8 8224.9 16069.4 13%

Nuclear power MW 0 0 3066 0 0 3066 2.5%

Wind power and

others MW 253.3 58.8 37.2 0 52 401.3

0.3%

Total LCMR MW 15.8%

Total MW 13366.8 42707.8 37743.4 12173 17622.3 123613.3

Data source: China Electricity Yearbook 2006



page 77


Installed capacity Unit Shanghai Jiangsu Zhejiang Anhui Fujian Total %

Thermal power MW 12014.9 28289.5 21439.8 9364.5 8315.4 79424.1 81.9%

Hydro power MW 0 126.5 6418.4 692.8 7180.1 14417.8 14.9%

Nuclear power MW 0 0 3056 0 0 3056 3.2%

Wind power and others MW 3.4 17.6 39.7 0 12 72.7 0.1%

Total LCMR MW 18.1 %

Total MW 12018.3 28433.6 30953.9 10057.3 15507.5 96970.6




Thermal power MW 11092.6 22245 15321.2 9284.9 7092.8 65036.5 80.2%

Hydro power MW 0 137.8 6054.5 649.1 6761.1 13602.5 16.8%

Nuclear power MW 0 0 2406 0 0 2406 3%

Wind power and

others MW 0 0 39.7 0 12 51.7

0.1%

Total LCMR MW 19.8%

Total MW 11092.6 22382.7 23821.4 9934 13865.8 81096.5




Thermal power MW 11382.6 20599 13082.4 9056.3 6999.9 61120.2 80.4%

Hydro power MW 0 137.2 5866.8 649.1 6512 13165.1 17.3%

Nuclear power MW 0 0 1678 0 0 1678 2.2%

Wind power and

others MW 0 0 50.2 0 12 62.2

0.1%

LCMR MW 19.6%

Total MW 11382.6 20736.2 20677.4 9705.4 13523.9 76025.5



Installed capacity

(in MW) Shanghai Jiangsu Zhejiang Anhui Fujian Total

%

Thermal 57967 104062 65691 40816 21170 289436 86%



page 78

Hydroelectric 0 57 10513 926 23433 34999 11%

Nuclear 0 0 2472 0 0 2472 0.01%

Wind and others 0 0 0 0 0

Total LCMR 11%

Total 57967 104119 78676 41742 44603 326907


EFBM,y= 0.9372×92.53%=0.8672 tCO2/MWh.

Step 7. Calculate the combined margin emission factor

The combined margin emission factor is calculated as follows:

EFgrid, CM,y = EFgrid, OM,y × wOM,y + EFgrid,,BM,y × wBM,y (14)

Electricity baseline emission factor is calculated as the weighted average of the Operating Margin

emission factor (EFOM,y) and the Build Margin emission factor (EFBM,y) where the weights wOM and wBM,

by default, are 50% (i.e., wOM = wBM = 0.5). This is presented below.

Eastern China Grid OM Ex Ante (tCO2/MWh) 0.942102

Eastern China Grid BM Ex Ante (tCO2/MWh) 0.8672

Eastern China Grid CM Ex Ante (tCO2/MWh) 0.9047



page 79

Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Background information

II. Organizational, Operational and Monitoring Obligations

A. Obligations of the Operator

B. Emissions Reductions Calculation Spreadsheets

III. Annexes

I. Background Information

The baseline and monitoring methodologies for the Project are in accordance with the approved baseline

methodology, AM0025, the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System and the Tool

to avoid methane emissions from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site. They are applicable to the

project activity, which consists of the diversion of MSW from a landfill and its controlled incineration,

i.e. Option (e) of AM0025, as well as renewable electricity generation for a grid.

The Project will be comprised of two different components: (i) the installation of a waste incinerator

system with a total capacity for 660 tonnes of waste per day; and, (ii) the generation of electricity using

heat from the incineration as fuel in a 12 MW generator. The total ERs from the Project are estimated ex-

ante at an annual average of 82,365 tCO2e. A total reduction of approximately 576,558 tCO2e is

projected for the first 7-year crediting period. The spatial extent of the project boundary is the site of the

project activity where the waste is treated. This includes the facilities for processing the waste, on-site

electricity generation and/or consumption, on-site fuel use and the landfill site. The project boundary

does not include facilities for waste collection, sorting and transport to the project site, but it does

include the Eastern China Power Grid, to which the on-site generation plant will be connected. Since the

Project provides electricity to a grid, the spatial extent of the project boundary will also include those

plants connected to the energy system to which the plant is connected.

II. Organizational, Operational and Monitoring Obligations

A. Obligations of the Operator

Monitoring the Project‘s ER performance requires proper data collection and processing by the Project

Operator. The Project Operator has the primary obligation to calculate ERs based on the most recent

available information, following the Emission Reduction Calculation Procedure (ERCP), and to abide by

the ERCP Organizational Structure as well as the ERCP Quality Control provisions presented in the

Annex to this MP.

The ERCP Organizational Structure dictates that the ERCP Manager will be responsible for performing

the ERCP (monthly), and the MP Steering Committee will be responsible for supervising the ERCP

Manager‘s monitoring work (monthly). The ERCP Manager will report to the MP Steering Committee



page 80

(monthly), and the ERCP Manager and MP Steering Committee will coordinate in reporting to the DOE

at Verification. The ERCP Quality Control provisions will offer additional guidance to the Monitoring Plan on how to

handle monitoring data to ensure that sufficient and accurate information is made available to the DOE.

Specifically, the ERCP Quality Control demonstrates how to trace back the avoided emissions from the

Nanhu landfill, as well as the electricity produced by the Project from the off-taker of the surplus power.

All data required for the MP will come from the Project Operator‘s information system, and it is the

responsibility of the Project Operator to ensure that this data is made available monthly to the ERCP

Manager.

It is believed that the monitoring approach presented in this MP will result in an accurate, yet

conservative calculation of ERs. However some uncertainties, especially errors in the data monitoring

and processing system, may result in a discrepancy between the monitored ERs and the verified ERs. The

Project Operator is expected to prevent such errors, and the verification audits are expected to uncover

any potential ones. Given that CERs can only be certified after Verification, there is a significant internal

incentive for the Project Operator to perform all steps related to data collection and calculations as

accurately as possible.

The ERCP Manager will seek to establish and maintain a positive and efficient relationship with the

DOE verifying the Project‘s ERs so as ensure a dependable and transparent outcome. In doing so, the

ERCP Manager will:

provide all necessary monitoring information to facilitate the Verification, and cooperate with the

DOE in a timely manner on all data requests and questions;

during the crediting period, always take into account requests by the CDM Executive Board and

conduct preparatory work for the verification to obtain high quality and efficient results; and,

ensure that all monitoring reports are reviewed by the ERCP Manager and the MP Steering

Committee before they are transmitted to the DOE.

Training is an important element in successful monitoring of ERs. The MP and associated training on it

will build the capability of the MP Steering Committee and the ERCP Manager to replicate - on an ex-

post basis – an equivalent process that has been demonstrated in this PDD for an ex-ante emissions

avoidance calculation as if the plant were in operation in 2005. All relevant personnel will be trained by

ENDESA Carbono at a one- day workshop on a comprehensive set of tools and knowledge required to

implement the MP, including: (a) accurate monitoring of the performance and output characteristics of

the plant for recording and keeping accurate data; (b) collection and integration of utility data for the

current year; (c) incorporation of these data sets into Excel spreadsheets pre-prepared by ENDESA

Carbono, and (d) consistently calculating verifiable CERs as a function of measured plant output against

a current-year emission factor that serves as a recognized proxy for emissions displaced from the grid.

Adequate equipment will be defined and procured during project construction, which will be used for

monitoring MSW treated, fuel consumption, and electricity that is generated, consumed on-site, and

dispatched to the grid. Procedures for maintenance and installation of equipment, as well as calibration,

will be performed according to manufacturer‘s specifications. All measurements, data gathering, record

keeping, and procedures for dealing with possible data adjustments will be performed taking into



page 81

consideration the specific data gathering requirements of the MP, and will also meet the requirements of

both AM0025 and the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System.

The ERCP is designed for performing quality control on the ER calculation, and provides procedures to

guarantee the accuracy of the results. The quality control procedures deal with data collection,

processing, record keeping, and cross-checking. It is therefore, expected that the MP approach presented

in this PDD will result in an accurate, yet conservative calculation of ERs.

Table A4-1: Monthly Data Collection: Division of Labor

Electricity distributor

final client(s)

(Data Provider)

provide the Project Operator with written proof of the

Project‘s hourly generation purchased/sold.

Frequency: Monthly

Grid Operator

(Data Provider)

provide the Project Operator with written proof of the

Project‘s hourly generation registered.

Frequency: Monthly

Project Operator

(Data Processor)

directly measure the MSW incinerated in the project facilities

following AM0025.

estimate ERs for electricity displacement following Tool to

Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System.

estimate the project emissions following AM0025.

perform the monthly calculation of ERs following the ERCP.

keep receipt of sales of electricity.

prepare and submit the annual report of the total project ERs

to the DOE.

establish the necessary agreements with the Grid Operator and

final clients to assure that they all provide a monthly written

report of the Project‘s hourly generation registered/bought.

B. Emissions Reductions Calculation Procedure and Required Spreadsheets

The ERCP is the basic instrument for gathering, recording and processing information that will result in

the measured ERs. The Project Operator shall consider the Project‘s ERCP as a manual. The ERCP

should contain: (i) data gathered from the Grid Operator information system, (ii) data processed by the

Project Operator, and (iii) data gathered from the equipment installed for the monitoring of the MSW

incinerated. All data processing should be done using Excel software. The ERCP is designed for

monthly and yearly calculation, based on final monthly Grid Operator reports and monthly recording and

continuous recording of the meters installed. Entering the data monthly in the required spreadsheets will

provide the opportunity to review formulas, minimize errors and have data readily available for the DOE

at any time during the year.

For effective data management, ENDESA Carbono will provide the Project Developer with an MP and

pre-programmed spreadsheets such that the Project Developer will only need to collect the information as

described and apply the formulas as instructed in the MP.

The Project Operator will calculate the ERs on the basis of the MP, following the ERCP. Calculations

will follow AM0025 to calculate ERs from the avoided methane emissions by the Project, and the Tool



page 82

to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System to calculate the ERs from electricity

displacement when the Project provides renewable electricity to the grid.

There will only be two spreadsheets to be reviewed by the DOE, namely, ―changshu ACM0002 ERs at

‗yearly period in question‘.xls‖ and ―changshu AM0025 ERs at ‗yearly period in question‘.xls‖.

However, as the DOE may require preliminary calculations, the staff person designated as the ERCP

Manager should keep the name of the files, and every time he/she works on the files, should follow by

the date when the latest adjustment was made. Doing so would allow old versions to be saved on disk

and kept as a record to show to the verifier, if the need arises.

When the ER calculation for the month is completed, the files should be named ―changshu ACM0002

ERs at ‗month in question‘.xls‖ and ―changshu AM0025 ERs at ‗month in question‘.xls‖, in order to

differentiate drafts from final monthly calculations. Likewise, after the calculation of the ERs of the last

month of the year, the file name should be changed to ―changshu ACM0002 ERs at ‗yearly period in

question‘.xls‖ and ―changshu AM0025 ERs at ‗yearly period in question‘.xls‖.

The year for the MP will run from 1 January through 31 December of the following year.

Spreadsheet 1, ―changshu ACM0002 ERs at ‗yearly period in question‘.xls‖ will be composed of two

worksheets: Worksheet # 1: Original Data from Grid operator, and Worksheet # 2: Organized Data,

Processed Data and Result.

Worksheet # 1 should contain data as it was provided by the Grid Operator, on a CD or in email,

arranged in months. The ERCP Manager should not manipulate this data other than to copy and paste it

from the file in which it was handed. The CD or e-mail through which the data comes from the provider

should also be kept as proof for the DOE.

For Worksheet # 2, the ERCP Manager should put in one column per month the monthly project

generation. In this same Worksheet, the ERCP Manager should calculate monthly ERs in tCO2e by

multiplying the generation in MWh times 0.8672 in tCO2e/MWh (the Baseline Emissions Factor for

China‘s Eastern Power Grid calculated ex-ante as described in Annex 3), and which will be used for the

first 7-yr crediting period. Rounding off is not necessary when calculating monthly ERs since the

monthly calculation is only for measuring progress. At the end of the year, the ERCP Manager should

sum up the resulting monthly ERs from electricity displacement to obtain the yearly project ERs from

electricity displacement ready for Verification. Resulting yearly ERs from electricity displacement must

be rounded off to the nearest integer. Once the calculation of yearly ERs from electricity displacement is

completed in the ―Changshu ACM0002 ERs at November.xls‖47

, this file should become ―changshu

ACM0002 ERs at ‗yearly period in question‘.xls‖.

Worksheet # 2 also allows the ERCP Manager to calculate the cumulative generation and cumulative

ERs from electricity displacement throughout the year and be aware of the progress of the Project‘s

environmental benefits accrued due to ERs from electricity displacement.

47 November is the last month of the year for the MP.



page 83

Spreadsheet 2 ―Changshu AM0025 ERs at ‗month in question‘.xls‖ will be composed of four

worksheets.48

It is necessary for the data gathered from the equipment installed to the MSW to be

processed monthly such that the worksheets can be annualized at the end of the year, and the results

coming out from the application of the ―Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of

waste at a solid waste disposal site‖.

Worksheet # 1 should contain the ERs from avoided CH4 emissions calculated as per Tool to Determine

Methane Emissions Avoided from Disposal of Waste at a Solid Waste Disposal Site before discounting

project emissions, as per AM0025. Worksheet # 2 should contain project emissions from the

incineration project activity as per AM0025. Worksheet # 3 should contain methane emissions from

wastewater treatment if any. Worksheet 4 should contain ERs from avoided CH4 emissions after

discounting project emissions.

During all stages of monitoring, the project entity will assign a primary, secondary and a support stuff to

ensure that there is a qualified and trained person available at all times to implement the monitoring plan

properly.

Regular calibration will be performed according to the manufacturer‘s guidelines, or according to the

applicable regulations, by a suitably skilled technician at the required frequency (at least once a year). A

certificate of calibration will be provided for each piece of equipment after completion.

48 Spreadsheet 2 should always take the latest data of Spreadsheet 1, but no Excel links are to be made since they could overload both files.



page 84

Monitoring Plan

Emission reductions Calculation procedure (ERCP)

Quality Control for Electricity Displacement

Grid Operator

Data:

Project´s monthly generation registered by Grid operator, provided in excel by Grid Operator via email or

CD to the Project Operator.

Project Operator

Data:

Net electricity sold to Grid Operator

The Project Operator will perform monthly recording and calibration check of electric meters

periodically. Only one person will be responsible for the ERCP: Mr. Lu Jiqing

Quality of Data Collection:

Data: Monthly generation from Grid Operator, remaining information from the Project Operator.

Format: Summarized in Excel

Frequency: monthly

Quality of Data Processing:

Original data

Organized data

Entered data

Processed data

Results

Quality of Data Delivery:

Provide to the DOE the emails/CDs through which Data Provider delivered the original data

Provide to the DOE the sales receipts

Provide to the DOE evidence of all calculations made showing all preliminary versions of

spreadsheets saved on disc.

Monthly calculations involve 5 data points.

All must be recorded and manipulated in

excel with records of data points and

electricity sales receipts.

Yearly consolidation of monthly

calculations.



page 85

Monitoring Plan

Emission reductions Calculation procedure (ERCP)

Quality Control for Methane Avoidance

MSW Data:

MSW processed registered by the scale/load cells (continuous measurement of waste

composition percentages)

PE measurement according to the AM0025

The Operator will perform monthly recording and calibration check of flow meters periodically. Only

one person will be responsible for the ERCP: Mr. Lu Jiqing

Quality of Data Collection:

Data: All the above from measurement devices.

Format: Summarized in excel

Frequency: monthly

Quality of Data processing:

Original data

Organized data

Entered data

Processed data

Results

Quality of Data storage:

Prevent excel version problems by updating excel software packages every year in PCs used for

the ER calculations;

Keep all data for 2 years after the first crediting period, i.e for a total of 9 years;

Assign a password to Excel spreadsheets used for ERCP;

Save the document with the last date in which an alteration was made so that old versions are

kept on disc;

Keep all written documentation in a folder that will be provided to the DOE together with the

data collected in Excel.

Quality of data Delivery:

Provide to the DOE the emails/CDs through which Data provider delivered the original data

Provide to the DOE evidence of all calculations made showing all preliminary versions of

spreadsheets saved on disc.

clean development mechanism project design document form

Documents