World Bank Document€¦ · 34402 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT COORDINATION Greenhouse Gas Assessment Methodology Irving Mintzer David Von Hippel Stan Kolar June 1994 Early Release Version

Global Environment Coordination DivisionEnvironment Department

The World Bank

34402GLOBALENVIRONMENT

COORDINATION

Greenhouse Gas AssessmentMethodology

Irving MintzerDavid Von Hippel

Stan Kolar

June 1994

Early Release Version

THE WORLD BANK

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

Telephone 202 473 1816

a result ot the World Bank's global environment work.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

;

FINAL DRAFT February 8, 1994

GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

OVERVIEW

1. Introduction

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

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

A. GREENHOUSE GASES AND THE RISKS OF RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE

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

For millennia. this downward re-emission has been sufficient to warm the surface by about 330 C (59° F)above what it would otherwise have been. Absent the natural greenhouse effect. Earth's average surfacetemperature would have been about -18° C (O° F) and water would have been present on the surface onlyas ice. The natural greenhouse effect allowed liquid water to remain stable over most of the Earth's surface.providing the fundamental substrate for biological activity as we know it.


Greenhouse Gases and the Climate Problem

Climate change, per se, is not a problem. Climate has been changing constantly for hundreds of millennia.

As a result of the slow advance of natural processes, the planet has warmed and cooled, passing regularly

from cold "ice ages" to warm, interglacial periods. Most of these changes have been slow, in transitions

that spanned thousands of years. These gradual transitions have allowed life on Earth to adjust relatively

smoothly to each new climatic equilibrium. Nonetheless, during these transitions. the boundaries of

ecological communities have shifted; the associated human cultures have flourished and, occasionally,disappeared.

But recently something important has changed. During the last two centuries, the natural greenhouse effect

has become the "greenhouse problem." In the foreseeable future, rising concentrations of greenhouse gasesthreaten to induce rapid shifts in global and regional climate regimes, disrupting ecosystems and inducing

significant economic damages on the affected societies.

A situation with uncertain and perhaps unpredictable levels of danger has evolved during this period. Sincethe beginning of the Industrial Revolution, greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have grown

steadily. Because the rates of emissions for these gases have exceeded the ability of natural processes toremove them from the atmosphere. their atmospheric concentrations have increased, enhancing the naturalgreenhouse effect.' The buildup of these gases creates the greenhouse problem and, if current trends

continue. may warm the planet at an unprecedented rate.2 Most "business-as-usual" scenarios suggest awarming of 2°-5° C during the next century. If such scenarios unfold as expected, traditional regional

climates could be changed dramatically over periods as short as a few decades.

Although the precise local manifestations of a global warming due to greenhouse gas buildup cannot be

predicted with confidence today, the potential magnitude and rate of change threatens extensive damage to

vulnerable areas, especially in developing countries. The scale of the resulting damages and the associated

"adjustment costs" are difficult to calculate. The problem is complicated because. in many cases, unmanagedecosystems and human communities will find it difficult or impossible to abandon their traditional homes

and migrate to more hospitable conditions at a rate that is commensurate with the changes happening aroundthem.

Global Warming is an Accumulation Problem

Although most of the international debate on the greenhouse problem has focused on emissions of carbon

dioxide (CO2 ), global warming is not simply a CO2 problem. Although CO2 is the most important

contributor to the greenhouse problem. emissions of a number of other anthropogenic compounds add to

the risks of rapid climate change. Among the other important greenhouse gases are methane (CH4 ). nitrous

oxide (N20). tropospheric ozone, and the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Greenhouse gases have some of the characteristics of both stock and flow pollutants. but, on a time scale

of interest to investment decisions and to public policy, greenhouse gases are best treated principally as

stock pollutants. The main risks of glohal A anning are the effects of the long-term increase in atmosphencstocks of these gases. not the short-tenn. mnonth-to-month. or year-to-year fluctuations in rates of emissions.

Over the period of several decades to a .cntury. the risk is that the heat-trapping effect of the accunaulaiuon

of various greenhouse gases will exceed A)me critical but as yet indeterminate "threshold" of sensitivity.

During the period of continuing disequ Ilbriuin in the climate system, crossing such a "threshold" could push

the system into a dangerous domain of relatively rapid climate change. This period of instability could be

2


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

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

Who Contributes to the Increasing Risks?

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

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

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

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

But greenhouse gas emissions are not just a problem of energy supply. They are also a problem caused bycurrent patterns of energy use. An jnk rc.Lsing fraction of emissions occur, for example, in the transportsector. Automobilesand airplanes arc rc%ponsible for large quantities of emissions of CO2, carbon monoxide(CO). and the chemical precursors of tropu phenc ozone.' Rising demands for personal mobility have leadlo increasing rates of use for autoinohil I .umd airplanes in the last several decades. This continuing trendis likely to result in increasing emission. fromn the transpon sector for at least the next 30 years.

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

3


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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenhouse Gases Have Different Fates in the Atmosphere

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

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

In practice. the calculation is more complicated than the above statement suggests. It is comphlLalcJbecause in the real atmosphere. the overall radiation balance is a complex non-linear function of a '&1 ofclosely coupled elements whose relationships are not well-understood at this time. Some recent ediJcn.esuggests. for example. that the estimated GWP of each greenhouse gas is sensitive not only to the tine

4


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

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

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

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

Developing Countries are Especially Vulnerable to Rapid Climate Change

The effects of global warming due to the buildup of greenhouse gases will be small relative to the natural.background greenhouse effect (+33° C) but will still have a large effect on local and regional climates. TheScientific Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that, if current trendscontinue. the planet will be committed to a warming of 2-5° C by the middle of the next century.' Thischange in average global surface temperature is only an index of the scale of the future changes in climate.A change of two or three degrees on average may not seem very large, but the effects of such a warmingcould be quite dramatic. As a comparison, the climate of the Little Ice Age. created conditions in whichEuropeans could, on occasion, walk across the Baltic Sea from Continental Europe to Scandinavia. Thisoccurred in conditions that, in terms of the global average surface temperature. differ from today by onlyabout 1° C.

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

5


The effects of global warming will not be evenly distributed around the globe geographically. The changes

will be more severe in some regions and less in others. The IPCC analysis suggests that the warming at

the poles will be 2-3 times as large as the global average, while warming in the tropics is expected to be

only 50-75% of the global average. This does not mean that the effects of the warming will necessarily

be less severe in the low-latitude areas: Some have argued, indeed. that the direct effects of the warming

may be worse in tropical areas because human and other systems are already stretched closer to the limits

they can readily tolerate.!

In any event. some of the effects of global warming will depend principally on the magnitude of the change

and others on the rate. On average, the extent of global sea level rise will be principally a function of the

magnitude of the warning. Sea level rise will occur as a function of two processes: (1) thermal expansion

of the upper mixed layer of the ocean and (2) melting of landed glaciers. The IPCC estimates that a eustatic

(or average) sea level rise of 20-70 cm is likely to occur in the next century.9

Most of the world's population lives within 75 km of the coast and thus seems to be exposed to high levels

of risk from sea-level rise. But it is not the global average sea level rise which will determine the extent

of the damages in most countries. Developing countries as a group will be especially vulnerable to sea level

rise-- in particular, in the low-lying island states and in those countries with large, flat deltaic regions facing

the sea.

But, the extent and severity of the damages will be determined for each country by a combination of

regional factors and local conditions. Geologically speaking, some coastlines are rising while others are

subsiding. In areas where tectonic movements are causing an up-thrusting of underlying geological

formations. the effects of sea-level rise will be minimal. Furthermore, Warrick and Rahman conclude that,

even for countries like Bangladesh with a large fraction of its population living in a very exposed deltaic

plain. the extent of the damages will be a complex function of the state of human preparations, the type of

development present along the coast, the character of natural ecosystems in coastal regions and the types

coastal defenses that are erected.' 0

Other physical impacts of global warming will depend more critically on the rate of change than on the

absolute magnitude. Global warming will cause alterations in the patterns of upper atmospheric winds and

ocean currents in ways which may alter the timing, availability and distribution of precipitation. This, in

turn. may affect the regional availability of fresh-water resources in significant ways. For regions with

shared international fresh-water resources and, in particular, for regions where the average runoff is fully

committed today and the demand for fresh water is rising, changes in precipitation may significantly

increase cross-border tensions between states. It is unlikely that climate change will cause wars over water,but for regions like the Jordan-Litani River system, any future shortfall -- even if it is of limited duration -

- could instigate a renewal of hostilities that have been simmering for years over other issues."

Perhaps the most important impacts on developing countries will result from the effects of global warming

on the frequency, severity, and duration of extreme weather events. Based on available damage data. the

frequency and the economic damages due to weather-related extreme events have been steadily increasing

in this century for all types of weather-related disasters except hurricanes.' 2 Recent analysis suggests that

the severity of hurricanes may increase in a world warmed by the enhanced greenhouse effect.'3 Developing

countries often are ill-prepared for extreme weather events and, partly as a result, suffer disproportionately

larger damages than would result from a similar episode in a developed country."

6


Regional Impacts Will Remain Largely Unpredictable

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

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

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

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

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

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

7


B. THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE GEF

The Framework Convention on Climate Change (referred to below as the FCCC or simply as theConvention) was signed by 154 countries and one organization for regional economic coordination at theUnited Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro. Brazil, 1-15June 1992. This convention is the first of a new generation of international environmental agreements thatobligate the developed countries to provide new and additional funds to underwrite measures undertakenby developing countries to achieve particular global environmental benefits. Article 21, para. 3, of theConvention entrusts the Global Environment Facility (GEF) with the operation, on an interim basis, of thefinancial mechanism necessary for mobilizing and distributing these funds. Article 4 of the Conventionoutlines the specific responsibilities of the developed countries and of the financial mechanism forimplementing this agreement. This paper explores some of the issues facing the GEF as it takes up theseresponsibilities and begins to implement the Convention.

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

The Objectives of the Convention and its Financial Mechanism

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

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

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

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

8


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

C. THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM UNDER THE CLIMATECONVENTION

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

.shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurredby developtng country Parties in complying with their obligations under Article 12,Paragraph 1. They shall also provide such financial resources, including (those) for thetransfer of technology. needed by developing country Parties to meet the agreed fullincremcntal costs of implementing measures that are covered by Paragraph I of thisArticle and that are agreed between a developing country Party and the international entityor entities referred to in Article 11, in accordance with that Article. The implementationof these commitments shall take into account the need for adequacy and predictability inthe flow of funds..."

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

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

(a) Measures to develop. update. and publish the national inventories of sources and xinksmentioned in Article 12;

(b) Measures to formulate, implement, publish and update national programmes to mitigyteclimate change by addressing either sources or sinks and to facilitate adaptation to i I Imatechange;

9


(c) Measures to promote and cooperate in the development, application, and diffusion of

technologies, practices, and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic

emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol;

(d) Measures to promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in the

conservation and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of the same gases;

(e) Measures to prepare adaptive responses to climate change, including the development of

integrated management plans for coastal zones, water resources and agriculture, and for

the protection and rehabilitation of areas affected by drought, desertification and floods;

(f) Measures to take climate change into account in social, economic and environmentalpolicies in order to minimize adverse effects on national economies, public health and the

environment of measures implemented to mitigate or adapt to climate change;

(g) Measures to promote scientific, technological, socio-economic andotherresearch intendedto further the understanding of climate change and the social and economic consequences

of various response strategies;

(h) Measures to promote exchange of relevant scientific. technological, technical, socio-

economic and legal information related to the climate system and climate change;

(i) Measures to promote education, training and public awareness related to climate change

and to "encourage the widest participation in this process, including that of non-

governmental organizations;" and

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

implementation..."

Paragraphs 1-3 in Article 11 of the Framework Convention define how the financial mechanism will relate

to the Conference of the Parties during the interim period. Article 11, Paragraph 4 specifies that, at its first

session, the Conference of the Parties will evaluate the arrangements made by the GEF during the interim

period and decide if these arrangements are to be maintained. Within four years thereafter, the Conference

of the Parties will conduct an overall review of the financial mechanism and make any adjustments deemed

to be appropriate at the time. During the Pilot Phase, the global warming activities of the GEF have been

designed principally to support the measures outlined in sub-paragraphs (c), (d), and (h) of Article 4,

Paragraph 1.

IL Methodological Approach

In order to facilitate the selection of GEF projects from among the many proposals that are made for

funding, CGC and SEI have developed an accounting tool for comparing the economic costs and the

greenhouse gas emissions of various investment alternatives. The fundamental idea underlying the use of

this tool is a "twinning' approach that matches proposed projects that would reduce greenhouse gas

emissions or enhance greenhouse gas sinks with the next best conventional alternative that would be

implemented by the host country in the absence of GEF support.

10


A. Context for the GGAM Approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11


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

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

B. Basic Assumptions

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

System Boundaries: The Full Energy Supply Cycle Approach

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

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

Time Horizon

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

Discount Rates and Global Warming Potential

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

12


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

Impacts of Interest

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

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

Marginal Costs of Abatement for GEF Projects in the Pilot Phase

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

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

C. Comparing Projects and Measuring Cost-Effectiveness

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

13


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

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

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

111. Key Issues, Limitations, Remaining Questions and Caveats

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

A. Key Issues

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

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

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

In terms of the question of relevant costs. a consensus did emerge among the project team and the GEFmanagers. We decided that future analyses should consider all capital and recurrent costs that werenecessary for the success of the proposed GEF project. These costs include not only the hardwire .uudsoftware of the project. but also any expenditures necessary to train local personnel and institutions in theuse of the systems being deployed in the future. These costs may also include measures taken to impro'.cthe policy environment or strengthen local institutional capacity in order to increase the chanLes of

successfuUy completing the project.

14


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

B . Limitations of the GGAM Approach

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

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

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

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

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

15


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

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

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

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

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

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

16


C. Unanswered Questions

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

IV. Highlighting Lessons Learned

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

The costs of carbon-equivalent emissions avoided by these projects (when evaluated at 0% discount rate forphysical flows) ranges from approximately US$ 2 per tonne of avoided emissions to approximately USS150 per tonne of carbon-equivalent emissions avoided. This is in good agreement for the expected costsof emissions reductions that have been estimated in a variety of other "bottom-up" studies. It is significantlylower than the typical estimates of the cost of emissions reductions estimated in large, "top-down", macro-economic studies.

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

In the case of Pakistan. the estimated cot'ts of reductions is approximately US$ 22 per tonne (at 0% discountrate for physical emissions).The cost ol this project seems high because of the small volume of methanegenerated from the local municipal lNle'. and the high costs of operating the project.

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

17


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

Figure 1 illustrates these effects graphically. To make the changes in rank-ordering as a function of thediscount rate more visible, Figures 2-5 compare the eight projects, with each graph illustrating thecomparison at one discount rate. Comparing these figures shows the small but not completely insignificantvariations in the order of merit that occurs as the discount rate changes. Finally, Figure 6 shows the changein ordering in the most striking case, a comparison of the Ecuador, Mexico, and Thailand projects.

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

V. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18


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

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

19


REFERENCES FOR THE OVERVIEW

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

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

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

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

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



B. Bhandyopadayaya, 1988.


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

11. Gleick, Peter H., 1992. "Impacts of Climate Change on Internationally Shared Fresh-Wfater Resources," in1. Mintzer, ed., Op. Cit.

12. Mintzer, 1., 1990. "Living in a Warming forld: Effects of Global farming on Weather-Related Disasters". Draftpaper prepared for the World Bank.

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

14. Mintzer, I., 1990. Op cit.

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

20

SUM-GPH.XLS 5/26/93

TAr• L 1ITitle: Summary of GEF Project Cost Comparisons as Prepared in December, 1992Author: David Von HippelDate Last Modified 26-May-93

USING -BEST' ESTIMATE FOR USING 'HIGH' ESTIMATE FOR USING 'LOW ESTIMATE FORREFERENCE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY REFERENCE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY REFERENCE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGYNPV Cost of Emissions Reduction NPV Cost of Emissions Reduction NPV Cost of Emissions Reduction(1992 $ US/Tonne Carbon Equivalent) (1992 $ US/Tonne Carbon Equivalent) (1992 $ UStTonne Carbon Equivalent)

at Discount Rates of: at Discount Rates of: at Discount Rates of:Project Name -3% 0% 3% 10% -3% 0% 3% 10% -3% 0% 3% 10%Philippines $1 $2 $3 $6 S0 $1 $1 $2 $1 $2 $4 $38Mauritius (Scen 2) 42 $2 $3 $6 $2 $2 $3 $5 $2 $2 $3 $17Ecuador $2 $4 $7 $23 $1 $3 $6 $19 $4 $7 $11 $13Mauritius (Scen 1) $3 $4 $5 $9 $1 $1 $2 $3 $5 $6 $8 $6India $4 $6 $9 $15 $3 $4 $6 $10 $5 $7 $9 $26Mexico $6 $9 $12 $21 $2 $2 $3 $5 $8 $11 $15 $101Thailand $8 $10 $13 $20 $6 $8 $10 $16 $10 $13 $17 $7Pakistan $12 $22 $36 $97 $12 $21 $35 $94 $13 $22 $37 $454Poland $107 $151 $206 $374 $52 $76 $106 $197 $136 $187 $253 $26

SUM-GPH.XLS Chart 1 5/26/93

Comparison of Proposed GEF Projects:Cost of GHG Reduction

$400

$350

LL $300

0$- 250UsdFrGH

.~ ~~L

04j $150

C/)

$0 ~~~~~~~10%U,.. ~ ~ ~ ~~~%Discount Rate0%c 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~% Used For GHGCL 0 M 0 10 ~~~~~Emissions

a. m~~~~- 0a-

4 .J~~~~a

I..

SUM-GPH.XLS Chart 3 5/2693

F| -ARu z

Comparison of Proposed GEF Projects: Estimated Costof GHG Reduction

Poland4 $151

Pakistan $22 2

Thailand $10

Mexico $9 I

India $6

Mauritius (Scen 1) -4 _Discount Rate-Used for GHG

Emissions: 0.0% IEcuador $4

H

Mauritius (Scen 2) _ $2

Philippines $2

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25

$ US 1992/Tonne Carbon Equivalent


Comparison of Proposed GEF Projects: EstimatedCost;of GHG Reduction

Poland |206

Pakistan $36

Thailand $13

7Mexico $12

India $9

Mauritius (Scen 1) $5

_ ,1 ) Discount Rate Used for GHGEcuador $7,) Emissions: 3.0%

Mauritius (Scen 2)

Philippines S3

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


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

WComparison of Proposed GEF Projects: EstL of GHG Reduction

Poland $374

Pakistan $97

Thailand $20

Mexico $21

India $15 Discount Rate Used for GHGEmissions: 10.0% 1

Mauritius (Scen 1) $9 |_J_ _ _ _

Ecuador $23

Mauritius (Scen 2) $61,

Philippines S6

S0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100



Comparison of Proposed GEF Projects: Estimated Costof GHG Reduction

Poland $107

Pakistan $12

Thailand $8

Mexico $6

India <$4

Mauritius (Scen 1) $__

Ecuador ;73 Discount Rate Used for GHGEcuador $2 Emissions: -3.0%

Mauritius (Scen 2) IS2

Philippines $1

S0 $5 $10 $15 $20


SUM-GPH.XLS 6/1/93

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

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

Thailand

MexicoEcuador'.

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

GEF Project Cost Comparison Sample at PollutantDiscount Rate of 0.0%

Thailand

Mexico I

Ecuador

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

GEF Project Cost Comparison Sample at PollutantDiscount Rate of 3.0%

Thailand

Mexico

Ecuador _ _

SO $2 $4 S6 $8 Slo $12 $14NPV Cost of Emissions Reduction (1992 5 US/Tonne Carbon Equivalent

GEF Project Cost Comparison Sample at PollutantDiscount Rate of 10.0%Thailand n_

Mexico

Ecuador

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

GETTING STARTED

GREENHOUSE GASASSESSMENTMETHODOLOGY(GGAM)

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

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

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

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

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

REVIEW DRAFF: DECEMBER 15,1992

INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS

GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY(GGAM)

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

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

"MD-GGAM"

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

"INSTGGAM"

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

"INSTPROJ"

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

REVIEW DRAFT: DECEMBER 15, 1992

GGAMFLOW.XLS

FILE NAMES USED IN GGAM

GENERAL DEFINITIONS:

'DATA INPUT SHEETS, collect from user data describing GEF project and reference alternative

to which it will be compared.

'SUMMARY WORKSHEETS" are linked to data input sheets and are used to calculate

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

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

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

from one of more reference alternative technologies.

File Name File Contents/FunctionC:\GGAM Directory

CMP XX1l.XLS Comparison worksheet template

SUM XXX1 .XLS Summary worksheet template

IPTXXXi1.XLS Data Input worksheet template

GWPFACTS.XLS Spreadsheet containing Global Warming Potentiai factors

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

projects for which GGAM sheets already exist.

GGAM_BEG.XLM Fiie of 'macro' commands that cortrol GGAM menu functions.

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

C:\GGAM\PROJECTS DirectoryCMP_PRO1.XLS Comparison worksheet for projects, e.g. project 'PRO1'

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

IPT PRO1.XLS Data Input worksheet for projects, e.g. project 'PROl1

Page 1 of 3

GGAMFLOW.XLS


(

File Name File Contents/FunctionC:\GGAM\REF_SUM Directory:

DETAILED COLLECTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DATA FOR THEFOLLOWING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES. EACH IS UNKED TO AFILE WITH A CORRESPONDING NAME IN C:IGGAMIREF DETL (SEE BELOW)BLAGWS_S.XLS Heat-only boilers buming Agricultural WastesBLCCL S.XLS Heat-only boilers buming coalBLDOIL_S.XLS Heat-only boilers buming distillate oilBLGAS_S.XLS Heat-orny boilers buming natural gasBLROIL S.XLS Heat-only boilers buming residual oilCONCLE_S.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers burning coalCONGAS_S.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers buming natural gasCONOIL S.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers buming oilDISGST_S.XLS Combustion turbines for electricity generation boilers buming distillate oilDISTIC S.XLS Internal combustion engines t for electricity generation boilers buming diesel oilGEOTHD S.XLS Geothermal electricity generation: dry steam resourceGEOTHH S.XLS Geothermal electricity generation: hydrothermal resourceHYDROL S.XLS Hydroelectric generation: Large plantSOLRPV_S.XLS Solar Photovoltaic electricity generationWIND S.XLS Wind Powered electricity generation

Page 2 of 3

GGAMFLOW.XLS


File Name File Contents/Function

C:\GGAM\REF DETL Directory:DETAILED COLLECTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DATA FOR THE

FOLLOW7NG REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES

BLAGWS D.XLS Heat-only boilers buming Agricultural Wastes

BLCCL_D.XLS Heat-only boilers buming coal

BLDOIL_D.XLS Heat-only boilers buming distillate oil

BLGAS_D.XLS Heat-only boHers buming natural gas

BLROIL_D.XLS Heat-only boilers buming residual oil

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

CONCLE D.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers buming coal

CONGAS D.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers burning natural gas

CONOIL D.XLS Conventional electricity generation boilers buming oH

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

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

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

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

GEOTHD_D.XLS Geothermal electricity generation: dry steam resource

GEOTHH D.XLS Geothermal electricity generation: hydrothemial resource

HYDROL D.XLS Hydroelectric generation: Large plant

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

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

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

SLRTHR D.XLS Solar Thermal electricity generation

* SOLRPV D.XLS Solar Photovoltaic electricity generation

* TEMPLT D.XLS Template for Detailed Data Sheet

WIND D.XLS Wind Powered electricity generation

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

Page 3 of 3

GGAI FLOW XLS

OVERALL FLOW DIAGRAM FORGREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (GGAM)

CENTER FOR GLOBAL CHANGE AND SEIt-BOSTON

From DOS Prmpt type GGAMor from Excel, openCAIGGAM\GGAM_BEGXLM'.

Automabc racru opens and hides macroand utility workshe.t fibs, opens and showsTite screen file, offers options:

Make New AcxistinProject ~~~~~~~~ProjectOpens dialog box asking for four-characWecode for new project Offers choice ofentering annual/total costs, annual/annual average output Checks to see that code is Opens dialog boxnot 'XXXI' and is not tie same as an existing lbshng file names andcode. desriptonsf fr

existing projects inif code is invalid, CA~GGAM\PROJECTSrequests new directory:code from user [;c-; sok...jC]

Opens inp template sheet UtoT lcossLS. *Posrtions user in first data input screen.Provides optons for choice of GEFtechnologies, fuel emission factor type

i k. reference technologies, At end of inputscreens: new_directory

Save Data to Opens tio ofFlaes spreadsheets

corresponding toproject -IPT_????-'SUM???? (hidden)v CMP_????

Opens summary template sheet 'SUM XXX1 .XLS' andcompanson template sheet 'CMP_XXX1 XLS. copiesrelevant reference technology data ftrom files inC:%GGAM\REF_SUM\ directory to 'CMP_?7?? XLS'/recalculates files, and saves to c %GGAM\PROJECTDirectory under code provided by user

A116

Posibons user at top of Corpanson ('CMP_????.XLS') sheet. Providesmenu options to View (and after viewing Print) reports and graphs. retumto Input sheet, make a New Soenano based on current project Exotsystem. Save fils, Change GWP factors in use. access area for andchange Reference technoiogy data.

REVIEW DRAFT 12115192

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

SPREADSHEET SYSTEMPREPARED FOR THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY OF THE

WORLD BANK

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

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

1. Calculation of hleat Production or Savings

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

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

(Primary plus Secondary Fuel Consumption In GJ).

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

Cell Locations: 152 to 184

I

2. Calculation of Primary and Secondary Fuel Inputs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cell Locations: J52 to KS4

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

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

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

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

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

Cell Locations: P52 to R84

4. Emissions from Combustion of Primary and Secondary fuels

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

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

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

Cell Locations: B142 to AC177

S. Emissions from Use of Secondary Technology

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

Formulae: Annual Emisslons (by Pollutant), Secondary Technology Use (Tonnes) =Annual Use of Secondary Technology (units) xPollutant Emission Factor (kg/unit)/1000

Cell Locations: AD 142 to AQ177

3

6. Annual Total Biomass Present Net of Initial Stocks (for Projects Involving BiomassPlantations)

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

Annual Biomass Stock (Dry T/ha) -Pre-Project Biomass Stock (Dry T/ha)Cell Locations: 131142 to B1177

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

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

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

8. Incremental Tonnes Carbon Stored lly Project (for Biomass lPlantations)Description: These formulae convert the incremcntal biomass storage figures, calculated as above on aper-hectare basis, to estimates of the total annual incremental carbon stored in each yearof operation of the proposed project. This quantity is equal to the per-hectare biomassstored in each project year times the quantity of carbon per unit biomass times the area ofthe biomass plantation in hectaircs. For the purpose of this calculation, it was assumedthat there are approximately 0.5 tonnes carbon in each dry tonnc of biomass. The areaof the biomass plantation is cnicred by the user in data input sheet SI.

4

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

Annual Additlonal Blomass Stored In Subsequent Prolect Years (Dry T/ha) =

Annual Additional Blomass Stored (Dry T/ha) xTonnes Carbon/Dry Tonne Blomass xArea of Blomass Plantation (ha)

Cell Locations: BK142 to BK177

9. Incremental Tonnes CO2 Stored By Project (for Biomass IPlantations)

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

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

Cell Locations: BL142 to BL177

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

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

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

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

5

WHERE Processo =Prlmary Fuel Use, Secondary Fuel Use,Secondary Technology Use, Other Technology Use, andBiomass Plantations.

Cell Locations: A186 to P193

11. GEF Project Data To Be Used For Comparison

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

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

Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, Secondary Fuel Use

Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, T/GWH(Ihor elect (Other Technologies) =Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, Secondary Technology Use +Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, Other Technology Use +Disc. Emissions/Storage (CO2) Per Unit Output, Biomass Plantations

FOR Project Capital CostsIF Electricity Generation Capacity > 0Discounted Capital Costs per Unit Capacity (S/MW,*1¢)=

1000000 x Discounted Total Capacity Costs Over Project Life IProject Electricity Generation Capacity (MW)OTHERWISEDiscounted Capital Costs per Unit Capacity (S/MWthermal)=

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

FOR Operations and Maintenance CostsIF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0Discounted O&M Costs per Unit Output (S/GWHe.de=

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

6

OTHERWISEDiscounted O&M Costs per Unit Output (S/GWHthrma0)=

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

FOR Project Construction PersonnelIF Ufetime Output of Electricity > 0Total Construction Personnel per Unit Capacity (Worker-yr/GWH*1*J=

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

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

Total Construction Labor to Build Project (Worker-yr) I(Lifetime Output of Heat (GJ) / 3600)

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

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

OTHERWISETotal O&M Personnel per Unit Output (Worker-yr/GWHthermal)=

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

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

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

1000090 x Discounted Total Capacity Costs Over Project Life /, Total Land Used For Facility / (

(Project Heat Generation Capacity (GJ/yr) / (8.76 x 3600))

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

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

OTHERWISEWater Use per Unit Output (Liters/GWHIhermal)=

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

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

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

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

7

OTHERWISEMaterial Use per Unit Output (LUters/GWHth,,,,a,)=

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

FOR Some Health and Safety Impacts (Covers, as Separate Categories, Total Injuries,Total Deaths, Lost Work Days by Plan Personnel, Lost Work Days by General Public,Worker Deaths during Plant Construction, and Deaths Among the General Public)IF Ufetime Output of Electrklty > 0Impacts per Unit Output (Number/GWH, 1J)=

Total Impacts Over Project Lifetime (per Category, Number) I(Lifetime Output of Electricity (GWH)OTHERWISEImpacts per Unit Output (Number/GWHtherma)=

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: In this part of the Comparison Spreadsheets, weighted average per-unit-output estimatesare calculated for each of the inputs, emissions and impacts of the set of the referencetechnologies for Ahich the proposcd GEF project would substitute. This is done for thecategories "Electricity Generation" (which is compared with the GEF project "PrimaryTechnology") and 'Other Fuel Cyclc Activities" (which are comparcd "Othcr Technologies"values estimated for Lhe GEF project). On GEF Project Data Input Sheet G, the userseiccts up to five differcnt Electricity Gcneration technologies, and their relative share oftotal electricity generated, that will he supplantcd by the proposed GEF projcct. Datacorresponding to these selections, and derived from the Reference Technology DataSummaries that are a part ol GGAM, are copied into the Comparison Spreadsheet, and aweighted average over the technologies selected is performed. On Input Sheet H, theuscr makes a similar scicction of up to two Heat-Producing Technologies. A weighted

8

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

sheet by the user, if applicable) for any other (non-electricity and non-heat) referencetechnologies and methane-emitting systems for which the GEF project would substitute.

In addition, for Air Pollutant and GHG Emissions (only), reference technology emissionsare discounted using the pollutant discount rate entered by the user in Project Data Input

Sheet B.

Formulae: FOR Air Pollutant and GHG Emisslons (14 Categories, for Best, High and Low Estimates):

Discounted Emissions Per Unit Output, T/GWH.Iect,rc (Elect. Generatlon Technology) =

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

WHERE *ref.tech.[1 to 5] are the values of the per-unit emissions (by Category) for

Reference Technologies 1 to 5, and *ref.tech.[1 to 5].fract Is the fraction of the total

electricity produced by the project that would have been produced using Reference

Technologies 1 to 5

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

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

Lifetime Output of Electricity 1 (3600 x Llfetime Output of Heat))+ ref.tech.other + ref.tech.CH4)/project lifetime]

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

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

WHERE *ref.tech.heat[1 to 2] are the values of the per-unit emissions (by Category) for

Reference Heat Production Technologies 1 and 2, *ref.tech.heat[1 and 2].fracr are the

fraction of the total heat produced by the project that would have been produced using

Reference Technologies 1 and 2, *ref.tech.other- are the values of per-unit emissions for

other fuel cycle activities in the Reference Technology, and ref.tech.CH4 are theemissions values for the methane-emitting reference technology to be avoided by the

proposed GEF project (if any).

FOR All Other Input, Emission, or Impact Categories (Best, High and Low Estimates):

Input/Emission/lmpact Per Unit Output, T/GWHelectric (Elect. Generation Technology) =

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

9

IF Ufetime Output of Electricity > 0InputlEmisslon/lmpact Per Unit Output, T/GWH *I*d (Other Fuel Cycle Technology) =[((ref.tech.heat.1 x ref.tech.heat.fract.1 +

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

OTHERWISEInput/Emission/Impact Per Unit Output, T/GWHthermal (Other Fuel Cycle Technology) =[(ref.tech.heat.1 x ref.tech.heat.fract.1 +

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

WHERE Variable definitions are as above.

Cell Locations: F24 to N74

13. Difference Calculations: GEF - Reference Technology

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

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

IF Lifetime Output of Electricity > 0lnput/Emisslon/impact Difference Per Unit Output, T/GWH,I,, (Electricity GenerationTechnologies, Other Fuel Cycle Technology, and Total) =

Reference Tech. lnput/Emission/lmpact Per Unit Output, T/GWHelec -GEF Project InputVEmission/Impact Per Unit Output, (T/GWH.1 ect)

OTHERWISElnput/Emission/lmpact Difference Per Unit Output, T/GWHthermai (Electricity GenerationTechnologies, Other Fuel Cycle Technology, and Total) =

Reference Tech. InpuVEmission/lmpact Per Unit Output, T/GWHtherml,.GEF Project InpuVEmission/lmpact Per Unit Output, (T/GWHthe,mal)

Cell Locations: P21 to X74

14. Carbon-Equivalence Calculations

Description: In order to be able to comnprc projects that produce varying amounts of the dilfcrcntGHG species, GGAM includes .i Liility for converting the mass of each species it)'Carbon Equivalcnts", which pro% ides an estimate of what quantity of carbon dioxidewould have the same effect on climate as the GHG species emitted. Making thiscalculation involves simply multiplying the mass of each GHG estimated to be cmitted by

10

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

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

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

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

Cell Locations: A98 to X114

15. Reduction in Emissions Over Life of Project

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

l l

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

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

Total Reference Tech. Emissions (Tonnes Carbon/GWH,*1 ,) xUfetime Output of Electricity (GWH,I,ct)

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

Total Reference Tech. Emissions (Tonnes Carbon/GWHth.,fml) xLifetime Output of Electricity (GWHthermal)

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

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

Cell Locations: A214 to X221

16. NPV Cost per Tonne Carbon Equivalent Emissions Reduced

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

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

NPV Cost per Tonne Carbon Equivalent Emissions Reduced (S/T Carbon Equiv.) =NPV Cost of GEF Project (Million $) x i 000000 /Lifetime Reduction In GHG Emissions by Project (Tonnes Carbon Equivalent)

Cell Locations: D214 to D221

12

DIAGR CS.XLS 8/28/92

OVEAVIEW DIAGRAM OF GOAM SPIlEADSHEETS

BLOCKS SHOW APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF INFORMATION

SPREADSHEET TYPE: COMPARISON ('C0M_)O0(#.XLS'

F1 to F4: Tiltec, ProJoct Namge, centario DoscrIptlon

AS to C14: SAlertlon of

Elactrlrlty Gonerationr

Toeclnologies In Relerence

Alternativo, with fuol shares.

A18 to N66. Comparlson of pePr- 13 to XGO; DIFFERENCE (ifpe-coste, lend andM watvr uYu, ritttetrlaisI

unit costs, land and water use,

materlals use, alr pollutants and use, &fr pollutantsand GHGemissions, health and safety and

GHG emlsslons, health and ohrIpcs o E s bs"

salety and other Impacts, for GEF other impacts for GEF vs. "best,

vs. "best", 'high" and hlow'gh" and "low" estImates forostimates for reference reforence technology. Differonce

calculated as Reference-GEF.teclhrnology. _ _:

A70 to X1D6: Calculation of emissions of GHGs and poilLutants with

Indirect eff ects on GHG concentrations on a carbon-equlvalont basis.

A72 to D87 Set of Global

Warming Potential factors In use.

A90 to X106: Report of Emisslons on a carbon equivalent basis per

GWHe, for emissions from GEF project and Reference Technology

(best, high, low) plus dlfferences (Reference(best, high, low) minus

IGEF).

A110 to R163 Per-unit costs, land and water use, materials use,

air pollutants and GHG emissions, health and safety and other

Impacts, for best', "high" and "low' estimates for each of the up

to five refe"ence technologies selected In A5 to C14, above.

A 6S to (varias): Ca:cuia ion of per unit values of other fuel cycle

Imp3cts fcr reference tec"inologies. as necessary.

A ,90 to -227. Summ3-y Tables and graphs contrastig air and GHG

emissions fo- GEF and Reference technology range. Three types of

comparisor graphs and tables are given: Non-GHG air pollulants In

physical units. GHG emisslons In physical unhts (LOG SCALE PLOT).

anca GHG em:sslons on a caroon equivalent basis.

DIAGF SS.XLS 0/28/92

OVEFIVIEW DIAGRAM OF GGAM SPREADSHEETSBLOCKS SHOW APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF INFORMATION

SPREADSHCET TYPE: SUMMARY ('SUMY)O(#.XIS7

E3G Qoiefal Pecjct P2 to (varlos): AddiltionalInformation: Name, a5sumprlons and calculationsTochnologles used, exptctws used In estimating technicalonergy/heat savings and parafrtiters for which data IscapacitileC. coct6, heat ratee... not avallable (11 i1eceziry).

80 to H76 Other prol utIiiformation: Additional costdata, land and water use,materials use, health andSalety and othier (non-airemission) impacts.

A78 to P85. Coefflclents used to estimate emissions of alr pollutants andG-Gs for each type of combustion fuel used and secondary tecltiologyused In the project.

A87 to P95: EstImates of annual total emisslons of air pollutants andGHGs, for each type of combustlon fuel used, secondary techinologlesused, and other fuel cycle technologles.

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

... ~ ~ ~.-

'All 1 to D160: Preparation of GEFproject data for use Incomparlson spreadsheet: costs

'land and water use, materials, airpollutants and GHG emis6ions,other impacts expressed In tormsof Electricity output (or capacitylPrlmary and secondarytechnology.

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

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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


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

8. Bhandyopadayaya, 1988.


10. Warrick. R. and A.A. Rahman. 1992. "Environmental and Socio-political Aspects of Sea-Level Rise." in 1.Lintzer. ed.. ConfrontinE Climate Change' Risks Implications and Resp,nie. Stockholm EnvironmentInstitute and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

l. Gleick. Peter H., 1992. "Impacts of Climate Change on Internationally Shared Fresh-Water Resources," in1. Mintzer, ed., Op. Cit.

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

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

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

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

17

GGAM Project Input SheetsBLANK INPUT FORM

FUe: IPT_XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET A

LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATON:1 Who is the Task Manager on this projed?

In which Country will the project vwil be bcated?

Please provide a name for the proposed GEF project:hat will be the principal technology used to generate

or save electricity (press the button or type directly)? | NONE>If another major technology vwill be rquied for this project(e.g. gas transport, or coal mining) and is expected to havesignificant environmental impacts, pease enter the name of the'secondary' technology here (press button or type directly): Coal mining-undergroundHow is the output of the secondary technology,measured, e.g. in GJ/yr. or tonresyl IWhat pollution contol technolgies. If any, vill beimplemented in the proposed GEF project?

LEVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? ? NO GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETIUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? NO 1

t~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-It,s


FUe: IPT XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET B

PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

. What wiv be the rus yer of proqet operations? 994* What is te ewecUtd operabng lifetime of the project? 2 aY"s Go To

10. What Is e ev ed eonornic lifetime of the project? 25JYears PreviousWhat is V expected tetjme of the loan Inputassocated with me prqect? [ijYea m Sheet

12. This prorm u#S tew expected economic lifetime of the projec s dehut valueThis value determfnfs how many years of cost and output data are to be coleded.If a diffeent value a more approprate. please enter it here: Years

13. What ite discount rate to be applied to monetry ftows? 5 Pwrentyr

14. What is he dMscount rate to be applied to pollutant emissions? 0 Pect/yr15. Whet is e expeded electncity generation capacity provided

or dispaced by ths prolect7 [1|M w Go To16. What Is the heat generaton or saings capacity Next

ultimatety expeded from De proget? GJy Input17. What Is the capa of the secondary technology Sheet

to be used (if applicable)? | N/A

12/15/92

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ f3GGAM Project Input Sheets

BLANK INPUT FORM

File: IPT XXX1.XLS

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

GJ per20 Please enter-or edd the heat contents of the input Pnrmary Fuel 0.03545 Cubic meterfuels, in GJ per unit shown at far right (rf appicable). Secondary Fud 29.31 Tonne1. What fraction of the energy input to the project wPIi te pnmary and 1Pnmary Fuel t0Cthe secondary fuels provide (if applicable) in Percent of total? Secondary Fuel22 Press the appropriate button to enter the plant efficiency (electricity output/fuel input) in:OR

Please enter the plant efficiency here: 100|kWtVGJ Fuel Input23 What is the expected heat or stem genertion effciency(heat energy output per unit fuel input)? Note that uness no electncityis produced, GGAM assumes that the project is a cogeneration system. I GJ/GJ Fuel Input

. (Go To Previous Input Sheet) Go To Next Input Sheet

12/15/92

rf,


Fie: IPT-XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET DI

PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:

24. What is the expected annual avrage electricity generaion or savngs? |GWh

25. What is the expected annual avenrge heat generation or savings? |GJ26. What is the expected annual erage use ot the secondary tecnlgy 1N/A

Go To Previous In put Go To Next Input SheetSheet

12/15/92


Fle: IPT XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET D2 PvusShIet etee t24. to 26. YEAR-8Y-YEAR PROJECT OUTPUTS _ . , i

Use of Use ofElecL Prod. Hea Prod. Secondary Elc. Prod. Heat Prod. Secondaryor Savigs or Savings Technology or Saving or Savings Technology

YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A) YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A)1994 1000 20091995 1000 2010199w 1000 20111997 1000 - 20121998 1000 20131999 1000 20142000 1000 20152001 1000 20162002 1000 20172003 1000 201820034 10002005200620072008

12/15/92


Fie: IPT )O l.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET El

PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:

27 What wil be the net present value of the total oosts of GHGreduction for the p*.c? ' 1 Milon US 1992

2B What will be the net present vsalu of the capital costs

for the prnary teobgy ud n thin prject? [ Miion US 1992

29 What will be the net prsent value of the opeatirg costs| nurred over the lifti of the pret (primary technology)? S Milon US 1992

3 What will be the net prsernt value of the capital costsfor the scordary technology used h this project? 7 iln US 1992

1. What will be the net present value of the opeamting costs

incurred over the liftme of the project (secondary technology)? [i I] Milan US 1992

Go To Previous Input Go To Next Input SheetSheet

12,'Ic) 'V


File: IPT )OO1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET E2 f 1[ Prviou Shet ] Next Sheet27. to 29. Yeay-ly-Year Project Costs (PrbnaryTech.) I )cosTs COSTS

(Million 1992 US Dollars) (Million 1992 US Dollars)Cost of GHG Capitla Openrting S Cost of GHG Capital Operating S

YEAR Reduction Costs Maint. Costs YEAR Reducion Costs Maint. Costs199.4 _ 1 200S1995 1 20101996 1 20111997 1 20121998 1 20131999 1 20142000 1 20152001 1 20162002 1 20172003 1 20182004 12005200620072008

_ ____

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET E330. to 31. Yeay4By-Year Project Costs (Secondary Technology)

COSTS COSTS(Million 1992 US Dollars) (Million 1992 US Dolars)

Capdal Operating 8 Capital Operating PreviousYEAR Costs Maint. Costs YEAR Costs Maint. Costs Sheet1994

20091995 20101996

20111997

2012 N1998 2013| 1999 2014 Sheet2000

20152001

20162002

20172003

20182004200520062007

2008

12/15/92


Flle: IPT )Otl.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET F

32. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOIaNG INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORS

TO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGSIAIR POLLUTANTS.Now Using: Energy Units

SOURCE UNITS Paflic. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.

Comb.: Primary Fuel kg/GJ 1.OE-01 I.OE-t1 2.OE-01 2.OE.02 3.OE-04 2.OE-O1 2.0E0Comb.: Secondary Fuel i#GJ

Secondary Technology N/A

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

Comb.: PScndary Fuel kg/GJ 5.0E+01 2.OE-01 2.OE 02 0.0E+00 0.0E+W 0.0E+00 0.0Ev00

Comb.: Secondary Fuel kgtGJ

Secondary Technoogy N/A

Go to Previous Sheet Go to Next Sheet

12? 15 92


Fie: IPT )O1 .XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET G

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

Reference Preo buttons Refrence Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Electricity

Number from Tech list Chosen GeneratedI (C hooseRTecho I al-° red boiler. conv. 100 PercentGo to ~ jeh

Previous 2 QZoorTech2I) (NONE) - PercentInput ChoosRefTech 2Sheet 3 CIi~ii) (NONE)Peet

Go to CooseReTech (NNE) PercentNextInput 6 ((NONE)

PercentSheet__ _ _ _

TOTAL| 100|

12/15/92


File: IPT XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET H

34 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-

PRODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Heat

Number from Yech list Chosen Produced

Go to 1 Choose Ret Tech I (NONE) T 1001PercentPrevious

InputSheet 2 Choose Ref Tech2 J(NONE) Percent

Write Data to File. Call Go To Projectin Ref Tech Data, and Comparison Sheet w/o TOTAL

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

12/15/92


Fie: IPT XXX1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET SI: BIOMASS

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

NO(rype In YES- or -NO- to chang, choice)PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOING INFORMATION ABOUT THE BIOMASS PLANTATIONIFUVESTING OPERATION PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT1 What is the area of the bioronss or forestry plantation or

the area to be harvested, in hectares? lO10011. How would you characterize the current (pre-project) state of the land that will be harvested or usedfor the bgo" plantaion (press the button or type directly)? Agrodoresry Operation

Ill. What type of bomat panrtaion (or oer land type) w Select PT P( Select Post.Projectbe created as a resu4t of the project (press the button arTpeLdor type dfirecy)7 ?TreePlantation: Mediun Trees

IV. What is the cunent stock of biotass on the land to be used, in tonnes of dry wood per hectare? (Enter arigure directty or ue the defauft value provided) 1 41.00

Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Sheet

fPROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET S2: BIOMASStV. What is cxpectect to be the averag dock of bionas on the plantffor. durng Ithe prtect, hi tonnes of drywood per hectare? (Enter figure or use default value provided) |

40.00VI. If available. enter beow the average annual stock of bioffass on the platation, by project year. over the liler the proect in dry tonnes of wood or bonass per hectare. Be sure to enter a value for each year in whichhe stock of bnas.s il be non-zero. n you lee this section blank GGAM w assume that the value that yountered (or accepted) tor question V. Is the avrage annial stock for the life of the project.Stock Stock StockYEAR (dry te/ha) YEAR (dry te/ha) YEAR (dry teha)1994 10 2004 85 2014

106,1995 20 2005 90 2015t I!1996 30 2006 95 20161997 40 2007 100 2017

881998 50 2008 100 2015 o1999 60 2009 100

2000 65 2010 1002001 70 2011 1002002 75 2012 1002003 80 2013 100


12/15$92


Flie: IPT )O l1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET S3: METHANE COLLECTION

DOES THIS PROJECT INVOLVE COLLECTING

METHANE FOR USE IN THE PRODUCING NO

iECTRiCiTY OR HEAT? (Type in 'YES' or N to change choice)

E ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE METHANE COLLECTION

ERATION PROPOSED FOR THiS PROJECT:

VIl. What fraction of te metharn coected for use as a fuel would hae been reeased to the atmosphere

in the absence of the colkection operation? This vakie wil typicalty depend on the pre-project

practices used for, for example, coal mine ventiation, tremenlt of iestock wastes, or disposal

of municipal solid wastes.

Enter a fracton in percent: 1 Prcernt


12/15/92

IA -


(GGAM)

PROJECT:ECUADOR: REFORESTATION OF DEGRADED AMAZON LAND

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:

THE CENTER FOR GLOBAL CHANGE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

AND

THE STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE--BOSTON CENTER

REVIEW DRAFT 12/15/92

I

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITYPROJECT DESCRIPTION

ECUADOR: Bostrosa Carbon Sequestration ProjectO)VERVIEW:

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

GELCONTRIBUTION TOPROJECT COST: Grant of US$ 2.5 millionGEFF COSNT OF AVOIDED CABNEMISSIONSClaLflLidscuntrate fr emiusiQons:

US$ 4/tonneGtLOBPAL WARMIING-B ENEEIT OF T-HE-PROP()S D-PRO.IECT

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

UNRESOLVED OUESTIONS:

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

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

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

I

ECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS:

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

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

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

CRITICAL FACTORS IN THIS ANALYSIS:

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

SPECIAL NOTE:

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

2

H.3

GGAM Project Input SheetsECUADOR PROJECT

File: IPT_ECU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET SI: BIOMASS

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

ype In YES of NO to change choice)E ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE BIOMASS PLANTATION/STING OPERATION PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT

What Is the are of the biomass or forestry plantation orthe arem to be harvested, in hectares?

1. How would ypu charactenze the current (pre-prqect) state of the and that wil be harvested or usedfor the bomss plantation (press the button or type directly)? Degraded nds

III. What type of bimass plantaion (or other land type) will 5lec Pc ect S*kt Post-Projectbe crated as a result of the prect (press t he Type boand Tye Jor type directly)? [Tree Plantation: Large Trees

V. What Is the current stock of biornass on the land to be used. in tonnes of dry wood per hectre? (Enter afigure directly or use the default value provKed) 42

| Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Sheet 3

12 14 92


Fle: IPT ECUI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET S2: BIOMASSV What b expectd to be the avere tock of bma orn the pantation durig te pe ki tong. of dry

wood per hectare? (Enter fgure or use default value posided) 60.00I If available, enter below the averago annual stock of biornass on the plantation, by project year. a the lifeof the proiect, in dry tons of wood or btoms per hecte Be srwe to nter a vakue for each ye which

sthe ock of blomss wiU be non-zero. If you a thIs section blank, GGAM will assume VWut tvalue t youm|er d (or accepted) for question V. i the aveage annual stock for the fe of the prnjeStock Stock Stock

YEAR (dry teha) YEAR (dry teha) YEAR (dry hlh)1993 0.00 2013 73.90 2033 73.41994 3.38 2014 73.88 2034 73.481995 9.5s 2015 73.84 2035 73.41996 17.53 2016 73.79 2036 73.481997 26.99 2017 73.74 2037 73.4a1998 37.73 2018 73.69 2038 73.4a1999 46.12 2019 73.65 2039 73.482000 52.52 2020 73.61 2040 73.482001 57.61 2021 73.58 2041 73.2002 62.07 2022 73.55 2042

2003 65.41 2023 73.53 20432004 67.97 2024 73.52 2044 73.2005 69.89 202s 73.52 2045 73.2006 71.29 2026 73.49 2046 73.2007 72.28 2027 73.49 2047 73.2008 72.6 2028 73.48 2048 7.2009 73.40 2n0s 73.48 2049 73.2010 73.68 2030 73.48 2050 73.2011 7382 2031 73.482012 73.89 2032 73.4a


12/14/92


Fie: IPT ECU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET BPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOVWNG GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:8. What will be the first year of project operations?

199* What is the expected operating lifetime of th projec? S Yeers Go To10. What is the expected ecorotmc lfetime of the project? [7 Years Previous11. What is the expected lifrime of the loan Inputassociated with the project?

Years Sheet12. This program uses the expected ecoir lifetime of the project as the detaul vaue.TNs value determines how many years of cost and output data are to be colleced.If a different value is more appropnate, please enter it here: . _tYers13. What is the discount rate to be appled to monetary fkws? [ 5J PercentUyr14. What is the discount rate to be applied to polutant emissions? 0 o Percentyr15. What is the expected electricity generation capacity provided

or displaced by this project? OMW Go To16. What is the heat generation or savhs capacity

Nextultimately expected from the project? r |GJtyr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technobgy Sheetto be used (if applicable)?

I/ A

12114 92

?4


Fie: IPT ECU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET C

LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOVING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. What W;U be the P ary hpA uW for the prd (if applicable)? [cNONE3 I19. What wiN be the secondaty Input fuel for the prtect (if applicable)? |<NONEDr

GJ per20. Pea enter or editthe h tg cortts of he nput Priary Fuel 0

fuels, in GJ per unit shown at far rfgM (if applcable). Sooondary Fuel 0 C1. What fraction of th erwgy hpu to the prjed wUI the pnrny aid rmryFu 100:

the secondary fuels provide (if appikab) in Percet of total? Scondary Fuel2Z Press the approprute bAton to entr the plant efficiency (electricy outpuVel nput) in

OR

Pls enter the pbant effciency here: 1C|Per ernWhat is the expeded heat or atem gneration efrciency

(heat energy output per Unit fuel nput)? Note that uness no electricityis produced GGAM assumes that the prect its acogeneation system. 1 GJIGJ Fuel Input


12/14/92

l-t -,


Fie: IPT ECU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET DIPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:24. What is the expcted annual average ectricity generation or savings? olGWh

25. What ts the epected annual average hat generation or savings? [IO|GJ

26. What is the eNpected annual average use ot the secondary technoog? 1 1 ] N/A


12/14/92


Fie: IPT ECU1.XLS


PEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:27. What wl be fthrnt preset vae of the total costs of GHG

reduction for th proct? [ Milion US 199228. What wi be the net present value of the capia costs

for the pnmary technology used n Uths proct? | Million US 199229. What wil be the net present ve oten oeati costs

incued over the Efetm of t pr (prary technology)? [Z $S Mltion US 1992What win be the net psent value of the capital ostsfor the secondary technology used in this project? ] Mion US 1992

1. What will be the net present VANe of te opert costs

incurred ae the lifetime of te projec (secondary technology)? [ Miln US 1992


12/14/92

GGAM Prolect Input SheetsECUADOR PROJECT

Fle: IPT ECU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET F32. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORSTO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGStAIR POLLUTANTS

|Now Using: |Energy |Units

SOURCE UNITS Paftic. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aklehyd.Comb.: Primary Fuel kglGJ Q.OE4OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OEOO O.OE+OO O.OEV0O O.OE*00Comb.: Secordary Fuel kgtGJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-lt CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Pnmary Fuel kg/GJ O.OE+OO O.oE.00 O.OE.00 O.0E40O O.OE.OO O.OE+00 O.OEC00Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A


12/14/92

4Alc

GGAM Project Input ShootsECUADOR PROJECT

Fie: IPT ECU1.XLS



Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Ecrkcity

Nunber from Tech list Chosen GeneratedGo to I Chooe RotTech1 I 100 Pecent

Previous 2 Cwos# RefTech 2 (NONE) PercerdInputSheet 3 Chooe Rot Tech 3 (NONE) |Pcen

Go to 4 ( Chooe RefTech 4 ) ZNONE) |PercenNextInput 5 Choose Rf Tech 6 r(NONE) PercentSheet

____

TOTAL lOOj

12, 14 92

""~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AI

GGAM Project Input SheotsECUADOR PROJECT

File: IPT ECUI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET H4 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-PROOUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons ReSerence Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology HeatNurmber from Tech list Chosen ProducedGo to Choose RefTech 1 )NONE) 100 PercentPreviousInput

Sheet 2 Choose RefTech2 )(NONE) Percent

WriteData to

TOTAL |File

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryECUADOR PROJECT

Fie: CMP ECUi.XLS

SUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS Erissions discounted at 0.0%/yrErmisions in ta4h

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref est Refd4gh Ref-LowPM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Co 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NMHC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Emissions In tWhGHGS GEF Ret-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 1.OE-12 26E+t 7.1E+1 1.OE-12CH4 t.OE-12 1.0E-12 - ,t E-12 1.0E-12N20 1.OE-12 1D.E-12 -1.OE-12 1.0E-12

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Enissions discounted at 0.0%/yrEmdssions in to C .qJha

GAS GEF Re sfa Ref-High Ref-LowC02 -1.1 E+2 ,,. 7.. , - 1.9E+1 ,-4.6E+1CH4 ".OOEO E.OOE -E .OOE' '.0 ' 'O.OE+ON20 - 0.OE.0 0.E-.0 O.OEO 0.OE.0NOx O.OE 0.OEO - 0.OE4O O.OE4OCO 0.OE+0 0.OE+0 O.OE*O O.OE4ONMHC 'O.OEO 0.E0+ -O.OE.O '-O.OE4TOTAL -1.1 E+2 7.2E.0 1.9E.1 -4.6E+1

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Errissions discounted at 0.0%tyrReduction In NPV Cost of

Emissions over ReductionProject Ufh (19B2 S US per

CASE (T C Equiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF S3.54Reference-High minus GEF 627E+05 S3.19Referernce-Low minus GEF 2D8E+05 50.72

12 14 q2

nb


Fle: CMP_ECU1.XLS

Comparison of Emisslons: GEF Proct vs.Altrnative Tchnology

1.00

0180l

*~0.60 E

-~0.40 0RtBs0.20

0.00 Q.o

Comparison of GHG Emlslons: GEF vs.Altrnative Techly

1.0E+2

CompaE on ol GEFoInCEuv:GFv

20E+1

*O .OE.0_ ',,n1.OE+t ip H l

n Ref-sest

io-1 E+21

1.OE.2

C02 CI1l N2O

Comparison of Emlisaons In Q~ Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

2.OE+ 1O.OE+0 -

0 2.OE+l -4.OE+i EGEF

49OE: o Rf-es-1.OE+2

*1.2E.2

12 i4,92


File: CMP ECUI.XLS

Comptb son of Emssions: GEF Protoct vs.Aternative Technology

1.00

0.80

00 GE0-~0.40 [J Ref-Best

0.20

0.001

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

l OE+2

1 OE-1 GEF

41.OE.2

CompaHson d Embson In C Equh GEF vs.Aftmrbtlv Technology

5.OE + 1

ODE + 0-5.OE+1 o GEF

I*-.OE.2

-1.5E+2 Ret-Bstt-2.OE.2

-2.5E +2

12/14/92

'"'1GGAM Project Comparison Summary

ECUADOR PROJECT

File: CMP ECUI.XLS

Reduction In GHG Emi.lons

minus GEFRwssn.4h _____________________

minus GEF

minu GEF

O.OOE + 00 5.OOE+ O5 1.OOE +06 1.50E+06

Tonnes Carbon Equhv.

NPV Cost of Roduction

m GEF

minus GEF

Raftncs.4."minus GEF

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

1992 $ US per T Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92

Al


Fie: CMP ECU1.XLS


PtfYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 3.0%/yr

Enmlssons In to/h

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-ea R1f44igh Ref-Low

PM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SOx 0.00 0.00 0O. 0.00

NOx 0.00 0.00 o.0 0.00

CO 0.00 0.00 o.00 0.00

NMHC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Erissions in toaGHGS GEF RefA Bea Ref4ilgh Ref-Low

C02 . .OE-12 1.7E+1 42E+1 1.OE-12

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

N20 - .OE-12 IOE-12 -1.OE-12 1.OE-12

CARBON EQUIVALE?(T UNffS Emissions disounted at 3.0%tyr

Efissions In to C oqJhaGAS GEF Ref4Bed Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 -5.5E+1 - 4.5E.0,, 1.2E+1 -1.8E+1

CH4 QOE+0 . -. 0.0E4O - OOE.O 0.OE40

N20 OOE*0 =.0 E O- -OE0 .OE+0

NOx O.OE+O OOE#O OOE.O EOOE+O

CO O.OE.O 0(E)0 OOEEO OOEi0NMHC 0.OEO0 OEO OOEO Q.OE.O

TOTAL -S.5E-1 4.5E+0 1.2E.1 -1.8E-1

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at 3.0%/yr

Reduction in NPV Cost of

Env" -ons over Reduction

P .^j Uft (19S2 3 US per

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

Referenrce-Best minus GEF 2.98E+O0 $6.70

Reference-High minus GEF 3 33E*05 $IS00

Reference-Low mrws GEF I B4E'06 $10 88

12/14/92

H '9


File: CMP ECU1.XLS

Comparison of Emislions: GEF Project vs.Alternative Technology

1.00

0.50

UGEF0.60

l0.40 R f-Best0.20

0.00

Comparlson of GHG Emlsions: GEF vs.Alternative Techrnology

1.0E+2

; .OE+1 !GEF

1 .OE+0

El Ref-Best1.OE-1

1.0E-2 LC02 CH4 N20

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

1.OE + 0OE+0 _ 9 § }G0 -1.OE+1 I

UGEF-2.OE+1I-3.OE + I1RfBa-4.OE + I

12/14/92


File: CMP ECU1.XLS

Roducion In GHG Emissions

miu GEF

mnnus GEF

minus GEF

O.OOE 5.OOE 1.00E 1S50E 2.OOE 2.50E 3.OOE 3.50E+00 +04 +05 +05 +06 +05 +05 +05

Tonnes Carbon Equlv.

NPV Cost of Rduetlon

minur GEF

min GEF

m,nus GEF

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

1992 S US per T Carbon Equil.

12 14 92


File: CMP ECU1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Enissions discounted at 10.0%/yrEmissions In te/ha

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref4est Ref4igh Ref-LowPM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 000NMHC 0.00 0.00 0.00 000

Ernisions in te/haGHGS GEF Ref41est Ref4figh Ref-LowC02 1.0E-12 8.3E+0 20E-1 1.0E-12CH4 1.0E-12 7.0E-12 1.0E-12 1.OE-12N20 1.OE-12 1.0E-12 1.0E-12 1.0E-12

CARBON EOQUVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yrEmnssions in te C *qJha

GAS GEF Ref-Sest Ref-High Ref-LowC02 -1.5E+1 23E640 &54E.0 -5.0E+6CH4 0.0.0 0.0.0 Q.+ OE40 O .OE+ON20 O.OE+O 0.0E+0 O.OE.O .OE40.NOx O.OEO O.OEO 0.0E0 0.0E+CO O.OEO O.OE+O 0.E40 O.OE.ONMHC 0.OE+O O.OE+O 0.0E+0 O.OEOTOTAL -1.5E+1 2-3E+0 5.4E+O -5.OE+0

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emniiions discounted at 10.0%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of

Emiss.ons over ReductionProject ULe (1992 S US per

CASE (T C Equiv.J T C Equiv.)Reference-Best msnus GEF 8 83E+04 S266Reference-High minmus GEF I 04E+M S1926Reference-Low minus GEF 5 20E 04 S38.43

12/14/92


File: CMP_ECU1.XLS

Compoarson of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Akmative Technology

1.00

0.80

c , 0.60 GEF0 401 0 Ref-Best

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Altlativ Technology

1.OE + I

I.OE +O0 GEF

l.OE-1 _ Ret-Best

1.OE-2C02 CH4 N20

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

5 0E + O

O OE + O - -

5-50E + O GEFz 2

-1.0E +1 J Ref-Best|

t .5E +1-2.OE+1-0.0E01

-I.5E+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1? 14 92


File: CMP_ECU1.XLS

Roducdo In GHG Emissions

Poef..nc-Lowm.n.u GEF

mlnus GEF

mrn GEF

O.OOE 2.OOE 4.OOE 6.OOE 8.00E 1.OOE 1.20E+00 +04 +04 +04 +04 +05 +05


NPV Cost of Raducaon

muwf GEF

Reftrewc#Hgh'

m,.s GEF

$0.00 $10 00 $20.00 S30.00 $40.00

1992 S US p. T Carbon Equiv.

1. ,4/92

III

I


(GGAM)

PROJECT:INDIA: NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY PROJECT

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND


REVIEW DRAFT 12115/92

I


INDIA: Non-conventional Energy Project

OVFERVIEW:

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

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

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

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

LiLLCO()NTRIBUTION fL1IjRQEEC'T C'O-SI: USS 13 Million for wind systemsUSS 13 Million for PV systems(;EF UCOST O: AVOIDED CARBS$N EMIS/tnONs

aL&LDShdiccounl rate for emisrdons): US$ 6/tonne

II

Iiiii

I

GLOBALS WARMINGt UNEEITS OF IUTHE OPODSED PRO.IECT:

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

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


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

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

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

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

TECH.N'ILA.LASSUMPTIONS USED INTHIS ANALYSMIS:

I) The fraction of electricity supplied to the Indian grid from coal-fired power plants isapproximately 77%. The remainder is supplied from hydroelectric and nuclear electric facilitieswith insianificant emissions of greenhouse gases.

2) The average capacity factor of the wind electric systems is assumed to be 19%.3) The photovoltaics are assumed to replace kerosene lamps burning 4 hours per day.

2

I

CRITICAL A.CTORS IN THIS ANALYSIS:

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

Iii

I

GGAM Project Input SheetsINDIA PROJECT

FUe: IPT IND1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET APLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:I| Who is te Task Manager on this proj?ct2 In which Country mll the project will be locsated? India

3 Please provoe a nmrne for the proposed GEF project: Non-Conventional EngW Project4- What mil) be the pnncipal technology used to generateor save electriciy (pro" the button or type diroctly)? lWind powr and Solar Photovotai (Eectricity)If another maor techology will be required for this proect (e.g. gas transpont or cocl mrning) and is kbpected to havesignificart envirorwnental impacts, plkee eer the name of the'secondary technologyre (presbAo or type directly): | NONE-

6 How is the output of the secondary technology,reasured, e.g in GJTyr. or tonneeyr?What pollution control technologies, if any, will be

implemented in the proposed GEF project? |LEVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? YES GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? [NO

1, '4 92

i

I

IiI


File: IPT IND1.XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:What will be the first year of project operations? 1994What is the expected operating lifetime of the project? 22 Years Go To

10. What is the expected econotic lifetime loan rot? 22 Years Previous11. What is the expected lifetime of the roan enpiut

associated with the project? 22|Years Sheet12. This program uses the expected economic lifetime of the projec s the default value

This value deterrnines how many years of cost and output data are to be coectedIf a different value is more appropriate, pleas enter it here Years

13. What is the discount rate to be applied to monetary flows? P Percent/yr14. What is the discount rate to be applied to pollutant enissions? 0 Percent/yr15. What is the expected electricity generation capaty provd

or displaced by this project? 89[Mw Go To

16 What is the heat generation or savings capacity Next Inpuultimatety expected from the project? |GJ/Y r Sheet17. What s the capacity of the secondary technologyto be used (if applicable)? | O|N/A

'14/92


Fie: IPT IND1 .XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:

18. What wiul be the pnmary input fuel for the propet (if applicable)? fW II]19 What viLl be the secondary input fuel for the proget (if applicable)? | Sol]

GJ per

20 Please enter or edit Ute heat contents of the inp Pnrnary Fuel 1 G=

fuels, in GJ per unt shown at far right (if applicable). Secondary Fuel 1 GJ21 What tractoon of the energy hnptUt to the projec wdll the plni nry an TnmAry-ru tel'°

tbe cordary fuels provide (if applicable) h Pcnt of totl? Secondary Fuel 20i

22 Press the appropnate bulton to enter the plant efficiency (ebcricity output/fuel input) in:

OR

Please enter the plant efficiency here: 100 I Percent

What is the eWPeded heat or steam genration efficency

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

is produce. GGAM assumes that the protect is a cogeneration system. ||GJ/GJ Fuel Input

I Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Sheet

12/14/92


File: IPT IND1.XLS

P TDATAINPUT SHEET D2 Previous Sheetj Next SheetKto26. YEARBY-YEAR PROJECT OUTPUTS __)

Use of Use ofElect. Prod Heat Prod. Secondary Elect. Prod. Heat Prod Secondary

or Savings or Savings Technology or Savings or Savings TechnologyYEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A) YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (NIA)1994 63.99 2009 161.621995 127.98 2010 161.621996 129.56 2011 161.621997 131.14 2012 161.621998 132.71 2013 161.621999 138.50 2014 161.622000 144.28 2015 161.622001 150.062002 155.842003 161.622004 161.622005 161.622006 161.622007 161.622008 161.62

12/14/92


File: IPT IND1.XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING PIFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:7. What will be the net present value of the total costs of GHG

reduction for the pjecd? [6|S Milion US 19928 What will be the net present value of the capital costs

for the prinmwy technology used in this projed7? [ $ Million US 199229 What wil be the net present value of the operating costs

incurred over the Ifetme of the proect (prinary technology)? [ J $ Million US 1992What will be the net present value of the capital costsfor the seconday thnolokW used in this project? [ $ Million US 1992

t What will be the net presnt value of the operating costsincurred over the lifetimw of the projet (secondary technology)? [ ] Mnion US 1992


1? 14/92


File: IPT IND1.XLS


32. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORSTO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGS/AIR POLLUTANTS E

Now Using: Energy Unrts

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Comb.: Pnmary Fuel kg/GJ 6.6E-02 3.4E-03 3.9E-03 2.3E-01 3.4E-03 1.1 E-04 2.OE-0Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Pnmary Fuel kg/GJ I1.9EO00 O.OE+00 0.0E+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+OdComb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJ



12114/92

GGAM Project Input Sheets

INDIA PROJECT

Fie: IPT_IND1.XLS


3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-

GENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARING

WITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons Refrence Fraction of

Technology To choose Technoogy Ekectricity

Nunber from Tech list Chosen Generated

Goto ( Qizoo eTec 311 Co ired boiler, conv. .24 Percent

Go to (Choose Ref Tech I ) F )|oarcnPrevious 2 F (N-O NE) Percent

InputChoeRfTc2Sheet 3 Ch R-t Tch 3 (NONE | |) Percent

Go to 4 (Choose Re Toch 4 (NONE) Percent

Next

Input Choos Rof Tech S ) (NONE) Percent

Sheet__ _ _ _

TOTAL | 77.24J

14/92


File: IPT IND1.XLS


. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-ROOUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARING



Number from Tech list Chosen Produced

Goto 1 Choos Rot Tch1 (NONE) 100 PercentPrevious

InputSheet 2 Choo" Ref Tech2 |(NONE) |PerCent

Write Data to File, Call Go To Projectin Ref Tech Data, and Conparison Sheet wto TOTAL rGo To Project Calling In Ref Tech DataComparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryINDIA PROJECT

Fie: CMP_IND1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissine discounted at 0.0%/yr

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

PM 0.19 3.69 28.20 0.5SOx 0.01 2.64 38.95 1.0NOx 0.01 3.13 55.81 0.CO 0.67 47.97 81.08 0.NMHC 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.

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

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

CARBON EQU/IALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yr

Emissions In te C. oq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 1.5E+0 1.2E+3 1.2E+3 1.2E+CH4 0.OE+O 4.4E-2 3.4E-2 2.7E-N20 0.OE+0 5.5E+0 9.OE+0 5.2E+NOx 1.2E-1 3.4E+ 1 6.1E+2 6.6E+CO 5.5E-1 3.9E+1 6.6E+1 4.8ENMHC 9.9E4 1.6E+0 1.6E+0 1.4E+TOTAL 2.2E+0 1.3E+3 1.9E+3 1.2E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted et 0.0%/yr

Reduction in NPV Cost ofEmissions over Reduction

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

Reference-Best minus GEF 4.21 E + 06 46.17Reference-High minus GEF 6.27E +06 S4.15Reference-Low minus GEF 3.84 E +06 S6.78

1 4/92


FUe: CMP IND1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Projoct vs.Alternative Technology

50.00

30.00 ;GEF

20.00 Ref-Best10.00.

0j00 m r-, i n

Comparison of GHG Emisslons: GEF vs.Altrnative Technology

1.OE + 4

1 .0E +3

1 0E+2 | GEF1 .OE +1 I

- 1.0EE+0 L Ret-Best1.OE-1

1 .OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

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

1.4E+3

1.2E+3j-[l' 1OE+3ne.OE+2 t : j ! *GEF60E+2 Ref-8est

' 4 0E+220E+2 j

|OOE +O0

14/92


Fie: CMP IND1.XLS

Reduction In GHG Ernmilons

mrrus GEFR..eWwlc.44Igt1

minus GEF

minus GEF

O.OOE 1.O0E 2.COE 3.WOE 4.ODE 5.OOE 6.OOE 7.00E+00 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06

Tonnes Carbon Equhv.

NPV Cost of Reducton

Rft,enc*-Lo-nsGEF

Rwf.e.nc.4.ghmmus GEF

-mus GEF

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00

1992 S US por T Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92


FHe: CMP IND1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS - Emlisions discounted at -3.0%/yrEmissions in te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.28 5.33 40.77 0.0SOx 0.01 3.82 56.33 1.5NOx 0.02 4.52 80.71 0.8CO 0.99 69.37 117.25 0.0NMHC 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.7

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

C02 8.1E+0 6.4E+3 6.5E+3 6.2E+3CH4 1.OE-12 1.1 E-2 8.7E-3 6.8E-3N20 1.OE-12 1.OE-1 1.6E-1 9.5E-2

CARBON EOQUIALENT UNITS Emissions discountd at -3.0%/yrEmissions in te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 2.2E+0 1.7E+3 1.8E+3 1.7E+CH4 O.OE+O 6.4E-2 5.OE-2 3.9E-N20 O.OE+O 8.OE+0 1.3E+ 1 7.5E +NOx 1.8E-1 4.9E+ 1 8.8E+2 9.5E+CO 8.1E-1 5.7E+1 9.6E+1 7.OE-NMHC 1.5E-3 2.3E+0 2.3E+0 2.1E+TOTAL 3.2E + 0 1.9E+3 2.8E + 3 1.7E +

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


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

Reference-Best minus GEF 6.09E + 06 S4.27Reference-High minus GEF 9.06E +06 S2.87Reference-Low minus GEF 5.55E+06 S4.69

*14192


File: CMP IND1.XLS

Compa,ton of Emissions: GEF Profect vs.Ameative Technology

70.0060.00

Coprlo o1.0 GEFosh ql Gfv

50.00 30.00~~~~~U E20-00

Ro~~~~~~~lRe-Beat20.0010.00

Comparlson of GH4G Emissions: GEF vs.Ahernave Technology

2.0E+3, 1.0E * 2

GEF_ 1.OE+ 1

1.OE+0 Ref-Bst

1.0E.i,

C02 CH4 N420

Comnparison of Emnissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternalive Technology

2.OE.3

-&1.5E+3

EGEF -1.OE +3

5.0E.2~ El Ref-Best

12/14/92


File: CMP_IND1.XLS

Roduction In GHG Emissions

m.inu, GEF

minu GEF

n GEF _

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

Tonnes Carbon Equiv.

NPV Cost of R.ductIon

GEm.tu GEF W___________________

minus GEF _

mfnus GEF

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

1 W2 S US por T Carbon Equiv.

12,'14/92


File: CMP_IND1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emlsions discounted t 3.0%/yrEmi"lons In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.13 2.67 20.42 0.04SOx 0.01 1.91 28.22 0.NOx 0.01 2.26 40.43 0.4CO 0.48 34.75 58.73 0.04NMHC 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.3

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 3.9E+0 3.2E+3 3.3E+3 3.1E+CH4 1.0E-12 5.6E-3 4.4E-3 3.4E-3N20 1.OE-12 5.OE-2 8.3E-2 4.8E-

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions disounted at 3 .O%/yr

Emissions In te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.1E+0; - . &8E.2 8.9E+2 8.4E+2CH4 0.OE+O 3.2E-2 2.SE-2 2.OE-N20 0.OE+0 4.OE+0 6.5E+0 3.8E+

NOx 8.6E-2 2.5E+1 4.4E+2 4.8E+CO 3.9E-1 2.8E+1 4.8E+1 3.5E-NMHC 7.OE-4 1.1E+0 1.1E+0 1.OE+TOTAL 1.5E+0 9.3E+2 1.4E+3 8.5E+

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

Emissions over ReductionProject Ufe (1992 $ US per

CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 3 O5E+06 S8.52Reference-High minus GEF 4.54E+06 S5.73Reference-Low minus GEF 2.78E+06 S9.36

12/14/92

T


Fie: CMP_IND1.XLS

Compsrl son of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alternative Technology

35.00 T3000

25I00 GU EF

-~20.00

15.00 E ~~~~~~~Ref-Best10.005.000.00 rn r_ _


1.OE +3 t

1 .OE +2 E GEFA, 1.°E+

I1.OE +0

Re-Besti.*E- 1.OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

Comparlson of Emissions In C. Equlv.: GE vs.Alternative Tochnology

180E+2

6 OE+2 - EGEF

4-0E+O . Ref-Best

2 10E2-2

2 OE + 2 ,r

00E.O-o :- -0,~ - _1 , 9

1214,'92

GGAM Project Comparlson SummaryINDIA PROJECT

File: CMP_IND1.XLS

R.ductlon In GHG Emlaionm

|menus GEFI efePnc_H.qh

-mus GEF

-ma GEF

O.OOE+ 1.00E+ 2.OOE+ 3.00E+ 4.00E+ 5.00E+00 05 06 06 06 06

Tomas Carbon Equhv.

NPV Cost of Roduetlon

mnus GEF

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

1992 S US per T Corbon Ejulv.

14/92


File: CMP IND1.XLS


PhYSICAL UNITS -Emissons discountd at 1 0.%/yrEmissions in te/GWHe


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

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

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yr

Emissions in te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 5.5E-1 4.8E+2 4.9E+2 4.6E+2

CH4 O.OE + O 1.8E-2 1.4E-2 1.1E-N20 O.OE+O 2.2E+0 3.6E+0 2.1E+NOx 4.5E-2 1.4E+ 1 2.4E+2 2.6E+CO 2.OE-1 1.6E+1 2.6E+1 1.9E-NMHC 3.7E-4 6.3E-1 6.3E-1 5.8E-1TOTAL 8.OE-1 5.1E+2 7.6E+2 4.7E+

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

Emissions over ReductionProject Ufe (1992 S US per

CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.68E+06 S15.47Reference-High minus GEF 2 50E+06 S10.41Reference-Low minus GEF 1 53E+06 S17.00

12,'14/92

1--


Fie: CMP IND1.XLS

Comporion of Emissions: GEF Project vs.NAtfnadve Technology

20.00

15.00

UGEF

5.00

0.00

Comparison of GHG Emilions: GEF vs.Alternaive Technology

1.E E+4

i 1OE+3~.1.OE +2 EGEF

1 1OE + 1

@ 1.0OE+0 _ Ref-Best1.O1E-1 K1.OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

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

6 0E + 2

5.OE+2.

_.OE I _4.2 OE* 2 1 KIU _ RGEF30E+2,

20E+2 R iI OE+2 ,

OOE+0

4 92

GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryINDIA PROJECT

File: CMP INDIXLS

R.ducton In GHG Emissions

minus GEF

minus GEf

mrnlnu GEf, _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O.OOE+ 2.OOE+ 4.OOE+ 6.OOE+ 8.OOE+ 1.OOE+00 06 06 06 06 07Tonnes Carbon Equhv.

NPV Coat of eductSon

ih

miuGEF,

minus GEF

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

12 14 92


Fie: CMP IND1.XLS


PHYSICAl. UNITS Emallons disoounted at 3.0%/yr

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

PM 0.13 2.67 20.42 0.04SOx 0.01 1.91 28.22 0.NOx 0.01 2.26 40.43 0.44CO 0.48 34.75 58.73 0.04NMHC 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.35


C02 3.9E+0 3.2E+3 3.3E+3 3.1E+3CH4 1.OE-12 5.6E-3 4.4E-3 3.4E-3N20 1.OE-12 5.OE-2 8.3E-2 4.8E-:

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emission disountod et 3.0%/yrEmihsions In te C. eq./GWHe

GAS . GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.1E+0 &8E+2 8.9E+2 8.4E+2CH4 0.0E+0 3.2E-2 2.5E-2 2.OE-2N20 0.OE+0 4.0E+0 6.5E+0 3.8E+NOx 8.6E-2 2.5E+ 1 4.4E+2 4.8E+CO 3.9E-1 2.8E +1 4.8E+ I 3.5E2NMHC 7.OE4 1.1E+0 1.1E+0 1.OE+TOTAL 1.5E+0 9.3E+2 1.4E+3 8.5E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emlsions discounted at 30%/yrReduction in NPV Cost of


CASE (T C Equlv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 3.05E +06 $8.52Reference-High minus GEF 4.54E+06 $5.73Reference-Low minus GEF 2.78E+06 $9.36

12/14/92

T


File CMP IND1.XLS

Compa4orn of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alternative Technology

35.00

3000j_ -

25.00j | GE |EGEF20'D0

5001Ref-Beet

0 00


1.OE + 4

1 .OE+3 .

j 1.0E+2 ' z ; & * GEF1.iOE+i 1

-1OEE+O O Ref-Best

1.OE-1 i1.OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

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

I OE+3

BOE.2-__zi 5OEE2 GEF

: -E - 2 Re(-Best

2 2

OE O- -

.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~119


File CMP_IND1 XLS

R.duction In GHG EmisslonsF~e'e'efl*L

- ,n GEF

- '.s GEF

-tos GEF

000E+ 100E+ 200E+ 3 00E+ 4.00E+ 50E+00 06 06 06 06 06

Tonn.s Carbon Equiv.

NPV Cost of Roducthon

i,e;s GHF

_--s GE;

SO-00 S2.00 $4.00 $6.00 S800 S1000

1992 S US per T Carbon Equlv.

12'14'92


File: CMP IND1.XLS


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



C02 2.OE+0 1.8E+3 1.8E+3 1.7E+CH4 1.0E-12 3.1E-3 2.4E-3 1.9E-3N20 1.OE-12 2.8E-2 4.5E-2 2.6E-2


Emissions In te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 5.5E-1 4.8E+2 4.9E+2 4.6E+2CH4 0.OE+0 1.8E-2 1.4E-2 1.1E-2N20 0.OE+0 2.2E+0 3.6E+0 2.1E+NOx 4.5E-2 1.4E+1 2.4E+2 2.6E+

CO 2.OE-1 1.6E+ 1 2.6E+1 1.9E-NMHC 3.7E-4 6.3E-1 6.3E-1 5.8E-1TOTAL 8.OE-1 5.1E+2 7.6E + 2 4.7E +

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions dlecounted at 10.0%/yr


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

Reference-Best minus GEF 1.68E + 06 15.47Reference-High minus GEF 2.50E +06 S10.41Reference-Low minus GEF 1.53E+06 S17.00

12114192


File: CMP IND1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEf Profect vs.Atrnatve Technology

20.00

10.0015.00 ril RGEBEs

0.00

l~~~~C a

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.AIternadve Technology

1. OE+4

1.OE+3

-e1.OE +2 U GEF1.OE+1I

- tOE +0 L Ref-Bost

.- 4 1.OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emlsslons In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.Alternadtve Technology

5.OE + 24.OE +2

| 6.0E+2~ EGEF

30E+2 |

20E2 | | Ref-2EstI OE+2OOE+O-- I

-1- o1_I; : _~- ° Z > *

12/14/92

GGAM Prolect Comparison SummaryINDIA PROJECT

Fie: CMP_IND1.XLS

Roducdon In GHG EmIlsionsR.smne.4-'__minus GEF

Rewnco-fhminus GEF

minus GEF

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


NPV Cost of Reducfion

minus GEF

minus GEF

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00


12/14/92

i

I


(GGAM)

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

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND



I


MAURITIUS: Bagasse Energy Development Project

OVERVIEW:

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

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

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

The collection and transport of the sugar cane residues will not add appreciably to the project'sestimated emissions of greenhouse gases. Assuming that 20-ton trucks are used to collect the residuesand that these trucks operate at fuel efficiencies of approximately 5 mpg while moving each load 20miles from the processing plant to the power plant, emissions from transport of the residues isestimated to be approximately 169 tons of carbon dioxide per year, compared to over 60,000 tonsof avoided emissions of CO2 due to the redJuced requirement for coal combustion.

a 1

iii

II

GFjLCONTRI BUTION TO PRIJECT COST: US$ 3.3 Million

GFifYCOLST OF AVOIDED CARBONv EMISSIOlNS(atO% discount rate for emssions):

US$ 2-4/tonne

G;LOBAL WARMINGt B-ENEFITS OF.THE.PROPOSF.D PRO.lECT:(1) This biomass-fueled cogeneration project will reduce CO. emissions due to coal combustionin the existing distilleries by substituting renewable fuels for coal.(2) In addition, by collecting biomass residues systematically from the fields and burning themunder controlled conditions, emissions of methane and carbon monoxide will be reduced.(3) By successfully demonstrating the institutional and economic characteristics of thistechnology, the project will expand the production possibility frontier for other commercialuses of biomass residues.

UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS:

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

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

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

TECLHNICA.L ASSUlMPTIONS USED I 'liS.ANALY.SI.S:

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

2

II

be recovered as fuel from each ton of cane.

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

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

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

CRITICAL FACTORS IN THIS ANALYSIS:

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

plant

3

ii

i

Iii

I

t

"-3

GGAM Project Input SheetsMAURITIUS PROJECT

File: IPT MAU1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWtNG GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:What will be the frt year of project operntions? 1994What is the expected operating lifetime of the project 25 Years Go To

10. What is the expected economic lifetime of the project7 2Yars Previous11. What is th expected lifetime of the loan Input

asocaed wih the project? 1ears Sheet12. This program use the epected econormnic lifetirme of the project s the default value.)

This value detemins how many years of cost and output data are to be collected.If a different vaJke is more appropae, please enter it here: Years

13. What is the discount rate to be appried to monetary flows? _ PercenVyr14. What is the dicount rate to be applied to pollutant emissions? O Percent/yr15. What is the expected eekricity generation capacity provided

or displaced by this project? 22|MW Go To16 What is the heat generation or savins capacity Next

ultimately expected from the project? 623,000 GJiyr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheet

to be used (if applicable)? I 36,O tonnesJYr

12/14/92

J-'A


Fie: IPT MAU1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT NPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. What win be the pnrmury input fuel for the project (if applicable)? IB&pm7719. What will be tw secondary input fuel for the project (if appicable)? BiJmI Coal

CJ per20 Please enter or odit the ta cornterts of e put |Primay Fuel 9.3 Towe

fuels, in GJ per untr shown at far rigit (i applicable). Fuel 29.8 jTonne1 What fraction of the energy input to the project wiv the primay nd Primry Fuel 66.53

the secondary fuels provide (if appitcable) in Pcent of total? Secondary Fuel 43.472 Press the approprate button to enter the plant effciency (lectricty outIt hput) in:

OR

Pkase enter the plant efficiency here: 19 74|Percent2 What is the expected heat or steam geneation efficency

(heat energy outpt per unit fuel put)7 Note tat unles no ectricity

is produced. GGAM assumes that fe project is coogeneration ste. 0231 |GJ/GJ Fuel Input


12/14/92

'-5

GGAM Prolect Input SheetsMAURITIUS PROJECT

File: IPT MAU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET DI

LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWVtNG INFORMATION ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:4. What is the expected annual average electricity enration or sarvings? GWh

What is the expected annual average heat generation or savins? GJWhat is the expected annual average use of the secondary tochnodog |tomnes4yr

Go To Previous Input l

Sheet Go ro Next Input Sheet

12/14/92

GGAM Project Input SheotsMAURMUS PROJECT

Fie: IPT MAU1.XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:7. What vill be the net prewnt value of fe total costs of GHG

reduction for the project? 3.3 $ Million US 19928. What will be the net prsernt value of the capital cots

for the prrnary technology used in thws project? s Milion US 199229 What will be the net preet vklue of the operat costs

Incurred over the lifetine of the poject (pnary technology)? ( ] S MiNion US 19923 What will be the net present vae of fte capital costs

for the secondary technology used i this project? Million US 19921. What will be the net present value of the operwtirng osts

incurred over the lifetime of the proect (secondary technology)? [i Is Milrion US 1992


12/14/92

GGAM Project Input SheetsMAURMUS PROJECT

Fie: IPT MAU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET F32. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOW1NG INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORS0o BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGS/AIR POLLUTANTS

|Now Using: Energy Units

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Comb.: Pnrmary Fuel kg/G. 8.6E-01 0.0E+00 1.OE-01 2.OEO00 O.OE+00 1.1E-01 0.0E+Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJt 1 .7E-01 2.0E.00 3.3E-01 1 2EI01 O.E+00 1 .2E- 0.0E+00Secondary Technology kg/lonnestyr

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Pnrmary Fuel kg/G. OO.E+0O 1.7E-02 I.5E.02 Q.OEO00 O.OE+00 O.OE+O0 O.QE+00Comb.: Secondary Fuel k/G.G 9.2E+01 7.4E-04 8.5E-03 O.OE.00 O.0E+00 O.0E+00 O.DE+00Secondary Technology kgtonnestyr 1 .2E+01


12,114192

GGAM Project Input SheetsMAURMUS PROJECT

Fde: IPT MAU1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET GJ. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY.GENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEf PROJECT

Reference Prem buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology EectricityNunber trn' Tech list Chosen GeneratedGo to I Choose RotfTech] 1fired bI cony. I PercentPrevious 2 Qro" Tech2 ()NONE) PercentInput

Sheet 3 Q IChoose Rf Tech 3J ) NONE| Perent

Go to 4 Choose Ref Tech 4 PINrNEtNext

Input 5 Choose Ref Tech (NNE) I ISheet

TOTAL F 1

1 1/92


File: IPT_MAU1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-PROOUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARING


Reference Pres buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Heat

Number frorn Tech list Chosen Produced

Go to 1 Choose Ref Tech 1 Agruc. waste (bagasse)-fired boil 100 PercentPreviousInputSheet 2 Choose Ref Tech 2 (NONE) I Percent

Write Data to File, Call Go To ProjectIn Ref Tech Data, and Comparison Sheet wlo TOTAL ZZ3 lGo To Project Calling In Ref Tech Data

Comparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

'14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMAURmUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP MAU1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emsaslons discounted at 0.0%/yr


PM 12.45 .10 36.74 802SOx 19.01 2.50 49.51 0.46NOx 4.44 3.27 60.37 1.21CO 26.05 9.87 19.62 1.03NMHC 1.36 0.90 0.90 0.84


C02 8.9E+2 1.8E+3 1.9E+3 1.7E+CH4 4.2E+0 5.2E+0 9.6E+0 2.1E+0N20 2.7E-1 2.3E-1 . 2.9E-1 2.2E-1

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissiob discourtd at 0.0%/yr

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

C02 2.4E+2 5.0E+2 5.2E+2 4.7E+2CH4 2.4E+1 3.0E+1 5.5E+1 1.2E+1N20 2.1E+1 1.8E+1 2.3E+1 -- 1.8E+1NOx 4.8E+1 3.6E+'1 6.6E+2 1.3E+1CO 2.IE+1 :'8.IE+0 1.6E+1 &4E-1NMHC 4.1E+0 2.7E+0 2.7E+0 2.5E+TOTAL '3.6E+2 6.OE+2 1.3E+3 5.2E+



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

Reference-Best miruis GEF 7.86E + 05 44.20Reference-High minus GEF 3.05E+06 S1.0BReference-Low minus GEF 5.28E+05 S6.25

s , 14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMAURMUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

Fie: CMP MAUI.XLS

ComprMsonof Elnlsslons: GEF Projec vs.IAftrnatvs Technoogy

30.00

25.00

20.00UGE15.00 GEF-Ba10.00 ROBt5. 00

0.00

Comparion of GHG Emhisions: GEF viLAernati Technology

1.OE+4

1.OE+3

W 1.OE+2 L GE1.0e 4. I

-l .GE*O [I Ref-8est1.OE.i

1 .0e-2C02 CH4 N20

C1omparson of Emissions in C. Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternafive Technology

5.OE+2

4.OE + 2

3 OE+2 I EGEF

''2.0E+2~ E Ref-Beat

1.0E+2

.. I1

12/14/92

GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryMAURMUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP MAU1.XLS

R.du-tbn In GHG Emilsons

ffmw GEFGEF

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


NPV Cost of Reduction

-A GEF

Paft vice .g'__nWA GEF

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00

1992 $ US por T Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 1)

File CMP_MAU1.XLSSUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS Emislons disounted at -3.0%/yr

Emissions in te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Rel-Best Ref-Hlgh Ref-Low

PM 20.80 12.34 55.92 12.21SOx 31.77 3.80 75.36 0.71NOx 7.41 4.98 91.87 1.CO 43.54 15.02 29.86 1.56NMHC 2.28 1.36 1.36 1.2


C02 1.5E+3 2.8E+3 2.9E+3 2.6E+CH4 6.9E+O 7.9E+0 1.5E+1 3.2E+oN20 4.5E-1 3.5E-1 4.4E-1 3.4E-1]

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions diswounted at -3.0%/yr

Emissions In te C. oq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 4.1E+2 7.6E+2 7.9E+2 7.2E+2CH4 4.0E+1 - 4.1 ;4.3E+1 1.8E+ 1N20 3.6E+ 1 2.8E4+1 3.5E + 1 2.7E + 1NOx 8.1E+1 5.4E+1 1.OE+3 2.OE+1CO 3.6E+1 1.2E+ 1 2.4E+1 1.3E+CNMHC 6.8E+0 4.1E+0 4.1E+0 3.8E+CTOTAL 6.IE+2 9.1E+2 1.9E+3 7.9E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yr


Project Ufe (1992 $ US perCASE (TC Equiv.) TC Equiv.)

Reference-Best minus GEf 1.01E+06 S325Reference-High minus GEF 4.47E+06 S0.74Reference-Low minus GEF 6.23E +05 S5.30

-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~1/49


(SCENARIO 1)

FUe: CMP MAU1.XLS

Comparlson of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alt.rnlve Technology

50.00

40.00

30W0 |GEF

20.00 I * RoR-Best

10.00

0.00

Comparlson of GHG Emisions: GEF vs.Atrnative Technoogy

1. E+4

1.OE+3

1 0E+2 | *GEF

1.OE+1

1.0OE+0 Rof-Best

1 .OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comprison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.| ~~~~AJternaUwo Tochnobgy

|I1OE+3

| 60E+2 3 E 8.0E+2 _

6.0E2+24 . GEF

4.OE+2

2.OE +2~I

0 OE + 0

£ . z- ° C 2 -°

1 2/1 4/92


(SCENARIO t)

File: CMP MAU1.XLS

Rodud6on In GHG Emissions

GF_m-&u GEF'iwli GEF . .

.OOE + 1.OOE + 2.00E + 3.00E + 4.OOE + S.OOE +00 06 06 06 06 06



A_ __

niim GEF

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

1992 S US por T Corbon Equlv.

12/14/92

GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryMAURmUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

Fie: CMP MAU1.XLSSUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS - Emissons dsounted at 3.0%/yr

Emisions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-B1st Ref-High Ref-Low

PM 8.09 5.65 25.59 5.5SOx 12.35 1.74 34.49 0.3NOx 2.88 2.28 42.05 0.CO 16.93 6.87 13.67 0.NMHC 0.89 0.62 0.62 0.5

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

C02 5.8E+2 1.3E+3 1.3E+3 1.2E+CH4 2.7E+0 ' 3.6E+0 6.7E+0 1.5E+ON20 1.8E-1 1.6E-1 2.OE-1 1.6E-1

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissons disoounted at 3.0%/yr


C02 1.6E+2 _.- 3.6E+2 3.3E+2CH4 1.6E+1 ^'1E+19 - 3.8E+1 &4E+N20 1.4E+1 -f Y;;E+ 1 ̂ .. i6E+ 1 1.2E + 1NOx 3.IE+1 2.5E+1 -4.6E+2 9.2E+CO 1.4E+1 5.6E+0 1.1E+1 5.9E-1NMHC 2.7E+O -1.9E+0 1.9E+0 1.8E+TOTAL 2.4E+2 4.2E+2 8.9E+2 3.6E+.



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

Reference-Best minus GEF 6 04E + 05 S5.47Reference-High minus GEF 2.18E+06 S1.51Reference-Low minus GEF 4.25E+05 S7.7

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP_MAU1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Prolect vs.Alternatv Technology

20.00

15.00UGEF

-~10.00 RfBaoxtl . |~~~~~~no-ss5.00

0.00

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Atrnatve Technodogy

1 OE+4

1 .OE+3

1.OE +2 UGEF1.OE+I E1 1 OE+0 | n Ref-Best

1.OE-2C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vsAlternatve Tochnology

435E+2

3.OE+2-GF4 30E+2~ I *GEF l

z.2.5E+2E 2.0E+2|

'' 1.5E*2. C ~~~~~~Ref-Best

5.OEO -I

14/92


(SCENARIO 1)

Fie: CMP MAU1.XLS

ReducUon In GHG EmIzaons

minu GEF

n"n. GEF

mmU GEF

0.OOE+ S.ODE+ 1.OOE+ 1.50E+ 2.00E+ 2.50E+00 05 06 06 06 06

Tonnos Carbon Equiv.

NPV Coat of Reducton

n*ma GEF

nmrAm GEF

mnus GEF,

$o.0o S2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00


1. 14 92

J-I.

GGAM Project Comparlson SummaryMAURMUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP MAU1.XLSSUMMARY TABLES AND GRAPHS

PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions dlecounted at 10.0%/yr

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

PM 3.86 2.94 13.34 2.91SOx 5.90 0.91 17.98 0.17NOx 1.38 1.19 21.92 0.4CO 8.08 3.58 7.12 0.3NMHC 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.31


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



C02 7.6E+1 -1.8E+2 1.9E+2 1.7E+2CH4 7.5E+0 1.1E+i 2.OE+1 4.4E+0N20 6.6E+O 6.6E+0 8.2E+O 6.4E+ONOx 1.SE+1 1.3E+1 2.4E+2 4.8E+0CO 6.6E+0 2.9E+0 5.8E+0 3.1E-1NMHC 1.3E+0 9.8E-1 9.8E-1 9.2E-1TOTAL 1.1E+2 2.2E+2 4.6E+2 1.9E+2

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



Reference-Best minus GEF 3 49E+05 S9.45Reference-High minus GEF 1.17E+06 S2.81Reference-Low minus GEF 2.56E+05 S12.89

14,'92

GGAM Project Comparison Summary

MAURMUS PROJECT(SCENARIO 1)

Fde: CMP MAUI.XLS

Compartiin of Emissons: GEF Praet vs.ftematve TeCnOwloy

10.00

8.00

6.00 GGEF

4.00 ~RtBs

0.00

Comparison of GHG Emissons: GEF vs.

ANtematve Technology

1 .OE + 3

1 OE+32

1OE + 1 r GEF

,~-l

I OE+0 fl Ref-Best

1.OE.lfl fl1.OE-2

C02 CK44 N20

Compadson of Emibalons h C. Equiv.: GEF vs.

Altenative Technoogy

2.5E+2 2

2.OE +2

1.5E+2 GEF

1.OE+21 O Rol-Best

5.OE. +I

O.OE+O

I-~ z _ l

1 2/1 4/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMAURITIUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 1)

File: CMP MAU1.XLS

Rodur.on In GHG Emissions

mnip- GEF

minus GEF

G~UScEF

O.OOE 2OOE 4.00E 6.OOE 8.00E 1 .OOE t .20E+00 +05 +05 +05 +05 +06 +06

Tonnos Carbon Equiv.

NPV Cost of Rodurtion

mnwO GEF

flum GEF

Gn, GEF

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00

1992 $ US per T Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92

I


(GGAM)

PROJECT: |

MAURITIUS: SUGAR ENERGY BIOTECHNOLOGY PROJECT (SCENARIC2) l

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND

THE STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE-BOSTON CENTER


i

I

GGAM Project Input SheetsMAURmUS, SCENARIO 2 PROJECT

Fle: IPT MAU2.XLS



Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction oaTechnology To choose Technology ElectricIty

Number hfrm Tech lIst Chosen GeneratedI ChooseRfTech Distillate-il Cengines T 100 PercentGo to I

Previous 2 Choose[RfTechj2 )(N ONE) Pecent|InputSheet 1 3 (NONE) | Percenthe 3 Choo," Rdl Tech 3 J(;y)- TlecnGo to |4 ( ChoosRefTech 4 ([NONE) PercentNextInput Choos ef R ec' (NONE) PercentSheet

TOTAL | 1001

12/14/92

GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryMAURMUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 2)


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yr


PM 1245 i 954 9.54 9.54SOx ,19.01 - 1.46 1.46 1.46NOx 4.44 22.66 22.84 22.49CO 26.05 14.41 23.09 5.74NMHC -1.36 2.33 2.33 2.33


C02 -8.9E+2" 1.SE+3 1.9E+3 - 1.9E+3CH4 4.2E+0 - '1.SE-1 1.6E-1 1.4E-1N20 2.7E-1 .1.4E-1 1.4E-1 1.4E-1J


_ - Emissions In to C. eq./GWHOGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 ' ,..52E+2 5.2E+2 5.2E+CH4 --2.4E+1 .86E:1 -92E-1 8.OE-1N20 !2IE+1 - : l.1E+1. 1.lE+1 1.;E+1NOx 4.8E+! 22.5E+2. 25E+2 2.SE+CO 2.1E+1 .1.2E+l 1.9E+1 4.7E+NMHC 4.IE+O 7.OE+0 7.0E+0 7.0E+TOTAL -3.6E+2 aOE+2 8.IE+2 7.9E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted t 0.0%/yr


Project Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (TCEqulv.) TC Equlv.)

Reference-Best minus GEFt 1.45E+06 S2127Reference-High minus GEf 1.49E+06 S.2.22Reference-Low minus GEF 1.42E+06 - 2.32

12/14/92

J-2iGGAM Project Comparison Summary


Fie: CMP MAU2.XLS

Reduclon In GHG Emnilslons

min GEF

GEF

1.38E 1.40E 1.42E 1.44E 1.46E 1.48E 1.50E+06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06Tonnes Carbon Equhv.


n! GEF _

.*wA GEF _

GEF

$2.15 $2.20 $2.25 $2.30 $2.351992 S US per T Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 2)

Fie: CMP MAU2.XLS

Comparlson of Emlsions: GEF Prowect vs.Altrnadve Technology

3000

25000

20.00 UGEF

15.0010.00 0~~~~~~~E Ref-Best

5.00

000

Cornpario of GHG Enisaons: GEF vs.Aternative Technology

1.OE+4

1 .0E + 3

, 1.OE+2 | GEF

1.OE+ 1

1.OE+ 0 ElRef-Best

i.OE-

1.OE-2 _ _ C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emilions hI C Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternatve Technology

8.OE+27.0E * 2

6 30E+2-1 0E + 2 GEF4.OE+2

c,3.0E2~ El Ref-Beat2.OE +2

O OE + 2

c . _ , .o... 0E-0

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 2)

FUe: CMP_MAU2.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emisasons diounted at 3.0%/yr


PM 20.80 14.51 14.51 14.51SOx 31.77 2.22 2.22 2.NOx 7.41 34.49 '.34.76 34MCO 43.54 21.94 '35.13 8.74NMHC 2.28 3.55 3.55 3.5

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

C02 1.5E+3 2.9E+3 2.9E+3 2.9E+3CH4 6.9E+0 2.3E-1 2.4E-1 21E-1N20 4.5E-1 2.1E-1 - - 2.1E-1 2.1 E-1

CARBON EQUVALENT UNITS Emissions discuntd at -. 0%/yr


C02 4.1E+2' 7.gE+2' 27.9E+2. 7.9E+2CH4 4.OE+1 1.3E+0 1:4E+O 1.2E+N20 3.6E+1 1.7E+1 1.7E+ 1 1.7E+ 1NOx 8.1E+1 3.8E+2'-- 3.8E+2 '3.7E+CO 3.6E+1 1.8E+1' 2.9E+1 7.IE+NMHC 6.8E+0 ,.1E+11 .1E+1- . 1.1E+1TOTAL 6.1E+2 1.2E+3 1.2E+3 1.2E+.

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at .3.0%/yr



Reference-Best minus GEF 2.03E+06 S1.62Reference-High minus GEF 2.08E +06 S1.59Reference-Low minus GEF 1 99E+06 ? $1.66

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMAURmUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 2)

File: CMP MAU2.XLS

Compaufew of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Altrnat" Technology

50.00

40.00

3 U GEF

20.00 OR*f-nset

10E00

0.00

Comparison of 0GH0 Emissions: GEF vs.

1.E+4 Altenative Technology

lj0E: + W 1.OE+2 GEF

1.OE + Il~ 1.0E+0 0 * Ret-Beet

1 .OE-1 f J11.OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

Compariaon of Emisions hi C. Equlv.: GEF va.Afternatlve Technoogy

1IAE + 31.2E+3

1.OE+3 I 2 8. _ UE|2 GEF

6.OE+2 2l Ref-eat4.OE+2

2.OE. + 2

O.OE+0 2

1 2/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMAURITIUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 2)

Foe: CMP MAU2.XLS

Roduction in GHG Emissions

!n*u GEF

mbirq GEF

,vFu, GEF,

1 .94E 1 .96E 1 .98E 2OOE 2.02E 2.04E 2.06E 2.08E+06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06

Tonnos Carbon Equlv.

NPV Cost of Reducton

.mw GEF

$1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.64 6 8 0 2 4 6 8

1992 S US pe T Carbon Equlv.

12, 14/92

GGAM Project Comparlson SummaryMAURMUS PROJECT

(SCENARIO 2)


PHYSICAL UNITS Emisslons discountod at 30%/yr

Emissions in 1e/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

PM 8.09 6.64 6.64 6.6SOx 12.35 1.01 1.01 1.01NOx 2.88 15.78 15.91 15.CO 16.93 10.04 16.08 4.00NMHC 0.89 1.63 1.63 1.63


C02 5.8E+2, 1.3E+3 1.3E +3 1.3E+3CH4 2.7E+0 1.OE-1 1.AE-1 9.7E-2N20 1.8E-1 9.7E-2 9.7E-2 9.7E2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions dIscounted at 3.0%/yr


C02 1.6E+2 . .3.6E+2 3.6E+2 3.6E+2CH4 1.6E+1 6.OE-1 6.4E-1 5.6E-1N20 1.4E+1.-,-- 7.7E+0 .7.7E+0 7.7E+NOx 3.IE+1 1.7E+2 1.7E+2 1.7E+CO 1.4E+1 8.2E+0 1.3E+1 3.3E+NMHC 2.7E+0 4.9E+0 4.9E+0 4.9E+TOTAL 2.4E+2 5.5E+2 5.6E+2 5.5E+




Reference-Bes1 minus GEF 1.07E + 06 S3.08Reference-High minus GEF 1.09E +06 S3.02Reference-Low minus GEF 1.05E+06 S3.15

14/92


(SCENARIO 2)

Fie: CMP_MAU2.XLS

Comparison of Emisalons: GEF Project vs.*Alternative Techno;ogy

20.00

15.00.& ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ UGEF

50.00

0.00

Comparison of GHG Emlilons: GEF vs.Aternative Tochnology

1.OE+4

1.OE+3

-W 1.OE +2 EGEFt 1.OE+1 I n

1 t.OE+O [2 Ref-Best

1.OE-2 -t .OE-2 * | _ lC02 CH4 N20

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

6.OE + 2

5.OE + 2

4.OE +2TUGE

3j .OE +2 [2efes2.OE +2

0.OE0 = -.1D 0 -

12/14/92

J'-GGAM Project Comparison Summary


Fie: CMP MAU2.XLS

RAduclon GHGEndEssions

mhfu G~F

1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10E+0 E+O E+0 E+O E+O E+O E+O E+0 E+O

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Tonnes Carbon Equly.

NPV Cost of Rod-I'n

mt- GEF

1ma GEF

$2.95 $3.00 $3.05 $3.10 $3.15t192 S US pw T Carbon Equiv.

12/14/92


(SCENARIO 2)


PHYSICAL UNITS Emlssions discounted at 10.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Beot Ref-High Ref-LowPM 3.86 3.46 3.46 3.46SOx 5.90 0,53 0.53 0.53NOx 1.38 8.23 8.29 8.16CO 8.08 5.23 8.38 2.08NMHC 0.42 0.85 0.85 0.85

Emissions in te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 2.8E+2 6.9E+2 6.9E+2 6.9E+2CH4 1.3E+0 5.4E-2 5.8E-2 5.1 E-2N20 8.4E-2 5.1E-2 51E-2 5.1E-2|

CARBON EOUIALENT UNITS Emissdons discounted at 10.0%/yr

Emissions In to C. eq./GoWHGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 7.6E+l L;fe 1.9E+2 1.9ES + CH4

75E+C 3.1SE-1 3.3E-1 2.9E-1N20 6.6E.0 *4.0E+0 m4.2E+0 4.SE+5NOx 1.5E+l 9.OE+l 9.OE+1 8.9E+ 1Co 6.6E+0 4.3E+0 6.9E+4 1.7E+NMHC 1.3E+0 2.5E+0 2.5E+0 2.5E+TOTAL 1.1E+2 2.9E+2 2.9E+2 2.9E_+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yrReduction In NPV Cost of

Emissions over ReductionProject Ufs (1992 1 US per

CASECH4 E+0i . T C 3.3ReferenCe-BestOminusGEF

6.6E+E+0 65.9E+

RfrNceHigCiu E 6.03E+ 0 25+ 25.5E047 5RefreceLomiuGE 5.81E+05 2.E+ 5.9E2 2.E

12/14/92

GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryMAURmUS PROJECT

(SCENRIO 2)

Fle: CMP MAU2.XLS

Comprion of Emssions: GEF Project vs.ANtsnav. Teolu1ogy

10.00

8.00

'6.00 EGEF

400 . h Ref-Bout

2.00

0.00

Compadson of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.AltarnaU Technology

1.OE.3

1 .OE +2

iOE + I GEF

1.OE*0 l Ref-Best

1.OE-1

1.OE-2C02 CH4 N20

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

3.OE +2-

2.5E + 2

2.OE +2 EE

I2E + 2 GEF

1.OE +2 ji E Ref-Best

5.OE +1

O.OE + 0

12/14/92

3-3.GGAM Project Comparison Summary

MAURITIUS PROJECT(SCENARIO 2)

Fie: CMP MAU2.XLS

R*ductlon In GHG Emasions

minus GEFf,wnr.-High'

minus GEF

minuE GEF

5.70E 5.75E 5.80E 5S85E 5.90E 5.95E 6.00E 6.05E+05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +06 +05


NPV Coat of Reduction

R.f.enc.-i'gh

min.s 6Ef

$5.30 $5.40 $5.50 $5.60 $5.70


12/14/92

i


(GGAM)

PROJECT:MEXICO: HIGH-EFFICIENCY LIGHTING PILOT PROJECT

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY.


AND



I


MEXICO: High-Efficiency Lighting Pilot Project

OVERVIEW:

This GEF project is designed to replace 3,000,000 incandescent lamps of 75 W average capacity withan equal number of high-efficiency compact fluorescents rated at 18 W each. The compactfluorescent lamps have an estimated average lifetime of 10,000 hours of operation compared to anaverage life of 750 hours for the incandescent lamps that they replace. The compact fluorescents willbe installed in Monterey and Guadalajara. The GEF contribution is approximately US$ 10 million,designed to cover the incremental costs of the fluorescent lamps.

This project will accomplish several goals. It will advance the development of compact fluorescentlamps for use under the variable line conditions present in many developing countries. In addition,and perhaps equally important, it will examine the effects of alternative marketing and deliverystrategies, strengthening the ability of the local utilities and national bureaucracies to implementconservation and efficiency programs.

The principle environmental effect of the project will be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions bylowering electricity demands for lighting in the residential and commercial sectors. Emissionsereductions will accrue through reduced generating requirements and reduced losses in transmissionand distribution. Approximately 75% of electricity supply in Mexico is derived from thermal powerplants, the remainder is generated from hydroelectric facilities. Of the thermal power fraction,approximately 5% is coal-fired, the remainder is fueled with oil and gas. For comparison, the fuelcycle impacts of manufacturing, installation, and disposal of the compact fluorescent lamps are notconsidered to be significant relative to the emissions reductions which result from the avoidedgeneration.

This analysis was based on the original project design, i.e. on the basis of 3 million lamps with atotal project cost of approximately US$ 26 million. Due to financial constraints imposed by themacro-economic situation in Mexico, the project design is being re-evaluated and will probably bescaled back and delayed in implementation. This possible reduction in scale is not reflected in theanalysis which follows.

GEE C(lNTRIBUTl(ON TO PROlECT COST: US$ 10 MllllionGEF COST OF AVOIDED CARBON EMISSIONS

LaLS -discount rate fLoremssions): US$ 9/tonne

l

GLOBAL WARM9ING-BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED-PROJECT:

(1) This energy efficiency programn will reduce electricity demands in Mexico and willconsequently reduce electricity losses in transmission and distribution.

(2) Approximately 80% of the electricity savings will occur during the utility's peak demandperiod, when the least-efficient generating stations on the grid would otherwise be operating.

UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS1:

(1) The hourly and seasonal mix of lighting demands in the identified sectors of the utility'sservice territory is not clearly identified in the project documents.

(2) The average efficiency of the displaced generating stations is not now known.

(3) The economic, engineering, and environmental tradeoffs between compact fluorescents andless expensive lineal fluorescents has not been systematically analyzed for the identifiedapplications.

(4) The institutional barriers to project implementation are not well characterized or understood.

(5) The performance characteristics of the compact fluorescents under conditions similar to thoseexpected in Mexico are not now known.

TECHNICAI, ASSUMPTIONS USED IN .THIS ANALYSIS:

(1) The compact fluorescent lamps are assumed to be in use for an average of 3 hours per day.

(2) The average lifetime of the 75 W incandescent lamps is assumed to be 750 hours comparedto 10,000 hours for the 18 W compact fluorescents.

(3) Mexican gas turbine power plants are assumed to achieve an average conversion efficiencyof 28% compared to 33% for oil-fired steam plants and 30% for coal plants. Transmissionand distribution losses in Mexico are assumed to be approximately 15-20% of generation.

CRITICAL FAC TDRSIAN THIS ANAIYSIS:

(I) Mix of coal-, oil-, and gas-fired electricity generation avoided by use of the high-efficiencylamps

(2) Heat rates for coal, oil, and gas generating stations in Mexico(3) Lifetime of the compact fluorescents under Mexican operating conditions(4) Average use rate of the compact fluorescents and the incandescent bulbs they replace

2

K r

GGAM Project Input SheetsMEXICO PROJECT

FUe: IPT MEX1.XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:1 Who is the Task Manager on this project?2 In whirh Country wil the project will be located? Me]o3 Plase provide a name for the proposed GEF propt: Medco: High Effcency Lightng Pilot Proec4 What will be the principal technobgy used to geort

or save electricity (press the button or type directly)7 Demand-side mgt (E/C/H)It another rnmjor technology will be required for this propct(e g gas transport, or coal mining) and is expeted to havesignificnt environmernal impacts, pease enter the name of the"secondary technology here (pre" button or type directly): |NONE-HrHow is the output ot the secondary techrnolgy,mesured, e.g. in GJyr, or tonnestyr?

What pollution control technologies, if any, will beimplemented in the proposed GEF project?

EVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? INO I GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? NO

12/14/92


File: IPT_ EME .LS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:* What will be the rust year of project operations? 1994* What is the expected operSng lifetime of the projec? 20 Years Go To

10. What is the ewected economic lifetime of the project? 20 Years Previous11. What is the expected bfetime of the loan Input

associated with the project? 2If0 2Years Sheet12. This program uses the expected economic lifetime of the project as the default value.

This value determines how many years of cost and output data are to be collected.If a different value is more approprite, piease enter it here Years

13. What is the discount rate to be appried to monetary flws? erentyr14. What is the discount rate to be applied to pollutant emissions? O Perent y15. What is the expected elctricity generation capacity provided

or displaced by this project7 [ I 2 2Mw Next16 What is the het generabon or savinrs capacity

ultimately expected from the proedt? |GJYr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheet

to be used (if appliable)? |NJA

12/14/92

i


Fie: IPT MEX1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOVING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. What win be the pnnary input fuel for t project (if applicable)? |DSM/Corvstn19. What vwll be the secondary input fuel for the project (fd applicable)? [INONE- =

GJ per20 Please enter or edit e hea contents of PrmrynFuud 1 G

fuels, in GJ per unit shw at far right (if ap; lcable). Jx 0 F21. What fraction of the energy k t to the project lp the pnmryu 10

the secondary huls provide (d applicable) in Percent of total? Seondry Fuel,2. Press the approprWte butfton to enter the plant efficiency (electricity output/fuel input) in:

OR

Please enter the plant efMiciency her: 278 kWh/GJ Fuel Input

W What is the expected heat or steam genration effciency

(heat energy output per uni fuel input)? Note that unless no elcticity

is produced, GGAM assumes that the prced is a cogeneation system. |GJ/GJ Fuel Input

[Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Sheet

12/14/92

iii


File: IPT MEXI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET DlPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:4. What i the edOd annual werage ebdfricity gereation or savirngs? [25GWh

5. What Is the sxqeded annual averge heat generation or svigs? |GG J

26. What i she ewcxped annual average use of the secondary technoog INA

Go To Previous Input ISheet Go To Next Input Sheet

12,14/92

kL

GGAM Project Input SheetsMEXaCO PROJECT

Fle: IPT MEXi.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOULOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPT COSTS:

27. What wil be the net psent value of the total cot of GHGreduction for the proct? 10 SAionUS 1992

28. What wil be the net present vale of the. cpital cos

for the pFurmry tc W used in en propt? Is Mliuon US 1992

2 What WA be the net preset vaue of the openVg costsIncurred over the Uftme of the pret (Wwnay technology)? J Miion US 1992

30. What vIA be the not prsnt vanl of the capitl cfor the seondary technology used in this projec? [ J MiNion US 1992

1. What wIN be the net prest vahe of the opeang cost

Icured ovthe a dm of te pred (seoary technology)? s Miln US 1992

Go To Previous Input Go To Next input SheetSheet

1* 14/92


File: IPT MEXI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET F32. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORSO BE USED IN ESTIMATIG EMISSIONS OF OHGS/AIR POLLUTANTS

I Now Using: lEnergy Units

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Cob.: Pmuary Fuel kgf-J O.OE+OO O.OE+O0 O.OE+OO O.OE+O0 O.OE.0O O.E+O O.OEComb.: Secondary Fuel kgtGJSecondary Technology NIA

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-i1 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Cob.: Primary Fuel kgCGJ O.OE.00 O.OE+00 0.0E'0 O.OE+O O.OE.00 O.OE+00 O O.EComb.: Secondary Fuel kgGSeoondary Technology N/A


.j

I. : 4/92


Fie: IPT MEXI.XLS


3 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-

ENERATINO REFERENCE TECHNOLOGES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE CEF PROJECT

Reference Pre" buttons Referwnce Fraction ofTechnology To chooe Technology Ekectrity

Number from Tech Rd Chosen GeneraedI C T *Ollfirer conv. 001PernentGo to tCo#deh

Previous 2 CiaoseRefTch2 Coal-fired boiler, conv. 0 PercentInput

t Sheet ( Choo"R fTechX 3 Hydroeectricle | 0 op

Goto 4 ChooseRTech 4 (N°NE) rPentNextInput 5 ch6 R) (NTNEc | PercertjSheet -

TOTAL '

14/92


Fie: IPT MEX1.XLS

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

Reterence Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology HeatNumber from Tech list Chosen ProducedGo to Choose Ret Tech ) |(NONE)

100 PercentPreviousInputSheet 2 Choose Ref Tech2 |(NONE)

Percent

Write Data to File, Call Go To ProjectIn Ret Tech Data. and Comparson Sheet w/o TOTALGo To Project Calling In Rel Tech DataConparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryME)XCO PROJECT

Fle: CMP MEX1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissins discounted at 0.0%/yr

Emissions in te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

PM - 0.00 0.04 4.95 0.02

SOx 0.00 6.50 146.38 0.26

NOx 0.00 2.20 - 65.30 0.1

Co 0.00 0.15 0.17 0.03

NMHC 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.00

Emissions In te/GWHe

GHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ret-Low

C02 1.OE-12 8.0E+2 - 8.3E+2 7.3E+.

CH4 1.OE-12 1.OE-2 8.OE-3 7.6E

N20 1.OE-12 1.5E-1 1.6E-i 3.3E1-


Emissions in te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 0.0E +0 2.2E+2!--.2.3E+2 2.OE+

CH4 0.OE + 0 5.7E-2* -- 4.6E-2 4.4E-

N20 0.OE+0 '1.2E+1 1.3E+1 .,2.6E+

NOx 0.0E+0 2.4E 7.1E.2 1.6E+

CO 0.OE+0 i-12E-1; 1.4E-1 -2.5E-

NMHC 0.OE+0 6.OE-1 -7.6E-1 0.OE+

TOTAL 0.0E+0 2.5E+2 9.5E+2 2.OE+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS

Reduction in NPV Cost of

Emissions over Reduction

Project Ute (1992 S US per

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

Reference-Best minus GEF 1.15E+06 S8.73

Reference-High minus GEF 4.28E +06 S2.34

Reference-Low minus GEF 9.09E + 05 S11.00

Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yr

12/12/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryMEXICO PROJECT

File: CMP MEXl.XLS

Roductlon In GHG EmissionsR.EW*nC*-L0W

mhusn GEFFRbf.r.flc.4gh'wm" GEF

m..us GEF

O.OOE + 1.OOE + 2.00E + 3.OOE + 4.OOE + 5.00E +00 06 06 06 06 06


NPV Cost of Reductlon

m"K GEFi

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.0 $12.0

1992 S US per T Carbon Equiv.

12/12/92


File: CMP MEX)1.XLS

ComparisQn of Emissions: GEF Prolect vs.Alternative Technology

7006.00

Com l ooHE GEF

I~~~I

~~~-300 ~~~~~~~Ref-Best2.00

1.00 __0.00

Comparison of GIHG Emissions: GEF vs.Alttrnatlwv Technology

1.OE +3*

1.0E + 2

1. OE +1 EGEF

U 1.OE +Q C Ref-Best

1.OE-1

1.OE - o-

C02 CH4 ° 20

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

.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~3O+

2.5E +222.OE+2 U GE

E71.5E +2J

1.OE +2 CRef-IBest5.OE. 1{ I

0.OE +0 F

c z z

12/12/92


Fie: CMP MEX1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alternatve Technology

10.00

8.00

,, 6.00 1 GEF

400 Ref-Best

2.00

0.00.

Comparlson of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Aternative Technology

1.OE+4

1.0E+3

1.OE +2 GEF1.OE +1

-~1.OE+0 C Ref-Best1.OE-1

1.OE-2

C02 C44 N120

Comparison Of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEr vs.Alternative Technology

4.OE + 23.5E+23.OE+2 ~~ 25E+2 U ~~~~GEF2.OE +2

c-' 1.5E+2 ICRal-Beat

i .OE + 2

5.OE+ 10.OE +0

12/12/92


File: CMP MEXI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emisins discounted at 3.0%/yr


PM 0.00 0.06 6.92 0.03SOx 0.00 9.09 204.67 0.37NOx 0.00 3.08 -91.30 0.21CO 0.00 0.21 0.23 0.04NMHC 0.00 0.28 0.35 0.00


C02 1.OE-12 1.1E+3 1.2E+3 1.OE+3CH4 1.OE-12 1.4E-2 l.lE-2 1.1E-2N20 1.OE-12 2.AE-1 2.2E-1 4.6E-21

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yr

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

C02 0.OE+0 3.1E+2 3.2E+2 2.8E+CH4 0.OE+0 -&OE-2. 6.4E-2 6.1 E-N20 O.OE+0 1.7E+1 `1;8E+1 3.7E+NOx 0.OE+0 3.4E+1 1.0E+3 2.2E+CO 0.OE+0 1.7E-1 1.9E-1 3.4E-NMHC 0.OE+0 8.4E-1 1.1E+0 0.OE+TOTAL 0.OE + 0 3.6E+2 1.3E +3 2.8E +



Project Life (1992 S US perCASE (T C Equiv.) rc Equiv.)

Reference-Best minus GEF 1.60E +06 S6.25Reference-High minus GEF 5 98E+06 S1.67Reference-Low minus GEF I 27E +06 S7.87Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yy

12/12,/92

AI.GGAM Project Comparison Summary

MEXICO PROJECT

Fie: CMP MEX1.XLS

Reduction In GHG Emissions

nw'1 GEF

mnu GEF

mWwA GFF~

O.OOE 1.00E 2.00E 300E 4.OOE 5.OOE 6.00E+00 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06

Tones Carbon Equiv.


m GEF

mr GEF

mni GEf

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.001992 S US per T Carbon Equiv.

1_ 12/92

14i(


File: CMP MEXI.XLS




PM 0.00 0.03 3.68 0.02

SOx 0.00 4.84 108.89 0.20NOx 0.00 1.64 48.57 0.11

CO 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.0

NMHC 0.00 0.15 0.19 0.00


C02 1.OE-12 6.OE+2 6.2E+2 5.4E+2j

CH4 1.OE-12 7.4E-3 -6.OE-3 5.7E-3

N20 1.OE-12 1.1 E-1 -12E-1 2.5E-J


Emissions In to C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 0.OE+0 1.6E+2 - 1.7E+2- 1.5E+

CH4 O.OE+O 4.3E-2 -3.4E-2 3.2E-2

N20 0.OE+0 .8.E+0 9.3E+0 2.OE+NOx O.OE+O *1.8E+1 -5.3E+2 1.2E+

CO O.OE+O 9.1E-2 1.OE-1 1.8E-

NMHC O.OE+O 4.5E-1 5.6E-1 O.OE+

TOTAL O.OE+O 1.9E+2 7.lE+2 1.5E+2



Project Life (1992 S US per

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

Reference-Best minus GEF 8 52E + 05 S11.74

Reference-High minus GEF 3.18E + 06 S3.14

Reference-Low minus GEF 6.76E + 05 S14.78

Emissions discounted at 3.0%/yr

12/92


File: CMP MEX1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Proloct vs.Alternative Tochnology

5.004.00H300

GEF2.00 0 Ref-Best

1.00 LI0.00

> O ; O w

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Alternatve Technology

1.OE + 3

1.OE+2

.1.0E+OI O GE

1.0E 2+0 C Ref-Best1.OE-1 -1.OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

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

2.OE+2

1V .5E.2-

UGEF2 0E + 2

± 50E+1 0

o _ ° -, O o _

. 2/92

kIS


Fie: CMP MEX1.XLS

Roduction In GHG Emassions

m.n GEF

minus OEF_____________________

m,n.jsGEF

OOOE 5OOE t.00E 1.50E 2.0E 2.50E 3.00E 3.50E+00 +05 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06



m"GEF FWe_KVgh'

min,A GEF

"min GEF|

$0.OO $5.00 $10.00 $15.00

1992 S US per T Cabon Equiv.

I.' 12/92


Fie: CMP MEXI .XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissona discounted at 10.0%/yr

Emissions in te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.00 0.02 2.11 0.01SOx 0.00 2.77 62.31 0.11NOx 0.00 0.94 27.80 0.CO 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.01NMHC 0.00 0.09 0.11 0.00

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ret-LowC02 1.OE-12 3.4E+2 3.5E+2 3.1E+2CH4 1.OE-12 4.3E-3 3.4E-3 3.2E3N20 1.OE-12 6.4E-2 6.7E-2 1.4E-2



C02 0.OE+0 9.3E+1 9.6E+1 8.4E+1CH4 0.OE+0 2.4E-2 2.OE-2 1.9E-N20 0.OE+0 5.IE+0 5.3E+0 1.1E+NOx 0.OE+0 1.OE+1 3.OE+2 6.8E-1CO 0.OE+0 5.2E-2 5.8E-2 1.0E-NMHC 0.OE+0 2.6E-1 3.2E-1 0.OE+TOTAL 0.0E+0 1.1E+2 4.1E+2 8.6E+1



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

Reference-Best minus GEF 4.87E +05 S20.51Reference-High minus GEF 1.82E +06 S5.49Reference-Low minus GEF 3.87E +05 S25.83Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yr

12/12/92


Fle: CMP MEXi.XLS

Comparison of Emlssions: GEF Project vsAternatve Technology

3.002.50H2_00 I * GEF

~1i50 I1.00 RlBs0 50 _n_[j0.00

Comparison of GHG Emi"lons: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

I .OE + 3

1 .OE + 2

- C 1IOE + EGEF

1.2E+2

1.OE+I0 0 Ref-Best

C02 C114 N20

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

1.0E+2

8-0t OE + 1

2.60E+1 n- !°Ref-BestI!6.OE+O1

2.OE +:1 J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

o~ (_, z ° : O

12/12/92

K2lGGAM Project Comparison Summary

MEXICO PROJECT

File: CMP_MEX1.XLS

RoducUon In GHG Emissions

mwus GEFA*f*ernc*-H.gh __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _m nu, GEFp.nc_f..tm,nu, GEF

OOOOE+0O 50OEtO5 1.OOE+06 1.50E+06 2.OOE+06


NPV Cost of RoductUonRf.,idfc.-Law'

nun GEF

$0.00 S5.00 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0


12/12/92

i

I


(GGAM)

PROJECT:PAKISTAN: INTEGRATED COMMUNITY WASTE-TO-ENERGY SYSTEM I

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND




PAKISTAN: Integrated Community Waste-to-Energy System

OVERIVIEW:

This GEF project is designed to generate and collect landfill gas at a municipal solid waste facility.The landfill gas (primarily methane) will be burned at the site to produce heat, steam, and electricity.The electricity will be sold to the local electric utility grid. The heat will be used to raise thetemperature of the landfill and thus to increase the rate of methane generation. The steam has nocurrent market or application at present but could be used in future. As originally conceived, theproject would operate at five sites, handling approximately 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes of municipalwaste per year. The technical characteristics of the selected methane recovery and combustion systemwill require additional waste handling at the site, including possible heating of the leachate as wellas the operation of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide removal systems. The GEF contribution to thisproject is approximately US$ 11 million and is designed to cover the incremental costs of the,methane recovery, combustion, and waste handling systems.

This project will accomplish several goals simultaneously. It will advance the development ofmunicipal solid waste handling systems. It will also reduce fugitive methane emissions compared tocontinued use of conventional open landfills and provide electricity for sale to the local grid. In thefuture the project could provide methane gas or steam to local industries.

The principle environmental effects of the project will be the reduction of local methane emissionsfrom uncontrolled landfills and the substitution of electricity generated from gas for electricitygenerated from coal.

GFEF CONTRIBUTION QOPROJECT COST: US$ 11 MillionGEFC(1ST OF AVOIDED CARBON EMISSIONS

(aL0%iAiscount rate for emissions): US$ 22/tonne

C,lOBAL WARMINC. B-ENEFIT!SiOF -THE PROP()SED PRO.IECT:

(1) This landfill gas recovery system will reduce methane emissions from municipal solid wastecompared to uncontrolled conventional dump sites.

(2) To the extent that electricity derived from landfill methane replaces coal in the local grid,carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector will be reduced.

1

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UNRESOLVED fUESTIONS:

(1) The project assumes a collection rate for local waste in Lahore (75%) that is more than twice

the comparable estimate for other cities in Pakistan (e.g., Karachi estimate is 33%). How this

collection rate will be achieved is not clearly identified in the project documents.

(2) The project assumes the operation of five very large dump sites. Project documents do not

indicate why a larger number of smaller sites would not improve the chances for success and

replication of the technology.

(3) The project does not appear to be economic, even after pricing reforms. No estimates of

operations and maintenance costs are provided in the project documents.

(4) Project documents do not detail any NGO or community-based organization will be involved

in operations of the project. No monitoring or evaluation component is identified. Project

documents do not identify why any local entity should be interested in operating the system

after the subsidy lapses.

(5) The institutional barriers to project implementation are not well characterized or understood.

(6) The performance characteristics of the proposed technology have not been demonstrated.

TF.CHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS IJSED IN THIS ANALYSIS:

(1) Typical open dumps in Pakistan receive approximately 1600 tonnes of waste per day. The

typical mixed waste stream is approximately 30% vegetable, 20% leaves and straw, 20%

paper and wood, and 30% inorganic materials. In addition, approximately 400 tonnes of

human and animal waste are deposited each day.

(2) Uncontrolled open landfills release the energy equivalent of 250-300 kWh per tonne of waste.

- Because of heating of the landfill in the Waste-to-Energy Project, the average recovery rate

for energy is assumed to be 500 kWh per tonne of waste.

(3) The design lifetime of each landfill site is sixteen years.

(4) The reduction in methane emissions is estimated to 0.95-1.5 million tonnes per year,

compared to the release from a conventional, uncontrolled open landfill.

CRITIC'AL EA-CTORS J.NTHIS ANALYSIS:

(1) Daily rate of local waste collection

(2) Methane generation rates for uncontrolled and controlled landfills

(3) Operations and maintenance for the controlled landfill

2

12/14/92

GGAM Project Input SheetsPAKISTAN PROJECT

File: IPT PAK1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET BPLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:8. What w e tbe l"W yar of project operations? 19949. What is the cted operating lifetirme of the project? 16 Years Go To10. What is the epected economic lifetime of the project7 16 Years Previous11. What is the e3ected kfetime of the loan Input

associated wth the proed? 16 Years Sheet12. This program use the e3pected economic lifetime of the projed as the deau value.

This value determes how nay years of cost and output data are to be collected.If a different value is more appropriate, please enter I here: Years

13. What is the discount rate to be applied to monetary flows? Percentyr14. What is the dicount rate to be applied to pollutant emissions? O Pefrrtyr15. What is the expected eectrncity generation capacity provided

-or displaced by ttus project?

Go To16 What Is the heat generatomn or savings capacity Nextuftirnatety empec1ed from the project? S0hGeYr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheetto be used (if applicable)? [N/A .

12/14/92

iI

I

Ls


Fle: IPT PAK1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET CLPtEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. What will be the prirmry input fuel for the prjec (if applicable)? rMe tan19. What will be the secondary input fuel for te projed (if applicable)7 1NONE0 3 9

20. Please enter or odd bli heat cordents o t# inpd | Primrly Fude | 0.0359 |Cubic meterfuels, n GJ per unit shown at far rightt (f appcble). So0dary F21. What fraction of the eney nput to the projed win the pimary and Pry Fu 10the secondary fuels provMe (f applble) in Perment of total? Secondary Fuel| Press the appropriate button to enter te plant eftciency (electncity outpuuel input) in:

OR

Please enter the plant efriciency here: 30 Percent* What is the expected heat or steam geeration etficiency

(heat enrergy outp per unrt fuel input)? Note that unless no eklricityis produced. GGAM issumffes that te projed is a cogeneralion system. |GJ/GJ Fuel Input| Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Sheet

I?/14/92

ii

II

I

I

Lf5


FDe: IPT PAK1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET D2 (PreviousSheet Next Sheet4. to 26. YEAR-BY-YEAR PROJECT OUTPUTS

Use ot Use ofElect. Prod. Heat Prod. Secondary Elect.Prod. Heat Prod. Secondaryor Savings or Savings Technology or Savings or Savings Technoogy

YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A) YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (NIA)1994 0 2009 43.81995 10.951996 21.91997 32.851998 43.81999 43.82000 43.82001 43.82002 43.82003 43.82004 43.8

2005 ~43.82006 43.82007 4382008 43.8

12/14/92

L(.GGAM Project Input Sheets

PAKISTAN PROJECT

Fie: IPT PAKI.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:27. What will be the net preent valu of the total costs of GHG

reduction for the proect? 11 $ Million US 19922B. What will be the net present value Of the capital costs

for te pma technoly usd in tfs project? [ Milion US 1992What wll be the net present value of the operatirg costsnurred over the fetime of the project (pnmary technology)? S Million US 1992

30. What will be the net prwent value of the capibl costsfor the secondary technology usWd this project? $ Million US 1992

31. What wil be the net presnr lue of t operating costsincurred over the lifetm of te projet (secoWdary technol ? [ Miln US 1992

Go To Previous Input Go To Next Input SheetSheet I

12/14/92


File: IPT PAKi.XLS


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

|Now Using: |Energy |Units

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx Co Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Comb.: Pnmary Fuel kg/GJ I.4E-03 2.7E-04 1.4E-01 1.4E-02 O.OE+00 1.7E 03 O.OE+00Comb.: Secodary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC22Comb.: Pnrmary Fuel kg/GJ O.OE+00 1 .4E-03 3.3E-03 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+0. 0.OE+0IComb.: Seoondary Fuel kg/GJ



1 14/92

L

GGAM Proje Input SheetsPAKISTAN PROJECT

Fie: IPT PAK1.XLS


3. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY-ENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARING


Reference Preo buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology Edctricity

Nunber from Tech lid Chosn GwratedGo to C tioosRefTich ) Eydro kcrir,lage IPercent

Previous 2 Q hojjTehjj G as-firedbolrcony. 3 PercentInputSheet 3 C (NONE| Percent

Go to 4 ChoeRfTCh (NONE) PercentNextPecnInput ( Choose Ref Tech 6 (IPNONE) PercentSheet

TOTAL 100

. 14/92


File: IPT_PAK1.XLS


U. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY).RODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARING




Go to I Choose Ref Tech t (NONE) 100 PercentPrevious

InputSheet 2 Choose Ref Tech 2 I(NONE) Percent

Write Data to Fil, Call Go To ProjectIn Ref Tech Data. and Coparison Sheet wlo TOTAL [I 0 |Go To Project i Calling in Ref Tech DataComparison Sheet (Esiting Sheets Only)

14/'92

LJc


Fie: IPT PAK1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET S3: METHANE COLLECTION

DOES THIS PROJECT INVOLVE COLLECTING

METHANE FOR USE IN THE PRODUCING YESELECTRICITY OR HEAT? (Type In 'YES' or 'NO' o change choice)

PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE METHANE COLLECTIONOPERATION PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT:

VI I. What traction of the methne collected for use as a fuel would hae been relasd to the amospheen the absence of the colleti operation7 This value wal typicall depend on the pr.pxct

practices used for, for example, coal mine ventiltion, treatment of ivestock wastes, or disposaIof municpal solid wastes.

Enter a fraction in percent: |P6|ert


I.' 14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryPAKISTAN PROJECT

File: CMP PAKI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emisson discounted at 0.0%/yr


PM 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.0CSOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0NOx 1.69 0.55 1.05 0.CO 0.16 0.05 0.09 0.01NMHC 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.0C


C02 1.OE-12 1.9E+2 2.2E+2 1.6E + 2CH4 1.7E-2 1.4E+2 1.4E+2 1.4E+2N20 4.oE-2 3.2E-2 4.8E-2 1.7E-2

CARBON EQUVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 0.0%/yr


C02 0.OE+0 5.1E+ 1 5.9E+1 4.4E+ 1CH4 9.8E-2 8.2E+2 82E+2 8.2E+2N20 3.IE+0 25E+0 3.8E+0 1.3E+CNOx 1.8E+1 6.OE+0 1.1E+1 6.1E-1CO 1 .3E-1 4.3E-2 7.5E-2 1.1 E-2NMHC 6.1E-2 8.5E-3 1.4E-2 3.4E3TOTAL 2.2E + 1 8.8E + 2 9.OE+2 8.7E + 2



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

Reference-Best minus GEF 5.09E+05 $21.60Reference-High minus GEF 5.18E+05 $21.24Reference-Low minus GEF 5.01E+05 S21.96

12/14/92

lGGAM Project Comparison Summary

PAKISTAN PROJECT

Fie: CMP PAKI.XLS

Compedebon o Emleasons: GEF Proq.c vs.Altrntive Technology

2.O0

1.50

S U ~~~~~~~GEF

Ref-Best0.50

0.00

Comparison of GmG Emissions: GEF vs.Alvnatie Technology

1.0E+3

1.OE +2 7-~1.OE + I GEF

1.0E-1

1.OE-2 - 1C02 CH4 N20

Comnparison of Eandsslons In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.AAtenmativ Technology

8.OE+21 '*7.OE +2

Ae 6.OE +2* jE F~Q5.OE.+2 E

E7 4.OE.23.OE +2-Rfet1.0E+2~i.OE: I .... I

CD

12/14/92


Fie: CMP PAKI.XLS

ReducUon In GHG Eml"Ions

mhvn GEF

mimns GEF

minum GEF

4.90E 4.95E 5.OOE 5.05E 5.10E 5.15E 5.20E+05 +05 *06 .05 *05 *05 +05


NPV Cost of Roducton

m in,ug GEF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

$20.8 $21.0 $21.2 $21.4 $21.6 $21.8 $22.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

1992 S US por T Carbon Equiv.

12/14/92

L

GGAM Project Comparlson SummaryPAKISTAN PROJECT

Fie: CMP PAK1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Enlselon dIsountd at -3.0%/yrEmissions in le/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF RetfBest Ref-High Ret-LowPM

0.02 0.03 0.06 0.01SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0NOx 2.29 0.72 1.37 0.0CO 0.22 0.07 0.12 0.02NMHC 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.0C

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Re-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 I.OE-12 - .Z5E+2 s2.E+2 2.E+2CH4 2.3E-2 2.5E+2 '2.5E+2 2.5E+ 2N20 5.4E-2 4.2E-2 6.2E-2 2.2E-2

CARBON EOUIVALENT UNITS Emision disluned at -o%/yrEmissions In to C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02

0.0E+0 *- 6.7E+i1 *7.7E+1 - 5.7E+1CH4 1.3E-1 15E+3 " 1.5E+3 I1.5E+N20

4.2E+0 ,3.3E+0 4.9E+0 1.7E+0NOx 2.5E+1 .IE .+ 1 SEi 8.0E-1CO

1.8E-1 5.6E-2 9.8E-2 1.4E-2NMHC 8.2E-2 1.IE-2 1.8E-2 4.4E-TOTAL

3.OE+1 1.5E+3 1.6E+3 1.5E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted t -3.0%/yr

Reduction In NPV Cost ofEmissions over ReductionProject Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 8.91 E + 05 $12/34Reference-High minus GEF 9.02E+05

S12.19Reference-iLow minus GEF 8.80E+05 S12.50

12/14/92

L I

L}'


Fie: CMP PAKI.XLS

Comparison of Emfsfions: GEF Project vs.Atemanav Technology

2.50

2.00

-. 5 o GEF

1.00 Ref-Best

0.50

Comporbsm ofoGHG Emisions: GEF vs.AImative Technology

1 .OE + 3

1.OE+2

1E 10E+1 |GEF

I 1._E+0 a Ref-Bt1.OE-1

C02 CH4 N20 -

Comparisn of Emissions In C. Equv.: GEF vs.AUternatie Technology

1.6E+31 .4E +31.2E+31.OE +3 EGEF8.OE+2

L6.OE +2 C Ref-Best4.OE-+22.OE+20.OE+0 -

12/14/92


File: CMP PAKI.XLS

Comnparodn of Emnission: GEF Project vs.Alternative Tchnvoogy

1.40

1.20

ComparboGn I ofEm m hCEqulvn.: GEF vs.Alternav Tecnlg

1 .0E+23

1 5.OE +2 __l

1.00E+ , GEF

0~- .6E0 JR.f-meat

1.2OE-+2 - - _-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 tO~ H 2E

~j 20E.20C Ref-Seat

i.OE+2

0 _ '. 0 3 0 RotSes

C02 CH4 N20 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 12149

L t


Fie: CMP PAKi.XLS

Reducdon In GHG Emissions

mbA GEF

minus GEFm,inus GEV

2.90E+ 2.95E+ 3.OOE- 3.05E+ 3.tOE+ 3.15E+05 05 05 05 05 05



mnh, GEF

$34.0 $34.5 $35.0 $35.5 $36.0 $36.5 $37.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

1992 S US per T Carbon Equtv.

12/14/92

LiGGAM Project Comparison Summary

PAKISTAN PROJECT

Fie: CMP PAKI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emlelns dicound at 10.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM

0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00SOx 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.72 0.27 0.51 0.03CO 0.07 -0.03 0.04 0.01NMHC 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Emlisons In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.OE-12 - 9.2E+1 1.1E+2 7.8E+1CH4 7.3E-3 3.0E+1 3.OE+1 3.E+1N20 1.7E-2 1.6E-2 2.3E-2 8.2E.3

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS EI,alom wdud at 10.0%/yr

Emisions In to C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low002 O.OE+0 -i-.2.5E+1 .2.9E+1 2.IE+1CH4 4.2E.2' t 1.7E42 1.7E+2 1.7E+N20

1.3E+0 - '12EE+0 1.8E+0 6.5E-1NOx 7.9E+0 >.2E+0 5.6E+0 3.OE-1CO 5.7E-2 .- 2.IE-2 3.7E-2 5.1ENMHC 2.6E-2 4.2E-3 6.7E-3 1.7E;TOTAL

9.3E+0 2.OE+2 2.lE+2 1.9E+.

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emlasaons discountod at 10.0%/yr

Reduction In NPV Cost ofEmissions over Reduction

Project Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.13E+05 $97.19Reference-High minus GEF 1.17E+05 $93.75Reference-Low minus GEF 1.09E+05 $100.90

12 t4,92

CL2


FPle: CMP_PAKI.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.-Alts,rnatlvw Techno4ogy

0.70

O..0

~0.40.~0.30 U Rf-Best

0.200.100.00

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Ahernatve Tochnology

1.OE +2

1.OE + 1 FlA1.OE + 0

F

1 .OE- I

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GEF vs.AlternaUv Tochno&y

2.SE+2

2.OE +21.5E.z[72

E

1.OE +

5IE+ I

12/14/92

GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryPAKISTAN PROJECT

Fie: CMP PAKI.XLS

RedutcUn GHG Emissions

mifl GEF

mhwn GEFmww nGEF

1.04E 1.06E 1.OSE 1.OE I.12E 1.14E 1.16E 1.18E+05 +05 +05 +05 +06 +05 +05 +05

Tones Carbon Equlv.

NPV Coat of Reductlon

GF $90.0 $92.0 $94.0 $96.0 $98.0 $100. $102.

0 0 0 0 0 00 00


12/14/92


(GGAM)

PROJECT:.PHILIPPINES: LEYTE GEOTHERMAL PROJECT

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND



i


PHILIPPINES: Leyte Geothermal Energy Development Project

OVERVIEW:

This GEF project is designed to generate to generate electricity at a geothermal power plant on Leyteisland in the Philippines. Since local demand on Leyte is expected to remain low for the foreseeablefuture and demand on adjacent Luzon island is growing rapidly, the geothermal electricity will betransrnitted to Luzon using a new undersea cable. The cable will be laid as part of the geothermaldevelopment project. The geothermal power plant is designed to produce 600 MW of electricity witha plant capacity factor of 80%. The undersea cable will be a part of a high voltage transmission linestretching 480 km to the load centers on Luzon. Expected energy losses in transmission are estimatedto be 3.8%. The GEF contribution to this project was originally intended to include approximatelyUS$ 30 million in grants and US$ 40 million in loan funds. The GEF contribution will supplementa conventional World Bank loan on the project of more than US$ 1500 million.

This project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions on Luzon island by substituting geothermalelectricity from Leytc for coal-fired electricity on Luzon. The emissions of greenhouse gases fromthe geothermal facility have not been estimated. Project staff expect that all geothermal waste gasescan be disposed of through re-injection at the geothermal site.

GEFLCONTRIBUTION TOQPROJECT C()ST: Loan of US$ 40 MillionGrant of US$ 30 million

L CO.CT OF AVQ1DED CARBON EMIISMSIONS&L0 % discount rate fQLemienns: US$ 2/tonne

GLOIBAL WARMING-BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSCED PRO.IECT:

(I) This geothermal project will eliminate the need to build a new coal-fired power plant onLuzon island, thus avoiding the expected emissions from the coal plant for the life of thegeothermal field.


(I) The technical parameters of the geoLhermal plant are not defined in detail in the projectdocuments. In particular, the environmental impacts of the geothermal development are notclearly identified. No discussion is provided conceming the effects of land-clearing in thesurrounding watershed or of the extent of expected emissions of hydrogen sulfide.

a I

(2) The materials requirements and energy intensity of the new transmission line are not detailedin the project documents.

(3) The project documents do not specify the estimated annual or lifetime emissions of carbondioxide from the geothermal development.

TECHNICAL& AS SUMPTIONS USED JINlHIS ANALYSIS:

(1) The geothermal plant will operate on dry steam, approximately 150-160 degrees C. Theexpected conversion efficiency of the geothermal plant is estimated to be 20-25%. Thecapacity factor of the geothermal plant is assumed to be 80%.

(2) Parasitic energy consumption at the geothermal site is assumed to approximately 8% of totalelectrical output.

(3) Energy losses in transmission are estimated to approximately 3.8%.

(4) The annual savings in carbon dioxide emissions is estimated to be approximately 2 milliontonnes compared to the conventional coal-fired alternative.

CRITICAL FACTORS INLTHIS ANALYS.I:

(1) Capacity factor of the geothermal plant(2) Size, quality, and duration of the steam resource.(3) Operations and maintenance for the controlled landfill

2

GGAM Project Input SheetsPHILIPPINES PROJECT

File: IPT PHI1.XLS

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

1 Who is the Task Manager on this project?t In which Country vAll the project will be located? Republic of the Philippines

* Please provide a name for the proposed GEF proct: Phiippines Leyte Geothernal Project4 What will be the principal technology used to gwerte

or save electcty (press the button or type directly)? |Gothermal, hydroUhwm (E/C)* If another major technology vill be required for this project(e.g. gas transport, or coal mining) and is *xpected to havesgniricant environmental impacts, please enter the name of the'scondary' technology here (pres button or type directly): | NONE-

6 How is the output of the secondary technology.measured, e.g. in GJ/yr, or tonnesyri ?

7 What pollution control technologies. if any, will beimplemented in the proposed GEF project? |

EVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? |YES GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA? |NO I

1' '4 92

I


File: IPT PHI1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:S. What will be the first year of projet opertions? 9941| What is the expected operating lifetime of the projet? 29 Years Go To

10. What is the expected economic lifetimne of the propet? 291Yam Previous11. What is the expected lifetime of Se loan Input

associated with She propet? 2 th Years Sheet12. This program uses the eNxected economic lifetime of he project h vThis value determines how many yearsdo cost and output daft ae to be collectedIf a different value is more appropriate, ple nter It hr: Year

13. What is the discount rate to be applied to moretary flows? 5 Percentyr14. What is the discount rate to be applied to polutant emesiorn? 0PPe e entUyr15. What is the expected elcicity generation capacity provided

or displaced by this projed? Mw Go To16. What is the heat generaton or savings capacity Next

ultimately expected frorn the project? FG- i T Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheet

to be used (it applicable)? ININ/A

12/14/92

GGAM Project Input ShootsPHIUPPINES PROJECT

Fie: IPT PHI1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING WIFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:

18. What will be the prmary input fuel for the project (d applicable)? |o 7 7]19. What vMn be the secondary hiput fuel for the project (if applicable)? I<NONEx

GJ per20. Peas enter or edit the heat contens of the input Prjmay Fuel 1 GJ

fuels, hi GJ per unit shown at far rigM (d applcabl). Seconcbay Fuel 0 O21. What fraction of th energy hput to the pct wll the prinary and rimary 100

the secondary fuels provide (if appliable) hi Perct of total? Secondwy Fuel22. Press the approprnte button to enter the plant efficicy (electricity o itputui inpu) hi:

OR

Pease ener the plant efficiency here: 20.296 PeroentWhat is the expected heat or stem genetion effciency

(heat energy output per unil fuel hput)? Nte that unless no elctricity

is produced. GGAM asmures that the proect is a cogeneration system. GJIGJ Fuel Input

| (Go To Previous Input Sheet Go To Next Input Sheet I

12/14/92


Fie: IPT PHI1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET D2 P Eu N24. to 26. YEAR-BY-YEAR PROJECT OUTPUTS

Use of Use ofElect. Prod. Hot Prod. Secondary Elet. Prod. Heat Prod. Secondaryor Savings or Savings Technology or Savings or Savings Technology

YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A) YEAR (GWH) (GJ) (N/A)1994 1976 2009 39531995 3953 2010 39531996 3953 2011 39531997 3953 2012 39531998 3953 2013 39531999 3953 2014 39532000 3953 2015 39532001 3953 2015 39532002 3953 2017 39532003 3953 2018 39532004 3953 2019 39532005 3953 2020 39532006 3953 2021 39532007 3953 2022 39532008 3953

12/14/92

rMi

GGAM Project Input SheetsPHIUPPINES PROJECT

Fle: IPT PHI1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT . IEET ElPLEASE ENTER THE FOllOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:27. What ViN be the net present vuke of th total costs of GHG

reduction for h poject? | 70 Million US 199228. What will be the not preset value of the ctl costs

for the pa technology used inhs prot? [ I Miion US 199229. What will be the net prsent value of the opertin costsIncurred over ifebrme of te projet (primay tedcmoogy)? EZ Z S Million US 199230. What wI be the net psn lue of the capil costsfor the secondary tochnology used in ts project? s Milon US 199231. What will be the net prsnt vlue of the operating costs

curred over the lifUme of the projed (secondary thnology)? [S Milion US 1992


1 . 4/92


File: IPT PHI1.XLS


32. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORSO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGSIAIR POLLUTANTS

Now Using: |Energy |Units

SOURCE UNITS PaflaX. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aidehyd.Comb.: Primary Fuel kg/GJ 9.6E-04 1 .8E-03Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE I UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Primary Fuel kg/GJ 1.1 E+0 9.6E-04Comb.: Secondary Fuel k

Secondary Technology WNA


12/14/92

-GAM Project Input SheotsPHIUPPINES PROJECT

Foe: IPT PHI1.XLS

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

Reference Press buttons Refwrnce FracIon ofTechnology To choose Technobgy EkctricityNumber from Tech list Chosen GenertedGo to C R Tech o biler. conv. 100 PercentPrevious 2 Choose Rf Tech 2 ) (NO E) PercentInput

Sheet 3 M NOE)

P.cnt,Sheet 3 ( ~Choose Ret Tech 3 ) (N }|I

Go to 4 Choose RfTech ) (NONE4 eNext

Input Choose ch6 (NONE PeroentSheet| )= _ ) ,

TOTAL

17 14'92


Fie: IPT PHI1.XLS

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

Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction ofTechnology To choose Technology H"t


Go to 1 Choose Ref Tech I(NONE) _ | 100 PercentPreviousInputSheet 2 ChooseRefTech2 ] |(NONE) I Percent -

Write Data to File, Call Go To Project ;In Ref Tech Data, and Comparison Sheet w/o TOTAL

Go To Project Calling in Ref Tech DataCorparison Sheet (Existing Sheets Only)

1. 14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryPHIUPPINES PROJECT

Fige: CMP PHI1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emiions dlsounwd at 0.0%/yrEmissions in te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM

0.02 0.13 28.77 0.0'SOx 0.00 2.50 49.51 0.46NOx 0.00 2.50 59.42 0.61CO 0.00 0.20 -1.28 0.03NMHC 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.01

Emissions in te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-8estl Ref-High Ref-LowC02 2.OE+1 1.0E+3 1.1E+3 9.OE+2CH4

1.7E-2 2.9E+0 -9.4E+0 2.OE+ON20 1.OE-12 9.OE-2 -z 1.5E-1 8.5E-2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emlions discounted at 0.0%/yrEmissions In to C. eq./GWHeGAS . GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02

5.5E+O 'S- !'4f2.7E+2 2.9EF2 -'24E+2Ctl4 9.8E-2 i:_.7E+i1 5.4E+1 . 1.iE+1N20

O.OE+O.. 7.1E+0 i2E+O1 67E+NOx O.OE+O 2.7E+1 6.5E+2 6.7E+CO O.OE+O . :1.6E-1 -. 0E4O .2.SE-NMHC 9.4E-2 1.8E-1 1.8E-1 1.8E-TOTAL

5.7E+0 3.2E+2 1.tE+3 2.7E+

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emlisions discounted at 0.0%/yr

Reduction in NPV Cost ofEmissions over ReductionProject Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 3.59E+07

$1.95Reference-High minus GEF 1.12E+08 S0.62Reference-Low minus GEF 2.96E+07 S2.36

12/14/92

j

i

iII

I


File: CMP_PHII.XLS

Comparlson of Emissions: GEF Pfolrct vs.Alternative Technology

2.50

2.00

1.50 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ UGEF

-~~~ 1.00 C~~~~ Ref-Best0.50

10.00

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF we.

Alternative Technology

1 .E + 2

5V 10E + I1E

1.0E+0

G~ -o+ ZEOVEF2

* ~ 1.OE0C4 Ref-Be!9t1.OE-1O-

C02 CHAI N20

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

3-SE +2

3,OE +2

2.SE +2 UGEF1 1SE+2'

-s' 1,0E +2

5.OE +

1492


File: CMP PHI1.XLS

Reducflon In GHG Emslions

mInul GEF

n,IniaGEF,

Wmai GEF

O.OOE 2OOE 4.OOE 6.00E 8.OOE 1.00E 1.20E+00 +07 +07 +07 +07 +08 +08

Tonnes Cwrbon Equhv.

NPV Cot of Reduclon

mFnw GEF * IAwfo.celgh

mhnu GEF

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.501992 S US per T Carbon Equhv.

12/14/92


Fie: CMP PHI1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Enissions discounted at -3.0%/yr

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

PM 0.03 ; 021 46.92 0.08SOx 0.00 -4.08 80.76 0.76NOx 0.00 4.08 816.91 0.99Co 0°.00 -0.33 208 0.05NMHC 0.05 '0.10 I0.10 0.01


C02 3.3E+1- i.6E+3 1.7E+3 1.5E+3CH4 2.8E-2 4.8E+0 1.5E+ I 3.2E+ON20 I.OE-12 1.SE-1 2.4E-1 1.4E-1i

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions disounted at -0%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 9.IE+.0 fif4.4E+2 ;4.7E+2 4.OE+2CH4 1.6E-1 L.7E+1 8.8E +1 1.8E+ 1N20 O.OE+O 1.2E+1 1.9E+1 1.IE+1NOx O.OE+O- 4.4E+1 1.1E+3 1.IE+1CO O.OE+O 2.7E-1 1.7E+0 4.OE-2NMHC -15Ei- '2.9E-1 2.9E-i 2.9E-2TOTAL 9.4E+0 5.3E+2 1.6E+3 4.4E+

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


CASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 5.85E+07 S1/20Reference-High minus GEf 1.83E+08 S0.38Reference-Low minus GEF 4.83E+07 S1.45

12/14/92


File: CMP PHI1.XLS

ComprNin ot Emlssions: GEF Proect vs.Althwnt Technoogy

5.00

4.00

0300 t GEF

2.00 0 Ref-Best

Comparison of GmG hCmiqlvns: GEF vs.Aternativ Technology

1 .E + 4

1.OE +3

6 0E+0

~ tOE.2 EGEF _ nt

O 1.OE1O

C02 CH4 2420

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

6.OE + 2

5.OE+2

4,OE +2 FUGEF3OE+2 I

'~~~2.0E.2 I ~~~Cl Ref-Best1.OE*2

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryPHILIPPINES PROJECT

Fie: CMP PHI1.XLS

Roduction In GHG Enilasons

mkws GEF

RWI m:* hgm"hs GEF

Refetsnce4issminus GEF

O.OOE+00 5.OOE+07 1.OOE+08 1.SOE+08 2.00E+08


NPV Cost of Roductlon

mLmh GEF

minus GEF

mmnuv GEF

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50

1992 S US por T Carbon Equlv.

12/14/92

M.


Fie: CMP_PHII.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissins disounted at 3.0%/yrEmisions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ret-LowPM

0.01 0.09 19.03 0.03SOx 0.00 1.66 32.76 0.31NOx 0.00 1.65 39.32 0.CO 0.00 0.13 0.85 0.0NMHC 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.

Emisions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02

- 1.3E+1 !.66E+2 7.OE+2 5.9E+2CH4 1.IE-2 - 1E+0 6.2E+0 1.3E+0N20

1.OE-12 6.OE-2 9.8E-2 5.6E-2

CARBON EQUIALENT UNITS Emisios dlountd at 3.0%/yrEmissions In te C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Bes Ref-High Ref-LowC02

3.6EM0,. 1.8E+2 1;9E+2. 1.6E+2CH4 64E-2 ' 1.IE+1 ,: 3 6E+1 7.5E+N20

0.OE+O - 44.7E+0 7.7E+O 4.5E+NOx 0.OE+0 k ;'L8E+1 4.3E+2 4.4E+CO O.OE+O 1.lE-1 6.9E-1 1.6E-NMHC

6.2E-2 1.2E-1 1.2E-1 1.2E-TOTAL 3.7E+0 2.1E+2 6.6E+2 1.8E+



Project Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (TCEquiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 2.37E + 07 S2 95Reference-High minus GEf 7.43E +07 SO 94Reference-Low minus GEF 1.96E+07 S3 57


File: CMP PHII.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Aternaidve Tochnooy

2.00

1.50 GE

0.00

0.50

Comparison of GHG Emlslons: GEF vs.Afternatov Technology

1 OE.2

1OE+1 GEF

~ 1 OE+ 0 n Ref-Bet1 OE-2

C02 CH4 N20

Comparlson of Emissions In C. Equlv.: GEF vs.Altrnative Tochnology

2.5E + 2

2.OE +2 f2 5E+2

GEF

20 I.OE+2 Ref!0 G est

L OE + O~~~o t -v

12/14/92


Fie: CMP PHIl .XLS

Reduclon hI GHG Emlssions

mn.A GEF

mtnus GEF I

wrwnusGEF

O.OOE+00 2.OOE+07 4.00E+07 6.00E+07 8.00E+07

Tonne. Carbon Equiv.

NPV Cost of Redu_lo

mrnu GEF

mwm GEFv

$O.0O $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00


I.' 14/92


Fie: CMP_PHI1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted *t 10.0%/yr


PM 0.01 0.04 9.29 0.01SOx 0.00 0.81 16.00 0.1NOx 0.00 0.81 19.20 0.2CO 0.00 0.06 0.41 0.01NMHC 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00


C02 6.3E+0 3.2E +2 3.4E+2 2.9E+ 2CH4 5.3E-3 9.4E-1 3.OE+0 6.4E-1iN20 1.OE-12 2.9E-2 4.8E-2 2.8E

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at o.O0%lyr,


C02 1.7E+0 -&8.E+1 9.3E + 1 7.9E+ ICH4 3.1E-2 5.4E+0 1.7E + 1 3.6E+N20 0.OE+0 2.3E+0 3.8E+0 2.2E+NOx 0.OE+0 8.8E+0 2.1E+2 22E+CO 0.OE+O 5.3E-2 3.4E-1 7.9EoNMHC 2.9E-2 5.8E-2 5.8E-2 5.8E3TOTAL 1.8E+0 1.OE+2 3.2E + 2 8.7E + 1


Reduction in NPV Cost ofErihissions over Reduction


Reference-Best minus GEF 1. 16E + 07 S6.04Reference-High minus GEF 3 63E+07 S1.93Reference-Low minus GEF 9 58E+06 S7.30

_..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~49

Ai.GGAM ProJect Comparison SummaryPHIUPPINES

PROJECT

Fie: CMP PHI1.XLS

Comparison of Emisions: GEF Project vs.A-ernaive Technology

1.00

0.80F0.60 HUGIEF0.40

0 Rot-Best0.20 _

Comparison of GHG Efissions: GEF Vs.Atrabv Tochnology1 OE+3

f I.oe +i

UGEF1.0E+20 f 0 * ef-sest1.OE:1

1.O2-2

C02 CH4 N20

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

1.2E+2

1.0E + 2

8.0E+1

GEF

C-,

4.OE + 2.OE + 1

0.OE.0 -. 0 ,

12/14/92

VI


File: CMP PHI1.XLS

IRduction In GHG Emis.ons

mhnu GEF

m GusOEF

O.OOE.OD 1.OOE+07 2.OOE+07 3.OOE+07 4.OOE+07


NPV Cost of RoductSon

mkus GEF

GEF

i mIW GEF

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00

1992 S US per T Carbon Equhv.

12/14/92

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I


(GGAM)

PROJECT:POLAND: COAL-TO-GAS BOILER CONVERSIONS

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND



I

I

i


POLAND: Coal-to-Gas Boiler Conversion Projects

OVERVIEW:

This GEF project will retrofit of three to five existing coal-fired industrial boilers ranging in sizefrom 0.5 to 5 MW of thermal capacity. A total of 10 MW of capacity will be affected. These boilers,currently fueled with low-quality black coal, will be reconfigured to use natural gas supplied via anew pipeline. (The pipeline will be built with funds from a sister World Bank loan.) Most of the gasused is expected to originate in Poland.

After conversion, these boilers will be set up as cogeneration units, with 25 percent of the heatcontent of the fuel going towards electricity generation, 64 percent going to meet existing steamloads, and the remaining 11 percent released as unrecoverable thermal discharges (i.e. stack losses).The coal boilers being replaced--as well as the new gas-fired units--are assumed to operate at athermal efficiency of approximately 65%.

Uncontrolled emissions from black coal mines in Poland are assumed to average approximately 20-25m3 per tonne of coal produced. Some of the gas delivered to the new boilers is assumed to be coal-bed methane. The new gas pipeline will conform to World Bank standards, and thus will have gasleakage rates less than or equal to 0.1% of throughput. As a result, the secondary greenhouse gasemissions from the project are not considered to be significant, compared to the effects on CO2emissions reductions due to the coal-to-gas conversion. This assumption may understate the benefitsof the project by ignoring the impacts of reduced methane emissions from the mines.

GEF CONTRIBUTION I RQJLE.QCT_COST: US$ 25 MillionGELECOST OF AVOIDED CARBON EMISSIONS(at v&_discount rate for eniccins): US$ 151/tonne

GL1OBAL WARMING-BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJEICT:

I) This project will reduce CO2 emissions due to coal combustion in the existing industrial andelectricity generation boilers, by substituting natural gas for black coal as the principal fuel.The use of gas in the new boilers allows higher efficiencies of energy conversion and haslower emissions of carbon dioxide per unit fuel energy consumed.

2) The project is expected to generate some small reductions in methane emissions from coal

l

I

mining and (to a lesser extent) from gas transport.

UNRESOLVED O SflUF ONS:

(1) The exact mix of gas sources is not clearly identified in the project documents. Therefore, anaverage of recent production for brown and black coal is used to estimate the benefits ofreducing fugitive emissions of coal-bed methane.

(2) The extent of new pipeline construction required for this project is unknown. As aconsequence, the emissions implications of materials acquisition for and construction of thepipeline cannot be calculated at this time.

(3) At the time that this analysis was prepared (December 1992), all GEF funds were expectedto be used in underwriting the coal-to-gas conversion aspects of the project. Since then, adecision has been made to use some of the funds to finance a total energy system in a localhousing project. The share of funds to be applied to the housing project was unknown at thetime of the analysis and, thus, no attempt was made to estimate the effects of this allocationon the calculation of the cost-effectiveness of the coal-to-gas conversion project.

.TECHNlICAL ASSUMPTIONS USED iN THIS ANALY.SS:

1) The amount of heat going to the turbines to generate electricity is equal to 25 percent of thefuel energy input to the system.

2) The efficiency of the turbine-generator set used in the project is approximately 43 percent(electricity output/heat input).

3) The effective average capacity factor for the plants is 80 percent.

4) Methane comprises 90 percent of the natural gas in Poland.

5) In order to estimate the methane emissions from coal mining in the "Best" ReferenceAlternative Technology, a weighted average was calculated based on the types of coals minedin Poland, thus, in essence, an "average" Polish coal is assumed.

('RITICALFACTORS IN THIS ANALYSIS:

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

2

I

GGAM Project Input SheetsPOLAND PROJECT

Fie: IPT POLI.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET ALEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWlVN GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION ,_Who is the Task Manager on this project?

In which Country will the project will be located? PobndPease proWe a name for the proposed GEF project: CoaasWhat vwill be the principal technology used to generateor sav eectity (pres the button or type direcyG)a boer, rnv. (EkcVCogen)It anWoher major technology wil be required for this project(e.9. 9gs t'Unsport, or coat mining) and is *pctaed to havesnificant environmentai impacts, please enter the name of the64condary technology here (pres buton or type direcsty): <NNE_How is the outpul of the secondary technoogy,

mQ"surd, e.g in GJtyr, or tonne [What po lution control technodogies, if any, will oe

_ _ implemIented in the Proposed GEf Projeco EVEL OF DETt IcorADOTPUT DATA,

USING YEAR-SY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA7 NO GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETSING YEARBY-YEAR COST DATA7 _O

12 '.t *.'

I

t43


File: IPT POL1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET 8LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOVING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

What will be the first year of project operations? 199What is the expected operating ifetime of the project? X Years Go To10 What is the expected esonomc Ufetime of the project? X Yrs Previous11 What is the expected lifetime of the loan Inputassocated with the project? -Tehhv ears Sheet12. This program uses the expWted economic ifetme of the project Du tefautThis value determne how many yed of cost and output dat re to be colletedif a different value is more appropriate, pbea enter It here: Years

13. What is the discoun t rate to be applied to montary flows? Perceten14. What is the discount rate to be appCied to pollutant emissions? t Pementy15. What is the expcted electricity geneao capacity provxded

or displaced by this proect? rZ, 19IMw Go To16. Wht is the ha gen tion or ca Nextultimately expected from the project? 11421 JInput17 What is the capaity of the secondary technology Sheetto be used (if applicable)? N/A

1.' 14/92

I


Foe: IPT POL1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET CLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18. Whet wi b Uw pnmay input fuel for the project (if applicable)? N _19. What wn be tw secondary inpu fuel for the prect (if applicable)? cNONE3- I

GJ per20. Pa enwr or ot the teat cortent of the input Primry Fued 0.03545 Cubc materfuels, in GJ per untv ow at fr rigt (fd applicable). Saoondary Ful 0 O21. What racon of Ow ener hput to the projec il the pn Pay adP Fud t00o

the secondary fuels provde (if applicable) in Percent of total? Secondary FudPress tte appropnate button to enter the plan effiecy (elctcity outputlfuel hiput) hi:ORf

Plese enter the plant efficiency here: 29.5 ITkWh1GJ Fuel Input23. What Is the x;eced hat or steam geration efficiency(heat energy output per utin fued input)? Note that unless no electricyis produced. GGAM amerthat the project is a cogeraton system. 0.Z4GJGJ Fuel Input


12/14/92

M3


File: IPT POL1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOVWNG GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:What will be the first year of project operations? 1994 What is the expected operatg lifetime of the projec? 25Years Go To

10. What is the expected economic lifetime of the projct? 25Yeers Previous11. What is the expected lifetime of the loan Input

associated with the projed? 77 ye Sheet12. This program uses the epected ecornic ifetm of the projct h debun vlue.

This value determins how any yeam of cot and output data ae to be colleted.If a different value is more approprate, plese enter d here: Years

13. What is the discount rate to be appled to monetary Iows? 5 Percentl'14. What is the discount rate to be apphed to pollurtat emissions? 0 Perenttyr1S. What is the expected electricity geneation capacity provided

or displaced by tais projecr? 11'|MW Go To16. What is the heat generation or savkns capecty Next

ulimfately expected from the project? 181.421 0GJtyr Input17. What is the capacity of the secondary technology Sheet

to be used (if applicable)? N/A

1.' 14/92

GGAM ProJect Input SheetsPOLAND PROJECT

Flle: IPT POL1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET DIPEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON AVERAGE PROJECT OUTPUTS:4 What is the expected annual average ekdctrcity generation or savings? [8.37GWh

2S. What is the expected snnual anrage heat generation or savings? [ 184IGJ

26 What is the expected annual average uise of the secondary technokog?NA


12/14/92


FUe: IPT POL1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON TOTAL PROJECT OUTPUT COSTS:7. What wi to Vw net presert value of the total ots of GHG

reduion Wr kw .

prqect? Million US 1992

28. What wl be the net present valwe of the capital costsfor th prvnwy technology used in this proect? [Z ] $ Million US 1992What wi be the net preset walie of the operang costskicuTd over the bhetim of th projetd (prmry technology)? r ZJ MiNion US 1992What win be tme ne presend value of te ctl atsfor the econdary technology used h this pre? $Muiion US 1992

1. What wi be th net preseft value of the operng costsincurred over the lifeime of the project (secondary technoloy)? [Z Is MiUion US 1992


12/14/92


File: IPT POL1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET F2. PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EMISSION FACTORS

TO BE USED IN ESTIMATING EMISSIONS OF GHGS/AIR POLLUTANTS

Now Using: Energy Units

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx CO Gas. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Comb.: Prinary Fuel kG/GJ 1.4E-03 27E-04 1.4E-01 1.4E-02 O.QE+.O 1.7E-03 0.0E+00Comb.: Secondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Prirmary Fuel kgtGJ 5.2E+01 1.4E-03 3.3E-03 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 0.0E+00Comb.: Seoondary Fuel kgtGJSecondary Technology N/A


12/14/92


File: IPT POLI.XLS



ENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Pro" buttons Reference Fraction of

Technology To choose Technology Eectricity

Number from Tech Ust Chosen GeneaedI11- l fired bikr conv. 1 00lPerent

Go to Rh o eRf Tech I J Previous 2 Choose Ref Tech 2 | (NONE) - Percent

InputSheet 3 Te 3PercentSheet ( ~~Choose Rol Tech 3 0 |(ONE) |I

Go to 4 (Choose Rf Tech 4 (INONE) |Percen

NextInput 5 Choose Ref Tech 2 (NONE) PercentSheet TOTAL

TOTAL I 1001

1I 14/92


File: IPT POL1.XLS

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


Number frorn Tech list Chosen Produced

Go to 1 Choose Ref Tech Coal-fired boir. conv . 100 PercentPreviousInputSheet 2 Choos Ref Tech 2 (NONE) Percent

Write Data to File. Go To ProjedCall In Ref Tech Data. Coniparison Sheet w/o TOTAL |Z ooland Go To Project Calling In Ref Tech Data

Comparison Sheet (Existng Shees Only)

12/14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryPOLAND PROJECT

Fie: CMP POLl.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Eml"isn discounted at -3.0%/yr

Emislons In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.09 26.38 94.45 1.76SOx

0.02 65.96 187.84 12.53NOx 9.52 21.05 121.68 4.1CO 0.91 4.78 '10.39 0.5NMHC 0.11 0.58 1.07 0.01

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 3.5E+3 6.IE+3 6.2E+3 - 5.9E+ 3CH4 8.8E-1 4.9E+1 . 6.lE+1 4.9E+ 1N20

2.2E-1 3.1 E-1 3.9E-1 3.oE-1

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emisins disuntd at -3.0%/yrEmissions In te C. oq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 9.6E+2 -n1.47E+3- 1.7E+3 1.6E+CH4 5.1E+0 2.8E+2 3.5E+2 - 2.8E+N20 1.8E+1 . 2.4E+1 3.1E+1 .2.4E+1NOx 1.0E+2 -2.3E+2 1.3E+3 4.6E+ 1CO 7.5E-1- 3.9E+0'' 8.5E+0 4.5E-1NMHC 3.4E-1 1.7E+0 3.2E+0 2.7E-TOTAL 1.1E+3 2.2E+3 3.4E+3 2.0E+



Project Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (T C Equiv.) T C Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 2.33E +05 S10726Reference-High minus GEF 4.85E +05 S51.55Reference-Low minus GEF 1.84E+05 S135.73Emissions discounted at -3.0%/yr

12 12192


File: CMP_POLI.LS

Comparison of Emissions: hCF Project vs.Alternave Technology

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00 ~ ~ ~ ~ U EF20.00 of-sEst10.00

0.00

CoGMParoson of GHG Emisions: GEF vs.Altenative Technology

1.OE C 4

1.OE.3

. o 1.OE+2 M GEF1.OE+1I

I .0E+0 C]- Ref-Besti.oE-1

1.OE-2

C02 CH44 N420

CoParison of Emissions In C. Equiv.: GESF vs.Alternative Technology

2.OE+3f

dSE.3 E GEF~,1.OE+3 C] Ref-Best

'9 .OE+O [ X

1 OE 42

l2 ? '292


File: CMP POL1.XLS

Roducfon In GHG Esmlsions

mm GCF_

mha GEF,

O.OOE+ *.OOE+ 2.00E+ 3.00E+ 4.OOE+ 5.00E+00 06 05 05 05 05

Tonnes Cwbon Equlv.

NPV Cost of RedueconP.O

MAGEF

OEF i _ _ _ _ _ _ _

$0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.001992 S US per T Cbon Equlv.

12/12/92


File: CMP POLl.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discountod at 0.0%/yrEmissions in te/GWHe

AIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM 0.06 17.33 62.06 1.16SOx 0.01 43.34 123.42 8.23NOx 5.73 13.83 79.95 2.74CO 0.55 3.14 - 6.83 0.36NMHC 0.07 0.38 0.70 0.01


C02 2.1E+3 4.OE+3 - 4.1E+3 3.9E+3CH4 5.7E-1 3.2E+ 1 4.OE + 1 3.2E+ IN20 1.3E-1 2.OE-1 2.6E-1 2.0E-1

CARBON EQUVALENT UNITS Emisajons disountod et 0.0%/yr

Emissions In te C. .q./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 5.8E+2 1.1E+3 1.1E+3 1.1E+3CH4 3.3E+0 1.8E+2 2.3E+2 1.8E+2N20 1.IE+1 1.6E + 1 2.OE+1 1.6E + 1NOx 6.3E+ 1 1.5E+2 8.7E+2 3.OE+ 1CO 4.5E-1 2.6E+0 5.6E+0 3.OE-1NMHC 2.1E-1 1.1E+0 2.1E+0 1.8E-2TOTAL 6.6E+2 1.4E+3 2.2E+3 1.3E +




Reference-Best minus GEF 1.66E+05 S151.04Reference-High minus GEf 3.31 E +05 S75.53Reference-Low minus GEF 1.33E+05 $187.42

.12/92


Fie: CMP POLI.XLS

Comparison of Emibions: GEF Protct vs.Atrnate Technology

50.00

40.00

-V 3000 GEF

20.00 0 Ref-Best

0.000

0.00 II . I

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Alternative Technoloy

1.OE+4

I .OE+3

8.O E+2 jGEf1.OE + 6.OE+2O

0 Ret-Besti.OE-i

IZ.E-2

C02 CM4 120

Comparison of Emisions In C Equly.: GEF vs.Altermative Technology

1 .6E3 +3

1.4E.3-~1.2E +3

I .OE+3 FlUGEF8.OE +2

.'6.OE +2 R ot-Best

-4.OE +22.0E +20.OE + 0

12/12/92


File: CMP_POLl .XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissions discounted at 3.O%/yvEmissions In te/GWHeAIR POLLUTANTS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowPM

0.04 .12.07 -43.23 0.81sox 0.01 .30.19 85.97 5.NOx 3.75 9.63 55.69 1.91co 0.36 2.19 4.75 0.251NMHC 0.04 0.27 0.49 0.0

Emissions In te/GWHeGHGS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 1.4E+3. - 2.8E+3 .2.8E+3 27E + 31CH4 -4.OE-1 -2.2E+'I 2.BE+1 2.2E + iIN20 8.8E-2 1.4E-1 1.8E-1 1.4E-1J

CARBON EOUIVALENT UNI.TS Emissions discounted St 3.0%/yrEmissions In to C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02

3..8E +2 .,7.6E+2*. 7.7E+2 7.4E+2CH4 :2.3E+o ";I3E+2 1.65E+2 I.3E+2N20 6.9E+0 '1.IE +1 -'1.4E+1 11'E+lNOx 4.IE+1 1'.IE+2 '-6".1E+2 2.lE+lco 2.9E-1 1.8E+o 3.9E+0 2.1lE-1INMHC 1.3E-1 8.OE-1 l.5E+0 1.2E-2TOTAL

4.3E+2 l.OE+3 1.6E+3 9.OE+2



Project Ufe (1992 S US perCASE ( qi. qi.

Emissions discounted at 3.o%/yr

12112/92


Fie: CMP POL1.XLS

Redueton In GHG Emsalaons

m GEF

m GEF

O.OOE 5.00E 1.00E 1.50E 2.00E 2.50E 3.00E 3.50E+00 +04 +05 +05 +0C +05 +05 +06

Tonn.s Carbon Equlv.

NPV Cot of ReductkOn

n*a GEf

in*v GEf

n1w GEf

$0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00


12/12/92


File: CMP POL1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Proct vs.Aftewntive Technology

350030.00 25.00 UGEF~20.00H

*~15.00E]Rfes

10.005.000.00

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Afternative Technology

1 .OE + 4

1.OE+3

.W iE 0+2 * GEF1.OE+ 1

1.OE-1. l i-~1.OE+oC e-B2

C02 CH44 N20

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

1 2E+3

o .OEs + 3C8.0E.2 F 2 E

6 OE + 2oRf-Beest

2.OE +02

12/12/92

-----------------


File: CMP_POL1.XLS

Roductlon in GHG Emissions

mlnia GEF =

mrnu, GEf

Thfl , GE _________._ ______ _____

O.OOE. 5 100E. 1WE. 1.SOE+ ZOOEE 2.50E+00 04 05 05 06 0O


NPV Cost of Redutbon

GEF _- -__

$0.00 S500 $100. S150. $200. $250. $300.


1? '292

I

GGAM Projec Comparison SummaryPOLAND PROJECT

Fie: CMP POLI.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Project vs.Alternative Technology

16.0014.0012.0010.00

EF8.00

4! 6.00 1-B s4.00 0RfBe

2.000.00

CompOrfson of GHG Emislons: GEF vs.Aternative Technology

1 .OE + 4

1.0E+3.1OE+2 | GEF

1.OE+lI .OE.0E~O

Ref-Bestt.OE-I

1.OE-2

. - C02 CH4 N20

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

6.OE + 2

5.OE +2

4.0E+2

3.OE + 0 sGr

. I

1t 12/92

Mle


File: CMP_POL1 .XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS .Emlisons disoounted at 10.0%/yr


PM 0.02 6.29 22.53 0.42SOx 0.00 15.74 44.81 2.99NOx 1.80 5.02 29.03 1.00CO 0.17 1.14 2.48 0.13NMHC 0.02 0.14 0.25 0.00


C02 6.7E+2 1.5E+3 1.5E+3 1.4E+3CH4 2.1E-1 1.2E+1 1.5E+1 1.2E+1IN20 4.2E-2 7.3E-2 9.4E-2 7.1

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emiions dsclounted at 10.0%/yr

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

C02 1.8E+2 i4 -4.OE+2 -4.OE+2 3.9E +2CH4 1.2E+0 6.7E+1 8.4E+1 6.7E+1N20 3.3E+0 5.8E+0 7.4E+0 5.6E+0NOx 2.0E+1 5.5E+ 1 3.2E+2 1.1E+1CO 1.4E-1 9.3E-1 2.OE+0 1.1 E-1NMHC 6.5E-2 4.2E-1 7.6E-1 6.5E3TOTAL 2.1E+2 5.3E+2 8.1E+2 4.7E+2



Project Ufe (1992 S US perCASE (TC Equiv.) TC Equiv)

Reference-Best minus GEf 6.68E +04 S3i74Reference-High minus GEF 1 27E +05 S197Reference-Low minus GEF 5.51E+04 S454Emissions discounted at 10.0%/yr

12/12/92


File: CMP POL1.XLS

Reduction In GHG Emissions

minus GEFR.FiCS4Iih

minus GEF

minus GEF ___ _ __

O.DOE 2.00E 4.00E 6.00E 8.00E t.OOE 1.20E 1.40E+00 +04 +04 +04 +04 +05 +05 +05



R=_E_ _ _ _minus GEF

minus GEFR efwc.9a_ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

minus GEF

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500

1992 S US por T Carbon Equiv.

12, ' 1 92


(GGAM)

PROJECT.THAILAND: DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT

PROJECT COMPARISON

PREPARED BY:


AND



I

i

i


THAILAND: Promotion of Electric Energy Efficiency

OVERVIEW:

This GEF project is designed to increase the efficiency of electricity use in the residential andcommercial sectors in Thailand. The project will involve programs affecting 10,000 new units ofresidential housing plus more than 150 commercial buildings. The secondary goal of the project isto strengthen the institutional capability of Thai utilities to design, manage, and evaluate demandside management programs in the electricity sector. In addition to upgrading the utility's ability toengage in and implement the techniques of least-cost generation expansion planning, this programwill promote the widespread use of energy-efficiency ratings for appliances and energy audits forindustries throughout Thailand. Because a detailed project design was not available from the WorldBank Task Manager at the time that this analysis was carried out, the national action plan developedby the prime contractor for the project, the Intemational Institute for Energy Conservation, was usedinstead. The GEF contribution to this project will include a grant of US$ 15 million. This grant willsupplement conventional World Bank loans and co-financing by the Australian government for thisproject.

This project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Thailand by reducing electricity demandthrough improvements in the energy efficiency of various end-uses in the residential and commercialsectors.

GEF CONTRIBUTION O PROJIECT COST: Grant of US$ 15 millionG.EF COST OF AVOIDED CARBeON EMISSIONS

(atL0% dscount rate for emissions): US$ 10/tonne

GLIOBAL WARMINGw BEFNEFITS OFTHE PROPOSED PROJlECT:

(1) This energy efficiency project will eliminate the need to build new gas- or coal-fired powerplants in Thailand, thus avoiding the expected emissions from fossil fuel combustion.


(I) The project documents do not separate the expected benefits of load shifting from of demandreductions due to efficiency improvements.

I

(2) The project documents do not specify the efficiency of equipment that will be replaced ormodified under the efficiency program.

(3) The project documents do not specify the life cycle cost of the proposed measures.

TECHNLICAL ASSUMPTIONS USED lN THIS ANALYSIS:

(1) The energy savings due to each component of the demand side management program aregiven in the Executive Summary of the IIEC report.

CRITICAI,_FACTORS INTI ANAILYSIS:

(I) Estimated energy savings due to the program(2) Composition of displaced energy due to energy efficiency improvements(3) Operations and maintenance costs for the efficiency measures

2

i

GGAM Project Input SheetsTHAILAND PROJECT

File: IPT THAi.XLS


LEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:1 Who is the Task Manager on this project?2 In which Country will the project will be located? Thailand

Please provide a nare for the proposed GEF project: Demand-side Mnagement nWhat will be the principal technooy used to generate

or save electncity (press the button or type directly)? Demrand-side mtr (ElecVCogenlHeat)It another maior technology will be required for this project(e.g. gas transport, or coal mining) and is expeted to havesignificant environmental impacts, please entr the name of the

'secondary technolgy here (press butLon or type directly) | NONE-6 How is the output of the secondary tochnology,

measured, e.g In GJtyr, or torw|nyr?

7 What polution control technologies, if any, will be

implemented in the propoed GEF projec?EVEL OF DETAIL IN COST AND OUTPUT DATA:

USING YEAR-BY-YEAR OUTPUT DATA? IYES GO TO NEXT INPUT SHEETUSING YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DATA?_

12/14/92

I

04

GGAM Project Input SheotTHAILAND PROJECT

File: IPT THAI.XLS


EASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PROJECT INPUTS AND EFFICIENCY:18 What will be the pnmary nput fuel for the project (if applicable)? IDSn19 What will be the secndary input fuel for the proqect (if applicable)? j]NONE3

GJ perPlease enter or edit the ht conter f th put | Prxy ud1 GJfuels, in GJ per unit shown at for rg (if applicable). 0

1 What fraction of the ergy put to the project will the priy ary Fuealy 100the secondary uels povide (if applicable) in Pernt of totaf Seconday FuelPress the appropriate button to ater the plant efftcency (eklricity outptuel put) in:

OR

Pease e*nter the plant efcierncy here: | PoolPerntWhat is the expeded het or steem generaion efricincy

(heat energy output per unit fuel input)? Note tha uness no eWctricity

is produced, GGAM assumes tha the proect is a cogeneration system. GJ/GJ Fuel Irput


12/14/92

c

GGAM ProjeCt Input SheetsTHAILAND PROJECT

File: IPT_THA1.XLS


PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOViNG GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

* What will be the fit year of project operations? 1993* What is the expected operating lifetime of the prject? I Years Go To

10. Wht is the expected economic lifetime of the propct? 15|Ye Previous11. What is the epected lifetirme of the ban Input

associated with the proet? 1 d5 ft Sheet12. This program Uses the eected ecoonc lIetime of the projett d thk<

Ths value determnes how many years o ost and output daa ar to be olected.If a different vaue is more approprate, pleae enter k here: Year

13. What is the discount rate to be epplied to onetry flows? 5 Perrntfyr

14. What is the dise cnt rte to be appliod to pollu videt e dns? 0Perrenr

15. What Is the discted electri geneap ied toapoluanty eiss---ns?

or displaced by this project? [ Z8|MW Go To16. Wht is the heat generation or slAngs capacity ' Next Inpu

ultimatety expecred from the projet? IGJtyr Sheet17. What is the cap aty of td secondary technology

to be used (if applicable)?

'. 14/92

GGAM Project Input SheetTHAILAND PROJECT

Fie: IPT THA1.XLS

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET E2 PreviousSheet Next Sheet7. to 29. Yay4By-Year Projet Costs (Primary Tech.)COSTS

COSTS(Million 1992 US Dolars) (Million 1992 US Dolars)Cost of GHG Captl Opating & Cost of GHG Capital Operatmg &YEAR Reduction Costs Maint. Costs YEAR Reduction Cost Maint. Cots

1993 38.951 1 5 5Z Cots of GHG reductio ae tol of GEF grnt and GEF loan amounts1994

25587 lhed on page 24 of Thuft Repot, Thaind: Promotion of Energy1995

44.881 Efficieny, Pr.ivstrent Appr_sa. October 1992. It was assumed1 996 475 t V es costs wW be incurred hn to first proje yar, bu is may not1997

55.4 be the cas. Capil costs ar those nlected inthe project budget1998

(poage 24). but will incdude a combination of outla for both capitl and1999

oewr tems. No coss were mumed ncurred after y"er fi of th2000

project. although there waJd pbably be aome (pethps modest)2001

ongoing costs for project monitn and vaution, ad for O&M. even2002

if hnding of the DSM prgram _se. Costs In te Pre-investment2003

appraisal are not labeled, but ar Asu d for this nercise to be2004

constant $1992.200520062007

PROJECT DATA INPUT SHEET E330. to 31. Yeay-lgy-Year Project Costs (Secondary Technology)

COSTS COSTS(Million 1992 US Dolars)

(Million 1992 US Doars)Capital Operating S Capital Opating & PreviousYEAR Cobts Maint. Costs

YEAR Costs Mairt Costs Sheet1993199419951 996

[ Next19971998

Sheet2000200120022003

200520062007

12 /14/92

m

gm

co lT T T T-T - T

I ocn~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

CO

MMMMMW'I 5____ O

CD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ceRaRa 14gPIE§§XE g d o


File: IPT THA1.XLS


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

Now Using: Energy |Units

SOURCE UNITS Partic. SOx NOx CO Ga. Fl NMHCs Aldehyd.Comb.: Primary Fuel kg/GJ O.OE+OO O.OE'OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OEOO O.OEOO O.OE+00Comb.: Seoondary Fuel kg/GJSecondary Technology N/A

SOURCE UNITS C02 CH4 N20 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 HCFC-22Comb.: Primry Fuel kg/GJ O.OE+OO O.OE'OO O.OE+00 O.OE.OO O.OE+OO O.OE+OO O.OE+00Comb.: Sooondary Fuel kg/GJ



12/14/92

oxGGAM Project Input Sheet

THAILAND PROJECT

Flle: IPT THA1.XLS



ENERATING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WLL BE COMPARINGWITH THE GEF PROJECT

Reference Press buttons Reference Fraction of

Technology To choose Technolgy Electrkity

Nurber from Tech ist Chosn Generated

Go to (I C sred bo con. 100Percent

Previous 2 NONE) PercentInput Cho ofTc

Sheet 3 C( RdTch 3 |INONE) Percent

Go to 4 ChoosT ch4f (NONE) PercentNe7xt

Input | Choof Rt Tech 5 I(NONE) Percent

SheetetTOTAL | 00

12/14/92

0'


Fge: IPT THA1.XLS


4 PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOVING INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEAT (ONLY)-RODUCING REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU WILL BE COMPARING



Number from Tech list Chosn Produced

Go to Choose RfTeh 1 PNONE) | 100PercentPrevious

InputSheet 2 Chooe Ref Tch 2 (FNONE) Percent

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

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

12 /14/92

GGAM Project Comparison SummaryTHAILAND PROJECT

File: CMP THA1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emnalons dicounted at 10.0%/yr

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

PM 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.01SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.00 0.85 1.61 0.CO 0.00 0.08 0.14 0.0NMHC 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.


C02 1.OE-12 2.9E+2 3.3E+2 2.5E+CH4 1.OE-12 1.6E+0 2.1E+0 1.0E+ N20 1.OE-12 4.9E-2 7.3E-2 2.6E-.

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emissions disbountod at 10.0%/yr

Emissions In te C. .q./GWHeGAS GEF Ret-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 O.OE+O ?7EEt * - 9.1E+1 6.7E+ 1CH4 O.OE+O 9.OE+O 1.2E+1 6.OE+CN20 O.OE+O 3.9E+0 5.8E+0 2.0E+0NOx O.OE+O 9.2E+0 1.8E+1 9.4E-1CO O.OE+O - 6.6E-2 1.2E-1 1.6E-2NMHC O.OE+O 1.3E-2 2.1E-2 5.2E3TOTAL O.OE+0 1.OE+2 1.3E+2 7.6E+1

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


CASE (TCEquiv.) TC Equiv.)Reference-Best minus GEF 1.87E + 06 S19186Reference-High minus GEf 2 33E +06 S15.91Reference-Low minus GEF I 40E+06 S26.43

1. 14/92

C


File: CMP THA1.XLS

Comparison of Emiio:n: GEF Prooct vs.Alrnative Technology

1.00

0.20

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Altemaive Toechnology

1 .OE + 3

1.0E+2

1.0E+ I GEF

1.OE +0 note-Best

1 .OE-1

C02 C l4 -n20

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

1.2E+2

1.OE +2-

8.OE+12 _ E*GEF

0 60E+12.ZOE:l*T - n._.ORtBs

-- z

12/14/92

0GGAM Project Comparison Summary

THAILAND PROJECT

File: CMP THA1.XLS

Reduclon In GHG Emlaions

Amn GEF,

m GEF

mhm GEF

0.00E+ 5.OOE + 1 .00E + 1 .50E + 2.00E + 2.50E +00 05 06 06 06 06

Toes Carbon Equlv.

NPV Coat of Reducon

PAkf4w0____

ffim GEF

$0.00 $5.00 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.00 0 0 0 0

192 $ US pr T Carbon Equlv.

' .'14/92


Fie: CMP_THA1.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS Emissons discountd at 3.0%/yr


PM 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.01SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.OCNOx 0.00 1.33 2.52 0.14CO 0.00 0.13 0.22 0.03NMHC 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.W


C02 1.OE-12 4.5E+2 5.2E+2 3.9E+2CH4 1.OE-12 2.5E+0 3.3E+0 1.6E+ ON20 1.OE-12 7.7E-2 1.IE-1 4.OE-21

CARBON EQUNALENT UNITS Emissions discounted at 3.0%/yr


C02 0.OE+O 1.2E+2 --1.4E+2 1.1E+CH4 O.OE+O 1.4E+1 1.9E+1 9.4E+N20 O.OE+O '6.lE+0 9.1E+0 3.2E+NOx O.OE+O 1.4E+1 '2.8E+1 1.5E+CO O.OE+O 1.0E-1 1.8E-1 2.5E-NMHC 0.OE+0 2.1 E-2 3.3E-2 8.2ETOTAL 0.OE+0 1.6E+2 2.OE+2 1.2E+




Reference-Best minus GEF 2.93E+06 S12.65Reference-High minus GEF 3.66E+06 S10.13Reference-Low minus GEF 2.20E +06 S16.84

: 14/92

0GGAM Project Comparison Summary

THAILAND PROJECT

FEe: CMP THI.XLS

Comparlson of EmIumons: GEF Protec vs.Ah.rnsUve Technology

1.40120 f

o0.80 H U GEF

II l.OE+0 _ C | Rot-Best0.40 f0.20__ _ _ J0.00

Comparison of 0GHG EmbsEuons: GEF vs.Atenslv Technology

1.OE +3

1.OEE2 [ 2

1.0E+1 GEF1.OE+0- 0JRef-Best

1.OE-1

1.0E-2 -- -LC02 cm4 N20

Comnparison of Emissions in C. Equlv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

I .z + 21 .4E.2

* 1.2E +2

1.OE +2 UGEF8 .OE + I

c 6.OE + 1I Ref-Beet4.OE + I2.OE+ IO.OE +0 .. L_- r0 n

12/14/92

~~uiI ~~88 |

II-3

In~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

m

+

D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I I I S i | | W8

0ls


File: CMP_THA1.XLS




PM 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.01

SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOx 0.00 1.67 3.17 0.17CO 0.00 0.16 0.28 0.04NMHC 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00


C02 1.OE-12 5.7E+2 6.6E+2 4.8E+2CH4 1.OE-12 3.IE+0 -4.IE+0 2.lE+0N20 1.OE-12 9.7E-2 1.4E-1 5.1E-2

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Eaissuons disoontd t 0.0%/yr

Emissions In to C. eq./GWHeGAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-Low

C02 0.OE+0 _ ',16E+2 ,.E1.BE+2 1.3E+2CH4 0.OE+0 '- .SE + 1 2.4E4+1 1.2E+1N20 0.0E+0 7.7E+0 .1.1E+1 4.OE+NOx 0.0E+0 1.8E+1 3.5E+1 I 1.9E+CO 0.0E+0 1.3E-1 2.3E-1 3.2E-NMHC 0.OE+0 2.6E-2 4.2E-2 1.OE-TOTAL 0.0E+0 2.OE+2 2.5E+2 1.5E+.

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emissions discounted st 0.0%/yr


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

Reference-Best minus GEF 3.68E + 06 210.07Reference-High minus GEF 4.60E +06 S8.07Reference-Low minus GEF 2.77E +06 S13.40

1 2/14/92

I

GGAM Prolect Comparison SummaryTHAILAND PROJECT

File: CMP THA1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Prolact vs.Alternative Technology

2.00

.se 1 OE+ t i ! | *GEF| 1.00

l l~~~~~~~~~~E

0.50

0.00

Comparison of GHG EanlCaions: GEF vs.Alternative Twchnology

1.OE+3

1 20E+2 7]1.OE+ 1 GEF

.O50E+ 0 | 23 R ef-B eat

1.OE-2'

C02 C*44 N20

Compaison Of Emissions In a. Equaiv.: GEF vs.Alternative Technology

2.OE+2

~~ 1.5:2 ~~~~~GEF

-~~ 5.OE+i El~~~~ Ref-Sest

00E+0 E~C.)~ ~~~C

12/14/92

IIii I S11

-~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-(D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ift~~~~~~ O


File: CMP_THAI.XLS


PHYSICAL UNITS . Eanislons discounted at -3.0%/yrEmissions In te/GWHe


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

C02 1.OE-12 7.3E+2 8.4E+2 6.2E+2CH4 1.OE-12 4.OE+0 5.3E+0 2.6E+ON20 1.OE-12 1.3E-1 1.9E-1 6.5E-

CARBON EQUIVALENT UNITS Emlssions discounted at .3 0%/yrEmissions in te C. eq./GWHe

GAS GEF Ref-Best Ref-High Ref-LowC02 O.OE+O 2.OE+2 2.3E+2 1.7E+2CH4 0.OE+0 2.3E+1 3.OE+1 1.SE+1N20 O.OE+O 9.9E+0 1.5E+1 5.1E+NOx 0.OE+0 2.3E+1 4.4E+ 1 2.4E+CO O.OE+0 1.7E-1 2.9E-1 4.1ENMHC 0.OE+0 3.3E-2 5.3E-2 1.3E-TOTAL O.OE+O 2.6E+2 3.2E+2 1.9E+2

COST OF GHG REDUCTIONS Emlssions discounted at -3.0%/yr



Reference-Best minus GEF 4.74E + 06 17.83Reference-High minus GEF 5.92E +06 S6.27Reference-Low minus GEF 3.56E +06 S10.41


FHe: CMP THA1.XLS

Comparison of Emissions: GEF Proet vs.Af nUdvw Technobogy

2.50

2.00

0.50 U GEF

' 1.00 | OEl Ref-Beast

0.00

z

Comparison of GHG Emissions: GEF vs.Altnatve Technology

1 .OE + 3

1 .OE +2

-~1.OE + IEGEF1.OE+ 0 ]RfBt1 .OE-1

1.OE-2-

C02 CH4 N20

Comparison of Emissions in C. Equiw.: GEF vs.Atternativo Technology

3.OE + 2

2.5E + 2

2.OE +21 EI 1.5E +21

1.0E+21 MBsSOE+1

O.OE + 0

4/92


Fie: CMP THAI.XLS

RoducUon In GHG Emislsons

mrw,uoGEP

minig GEF

nimh GEF

O.OOE 1.00E 2.00E 3.ODE 4.ODE 5.00E 6OOE+00 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06


NPV Cost of Rductlon

P.T,nv- Gminus GEF

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

1992 S US per T Carbon Equhv.

12/14/92

CONCLE S.XLS

REFERENCE TECHNOLOGY DATA SUMMARY

Conven_onal Coal (Eastorn US-type)Stem-8o0er-ElectrIcIty Goneration

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Bost Hlgh Low

AIR POLLUTANTSPunculates T/GWHe 1.30E-01 2.88E+01 4.63E-02Oxide of Sulfur T/GWHe 2.50E+00 4.95E+01 4.63E-01OxIdes of ltogen T/GWHe 2.50E+00 5.94E+01 6.10E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 2.00E-01 1.28E + 00 3.00E-02Gaseous Florides T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 6.00-E02 5.94E-02 5.96E-03Ahdehydes T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 1.00E+03 1.05E+03 8.95E+02Methane T/GWHe 1.00E-02 7.78E-03 6.12E-03Nitous Oxide T/GWHIe 9.00E-02 1.48E-01 8.53E-02CFC-1i T/GWHe 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.OOE +00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.OOE +00 0.OOE+00HCFC-22 T/GWF* 0.00E+0 00 0.00E+0 0.00E+00

NOTES:'Bea' values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


c.z-

DISGST_S.XLS


DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED COMBUSTIONTURBINE-ELECTRICITY GENERATION

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Bsot High LoW

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulatcs T/GWHO 2.00E-01 2.08E41 1.52E-01Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHF 1.00E+00 2.34E+00 2.54E-01Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 1.50E+00 2.83E+00 7.37E-01Cwbon Monoxide T/GWHb 5.OOE-01 6.41E-01 1.12E-01Gaseous Florides T/GWHF O.OOE+OO O.OOE.00 O.OOE+OONon-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHS 1.70E-01 1.97E401 1.44E01Aldehydes T/GWHe O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE+OO O.OOEO+ 0

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 9.OOE+02 9.50E+02 8.21E+02Methane T/GWHF 1 .OOE-02 1 .9OE402 8.91 E403Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 1.80E01 1.79E401 1.79E-01CFC-i 1 T/GWHF O.OOE + W O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE +00CFC-12 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00CFC-113 T/GWHs O.OOE + 00 O.OOE+00 .OOE + 00HCFC-22 T/GWHs O.OOE+ 00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+ 00

NOTES:Best values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified in

detailed data compilation.


cz3DISTIC_S.XLS


Distillate O0l-firod IntemalCombustion Engine, Elect Generation

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Bst High LOw

AJR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHF 1.56E+00 1.56E +00 1.56E+O0Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 1.46E+00 1.46E+00 1.46E+00OxidesotNitrogen T/GWHe 2.19E+01 219E+01 2.19E+01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHF 4.74E+00 4.74E+00 4.74E+00Gaseous Florides T/GWHF O.OOE +00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 1.SOE+00 1.SOE+00 1.SOE+00Aldehydes T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHS 1.06E+03 1.06E+03 1.06E+03Methane T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe O.OOE +00 O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE+00CFC-11 T/GWHF O.OOE+OO O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 O.OOE+OD O.OOE+00CFC-1 13 T/GWHe O.OOE + 00 O.OOE + 00 0.OOE+00HCFC-2 T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE +00 O.OOE + 00

NOTES:'Best' values are averages of high and low values unlew otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


CONGAS_S.XLS


Conven_onal Gas (Stem Boler)EJec&t Generation

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High Law

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulate* T/GWHF 7.38E.02 1.33E-01 1.49E-42Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 2.07E-03 3.25E-03 8.85E-04Oxides of Nitogen T/GWHe 1.67E+00 3.17E+00 1.70E41Carbon Monoxide T/GWHs 1.SStE-01 2.79E-4t 3.90E-02Gaseous Flondes T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+00Non-CH4 Hytrocarbons T/GWHe 8.63E-03 I .3E-02 342E43Aidohydes T/GWHF 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe S.70E+02 6.56E+02 4.U4E+02Methane T/GWHF 2.64E03 4.08E403 1.20E-03Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 9.73E-02 1.44E41 5.06E02CFC-ii T/GWHs 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 O.ODE+00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.00E+OD 0.00E + 00 O.OE + 00CFC-113 T/GWHS O.OOE +00 O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE +00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00

NOTES:Best vaJues are averages of high and low values unless otherwiss specifd in

detailed date oompilation.


GEOTHD_S.XLS


ElctricIty Generation: Geothermal: Dry Steam

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Bfet High LOW

AIR POLLUTANTSPaticulates T/GWHe 2.17E-02 2.17E02 2.17E-02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe O.O0E+00 0.00E+00 o.ODE+ooCarbon Monoxide T/GWHe O.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Gaseous Florides T/GWHe 0.00E+00 O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE +ooNon-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 3.97E-02 3.97E-02 3.97E 02Aldehydes T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 o.ooE+oo

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWH-e 4.12E+01 5.68E+01 2.57E+01Methane T/GWHe 2.17E-02 2.17E-02 2.17E-02Ntrous Oxide T/GWHe O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.0oE+00CFC-11 T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.OE+00 0.OOE+00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.OOE + 00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE +00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+O0HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.OOE + 00 OOOE +0 0.OOE + 00

NOTES:'Best' values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


C,'

GEOTHH S.XLS


Eltrkcity Generatlon: Geothermal: Hydrothermal

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Boat High Low

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHF 5.34E-02 5.34E-02 5.34E02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHb 3.51E-01 5.67E-01 1.36E41Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWH. O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00Carbon Monoxide T/GWH. 0.00E+00 O.OOE+0O 0.OOE+00Gaseous Florides T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+0O 0.OOE+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 6.04E-02 6.04E-02 6.04E402Aldehydes T/GWHe O.OOE.O O.OOE + W O.OOE+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 9.48E+01 1.88E+02 1.3SE+00Methane T/GWHF 6.99E+00 1.36E+01 3.54E41Nitous Oxide T/GWHF O.OOE+00 O.OOE +0 0.OOE+00CFC-11 T/GWHe 0.OOE+ 00 O.WE+W O.OOE + 00CFC-12 T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE 0O O.OOE .+00CFC-113 T/GWHF O.OOE++0 O.OOE+0O O.OOE+OOHCFC-22 T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.COE+OO O.OOE+OC

NOTES:'Best values are *verages of high and low values unless otherwise speified Indetailed data oompilation.


HYDROL S.XLS


HYDROELECTRICLARGE

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High Low

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe O.OOE+0 0.OOE+0O 0.OOE+00Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHF O.OOE+OO 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe O.OOE+00 0.00E.00 0.OOE+00Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00Gaseous Fbrides T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe OQOOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Aidehydes T/GWHF O.W0E+0 0.OOE +00 0.OOE+00

GMIGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHF 0.OOE+0D 0.00E+00 O.OOE +00Methane T/GWHe 0.00E+00 OO.E+00 0.WOE+00Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 0.00E+00 O.OE+00 0.OOE +00CFC-11 T/GWHe O.OOE + 00 O.OOE +O 0.OOE + 00CFC-12 T/GWHF 0.00E+00 0.00E+OO OC.OE+00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00HCFC-22 T/GWHs 0.OOE+W 0.WE+00 O.OOE + 00



CONOIL_S.XLS


Coventional Oil StemEectricity Generation

DATA RANGE


AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 4.00E42 4.95E+00 2.28E-02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 6.50E+00 1.46E+02 2.63E41Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWH* 2.20E+00 6.53E+01 1 .47E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 1.50E-01 1.66E-01 3.OOE402Gaseous Floridn T/GWHb O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OONon-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 2.OOE41 2.53E01 O.OOE+OOAldehydes T/GWHe O.OOE + 00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+ 00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 8.00E+02 8.28E+02 7.26E+02Methane T/GWHe 1.OOE-02 8.04E-03 7.6E403Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 1.'OE-01 1.58E401 3.32E402CFC-Gi T/GWHe O.OOE+O0 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OOCFC-12 T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OOCFC- 13 T/GWHe O.OOE+ 00 O.OOE+OO O.OOE +0HCFC-22 T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OC




SOLRPV_S.XLS


Solar Pthotovoltalc PanelsIncluding Manufacturing inpacts

DATA RANGE


AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 2.OOE-02 3.60E+00 1 54E.02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 2.OOE-02 3.49E-01 8.64E-03Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHF 1.00E-02 6.48E02 1 .22E-03Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 3.OOE-01 3.46E+00 1.69E-04Gaseous Florides T/GWHe 3.67E.02 6.48E-02 8.64E-03Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 1.81E-03 1.81E403 1.81E-3Aldehydes T/GWHF 0.OOE + 00 0.00E+00 0.00E + 00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 5.OOE + 00 0.00E +00 O.OOE+ 00Methane T/GWHe 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+ 00CFC-11 T/GWHe 0.0E+00 0.00E + 00 0.OOE+ 00CFC-12 T/GWHe .OOE + 00 0.OOE + 00 0.OOE + 0CFC- 13 T/GWHe .OOE + 00 0.00E + OD 0.OOE + 00HCFC-22 T/GWHe .OOE +00 0.OOE +00 0.O0E + 00




WIND S.XLS


WIND ELECTRICIncluding Manufacturing Impacts

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS B"t High Low

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 3.OE-01 6.12E01 2.OOE-03Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 1.00E-02 2.99E-02 8.64E-04Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 1i-OE02 3.00E-02 8.64E406Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 1.OOE+00 3.60E+00 3.46E-01Gaseous Rorides T/GWHO 5.OOE-03 7.2EO03 8.64E-04Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OOAldehydes T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE-OO

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 7.40E+00 4.84E+02 t.tOE+01Methane T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOEOO O.OOE.+OONitrous Oxide T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OOCFG11I T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE-OO O.OOE+OOCFC-12 T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OOCFC-113 T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OOHCFC-22 T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE-OO o.0OE+oo



BLAGWS_S.XLS


Conventional Agricultural Waste (Bagasse) Stamindustrial Boller

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High LOW

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 5.16E+00 5.16E+00 5.16E+00Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 5.01E-01 6.14E-01 3.87E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe .26E+00 1.19E+01 6.45E-01Gasous Florides T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 5.41E-01 5.41E-01 5.41 E-01Aldehydes T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE +00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 5.45E+02 5.45E+02 5.45E+02Methane T/GWHe 9.70E-02 1.04E-01 9.01 E02NitimW Oxide T/GWH& 9.01 E-02 9.01 E-02 9.01E-02CFC-ti4 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00CFC-;Ik T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00CFCm113 T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.O0E +00 0 O.E +00 0.00E + 00

NOTES:'Best values are averages of high and low values unlbe otherwise specified indetailed data oompilation.


BLCCL S.XLS


Conventlonal Coal SteamIndustrial Boilbr

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High LOW

AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHth 2.38E + 00 4.61E+00 1.54E01Oxides of Sulfur T/GWI-lth 5.65E+00 1.02E+01 1.07E+00Oxkdes of Nitrogen T/GWHth 1.57E+00 2.84E+00 2.95E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHth 4.07E-01 7.68E-01 4.612E02Gasous Roridos T/GWHtth Q.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHth 4.45E-02 8.89E-02 0.00E+00Aldehydes T/GWHth O.OE2+00 O.OE+00 0.00E+00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHth 4.16E+02 4.16E+02 4.16E+02Methane T/GWHth 6.86E-03 1.09E402 2.84E-03Ntrous Oxide T/GWHth 1.54E-02 1.54E402 1.54E-02CFC-11 T/GWHth, O.OOE+00 O.OE+00 .OOE+OCFC-12 T/GWHth 0.00E+00 O.OOE+ 00 0.00E+00CFC-1 13 T/GWHth O.O0E+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00HCFC-22 T/GWHth O.OOE + 00 0.00E + 00 O.OOE + 00

NOTES:'Best' values ate averages of high and low values unless otherwise spcHfied indetailed data compilation.


BLDOIL_S.XLS 7


Coovenoonal Distilate 011 SteamInduloial Iollr

DATA RANGE

IMPACTS UNITS Best High LOw

AIa POLLUTANTSParbculates T/GWHe 2.81 E-02 9.84E-02 2.81 E-02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 7.96E-01 8.45E-01 7.96E-01Oxids of Nutogen T/GWHe 2.60E41 2.81E41 2.38E-1Carbon Monoxide T/GWHo 6.63E402 7.03E-02 6.23E-02Gaseous Florides T/GWHe O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.O0E+O0Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHF 1.90E-03 1.90E-03 1.90E03Aldehydes T/GVWHe 0.0OE00 .OOE+0O O.OOE +00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHe 3.12E+02 3.12E+02 3.12E+02Methane T/GWHe 9.00E404 9.I1E-04 8.89E-04Nitrous Oxide T/GWHe 129E02 1.29E-2 1.29E402CFC- I T/GWHe O.OOE+O0 O.COE+00 O.OOE+00CFC-12 T/GWHe O.OOE+OO O.OOE+O0 0.OOE+OOCFC-113 T/GWHe 0.COE+OO 0.OOE+OO 0O.OE+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+OC

NOTES:'Best' values are averages of high and low values unlss otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


CZ

BLGAS S.XLS


Conventlonal Natural Gas SteamIndustrial doir

DATA RANGE


AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHc 2.38E+00 4.61E+00 1.54E-01Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHc 5.65IE+00 1.02E+01 1.07E+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHn 1.57E+00 2.84E+00 2.95E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHs 4.07E-01 7.68E01 4.61E-02Gaseous Florides T/GWHs 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHo 4.45E20 8.89E-02 0.00E+00Aldehydes T/GWHs 0.00E+00 0.00E+ 00 0.00E +00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GWHc 4.16E+02 4.16E+02 4.16E+02Methane T/GWHe 6.86E-03 1.09E-02 2.84E-03Nitrous Oxide T/GWHc 1.54E-02 1.54E-02 1.542-02CFC-1I T/GWFb 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00CFC-113 T/GWHs 0.00E+00 0.0DE +00 0.00E+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.00E+00 0.0DE +00 0.00E + 00

NOTES:'Best values are averages of high and low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data compilation.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C Is

BLROIL S.XLS 7


Conven onal Residual Ol StamIndustrbal Boler

DATA RANGE


AIR POLLUTANTSParticulates T/GWHe 8.48E-02 9.25E-02 7.72E-02Oxides of Sulfur T/GWHe 4.10E+00 4.10E+00 4.10E+00Oxides of Nitrogen T/GWHe 4.08E-01 6.81E01 1.36E-01Carbon Monoxide T/GWHe 5.98E-02 6.23E-02 5.74E-02Gaseous Florides T/GWHe 0.00E +W 0.W E 0EW 0.WE + 00Non-CH4 Hydrocarbons T/GWHe 3.67E-03 3.67E-03 3.67E-03Aldehydes T/GWHe 0.OOE +0W 0.OOE + 00 0.OOE + 00

GHGSCarbon Dioxide T/GW1He 3.12E+02 3.12E+02 3.12E+02Methane T/GWHe 1 25E-02 1 .25E402 .25E-02Nitrous Oxide T/GWI-F 129E-02 129E42 1.29E-42CFC-11 T/GWHe 0.OOE +00 O.00E + 0 0.W0E + 00CFC-12 T/GWHe 0.OOE+0 0.00E + 00 0.OOE + 00CFC-113 T/GWHe 0.W0E+W0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00HCFC-22 T/GWHe 0.WE +0W 0.W0E + 00 0.W0E + 00

NOTES:'Best' values are averages of high nd low values unless otherwise specified indetailed data oompilation.


l

l | g g g S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Documents

World Bank Document€¦ · 34402 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT COORDINATION Greenhouse Gas Assessment Methodology Irving Mintzer David Von Hippel Stan Kolar June 1994 Early Release Version