pdd iffco cdr project phulpur

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD) Version 02 - in effect as of: 1 July 2004)

CONTENTS

A. General description of project activity B. Application of a baseline methodology C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources F. Environmental impacts G. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board SECTION A. General description of project activity A.1 Title of the project activity: “Installation of Carbon Dioxide Recovery (CDR) plant” at Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd (IFFCO), Phulpur Plant. Version 01 Date: 28/ 02/2006 A.2. Description of the project activity:

Purpose: The Phulpur plant of IFFCO has two Ammonia Urea complexes, the Naphtha feed is reformed to produce Hydrogen and CO2 is also produced. Hydrogen reacts with Nitrogen (which is captured from air), to form Ammonia. The Ammonia then reacts with CO2 to produce Urea. Phulpur is proposing for change over of the feed of higher carbon to hydrogen ratio (Naphtha) to feed of lower carbon to hydrogen ratio (Natural Gas), then CO2 produced during the reforming process is not sufficient to convert all the Ammonia into Urea. To meet the CO2 shortage, conventionally additional quantity of fossil fuels (Naphtha / Natural gas) is reformed. IFFCO being a responsible and committed organisation towards environmental protection and nation’s interest is installing 450 TPD capacity CDR plant to recover CO2 from flue gases of primary reformer to meet the shortfall of CO2 for Urea production. The emission reduction of the project activity is the total amount of CO2 which would have been produced through conventional method that is reforming of additional quantity of feed (Naphtha / Natural gas).

Project activity contribution to Sustainable Development

The project activity to be implemented in IFFCO plant, contributes positively to the “sustainable development of India” in following ways: The project activity recovers CO2 from flue gases (which was earlier let out to atmosphere) – resulting in benign environment (CO2 emission reduction) and reduces reforming of non-renewable resources like Naphtha , Natural gas. Thus the project aids in environmental well being. Project activity would marginally increase employment opportunity for semi-skilled, skilled labour and professionals in the region during construction phase. Therefore contributing social well being aspects. The project will create a business opportunity for local stakeholders such as suppliers, contractors, bankers etc. contributing to economic well-being aspects. The project uses “state-of -the – art” technology and will help the company to maintain its status of being one of the most progressive companies of India due to adoption of latest technology and its efforts for sustainability. Adoption of higher technology helps in capacity building of employees by better exposures.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board The project activity has lot of replication potential in India. The project activity is located in rural setting and contributes to the environmental and social issues locally and globally through: Ø Reducing consumption of feed by adopting high end technologies and conserving non

renewable resources like Naphtha / Natural gas. Ø Making “Natural gas / Naphtha” available for other important economic applications. Ø Reducing Green House Gases (Carbon Dioxide) Ø Contributing marginal increase in the local employment in the area of skilled / unskilled

jobs during construction phase of the project activity & ameliorating economic status of the rural community

Ø Aids in capacity building of higher technology for employees Ø Providing a highly replicable, efficient model to other fertilizer plants in the country

A.3. Project participants: Name of Party involved ((host) indicates a host Party)

Private and/or public entity(ies) project participants(as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the Party involved wishes to be considered as project participant (Yes/No)

India (Host)

IFFCO ( Private entity ) No

A.4. Technical description of the project activity: A.4.1. Location of the project activity: >> A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

India A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: Uttar Pradesh A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc: Phulpur Town, Allahabad City A.4.1.4.Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):

IFFCO proposes to install Carbon Dioxide Recovery (CDR) plant at Phulpur plant.

Phulpur Plant

The Phulpur Plant consists of two units viz. Unit 1 and Unit 2. The plant started its urea production from the year 1981 onwards and has an installed capacity of 0.824 Million Tonnes Per Annum (MTPA) of ammonia production and 1.416 MTPA of urea production. The plant is located on Allahabad-Gorakhpur road and is 30 km away from Allahabad. The plant is spread in an area of 321 acres. The nearest railway station is in Phulpur Town which is 10 km from the Plant.


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

As per the scope of the project activity enlisted in the ‘list of sectoral scopes’, project activity can principally be categorized in Scope Number 5, Chemical Industry.

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

The proposed project activity recovers CO2 from flue gases which contain about 9 to 10% CO2 on dry basis. The CO2 present in the flue gases will be first absorbed in the absorber with a circulating solution and CO2 free gases will be vented to atmosphere through stack. The circulating solution shall be regenerated in the stripper where CO2 will be stripped off from the top of the stripper and regenerated solution will be further used for absorption. This stripped CO2 shall be utilized for urea production. The detailed process description is as under: Process Description: The flue gases will be extracted from the stack and brought to the CO2 recovery plant by the flue gas blower. The flue gas is emitted directly to the atmosphere through the stack in case of flue gas blower failure. Therefore, operation of the flue gases source will not be influenced from the failure of the CO2 recovery plant. The treated flue gases will be let out from the top of the absorber. The CO2 recovery plant consists of three main systems;

• Flue gas cooling system • CO2 recovery system • Solvent regeneration system

Flue gas cooling system The purpose of flue gas cooling system is to adjust the incoming flue gas temperature to an optimum condition (40-45 deg.C) for CO2 recovery. The flue gases are cooled through direct contact with water. CO2 recovery system CO2 recovery and flue gases wash is carried out in the CO2absorber having two main sections.

• CO2 absorption section (bottom section), • Treated flue gas washing section (top section).

The conditioned flue gases from the flue gas water cooler is introduced into the bottom section of the CO2 absorber, which is moved upward through the packing material, while the solvent distribute evenly from top of the absorption section onto the packing material. The flue gases come in direct contact with the solvent, where CO2 in the flue gases is absorbed into the solvent. The flue gases then moved upward into the treated flue gas washing section, located on the top section of the CO2 absorber, where it comes in direct contact with water to wash solvent. The treated flue gas is exhausted from the top section of the CO2 absorber to the stack. The CO2 rich solvent, collected at the bottom of the Absorber, is pumped to the Regenerator for regeneration. Solvent Regeneration The CO2 rich solvent is introduced to the regenerator through a heat exchanger. In upper section of regenerator it comes into contact with stripping steam to strip off its CO2 content through packing material. The lean solvent is then reintroduced to the top of CO2 absorber.

The technology to be employed for CO2 Recovery plant is developed and supported by M/s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd of Japan. The project concept for CDR plant is developed by IFFCO is very innovative and crystallized after technical analysis of process profile by spending good man-hours and capacity building.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board A.4.4. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHGs) by sources are to be reduced by the proposed CDM project activity, including why the emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed project activity, taking into account national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances:

IFFCO proposes to recover 450 TPD of CO2 from flue gases by installing CDR plant and utilize for Urea production. In the absence of project activity, CO2 requirement of the plant would have been met by CO2 production through conventional method and CO2 in flue gases would have continued to let out to atmosphere. Hence the project activity reduces GHG emissions. The project activity has no economic benefits other than the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) revenues and also has many technical risks associated with it. But IFFCO has implemented the capital intensive project activity to reduce GHG emissions only. In the absence of the project activity, equivalent quantity of CO2 recovered from flue gases might have produced through conventional method leading to higher GHG emissions. The Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, in India encourages resource (Naphtha / Natural gas) conservation; but they do not insist to recover CO2 from flue gases by installing CDR plant nor do they have imposed any directives for the same. The project proponent has implemented the project activity over and above the national or sectoral requirement and the GHG reductions achieved by the project activity are additional to those directed by the governmental policies and regulations.

The project proponent is implementing the project as there is an opportunity to sell the CO2 emission reductions and gets carbon revenue through Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for the project activity which would create financial attractiveness for the project. The “additionality” criteria of the project activity are dealt with in details in section B. By implementing the project activity, IFFCO proposes to reduce 1,505,890 tons of CO2 in the crediting period of 10 years.

A.4.4.1.Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:

Years Annual estimation of emission reductions in tonnes of CO2 e

2006-07 150,589 2007-08 150,589 2008-09 150,589 2009-10 150,589 2010-11 150,589 2011-12 150,589 2012-13 150,589 2013-14 150,589 2014-15 150,589 2015-16 150.589

Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 e) 1,505,890 Total number of crediting years 10 Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions ((tonnes of CO2 e)

150,589

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

No public funding from parties included in Annex – I is available to the project

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board SECTION B. Application of a baseline methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline methodology applied to the project activity: >> Title: Baseline methodology for recovering Carbon Dioxide from flue gases by installing Carbon Dioxide Recovery (CDR) plant Reference: NMXXXX, UNFCCC website

B.1.1. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity: >> The methodology is applicable under the following conditions:

• The conventional method uses non renewable source for CO2 production.

IFFCO produces CO2 (for urea production) through reforming of non renewable sources like Naphtha, Natural gas.

• The CO2 in flue gases was already produced but was not used for any other

applications before the project activity, so that there is no diversion of CO2 from other applications due to installation of the project activity.

The project activity recovers CO2 in flue gases of Primary reformer and CO2 in flue gases of Primary reformer was produced before of the project activity and was not used for any other applications.

• The recovered CO2 which is used for producing compound does not get fixed in the

compound. The recovered CO2 is used for urea production and CO2is dissociated when urea is used in the agricultural fields and CO2 does not get fixed in urea.

• There is no change in the production process and compound produced as a result of the

project activity.

There is no change in the production process and compound produced as a result of the project activity.

B.2. Description of how the methodology is applied in the context of the project activity: >> The proposed methodology is applied to project activity in following manner. Applicability

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board IFFCO is proposing to implement the CDM project activity in order to recover CO2 from flue gases of primary reformer by installing CDR plant and utilize it for Urea production. Because of implementation of the project activity, equivalent quantity of CO2 which would have been produced through conventional method – reforming of extra Naphtha / Natural Gas is reduced, leading to GHG emission reductions. Hence, the proposed baseline methodology for recovering Carbon Dioxide from flue gases by installing CDR plant is the most appropriate for the project activity at IFFCO. Selection of baseline scenario

The proposed methodology determines the baseline scenario through the following steps: Step I: Identify alternatives to the project activity The first and foremost step of selection of baseline scenario is to identify realistic and credible alternatives of the project activity. As per the proposed methodology, the alternatives to the project activity should be separately determined regarding:

1. How would CO2 be obtained in the absence of the CDM project activity? 2. What would happen to the CO2 recovered from flue gases in the absence of the project

activity?

1) How would CO2 be obtained in the absence of the CDM project activity?

Conventionally in fertilizer industry, CO2 is obtained from reforming of fossil fuels like Naphtha, Natural gas (thermo chemical processing of fossil sources). In IFFCO, currently CO2 required for urea production is obtained by reforming fossil fuels (thermo chemical processing) like Naphtha, Natural Gas. The Phulpur plant of IFFCO is proposing for change over of the feed of higher carbon to hydrogen ratio to feed of lower carbon to hydrogen ratio, which results in shortage of CO2 produced and to meet the CO2 shortage, conventionally additional quantity of fossil fuels (Naphtha / Natural gas) is reformed. But IFFCO is proposing to install CDR plant to meet the CO2 shortage. In the absence of the project activity, Phulpur plant would have met the shortage of CO2 by conventional method- reforming of extra Naphtha / Natural Gas. The alternatives for the project activity - Installation of CDR plant and to meet CO2 shortage from recovered CO2 is as follows: Alternative 1: Production of CO2 using conventional method – reforming of additional Naphtha / Natural gas. (Continuation of current practice). The CO2 shortage of the plant can be met by reforming ( thermochemical processing of fossil hydrocarbons) additional quantity of fossil fuels like Naphtha / Natural gas. This alternative can be called as continuing current practice. Alternative 2: The proposed project activity (Recovering CO2 from flue gases by CDR plant) not undertaken as a CDM project activity.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board 2) What would happen to the CO2 in flue gases in the absence of the project activity? The project activity is to recover CO2 from flue gases by installing CDR plant. In absence of the project activity, equivalent quantity of CO2 recovered would have been let out to atmosphere. In case of IFFCO, the flue gases (residual CO2) of primary reformer was already produced and was let to atmosphere only and residual CO2 was not used for any other purposes before the project activity. Hence in absence of the project activity, the equivalent quantity of CO2 recovered would have been let out to atmosphere. Step II: Select plausible baseline scenario by using latest approved version of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality. As per the proposed methodology, After identification of alternatives, project participant shall apply the latest approved version of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” to identify which one of the alternatives should be excluded from further consideration for baseline determination (e.g. alternatives where barriers are prohibitive or which are economically not attractive). Alternative 1: Production of CO2 using conventional method – reforming of additional Naphtha / Natural gas. (Continuation of current practice). Alternative 2: The proposed project activity (Recovering CO2 from flue gases by CDR plant) not undertaken as a CDM project activity. Alternative 1: Production of CO2 using conventional method – reforming of additional Naphtha / Natural gas.(continuation of current practice). In absence of the project activity to meet the CO2 shortage of the plant, IFFCO would have continued to reform ( thermochemical processing of fossil hydrocarbons) additional quantity of fossil fuels like Naphtha / Natural gas. This alternative can be called as continuing current practice. Alternative-1 is in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory compliances and may be the baseline alternative Since this alternative does not call for any investments and does not face any barriers that would prevent its implementation (as per Step 2 or 3 of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality in Section-B.3”). It is considered as one of the most probable baseline scenario. Alternative 2: The proposed project activity (Recovering CO2 from flue gases by CDR plant) not undertaken as a CDM project activity. IFFCO may propose to implement the project activity (CDR plant) not undertaken as a CDM project activity. Alternative-2 is also in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory compliances and may be the baseline alternative. However this alternative would have faced the barriers (financial and other technical barriers) as that of the project activity under consideration (all these barriers are detailed in Step 2 or 3 of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality in Section-B.3”). Since the project activity has no economic revenues other than the CDM revenues this alternative would not be a feasible option for IFFCO.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board Alternative 1: Production of CO2 using conventional method – reforming of additional Naphtha / Natural gas (continuation of current practice). This scenario does not face any barriers (the barriers are discussed in detail in section B.3) as faced by the project activity.

Alternative 2: The proposed project activity (Recovering CO2 from flue gases by CDR plant) not undertaken as a CDM project activity. This alternative would have faced the barriers (financial and other technical barriers) as that of the project activity under consideration (the barriers are discussed in detail in section B.3). Since the project activity has no economic revenues other than the CDM revenues this alternative would not be a feasible option for IFFCO. Hence alternative-1 “Continuing current practice” is chosen as baseline scenario for the project activity.

Step III: Determine the most likely alternative scenario (baseline scenario) This is not applicable, since baseline scenario is already selected in Step II. B.3. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity: >> As per the selected methodology, the project proponent is required to establish that the GHG reductions due to project activity are additional to those that would have occurred in absence of the project activity as per the ‘Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality’ Annex-1 to EB 16 Report.

Step 0. Preliminary Screening based on the starting date of the project activity

If project participants wish to have the crediting period starting prior to the registration of their project activity, they shall: (a) Provide evidence that the starting date of the CDM project activity falls between 1 January 2000 and the date of the registration of a first CDM project activity, bearing in mind that only CDM project activities submitted for registration before 31 December 2005 may claim for a crediting period starting before the date of registration; (b) Provide evidence that the incentive from the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity. This evidence shall be based on (preferably official, legal and/or other corporate) documentation that was available to third parties at, or prior to, the start of the project activity. Not applicable to IFFCO project. Step 1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations Define realistic and credible alternative scenarios to the CDM project activity that can be (part of) the baseline scenario through the following sub-steps: Sub-step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity

Sub-step 1b. Enforcement of applicable laws and regulations

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board IFFCO identified the following alternatives to the project activity:

Alternative 1: Production of CO2 using conventional method – reforming of additional Naphtha / Natural gas.(continuation of current practice). Alternative 2: The proposed project activity (Recovering CO2 from flue gases by CDR plant) not undertaken as a CDM project activity. Please refer to Section B.2. for details. All these Alternatives are in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. There is no legal binding on IFFCO to implement any of the alternatives or the CDM project activity. In India to meet the CO2 requirement, it is not mandatory to recover CO2 from flue gases by installing CDR plant. There is no policy, which promotes the project activity and would be adequate to stimulate implementation of the project activity in absence of CDM

IFFCO’s alternative to project activity – reforming of Naphtha / Natural Gas (continuing the current practice) does not face any financial, technological barriers. The barriers to IFFCO’s project activity detailed in ensuing section do not exist for Alternative 1 so as to prevent its wide spread implementation. The Alternative 2 would have faced the barriers (financial and other technical barriers) as that of the project activity under consideration (the barriers are discussed in detail in section B.3). Since the project activity has no economic revenues other than the CDM revenues this alternative would not be a feasible option for IFFCO. Hence Alternative 1: Production of CO2 using conventional method – reforming of additional Naphtha / Natural gas.(continuation of current practice) is selected as baseline scenario. In absence of the project activity to meet the CO2 shortage of the plant, IFFCO would have continued to reform ( thermochemical processing of fossil hydrocarbons) additional quantity of fossil fuels like Naphtha / Natural gas. Therefore Alternative:1 continuing the current practice is found to be the most appropriate and conservative baseline scenario. Step 2. Investment analysis

Determine whether the proposed project activity is the economically or financially less attractive than other alternatives without the revenue from the sale of certified emission reductions (CERs). To conduct the investment analysis, use the following sub-steps: Sub-step 2a. Determine appropriate analysis method Determine whether to apply simple cost analysis, investment comparison analysis or benchmark analysis (sub-step 2b). If the CDM project activity generates no financial or economic benefits other than CDM related income, then apply the simple cost analysis (Option I). Otherwise, use the investment comparison analysis (Option II) or the benchmark analysis (Option III). IFFCO’s CDM project activity generates no financial or economic benefits other than CDM related income, so we choose Option I -Simple cost analysis.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board Sub-step 2b. – Option I. Apply simple cost analysis Document the costs associated with the CDM project activity and demonstrate that the activity produces no economic benefits other than CDM related income. The total project cost of CDR project activity is around Rs 70 crores. IFFCO proposes to raise the funds for the project activity having a Debt Equity ratio of 3:1, hence would be paying interest for the loan availed .Apart from the capital , IFFCO would be incurring various operating cost associated with CDR plant like Administrative cost, Solvent replacement cost , Maintenance cost etc., The project activity does not have any economic benefits other than CDM revenues. In the baseline scenario, IFFCO would have met the CO2 shortage by continuing to reform ( thermochemical processing of fossil hydrocarbons) additional quantity of non renewable feed like Naphtha / Natural gas. According to the fertilizer policy (Retention Pricing scheme / New group pricing scheme) of Government of India (GoI) , the operating expenses like cost of feed and fuel incurred during Urea production of the plant is reimbursed by GoI to the plant ( is called as subsidy) . Hence the cost (feed / fuel) involved to produce CO2 by reforming additional Naphtha / Natural Gas is reimbursed by GoI to the plant, so their is no additional cost incurred by the plant to produce CO2 to meet its additional requirement , whereas there is capital investment and operating cost associated with installation of CDR plant and recovering CO2 from flue gases. The equivalent quantity of CO2 recovered from flue gases would have been easily met by baseline scenario with out any additional investment and operating cost as that of project activity. But IFFCO is implementing the capital intensive project activity which does not have any economic benefits but to only reduce GHG emissions. In the absence of the project activity, equivalent quantity of CO2 recovered from flue gases might have produced through conventional method leading to higher GHG emissions. Hence, the project activity is additional. Though the additionality of the project is demonstrated in Step 2, to strengthen the additionality IFFCO proceeds to step 3.

Step 3. Barrier analysis.

IFFCO proceeds to strengthen project additionality by conducting the Step 3: Barrier Analysis. IFFCO is required to determine whether the project activity faces barriers that:

(a) Prevent the implementation of this type of proposed project activity; and (b) Do not prevent the implementation of at least one of the alternatives

through the following sub-steps:

Sub-step 3a. Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of type of the proposed project activity

Technological barrier

The project activity is to recover CO2 from flue gases, flue gases being highly corrosive in nature and low in pressure, there are many possibilities of failure of critical equipments of CDR plant and many rotary parts of CDR plant make its maintenance prone. Hence, highly

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board skilled and/or properly trained labour is required to operate and maintain the technology, otherwise may lead to equipment disrepair and malfunctioning. The solvent (like KS-1) used in CDR plant which forms lifeline for salubrious functioning of the CDR plant is a proprietary solvent of the technology provider. Hence there is a high risk associated with usage of proprietary solvent and also raises the question on operation of CDR plant on account of stoppage of production of the relevant solvent by the technology provider. Apart from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Fluor Daniel and ABB Lummus are the only technology providers for the project activity. Hence, the project proponent has to heavily bank on their technology supplier for smooth running of Urea manufacturing plant and the perceived risks associated with such unfamiliar technology are too high to encourage a project proponent to come up with such a capital-intensive project activity. There is no such barriers associated with the baseline scenario ( reforming of Naphtha / Natural Gas).

Sub-step (3b). Show that the identified barriers would not prevent a wide spread implementation of at least one of the alternatives (except the proposed project activity):

IFFCO’s alternative to project activity – reforming of Naphtha / Natural Gas (continuing the current practice) does not face any financial, technological barriers. Therefore the barriers to IFFCO’s project activity detailed above do not exist for Alternative 1 so as to prevent its wide spread implementation.

Therefore Alternative:1 continuing the current practice is found to be the most appropriate and conservative baseline scenario. Step 4. Common Practice Analysis

IFFCO’s Project activity - Installation of CDR plant and to recover CO2 from flue gases is not a common practice in fertilizer sector of India and world. The CDR plant to be installed in IFFCO plant is first of its kind of project (in terms of capacity) in fertilizer sector of India and World. In India, till date only one CDR plant is installed i.e., at Indo Gulf Fertilisers Limited that too of smaller capacity. IFFCO would be the second plant in India to install CDR plant in any type of industry. Globally also, there are only three CDR plants installed in fertilizer sector that too of all lower capacity. (Please refer the table below). The project activity is not an attractive proposition due to the prohibitive barriers related to the project activity detailed out in barrier section. This illustrates the low penetration of such projects and little willingness to change current operating practices in the country and global.

S. No.

Plant Capacity (TPD) Source

1. The Indo Gulf Fertilizer Company Plant, India

150 http://script3.ftech.net/~ieagreen/project_specific.php4?project_id=42

2. Luzhou Natural Gas Chemicals (Group), China


3. Petronas Fertilizer Co., Malaysia


http://script3.ftech.net/~ieagreen/



PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board Step 5. Impact of CDM registration

In country like India, CDR project (to recover CO2 from flue gases and use it for Urea production ) is not an economically feasible option since Urea is a subsidised commodity. The operating expenses ( Feed , fuel etc.,) for producing CO2 from conventional method (reforming of Naphtha / Natural gas) is reimbursed to the plant by GoI , so implementing CDR project which attracts huge investment and operating cost and most imperative has no economic benefits makes CDR project an unattractive proposition. This is evident from the point that the CDR plants installed in other plants are sporadically operated.

The project activity does not have any other economic benefits other than CDM revenue. Hence, CDM revenue associated with project will ameliorate the economics of the project and also encourage IFFCO to come up with more GHG abatement projects for its plants. It is ascertained that the project activity would not have occurred at all in the absence of the CDM simply because no sufficient financial, policy, or other incentives exist locally to foster its development in India and without the proposed carbon financing for the project IFFCO would not have taken the investment risks in order to implement the project activity. In such an event the BAU baseline option is continued with release of carbon dioxide emissions. B.4. Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology selected is applied to the project activity: >> Project Boundary

As per definition of project boundary as given in glossary of terms, “it will encompass all anthropogenic emissions by sources of Green House Gases (GHGs) under the control of project participants that are significant and reasonably attributable to the CDM project activity.” The project boundary for the project activity is CDR plant which is installed to recover CO2

present in the flue gases. The project boundary includes the total CO2 recovered in the flue gases and the total CO2 in flue gases entering and leaving the CDR plant. The steam and electricity consumed by CDR plant is also considered in the project boundary. Diagrammatic representation of project boundary of project activity is given below.


B.5. Details of baseline information, including the date of completion of the baseline study and the name of person (s)/entity (ies) determining the baseline: >> Date of completing the final draft of this baseline section: 28/02/2006 Name of person/entity determining the baseline: IFFCO has determined the baseline and is also project participant. The contact details are given in Annex 1. IFFCO, their experts and consultants

CDR plant

Flue gases from Utility

Steam consumption

Electricity Consumption

Project Boundary

Total CO2 in Flue gases entering CDR plant

Total CO2 recovered from flue gases

Total CO2 in Flue gases leaving CDR plant

Recovered CO2 used for

production of compound


SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period C.1 Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: >> 01/08/2004 C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: >> Expected lifetime: 25 years C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information: C.2.1. Renewable crediting period C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: >> Not opted C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: >> Not opted C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: C.2.2.1. Starting date: >> 01/12/2006 C.2.2.2. Length: >> 10 years

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board SECTION D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan D.1. Name and reference of approved monitoring methodology applied to the project activity: Title: Monitoring methodology for recovering Carbon Dioxide from flue gases by installing Carbon Dioxide Recovery (CDR) plant Reference: NMXXXX, UNFCCC website

D.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity:

The methodology is applicable under the following conditions:

• The conventional method uses non renewable source for CO2 production. IFFCO produces CO2 (for urea production) through reforming of non renewable sources like Naphtha, Natural gas.

• The CO2 in flue gases was already produced but was not used for any other

applications before the project activity, so that there is no diversion of CO2 from other applications due to installation of the project activity.

The project activity recovers CO2 in flue gases of Primary reformer and CO2 in flue gases of Primary reformer was produced before of the project activity and was not used for any other applications.

• The recovered CO2 which is used for producing compound does not get fixed in the

compound. The recovered CO2 is used for urea production and CO2is dissociated when urea is used in the agricultural fields and CO2 does not get fixed in urea.

• There is no change in the production process and compound produced as a result of the

project activity.

There is no change in the production process and compound produced as a result of the project activity.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02 CDM – Executive Board page 18

D.2. 1. Option 1: Monitoring of the emissions in the project scenario and the baseline scenario D.2.1.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived: ID number (Please use numbers to ease cross-referencing to table B.7)

Data variable Source of data Data unit Measured (m), calculated (c), estimated (e),

Recording frequency

Proportion of data to be monitored

How will the data be archived? (electronic/ paper)

Comment

CO2 emissions due to Electricity consumption in CDR plant 2.a Electricity

consumption of CDR plant

Local measurements through Field instruments

kWh M Monthly 100 % Electronic / paper

Measured in the plant premises to the best accuracy and will be monitored Month-wise. The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.b Carbon emission factor for fuel used for captive power generation

Plant records / IPCC

tCO2 / TJ

C/M Monthly 100% Electronic / paper

The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.c Carbon emission factor of grid

See comment tCO2/ kWh

C Once at the start of the crediting period

100% Electronic / paper

ACM0002 would be used to determine electricity emission. The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.d Efficiency of Electricity Generating

Plant records % C Once at the start of the




ID number (Please use numbers to ease cross-referencing to table B.7)


Recording frequency



Comment

System (EGS) crediting period

2.e Steam consumption of CDR plant


Tonnes M Monthly 100 % Electronic / paper

Measured in the plant premises to the best accuracy and will be monitored Month-wise. The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.f Temperature of steam consumed by CDR plant


Deg C M Monthly 100 % Electronic / paper

Monitored by temperature indicator at the end of day and averaged for a month (either using instantaneous instrument or through DCS). The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.g Pressure of steam consumed by CDR plant


Kg/ sqcm (g)

M Monthly 100 % Electronic / paper

Monitored by Pressure indicator at the end of day and averaged for a month (either using instantaneous instrument or through DCS). The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.h Steam Temperature

Local measurements


Monitored by temperature indicator at the end of day and




Recording frequency



Comment

of source Boiler

through Field instruments

averaged for a month (either using instantaneous instrument or through DCS). The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.i Steam Pressure of source boiler


Kg/ sqcm (g)


Monitored by Pressure indicator at the end of day and averaged for a month (either using instantaneous instrument or through DCS). The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.j Feed water temperature of source boiler



Monitored by temperature indicator at the end of day and averaged for a month (either using instantaneous instrument or through DCS). The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.k Feed water pressure of source boiler

Local measurements through Field

Kg/sqcm (g)


Monitored by Pressure indicator at the end of day and averaged for a month (either using instantaneous instrument




Recording frequency



Comment

instruments

or through DCS). The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting period.

2.l Carbon emission factor for fuel used in Boiler

Plant records / IPCC

tCO2/ TJ C/M Monthly 100% Electronic / paper


2.m Energy contribution share of fuel n in total energy generated by fuel mix (%)


% C/M Monthly 100% Electronic / paper


2.n Boiler efficiency


% E Yearly once


Either by direct method or based on BS-845 standard boiler flue gas losses and bottom and fly ash losses (for solid fuels only) to be estimated and efficiency to be determined. Radiation losses assumed constant.(Refer guidelines on boiler efficiency monitoring of AM0018) The data would be archived until 2 years after end of the crediting




Recording frequency



Comment

period.

D.2.1.2. Description of formulae used to estimate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.) The project activity emissions are the equivalent CO2 emissions due to electricity and steam consumption by CDR plant. (i) CO2 emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant

To estimate CO2 emissions due to electricity consumption in project scenario for CO2 recovered - Inputs from AM 0018 is used. The following steps can be followed to estimate the CO2 emissions. • Step 1: Monitor the month-wise electricity consumption. If a monitoring facility is not available, take the maximum rating (Nameplate data) of the motor, heater or any other electricity consuming device as the consumption. • Step 2: Estimate input monthly energy (Eine) to the electrical energy source (in case of captive power generation): Eine = Emon /η Where, Eine = Monthly input energy to electrical energy source (kWh) Emon= Monthly electricity consumption of project activity (kWh) η = Efficiency of Electricity Generating System (EGS) based on historical data of EGS operation during constant production output (assumed constant). In case of Gas Turbine Generator-Heat Recovery Steam Generation System (GTG-HRSG) supplier performance curves can be utilized to get the input energy (heat load) of the GTG-HRSG system due to electricity consumption in CDR plant. During validation, DOE may check the authenticity and relevance of the performance curves of GTG-HRSG system under prevailing production condition. • Step 3: Estimate CO2 emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant (in case of captive power generation):


Cer1= Eine x F 1 Where, Cer1 = CO2 emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant (in case of captive power generation) (tCO2 / month) Eine = Monthly input energy to electrical energy source (kWh) F1= Carbon emission factor of the fuel used for captive power generation (IPCC) (tCO2/ kWh) • Step 4: Estimate CO2 emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant (in case of external grid supply): Cer2 = Emon x F 2 Where , Cer2 = CO2 emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant (in case of external grid supply) (tCO2 / month) Emon = Monthly electricity consumption of project activity (kWh) F2 = Carbon emission factor of the selected grid (tCO2/ kWh) Carbon emission factor of selected grid is estimated by using ACM0002. (ii) CO2 Emissions due to steam consumption by CDR plant Estimation of CO2 emissions due to steam consumption in CDR plant - Inputs from AM 0018 is used Step-1: Verify whether pressure and temperature of steam consumed in CDR plant is same as that of steam of source boiler1 , if they are same then quantity of steam consumed by CDR plant is same as equivalent quantity of steam generated at boiler source. Otherwise convert quantity of lower pressure steam consumed in CDR plant to equivalent quantity of steam generated (higher pressure) in source boiler. Project proponent may use verifiable data sheets / test reports /curves2 / conversion tables and standard formulas. DOE may verify the above during validation. Step- 2: Calculate equivalent energy for steam consumption (GJ/month): Ei = Srf x Es Where, Ei = Equivalent energy due to steam consumption (GJ/month).

1 The Boiler from which steam is sourced for CDR plant. 2 data sheets / test reports /curves of related equipments as provided by reputed manufacturers / suppliers


Srf = Equivalent steam consumption of CDR plant at generated conditions. (Tonne/ month) Es = Net enthalpy of steam = Total enthalpy of steam consumed (GJ/tonne) – Enthalpy of feed water (GJ/tonne)

Step-3 : Calculate CO2 emissions due to steam consumption in CDR plant (tCO2 / month):

))P x (F x ((E nn1,2...nn

i3 ∑=

=erC / ( bη )

Where, Cer3 = CO2 emissions due to fuel combustion in boiler to produce steam required for CDR (tCO2 / month) Ei = Equivalent energy of steam consumption (GJ/ month) Fn = Emission factor of fuel n used ( as per IPCC-guidelines (IPCC) (tCO2 / GJ) Pn = Energy contribution share of fuel n in total energy generated by fuel mix (%)

bη = Efficiency of boiler. In case of Gas Turbine Generator-Heat Recovery Steam Generation System (GTG-HRSG) supplier performance curves can be utilized to get the input energy (heat load) of the GTG-HRSG system for the steam consumption in CDR plant. During validation, DOE may check the authenticity and relevance of the performance curves of GTG-HRSG system under prevailing production condition.

Project Emissions (PE) = CO2 Emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant

+ CO2 Emissions due to steam consumption in CDR plant D.2.1.3. Relevant data necessary for determining the baseline of anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs within the project boundary and how such data will be collected and archived : ID number (Please use numbers to ease cross-referencing to table B.7)

Data variable

Source of data Data unit

Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e)

Recording frequency



Comment



Data variable

Source of data Data unit


Recording frequency



Comment

3.a Total amount of CO2 recovered from flue gases by the CDR plant


tonnes M Monthly 100 % Electronic /Paper Measured in the plant premises to the best accuracy and will be monitored monthly.

D.2.1.4. Description of formulae used to estimate baseline emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.) >> Baseline Emissions (BE) = Total amount of CO2 recovered from flue gases by the CDR plant D. 2.2. Option 2: Direct monitoring of emission reductions from the project activity (values should be consistent with those in section E). >> This section is not applicable as option 1 has been chosen and hence the section has been left blank.

D.2.2.1. Data to be collected or used in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived: ID number (Please use numbers to ease cross-referencing to table B.7)

Data variable

Source of data Data

unit


Recording frequency



Comment


D.2.2.2. Description of formulae used to calculate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.): >> Not applicable

D.2.3. Treatment of leakage in the monitoring plan D.2.3.1. If applicable, please describe the data and information that will be collected in order to monitor leakage effects of the project activity


Data variable Source of data Data unit Measured (m),

calculated (c),

estimated (e),

Recording frequency

Proportion of data to

be monitored

How will the data be archived?

(electronic/ paper)

Comment

D.2.3.2 Description of formulae used to estimate leakage (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.): >> Not applicable, since no leakage is anticipated due to the project activity.

D 2.4. Description of formulae used to estimate emission reductions for the project activity (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.): >> The Emission Reductions (ER) would be calculated as: Emission Reductions (ER) = BE- PE


D.3. Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for data monitored3 Data (Indicate table and ID number e.g. 3.-1.; 3.2.)

Uncertainty level of data (High/Medium/Low)

Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such procedures are not necessary.

2.a Low IS0 9001 2.b Low IPCC 2.c Low Approved methodology ACM0002 is used 2.d Low IS0 9001 2.e Low IS0 9001 2.f Low IS0 9001 2.g Low IS0 9001 2.h Low IS0 9001 2.i Low IS0 9001 2.j Low IS0 9001 2.k Low IS0 9001 2.l Low IPCC 2.m Low IS0 9001 2.n Low BS standards are used 3.a Low IS0 9001. D.4 Please describe the operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to monitor emission reductions and any leakage effects, generated by the project activity

Executive Director (Tech) would be responsible for monitoring and archiving of data required and for estimating the emission reductions. He would be supported by Plant incharge, who would continuously monitor the data and would generate Daily, Monthly report of the same


D.5 Name of person/entity determining the monitoring methodology:

IFFCO has determined monitoring methodology and is also project participant. The contact details are given in Annex 1.

FCCC/SB/2000/XX English SECTION E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources E.1. Estimate of GHG emissions by sources: The Project Emissions (PE) are the equivalent CO2 emissions due to electricity and steam consumption by CDR plant.Please refer to Enclosure 1 - Emission reduction calculation excel sheet for detailed calculations. Sl. No.

Operating Years

Project Emission (tones of CO2)

1. 2006-2007 11411 2. 2007-2008 11411 3. 2008-2009 11411 4. 2009-2010 11411 5. 2010-2011 11411 6. 2011-2012 11411 7. 2012-2013 11411 8. 2013-2014 11411 9. 2014-2015 11411 10. 2015-2016 11411 Total 114110 E.2. Estimated leakage:

There is no leakage anticipated due to the project activity.

Sl. No.

Operating Years

Leakages (tones of CO2)

1. 2006-2007 0 2. 2007-2008 0 3. 2008-2009 0 4. 2009-2010 0 5. 2010-2011 0 6. 2011-2012 0 7. 2012-2013 0 8. 2013-2014 0 9. 2014-2015 0 10. 2015-2016 0 Total 0

E.3. The sum of E.1 and E.2 representing the project activity emissions: The total emissions by project activity (E1+E2) for the 10-year crediting period is given tabulated below.


Sl. No.

Operating Years

Project Emission (tones of CO2)

1. 2006-2007 11411 2. 2007-2008 11411 3. 2008-2009 11411 4. 2009-2010 11411 5. 2010-2011 11411 6. 2011-2012 11411 7. 2012-2013 11411 8. 2013-2014 11411 9. 2014-2015 11411 10. 2015-2016 11411 Total 114110

E.4. Estimated anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the baseline: The Baseline Emissions (BE) are calculated as the total amount of CO2 recovered from flue gases by the proposed CDR plant at Phulpur plant.Please refer to Enclosure 1 - Emission reduction calculation excel sheet for detailed calculations. Sl. No.

Operating Years

Baseline Emission (tones of CO2)

1. 2006-2007 162000 2. 2007-2008 162000 3. 2008-2009 162000 4. 2009-2010 162000 5. 2010-2011 162000 6. 2011-2012 162000 7. 2012-2013 162000 8. 2013-2014 162000 9. 2014-2015 162000 10. 2015-2016 162000 Total 3240000

E.5. Difference between E.4 and E.3 representing the emission reductions of the project activity:

Sl. No.

Operating Years

Emission Reductions (tones of CO2)

1. 2006-2007 150589 2. 2007-2008 150589 3. 2008-2009 150589 4. 2009-2010 150589 5. 2010-2011 150589 6. 2011-2012 150589


Sl. No.

Operating Years

Emission Reductions (tones of CO2)

7. 2012-2013 150589 8. 2013-2014 150589 9. 2014-2015 150589 10. 2015-2016 150589 Total 1505890

E.6. Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above:

Year Estimation of Project activity Emissions (tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of baseline Emissions (tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of leakage (tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of emission reductions (tonnes of CO2 e)

2006-2007 11411 162000 0 150589 2007-2008 11411 162000 0 150589 2008-2009 11411 162000 0 150589 2009-2010 11411 162000 0 150589 2010-2011 11411 162000 0 150589 2011-2012 11411 162000 0 150589 2012-2013 11411 162000 0 150589 2013-2014 11411 162000 0 150589 2014-2015 11411 162000 0 150589 2015-2016 11411 162000 0 150589 Total (tonnes of CO2 e)

114110 1620000 0 1505890


SECTION F. Environmental impacts F.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts: >> This section is intentionally left blank. F.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: >> This section is intentionally left blank. SECTION G. Stakeholders’ comments >> This section is intentionally left blank. G.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: >> This section is intentionally left blank. G.2. Summary of the comments received: >> This section is intentionally left blank. G.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: >> This section is intentionally left blank.


Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO)

Street/P.O.Box: 34, Nehru Place,

Building: IFFCO House

City: New Delhi

State/Region: -

Postfix/ZIP: 110019

Country: India

Telephone: 91 11 26432507, 26432510

FAX: 91 11 26463833, 26478007

E-Mail:

URL: www.iffco.nic.in

Represented by:

Title: Executive Director (Tech.)

Salutation: Mr.

Last Name: Chandra

Middle Name: -

First Name: Subhash

Department: -

Mobile: -

Direct FAX: -

Direct tel: -

Personal E-Mail: -

http://www.iffco.nic.in


Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

No Public Funding is available to the project activity


Annex -3

BASELINE INFORMATION

Please refer section B and E for baseline information.


Annex-4

MONITORING PLAN

Please refer section D.

pdd iffco cdr project phulpur

Documents