110 likes | 299 Views
Second Regional Workshop Capacity Development for the Clean Development Mechanism (CD4CDM) 23 March 2004 Siem Reap, Cambodia. A.T. Biopower Rice Husk Power Project PDD Analysis. Presented by You Dara, Project Counterpart, Ministry of Public Works and Transport, Cambodia.
E N D
Second Regional Workshop Capacity Development for the Clean Development Mechanism (CD4CDM)23 March 2004 Siem Reap, Cambodia A.T. Biopower Rice Husk Power Project PDD Analysis Presented by You Dara, Project Counterpart, Ministry of Public Works and Transport, Cambodia
Baseline Methodology • Barriers preventing the project from getting implemented as a business as usual scenario: • Investment barrier: return on investment too low • Technological barrier: never applied in Thailand, lack of qualified staff • Lack of community support (perceived dusk and smoke problems from rice husk power generation projects) • Sales of CERs will increase the project Return on Equity (ROE) by 7.2%
Emission Reductions • CO2 emissions from grid electricity (based on forecasts to year 2012) • CH4 emissions from open air burning of rice husk • Emissions reduction of the project = • + Emission from grid electricity • + Emission from open air burning of rice husk • - Emission from transportation of husk for the project • - Emission from fuel oil used for the project
Expert Reviewers Comments • The PDD should undertake a cost benefit analysis with detailed scenario planning to support the investment barrier argument. • The PDD assumes that official data on grid will be available on a regular basis. • The PDD assumes that the uncontrolled burning of biomass is the mode of disposal of unwanted agricultural residues in the baseline situation. • Meth Panel Recommendation: approval with minor changes
Public Comments • Unreliability of official grid statistics • Thailand is at a crossroads in energy policy, which could imply broadly divergent baseline scenarios • Unsubstantiated barriers to investments; Rice husk electricity generation is already an economically attractive option on its own (without CDM) • No detail about public funding; economic analysis not presented • CER price set at US $7/ton CO2e; a price of US $5 would reduce revenues from carbon sales by 25% • Unclear how distance traveled were obtained for calculation of transport emissions