Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.

Transcription

Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi
S.E.N.C.
Verification report on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (‘’GHG’’)
reduction project – Energy efficiency grouped project at district
heating plant and connected buildings in Chicoutimi
September 27, 2013
Service de vérification Carbon Quantum Inc
76 Morley, Greenfield Park, Québec, J4V 2Y9
Tél:514-891-6799;
[email protected]; www.carbonquantum.com
September 27, 2013
Mr. Denis Beauchesne
Administrator
767 Jacques-Cartier Est
Chicoutimi, Québec, G7H 6A3
Dear Sir:
Subject: Verification report on a greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) reduction project
Please find enclosed our verification report on a GHG emissions reduction project performed at 767 JacquesCartier Est, Chicoutimi, Québec, G7H 6A3 and at CEGEP de Chicoutimi 534 Jacques-Cartier Est,
Chicoutimi, Québec, G7H 1Z6.
The quantification report that is subject to our verification is included in Appendix 2.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any additional information you may require.
Yours truly,
Roger Fournier CPA, CA
GHG Lead Verifier
Tél:514-891-6799;
Mr. Denis Beauchesne
Administrator
767 Jacques-Cartier Est
Chicoutimi, Québec, G7H 6A3
Dear Sir:
We have been engaged by Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. to perform the verification of a
GHG Emissions Reduction project performed at 767 Jacques-Cartier Est, Chicoutimi, Québec, G7H 6A3
and at CEGEP de Chicoutimi 534 Jacques-Cartier Est, Chicoutimi, Québec, G7H 1Z6 as an independent
third party verifier.
We have verified the accompanying greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions reduction quantification report
entitled “Energy efficiency grouped project at district heating plant and connected buildings in Chicoutimi –
Greenhouse Gas Project Report for the Period from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2012’’ (the
“quantification report”). This quantification report dated September 27, 2013 is included in Appendix 2 of our
report which is intended to be posted on CSA’s GHG CleanProject TM registry.
Management is responsible for the relevance, consistency, transparency, conservativeness, completeness,
accuracy and method of presentation of the quantification report. This responsibility includes the design,
implementation and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation of a GHG emissions
reduction quantification report that is free from material misstatements. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our verification.
Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. is a non-profit organization that produces and sells steam for
the heating needs of its members which are located in the city center of Chicoutimi and are some of the most
important institutions and buildings in the city of Chicoutimi.
There are eight members in the Centrale which are : Collège d’Enseignement Général et Professionnel de
Chicoutimi, le Grand Séminaire de Chicoutimi, Complexe Hospitalier de la Sagamie, les Antoniennes de
Marie, la Congrégation des Soeurs de Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil de Chicoutimi, Corporation Épiscopale
Catholique Romaine de Chicoutimi, la Fabrique St-François-Xavier de Chicoutimi and l’Université du Québec
à Chicoutimi.
Tél:514-891-6799;
The emissions reduction project
The project is located at 767 Jacques-Cartier Est, Chicoutimi, Québec Latitude 48o 25’ 31’’ N and Longitude
71o 2’ 41’’ W and at 534 Jacques-Cartier Est, Chicoutimi, Québec, Latitude 48o 25’ 28.’’ N and Longitude 71o 3’
8’’ W.
The project achieves GHG emissions reduction since it makes possible to consume less fossil fuel for the
production of steam with more efficient equipment added at 767 Jacques-Cartier Est, Chicoutimi, G7H 6A3
and at 534 Jacques-Cartier Est, Chicoutimi, G7H 1Z6 where a geothermal system has been installed.
The project contributes to GHG emissions reduction since it makes possible to consume less energy and use
cleaner energy and also avoids the release of a large quantity of greenhouse gases (produced by the
consumption of fossil fuels) in the atmosphere. These energy efficiency and fuel switch measures are
additional to a baseline scenario which is the status quo situation, meaning that Centrale de chauffage de
Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. and CEGEP de Chicoutimi would not have made any modifications at their buildings on
Jacques-Cartier street.
The baseline scenario and the project scenario deliver the same type and level of product service (i.e. they are
functionally equivalent) in a sense that they both meet the energetic needs and provide sufficient heat to
assure comfort and decent life quality inside the buildings.
At the Centrale de Chauffage the project implementation began in 2004 and started to reduce GHG emissions
in 2005 and at the CEGEP de Chicoutimi the project implementation began in 2007 and started to reduce
GHG emissions in 2008. The expected life time of this project as per page 3 of the attached quantification
report should be as long as the project respects the principal of additionality. A first verification report has
been issued for the years 2005-2010. This is the second verification report to be issued for this project. As of
this report, we have no indication from the client on its intentions to update annually over the next few years
its GHG project
The main GHG source for the project is the consumption of electricity, natural gas and heavy fuel oil. The
various gases involved at Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
The project was under the responsibility of Mr. Denis Beauchesne who is the signing authority in this matter
and also the person responsible for the data collection and monitoring.
Tél:514-891-6799;
The quantification report
The quantification report was prepared by National Ecocredit, in accordance with ISO 14064-2 “Specification
with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal
enhancement (2006)”.
The quantification is done in accordance with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodology
proposed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) titled : AMS-II.E.
version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings. This methodology is appropriate because it
includes any energy efficiency and fuel switch measures implemented in buildings and this corresponds to the
projects implemented by Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. and CEGEP de Chicoutimi.
Although the quantification method consists essentially of multiplying appropriate emission factors to the
total of consumption different types of energy (electricity, natural gas and heavy fuel oil), the quantifier had to
evaluate the energy that would have been used in the hypothetical scenario (absence of efficiency measures
and no Geothermal installation). For this evaluation, the quantifier had to take into account the impact of the
baseline needs for steam by taking the actual steam production of a given year and add an overhead quantity
that would have been used in the absence of the geothermal installation. Others calculations have also been
performed for the baseline fuel consumption.
The approach that was used for the quantification of the GHG emissions reductions was one of comparing
the GHG emissions generated by various sources of emissions included in the baseline scenario, being the
electricity, natural gas and heavy fuel oil consumption with those resulting from the project scenario, being
also the emissions generated by the electricity, natural gas and heavy fuel oil consumption. The quantifier
determined the GHG emissions for every source of energy by using appropriate emission factors multiplied
by the consumption of every GHG source
The emission factors have been chosen from the National Inventory Report 1990-2011, Greenhouse Gas Sources
and Sinks in Canada.
The verification team
Before undertaking this assignment we ensured there were no conflicts of interest that could impair our ability
to express an opinion and the conflict of interest form was completed and is included in Appendix 1 to this
report. We also ensured we had the skills, competencies and appropriate training to perform this specific
assignment.
Tél:514-891-6799;
The Verifier assigned to this audit work was:
Roger Fournier CPA, CA, Lead verifier.
Roger Fournier has received the CSA ISO 14064-3 training and has performed the previous audit for this
project for period 2005-2010 as a Lead Verifier for another verification body. Mr. Fournier has also been
involved in others similar projects. Over the last six years, Mr. Fournier has been involved in the audit of
more than 80 projects and most of them as a Lead Verifier.
The verification work
Standards:
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with guidance for
the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006). This standard requires that we plan and perform the
verification to obtain either a reasonable assurance or a limited assurance about whether the emission
reductions declaration that is contained in the attached quantification report is fairly stated, is free of material
misstatements, is an appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of Client and the
materiality threshold has not been reached or exceeded
Scope:
A reasonable assurance engagement with respect to a GHG statement involves performing procedures to
obtain evidence about the quantification of emissions, and about the other information disclosed as part of
the statement. Our verification procedures were selected based on professional judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement in the GHG statement. In making those risk assessments, we
considered internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation of the GHG statement.
Our engagement also included:

Assessing processes and control over data.

Evaluating the appropriateness of quantification methods and reporting policies used and the
reasonableness of necessary estimates made by Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.

Identifying GHG sources sinks and reservoirs, types of GHG involved and time periods when emissions
occurred.

Establishing quantitative materiality thresholds and assessing compliance of results to these thresholds
Tél:514-891-6799;

Ensuring ownership of the project by observing that all reductions are obtained directly by the client. In
this regard, we ensured that different elements allowing Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. to
achieve GHG reductions belong to the Centrale. For the GHG emissions reductions obtained by the
CEGEP de Chicoutimi we ensured there was an agreement between the Centrale and the CEGEP where
CEGEP de Chicoutimi transfers the rights to their emissions reductions to the Centrale de chauffage de
Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.
Level of assurance:
It was agreed with Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s representatives that a reasonable assurance
level of opinion would be issued and we planned and executed our work accordingly. Consequently, our
verification included those procedures we considered necessary in the circumstances to obtain a reasonable
basis for our opinion.
Planning:
At the planning phase of this verification assignment, we assessed the quantification report in order to
understand the major processes of Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s operations, the different
production or operation stages with the purpose of assessing the complexity of the operation. We then made a
first assessment of the inherent risk.
We also got information on Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s internal control with the purpose
of assessing our first evaluation of control risk and detection risk for this assignment. We also assessed the
emission sources and GHG involved.
A verification plan and sampling plan have been prepared and designed to mitigate the detection risk
Our verification plan establishes, among others, the terms of the engagement, level of assurance, objectives,
criteria, scope and materiality threshold. Various other steps are also described in our verification plan as the
first documents necessary for the conduct of the audit. These documents allow us to corroborate various
elements of different monitoring systems. The audit plan also includes discussions with various stakeholders
at the Centrale to ensure that different controls are in place.
Tél:514-891-6799;
2
Assessing Materiality:
Materiality is an amount that, if omitted or misstated, will influence the reader of the report in his decision
making. Materiality is defined by the lead verifier in accordance with the agreed level of assurance. This
materiality is also based on professional judgment and risk assessment.
The materiality for this project is 5% of declared emission reductions
The inherent risk, control risk and detection risk were assessed at an acceptable level for verification purposes.
Sampling Plan:
Our sampling plan included the verification of total natural gas consumption (which account for more than
90% of the greenhouse gas emissions) for the years 2011 and 2012. This verification was done by reviewing
the natural gas invoices. During our verification, our sampling plan was not modified.
Execution:
A draft of the quantification report was submitted to us on August 19, 2013. Our initial review of the
documentation was undertaken on August 20, 2013 and a verification plan was prepared. We then toured
Centrale de chauffage and CEGEP de Chicoutimi’s premises on September 10, 2013. In doing so we
interviewed Mr. Denis Beauchesne (Administrator at the Centrale), Mr. Marc Tremblay (Director of
operations at the Centrale) and Mr. Marc Carpentier (Director of Materials Ressources at the CEGEP).
This visit allowed us, among others, to reassess our audit risks, to get a good comprehension of the different
productions stages and also to confirm the emission sources and GHG involved. The final quantification
report is dated September 27, 2013.
We have identified each monitoring system that may have an effect on the data used for emissions reduction
calculations. During the course of our audit, we have received all requested information from the staff
responsible for data input and reporting out of these systems (Mr. Denis Beauchesne) and the control
procedures were described and assessed. All reports used in the calculation were reconciled to the
calculations.
We have assessed, among others the appropriatness of using the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
methodology titled: AMS-III.E.version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings as a reference to
build the quantification and we agree with it. We also assessed the appropriateness of using the National
Inventory Report 1990-2011 for emissions factors and we agree with it.
The materiality level, which has been established at 5% of the declared emissions reductions has not been
exceeded. All findings were listed, valued and compared to the established materiality level.
Tél:514-891-6799;
Criteria:
1. The attached quantification report is in conformance with the requirements and principles of ISO 140642
2. The approach and methodology used for the quantification are appropriate.
3. The baseline scenario is appropriate
4. The supporting data are subject to sufficient controls to be considered fair and accurate and should not
cause any material discrepancy
5. The calculation supporting the GHG assertion are sufficiently accurate to be considered fair and accurate
and should not cause any material discrepancy
6. The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been
reached or exceeded
7. There are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the resulting emission
reductions or removals.
8. The project start date is accurate and the lifetime of the project is well stated
Reasonable assurance opinion
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with guidance for
the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006).
In our opinion:
1.
The quantification report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard: Specification with guidance at
the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements
(2006), and the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency and
conservativeness have been respected.
2.
The approach and methodologies used for the quantification are appropriate.
3.
The baseline scenario is appropriate.
4.
The client’s data controls management system is appropriate.
Tél:514-891-6799;
5.
The quantification report and the GHG assertion are free of material misstatements and are an
appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of Client.
6.
The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been
reached or exceeded.
7.
To our knowledge, there are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the
resulting emission reductions or removals
8.
The project start date is accurate and the lifetime estimation of the project is fairly stated
9.
The GHG emission reductions presented in the quantification report entitled “Energy efficiency
grouped project at district heating plant and connected buildings in Chicoutimi – Greenhouse Gas
Project Report for the Period from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2012’’ and dated September 27,
2013 are, in all material respect, fairly stated at 2116 tCO2e for the period from January 1st, 2011 to
December 31st , 2011 and 2203 tCO2e for the period between January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2012
and are additional to what would have occurred in the baseline scenario. The following breakdown of
those emission reductions for the years 2011 and 2012 is fairly stated (in units of CO2e):
Year
CO2
CH4
N2O
Total
2011
2102
1
13
2116
2012
2195
-2
10
2203
Note: Other GHG such as PFC, HFC and SF6 are not accounted for because they are not specific to
Natural gas and fuel consumptions
Tél:514-891-6799;
Restricted usage and confidentiality
This verification report is produced to be used by the management of Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi
S.E.N.C. and parties interested in the above described GHG emissions reduction project. Reliance on the
conclusions of this verification report for any other usage may not be suitable.
The quantification report entitled “Energy efficiency grouped project at district heating plant and connected
buildings in Chicoutimi – Greenhouse Gas Project Report for the Period from January 1st, 2011 to December
31st, 2012’’ and dated September 27, 2013 is an integral part of this verification report and should in no
circumstances be separated from it.
This verification report and the supporting work files are kept confidential and are available to the client on
request and will not be disclosed to anyone else unless compelled by law. They will be safeguarded for
10 years after which period they will be safely destroyed.
Roger Fournier, CPA, CA
Lead Verifier
Greenfield Park, September 27, 2013
Tél:514-891-6799;
Appendix 1
Conflict of Interest Review
Client Name : Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.
Report Identification : Verification Report on a GHG Reduction project entitled “Energy efficiency grouped project at district
heating plant and connected buildings in Chicoutimi – Greenhouse Gas Project Report for the Period from January 1 st, 2011 to
December 31st, 2012’’
Date of report : September 27, 2013
Professional : Roger Fournier CPA, CA, Lead Verifier
I confirm the following :
Independence :
I remained independent of the activity being verified, and free from bias and conflict of interest and I maintained objectivity
throughout the verification to ensure that the findings and conclusions will be based on objective evidence generated during the
verification
Ethical conduct
I have demonstrated ethical conduct through trust, integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the verification process
Fair presentation
I have reflected thruthfully and accurately verification activities, findings, conclusions and reports.
I have reported significant obstacles encountered during the verification process, as well as unresolved, diverging opinion with the
responsible party and the client
Due professional care
I have exercised due professional care and judgment in accordance with the importance of the task performed and the confidence
placed by clients and intended users.
I have the necessary skills and competences to undertake the verification
-------------------------------------
September 27, 2013
----------------------------Service de vérification Carbon Quantum Inc
Tél:514-891-6799;
APPENDIX 2
Tél:514-891-6799;
Centrale de chauffage de
Chicoutimi (S.E.N.C.)
Energy efficiency grouped project at district heating plant and
connected buildings in Chicoutimi
Greenhouse Gas Project Report
Period from January 1st 2011 to December 31st 2012
Project proponent:
Centrale de chauffage S.E.N.C.
767, rue Jacques-Cartier Est
Chicoutimi, (Québec) G7H6A3
Prepared by:
National Ecocredit
2015, Victoria Street, Suite 200
Saint-Lambert (Québec)
J4S 1H1
September 27, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FLOWCHARTS .............................................................................................. iii
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... iv
Sommaire Exécutif ............................................................................................................ 1
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 3
2.1.
Project title .......................................................................................................... 3
2.2.
Objectives ........................................................................................................... 3
2.3.
Type of GHG project .......................................................................................... 3
2.4.
Location .............................................................................................................. 3
2.5.
Project lifetime .................................................................................................... 3
2.6.
Conditions prior to project initiation................................................................... 3
2.7.
Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions or
removal enhancements ....................................................................................... 4
2.8.
Project technologies, products, services and expected level of activity ............. 4
2.9.
Aggregate GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements likely to occur
from the GHG project......................................................................................... 4
2.10.
Identification of risks .......................................................................................... 5
2.11.
Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................. 5
2.11.1.
2.11.2.
2.11.3.
Project proponent and representative ........................................................ 5
Quantification and reporting responsible entity ........................................ 5
Authorized project contact ........................................................................ 7
2.12.
Project eligibility under the GHG program ........................................................ 7
2.13.
Environmental impact assessment ...................................................................... 7
2.14.
Stakeholder consultations and mechanisms for on-going communication ......... 7
2.15.
Detailed Chronological Plan ............................................................................... 7
2.16.
Ownership ........................................................................................................... 8
3.
SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND ASSESMENT OF
ADDITIONALITY ........................................................................................................... 9
4.
IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF GHG SOURCES, SINKS
AND RESERVOIRS ....................................................................................................... 11
GHG Report
ii
5.
QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS ............ 12
5.1.
Baseline GHG emissions/removals................................................................... 13
5.2.
Project GHG emissions/removals ..................................................................... 15
5.3.
Emission reductions .......................................................................................... 15
5.4.
Emission factors ................................................................................................ 16
5.5.
Global warming potential (GWP) ..................................................................... 16
6.
DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL ................................................... 17
7.
REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS....................................... 19
ANNEX I .......................................................................................................................... 21
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1: GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS FORECAST ....................................................................................................5
TABLE 2.2: CHRONOLOGICAL PLAN ..........................................................................................................................8
TABLE 3.1: CENTRALE DE CHAUFFAGE DE CHICOUTIMI ................................................................................................9
TABLE 3.2: CÉGEP DE CHICOUTIMI .......................................................................................................................10
TABLE 4.1: SSRS INVENTORY ................................................................................................................................11
TABLE 5.1: EMISSION FACTORS .............................................................................................................................16
TABLE 5.2: GLOBAL WARMING .............................................................................................................................16
TABLE 6.1: DATA DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................17
*
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF MONITORED DATA ..........................................................................................................19
TABLE 7.2: GHG EMISSIONS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS (T CO2E)..............................................................................19
TABLE 7.3: PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS BY SOURCE AND GHG TYPE (T CO2E) ..................................................................20
TABLE 7.4: BASELINE GHG EMISSIONS BY SOURCE AND GHG TYPE (T CO2E) .................................................................20
TABLE 7.5: GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BY SOURCE AND GHG TYPE (T CO2E) .............................................................20
LIST OF FLOWCHARTS
FLOWCHART 6.1: DATA MONITORING....................................................................................................................18
GHG Report
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
BS:
CDM:
CH4:
CO2:
CO2e:
CSA:
EF:
GHG:
HDD:
ISO:
IPCC:
kWh:
N2O:
PS:
SSR:
t:
VER:
Baseline Scenario (GHG Emission Source)
Clean Development Mechanism
Methane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide equivalent (usually expressed in metric tons)
Canadian Standards Association
Emission Factor
Greenhouse gases
Heating Degree Days
International Organization for Standardization
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Kilowatt hour
Nitrous oxide
Project Scenario (GHG emission source)
Source, Sink and Reservoir
Ton
Verified Emission Reduction
GHG Report
iv
Sommaire Exécutif
(Please take note that the remainder of this document is in English)
La Centrale de chauffage S.E.N.C. ainsi que ses membres ont conjointement convenu de
se doter de systèmes plus performants et de mener des projets d’amélioration d’efficacité
énergétique visant à réduire leur empreinte de carbone et leur impact sur le réchauffement
climatique.
Le projet de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) s’est déroulé en deux
phases principales. En un premier temps, en 2004, des activités de modernisation de la
centrale ont débuté. De nouveaux brûleurs, des systèmes de contrôles optimisés et des
méthodes de récupération de chaleur ont été mis en place. L’impact positif de ces
mesures a été mesurable dès 2005.
En un deuxième temps, le CEGEP de Chicoutimi, membre de la société, a fait installer en
2008 un système géothermique permettant de diminuer considérablement la demande de
vapeur et l’utilisation de combustibles fossiles pour sa production. Les effets combinés de
ces activités de projet livrent des réductions d’émission de gaz à effet de serre non
négligeables.
Le projet et les réductions d’émission de GES seront enregistrés au GHG
CleanProjectTMRegistry. Ces réductions sont quantifiées selon les principes et lignes
directrices de la norme ISO 14064 tel que stipulé par le GHG CleanProjectTMRegistry.
Les réductions obtenues pour les années 2005 à 2012 sont au nombre de :
Année
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
TOTAL
Réductions d’émission
(t CO2e)
468
1 702
1 588
2 282
2 463
1 809
2 116
2 203
14 631
Les réductions de 2005 à 2010 sont présentées à titre indicatif. Les réductions de 2011 et
2012 font l’objet du présent rapport.
GHG Report
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi (S.E.N.C.) is a non-profit organization that
produces and sells steam for the heating needs of its members. Located in the heart of
Chicoutimi, Québec, it serves some of the most important institutions and buildings in the
city center. As an important player in the economic and social spheres of the city, the
S.E.N.C feels the responsibility to act as an environmental leader within the community.
Hence, for the benefit of its members and the entire society, it has decided to implement a
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction project.
Supported by its members, the S.E.N.C has decided to modernize the steam production
facility and to evaluate the potential for reducing steam demand from its members.
Efforts were first made to enhance the efficiency of the steam production process; new
burners, controls and heat recovery systems were implemented. Following this work, the
CEGEP de Chicoutimi, an important member, has installed a geothermal system that
significantly reduces the needs for steam production and related usage of fossil fuel.
Presented as a grouped project, these two activities greatly contribute to mitigate the
combined impact of the S.E.N.C and its members on global warming.
In this report, the overall GHG project is first described with statements of its objectives,
nature, location, lifetime and main characteristics. The most appropriate baseline scenario
is identified and the GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) for the baseline and the
project scenarios are inventoried. A quantification methodology is described and a
detailed monitoring plan is outlined. Values of monitored data and results of emission
reductions quantification are given in the final section.
CDM methodology, AMS-II.E version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching
measures for buildings1 is used to identify the sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) to be
included in the quantification, for the assessment of the baseline, and for the calculation
of emission reductions. This methodology is deemed to be appropriate in regards to its
applicability conditions. In section 3, the selection of the baseline scenario and the
assessment of additionality were performed according to best practices and the expertise
of the quantification team. A barrier analysis is performed and used to confirm the most
plausible scenario and to provide a solid argument on which to base the additionality
assessment.
1
CDM, (2007). CDM methodology II.E/Version 10: Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings, p.1.
Internet link:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_LAVBAV8STPGYPWVKGQJLBCNEC8APNP
GHG Report
1
This GHG report is presented in a format that meets the requirements of CSA
CleanProjectsTM Registry and the ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles:
 Relevance:
All relevant GHG sources are meticulously selected and presented in section 4. The
methodology chosen includes projects with fuel switch and energy efficiency which is
why it was judged relevant to this project.
 Completeness:
A complete assessment of GHG sources is made and all GHG types are considered in the
applied quantification methodology. Complete information regarding project
implementation, activities and GHG quantification is given through this GHG report.
GHG which are not included, are explained to not be relevant to this particular project in
section 4.
 Consistency:
Chosen quantification methodology is appropriate for Centrale de chauffage de
Chicoutimi’s specific projects. Established baseline scenario, as explained in section 3, is
consistent with the project level of activity related to energy efficiency measures and the
fuel switch.
 Accuracy:
Calculation uncertainties are kept as small as possible. Constants used for the calculation
are shown in section 5. In the same section, variables used for the quantification are
clearly explained.
 Transparency:
Project related information is transparently communicated through this document so that
the intended user knows what the important data are, how they are collected and how the
project actually leads to GHG emissions reduction. Data monitoring and GHG emission
reductions calculation are clearly detailed in order to provide the reader sufficient
information to allow the user to confidently make decisions.
 Conservativeness:
GHG emission reductions are not overestimated. When accuracy is jeopardized because
of assumptions, conservative choices are made to make sure that GHG reductions are not
overestimated.
GHG Report
2
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1.
Project title
Energy efficiency grouped project at district heating plant and connected buildings in
Chicoutimi.
2.2.
Objectives
This project has two objectives:
 Enhance the efficiency of the steam production plant
 Lower the needs for energy on the demand side
2.3.
Type of GHG project
This project is a grouped project classified in the energy efficiency type of project with
effects on both production and demand side.
2.4.
Location
Project activities are implemented at two locations:
767, rue Jacques-Cartier Est
Chicoutimi (Québec)
G7H6A3
Latitude : 48o 25’ 31’’ N
Longitude : 71o 2’ 41’’ W
CÉGEP de Chicoutimi
534, rue Jacques-Cartier Est,
Chicoutimi (Québec)
G7H 1Z6
Latitude : 48o 25’ 28’’ N
Longitude : 71o3’ 8’’ W
2.5.
Project lifetime
The project implementation began in 2004. For the purpose of this report, the official
start date of the GHG project is January 1st 2005. Emission reductions are planned to be
quantified and claimed until the end of the life expectancy of the equipment and for as
long as the project respects the principle of additionality.
2.6.
Conditions prior to project initiation
At the steam production plant, the four boilers were using old combustion technology and
were operated with deficient controls; excess production was purged significant heat was
lost through exhaust gas.
At the CEGEP, before 2008, the Centrale de chauffage was the only source of energy for
heating and no energy efficiency measures were in place.
GHG Report
3
2.7.
Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission
reductions or removal enhancements
Emission reductions will result from both a smaller demand of steam due to the presence
of geothermal system at the CEGEP and a more effective production allowing for more
steam being produced by unit of fossil energy.
2.8.
Project technologies, products, services and expected level of
activity
The technologies that contribute to higher steam production efficiency are a new high
efficiency burner in boiler 1, the implementation of an optimized controlled combustion
system in boiler 2, 3 and 4, the recovery of purged steam and a heat recovery system on
exhaust chimney. All together, the measures are expected to enhance the production
efficiency by about 15%. From 600 lbs of steam being produced per GJ of fossil fuel
before the project, it is expected a rise to 700 lbs of steam per GJ of fossil fuel.
The Centrale de chauffage produces about 150 million pounds of steam yearly. This
quantity can significantly vary over time due to the changing needs of its members. The
installation of the geothermal system diminishes the CEGEP’s need for steam by about
40%. Expected steam consumption will drop from 25 million lbs to 15 million lbs.
2.9.
Aggregate GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements
likely to occur from the GHG project
This report covers the period of 2011-2012. It demonstrates the efforts made by Centrale
de chauffage S.E.N.C. to reduce their carbon footprint on the environment. This is the
second report for this project. Others will follow until the end of the life expectancy of
the equipment and for as long as the project respects the principle of additionality.
Expected emissions are results of preliminary estimations made at the beginning of the
project. Achieved reductions were quantified with the monitored data according a
recognized methodology.
GHG Report
4
Table 2.1: GHG Emission reductions forecast
Year
Expected Emission
Reductions (t CO2e)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
2 000
2 000
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 000
3 000
3 000
3 000
3 000
26 500
Achieved Emission
Reductions (t CO2e)
468
1 702
1 588
2 282
2 463
1 809
2 116
2 203
14 631
2.10. Identification of risks
Emission reductions are not only the results of technological improvements. They are
also closely related to management methods. Great attention must be paid to energy use
practices and management in order to achieve emission reductions.
Energy efficiency and/or fuel switching might become common practice or required by
law in institutional buildings. The project would therefore no longer generate emission
reductions.
The geothermal system must remain operational throughout the project lifetime.
2.11. Roles and Responsibilities
2.11.1. Project proponent and representative
Centrale de chauffage, S.E.N.C. is a non-profit organization which serves the interests of
its members. Several representatives of these member establishments have contributed to
this project. The director of the Centrale de chauffage itself has been designated as the
representative of the project proponent entity.
Centrale de chauffage, S.E.N.C.
Denis Beauchesne,
Administrator
[email protected]
2.11.2. Quantification and reporting responsible entity
National Ecocredit is a firm specialized in non-traditional corporate financing. An
expertise has been developed in the quantification and exchange of carbon credits. In that
capacity, we help companies count, quantify and accrue their carbon offsets and ensure
their sale. Our expertise consists in selecting, applying and elaborating quantification
GHG Report
5
methodologies to quantify the emissions reductions based on reputable international
sources.
Quantification and report writing
Mr. David Beaudoin works at National Ecocredit as director of environment and climate
change services. He is a certified Environment Professional specialized in GHG
accounting and reduction projects (EP(GHG)). He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in
Biotechnological Engineering from the University of Sherbrooke. During his career, Mr.
Beaudoin has occupied several positions such as Process Engineering Consultant, Project
Manager in R&D and research assistant for different environmental firms. He is
responsible for GHG project planning and development and acts as team leader in this
project. He will perform reviews of the monitored data and the GHG emission reductions
calculation.
David Beaudoin, B.Eng. EP(GHG)
Director, Environment & Climate change
National Ecocredit
[email protected]
450-923-9381 ext.31
Joséanne Bélanger-Gravel works at National Ecocredit as advisor of environment and
climate change. She has a mechanical engineering degree from Université de Sherbrooke
and EPF-École d’ingénieurs de Sceaux in France. She also completed an engineering
master degree in renewable energies and a second master in environment with a
specialization in sustainable development. She is responsible for GHG project planning
and development and acts as team leader in this project.
Joséanne Bélanger-Gravel, B.Eng, M.A.Sc, M.Env.
Advisor, Environment & Climate change
National Ecocredit
[email protected]
450-923-9381 ext.23
Mr. Sacha Mannadiar works at National Ecocredit as an assistant advisor in GHG
quantification. He is currently completing a Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical
Engineering at the Concordia University. He contributes to National Ecocredit’s activities
by drafting reports and performing GHG reductions quantifications.
Sacha Mannadiar
Assistant Advisor, Environment & Climate Change
National Ecocredit
[email protected]
450-923-9381
GHG Report
6
2.11.3. Authorized project contact
Christine Lagacé is Vice-President of Public Affairs at National Vacuum and has the
signing authority for National Ecocredit. She is authorized by the project proponent to
perform requests and administrative tasks regarding the project registration.
Christine Lagacé, Adm.A.
Vice-President-PublicAffairs
National Vacuum
[email protected]
2.12. Project eligibility under the GHG program
The project is eligible under the GHG CleanProjectTMRegistry. It is implemented
following the ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles, is not attempted to be registered
under another GHG program and does not create any other environmental credit.
2.13. Environmental impact assessment
The nature of the project does not involve a required environmental impact assessment as
the impact on the environment is limited to the GHG emissions.
2.14. Stakeholder consultations
communication
and
mechanisms
for
on-going
Centrale de chauffage S.E.N.C is implementing a project in the name of eight distinct
members. These eight members consist of le Collège d’Enseignment Général et
Professionnel de Chicoutimi, le Grand Séminaire de Chicoutimi, Complexe Hospitalier
de la Sagamie, les Antoniennes de Marie, la Congrégation des Soeurs de Notre-Dame du
Bon-Conseil de Chicoutimi, Corporation Épiscopale Catholique Romaine de Chicoutimi,
la Fabrique St-François-Xavier de Chicoutimi et l’Université du Québec de Chicoutimi.
They all have been consulted through board meetings and all agreed with this project. Mr.
Denis Beauchesne is responsible for the communications with the quantifier, the verifier
and between the members. Each member receives a letter after the verification process
summarizing the project’s results.
2.15. Detailed Chronological Plan
The implementation of the project activities started in 2004 but reductions started in
2005. Data monitoring started in 2004 for the purpose of establishing the baseline and
monitoring is ongoing over the course of the project. GHG emission reductions were
reported for the first time in 2011 for the period 2005-2010 and for the second time in
2013 for the period 2011-2012. The project begins is valid until it ceases to respect the
principle of additionality or until the new equipment used in the measures have reached
the end of their useful life. This second report covers the years 2011-2012. The table
below is a summary of the relevant steps in the process and the date of which they
occurred.
GHG Report
7
Table 2.2: Chronological Plan
Date
2004
Before Project
Implementation
January 1st 2005
Steps in Process
Data monitoring started to
create baseline scenario and
beginning of project
implementation
Project start date
2011
1st GHG report covering
2005-2010
2013
2nd GHG report covering
2011-2012
2014
3rd GHG report covering
2013
2015
4th GHG report covering
2014
-
-
During Project
After Project
2.16. Ownership
Centrale de chauffage S.E.N.C. have mandated and paid National Ecocredit for this
quantification report. They are the owner of the steam facility therefore all of the
reductions resulting from project activities implemented in the thermal power station are
owned by the Centrale de chauffage S.E.N.C.. Furthermore, the CEGEP gave its emission
reductions resulting from the implementation of geothermal activities to the Centrale de
chauffage S.E.N.C..
GHG Report
8
3. SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND
ASSESMENT OF ADDITIONALITY
The baseline scenario is selected among alternative scenarios representing what would
have happened in the absence of the project. The alternative scenario that is most likely to
occur is selected as the baseline scenario. This project is voluntary and aims to lower the
GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. The scenario that is most likely to
occur in the absence of this project is to keep using the equipment in place prior to the
project activities initiation and the GHG emissions that are associated with the
consumption of energy in that case. An equipment change or retrofit is not required by
law and to stick with in-place systems remains the least expensive and effort demanding
scenario. Therefore the energy performance of steam production and usage in the year
2004 prior to the project activity initiation is used as the baseline scenario. The baseline
scenario and the project scenario deliver the same type and level of product service (i.e.
they are functionally equivalent).
The emission reductions achieved by the project are additional to what would have
occurred in the absence of the GHG project since it is voluntary and faces significant
investment barriers. Its implementation is highly motivated by the GHG emission
reductions potential.
Possible project and baseline scenarios are presented below. All potential barriers to the
implementation of these scenarios are identified and explained in table form which
visually presents and summarizes the barrier test that has been performed to identify and
choose the baseline scenario.
Table 3.1: Centrale de Chauffage de Chicoutimi
Potential
Barrier
Scenario EE1
No efficiency
Scenario EE2
Efficiency measure in place
Financial
Capital
Investment
Technology
No barrier
Common
Practice
No barrier
Barrier
Significant Investment required for
additional equipment and infrastructure
Barrier
Additional equipment and infrastructure
needed
Barrier
Not the most common practice
No barrier
GHG Report
9
Table 3.2: CÉGEP de Chicoutimi
Potential
Barrier
Financial
Capital
Investment
Scenario G1
No efficiency measure
and the geothermal
system
No barrier
Technology
No barrier
Common
Practice
No barrier
GHG Report
Scenario G2
Efficiency measure and
geothermal system in
place
Barrier
Significant investment
required for additional
equipment and
infrastructure
Barrier
Significant additional
equipment and
infrastructure needed
Barrier
Not the most
common practice
Scenario G3
Only efficiency
measure
Barrier
Moderate investment
required for
additional equipment
and infrastructure
Barrier
Moderate additional
equipment and
infrastructure needed
Barrier
Not the most
common practice
10
4. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF GHG
SOURCES, SINKS AND RESERVOIRS
The SSRs for the baseline and the project scenario are pointed out in the table below. All
GHG being involved with each source are identified and it is stated whether they are
included or excluded from the quantification.
Fuel combustion represents the most important sources of GHG emissions involved in this
project and in the normal activities of the Centrale de Chauffage de Chicoutimi. CO2, CH4
and N2O are three types of GHG commonly resulting from combustion, CO2 usually being a
more abundant product of the reaction. No source of PFC, HFC and SF6 has been identified.
They therefore are excluded from the quantification to ease the understanding.
Table 4.1: SSRs inventory
Source
Included?
Explanation
Type
Excluded This emission source is assumed to be
Related negligible compared to the combustion.
GHG
Considered
Fuel extraction
and processing
Fossil fuel
Included
CO2, CH4
Baseline combustion at the Controlled An important source of greenhouse gases.
and N2O
plant
Production of
Assumed to be functionally equivalent to
Excluded
electricity used at
the project scenario. Emissions from
Related
the plant
electricity are negligible.
Included?
GHG
Source
Explanation
Type
Considered
Project
Fuel extraction
and processing
Excluded This emission source is assumed to be
Related negligible compared to the combustion.
-
Developing and
installation of
new technologies
Installation of equipment creates
Excluded
negligible emissions compared to
Related
achievable reductions on the long term.
-
Production of
electricity used at
the plant
Excluded Assumed to be functionally equivalent to
Related the project scenario.
-
Fossil fuel
CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are
Included
combustion at the
considered. An important source of
Controlled
plant
greenhouse gases.
CO2, CH4
and N2O
Production of
incremental
electricity used
for the
geothermal
system
CO2, CH4
and N2O
Included
Related
GHG Report
CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are
considered Although small, it is
conservative to consider this GHG
source.
11
5. QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND
REMOVALS
This project is based on a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodology proposed
by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) titled:
AMS-II.E.version 10 - Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings,
validated 2 November 20072.The quantification is done in accordance with the selected
methodology, which stipulates that:
‘‘Each energy form in the emission baseline is multiplied by an emission
coefficient. […] IPCC default values for emission coefficients may be used.’’
Hence, the quantification method consists essentially of multiplying appropriate emission
factors to the total consumption of different types of energy namely electricity, natural
gas and heavy fuel oil. Doing so is pretty straight forward in the project scenario. One
just need the actual consumption of those energy sources (taken from energy suppliers
bills) and multiply the appropriate emission factors (taken from the latest Canadian
National Inventory Report).
Computing the GHG emissions for the baseline scenario is a little trickier since there is
no “actual” baseline consumption. The energy that would have been used in the
hypothetical baseline scenario (absence of efficiency measures) must be calculated. The
most accurate way to determine the baseline needs for steam is to take the actual steam
production of a given year and add an overhead quantity that would have been used in the
absence of the CEGEP’s geothermal system. Fuel consumption is determined by applying
the baseline (prior to project) steam consumption rate (pounds of steam per heating
degree day HDD) to the total HDD in the year of interest. This is more precisely detailed
by the means of equations below.
This calculation method is consistent with the methodology stating: “The energy baseline
consists of the energy use of the existing equipment” 3 with no further details on how to
determine this baseline energy. Commonsense and thorough knowledge of multiple
energy efficiency projects are used to justify this approach. Transparency is key here and
that is why detailed equations are given.
According to the applied methodology, leakage is to be considered if: “the energy
efficiency technology is equipment transferred from another activity or if the existing
equipment is transferred to another activity” 4. That is not the case here and therefore
there is no leakage calculation.
2
CDM, (2007). CDM methodology II.E/Version 10: Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
buildings, Internet link:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_LAVBAV8STPGYPWVKGQJLBCNE
C8APNP
3
buildings, page 1/6
4
buildings, page 2/6
GHG Report
12
5.1.
Baseline GHG emissions/removals
BEy = BNGEy + BOEy
y:
Year index, runs from 2005 to 2014
BEy:
Baseline scenario emissions for year “y” (t CO2e)
BNGEy:
Baseline emissions from natural gas combustion in year “y” (t CO2e)
BOEy:
Baseline emissions from oil #6 combustion in year “y” (t CO2e)
BNGEy = BNGCy* [EFNGCO2 + (EFNGCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EFNGN2O *GWPN2O)]
BNGCy: Baseline natural gas consumption in year “y” (m3)
EFNGCO2: CO2 emission factor from natural gas combustion
EFNGCH4: CH4 emission factor from natural gas combustion
EFNGN2O: N2O emission factor from natural gas combustion
GWPCH4: Global Warning Potential of methane (21)
GWPN2O: Global Warning Potential of nitrous oxide (310)
BNGCy = BSPy * NGRy * YRy
BSPy:
Baseline steam production in year “y” (lbs)
NGRy:
Natural gas consumption rate in year “y” (m3 / lb of steam
produced)
YRy:
Ratio of production yields: year “y” yield (lbs of steam / GJ of
fossil fuel) over baseline year “2004” yield (lbs of steam / GJ of
fossil fuel)
BSPy = ASPy + AddSy
ASPy:
Actual steam production in year “y” (lbs)
AddSy:
Additional steam that has been avoided due to geothermal system
(lbs)
AddSy:
If y≤ 2007; AddSy = 0
If y> 2007; AddSy = BSUCy - ASUCy
BSUCy: Baseline steam usage at CEGEP in year “y” (lbs)
ASUCy: Actual steam usage at CEGEP in year “y” (lbs)
BSUCy = BSDDR * DDy
BSDDR:
Baseline steam per degree-day ratio (lbs of steam / degreeday)
DDy:
Number of degree-days bellow 18oC in the year “y”, taken
from the Bagotville airport weather station data archive5
BSDDR = ASUC2007 / DD2007
5
Environment Canada, National Climate Data and Information Archive, Available at :
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/cdn_climate_summary_e.html
GHG Report
13
ASUC2007: Actual steam usage at CEGEP in year 2007 prior to
geothermal system implementation (28 157 621 lbs of
steam)
DD2007:
Number of degree-days bellow 18oC in the year 2007 taken
from the Bagotville airport weather station data archive
(5603.5)
NGRy = ANGCy / ASPy
ANGCy:
Actual natural gas consumption in year “y” (m3)
ASPy:
YRy = PYy / PY2004
PYy:
Production yield in year “y” (lbs of steam / GJ of fossil fuel)
PY2004:
Production yield in year 2004 prior to project initiation (lbs of
steam / GJ of fossil fuel)
PYy = ASPy / TFFy
ASPy:
TFFy:
Total fossil fuel energy in year “y” (GJ)
TFFy = ANGCy * HCNG + AOCy * HCO
ANGCy:
Actual natural gas consumption in year “y” (m3)
AOCy:
Actual oil #6 consumption in year “y” (L)
HCNG:
Heat content of natural gas (0.0371 GJ/m3)6
HCO:
Heat content of oil #6 (0.04173 GJ/L)
BOEy = BOCy * [EFOCO2 + (EFOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EFON2O *GWPN2O)]
BOCy:
Baseline oil consumption in year “y” (m3)
EFOCO2: CO2 emission factor from oil combustion
EFOCH4: CH4 emission factor from oil combustion
EFON2O: N2O emission factor from oil combustion
BOCy = BSPy * ORy * YRy
BSPy:
Baseline steam production in year “y” (lbs) (see above for
equations)
ORy:
Oil #6 consumption rate in year “y” (L / lb of steam produced)
YRy:
Ratio of production yields, year “y” yield over baseline year “b”
yield (see above for equations)
ORy = AOCy / ASPy
AOCy:
6
Office national de l'énergie; http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/nrgycnvrsntbl/nrgycnvrsntblfra.html#s1ss2
GHG Report
14
ASPy:
5.2.
Project GHG emissions/removals
PEy = PNGEy + POEy + PGEy
PEy:
Project scenario emissions in year “y” (t CO2e)
PNGEy:
Project emissions from natural gas combustion in year “y” (t CO2e)
POEy:
Project emissions from oil #6 combustion in year “y” (t CO2e)
PGEy:
Project scenario emissions from incremental electricity usage for
geothermal system in year “y” (t CO2e)
PNGEy = ANGCy* [EFNGCO2 + (EFNGCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EFNGN2O *GWPN2O)]
ANGCy: Actual natural gas consumption in year “y” (m3)
EFNGCO2: CO2 emission factor from natural gas combustion
EFNGCH4: CH4 emission factor from natural gas combustion
EFNGN2O: N2O emission factor from natural gas combustion
POEy = AOCy * [EFOCO2 + (EFOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EFON2O *GWPN2O)]
AOCy:
EFOCO2: CO2 emission factor from oil combustion
EFOCH4: CH4 emission factor from oil combustion
EFON2O: N2O emission factor from oil combustion
PGEy:
If y ≤ 2007; PGEy = 0
If y> 2007; PGEy = IEUGy * [EFECO2 + (EFECH4 * GWPCH4) + (EFEN2O *GWPN2O)]
IEUGy:
Incremental electricity usage for geothermal system in year “y” (kWh)
EFECO2:
CO2 emission factor from the production of electricity
EFE CH4: CO2 emission factor from the production of electricity
EFEN2O: CO2 emission factor from the production of electricity
IEUGy = AEUCy – AveEUC2005-2007
AEUCy:
Actual electricity usage at CEGEP in year “y” (kWh)
AveEUC2005-2007:
Average electricity usage at CEGEP for years 2005 to 2007
(5 568 800 kWh). This is considered to be the electricity
usage for non-heating needs.
5.3.
Emission reductions
ERy = BEy - PEy
ERy:
GHG emission reductions in year “y”(t CO2e)
BEy:
Baseline scenario emissions for year “y” (t CO2e)
PEy:
Project scenario emissions in year “y” (t CO2e)
GHG Report
15
5.4.
Emission factors
Table 5.1: Emission Factors
Factor
EFE
EFNG
EFO
5.5.
Gas
CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2
Value
1.64
0.0002
0.0001
1878
Unit
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/m3
CH4
N2O
0.037 g/m3
0.035 g/m3
CO2
CH4
N2O
3124 g/L
0.12 g/L
0.064 g/L
Source
National Inventory Report 1990-2011, Greenhouse
Gas Source and Sinks in Canada, Part 3, Table
A13-6
Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, Part 2, p.193,
Marketable Natural Gas
Institutional
Heavy fuel oil
Global warming potential (GWP)
Table 5.2: Global Warming
GWP
CH4
N20
Value
21
310
GHG Report
Source
Gas Source and Sinks in Canada, Part 1, p.33
16
6. DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL
As shown in the previous section describing the quantification methodology, six
parameters must be monitored. They are described below. Monitoring must start in 2004.
Table 6.1: Data description
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
Source of data to be used :
Description of measurement
methods and procedures to be
applied :
ASPy
lbs
Steam production
Centrale de chauffage data log system
The outflow of steam must continuously be
monitored along with temperature and pressure
conditions.
Cross-check between consecutive years
inventories
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
ASUCy
lbs
Steam usage at CEGEP
Invoice from steam producer (Centrale de
chauffage)
The inflow of steam at CEGEP port is
continuously monitored along with temperature
and pressure conditions.
inventories
applied :
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
DDy
Degree-days below 18oC in the year
Taken from the Bagotville airport weather station
data archive Available at :
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/cdn_climate_summar
y_e.html
applied :
The measurement method is consistent with
Environment Canada criteria.
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
applied :
ANGCy
m3
Natural gas consumption
Invoices from natural gas supplier
A gas flow meter continuously measures the
inflow. Integrated data over a certain period is
reported on natural gas invoices.
GHG Report
17
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
applied :
AOCy
L
Fuel oil #6 consumption
Invoices from oil supplier
An oil reservoir is filled when required. The
volume of each fill is measured by volumetric
flow meter upon delivery. Invoices reflect the
delivered oil quantity. Entire year invoices are
compiled and assumed to adequately reflect the
actual usage in that year.
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
applied :
AEUCy
kWh
Electricity usage at CEGEP
Invoices from power supplier
Electricity meter monitors the power usage.
Monthly reading of the meter is achieved and
invoices reflect the usage of that period.
inventories
Flowchart 6.1: Data Monitoring
GHG Report
18
7. REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS
The project plan and report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard and the
GHG CleanProjectTMRegistry requirements. The methodology that is used, the choice of
region specific emission factors and a rigorous monitoring plan allow for a reasonably
low level of uncertainty. National Ecocredit is confident that the emission reductions are
not overestimated and that the numbers of emission reductions that are reported here are
real and reflect the actual impacts of the project.
Monitoring started in 2004 for the purpose of establishing the baseline. Below is a
summary of the monitored data and calculated GHG emission reductions for the covered
period. Emission reductions are reported here for the years 2011-2012.
The GHG report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and GHG CleanProjectsTM
Registry requirements. Emission reductions will be verified by an independent third party
to a reasonable level of assurance. Mr. Roger Fournier who works for Carbon Quantum
will be responsible for the verification for this reporting period.
Table 7.1: Summary of monitored data*
year
2011
2012
ASPy
lbs
142 859 771
141 422 668
ASUCy
lbs
DDy
-
11 944 933
11 641 541
5273,0
5036,6
ANGCy
m3
5 460 613
5 474 469
AOCy
L
191 838
30 324
AEUCy
kWh
7 626 000
7 946 400
*See table 6.1 for the variables’ acronyms meaning
Table 7.2: GHG emissions and emission reductions (t CO2e)
Baseline scenario
2011
2012
13 041
12 653
GHG Report
Project scenario
10 925
10 450
Emission reductions
2 116
2 203
19
Table 7.3: Project GHG emissions by source and GHG type (t CO2e)
Sources
GHG type
2011
2012
Incremental Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
TOTAL
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
GHG
4
4
0
1
0
1
4
6
10 255
10 282
4
5
59
60
10 318
10 347
599
95
0
1
4
1
603
97
10 925
10 450
Table 7.4: Baseline GHG emissions by source and GHG type (t CO2e)
Sources
Natural Gas
GHG type
2011
2012
Fuel Oil
Total
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
GHG
12 244
12 462
5
5
71
72
12 320
12 539
716
114
0
0
5
0
721
114
13 041
12 653
Table 7.5: GHG emissions reductions by source and GHG type (t CO2e)
Sources
GHG type
2011
2012
Incremental Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
TOTAL
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
GHG
-4
-4
0
-1
0
-1
-4
-6
1989
2180
1
0
12
12
2002
2192
117
19
0
-1
1
-1
118
17
2116
2203
GHG Report
20
ANNEX I
Calculation examples (for year 2012)
Baseline scenario calculation
=
12653 =
BNGEy
+
12539 +
BOEy
BNGCy
*[
6636116 *[
EFNGCO2
+(
0,001878 + (
EFNGCH4
*
0,000000037 *
=
636116 =
BSPy
*
155090072 *
NGRy
*
0.038709979 *
YRy
1,10601101
=
155090072 =
ASPy
+
141422668 +
AddSy
13667404
=
13667404 =
BSUCy
25308945 -
ASUCy
11641541
=
25308945 =
BSDDR
*
5 025 *
DDy
=
5025,00598 =
ASUC2007 /
28 157 621 /
DD2007
5603,5
BEy
=
12539 =
*(ROUNDED
DOWN)*
BNGEy
BNGCy
BSPy
AddSy
BSUCy
BSDDR
GHG Report
114
GWPCH4
)+(
21 ) + (
5036.6
21
EFNGN2O
*
0,000000035 *
GWPN2O
)]
310 )]
=
ANGCy
/
5474469
ASPy
141422668
=
1,10601101 =
Pyy
/
692.362894 /
PY2004
=
692.362894 =
ASPy
/
141422668 /
TFFy
204260.9
TFFy
=
204260.9 =
ANGCy
*
5474469 *
HCNG
+
0,0370804 +
=
114 =
*(ROUNDED
DOWN)*
BOCy
* [ EFOCO2
+ ( EFOCH4
*
36779.7471 * [
0,003124 + ( 0,000000057 *
NGRy
0.038709979
YRy
PYy
BOEy
626
=
36779.7471 =
BSPy
*
155090072 *
Ory
*
0.00021442 *
=
0.00021442 =
AOCy
ASPy
141422668
BOCy
Ory
/
30324 /
AOCy
*
30324 *
HCO
0,04173
GWPCH4 ) + (
21 ) + (
YRy
1,10601101
Project scenario calculation
Pey
=
10451 =
PNGEy
+
10347 +
GHG Report
POEy
+
97 +
PGEy
7
22
EFON2O
*
0,000000064 *
GWPN2O
)]
310 )]
=
10347 =
PNGEy
ANGCy
* [ EFNGCO2 + ( EFNGCH4
*
5474469 * [
0,001878 + ( 0,000000037 *
GWPCH4
AOCy
)+(
21 ) + (
EFNGN2O
*
0,000000035 *
GWPN2O )]
310 )]
GWPCH4) + (
21 + (
EFON2O
*
0,000000064 *
GWPN2O
)]
310 )]
GWPCH4
EFEN2O
*
1E-10 *
GWPN2O
)]
310 )]
*(ROUNDED
UP)*
POEy
=
97 =
*[
30324 * [
EFOCO2
+ ( EFOCH4
*
0,003124 + ( 0,000000057 *
*(ROUNDED
UP)*
PGEy
=
7 =
IEUGy
* [ EFECO2
+ ( EFECH4
*
2377600 * [
0,000002 + (
2E-10 *
+(
21 + (
*(ROUNDED
UP)*
=
2377600 =
IEUGy
AEUCy
7946400 -
AveEUC2005-2007
5 568 800
Emission reductions
ERy = BEy - PEy
2203 = 12653 - 10450
GHG Report
23

Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.

Transcription

Similar documents

Project Description

Linda Tran Executive Summary

Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi SENC

Climate Change - Ev-K2-CNR

rhizomatous tall fescue - Greenhorizons Sod Farms

Van Houtte Coffee Services

PowerPoint presentation

BLJC 2011 Sustainability Report Final_3

Centre de Santé et de Services sociaux du Nord de Lanaudière

Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys