PDD IFFCO CDR Project Phulpur

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02
CDM Executive Board Page 1

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



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 CO
2
is also produced. Hydrogen reacts with Nitrogen (which is
captured from air), to form Ammonia. The Ammonia then reacts with CO
2
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 CO
2
produced during the
reforming process is not sufficient to convert all the Ammonia into Urea. To meet the CO
2

shortage, conventionally additional quantity of fossil fuels (Naphtha / Natural gas) is reformed.
IFFCO being a responsible and committed organisation towards environmental protection and
nations interest is installing 450 TPD capacity CDR plant to recover CO
2
from flue gases of
primary reformer to meet the shortfall of CO
2
for Urea production.

The emission reduction of the project activity is the total amount of CO
2
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 CO
2
from flue gases (which was earlier let out to atmosphere)
resulting in benign environment (CO
2
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.


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:
Reducing consumption of feed by adopting high end technologies and conserving non
renewable resources like Naphtha / Natural gas.
Making Natural gas / Naphtha available for other important economic applications.
Reducing Green House Gases (Carbon Dioxide)
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
Aids in capacity building of higher technology for employees
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 CO
2
from flue gases which contain about 9 to 10% CO
2

on dry basis. The CO
2
present in the flue gases will be first absorbed in the absorber with a
circulating solution and CO
2
free gases will be vented to atmosphere through stack. The
circulating solution shall be regenerated in the stripper where CO
2
will be stripped off from the
top of the stripper and regenerated solution will be further used for absorption. This stripped
CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
recovery plant. The treated flue gases will be let out from the top of the
absorber.
The CO
2
recovery plant consists of three main systems;
Flue gas cooling system
CO
2
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 CO
2
recovery. The flue gases are cooled through direct
contact with water.
CO
2
recovery system
CO
2
recovery and flue gases wash is carried out in the CO
2
absorber having two main sections.
CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
absorber, where it comes in direct contact with water to wash solvent. The
treated flue gas is exhausted from the top section of the CO
2
absorber to the stack. The CO
2
rich
solvent, collected at the bottom of the Absorber, is pumped to the Regenerator for regeneration.
Solvent Regeneration
The CO
2
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 CO
2
content
through packing material. The lean solvent is then reintroduced to the top of CO
2
absorber.
The technology to be employed for CO
2
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.


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 CO
2
from flue gases by installing CDR plant and
utilize for Urea production. In the absence of project activity, CO
2
requirement of the plant
would have been met by CO
2
production through conventional method and CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2

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 CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
e) 1,505,890
Total number of crediting years 10
Annual average over the crediting period
of estimated reductions ((tonnes of CO
2
e)
150,589


A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:
No public funding from parties included in Annex I is available to the project


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 CO
2
production.

IFFCO produces CO
2
(for urea production) through reforming of non renewable
sources like Naphtha, Natural gas.

The CO
2
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 CO
2
from other
applications due to installation of the project activity.

2
in flue gases of Primary reformer and CO
2
in flue
gases of Primary reformer was produced before of the project activity and was not
used for any other applications.

The recovered CO
2
which is used for producing compound does not get fixed in the
compound.

The recovered CO
2
is used for urea production and CO
2
is dissociated when urea is
used in the agricultural fields and CO
2
does not get fixed in urea.

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

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



IFFCO is proposing to implement the CDM project activity in order to recover CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
be obtained in the absence of the CDM project activity?

2. What would happen to the CO
2
recovered from flue gases in the absence of the project
activity?

1) How would CO
2
be obtained in the absence of the CDM project activity?

Conventionally in fertilizer industry, CO
2
is obtained from reforming of fossil fuels like
Naphtha, Natural gas (thermo chemical processing of fossil sources).

In IFFCO, currently CO
2
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 CO
2
produced and to meet the CO
2

shortage, conventionally additional quantity of fossil fuels (Naphtha / Natural gas) is reformed.
But IFFCO is proposing to install CDR plant to meet the CO
2
shortage. In the absence of the
project activity, Phulpur plant would have met the shortage of CO
2
by conventional method-
reforming of extra Naphtha / Natural Gas.

The alternatives for the project activity - Installation of CDR plant and to meet CO
2
shortage
from recovered CO
2
is as follows:

Alternative 1: Production of CO
2
using conventional method reforming of additional Naphtha
/ Natural gas. (Continuation of current practice).

The CO
2
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 CO
2
from flue gases by CDR plant)
not undertaken as a CDM project activity.


2) What would happen to the CO
2
in flue gases in the absence of the project activity?

The project activity is to recover CO
2
from flue gases by installing CDR plant. In absence of
the project activity, equivalent quantity of CO
2
recovered would have been let out to
atmosphere. In case of IFFCO, the flue gases (residual CO
2
) of primary reformer was already
produced and was let to atmosphere only and residual CO
2
was not used for any other purposes
before the project activity. Hence in absence of the project activity, the equivalent quantity of
CO
2
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).

2
/ Natural gas. (Continuation of current practice).

2

2
/ Natural gas.(continuation of current practice).

In absence of the project activity to meet the CO
2
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.

2

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.


2
/ 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.
2
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


IFFCO identified the following alternatives to the project activity:
2
/ Natural gas.(continuation of current practice).

2

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 CO
2
requirement, it is
not mandatory to recover CO
2
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
IFFCOs alternative to project activity reforming of Naphtha / Natural Gas (continuing the
current practice) does not face any financial, technological barriers. The barriers to IFFCOs
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 CO
2

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 CO
2
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).

IFFCOs CDM project activity generates no financial or economic benefits other than CDM
related income, so we choose Option I -Simple cost analysis.



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 CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
to meet its additional requirement , whereas there is capital investment and
operating cost associated with installation of CDR plant and recovering CO
2
from flue gases.
The equivalent quantity of CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
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


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):
IFFCOs alternative to project activity reforming of Naphtha / Natural Gas (continuing the
current practice) does not face any financial, technological barriers. Therefore the barriers to
IFFCOs 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
IFFCOs Project activity - Installation of CDR plant and to recover CO
2
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
43
3. Petronas Fertilizer
Co., Malaysia
44



Step 5. Impact of CDM registration
In country like India, CDR project (to recover CO
2
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
present in the flue gases. The project boundary includes the total CO
2
recovered in the flue
gases and the total CO
2
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 CO
2
in Flue gases
entering CDR plant
Total CO
2
recovered
from flue gases
Total CO
2
in Flue gases
leaving CDR plant
Recovered CO
2
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



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 CO
2
production.

IFFCO produces CO
2
(for urea production) through reforming of non renewable
sources like Naphtha, Natural gas.

The CO
2
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 CO
2
from other
applications due to installation of the project activity.

2
in flue gases of Primary reformer and CO
2
in flue
gases of Primary reformer was produced before of the project activity and was not
used for any other applications.

The recovered CO
2
which is used for producing compound does not get fixed in the
compound.

The recovered CO
2
is used for urea production and CO
2
is dissociated when urea is
used in the agricultural fields and CO
2
does not get fixed in urea.

project activity.

project activity.


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
CO
2
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.
crediting period.

2.d Efficiency of
Electricity
Generating
Plant records % C Once at
the start of
the
100% Electronic /
paper
crediting period.


ID number
(Please use
numbers to
ease cross-
referencing
to table B.7)
(m),
calculated
(c),
estimated
(e),
Recording
frequency
Proportion of
data to be
monitored
How will the
data be
archived?
(electronic/
paper)
Comment
System (EGS) crediting
period

2.e Steam
consumption
of CDR plant
Local
measurements
through
Field
instruments

Tonnes M Monthly 100 % Electronic /
paper
Measured in the plant premises
to the best accuracy and will
be monitored Month-wise. The
period.

2.f Temperature
of steam
consumed by
CDR plant
Local
measurements
through
Field
instruments

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
period.

2.g Pressure of
steam
consumed by
CDR plant
Local
measurements
through
Field
instruments

Kg/
sqcm
(g)
M Monthly 100 % Electronic /
paper
Monitored by Pressure
period.

2.h Steam
Temperature
Local
measurements
paper


ID number
(Please use
numbers to
ease cross-
referencing
to table B.7)
(m),
calculated
(c),
estimated
(e),
Recording
frequency
Proportion of
data to be
monitored
How will the
data be
archived?
(electronic/
paper)
Comment
of source
Boiler
through
Field
instruments

period.

2.i Steam
Pressure of
source boiler
Local
measurements
through
Field
instruments

Kg/
sqcm
(g)
paper
period.

2.j Feed water
temperature of
source boiler
Local
measurements
through
Field
instruments

paper
period.

2.k Feed water
pressure of
source boiler
Local
measurements
through
Field
Kg/sqcm
(g)
paper


ID number
(Please use
numbers to
ease cross-
referencing
to table B.7)
(m),
calculated
(c),
estimated
(e),
Recording
frequency
Proportion of
data to be
monitored
How will the
data be
archived?
(electronic/
paper)
Comment
instruments

period.

2.l Carbon
emission factor
for fuel used
in Boiler
Plant records /
IPCC
tCO2/ TJ C/M Monthly 100% Electronic /
paper
crediting period.

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

Local
measurements
through
Field
instruments

% C/M Monthly 100% Electronic /
paper
crediting period.

2.n Boiler
efficiency
Local
measurements
through
Field
instruments

% E Yearly
once
100% Electronic /
paper
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


ID number
(Please use
numbers to
ease cross-
referencing
to table B.7)
(m),
calculated
(c),
estimated
(e),
Recording
frequency
Proportion of
data to be
monitored
How will the
data be
archived?
(electronic/
paper)
Comment
period.

D.2.1.2. Description of formulae used to estimate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO
2
equ.)

The project activity emissions are the equivalent CO
2
emissions due to electricity and steam consumption by CDR plant.

(i) CO
2
emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant

To estimate CO
2
emissions due to electricity consumption in project scenario for CO
2
recovered - Inputs from AM 0018 is used. The following steps can
be followed to estimate the CO
2
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 (E
ine
) to the electrical energy source (in case of captive power generation):
E
ine
= E
mon
/
Where,
E
ine
= Monthly input energy to electrical energy source (kWh)
E
mon
= Monthly electricity consumption of project activity (kWh)
= 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 CO
2
emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant (in case of captive power generation):


C
er1
= E
ine
x F
1

Where,
C
er1
= CO
2
emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant (in case of captive power generation) (tCO
2
/ month)
E
ine
= Monthly input energy to electrical energy source (kWh)
F
1
= Carbon emission factor of the fuel used for captive power generation (IPCC) (tCO
2
/ kWh)
Step 4:
Estimate CO
2
emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant (in case of external grid supply):
C
er2
= E
mon
x F
2

Where ,
C
er2
= CO
2
emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant (in case of external grid supply)
(tCO
2
/ month)
E
mon
= Monthly electricity consumption of project activity (kWh)
F
2
= Carbon emission factor of the selected grid (tCO
2
/ kWh)
Carbon emission factor of selected grid is estimated by using ACM0002.

(ii) CO
2
Emissions due to steam consumption by CDR plant

Estimation of CO
2
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 boiler
1
, 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 /curves
2
/ conversion tables and standard formulas. DOE may verify the above during validation.
Step- 2:
Calculate equivalent energy for steam consumption (GJ/month):
E
i
= S
rf
x E
s

Where,
E
i
= 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


S
rf
= Equivalent steam consumption of CDR plant at generated conditions. (Tonne/ month)
E
s
= Net enthalpy of steam = Total enthalpy of steam consumed (GJ/tonne) Enthalpy of feed water (GJ/tonne)
Step-3 :
Calculate CO
2
emissions due to steam consumption in CDR plant (tCO
2
/ month):

)) P x (F x ((E n n
1,2...n n
i 3

=
= er C / (
b
h )
Where,
C
er3
= CO
2
emissions due to fuel combustion in boiler to produce steam required for CDR
(tCO
2
/ month)
E
i
= Equivalent energy of steam consumption (GJ/ month)
F
n
= Emission factor of fuel
n
used ( as per IPCC-guidelines (IPCC) (tCO
2
/ GJ)
P
n
= Energy contribution share of fuel
n
in total energy generated by fuel mix (%)
b
h = 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) = CO
2
Emissions due to electricity consumption in CDR plant
+ CO
2
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
Proportion
of data to be
monitored
How will the data
be archived?
(electronic/
paper)
Comment


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
Proportion
of data to be
monitored
How will the data
be archived?
(electronic/
paper)
Comment
3.a Total
amount of
CO
2

recovered
from flue
gases by the
CDR plant
Local
measurements
through
Field
instruments

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 CO
2
equ.)
>>
Baseline Emissions (BE) = Total amount of CO
2
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
Measured
(m),
calculated
(c) or
estimated
(e)
Recording
frequency
Proportion
of data to be
monitored
How will the data be
archived? (electronic/
paper)
Comment



D.2.2.2. Description of formulae used to calculate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO
2
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
ID number
(Please use
numbers to
ease cross-
referencing
to table B.7)
Data variable Source of data Data unit Measure
d (m),
calculate
d (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 CO
2
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 CO
2
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 monitored
3

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
Page 29

SECTION E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources

E.1. Estimate of GHG emissions by sources:

The Project Emissions (PE) are the equivalent CO
2
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 CO
2
)
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 CO
2
)
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 CO
2
)
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
)
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 CO
2
)
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 CO
2
)
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:
>>

SECTION G. Stakeholders comments
>>

G.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:
>>

G.2. Summary of the comments received:
>>

G.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:
>>



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: -



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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDD IFFCO CDR Project Phulpur

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDD IFFCO CDR Project Phulpur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM Executive Board Page 1

You might also like