Natural gas based captive thermal and power generation project at Singapore
[]
Host party(ies) Singapore
Methodology(ies) AMS-II.H.
AMS-III.Q. ver. 2
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 23,123
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Jan 10
Length of first crediting period. 10 years
DOE/AE SIRIM
Period for comments 25 Mar 09 - 23 Apr 09
The operational/applicant entity working on this project has decided to make the Project Design Document (PDD) publicly available directly on the UNFCCC CDM website.
PDD PDD (2568 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs: 
The DOE is requested to investigate on the following issues.

The project activity (with start date in 2006) hosted in a manufacturing facility uses trigeneration as a replacement of conventional heat and chillers and grid electricity.

In this context, the technologicals and prevailing practice related barriers mentioned are not reasons enough to justify that the project activity is not business as usual.

The arguments provided on technological barriers do not demonstrate if there is not enough local skills available to undertake the project without needing additional financial support from CDM revenues and how the difficulties described (say, uncertain gas availability) will be alleviated through potential CDM revenue.

The arguments for prevailing practice related barriers do not justify why the project activity is not a common choice for an industrial/manufacturing facility of Schering-Plough Ltd's type. The arguments provided do not actually refer to anything that is called "Barrier due to prevailing practice".

It is not clear why the project start date is in 2006 while validation started in 2009.

It is not clear how with the barriers claimed above which are disruptive to the manufacturing operations at the facility, the project developer agreed to implement the project due to some anticipated CDM revenues.

The project activity needs to demonstrate what investment barriers it is likely to face, if any and at all. Otherwise, the project activity appears to be, without any investment cost-benefit related information, to be a clearly business as usual case.
Submitted by: Rahul Kar 
1) Pg 17. Please explain difference in operating hours for existing chillers (8760) and project chillers (8322)
2) Existing chillers lifetime is assumed 12 years. Manufacturers for existing chillers should provide confirmation on lifetime. 
3) In absence of project activity, would existing chillers be replaced by similar chillers?
4) Project chillers - lifetime of 30 years or more. Manufacturers should confirm expected operational lifetime
5) Energy estimated - how was estimated consumption arrived at? Was it from past energy records? 
6) What impact does shift work have on energy consumption?
Submitted by: Barry Sea

The comment period is over.
* Emission reductions in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum that are based on the estimates provided by the project participants in unvalidated PDDs