Paysandú Clean Energy
[]
Host party(ies) Uruguay
Methodology(ies) AMS-I.D. ver. 15
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 22,475
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Jul 10
Length of first crediting period. 7 years
DOE/AE ICONTEC
Period for comments 18 Mar 10 - 16 Apr 10
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation Liderdat S.A. (“Paysandú Clean Energy”)
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 (861 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs:
Sirs,

Relating this project, it can be seen the following interview to Mr. Raúl Cancelo, Managing Director of Azucarlito, one of the two shareholders of Paysandú Clean Energy project.

It has been published at El Telégrafo (www.eltelegrafo.com) newspaper from Paysandú on 30/07 2006, reachable at

http://www.dominiouruguay.com/Noticia-Azucarlito-presenta-proyecto-para-generacion-propia-y-venta-de-energia-electrica-a-UTE-c388.html

Azucarlito presenta proyecto para generación propia y venta de energía eléctrica a UTE

Un proyecto denominado «unidad de generación de energía eléctrica» será presentado por Azucarera del Litoral S.A (AZUCARLITO). El director gerente, contador Raúl Cancelo, expuso a EL TELEGRAFO que, «fiel a su espíritu fundacional consistente en la búsqueda de soluciones de empleo, está formulando un nuevo proyecto para la inversión, en una unidad de generación de energía eléctrica, a partir de la combustión de biomasa, para presentarse al llamado a la licitación pública número P35404, realizada por UTE, por un eventual suministro de energía».

Acotó que la inversión que demandará, y que se estima en el entorno de los siete millones de dólares, estará sustentada exclusivamente en la producción y suministro de energía eléctrica, para la venta a UTE, con una potencia constante a ser suministrada de 6 megavatios.

Recordó que la agroindustria cuenta con una experiencia de 55 años, comenzando con 42 de actividad agroindustrial azucarera, que se inició con su primera zafra de remolacha, en el año 1950 y culminó al finalizar la zafra 1992/1993, para continuar desde entonces solo con la actividad de refinería.

Dijo que la decisión de poner fin al ingenio azucarero se tomó, de común acuerdo con los agricultores remolacheros, ante la total seguridad de no poder llegar a competir con las producciones de azúcar de caña de nuestros socios del MERCOSUR, reconvirtiendo inmediatamente la fábrica de azúcar a una unidad refinadora de azúcar crudo, lo cual le permitió mantener su actividad industrial.

En el período que va del 1º de julio de 1999 al 30 de junio de este año, AZUCARLITO importó un promedio anual de 45.000 toneladas de azúcar crudo para refinar. La planta industrial, tanto en el período de industrialización de la remolacha azucarera como en su actividad posterior de refinación de azúcar crudo importado, siempre generó la energía eléctrica que necesitó, destacó Cancelo.

En sus calderas produjo vapor en alta presión, que pasándolo primero por los turbogeneradores le permitía generar electricidad, para luego continuar utilizando en baja presión el vapor en los procesos de evaporación, concentración y cocimiento del azúcar, explicó.

El vapor necesario se produjo, desde 1950 a 1985, mediante combustión de fuel oil, pasando a ser sustituido por la leña de eucalipto. Desde que la planta industrial se reconvirtió a refinería, se está trabajando con una caldera de 35 T de vapor/hora, a 25 kg/cm2 de presión. Se generan aproximadamente 2,6 MWh de energía eléctrica, que es el consumo de la planta cuando está en esta operación. Aproximadamente un 11 % de la capacidad térmica de la caldera se destina a la generación eléctrica, y el resto, al cocimiento. La turbina que se utiliza es de contra-presión y libera el vapor a la salida a 1,5 Kgs/cm2 de presión. Por consiguiente, en la empresa existe infraestructura y un buen know-how para la producción de vapor, utilizando leña como energía y la generación de energía eléctrica, evaluó.

Además, se dispone de capacidad instalada suficiente para el abastecimiento y potabilización de agua, necesaria para el proceso de generación; la infraestructura edilicia para instalar la nueva unidad, más todos los servicios a ser compartidos: taller mecánico, taller eléctrico, administración, portería, balanza, canchas para el acopio de biomasa, ramal ferroviario, etc.

Fuente:eltelegrafo.com

Publicado: 30/07/2006


Also at Uruguayan boiler manufacturer’s website Julio Berkes

http://www.berkes.cl/refJunio09.pdf

It is stated that in 1985 it were installed at Azucarlito two boilers of 26,6 MWth, 30 ton/h steam at 25 bar, 340°C, firewood as fuel and gasification, producing 1,5 MW of electricity.

Then it is stated that in 1987 it was installed in Azucarlito a boiler of 31,4 MWth, 35 ton/h steam at 25 bar, 350°C, firewood as fuel and gasification, producing 3,0 MW of electricity.



These statements contradicts several assessments done in PDD:

1)	Gasification is not a technological innovation.  The project proposer has been using successfully gasification technology for 25 years.  Also the equipment supplier has been supplying this equipment for longer time.

2)	In the baseline scenario the proponent are producing steam and electricity using biomass since 1985, firewood up from 1985 to 2008 and wood residues from 2008 up to date.  So the baseline is the utilization of biomass renewable fuel.

3)	The prevailing practice for Azucarlito has been to produce its own electricity, “siempre generó la energía eléctrica que necesitó”, which clearly contradicts the PDD assert “This new activity is not common to the companies partners of Paysandu Clean Energy”.


4)	The reference to be the first plant in Paysandú department looks to be not acceptable in a small country like Uruguay.  Several projects are under development and producing in neighboring departments of Rivera, Tacuarembó and Río Negro.  Uruguay has a Unitarian government with a single electricity and environmental authority. 

5)	The statement that appears in PDD saying “This new activity is not the core business of Paysandú clean energy partners —Azucarlito and Coraldim-. Together with the generation unit installation. the company also has to attend lo matters such as the electric generation plant operation and the interrelationship with the Electric Market.” Is totally contradictory with the “El Telégrafo” interview from 2006 “siempre generó la energía eléctrica que necesitó”, “en la empresa existe infraestructura y un buen know-how para la producción de vapor, utilizando leña como energía y la generación de energía eléctrica”

6)	Also referring the third point of PDD prevailing practise, it seems that if the proponent will sell all the energy to the utility UTE, the Azucarcito sugar factory will purchase the electricity from the utility.  It has to be clarified where Azucarlito will buy electricity.

7)	Gasification can not be stated as a technological barrier, because it has been the technology in use by the proponent since 1985.  According to the developer of the technology used by Gasification equipment supplier, Uruguayan Julio Berkes and Agrest from Argentina, www.agrestsrl.com gasification started its development in mid XIX century, and the project suppliers started the development in WWII, 1940, so it can be said that is a proven old technology, well known by equipment supplier and project proponent.

8)	Other barriers according PDD electricity market.

9)	El Telégrafo interview says that Azucarlito was planning to participate at UTE tender for biomass electricity.  It is not clear why Azucarlito did not go ahead through this process, as it was done by several CDM biomass projects under validation in Uruguay.

10)	The fact that spot market can go to zero when there is high hydro is not affecting this project.  First because under Uruguayan electric framework small plants are free dispatch, so it can stop when the spot prices make operation uneconomical. This situation has to be clarified by the proponent, if the project disconnect or not when spot prices are low. Additionally from ADME website last published season programming http://www.adme.com.uy/mmee/pdf/informes/estacional/semestre2/PES_Noviembre_2009_Abril_2010.pdf at Graphic 5 Page 16 it can be seen that the probability of having zero spot price is less than 10% of the time.

11)	 Also the top limit of 250 US$/MWh for spot price is not relevant for the project income.  From the same graph it can be seen that time with prices roofed by the government limit has a probability of less than 5%.  In term of price it is an effect of less than 3% of the estimated by ADME average spot of 137,6 US$/MWh.  This spot has an estimated oil price of 70 US$/bbl.  With actual values estimated spot average price can be over 150 US$/MWh far over the values of last UTE tender for biomass producers of 80 US$/MWh.

12)	 Uruguayan government, and UTE, government owned utility ruled by a board designated by the President of the Republic and the Senate, has a strong commitment to promote biomass power.  These policies have also the unanimity of all political parties represented in Uruguayan Parliament, http://www.produccionnacional.com.uy/scripts/locallib/imagenes/Energia.pdf  All Uruguayan political parties have agreed some weeks ago a plan to introduce 200 MW of electricity from biomass, and there are ongoing plans for more than this power, several of them validated or under validation at UNFCCC for CDM. 

For all these reasons it is clear that the proponent has to review totally the barrier analysis that it has carried out.

Carlos María Estevez
Submitted by: Carlos María Estevez


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