Bio-energy in Mauritius: lessons learned

Sanju Deenapanray

CDM National Project Coordinator, Mauritius [email protected]

Bio-carbon in Eastern & Southern Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (24 April 2009)

Overview 1. CO 2 emissions & Electricity Sector in Mauritius 2. Bagasse co-generation & co-firing 3. Potential for CDM in Africa

1

1

Dependence on Fossil Fuel

85 80 75 70 65 1992 1996 2000 Year 2004 ~82% 2008 2

2

CO 2 Emissions

7 6 5 2 1 4 3 Emisisons (forecast) Emisisons (measured) Removals 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Per capita CO 2 tonnes (2007) emission = 2.7 3

3

Sectoral CO 2 Emissions (1995 - 2007)

2.0

1.5

electricity 1.0

transport 0.5

manufacturing residential other 0.0

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Year Electricity & Transport accounted for >83% of total emissions in 2007 4

4

Electricity Supply

2500 2000 1500 1000

5-6% per year

500 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year

Demand growing at 5-6% per annum over the past decade Fuel Oil & Diesel (37.2%) Coal (40.3%) Hydro (3.4%) Bagasse (19%) ~78% of electricity produced from fossil fuels

5

5

Role of Independent Power Producers

•

In 2007, IPPs generated around 66.5% of total thermal electricity in Mauritius (1461.5 GWh out of 2464.6 GWh)

•

Internal consumption of IPPs was 234.8 GWh

•

Exported 1226.7 GWh to the gird (i.e. ~56% of all grid electricity) and CEB generated 972.3 GWh (or ~44%)

•

Thermal electricity is produced in 3 ways by IPPs 1. Bagasse only (continuous power) 2. Bagasse/Coal (firm power) 3. Coal only (firm power)

6

6

Overview 1. CO 2 emissions & Electricity Sector in Mauritius 2. Bagasse co-generation & co-firing 3. Potential for CDM in Africa

7

7

Cogeneration – the concept

biomass boiler Steam Turbo Generator Steam Mill Drives Steam & Power Sugar Process Surplus Electricity to Grid 8

8

Year

Planning and regulatory paths

Policy initiatives Emphasis on 1985

Sugar Sector Action Plan Bagasse energy policy evoked

1988

Sugar Industry Efficiency Act  Tax free revenue from sales of bagasse and electricity   Export duty rebate on bagasse savings for firm power production Capital allowance on investment in energy from bagasse

1991

Bagasse Energy Development Programme  Reduce reliance on imported fuel  Modernise sugar factories  Diversify energy base  Enhanced environmental benefits 9

9

Planning and regulatory paths

Year 1997 Policy initiatives

Blue Print on the Centralisation of Cane Milling Activities

Emphasis on

Facilitate closure of small mills with concurrent increase in capacities and investment in bagasse cogeneration

2001

Sugar Sector Strategic Plan  Enhance energy efficiency in milling  Decrease number and increase capacity of mills  Favour investment in cogeneration units

2005

Roadmap for the Mauritius Sugarcane Industry for the 21 st Century Reduction in the number of mills to 6 with a cogeneration plant annexed to each plant 10

10

Key Enabling Factors 1. Economic & fiscal incentives 2. Power Purchase Agreements (attractive sale price of electricity for firm power) 3. Research & Development (technology transfer; bio engineering etc …) 4. Equity Participation (of small in cogeneration plants through the State Investment Trust – up to 25%)

11

11

Increase in Efficiency in Cogeneration

460 440 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 280 1990 1994 1998 Year 2002 2006 12

12

Increase in Generation of Firm Power

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Year 13

13

Reduction in CO 2 Emissions

• •

Grid Emission Factor, EF grid,2007 = 1.1773 tCO 2 /MWh In 2007, a total of 346.8 GWh generated from bagasse (@ 242.5 kWh/TB)

• •

Avoided CO 2 emissions = 408,300 tonnes (2007) Considering an average efficiency = 374.6 kWh/TB (@82 bars)



Potential for avoided CO 2 emissions = 630,705 tonnes

14

14

How ‘dirty’ is the grid?

EF grid,CM,y = EF grid,OM,y X w OM + EF grid,BM,y X w BM Generation-weighted average CO 2 emissions net of electricity generated (excludes low-cost, must run plants & CDM projects) Generation-weighted average CO 2 emissions net of electricity generated of either 5 most recently built plants or 20% of last power generated (whichever is larger) w OM = w BM = 50% (1 st crediting period)

For Mauritius (2007):

EF grid,OM,y EF grid,BM,y = 1.0886 tCO 2 = 1.2659 tCO 2 / MWh; / MWh;

EF grid,CM,y = 1.1773 tCO2 / MWh



VERY DIRTY GRID

15

15

Overview 1. CO 2 emissions & Electricity Sector in Mauritius 2. Bagasse co-generation & co-firing 3. Potential for CDM in Africa

16

16

Bagasse Cogeneration in Africa

• • • • •

10,000 GWh/yr (or 10 TWh/yr) in 2005 [90 million tonnes of cane] In 2005, total demand of electricity in Africa was ~ 533 TWh Potential to generate 2% of electricity demand from bagasse Potential could be much larger considering availability of other renewable biomass in Africa (e.g. crop residues, woody biomass - quantity?) Biomass can also be used to provide only thermal energy (process steam and heat) for industrial processes

17

17

Example - Mozambique

• • •

596,271 TB produced in 2007 Assuming a conversion efficiency of 374.6 kWh/TB EF grid,2005 = 0.045 MWh/tCO 2 Baseline

Grid Electricity NG Diesel/HFO

Emission reduction, tCO 2 /yr

10,000 53,500 59,600 18

18

Clean Development Mechanism

• •

Several bagasse (biomass) cogeneration projects have successfully generated CERs Approved baseline & monitoring methodologies exist. For example: 1.

ACM0006 ‘Consolidated methodology for electricity generation from biomass residues – Version 8’ 2. Several Small-Scale methodologies in Categories I.A, I.C and I.D

19

19

ACM0006 – Consolidated methodology for electricity generation from biomass residues – Version 8

20

20

ACM0006 – Consolidated methodology for electricity generation from biomass residues – Version 8

21

21

Additionality

•

“Reductions in emissions must be additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity”

Most registered CDM projects (biomass cogeneration / thermal energy production) have employed ‘Barrier Analysis’ to justify additionality. Some barriers are:

     

Investment barrier (high upfront CapEx) Technological barrier Barrier due to prevailing practice (cultural barrier) Institutional barrier (e.g. access to grid, feed-in tariff) Price risk of biomass residue Biomass collection and storage barriers

22

22

End

Sanju Deenapanray CDM National Project Coordinator, UNDP [email protected]

Tel: +230 208 2416 Fax: +230 208 4871 23

23