The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Report 318/06 February ENERGY SECTOR MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME (ESMAP) PURPOSE The Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) is a global technical assistance partnership administered by the World Bank and sponsored by bi-lateral official donors, since 1983. ESMAP's mission is to promote the role of energy in poverty reduction and economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner. Its work applies to low-income, emerging, and transition economies and contributes to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals. ESMAP interventions are knowledge products including free technical assistance, specific studies, advisory services, pilot projects, knowledge generation and dissemination, trainings, workshops and seminars, conferences and roundtables, and publications. ESMAP work is focused on four key thematic programs: energy security, renewable energy, energy-poverty and market efficiency and governance. GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS ESMAP is governed by a Consultative Group (the ESMAP CG) composed of representatives of the World Bank, other donors, and development experts from regions which benefit from ESMAP's assistance. The ESMAP CG is chaired by a World Bank Vice President, and advised by a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) of independent energy experts that reviews the Programme's strategic agenda, its work plan, and its achievements. ESMAP relies on a cadre of engineers, energy planners, and economists from the World Bank, and from the energy and development community at large, to conduct its activities. FUNDING ESMAP is a knowledge partnership supported by the World Bank and official donors from Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. ESMAP has also enjoyed the support of private donors as well as in-kind support from a number of partners in the energy and development community. FURTHER INFORMATION For further information on a copy of the ESMAP Annual Report or copies of project reports, please visit the ESMAP website: www.esmap.org. ESMAP can also be reached by email at esmap@worldbank.org or by mail at: ESMAP c/o Energy and Water Department The World Bank Group 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Tel.: 202.458.2321 Fax: 202.522.3018 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean February 2006 Horacio Terraza and Francisco Grajales Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) Copyright © 2006 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433, USA All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing February 2006 ESMAP Reports are published to communicate the results of ESMAP's work to the development community with the least possible delay. The typescript of the paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal documents. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, or its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. The Boundaries, colors, denominations, other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to the ESMAP Manager at the address shown in the copyright notice above. ESMAP encourages dissemination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and, when the reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee. Table of Contents Preface............................................................................................................................................. v Abbreviations and Acronyms......................................................................................................... vi Units of Measure ........................................................................................................................... vii Other Terms................................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Development of Landfill Gas-to-Energy Projects........................................................................... 7 Landfill Gas Generation.............................................................................................................. 7 Use of LFG as an Energy Source in the LAC Region .............................................................. 13 Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative .................................................................................................. 15 First Phase................................................................................................................................. 16 Second Phase............................................................................................................................. 17 Main Activities and Outputs of the Initiative................................................................................ 19 "Handbook for the Preparation of LFGTE Projects"................................................................ 19 Pre-feasibility Studies ............................................................................................................... 20 Case Studies.............................................................................................................................. 24 Latin American LFG Project Expo 2005 .................................................................................. 26 Workshop in Monterrey, Mexico.............................................................................................. 27 LFGTE Initiative Web Site....................................................................................................... 28 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 31 Main Outcomes......................................................................................................................... 31 Lessons Learned and Barriers to Further Development............................................................ 33 Annex 1: Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at the Chihuahua Landfill, Chihuahua, Mexico......................................................................................................... 35 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 35 Annex 2: Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas and Energy Production at the Querétaro Landfill, Querétaro, Mexico.......................................................................................................... 37 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 37 Annex 3: Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at El Carrasco Landfill, Bucaramanga, Colombia ................................................................................. 41 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 41 Annex 4: Pre-feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at La Esmeralda Landfill, Manizales, Colombia...................................................................................................... 43 Bucaramanga, Colombia........................................................................................................... 43 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 43 Annex 5: Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at El Combeima Landfill, Ibagué, Colombia........................................................................................................... 45 Annex 6: Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at the Gramacho Landfill, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.................................................................................... 47 Annex 7: Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at the Muribeca Landfill, Pernambuco, Brazil ........................................................................................................ 51 Annex 8: Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at the Santa Tecla Landfill, Gravatai, Brazil..................................................................................................... 53 Annex 9: Report of the Pump Test and Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at the Huaycoloro Landfill, Lima, Peru................................................... 57 Annex 10: Report of the Pump Test and Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at the Montevideo Landfill, Montevideo, Uruguay................................. 61 iii Annex 11: Participants in LFG Project Expo, Montevideo, Uruguay, July 7­8, 2005 ................. 65 List of Tables Table 2.1: Typical concentrations of various trace components ..................................................... 9 Table 2.2: Concentrations of components of LFG ........................................................................ 10 Table 4.1: Landfills submitting applications for pre-feasibility studies........................................ 21 Table 4.2: Pump test results at five landfill sites........................................................................... 23 Table 4.3: Summary of LFG case studies ..................................................................................... 24 Table 4.4: List of exhibitors at LFG Project Expo 2005 ............................................................... 27 Table 5.1: Main results of the pre-feasibility studies .................................................................... 32 Table A1.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Chihuahua Landfill, Chihuahua, Mexico ....................................................................................................................... 36 Table A2.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Queretaro Landfiull, Queretaro, Mexico......................................................................................................................... 39 Table A3.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, El Carrasco Landfill, Bucaramanga, Colombia ............................................................................................................... 42 Table A4.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, La Esmeralda Landfill, Manizales, Colombia..................................................................................................................... 44 Table A5.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, El Combeima Landfill, Ibagué, Colombia .......................................................................................................................... 46 Table A6.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Gramacho Landfill, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil .................................................................................................................... 49 Table A7.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Muribeca Landfill, Pernambuco, Brazil. ...................................................................................................................... 52 Table A8.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Santa Tecla Landfill, Gravatei, Brazil ............................................................................................................................. 55 Table A9.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Huaycoloro Landfill, Lima, Peru ..................................................................................................................................... 59 Table A10.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Montevideo Landfill, Montevideo, Uruguay.................................................................................................................... 62 Table A10.2: Project economic evaluation, alternative closure in 2009, Montevideo Landfill, Montevideo, Uruguay..................................................................................................... 63 iv Preface The following report was undertaken as part of the World Bank­Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) Landfill Gas-to-Energy (LFGTE) Initiative in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Initiative intended to promote the development of environmentally sound non-conventional energy sources such as landfill gas. The objectives of this report were to provide a concise description of the general characteristics of LFGTE projects and to summarize and disseminate the main activities undertaken as part of the Initiative. The approach taken in the preparation of this report and its conclusions can be highly beneficial for municipalities, landfill operators, or project developers interested in pursuing a landfill gas capture and utilization project. The report includes a brief introduction to landfill gas generation and LFGTE project development. Another section details the main tasks carried out under the LFGTE Initiative, such as a study of worldwide LFGTE cases, workshops in Mexico and Uruguay, preparation of a handbook for development of LFGTE projects, pre-feasibility studies, and the development of a Web-based knowledge network (http://www.bancomundial.org.ar/lfg/default.htm). The conclusions chapter provides important information and lessons learned for potential project implementation. The LFGTE Initiative hired the consulting services of Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA), SCS Engineers, and Carl Bartone in order to accomplish many of the activities. The LFGTE Initiative was widely presented at several important conferences and meetings in 2005, including the 28th Solid Waste Association of North America's (SWANA) Landfill Gas Symposium, the 8th Annual U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Landfill Methane Outreach Program Conference and Project Expo, and the Global Carbon Market Fair and Conference. The task manager of the LFGTE Initiative in Latin America was Horacio Terraza, with the participation of Francisco Grajales Cravioto as coordinator. The report was edited by Wendy Hammond. Special thanks go to Carl Bartone for his technical support throughout the Initiative, to Gabriela Montes de Oca for helping in the preparation of this report. Special thanks to Nidhi Sachdeva for formatting the report and to Marjorie K. Araya for coordinating the publication process, both from ESMAP. v Abbreviations and Acronyms AIDIS Asociación Inter-Americana de Ingeniería Sanitaria CDM Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol CER Certified Emission Reductions CIDA Canadian International Development Agency COMLURB Companhia Municipal de Limpza Urbana ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme EAMB Empresa de Aseo de Bucaramanga S.A. EMAS Empresa Metropolitana de Aseo S.A. EMLURB Empresa de Manutenção e Limpza Urbana ER Emission Reductions ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program GHG Greenhouse Gas ICI Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Waste IRR Internal Rate of Return ISWA International Solid Waste Association LAC Latin American and the Caribbean LFG Landfill Gas LCR LAC Regional Office LFGTE Landfill Gas-to-Energy MMA Mexicana del Medio Ambiente S.A. de C.V. MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management O&M Operations and Maintenance SIMEPRODESO Sistema Metropolitano de Procesamiento de Desechos Sólidos SWM Solid Waste Management PCF Prototype Carbon Fund USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency vi Units of Measure STP Standard temperature and pressure tCO2e Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent tpd Tons per day IC Internal combustion Km Kilometer kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour m Meter MW Megawatt m3/hr Cubic meter per hour Mton Million tons ppm Parts per million Other Terms CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2eq Carbon dioxide equivalents NOx Nitrogen oxides vii Executive Summary 1. Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have identified the closure of open waste dumps and the construction of safe final disposal facilities as priorities to protect the environment and people's health. As cities grow and produce more waste and their waste collection systems become more efficient, open dumps become increasingly intolerable. 2. Currently only the most important and prosperous cities in the LAC region have begun improving disposal practices and introducing sanitary landfills. Despite this tendency, only a few cities in Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay collect landfill gas (LFG) and use it for energy production. A significant opportunity therefore exists to increase LFG recovery and utilization in the region under appropriate market conditions. 3. LAC's socio-economic characteristics represent a unique window of opportunity for the development of LFG-to-energy (LFGTE) projects. This highly urbanized region is home to approximately 500 million people, 75 percent of them living in large cities, leading to the concentration of solid waste and corresponding waste management problems. It is of significant interest for the World Bank to improve solid waste management practices, reduce associated health externalities such as leachate contamination and release of LFG to the atmosphere, and promote renewable energy through LFG recovery and utilization at landfills in the region. 4. According to Bartone (2005), the LFGTE potential in Latin America and the Caribbean can be summarized as follows: 117 towns with more than 500,000 inhabitants An estimated 74 million tons of waste generated per year Adequate technical characteristics (landfills 12­20 meters deep and interconnection to urban power grids or gas distribution networks) in one-half of the towns Estimated regional potential of 810 megawatts (MW) Towns of 1 million inhabitants generating 740 tons per day (tpd), with an estimated potential of 6 MW Potential international carbon market from LFG exploitation on the order of US$100 million per year 5. This report describes the efforts of the World Bank's Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP) to tap the energy potential in the region by promoting LFGTE activities. The LFGTE Initiative was supported by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF) and World Bank Institute were also partners in the Initiative. 1 2 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean 6. The objectives of the Initiative are listed below. Contribute to the maximization of methane emissions reductions and the development of carbon trading opportunities Promote LFGTE investment in LAC to improve solid waste management (SWM) practices in the region Create awareness of LFGTE opportunities Document and disseminate LFGTE experience Establish knowledge sharing mechanisms to increase cooperation 7. The aim of this report is to document the dissemination activities and outputs of the LFGTE Initiative, including case studies of LFGTE projects in Brazil, Canada, Chile, Latvia, Mexico, Uruguay, South Africa, and Poland, a "Handbook for the Preparation of LFGTE Projects," a workshop in Monterrey, Mexico in October 2003 in which these documents were presented, a knowledge network on LFG, and a Web site for the LFGTE Initiative. 8. In addition to these efforts, the LFGTE Initiative identified landfill sites for pre- investment feasibility studies. Of the 26 sites that submitted letters of interest, 10 were chosen for pre-investment work, and 5 of those 10 were selected for additional pump tests. Investment resources, including carbon credit financing, were mobilized for viable sites. Along with these efforts, a Latin American LFG Project Expo was held in Montevideo, Uruguay, in July 2005 to disseminate experience and promote LFGTE projects in the region among the private and public sectors. 1 Introduction 1.1 The amount of waste produced by our lifestyle and the way this waste is managed has significant environmental and financial implications for the whole society. Managing solid waste is a major challenge for all cities around the world. In the face of rapid urbanization and industrial growth, effective municipal solid waste (MSW) management plays a critical role in protecting the environment and improving urban productivity. Many cities, especially in the developing world, still dispose of MSW in open dumps, creating problems of surface and groundwater leachate contamination and release of gases. The bioreactions in the waste depend on a series of conditions, for example, moisture content of waste composition, availability of oxygen, temperature, microflora, and compaction rate. Under strict anaerobic conditions, methane and carbon dioxide are often the primary gases generated. When generated in a landfill, such gas is known as landfill gas (LFG). 1.2 LFG is generated when organic materials in MSW landfills are naturally decomposed by bacteria. In other words, LFG is a byproduct of the anaerobic decomposition of biodegradable solid waste residues, typically composed of 50 percent methane with high energy content. The other 50 percent of the gas is predominantly carbon dioxide, with small amounts of nitrogen and oxygen and trace levels of non- methane organic compounds. The methane contained in the LFG is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), with 21 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. About 10 percent of methane emissions released to the atmosphere are estimated to be from landfills. Combustion of LFG significantly reduces its effect as a greenhouse gas. Capturing LFG and using it for energy production reduces GHG emissions and provides a non-conventional source of energy that can be utilized for several energy-producing purposes and thereby generate revenue for landfills. 1.3 LFG has enormous potential to reduce greenhouse gas, smog, and odor emissions and fuel renewable energy production. The promise of energy and environmental benefits could also mean wider possibilities of funding for LFG-to-Energy (LFGTE) projects. Using LFG represents a win-win situation for all project partners, especially the community. These projects help ensure that local landfills are well managed and make the areas around the sites better places to live. 3 4 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean 1.4 LFG recovery for energy production has demonstrated that landfill gas is a reliable and renewable local fuel source that reduces reliance on fossil fuels. Landfill gas is also the only renewable energy source that directly reduces pollution of the atmosphere. Because LFG occurs naturally, collecting and converting it to energy make use of a fuel source that otherwise would be wasted. LFG capture and energy generation addresses one of the most important problems affecting the Latin American Region in environmental terms: the final disposal of solid waste. Moreover, revenues from the commercialization of the energy or carbon credits can catalyze proper construction and operation of final disposal facilities. 1.5 All landfills generate methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas that is a key contributor to global climate change. Reducing methane emissions from MSW landfills is one of the best ways to achieve a short-term beneficial impact in mitigating global climate change. At the same time, it makes sense to use the gas for the beneficial purpose of energy generation if this is financially viable. Because LFGTE projects are available to generate electricity over 90 percent of the time, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, they represent attractive emissions reduction initiatives in which the energy in the recovered gas can be used or sold. The value of the energy derived from the gas can more than offset the cost of collecting and processing the gas. 1.6 Using LFG as a non-conventional energy source addresses another major local and global environmental concern in addition to reduced methane emissions: healthier and safer SWM practices. LFG recovery and utilization projects in regions with poor SWM practices, such as Latin America, reduce the main environmental and human health risks produced by the contamination of underground and superficial water, land, and the food chain, the greenhouse effect, infectious vectors, poor air quality, accidental fire and explosions, and odors. 1.7 Like many developing regions, LAC faces serious difficulties in the management of urban refuse and solid waste. Over 74 million tons of solid waste is generated in the region every year, but proper treatment and disposal facilities are lacking, institutional capacities are weak, and financial support at local and municipal levels is frequently deficient. The problem is exacerbated by sustained population growth, a high rate of rural migration to urban settings, and increasing industrialization and associated local consumption patterns. Open dumping, the most common solid waste disposal method in small- and medium-sized cities in LAC, contributes to serious health and safety problems. Despite the tendency in the region to improve landfill techniques, only a few cities collect LFG and use it for energy production. For this reason, there is a significant opportunity to increase LFG recovery and utilization under the appropriate market conditions. 1.8 Given the limited number of LFG emission reduction projects in the region and the potential demand for LFG investments and corresponding energy supplies, the ESMAP Division of the World Bank launched the LFGTE Initiative to promote the development of this type of project. The Initiative aimed to increase understanding of best practice business models and institutional arrangements for the development of non- conventional energy sources at municipal landfills in Latin America. At the same time, Introduction 5 this effort considered the promotion and dissemination of LFG capture and utilization with a corresponding reduction in methane and carbon dioxide emissions. 1.9 This report summarizes the key activities carried out under the LFGTE Initiative. Chapter 1 briefly describes the current SWM situation, the risks and potential benefits of LFG recovery and utilization, and the impact of LFG recovery and utilization on the environment and energy sector. Chapter 2 introduces key LFG concepts, including composition and production, potential impacts and benefits, utilization technology, and gas recovery for the development of energy projects. Chapter 3 summarizes the activities and outputs of the LFGTE Initiative in its first and second phases. Chapter 4 describes all the activities implemented during both phases, including the establishment of the LFGTE Initiative Web site, preparation of eight case studies, a workshop in Monterrey, Mexico, development of a handbook for LFGTE projects, eight pre-feasibility studies, and Expo 2005 in Montevideo, Uruguay, to promote LFGTE projects in Latin America. Chapter 6 addresses the main outcomes of the Initiative, lessons learned, and barriers for further development of LFGTE projects in the LAC region. Annexes 1­10 summarize the results of the pre-feasibility studies, and Annex 11 lists participants in Expo 2005. 2 Development of Landfill Gas-to-Energy Projects 2.1 This chapter introduces key landfill gas (LFG) concepts, including composition and production, potential impacts and benefits, utilization technology, and gas recovery for the development of energy projects. Landfill Gas Generation 2.2 All municipal solid waste landfills emit LFG in varying amounts, depending on waste composition and landfill size. LFG generation typically begins after waste disposal and can continue for 20­30 years after the landfill is closed. Waste composition is the most important factor in assessing the LFG generation potential of a site. The maximum potential volume of LFG depends on the quantity and type of organic content in the waste mass, as the decomposing organic wastes are the source of all LFG produced. Other factors that influence the rate of LFG production include moisture content, nutrient content, bacterial content, pH level, temperature, and site-specific design and operations plans. Waste produced in Latin America and the Caribbean typically has a higher organic and moisture content than most North American or European waste and therefore would be expected to generate LFG at equivalent or higher rates. 2.3 LFG production is a function of the age, volume, type, and moisture content of the waste. The volume of greenhouse gases released is directly proportional to the LFG- generating potential. In general, the more LFG produced, the more health, safety, and odor problems. The amount of gas produced determines whether LFG utilization is economically feasible. 2.4 There are four LFG production phases in the life of a landfill. The first phase, aerobic decomposition, occurs immediately after the waste is dumped, when oxygen is present in the refuse. Aerobic decomposition produces carbon dioxide, water, and heat. The second stage is the anoxic, non-methanogenic phase, in which acidic compounds and hydrogen gas are formed and carbon dioxide continues to be produced. The third phase is the unsteady methanogenic phase, when carbon dioxide production begins to decline because waste decomposition moves from aerobic decomposition to anaerobic decomposition. Anaerobic decomposition produces heat and water, but unlike aerobic decomposition, also produces methane. During the fourth, or stable methanogenic, phase, methane is generated at between 40 percent and 70 percent of total volume. Typically, the waste in most landfill sites reaches this phase within less than 2 years after the waste is 7 8 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean placed. Depending on the depth of the waste lifts and the moisture content of the waste, the methanogenic phase might be reached as early as 6 months after placement. LFG may be produced at a site for a number of decades, with emissions continuing at declining levels for up to 100 years from the date of placement. Potential LFG Impacts 2.5 The emission rate at which the release of LFG becomes an issue for regulatory authorities and neighboring property owners is related to physical parameters including the location of the landfill, the surrounding topography, adjacent land uses, ambient meteorological conditions, and site characteristics that affect LFG generation and collection. 2.6 The most important component of LFG from most perspectives is methane, which constitutes approximately 50 percent of the LFG volume produced. Methane is a potential hazard because it is combustible and explosive at concentrations in the air between 5 and 15 percent. LFG can migrate below ground surfaces in unsaturated soil zones, especially during winter and spring months when the ground is frozen or saturated with moisture at the surface. LFG can then accumulate in enclosed structures, causing a potential hazard. Because it has no odor, methane is impossible to detect without proper instruments. Methane released from landfills also has been identified as a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect, which contributes to global warming. Over a 100- year time horizon, methane is considered 21 times more efficient than carbon dioxide in trapping heat within the atmosphere (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1995). Trace Gases 2.7 Any strategy for LFG control is based on regulating outcomes and emissions. A fundamental component of this process is the quantification of landfill gas trace components. Microbial action on biodegradable wastes under anaerobic conditions generates methane and carbon dioxide as bulk gases. Small amounts of other gases are also present in the bulk LFG. These trace components can be formed either from intermediate biochemical reactions associated with the degradation processes or from degradation and volatilization of other organic materials deposited in the landfill. In total, these trace components may make up less than 1 percent of the gas emitted from the waste in a landfill. According to the British Environment Agency, over 500 substances have been reported in LFG. Many of these substances are benign or occur at concentrations too low to affect human health or the environment. However, the impact of some trace gases on the environment and potentially on human health may be more significant than that of the bulk gases. Under certain conditions, the concentration of trace components may be greater than 1 percent. For example, when there is a deep- seated fire in a landfill, carbon monoxide levels may rise temporarily. Sites with a serious odor problem may also have high levels of trace components in the bulk gas. The trace components judged as most significant are identified in terms of their potential impact on health, odor, or both. Knowledge of trace gas composition at a specific landfill site should be used to inform the gas management plan. Table 2.1 lists the priority trace components of landfill gas. Development of Landfill Gas-to-Energy Projects 9 Table 2.1: Typical concentrations of various trace components Significant trace Average concentrations Limit concentrations (ppm) component (parts per million, or Denmark Germany England ppm) Chloroethene (vinyl) 0.03­44 1 2 5 Benzene 0.6­32 5 8 10 Chloroform 0.2­2 2 10 10 1,1-dichloroethane 0.9­490 50 103 200 Toluene 4­197 75 200 100 Xy lene 2.3­139 50 101 105 Ethyl benzene 3.6­49 50 - 105 Dimethyl sulphide 10­486 10 - 670 Trichloroethylene 1.2­116 30 - 944 Tetrachloroethene 0.3­110 30 - 94 Ethanal (acetaldehyde) 16­1,450 1000 - - Butane 2.3­626 50 - - Carbon disulphide 0.5­22 5 - 10 Methanethiol 0.1­430 0,2 - - Hydrogen sulphide 2.8­27.5 10 - Source: Blanco, 2004, Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental en Proyectos de Gas de Relleno Sanitario, Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. 2.8 Trace components make up a very small proportion of landfill gas. They are diluted with a large amount of the bulk gases, methane (typically 55 percent­65 percent by volume) and carbon dioxide (typically 45 percent­35 percent by volume). Some LFG may contain 40 percent nitrogen and up to 10 percent oxygen. The LFG will also be saturated with water at the temperature of the landfill. Condensate forms as the gas cools. If there has been a fire in the landfill, there will be detectable concentrations of carbon monoxide. 2.9 In many ways the combustion of landfill gas is a standard process in other industries but requiring highly specialized flaring technology. This is largely because of the complex nature of LFG. As well as significant percentages of carbon dioxide and methane, LFG has been found to contain as many as 557 trace components. Therefore, LFG should be controlled, preferably by collecting and burning in flares or energy recovery plants. The purpose of flaring is to dispose safely of the flammable constituents, particularly methane, and to control odor, health risks, and adverse environmental impacts. Consideration needs to be given to the environmental and health impacts associated with the combustion products resulting from flaring. Table 2.2 shows the concentrations found of flaring combustion according to the British Environment Agency. 10 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Table 2.2: Concentrations of components of LFG Component Summary of concentrations mg/Nm3 , a 3% O dry and standard temperature and pressure 2 (STP) (0ºC and 101.3kPa) Median Standard deviation 95% SOx 304.8 467.6 695.7 NOx 62.3 24.9 79.2 CO 1007.1 1076.1 1730 HCI 23.3 19.9 39.9 HF 4.7 6.9 10.4 PCDD/PCDF (ng/m3) 0.0053 0.0026 0.0117 PAH 0.00068 - - Particulate matter 5.47 5.7 56.7 CO2 (%) 7.2 3.3 9.5 THC (as C) 298.1 606.5 764.3 NMVOC 0.56 - - O2 (%) 12.1 3.7 14.8 Humidity (%) 8.6 4.4 11.7 Chimney temp. (ºC) 782 173 914 Flux (m3/h) 6086 2447 9124 Source: Blanco, 2004, Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental en Proyectos de Gas de Relleno Sanitario, Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Potential LFG Benefits 2.10 Although the presence of LFG can have several negative effects, a number of benefits are associated with the proper management of LFG and its use as an energy source. An LFGTE project captures roughly 50 percent of the methane emitted from a MSW landfill. The captured methane is destroyed (converted to water and much less potent CO2 when the gas is burned to produce electricity. The greenhouse gas reduction benefits of a typical 5 megawatt (MW) LFG project equate to planting over 80,000 acres of forest per year or removing the annual emissions from over 60,000 cars. It indirectly reduces air pollution by offsetting the use of non-renewable resources. Producing electricity from MSW LFG eliminates the need to use non-renewable resources such as coal, oil, or natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity. This option can avoid power plant emissions of CO2 and criteria pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (a major contributor to acid rain), particulate matter (a respiratory health concern), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and trace hazardous air pollutants. Depending on the fuels and technologies used by the power plant and the landfill project, the NOx emission reductions from the power plant may not completely offset the NOx emitted from the LFG energy project. However, the overall environmental improvement from MSW LFG energy generation projects is significant because of the large reductions in methane and hazardous air pollutants and avoidance of the use of limited non-renewable resources that are more polluting than LFG. Gas collection can also improve safety by reducing explosion hazards from gas accumulation in structures on or near the landfill. Development of Landfill Gas-to-Energy Projects 11 2.11 LFG management projects that collect and flare LFG have the potential to generate revenue through the sale and transfer of emissions reduction credits. This revenue provides an incentive and means to improve the design and operation of landfills and develop a better overall waste management system. LFG, which is approximately 50 percent methane, can be considered a low- or medium-grade fuel. This resource can be harnessed for a number of applications, including direct fuel use for heating, electrical generation, and commercial chemical byproducts. In addition to mitigating LFG migration and odor concerns, LFG utilization can also generate revenues from the sale of "green power" and other LFG products that can defray the cost of landfill operation and maintenance and provide an incentive to improve landfill design and operation. Generating energy from existing MSW landfills is also a relatively cost-effective way to provide new renewable energy generation capacity to supply community power needs. Such energy generation can create jobs that help build the local economy. Gas Recovery and Utilization Technology 2.12 Every LFG utilization facility requires a gas recovery system. An effective collection system also can protect against odor and other emissions as a byproduct of the fuel recovery. In an effectively designed and operated LFG collection system, these two objectives can be made fully compatible. LFG is a wet gas with variable concentrations of a number of trace gases, which must be considered in the design of a LFG utilization system. The release of contaminants to the atmosphere through air emissions also requires consideration when selecting the type of utilization facility to develop. Depending on the application, the raw LFG may require some level of gas processing before use to reduce these concerns. 2.13 The most important factor in assessing the LFG generation potential of a landfill site is waste composition. The potential volume of LFG depends on the quantity and type of decomposing organic waste in the waste mass. The first step in assessing the LFG production potential of a site is to determine the tonnage adjustment factor based on waste composition. This correction factor accounts for the proportion of inert wastes in the landfill that will not produce LFG and the proportion of industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) wastes in the landfill that will produce less LFG than typical domestic wastes. The landfill is then classified as dry or wet, based on the amount of precipitation that infiltrates the waste mass. A dry landfill decomposes more slowly than a wet landfill, resulting in a lower rate of LFG production and a longer production time. Factors that influence the moisture content of a landfill include precipitation and temperature at the site, type of landfill cover, condition of cover (e.g., slope or integrity), type of leachate collection system, and type of landfill base or natural liner. 2.14 It is important to consider future LFG production potential in assessing the need for and planning LFG controls. LFG production is determined as high, medium, or low by the intersection of the adjusted site capacity and the current filling status. Each category is delineated by numbers that indicate an increasing level of severity within the category. The maximum LFG production typically occurs within 2 years of site closure if the site has had a fairly uniform annual filling schedule. 12 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean 2.15 There are three main approaches to recovering LFG and using it as a non- conventional energy source. These include (1) direct use of the gas locally, either on site or nearby, (2) generation of electricity and distribution through the power grid, and (3) injection into a gas distribution (grid) network. Direct use of the gas locally is often the simplest and most cost-effective approach. The medium-quality gas can be used in a wide variety of ways, including for residential use (cooking, hot water heating, space heating), as a boiler fuel for district heating, and for various industrial uses requiring process heat or steam, such as in cement manufacture, glass manufacture, and stone drying. If a direct use is not practical, the gas can be used to generate electricity by fuelling a reciprocating engine or turbine. If the electricity is not required on site, it can be distributed through the local power grid. This approach requires close coordination with the electric power authority. LFG Management Projects 2.16 LFG generation assessments are based on a variety of LFG modeling techniques and pumping field-testing programs. LFG modeling depends on the model input, including data such as annual waste-in-place quantities, forecasted waste deposition, waste composition, moisture content, and climate. LFG pumping test data may be used in conjunction with LFG modeling to demonstrate current LFG quality and quantity, as well as to support projections of the future resource. All LFG utilization facilities require an effectively designed and operated LFG collection system that provides a reliable fuel supply. The key objectives of effective LFG control are compatible with the objectives of LFG utilization, for example, to protect against odor emissions or gas migration impacts through native soils into buildings and services, to prevent acute localized ambient air quality concerns associated with LFG emissions, to reduce GHG emissions to the atmosphere, and to optimize LFG recovery for use as a fuel or energy product. 2.17 When assessing the feasibility of a project, it is important not only to consider the technical options of the project, but also to analyze potential markets and related legislation to ensure that the project will be economically viable. Governments may influence LFG management and LFGTE project development significantly through the use of tax structures that encourage innovation and project development. Competitive access to the energy market and consumers is an additional requirement for a successful LFGTE project. 2.18 Another crucial element in assessing a potential LFG management project is knowledge of all current and pending energy sector and environmental regulations that could affect the viability of the project. LFG management projects typically are expected to operate for more than 20 years for financial viability. Each potential project site must be analyzed separately. Expanding and maintaining the well field and piping to collect LFG is an ongoing responsibility that must be clearly defined to protect and secure the revenue streams. An understanding of how the landfill site is built and operated is also necessary to determine the nature, scope, and costs of a system to collect LFG as a fuel resource. This factor sometimes is not given the attention and priority it deserves. In other words, it is necessary not only to understand the potential quantity of LFG that can be Development of Landfill Gas-to-Energy Projects 13 generated but also the physical conditions of the landfill to assess the ability to collect the LFG fuel efficiently over a long project service life. Use of LFG as an Energy Source in the LAC Region 2.19 Improving SWM is an environmental priority for most Latin American and Caribbean countries because it can directly affect the living conditions and health of millions of people. There is growing interest in the region in managing LFG projects as part of sustainable integrated waste management policy and as an instrument to reduce GHG emissions from landfills. 2.20 Latin America and the Caribbean are highly urbanized, with an average of 75 percent of the region's 500 million inhabitants living in large cities. This concentration of population results in concentration of solid waste and corresponding waste management problems. Many LAC cities still dispose of their municipal solid waste in open dumps, resulting in leachate contamination of surface and groundwater and release of LFG into the atmosphere. The most important and prosperous cities in LAC have begun to improve disposal practices and introduced sanitary landfills. Despite this trend, only a few cities in Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Uruguay actively collect LFG and utilize it for energy. 2.21 The Salinas Victoria Landfill in Monterrey, Mexico, is a good example of a site that collects landfill gas and uses for energy production. The landfill operator is a government entity, SIMEPRODESO (Sistema Metropolitano de Procesamiento de Desechos Sólidos, or Metropolitan System for Solid Waste Processing). This kind of private-public scheme is common in independent power production in Mexico. Through the Ministry of Social Development, the project also has provided training to the municipalities and disseminated the results of the demonstration project. Since operation began in September 1990, the landfill has received mostly non-hazardous domestic and commercial waste as well as some non-hazardous hospital and industrial waste. The site is currently generating energy, and one of its main goals is to encourage post-project replication in landfills in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. 2.22 In contrast to Latin America, where LFG has limited beneficial use, North America and Europe have several hundred LFG management and LFGTE projects and many more coming on line each year. A significant opportunity exists to increase LFG recovery and utilization at landfills in LAC under the appropriate market conditions. The revenue generated from LFG management projects can be a significant incentive to improve the design and operation of landfills and advance overall waste management in LAC cities. 2.23 LFG management could be undertaken and implemented successfully at most landfills in LAC. The capital cost of LFG collection and utilization infrastructure and the immaturity of carbon and renewable energy markets make it most profitable to develop these projects at large landfills that have more than 1 million metric tons (tonnes) of waste and are more than 15 meters deep. However, each potential LFG management project should be evaluated based on local conditions, including the characteristics of the 14 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean landfill, the opportunity to sell carbon credits, the price of energy, available tax credits, and available "green" incentives. Smaller LFG management projects become more viable as the value of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) increases and the value of energy products rises. 2.24 LFGTE projects also require the potential to connect the LFG project to an urban power grid or fuel distribution network or the proximity of the project to an energy end user (the construction of a special purpose gas pipeline is normally limited to 3 kilometers). In LAC this requirement would limit promising LFGTE applications to large and medium-sized cities. Currently 117 cities in the region have populations greater than 500,000, totaling 225 million inhabitants and generating some 74 million tons a year of solid waste that is disposed of in identifiable sites. If one-half of these cities met the criteria for feasible LFGTE projects, the equivalent of more than 800 MW of electrical power could be generated, assuming steady state and 35 percent conversion efficiency. 2.25 Moreover, as the international carbon market matures, the incentive to generate carbon credits from LFG capture and use will be strong in LAC cities. LFG capture is a very competitive option for carbon abatement. It would reduce GHGs not only by reducing methane emissions to the atmosphere, but also by displacing fossil fuel if the gas is used for energy purposes. The potential international carbon market in LAC from LFG exploitation could be approximately US$100 million a year--and even higher, as the calculation currently does not take into account carbon substituted from fossil fuels. The actual carbon abatement cost for LFG appears to be approximately US$2/ton of carbon dioxide equivalents (tCO2e) for large cities, based on existing landfill gas projects in the Global Environment Facility (GEF) portfolio and published estimates. 3 Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative 3.1 Only a small number of landfill gas (LFG) utilization plants are in operation in developing nations. Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in particular lack technical and institutional experience in identifying, designing, and implementing LFG capture and utilization projects. Nevertheless, because of the significant potential demand for LFG investments and corresponding energy supplies and carbon emissions reduction, the World Bank and Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) formulated a strategy to promote LFG-to-Energy initiatives in the region. While an aggressive strategy for LFG recovery and utilization was imminent, success depended on local capacity for urban waste management and effective national policy frameworks for non-conventional energy and environmental management. 3.2 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy (LFGTE) Initiative addressed the regional energy and environment nexus through reducing GHG emissions to the atmosphere by decreasing methane emissions from municipal landfills and carbon dioxide emissions from displaced fossil fuels. A city of 1 million inhabitants that uses LFG as a non-conventional energy source can generate about 5.9 MW of electricity. At regional level, the power generation potential is about 800MW. Tapping this potential required informing local authorities about the benefits and feasibility of LFG projects. These authorities needed guidance on preparing LFG projects, involving the private sector, and understanding the underlying business models and financial engineering, including required linkages with the energy and environment sectors. 3.3 Given the limited development of LFG projects in LAC and the promising potential demand for LFG investments and corresponding energy supplies, the World Bank's LAC Regional Office (LCR) developed a regional LFG strategy. The LFGTE Initiative for the Latin American Region was intended as part of that strategy. The objectives of the Initiative are listed below. Projected gas recovery is estimated to be approximately 1,903 m3/hr in 2006 and to reach a maximum flow of 2,045 m3/hr after closure in 2007. After site closure, gas recovery is expected to decline rapidly, reaching 586 m3/hr in 2012 and 219 m3/hr in 2019. Develop outreach activities to promote LFG as an environmentally sound non- conventional energy source. 15 16 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Document experience in LAC and selected cities elsewhere. Contribute to the implementation of a regional approach to maximize reduction of methane emissions and develop carbon trading opportunities. Establish a cooperation and information network with such organizations as Environment Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), and the Asociación Interamericana de Ingeniería Sanitaria y Ambiental (AIDIS, the Interamerican Association of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering). Utilize LFGTE as a tool to introduce improvement in SWM. Carry out several pre-feasibility studies. 3.4 Assuming startup of a LFG collection and flaring system in 2006, development of an LFG collection and utilization project at the landfill should result in 3.5 The Initiative was implemented in a phased approach. The first phase aimed to help LCR client countries better understand best practice business models and institutional arrangements for developing non-conventional energy sources at municipal landfills. ESMAP documented and disseminated best practices and provided sound technical guidance on LFG recovery and utilization systems that reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions. Discussions with the task teams of the two LAC pilot LFGTE projects indicated a lack of documentation on subject. The second phase aimed to identify potential new projects that could form the basis of a regional World Bank program and carry out pre-investment work at selected sites. First Phase 3.6 The first phase of the Initiative was carried out in 2003. The components of this phase are listed below. Component 1: Web site and knowledge network. The Initiative launched a knowledge network and Web site on LFG capture, utilization systems, and related topics to disseminate information about its strategy and efforts to promote LFGTE projects in the LAC region and provide a space for interaction with the interested public. Component 2: Case studies. The Initiative documented and analyzed the experience of LFG recovery and utilization projects to identify best practice. Eight case studies examined cost-effectiveness, organizational arrangements, private sector participation, institutional roles, minimum regulatory requirements and incentives in the energy, environment and urban sectors, and technical issues involved in planning, design, and operation. Component 3: Workshop in Monterrey, Mexico. This workshop at an LFG facility was attended by public and private sector representatives, stakeholders from target countries, operators and experts from existing LAC facilities and Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative 17 pilot sites, LFG experts, professional associations, the USEPA and Environment Canada, and Bank staff. Component 4: "Handbook for Preparing LFGTE Projects in Latin America and the Caribbean." A specialized consulting firm produced this handbook to support the development of modern and sustained waste management systems in the region. The final print, CD-ROM, and Web versions of the handbook and proceedings were published in September 2004. Second Phase 3.7 The second phase of the Initiative was implemented in 2004 and included the following components: Component 1: Field visits and site identification. World Bank staff visited various landfills with potential for LFGTE project development as preparation for the launch of pre-feasibility studies. Component 2: Finance and pre-feasibility studies. Of approximately 26 candidate sites, 10 were selected for pre-feasibility studies. The sites were located in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. Component 3: LFGTE Project Expo 2005. This 2-day event was organized in Montevideo, Uruguay, to disseminate experience and lessons learned from existing LAC facilities, present the results of the pre-feasibility studies, and bring investors and project proponents together. 4 Main Activities and Outputs of the Initiative 4.1 This chapter describes in greater detail the activities and outcomes of the World Bank's Landfill Gas-to-Energy (LFGTE) Initiative to promote the development of landfill gas (LFG) emission reduction projects in Latin America and the Caribbean and encourage demand for LFG investments and energy supplies. "Handbook for the Preparation of LFGTE Projects" 4.2 This publication, prepared by Conestoga Rovers & Associates on behalf of the World Bank, was a key element of the LFGTE Initiative to support development of modern and sustainable waste management systems in LAC. The Handbook was intended as a roadmap for owners, operators, engineers, and regulators of landfill sites to help them recognize the potential demand for carbon emissions reductions, LFG investments, and corresponding energy supplies, assess potential sites, and initiate development of LFG management projects. Background information and instructive tools educate, guide, and establish a basis for decision-making, technical feasibility assessment, economics assessment, and market evaluation of successful LFG management projects. The Handbook develops the following specific knowledge and skills: Understanding the characteristics of the resource, culminating in a projection of LFG quantity and quality generation over time Understanding the jurisdiction's specific energy policies and assess their implications for the project and the market value of applicable energy products Understanding environmental policies or regulations that may constrain the project Undertaking a market value assessment and sensitivity analyses for the various options for utilizing LFG from a specific site Developing a conceptual design for LFG capture and destruction or utilization system preliminary capital and operating cost estimates to build, operate, and maintain the proposed system. for the preferred approach for the specific site Identifying and assessing all needed permits and approvals to construct and operate the proposed facility 19 20 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Developing a preliminary project schedule Developing a business structure and financial plan to implement the potential project Identifying other criteria and constraints for a specific project Understanding the principles of conditional rights to the LFG at the specific site to allow the project to proceed to the next phase 4.3 The format of the Handbook is user friendly for site-specific project teams contemplating developing candidate LFG management projects in LAC and provides a practical reference for developers, agencies, governments, and others in setting up assessments and developing LFG management projects. Part I provides technical information on the LFG resource and LFG utilization technologies. Part II covers energy and environmental policies, legislation, and regulations; current energy markets; and the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms for developing carbon markets. Part III presents possible approaches to assessing LFG management projects at landfill sites, risk factors, pre- investment studies, and guidance for project development. 4.4 Successful use of the Handbook depends on adequate information on all aspects of LFG management and utilization systems for solid waste landfills and a strong business and financial understanding of these projects specific to LAC markets. This tool is invaluable for identifying needed support and framing the services or nature of partners necessary to assess the viability of a prospective project. Pre-feasibility Studies 4.5 One of the Initiative's most important activities to promote LFGTE projects in Latin American and the Caribbean was to contract pre-feasibility studies in potential sites for LFG capture and use for energy purposes. Developing candidate projects was a complex exercise, but the potential benefits were significant environmentally and economically, assuming certain market conditions and energy product values. The development of an LFG management project can provide incentives for improving the overall design and operation of a landfill in the form of monetary support for the waste management system and reduced GHG emissions. 4.6 The World Bank and ESMAP identified potential sites for investment in landfill gas projects through field visits. The selection process began with a call for proposals to assess the viability of candidate projects. The applicants were asked to provide the following information: Location of the project Concise description of the objectives of the project Political commitment (operation agreements for municipal operation, private operation, or mixed operations and Uruguay) Social situation (e.g., number of waste pickers in the area, need for resettlement) Main Activities and Outputs of the Initiative 21 Sponsor of the project (if any) Total estimated cost of the project Contact information 4.7 As a result, 26 sites (10 in Brazil, 7 in Colombia, 6 in Mexico, 1 in Peru, and 1 in Uruguay) submitted letters of interest. The 26 proposals were evaluated and scored based on the following criteria: Technical aspects (e.g., type of landfill, capacity, waste in place, coverage, average temperature, precipitation, leachate collection) Regulatory framework (e.g., legal framework for LFG utilization, access to distribution and transmission lines, energy market) Social aspects (e.g., surrounding fence, waste pickers, resettlement) Political commitment (e.g., municipality agreement, private operator agreement) 4.8 Ten of the sites were chosen for pre-investment studies, and additional pump tests were done in five of the selected sites. Table 4.1 describes the candidate sites. Table 4.1: Landfills submitting applications for pre-feasibility studies Sites with pre-feasibility studies and pump tests financed by the LFGTE Initiative Name Country Total Estimated daily Potential energy capacity disposal (t) generation* (MW) (Mton) Queretaro Mexico 6.1 465 1.5 El Carrasco, Bucaramanga Colombia 3.0 593 1.7 Montevideo Uruguay 10.0 1,250 4.0 Huaycoloro, Lima Peru 40.0 2,500 7.0 Gramacho, Rio de Janeiro Brazil 35.0 3,800 12.0 Sites with only pre-feasibility studies financed by the LFGTE Initiative Name Country Total Estimated daily Potential energy capacity disposal (t) generation*(MW) (Mton) Combeima, Tolima Colombia 1.2 275 1.0 La Esmeralda, Manizales Colombia 2.8 400 1.3 Chihuahua Mexico 8.0 1,070 3.0 Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul Brazil 1.1 1,050 3.0 Muribeca, Pernambuco Brazil 20.0 2,800 8.0 22 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Other sites submitting applications to the LFGTE Initiative Name Country Total Estimated daily Potential energy capacity disposal (t) generation*(MW) (Mton) Tlanepantla Edo. de Mexico Mexico N/A N/A N/A Mexicali Mexico N/A N/A N/A La Glorita Pereira Colombia 1.2 320 1.0 Volta Redonda, Rio de Janeiro Brazil 1.6 200 1.0 Guasave, Sinaloa Mexico 1.5 200 1.0 Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro Brazil 6.0 700 1.0 Don Juanito, Villavicencio Colombia 0.6 155 1.0 Jundiai, Sao Paulo Brazil 2.5 370 1.5 La Paz Turbana Colombia 3.0 700 2.0 Santos, Sao Paulo Brazil 3.5 Closed 2.5 Santa Cruz, Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2.5 Closed 5.0 Coyula-Matatlan, Jalisco Mexico 7.5 1,650 5.0 El Trébol, Guatemala City Guatemala 8.5 1,300 6.0 * Estimated or provided by applicant 4.9 The consulting firm SCS Engineers was selected through a bidding process to develop the pre-feasibility studies in the 10 identified landfill sites. SCS assessed the technical and economic feasibility of the development of LFG collection and utilization projects, quantified potential GHG emission reductions and other environmental benefits, and potential LFG production and collection rates, and estimated energy production rates from the gas. 4.10 The scope of work for SCS Engineers included the following tasks: Review site conditions and background information, including waste quantities and composition, landfill type and configuration, meteorological data, and leachate management practices and generation rates. Visit the sites to observe features and operations, meet landfill owners and operators, conduct field tests, and evaluate the practicality of developing a gas utilization project in the area. Estimate the LFG recovery potential from the landfill using computer modeling based on available information, field test data, and engineering experience at similar landfills. Quantify energy recovery potential and environmental benefits through air emissions reductions over time. Identify institutional, market, and business arrangements that would likely be involved in the implementation of a gas recovery and utilization project. Evaluate current and future trends in the electricity sector in the country and region and assess their potential impacts on an LFG energy generation project. Main Activities and Outputs of the Initiative 23 Prepare a conceptual design for the gas collection and utilization system to be used as a tool for evaluating the capital costs required for implementing gas collection at the landfills. Estimate the cost of implementing energy recovery elements identified above, including capital and operational costs. Evaluate project costs, including capital and operational costs and sources of revenue. Develop plans for the implementation of gas recovery and utilization projects at the 10 landfills, including steps involved and a schedule for project implementation. 4.11 Five pump tests were organized by SCS Engineers. The firm provided the location of the pumping test and specific location for the extraction wells. With the support of local companies, SCS mobilized crews and equipment for well drilling, oversaw the drilling and well construction at the landfills, and returned to the sites to oversee the installation of piping, blower, and orifice plates, train operators to use the testing equipment, and guide data interpretation and operational adjustments during the tests. Table 4.2 describes the testing results at the five selected landfills. Table 4.2: Pump test results at five landfill sites Montevideo, Gramacho, Rio Huaycoloro, El Carrasco, Querétaro, Uruguay de Janeiro, Lima,Peru Bucaramanga, Mexico Brazil Colombia Potential 7.7MW 10.2 MW 3.7 MW 3.4 MW 2.4 MW 1978 as open 1977 as open Start of 1989 dump, 1993 as 1994 dump, 1985 as 1996 operations landfill landfill If no expansion, Expected 2011 2005 2040 2006; if 2015 closing expansion, 2021 Landfill area N/A 14 hectares 240 hectares 81 hectares 20 hectares 15 hectares (with Filling area 70 hectares 35 hectares 16 hectares no expansion) Daily 15,000 metric 2,200 tonnes disposal tons (tonnes) Annual 2.4 million 740,000 300,000 468,000 tonnes 260,000 tonnes disposal tonnes tonnes tonnes Waste in 7.2 million 27 million tonnes 5.6 million 3.5 million tonnes 1.8 million place tonnes (excl. pre-1993) tonnes (excl. pre-1985) tonnes 4.12 More information on each of the pre-feasibility studies carried out by the LFGTE Initiative is provided in Annexes 1­10. 24 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Case Studies 4.13 A necessary condition for successful project development was the identification of successful international LFG facilities. Experience in North America and Europe shows that there is a significant opportunity to increase LFG recovery and LFGTE projects under appropriate market conditions. The lessons learned from this first generation of LFG projects led to the refinement of approaches for evaluating and encouraging future LFGTE projects. 4.14 Table 4.3 provides a brief description of the eight case studies analyzed (in Brazil, Canada, Chile, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, and Uruguay). Table 4.3: Summary of LFG case studies Case study Summary Maldonado, Uruguay The project's primary short-term objective was to eliminate the emission of Las Rosas Landfill 18,962 tons of methane from the municipal landfill. The project built a methane recovery system on the existing waste pile and six landfill cells and produced electricity sold to the national grid. The project supported investments in civil works and equipment (gas capture, 1.0 MW generation plant, and monitoring) and technical assistance (engineering planning, project management, training, dissemination, and evaluation). Santiago and Valparaiso, These were the first attempts at methane recovery and use in Chile. The Chile main use of the biogas was to mix it with petroleum natural gas and inject it La Feria, Lo Errázuriz, in the urban distribution pipelines for household applications. One of the Lepanto, and El Molle main obstacles found during this research was the lack of good practices in landfills urban solid waste management. These landfills are no longer in operation. NovaGerar, Brazil This is the only project in Brazil that received positive approval from an international finance agency. Operations in the new landfill began in NovaGerar Landfill January 2003. Nova Iguaçu is a municipality of 920,000 inhabitants, most of who live in urban areas. Household waste generation was around 800 metric tons per day. The collection service was operated by a private company and served approximately 90 percent of the population. NovaGerar invested in a gas collection system and a modular electricity generation plant (with a maximum capacity of 10 MW in Adrianópolis and 2 MW in Marambaia) to produce electricity to supply the grid and reduce emissions of approximately 12 million tons of CO2 (conservative estimate) over the next 21 years. Project life and the emission reductions crediting period are 21 years, starting at the end of 2003. Main Activities and Outputs of the Initiative 25 Ontario, Canada This was an example of an LFG utilization project undertaken on a medium-size municipal landfill that collected primarily residential, Waterloo Landfill institutional, and commercial waste. The site is owned by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and has been accepting waste for more than 30 years. With the closing of the Kitchener Landfill, this site serves a population of approximately 450,000 in the cities of Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo in the province of Ontario. The gas utilization plant has an installed capacity to produce 3.7 MW, expandable to 5.55 MW. Riga and Liepaja, Latvia New sanitary landfills are beginning to be established and existing sites improved in some countries in Eastern Europe. The LFG plant at Getlini Riga and Liepaja landfills near Riga (which has approximately 800,000 inhabitants) is the largest landfill in Latvia. The LFG project consisted of the remediation of the old landfill and the establishment of a new landfill made up of so-called "energy cells," a type better known as bioreactors. The gas utilization plant has an installed capacity of 5.4 MW. The LFG project at Liepaja, which has approximately 100,000 inhabitants, has an installed capacity to produce.37 MW, with the existing landfill and a new landfill at different sites. The new site at Grobina was not in operation but is expected to have 1.1 MW of installed capacity. Monterrey, Mexico The Sistema Metropolitano de Procesamiento de Desechos Sólidos (SIMPRODESO, or Metropolitan System for Solid Waste Processing) Salinas Victoria Landfill landfill is located in the north of Salinas Victoria, Nuevo León. The landfill was established on a Greenfield site with a total landfill area of 212 hectares. This landfill receives 750 trucks per day with approximately 4,500 tons per day of municipal solid waste. The 44 hectare cell from which the biogas will be collected was filled with 7.7 million tons of waste between 1991 and 1999, at which time it was filled and capped with clay. The landfill continues to accept waste and is expanding to fill other cells in the 212 hectare site. The site currently generates energy with an installed capacity of 7 MW. Durban, South Africa The Bisasar Road Landfill site is situated 7 kilometers from the Durban Central Business District. A methane generation model predicts a peak Mariannhill, Bisasar Road, generation of 7,200 cubic meters per hour in 2011. The gas utilization plant and La Mercy landfills is assumed to require 700 cubic meters per hour, with around 50 percent methane, enough to feed a 1 MW energy generation facility. The Mariannhill Landfill is located approximately 20 kilometers west of Durban in the Metro area and is predicted to produce 1,775 cubic meters per hour by 2024. Gas utilization equipment with a capacity of up to 1.5 MW will be provided. Gdansk, Krakow and Four landfill gas plants were included in this case study for Poland: Torun Olsztyn, Poland and Szadolki landfills in Gdansk, Barycz in Krakow, and Legajny in Olsztyn. Barycz and Legajny are currently producing energy at the LFG Torun, Szadolki, Barycz, andplants with an installed capacity of 0.8 MW and 0.5 MW, respectively. The Legajny landfills size of the landfills included in this case study range from 1.4 million to 3.3 million tons, which can be classified as middle-sized landfills in Poland. The landfill in Torun is 40 years old and has an installed capacity of 0.73 MW. The other landfills are approximately 25 years old. The Szadolki landfill has an installed capacity of 0.4 MW. Waste amount generated has increased rapidly over the past 10 years. 26 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean 4.15 The lessons learned from the eight case studies were significant for the objectives of the Initiative and reinforced the application and use of the tools and information in the "Handbook." 4.16 The case study projects were at various stages of development. The projects in Brazil and South Africa were in the middle of the pre-investment phase, while construction was stalled at the LFGTE project in Liepaja, Latvia, because of complex funding approval requirements for the large team of project participants. The rest of the projects had completed the detailed development phase and were into the operating phase of the completed or commissioned facilities. The Waterloo LFGTE Landfill had been in operation since 1999, whereas the Chilean landfills had completed their operations and were no longer in service. 4.17 The experience of each of the landfills in the case studies consistently reinforced the importance of the following activities to design successful LFG projects: Carefully assessing LFG resources Securing markets for energy products and CERs Establishing a sound project structure and contracting framework Addressing permit, policy, and regulatory requirements Understanding and incorporating operation and maintenance requirements Latin American LFG Project Expo 2005 4.18 Along with the dissemination activities in the first phase, the LFGTE Initiative looked for other ways to expand its reach. The Latin American LFG Project Expo 2005 in Montevideo, Uruguay, on July 7­8, 2005, was a unique opportunity to bring investors and project proponents together to promote LFG emission reductions projects in the region. The other objectives of the Expoare listed below. Disseminate the results of the 10 pre-feasibility studies. Mobilize investment resources for viable sites from private sector investors and project developers. Promote better SWM practices in the region. Provide a forum for sharing knowledge and experience. 4.19 The Expo 2005 participants included regional and international landfill gas technology and consulting companies; landfill owners and operators; federal, provincial and municipal authorities; and Designated National Authorities, Community leaders such as local officials, representatives of environmental groups, consumer and civic associations, schools, and nongovernmental and educational organizations were also invited to participate. Main Activities and Outputs of the Initiative 27 4.20 Activities included presentation of the LFGTE Initiative and World Bank team; introduction of the Olivarría, Argentina, and NovaGerar, Brazil, case studies; and a presentation by SCS Engineers of the main findings of the pre-feasibility studies. The event also included a visit to Maldonado's LFGTE facility. A Letter of Intention to sell CERs from the Montevideo Landfill was signed by the Municipal Governor, Ricardo Ehlich, and the representative of the Carbon Finance Unit of the World Bank, Eduardo Dopazo. Table 4.4 lists the exhibitors at the Expo. A complete list of participants is found in Annex 11. Table 4.4: List of exhibitors at LFG Project Expo 2005 Gramacho Landfill (Brazil) ASJA Ambiente (Italy) Muribeca Landfill (Brazil) Chihuahua Landfill (Mexico) Santa Tecla Landfill (Brazil) Puebla Landfill (Mexico) Bucaramanga Landfill (Colombia) Queretaro Landfill (Mexico) Cucutá Landfill (Colombia) EcoSecurities (United Kingdom) Doña Juana Landfill (Colombia) Aborgama (Uruguay) Ibagué Landfill (Colombia) LKSur (Uruguay) Interaseo (Colombia) Montevideo Landfill (Uruguay) Manizales Landfill (Colombia) Internacional Solid Econergy (USA) Waste Association (ISWA) EMCON (USA) Natsource (USA) Workshop in Monterrey, Mexico 4.21 As part of the LFGTE Initiative, the World Bank, with ESMAP support, undertook specific tasks to promote LFG-to-Energy projects in the LAC region. One of these efforts was a workshop in Monterrey, Mexico, on October 23­24, 2003, to facilitate regional interaction among actors involved in the` field. The workshop's objectives are listed below. Disseminate LFGTE case studies and the first draft of results. Present, review, and gather participant comments on the draft "Handbook for the Preparation of LFG-to-Energy Projects." Facilitate regional and national discussion on LFG-to-Energy projects. Create a knowledge network on LFG. 4.22 Held at an LFG facility, the workshop brought together representatives of municipal and federal governments and the private sector, stakeholders from the region, technical experts, operators of existing LAC facilities and pilot sites, members of professional organizations, the USEPA and Environment Canada, and staff of the World Bank. The participants came from Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Venezuela, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 28 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean LFGTE Initiative Web Site 4.23 The LFGTE Initiative created a Web site in English, Spanish, and Portuguese to disseminate information about its strategy and efforts in the LAC region and encourage the exchange of knowledge and technical assistance for the development of new LFG investments. Linked to the World Bank's main portal, the Web site supports ESMAP objectives by emphasizing that the regional trend toward improved sanitary landfill management creates a potential market for LFG projects. Users are encouraged to explore the site to learn more about the LFGTE Initiative and how to translate recovery of this energy resource into profits for municipalities. The Web site's address is http://www.bancomundial.org.ar/lfg/default.htm. 4.24 Thematic content includes all aspects of LFGTE information, project design, implementation, and operation, as well as case studies. Nine links related to landfill gas and energy recovery include (1) a description of the LFGTE Initiative, (2) the Initiative library, (3) pre-feasibility studies, (4) other project development activities around the world, (5) the enormous potential of LFG, (6), the Clearinghouse and discussion forums, (7) membership in the LFGTE Initiative, (8) answers to frequently asked questions, and (9) contact information. 4.25 The description of the Initiative provides background information on the solid waste management problem, its importance for the Environmental and Power Sector of the Latin American Region of the World Bank, details of LFG-to-Energy projects, ESMAP objectives, the components of the Initiative, and information on the 2003 workshop in Monterrey, Mexico. 4.26 The second section links users to a specialized library of tools to help plan LFG projects. The library contains a large collection of papers, documents, case studies, and articles on municipal solid waste management, the potential benefits of LFG, energy use, gas recovery, and the carbon finance market, as well as reference documents on LFGTE and SWM projects implemented in other parts of the world. This section also contains a link to the complete "Handbook for Preparing LFGTE Projects." 4.27 The third section links users to the 10 pre-feasibility studies, showing potential sites for LFG capture and use for energy purposes that could be developed as Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects and providing information on local initiation and dissemination workshops. 4.28 The fourth section refers readers to other LFG project development activities, including NovaGerar in Brazil, Waterloo in Canada, Santiago and Valparaiso in Chile, Riga and Liepaja in Latvia, Monterrey in Mexico, Torun in Poland, Durban in South Africa, Istanbul in Turkey, and Maldonado in Uruguay. 4.29 The fifth section links users to forms for submitting a candidate landfill site and applying for a feasibility study. This section also includes a complete study of the economic, environmental, communitarian, and energy benefits of generating electricity from LFG. Main Activities and Outputs of the Initiative 29 4.30 The sixth section invites users to participate in a discussion forum and be added to the Initiative's distribution list. Related links are provided for more information on LFG. 4.31 The seventh section describes the benefits of joining the LFGTE Initiative and links users to another form to submit a landfill site for a pre-feasibility study. 4.32 The ninth section contains additional information about ESMAP, LFG, and participation in the Initiative. 4.33 The tenth link provides contact information for the Initiative. 5 Conclusions 5.1 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy (LFGTE) Initiative officially finalized its activities in November 2005, but many of its contributions are still available to interested parties. One of the main expectations of the Initiative was that its work would be instrumental in the development and implementation of LFGTE projects. This chapter describes the main outcomes of the Initiative and provides lessons learned and recommendations for future projects. Main Outcomes 5.2 Improving solid waste management (SWM) practices and raising interest in LFGTE projects. One of the main objectives of the Initiative was to promote the adoption of better SWM practices through capture and utilization of landfill gas (LFG). Local governments can reduce the risk of landfill explosions, odors, and emissions to the atmosphere and at the same time benefit from the use of LFG as an energy source and from potential Certified Emission Reductions (CER) revenues. To maximize the benefits, municipalities have to operate and maintain the landfills properly. The Initiative's workshops in Monterrey, Mexico, and Montevideo, Uruguay, helped raise the interest of municipalities and other parties in landfill gas capture and utilization and encouraged them to begin analyzing the possibility of such activities. The Initiative also has helped raise the importance of searching for renewable energy options such as biogas. 5.3 Strengthening local technical capacity. The LFGTE initiative Web site and "Handbook for the Preparation of LFGTE Projects" have proved to be valuable sources of information for municipalities, landfill operators, and project developers interested in landfill gas utilization. LFGTE technology is widely used in most of Europe and North America, but Latin America lacks local technical capacity to develop this type of project. The Web site serves as a hub for knowledge sharing to disseminate successful experience from other parts of the world and reinforce local capacity. It is expected that the LAC Environmental Department of the World Bank will build on this site for future landfill gas capture-related initiatives. 5.4 Disseminating the results of pre-feasibility studies. The main findings of the pre-feasibility studies have been instrumental in moving forward the implementation of LFG capture and utilization projects throughout the region (see 5.5). The results showed that in most cases combined revenues from CERs and energy generation could make the 31 32 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean projects feasible. The reports recommended developing effective projects in two stages. First, a reliable and constant LFG capture and flaring system should be implemented to ensure that the landfill operator is acquainted with the technology and that landfill operation practices do not interfere with the system. Second, the energy generation plant should be added once the landfill gas capture system is stable and well calibrated and the methane flow has proven to be as predicted. This two-stage approach will greatly reduce the risk of sub-utilizing energy plants as a result of problems not anticipated during pre- feasibility studies. Table 5.1 lists the most significant results of the pre-feasibility studies for each of the selected sites. Table 5.1: Main results of the pre-feasibility studies LFGTE project Current Projected Projected Estimated Internal rate IRR annual power CERs project of return with energy disposal plant size 2005­2012 costs (IRR) generation (tonnes/yr) (MW) (million flaring tCO2e) only Brazil Gramacho Landfill 2,400,000 10.03 5.94 15.5 209.3 47.0 Muribeca Landfill 1,000,000 7.42 3.73 10.8 103.5 15.8 Santa Tecla Landfill 218,000 1.00 .58 2.1 24.8 -- Colombia Bucaramanga Landfill 260,000 1.06 1.12 2.4 42.8 -6.8 Manizales Landfill 138,000 1.40 .48 2.2 26.2 -1.8 Ibagué Landfill Closed N/A .09 1.2 -- N/A Mexico Chihuahua Landfill 390,000 3.18 .89 3.2 46.3 33.0 Queretaro Landfill 300,000 3.18 .86 3.9 18.6 14.4 Peru Huaycoloro Landfill 740,000 5.74 1.23 7.0 73.5 25.4 Uruguay Montevideo Landfill 468,000 2.00 2.06 5.3 98.1 14.4 5.5 Initiating steps for new LFGTE projects. Municipal authorities and landfill operators were pleased with the reports of the pre-feasibility studies carried out in their sites. Moreover, they have shown great interest in developing the projects and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) activities to benefit from CER revenues. The authorities and project developers from the landfills of Gramacho in Brazil, Manizales in Colombia, Chihuahua and Querétaro in Mexico, Huaycoloro in Peru, and Montevideo in Uruguay have begun planning for implementation. The Huaycoloro and Montevideo landfills have signed Letters of Intent with the World Bank to sell CERs derived from the Conclusions 33 potential LFG capture and flaring or utilization. The Gramacho Landfill has opened the bidding process for project implementation. 5.6 Bridging the gap between potential projects and investors. Latin America is an important niche for the development of LFG capture and utilization projects. As the price of conventional energy rises and the carbon market matures, the prospect of clean and renewable energy becomes more and more attractive. Nevertheless, despite the environmental and financial benefits of LFGTE projects, local governments still face a number of barriers to developing and implementing such initiatives. One of the most important is the lack of funds for up-front financing. Another is the lack of knowledge about different business models for structuring this type of Energy/CDM deal. By creating partnerships and organizing knowledge sharing events, the Initiative helped promote potential projects to interested investors from North and South America and Europe. The Initiative catalyzed successful public-private partnerships for the development of LFG capture and utilization projects, notably in Huaycoloro in Peru and Montevideo in Uruguay. Investors can provide the needed financial resources and know- how for project start up, while the municipalities or project proponents can minimize risks, obtain a reliable flow of funds over at least 5­10 years, and speed up project implementation. Lessons Learned and Barriers to Further Development 5.7 As a result of the activities carried out under the LFGTE Initiative, the World Bank identified common issues that affect the development of this type of project and drew important lessons that can be applied to facilitate and increase the portfolio of LFG capture and utilization projects in Latin America and other developing regions. Some of the most important lessons learned and barriers identified are summarized below. Ownership of the LFG resource. In many countries in LAC, ownership of the LFG was not clearly defined legally. This lack of clarity may create confusion between municipalities and landfill operators in cases where the service is outsourced. Disputes between interested parties for ownership of the LFG and therefore future CER revenues can clearly delay project implementation. Local and national legislation should be strengthened to avoid these legal loopholes. Commitment of municipal authorities. Strong technical counterparts in the municipalities are required to provide the necessary support for project development and implementation. The creation of municipal project teams is essential to involve municipal personnel during the different project stages and build local technical capacity for the future. Lack of knowledge about Carbon Finance deal structures. Local authorities require more training in this area to make informed decisions when choosing the most suitable Carbon Finance deal for their specific conditions. As the carbon market evolves, investors, brokers, and project developers are looking more aggressively for CDM projects. Municipalities have to know how to negotiate before closing deals with entrepreneurs. 34 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Weak regulations for independent energy producers and generation of renewable energy. Most of the countries in the region lack clear and defined regulations for the generation of renewable energy or sale of energy from independent producers, resulting in uncertainty about how to market power from LFGTE. In addition, because few countries have incentive policies in place, they are less attractive for investors in this type of project. Before an LFGTE project is implemented, a power purchase agreement should be secured and an energy sale price fixed to facilitate the financial analysis of the project and reduce uncertainty. Low energy prices. Related to weak regulations, low and uneven purchase energy prices throughout the region affect the attractiveness of LFGTE projects. In Brazil, for example, the purchase price range even within the country is notoriously low, from US$0.029 to US$0.07 per KWh. Moreover, because few countries have liberalized energy markets, energy prices, including prices from renewable sources, are fixed by the government. Needed assistance to prepare project tender documents. The preparation of project tender documents is one of the main hurdles for countries that want to move from project preparation to actual implementation. Although municipalities are experienced in issuing public tenders, they lack the specific knowledge required to prepare the bidding documents (including CF transactions) for LFG capture and utilization projects, including the CER component. This lack of capacity can delay project construction. As LFGTE projects become more common, local authorities will be able to draw on the experience of other municipalities that have already gone through the project tender process. Dissemination of such experience will be critical for replication. Annex 1 Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at the Chihuahua Landfill, Chihuahua, Mexico A1.1 This pre-feasibility study report, prepared by SCS Engineers for the World Bank, addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at the Chihuahua Landfill in Chihuahua, Mexico. Executive Summary A1.2 The project would consist of the installation of a landfill gas collection system to extract LFG to fuel a power plant using internal combustion engine generators. The revenues for the project would come from the sale of both energy (exporting power to the grid) and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) of greenhouse gases. The CERs are created by the combustion of methane, which makes up approximately 50 percent of LFG. Methane has a global warming potential of about 21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). The feasibility study includes a sensitivity analysis of the price paid for CERs. A1.3 The current landfill area opened in 1994 and is anticipated to close in 2013. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 6.5 million metric tons (tonnes) of municipal solid waste. Site operations are managed by the City of Chihuahua Department of Sanitation. A1.4 The landfill is clay-lined. On completion of the cell, maximum waste thickness is anticipated to be about 30 meters. A1.5 The landfill does not have an active LFG collection and control system but does have a series of existing passive vents. A1.6 In 2004 Mexico passed standards for the siting, design, construction, operation, monitoring, and closure of solid waste landfills. These standards also include guidance on landfill gas control and set procedures operating landfills should follow to comply with these standard. Because they were passed only recently, it is unclear how the standards will be interpreted and followed and what effect they may have, if any, on the development of a landfill gas control project in accordance with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in Mexico. 35 36 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean A1.7 While the standards appear to stop short of specifically requiring control of landfill gas emissions, if these standards are ultimately determined to require landfill gas control resulting in the reduction of methane emissions, then the financial viability of developing LFGTE projects under the CDM in Mexico could be diminished. A1.8 Preliminary gas modeling results from the Chihuahua Landfill are listed below. Projected gas recovery in 2006 is estimated at approximately 1,632 m3/hr, increasing steadily to a peak of approximately 2,610 m3/hr in 2013. Gas recovery is projected to decline thereafter, following landfill closure. Assuming startup of a power plant in 2007, sufficient gas should be available to support a minimum 2.12 MW power plant with the potential for increased production to about 3.18 MW through plant expansion in 2009. Assuming startup of an LFG collection and flaring system in 2006, development of a LFG collection and utilization project at the landfill should result in approximately 857,166 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) emission reductions for the period 2006 though 2012 and 1,739,741 tonnes of CO2eq emission reductions for the period 2006 though 2019. A1.9 Project economics were analyzed under a variety of scenarios, including duration (through 2012 or 2019), initial equity investment percentage (25 percent or 100 percent), project type (flaring only or power generation), and CER pricing (US$4, US$5, or US$6/tonne of CO2eq). A power sales price of $0.057/kWh was assumed. A1.10 The results of the analysis indicate that project feasibility is favorable enough to attract developers and investors to build under a variety of CER pricing scenarios. A flaring only project may also be attractive if CERs are sold at prices that exceed US$5 per tonne. Table A1.1 summarizes economic indicators for two project types: power generation and flaring only at US$5 per tonne. Table A1.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Chihuahua Landfill, Chihuahua, Mexico Scenario­ CER price Initial equity Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) investment value rate of (%) (xUS$1,000) return (%) 2005­2012 5 100 $1,866 20.5% Power plant 2005­2012 5 25 $1,639 33.0% 2005­2019 5 100 $6,368 29.9% 2005­2019 5 25 $6,034 52.0% 2005­2012 5 100 $607 23.8% Flare only 2005­2012 5 25 $578 46.3% 2005­2019 5 100 $1,608 30.6% 2005­2019 5 25 $1,509 59.8% Annex 2 Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas and Energy Production at the Querétaro Landfill, Querétaro, Mexico A2.1 This pre-feasibility study report, prepared by SCS Engineers for the World Bank, addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at the Querétaro Landfill in Querétaro, Mexico. Executive Summary A2.2 The project generally would consist of the installation of a landfill gas collection system to extract LFG to fuel a power plant using internal combustion engine generators. The revenues for the project would come from the sale of both energy (exporting power to the grid) and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) of greenhouse gases. The CERs are created by the combustion of methane, which makes up approximately 50 percent of LFG. Methane has a global warming potential of about 21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). The feasibility study includes a sensitivity analysis of the price paid for CERs. The Querétaro Landfill was selected for a pumping test. This investigation provided additional information regarding the available LFG volume and quality at the landfill, along with other physical information such as buried waste characteristics and leachate levels within the waste mass. A2.3 The current landfill area opened in 1996 and is anticipated to close in 2015. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 6.1 million metric tons (tonnes) of municipal solid waste. Site operations are managed by Mexicana del Medio Ambiente S.A. de C.V. (MMA). A2.4 Querétaro Landfill originally was filled as an open dump area (called the "old dump"). This area was not included in the consideration of an LFG-to-Energy (LFGTE) project at the site. A2.5 The landfill is lined and has a leachate collection system. On completion, maximum waste thickness is anticipated to be about 45 meters. 37 38 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean A2.6 The landfill does not have an active landfill gas collection and control system but does have a series of existing passive vents. A2.7 In 2004 Mexico passed standards for the siting, design, construction, operation, monitoring, and closure of solid waste landfills. These standards also include guidance on landfill gas control and set procedures operating landfills should follow to comply with these standard. Because they were passed only recently, it is unclear how the standards will be interpreted and followed and what effect, if any, they may have on the development of a landfill gas control project in accordance with the Clean Development Mechanism in Mexico. A2.8 While the standards appear to stop short of specifically requiring control of landfill gas emissions, if these standards are ultimately determined to require landfill gas control resulting in the reduction of methane emissions, then the financial viability of developing LFGTE projects under the CDM in Mexico could be diminished. A2.9 Preliminary gas modeling results from the Querétaro Landfill are listed below. Projected gas recovery in 2006 is estimated to be approximately 1,472 m3/hr, increasing steadily to a peak of approximately 3,277 m3/hr in 2016. Gas recovery is projected to decline thereafter, following landfill closure. Assuming startup of a power plant in 2007, sufficient gas should be available to support a minimum 2.12 MW power plant, with the potential for increased production (to about 3.18 MW) through plant expansion in 2010. Assuming startup of an LFG collection and flaring system in 2006, development of an LFG collection and utilization project at the landfill should result in approximately 784,003 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) emission reductions for the period 2006 though 2012 and 1,896,700 tonnes for the period 2006 though 2019. A2.10 Project economics were analyzed under a variety of scenarios, including duration (through 2012 or 2019), initial equity investment percentage (25 percent or 100 percent), project type (flaring only or power generation), and CER pricing (US$4, US$5, or US$6/ton of CO2eq). A power sales price of $0.057/kWh was assumed. A2.11 The results of the analysis indicate that project feasibility is favorable enough to attract developers and investors under all of the CER pricing or investment scenarios analyzed, particularly for a longer-term project (2005­2019). A flaring only project appears viable for a longer-term project (2005­2019) if the CER revenue is US$4/tonne or more. For a shorter flaring only project period (2005­2012), a CER price of US$5/tonne or greater probably will be required. Table A2.1 summarizes economic indicators at the US$5 rate. Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas and Energy Production at the Querétaro Landfill, Querétaro, Mexico 39 Table A2.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Queretaro Landfiull, Queretaro, Mexico Scenario­ CER price Initial equity Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) investment value rate of (%) (xUS$1,000) return (%) 2005­2012 5 100 $406 10.5% Power plant 2005­2012 5 25 $520 14.7% 2005­2019 5 100 $5,502 23.5% 2005­2019 5 25 $5,375 37.0% 2005­2012 5 100 $191 13.5% Flare only 2005­2012 5 25 $162 18.6% 2005­2019 5 100 $1,175 23.0% 2005­2019 5 25 $1,147 37.3% Annex 3 Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at El Carrasco Landfill, Bucaramanga, Colombia A3.1. This pre-feasibility study report, prepared by SCS Engineers for the World Bank, addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at El Carrasco Landfill in Bucaramanga, Colombia. Executive Summary A3.2 The project would consist of the installation of a landfill gas collection system to extract LFG to fuel a power plant using internal combustion engine generators. The revenues for the project would come from the sale of both energy (exporting power to the grid) and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) of greenhouse gases. The CERs are created by the combustion of methane, which makes up approximately 50 percent of LFG. Methane has a global warming potential of about 21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). The feasibility study includes a sensitivity analysis of the price paid for CERs. A3.3 The current landfill area opened in 1985 and is anticipated to close after 2006. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 4 million metric tons (tonnes) of municipal solid waste. The landfill may be expanded, which would extend its life to 2021 and increase its total capacity to 10 million tones. Site operations are managed by the Empresa de Aseo de Bucaramanga S. A. ESP. (EAMB, or Sanitation Company of Bucaramanga). A3.4 The landfill is clay lined. There is no existing active landfill gas collection and control system, but the landfill does have a series of passive vents and some passive flares. The CER baseline resulting from these existing flares was estimated at 1 percent of the potential gas recovery. A3.5 Preliminary gas modeling results from El Carrasco Landfill are listed below. Projected gas recovery in 2006 is estimated at approximately 2085 m3/hr, with a peak of approximately 2,336 m3/hr in 2007. Gas recovery is projected to decline thereafter, following landfill closure. 41 42 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Assuming startup of a power plant in 2007, sufficient gas should be available to support a minimum 1 MW power plant. In years when excess gas is collected, it would be flared on site. A larger power project could be supported if the landfill expands. Assuming startup of a LFG collection and flaring system in 2006, development of a LFG collection and utilization project at the landfill should result in approximately 652,828 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) emission reductions for the period 2006 though 2012 and 853,312 tonnes of CO2eq emission reductions for the period 2006 though 2019. A3.6 Project economics were analyzed under a variety of scenarios, including duration (through 2012 or 2019), initial equity investment percentage (25 percent or 100 percent), project type (flaring only or power generation), and CER pricing (US$4, US$5, or US$6/ton of CO2eq. The estimated LFG recovery potential (assuming no landfill expansion) is sufficient to support a 1 MW power plant through 2013. This report estimated LFG recovery with and without landfill expansion but only analyzed economics assuming no expansion. A3.7 The results of the analysis indicate that project feasibility under most of the project duration and financing scenarios evaluated is favorable enough to attract developers and investors if the CER revenue is US$5/ton or more. Table A3.1 summarizes economic indicators at this rate. Table A3.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, El Carrasco Landfill, Bucaramanga, Colombia Scenario­ CER price Initial equity Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) investment value rate of (%) (xUS$1,000) return (%) 2005­2012 5 100 ­$2,507 --* Power plant 2005­2012 5 25 ­$237 --* 2005­2019 5 100 ­$71 7.0% 2005­2019 5 25 ­$139 --* 2005­2012 5 100 $288 17.7% Flare only 2005­2012 5 25 $257 42.8% 2005­2019 5 100 $280 17.9% 2005­2019 5 25 $249 55.8% *IRR was a large negative value which could not be calculated. Annex 4 Pre-feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at La Esmeralda Landfill, Manizales, Colombia Bucaramanga, Colombia A4.1 This pre-feasibility study report, prepared by SCS Engineers for the World Bank, addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at La Esmeralda Landfill within the limits of Manizales, Colombia. Executive Summary A4.2 The project generally would consist of the installation of a landfill gas collection system to extract LFG to fuel a power plant using internal combustion engine generators. The revenues for the project would come from the sale of both energy (exporting power to the grid) and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) of greenhouse gases. The CERs are created by the combustion of methane, which makes up approximately 50 percent of LFG. Methane has a global warming potential of about 21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). The feasibility study includes a sensitivity analysis of the price paid for CERs. A4.3 The current landfill area opened in 1991 and is anticipated to close in 2015. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 2.8 million metric tons (tonnes) of municipal solid waste. The landfill may be expanded, which would extend its life to 2035 and increase its total capacity to 6.1 million tones. Site operations are managed by the Empresa Metropolitano de Aseo S. A. ESP. (EMAS). A4.4 The landfill is clay and membrane lined. Current landfill depth is about 25 meters. A4.5 The landfill does not have an existing active landfill gas collection and control system but does have a series of existing passive vents. A4.6 Preliminary gas modeling results from La Esmeralda Landfill are listed below. Projected gas recovery in 2006 is estimated at approximately 989 m3/hr, increasing steadily to a peak of approximately 1,279 m3/hr in 2016. Gas recovery is projected to decline thereafter, following landfill closure 43 44 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Assuming startup of a power plant in 2007, sufficient gas should be available to support a minimum 1.4 MW power plant. In years when excess gas is collected, it would be flared on site. A larger power project could be supported if the landfill expands. Assuming startup of a LFG collection and flaring system in 2006, development of a LFG collection and utilization project at the landfill should result in approximately 455,005 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) emission reductions for the period 2006 though 2012 and 874,399 tonnes of CO2eq emission reductions for the period 2006 though 2019. A4.7 Project economics were analyzed under a variety of scenarios, including duration (through 2012 or 2019), initial equity investment percentage (25 percent or 100 percent), project type (flaring only or power generation), and CER pricing (US$4, US$5, or US$6/ton of CO2eq. The estimated LFG recovery potential (assuming no landfill expansion) is sufficient to support a 1.4 MW power plant over the life of the project. This report estimated LFG recovery with and without landfill expansion but only analyzed economics assuming no expansion. A4.8 The results of the analysis indicate that the project feasibility under most of the project duration and financing scenarios evaluated is favorable enough to attract developers and investors if the CER revenue is US$5/ton or more. Table A4.1 summarizes economic indicators at this rate. Table A4.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, La Esmeralda Landfill, Manizales, Colombia Scenario­ CER price Initial Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) equity value rate of investment (xUS$1,000) return (%) (%) 2005­2012 5 100 ­$200 5.3% Power plant 2005­2012 5 25 ­$263 ­1.8% 2005­2019 5 100 $872 14.7% 2005­2019 5 25 $810 21.0% 2005­2012 5 100 $168 15.1% Flare only 2005­2012 5 25 $148 26.2% 2005­2019 5 100 $603 22.5% 2005­2019 5 25 $583 42.6% Annex 5 Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at El Combeima Landfill, Ibagué, Colombia A5.1 This Pre-Feasibility Study Report addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at the El Combeima Landfill, located within the limits of Ibagué, Colombia. SCS Engineers prepared this report for the World Bank in accordance with the contract scope of work. A5.2 The results of LFG recovery projections indicate that the quantity of recoverable LFG at this landfill is insufficient to develop a cost-effective electrical generation project. Therefore, the project generally would consist of the installation of a landfill gas collection system to extract LFG to fuel a power plant using internal combustion engine generators. The revenues for the project would come from the sale of both energy (exporting power to the grid) and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) of greenhouse gases. The CERs are created by the combustion of methane, which makes up approximately 50 percent of LFG. Methane has a global warming potential of about 21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). A5.3 This project was evaluated in several different ways based on various assumptions, including life of the project, financing options, and CER pricing. Based on input from the World Bank, this evaluation considered CER pricing scenarios of US$4, US$5, and US$6 per metric ton (tonne) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq). It also considered scenarios with 100 percent equity and 25 percent equity (with the balance financed). Finally, the evaluation considered project durations of from 2005 to 2012 (through the initial Kyoto commitment period) and from 2005 to 2019 (a 15-year project period assuming the Kyoto Protocol is extended beyond 2012). A5.4 Under all scenarios, the results are heavily dependent on capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the LFG collection system. These costs were estimated as realistically as possible. The collection system was conceptually designed as part of this project based on a site visit and available drawings of the landfill. The results of the evaluation indicate that project feasibility is unfavorable and that the project is unlikely to attract developers and investors under the various scenarios considered. Table A5.1 summarizes the economic evaluation at the median CER price of US$5 per tonne. 45 46 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Table A5.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, El Combeima Landfill, Ibagué, Colombia Scenario­ CER price Initial equity Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) investment value rate of (%) (xUS$1,000) return (%) 2005­2012 5 100 ­$1,279 --* 2005­2012 5 25 ­$1,314 --* 2005­2019 5 100 ­$1,546 --* 2005­2019 5 25 ­$1,580 --* *IRR was a large negative value that could not be computed. A5.5 Part of the reason for the poor economics is the high cost of the gas collection system for the small amount of recoverable gas. Reasons for this high cost include the landfill's very large area and shallow waste depth (requiring a large number of wells to obtain comprehensive coverage and more piping to connect the wells), and the large number of existing vents, which will need to be modified to implement an active gas system. Conservative unit price also contributed to the high price. As a check, SCS Engineers also estimated a low range price for the collection system construction, which is included in Appendix C. Even using this low range price in the economic spreadsheet resulted in negative net present values (NPVs) in the US$1 million range, assuming a CER price of US$6/tonne. Annex 6 Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at the Gramacho Landfill, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil A6.1 This pre-feasibility study report addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at the Gramacho Landfill in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. SCS Engineers prepared this report for the World Bank in accordance with the contract scope of work. The objective of this effort was to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of developing landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) projects at the site and project the environmental benefits (by way of carbon emission reductions) and other environmental impacts. This evaluation considers the project development within the framework of current international carbon markets such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. A6.2 The Gramacho Landfill also was selected for a pumping test. This investigation provided additional information regarding available LFG volume and quality at the landfill, along with other physical information such as buried waste characteristics and leachate levels within the waste mass. The results of the test support the LFG recovery projections presented in the interim report of February 2005. A6.3 The landfill initially was filled as an open dump area. Modern landfilling operations began in the early 1990s. For purposes of this evaluation, SCS did not consider the open dumping operations in the evaluation. A6.4 The landfill, which is owned and operated by Companhia Municipal de Limpza Urbana (COMLURB) is projected to close in 2005 with a total of more than 29 million metric tons (tonnes) of municipal solid waste in place. A6.5 The landfill covers an area of about 140 hectares. On completion, maximum waste thickness is anticipated to be about 36 meters. A6.6 The Gramacho Landfill contains elements of LFG collection and control. These consist of three independent systems: an LFG passive venting system, an LFG collection and flaring system, and an LFGTE system. Because these systems were developed independently of the CDM, a baseline methane reduction would have to be considered and applied to this project evaluation. For purposes of this report, SCS considered a 47 48 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean nominal baseline rate to be appropriate, given the limited scope and current flow rates of the LFGTE and the LFG flaring control systems. A6.7 There are several operating LFGTE projects in Brazil, some of which have been developed in accordance with the Clean Development Mechanism. These projects provide at least limited experience within the country regarding the development and operation of LFGTE projects. A6.8 Most electricity produced in Brazil comes from hydroelectric power. While National Council of the Environment legislation requires that landfills consider the collection and flaring of landfill gases, there are no requirements for mandatory collection and control of landfill gas emission in Brazil. A6.9 Preliminary gas modeling results from the Gramacho Landfill are listed below. Projected gas recovery in 2006 is estimated at approximately 22,480 m3/hr. Gas recovery is projected to decline thereafter, following landfill closure. Assuming startup of a power plant in 2007, sufficient gas is estimated to be available to support a minimum 10 MW power plant through 2012. After 2012 there will be insufficient quantities of available LFG to support a 10 MW plant. A schedule for declining power production through 2019 has been developed. Assuming startup of a comprehensive LFG collection and flaring system in 2006, development of an LFG collection and utilization project at the landfill should result in approximately 5.53 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) emission reductions for the period 2006 though 2012 and 7.35 million tonnes of CO2eq emission reductions for the period 2006 though 2019. A6.10 The project economics were analyzed under a variety of scenarios, including duration (through 2012 or 2019), initial equity investment percentage (25 percent or 100 percent), project type (flaring only or power generation), and CER pricing (US$4, US$5, or US$6/ton of CO2eq). A power sales price of $0.029 per kilowatt/hour (kWh) was assumed. A6.11 The results of the analysis indicate that project feasibility is favorable enough to attract developers and investors under all of the CER pricing or investment scenarios analyzed, particularly for a longer-term project (2005­2019). A flaring only project also appears viable under all CER pricing or investment scenarios analyzed. Table A6.1 summarizes economic indicators at the US$5 rate. Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at the Gramacho Landfill, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 49 Table A6.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Gramacho Landfill, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Scenario­ CER price Initial equity Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) investment value rate of (%) (xUS$1,000) return (%) 2005­2012 5 100 $5,286 19.7% Power plant 2005­2012 5 25 $4,845 47.0% 2005­2019 5 100 $9,230 23.1% 2005­2019 5 25 $8,800 61.3% 2005­2012 5 100 $8,995 66.1% Flare only 2005­2012 5 25 $8,827 209.3% 2005­2019 5 100 $10,548 66.6% 2005­2019 5 25 $10,385 228.2% Annex 7 Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at the Muribeca Landfill, Pernambuco, Brazil A7.1 This pre-feasibility study report addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at the Muribeca Landfill in the State of Pernambuco near Recife, Brazil. SCS Engineers prepared the report for the World Bank in accordance with SCS's contract scope of work. A7.2 The project generally would consist of the installation of a collection system to extract LFG from the landfill to fuel a power plant using internal combustion engine generators. The revenues for the project would come from the sale of both energy (exporting power to the grid) and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) of greenhouse gases. A7.3 The landfill opened in 1994 and is anticipated to remain open until about 2009, with a total capacity of approximately 14.4 million metric tons (tonnes) of municipal solid waste. The landfill is currently filling at a rate of approximately 1 million tonnes per year and has about 10.5 million tonnes of waste in place. A7.4 The site comprises about 60 hectares, with an adjacent area of 83 hectares reserved for future landfilling. Site operations are managed by the Empresa de Manutenção e Limpza Urbana (EMLURB, or Urban Maintenance and Sanitation Company). A7.5 Underlying the landfill is a relatively impermeable rock layer. On completion, maximum waste thickness currently is anticipated at about 45 meters, although a proposed vertical expansion, not yet approved, would increase the maximum waste depth to 70 meters. A7.6 The landfill does not have an active landfill gas collection and control system but does have a series of existing passive vents. A7.7 Preliminary gas modeling results from the Muribeca Landfill are listed below. Projected gas recovery in 2006 is estimated at approximately 22,480 m3/hr. Gas recovery is projected to decline thereafter, following landfill closure. 51 52 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Projected gas recovery in 2006 is estimated at approximately 8,289 m3/hr, increasing steadily to a maximum of 8,707 m3/hr in 2009. After site closure, gas recovery is expected to decline rapidly, reaching 4,872 m3/hr in 2012 and 1,531 m3/hr in 2019. Assuming startup of a power plant in 2007, sufficient gas is estimated to be available to support a 7.42 MW power plant through 2012. After 2012 there will be insufficient LFG available to support the full complement of internal combustion (IC) engines initially installed. By 2019 there will be enough LFG to support only two 1.06 MW engines. A schedule for declining power plant capacities based on projected LFG recovery is provided in the evaluation report. Assuming startup of an LFG collection and flaring system in 2006, development of an LFG collection and utilization project at the landfill should result in approximately 3,277,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) CERs for the period 2006 through 2012 and 4,320,000 tonnes for the period 2006 though 2019. A7.8 Project economics were analyzed under a variety of scenarios, including duration (through 2012 or 2019), initial equity investment percentage (25 percent or 100 percent), project type (flaring only or power generation), and CER pricing (US$4, US$5, or US$6/tonne of CO2eq). The results of the analysis indicate that the landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) project feasibility is favorable enough to attract developers and investors to build if CER prices are at least US$5 per tonne. A flaring only project appears more favorable under all scenarios evaluated because of the relatively low electricity sales price ($0.029/kWhr) indicated by recent experience in Brazil. Table A7.1 summarizes economic indicators at the US$5 rate. Table A7.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Muribeca Landfill, Pernambuco, Brazil. Scenario­ CER price Initial equity Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) investment value rate of (%) (xUS$1,000) return (%) 2005­2012 5 100 $1,268 11.5% Power plant 2005­2012 5 25 $959 15.8% 2005­2019 5 100 $3,415 15.3% 2005­2019 5 25 $3,113 28.0% 2005­2012 5 100 $4,191 41.9% Flare only 2005­2012 5 25 $4,090 103.5% 2005­2019 5 100 $4,979 42.4% 2005­2019 5 25 $4,880 112.0% Annex 8 Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at the Santa Tecla Landfill, Gravatai, Brazil A8.1. This pre-feasibility study report addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at the Santa Tecla Metropolitan Sanitary Landfill in Gravataí, near Porto Alegre, Brazil. SCS Engineers prepared this report for the World Bank in accordance with SCS's contract scope of work. A8.2. The project generally would consist of the installation of an LFG collection system to extract LFG to fuel a power plant using internal combustion (IC) engine generators. The revenues for the project would come from the sale of both energy (exporting power to the grid) and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) of greenhouse gases. The CERs are created by the combustion of methane, which makes up approximately 50 percent of LFG. Methane has a global warming potential about 21 times that of CO2. The feasibility study includes a sensitivity analysis of the price paid for CERs. A8.3. Although energy in Brazil is not as inexpensive as in some other Latin American and Caribbean counties, pricing for LFG-generated power has varied dramatically. Therefore the capital investment needed to generate power from LFG requires an economically stable CER revenue stream. In other words, energy sales alone may not justify the investment in such a project. A8.4. This project could be analyzed in many different ways based on various assumptions, including life of the project, financing options, CER pricing, LFG recovery potential, and power plant configuration. The estimated LFG recovery potential is sufficient to support a 1 MW power plant from 2007 to 2011 but only a 335 kilowatt (kW) plant through 2019. In years when excess gas is collected, it would be flared onsite. A8.5. The landfill opened in 1999 and is anticipated to remain open until about 2006, with a total capacity of approximately 2 million metric tons (tonnes) of municipal solid waste. A8.6. The landfill currently is filling at a rate of approximately 200,000 tonnes per year and has about 1.6 million tonnes of waste in place. 53 54 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean A8.7 The Santa Tecla Landfill is a municipal solid waste landfill owned and operated by the Prefeitura Municipal de Porto Alegre Departmento Municipal de Limpza Urbana (City of Porto Alegre Solid Waste Department). The site covers about 10 hectares for modern landfilling. A8.8 The newer landfill areas have clay or membrane lining systems. On completion, maximum waste thickness is anticipated to be about 35­40 meters. A8.9 The landfill does not have an existing active landfill gas collection and control system but does have a series of existing passive vents (drenos). A8.10 Preliminary gas modeling results from the Santa Tecla Landfill are listed below. Projected gas recovery is estimated to be approximately 1,903 m3/hr in 2006 and to reach a maximum flow of 2,045 m3/hr after closure in 2007. After site closure, gas recovery is expected to decline rapidly, reaching 586 m3/hr in 2012 and 219 m3/hr in 2019. Assuming startup of a power plant in 2007, sufficient gas is estimated to be available to support a 1-MW power plant through 2011. After 2011 there will be insufficient LFG available. Assuming startup of a LFG collection and flaring system in 2006, development of an LFG collection and utilization project at the landfill should result in approximately 473,941 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) CERs for the period 2006 through 2012 and 596,282 tonnes for the period 2006 though 2019 A8.11. Based on input from the World Bank, this analysis considered project durations of 2005­2012 and 2005­2019; CER pricing at US$4, US$5, and US$6/tonne of CO2eq; and scenarios with 100 percent equity and 25 percent equity (with the balance financed). Under all scenarios, the results are heavily dependent on capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the LFG collection system and power plant. These costs were estimated as realistically as possible. The collection system was conceptually designed as part of this project based on a site visit and available topographic drawings of the landfill. The power plant capital costs were compared to similar plants in the United States and Mexico. A8.12. The results of the analysis generally indicate that project has marginal feasibility and is unlikely to attract developers and investors unless the CER revenue is greater than US$5/tonne. Table A8.1 summarizes economic indicators at this rate. Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization at the Santa Tecla Landfill, Gravatai,Brazil 55 Table A8.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Santa Tecla Landfill, Gravatei, Brazil Scenario­ Initial equity Net present Internal project CER price investment value rate of period (US$/tonne) (%) (x US$1,000) return (%) 2005­2012 5 100 ­$605 ­3.5% Power plant 2005­2012 5 25 ­$667 --* 2005­2019 5 100 ­$695 --* 2005­2019 5 25 ­$755 --* 2005­2012 5 100 $66 11.2% Flare only 2005­2012 5 25 $40 24.8% 2005­2019 5 100 ­$23 6.1% 2005­2019 5 25 ­$49 12.7% * IRR was a large negative value that could not be calculated. Annex 9 Report of the Pump Test and Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at the Huaycoloro Landfill, Lima, Peru A9.1. This pre-feasibility study report addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at the Huaycoloro Landfill in Lima, Peru. SCS Engineers prepared this report for the World Bank in accordance with the contract scope of work. A9.2. The project generally would consist of the installation of a landfill gas collection system to extract LFG to fuel a power plant using internal combustion engine generators. The revenues for the project would come from the sale of both energy (exporting power to the grid) and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) of greenhouse gases. The CERs are created by the combustion of methane, which makes up approximately 50 percent of LFG. Methane has a global warming potential about 21 times that of CO2. The feasibility study includes a sensitivity analysis of the price paid for CERs. A9.3. The Huaycoloro Landfill also was selected for a pumping test. This investigation provided additional information regarding the available LFG volume and quality at the landfill, along with other physical information such as buried waste characteristics and leachate levels within the waste mass. The results of the test support an increase in LFG recovery projections from those presented in the interim report (prior to the pump test). A9.4. The landfill opened in 1994 and is anticipated to remain open until about 2040, with a total capacity of approximately 40 million metric tons (tonnes) of municipal solid waste. The Landfill is currently filling at a rate of approximately 2,200 tonnes per day and has about 5.5 million tonnes of waste in place. A9.5. The site comprises about 1,575 hectares, of which about 240 are planned for landfilling. Site operations are managed by PETRAMAS. A9.6. The landfill is not lined; groundwater is located approximately 120 meters below the ground surface. On completion, maximum waste thickness is anticipated to be about 20 meters. A9.7. The Landfill does not have an existing active landfill gas collection and control system but does have a series of existing passive vents. 57 58 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean A9.8 Gas recovery projections. Projected gas recovery in 2006 is estimated at approximately 3,665 m3/hr. The recovery rate is expected to increase steadily to approximately 5,300 m3/hr in 2012 and to approximate 6,800 m3/hr in 2019. A9.9 Baseline. There are several uncertainties regarding the potential impact of federal and local legislation on developing a project in accordance with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). National Law 27.314 sets minimum installation and operating conditions for landfills, including landfill gas control. However, this legislation does not set specific requirements for the collection and combustion of LFG. Municipal Ordinance 295 of Lima includes specifications for the collection of landfill gas in wells and the treatment of collected landfill gas. However, this legislation does not explicitly state that LFG must be collected and treated. Based on a review of these documents, SCS Engineers does not believe that they constitute a regulatory requirement to capture and destroy methane when considering the baseline. The Landfill has existing passive flares and additional vents that will be converted to flares as the landfill reaches final grade. The passive flares are manually ignited, do not burn continuously, and have to be relit several times a day because of unstable flame conditions and normally windy conditions. Based on the existing limited LFG capture and flaring, SCS estimates that the baseline for the Huaycoloro Landfill is 3.3% of the potential gas recovery. A9.10 Power plant size. Assuming startup of a power plant in 2007, sufficient gas is estimated to be available to support a power plant of approximately 6 MW initially. With LFG recovery rates expected to increase throughout the project evaluation period, expansion of the power plant may be possible. By 2012 sufficient gas should be available to support a power plant of approximately 8.8 MW, and by 2019 sufficient gas should be available to support a power plant of approximately 11.3 MW. For the economic evaluation, SCS considered a power plant size of 5.74 MW. While excess LFG (beyond that required for a 5.74 MW plant) is expected to be available in future, to be conservative SCS assumed that the plant would not expand. A9.11 Projection of CERs. It is estimated that development of a landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) project at the Huaycoloro Landfill would result in approximately 1,900,000 tonnes of CERs for the period through 2012 and approximately 4,500,000 tonnes of CERs for the period through 2019 by reducing landfill methane emissions. It is estimated that development of an LFGTE project at the landfill would result in an additional 270,000 tonnes of CERs for the period through 2012, and 585,000 tonnes of CERs for the period through 2019 by displacing electricity produced via other sources. A9.12 Project economics were analyzed under a variety of scenarios, including duration (through 2012 or 2019), initial equity investment percentage (25 percent or 100 percent), project type (flaring only or power generation with flaring of excess gas), and CER pricing (US$4, US$5, or US$6/ton of CO2eq. A power sales price of US$0.035/kWh was assumed. A9.13 The results of the analysis indicate that project feasibility is favorable enough to attract developers and investors to build under most project scenarios considered by SCS (including both flaring only and LFGTE project scenarios), particularly if CER revenue is Report of the Pump Test and Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at the Huaycoloro Landfill, Lima, Peru 59 US$5/tonne or more. For a shorter-term project, the power plant project scenario does not appear economically feasibility at the lower CER price of US$4/tonne. Alternatively, a smaller power plant size should be considered for this scenario. A flaring-only project appears viable under all CER pricing and project scenarios. Table A9.1 summarizes economic indicators at the US$5 rate. Table A9.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Huaycoloro Landfill, Lima, Peru Scenario­ CER price Initial equity Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) investment value rate of (%) (x US$1,000) return (%) 2005­2012 5 100 $1,410 15.0% Power plant 2005­2012 5 25 $1,221 25.4% 2005­2019 5 100 $7,439 25.2% 2005­2019 5 25 $7,255 48.8% 2005­2012 5 100 $1,837 34.5% Flare only 2005­2012 5 25 $1,788 73.5% 2005­2019 5 100 $4,465 40.0% 2005­2019 5 25 $4,418 85.8% Annex 10 Report of the Pump Test and Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at the Montevideo Landfill, Montevideo, Uruguay A10.1 This pre-feasibility study report addresses the potential implementation of a landfill gas (LFG) collection, control, and utilization project at the Montevideo Landfill located within the limits of Montevideo, Uruguay. SCS Engineers has prepared this report for the World Bank in accordance with the contract scope of work. A10.2 The project generally would consist of the installation of a landfill gas collection system to extract LFG to fuel a power plant using internal combustion engine generators. The revenues for the project would come from the sale of both energy (exporting power to the grid) and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) of greenhouse gases. The CERs are created by the combustion of methane, which makes up approximately 50 percent of LFG. Methane has a global warming potential about 21 times that of CO2. The feasibility study includes a sensitivity analysis of the price paid for CERs. A10.3 The Montevideo Landfill also was selected for a pumping test. This investigation provided additional information regarding the available LFG volume and quality at the landfill, along with other physical information such as buried waste characteristics and leachate levels within the waste mass. The results of the test were utilized to refine the gas recovery projections for the landfill. A10.4 The landfill opened in 1990 and is anticipated to have sufficient capacity to remain open until about 2011, with a total capacity of approximately 10.5 million metric tons (tonnes) of municipal solid waste. Site operations are managed by the City of Montevideo. A10.5 The landfill consists of two main areas: Cell 6/7 and Cell 8. Cell 6/7 is essentially closed and scheduled to be capped in 2005, while Cell 8 is active. A10.6 The landfill is located in a relatively urban area on the outskirts of Montevideo. An electrical substation is located approximately 500­1,000 meters from the landfill and a main gas supply pipeline is located approximately 1,000 meters away. A10.7 The landfill does not have an active landfill gas collection and control system. The majority of electricity produced in Uruguay comes from hydroelectric power. The 61 62 The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean country has no petroleum, natural gas, or coal resources and therefore must import these energy resources. A10.8 Gas recovery projections. Projected gas recovery in 2006 is estimated at approximately 4,000 m3/hr. For the period through 2012, LFG recovery is projected to average approximately 4,000 m3/hr. After 2012 LFG recovery is projected to decline, reaching about 900 m3/hr by 2019. A10.9 Power plant size. Assuming startup of a power plant in 2007, sufficient gas is estimated to be available to support a 6 MW power plant through 2012. Because of a projected decrease in available gas after 2012, power plant size is projected to decrease to about 1 MW in size by 2019. For the economic evaluation, SCS considered a power plant size of 2 MW. While excess LFG (beyond that required for a 2 MW plant) is expected to be available for much of the project period, the smaller plant size was chosen because of the low electrical sales price (US$0.027/kWh) considered for the evaluation. A10.10 Projection of CERs. The development of a landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) project at the landfill would result in approximately 1,700,000 tonnes of CERs for the period though 2012 and 2,500,000 tonnes of CERs for the period though 2019 by reducing landfill methane emissions and an additional 100,000 tonnes of CERs for the period through 2012, and 200,000 tonnes of CERs for the period through 2019 by displacing electricity produced from other sources. A10.11 Project economics were analyzed under a variety of scenarios, including duration (through 2012 or 2019), initial equity investment percentage (25 percent or 100 percent), project type (flaring only or power generation with flaring of excess gas), and CER pricing (US$4, US$5, or US$6/tonne of CO2eq). A power sales price of $0.027/kWh was assumed. A10.12 The results of the analysis indicate that project feasibility is favorable enough to attract developers and investors to build for a longer-term project (through 2019). For a shorter-term period (through 2012), the project would likely require a higher CER price for a viable electrical generation project or a smaller power plant size. A flaring only project appears viable under all CER pricing and project scenarios. Table A10.1 summarizes economic indicators at the US$5 rate. Table A10.1: Project economic evaluation at median CER price, Montevideo Landfill, Montevideo, Uruguay Scenario­ CER price Initial equity Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) investment value rate of (%) (x US$1,000) return (%) Through 2012 5 100 ­$727 3.9% Power plant Through 2012 5 25 ­$878 ­6.4% Through 2019 5 100 $966 11.5% Through 2019 5 25 $819 15.0% Through 2012 5 100 $1,969 40.6% Flare only Through 2012 5 25 $1,923 98.1% Through 2019 5 100 $2,956 43.2% Through 2019 5 25 $2,911 111.3% Report of the Pump Test and Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Energy Production at the Montevideo Landfill, Montevideo, Uruguay 63 A10.13 The City of Montevideo is studying the long-range plan for solid waste management in Montevideo. Depending on the results of this study, filling of the Montevideo Landfill could cease before 2011, affecting the quantity and availability of LFG. With this possibility in mind, SCS analyzed projected LFG recovery and CERs, as well as project economics for the median-case CER pricing scenario, under the assumption that the landfill will close in 2009 rather than 2011. Under the alternate closure scenario, development of an LFGTE project at the landfill would result in approximately 1,588,000 tonnes of CERs for the period though 2012 and 2,100,000 tonnes of CERs for the period though 2019 by reducing landfill methane emissions and an additional 50,000 tonnes of CERs for the period through 2012 and 110,000 tonnes of CERs for the period through 2019 by displacing electricity produced through other sources. Because of the smaller quantity of LFG and CERs available under the alternate closure scenario, SCS considered the economics for a smaller power plant size of 1 MW. A10.14 The results of the alternate analysis are similar to those of the analysis for landfill closure in 2011, albeit slightly better for the power plant scenario because of decreased capital and operating costs from a smaller power plant. The results indicate that project feasibility would be favorable enough to attract developers and investors to build for a longer-term project (through 2019). For a shorter-term project period (through 2012), the economics are marginal and would indicate the need for a higher CER price for a viable electrical generation project or a smaller power plant size. As above, a flaring-only project appears viable under all CER pricing and project scenarios. Table A10.2 summarizes the results of the economic evaluation for the alternate 2009 closure scenario. Table A10.2: Project economic evaluation, alternative closure in 2009, Montevideo Landfill, Montevideo, Uruguay Scenario­ CER price Initial equity Net present Internal project period (US$/tonne) investment value rate of (%) (x US$1,000) return (%) Through 2012 5 100 $113 8.9% Power plant Through 2012 5 25 ­$3 7.9% Through 2019 5 100 $1,024 13.7% Through 2019 5 25 $911 22.9% Through 2012 5 100 $1,944 40.9% Flare only Through 2012 5 25 $1,898 98.1% Through 2019 5 100 $2,468 42.4% Through 2019 5 25 $2,423 110.0% Annex 11 Participants in LFG Project Expo, Montevideo, Uruguay, July 7­8, 2005 65 66 First name Surname Country Organization Position Email Th Fernando Azcoitia Argentina Sur Servicios SA Presidente fernando@azcoitia.com.ar eLand Gabriel Blanco Argentina Universidad Nal. Del Centro Argentina Profesor gblanco@fio.unicen.edu.ar Abel Leandro Bomrad Argentina ACARA Asesor lbomrad@acara.org.ar fill Santiago Carmona Argentina INSAAP Pasante santiagocarmon@hotmail.com Gas-to-Energy Ana Corbi Argentina Sec.Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable Coordinadora BIRF acorbi@medioambiente.gov.ar Gabriel Craig Argentina Guascor Argentina SA Presidente gcraig@guascor.com.ar Pablo Alberto Delorenzi Argentina Cliba CFO pdelorenzi@cliba.com.ar Alberto Dietrich Argentina IMPSA Ingeniero Proyectos adietrich@tysa.com.ar Maria del Mar García Argentina ASJA garcia_mariadelmar@hotmail.com In itiativ Juan Carlos Gasparini Argentina Sur Servicios SA Gerente General juca@intercom.com.ar Carlos Hurst Argentina CEAMSE Presidente dtorelacionespublicas@ceamse.gov. ar efor Jorge Kawaguchi Argentina Tecna S.A. Director jk@tecna.com Ana Kessler Argentina Estudio Kessler y Asoc. Directora Ejecutiva akessler@fibertel.com.ar Latin Mario Kessler Argentina Marcopolo-Tecnomak Apoderado General mariokessler@tecnomak.com.ar America Eduardo Mendl Argentina Aguas Bonerenses SA Vicepresidente emendl@fibertel.com.ar Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Unidad de Cambio Francisco Ocampo Argentina Sustentable Climático focampo@medioambiente.gov.ar an Horacio Pirotta Argentina Cooperativa de La Regional Eduardo Raffo Argentina Gamsur SEM Gerente eraffo@gamsursem.com.ar Nancy Reartes Argentina Gamsur SEM/Univ. Nal. Rio Cuarto Directora nreartes@ing.unrc.edu.ar dtheCarib Marcelo Rosso Argentina CEAMSE secpresidencia@ceamse.gov.ar Oscar Rubio Argentina Dirección de Control Ambiental-Mendoza Director orubio@mendoza.gov.ar bean Estela Santalla Argentina Facultad Ingenieria UNCPBA Profesor-Investigador esantall@fio.unicen.edu.ar Jefe, Departamento Rubén Sarrú Argentina Municipalidad de San Nicolás BsAs Servicios Públicos serviciospublicosmsn@intercom.com.ar Gerencia Control Omar Anibal Scatassa Argentina CEAMSE Ambiental Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Lucila Serra Argentina Sustentable Asesora Legal lserra@medioambiente.gov.ar Gonzalo Tagliabue Argentina Panedile Argentina gtagliabue@panedile.com Asesor de Gerencia Rubén Urribarri Argentina Cliba General rurribarri@broggio.com.ar Rossana Arruda da Cunha Secretaria de Estado de Capitación de Elizabeth Rego Brazil Recursos Financieros DF Secretaria de Estado rossana.elizabeth@buriti.df.gov.br Secretaria de Medio Debora Blanco Brazil Prefeitura Municipal de Santos Ambiente blanco@iron.com.br Borges Helvécio Guimaraes Brazil Econergy Director Técnico guimaraes@econergy.com.br Laercio Bruno Filho Brazil ERM Novos Negocios laercio.bruno@erm.com Luiz Alcides Capoani Brazil DMLU arceu@dmlu.prefpoa.com.br Presidente/Superin- Eduardo Castagnari Brazil ABRELPE/CAVO tendente eduardoc@camargocorrea.com.br Nuno Cunha e Silva Brazil Ecosecurities Director nuno@ecosecurities.com Janaina Dallan Brazil Golder Associates Ingeniera Forestal jdallan@golder.com.br Particip Ben Domingues Dominguez Brazil Biogas Tech. Brasil Gerente Ejecutivo bendomingues@uol.com.br Marcia Drachmann Brazil PETROBRAS Consultora de Negocios marciad@petrobras.com.br an Marco A.B. Gonçalves Brazil Varenge Ambiental Project Development marco.aurelio@varenge.com.br ts Helena Guerra Brazil SEDUPE Superintendente Técnica helenabrennand@yahoo.com.br in Renato Lauri Breunig Brazil SEMA Asesoría Jurídica renato-breunig@sema.rs.gov.br LFG Jonas Henrique Lobo Brazil MITSUI Manager jlobo@rio.mitsui.com Pro Francisco Maciel Brazil Altran Consultores tcbr_sp@yahoo.com ject Eliane Mazzer Brazil Multiambiente Asistente multiambiente@uol.com.br Aldo Henrique Menegatti Brazil Cooper Compression Regional Manager menegattia@ccc-ctc.com Exp Oswaldo Oliveira Brazil Caixa Económica Federal Gerente Nacional oswaldo.serrano@caixa.gov.br o,M Gilson Peixoto Brazil Secretaria de Capitación de Recursos DF Asesor Especial gilson.peixoto@buriti.df.gov.br Asistente de la Directoria ontev Jose Penido Brazil COMLURB-Rio de Janeiro Técnica jpenido@web-resol.org Maria de los ideo Angeles Rodenas García Brazil CETESB Farmacía-Bioquímica mariarg@cetesb.sp.gov.br ,Urugu Arceu Bandeira Rodrigues Brazil DMLU arceu@dmlu.prefpoa.com.br Aurelio Rota-Rossi Brazil Multiambiente Director multiambiente@uol.com.br ay Alcibiades Santin Brazil Instituto No Stress Presidente santinconsultores@terra.com.br ,Ju David Stefan Brazil MGM International Director Comercial adavid@mgminter.com Secretaria Municipal Medio Ambiente Porto Ingeniero Jefe Equipo Beatriz Weiss Brazil Alegre Agua/Residuos biaweiss@smam.prefpoa.com.br ly7­8,200 Patricia Wilson Canada Embassy of Canada Trade Commissioner patricia.wilson@international.gc.ca 5 Pablo Asalgado Chile GIRSA SA Director Gerente pasalgado@grupocam.cl 67 68 Mario Asalgado Chile GIRSA SA Gerente marioasalgado@hotmail.com Juan Domínguez Chile Prometheus Energy Director jdominquez@prometheus-energy.com Th Rodríguez Genaro Antonio Ferrando Chile CONAMA Asesor Residuos Sólidos grodriguez@conama.cl eLand Florencio Velasco Chile Vertedero Lepento Director fill Sergio Vives Chile Coze.com Vicepresidente svives@coze.com Gas-to-Energy Maria Luisa Arbelaez Patiño Colombia EMAS SA ESP Directora Técnica emaste@epm.net.co Francisco Charry Colombia Ministerio de Ambiente jfcharry@minambiente.gov.co Diana Marcela Chávez Ramirez Colombia Aseo Urbano S.A. Cúcuta dimarcha@hotmail.com Angel Uriel García Torres Colombia Aseo Urbano S.A. Gerente General agt-aurbano@salasaesp.com Coordinador de In Néstor Augusto Gaviria Colombia UESP Disposición Final ngaviria@uesp.gov.co itiativ Andrés Moreno Colombia Interaseo SA ESP Gerente de Operaciones amoreno@interaseo.com.co Jorge Eduardo Murilo Mejía Colombia Aseo Pereira Gerente aseopereira@epm.net.co efor Maria Elena Roa Novoa Colombia Corpochivor Alcaldesa de Guateque None Latin Asesor MDL Energía, Camilo Rojas Colombia Ministerio de Ambiente Industria, Transporte camilorojas@gmail.com America Jairo Alfonso Salcedo Colombia Relleno Sanitario Bucaramanga jairosalcedo@yahoo.com.mx Arcadio Arosemena Ecuador Consorcio ILM-Las Iguanas Director ineca@interactive.net.ec Andrés Intriago Ecuador Municipalidad de Guayaquil Jefe Relleno Sanitario andresintriago@yahoo.com an Coordinador Temas David Neira Ecuador Oficina Nacional CDM CORDELIM Energía dneira@cordelim.net dtheCarib federico.vonbuchwald@consorcio- Federico Von Buchwald Ecuador Consorcio ILM-Las Iguanas Director-Gerente General ilm.com Richard Zeller Ecuador ETECO/Alquimiatec CEO rz@eteco-ec.com bean Johann Schmal Germany Fichtner Dirección de Proyectos johann.schmal@fcit.fichtner.de Carlo Vigna-Taglianti Italy ASJA Ambiente Italia SPA N/A c.vigna@asja.biz Director of Enforcement Ann Marie Rodríques Jamaica National SW Management Authority and Compliance arodriques@nswa.gov.jm Jesús Alva Aguilar Mexico Proyectos Estratégicos Director General jesus.alva@proyectosestrategicos.org.mx Luis Manuel Alvarez Mexico Mexicana de Medioambiente CIMA Gerente General luis.alvarez@cima.com.mx Aparicio Jefe Departamento Aseo gabriel.aparicio@municipiodequeretaro.g Gabriel Delgado Mexico Municipio de Querétaro Público ob.mx E. Gil Aranda Mexico Técnicas Avanzadas Medioambientales Gerente egar@teavme.com Edgar Jiménez Soria Mexico RESA SA de CV Director de Operaciones edgargpe@prodigy.net.ms Ricardo Martínez García Mexico Aseo Urbano Chihuahua Director ricardo.martinez@mpiochih.gob.mx Director General Investigación, Desarrollo Técnico y Medio Juan Mata Sandoval Mexico Secretaría de Energía Ambiente jmata@energia.gob.mx Secretario de Planeación Juan Carlos Morales Páez Mexico Ayuntamiento de Puebla e Inversión jcmoralespaez@msn.com José Emilio Romero Quintero Mexico Ayuntamiento de Puebla Director Operativo semiroquin@yahoo.com.mx Director Inversiones José Ernesto Yitani Ríos Mexico Ayuntamiento de Puebla Públicas pp_yitani@hotmail.com Director General de Particip Juan Blest Peru Gobierno Municipal de Lima Finanzas cserrano@munlima.gob.pe Lorenzo Eguren Peru FONAM Especialista MDL leguren@fonamperu.org Julia Justo Peru FONAM Directora jjusto@fonamperu.org an ts Jorge Segundo Zegarra Reategui Peru PETRAMAS Gerente General jzegarra@petramas.com in Maria del Agencia Española de Cooperación LFG Carmen Arredondo Spain Internacional AECI Asistencia Técnica carmen.arredondo@telefonica.net Analista Mercado Pro Gustavo Bormholter Spain Oficina Comercial de España Adjunto gbormholter@mcx.es ject Dominguez Agencia Española de Cooperación Elena Salinas Spain Internacional AECI Asistencia Técnica elenadss@yahoo.es Exp Director de Proyectos Juan Antonio Fornieless Spain Hera Amasa Internacionales j.fornieles@heraholding.com o,M María Peña Spain Embajada de España Consejera Económica mpena@mcx.es ontev Analista Mercado Rocío Sancho Romero Spain Embajada de España-Oficina Comercial Adjunto rsancho@mcx.es ideo David Antonioli United Kingdom EcoMethane/Ecosecurities Director david@ecomethane.com ,Urugu Neil Cohn United States NATSOURCE Senior Director ncohn@natsource.com José Luis Davila United States SCS Engineers Project Engineer jdavila@scsengineers.com ay Brian Guzzone United States EPA Team Leader guzzone.brian@epa.gov ,Ju Martin Panelo United States EMCON Senior Consultant panelo.m@att.net Eric Peterson United States SCS Engineers Vice President epeterson@scseng.com Pedro Aramendia Uruguay Carbosur Project Manager pedro.aramendia@pire.com.uy ly7­8,200 Gabriel Arancibia Uruguay LKSur S.A. Gerente General garancibia@lksur.com.uy 5 69 70 Diego Barbosa Uruguay Televisión Nacional Canal 5 Periodista dbar48uy@yahoo.com Liliana Borzaconi Uruguay Facultad Ingenieria UDE Profesor Titular lilianab@fing.edu.uy Th Alvaro Brandino Uruguay ADME Gerente DNL abrandino@adme.com.uy Subgerente Gestión eLand Claudia Cabal Uruguay UTE Ambiental ccabal@ute.com.uy fill Jorge Diena Uruguay Aborgama-Ducelit SA Director jordien@adinet.com.uy Gas-to-Energy Elbio Doning Uruguay Cliba Gerente Uruguay edoning@adinet.com.uy Alejandro Ferrari Uruguay Diprode Asesor aferrari@diprode.opp.gub Director Profesional Esteban Garino Uruguay Intendencia Municipal de Montevideo Desarrollo Ambiental egarino@piso3.imm.gub.uy Rogelio Garmendia Uruguay Aborgama Director garmendi@adinet.com.uy In Gonzalez Jefe Departamento itiativ Alice Elizabeth Fernandez Uruguay Facultad de Ingeniería IMFIA Ingeniería Ambiente elizabethgonzalez@netgate.com.uy Miguel Horta Uruguay Consultor Ingeniero mmhorta@adinet.com.uy efor Iván López Uruguay Facultad de Ingeniería UDELAR Profesor Adjunto ivanl@fing.edu.uy Latin Mario Javier Mayero Duglio Uruguay Intendencia Municipal de Flores patriothsss@hotmail.com Andrés America Guillermo Moll Uruguay INQUI SRL Gerente administrcion@inqui.com.uy Pablo Nuñez Uruguay Diprode Ingeniero pnunez@diprode.opp.gub.uy Roberto Panelo Uruguay Nextind Corp SA Presidente rpanelo@movinet.com.uy an Directora Higiene y Beatriz Piriz Uruguay Intendencia Municipal de Lavalleja Medio Ambiente beapir@gmail.com Pittamigllio dtheCarib Marcelo Carlos Verissimo Uruguay Aborgama Asesor marcelo@pittamiglio.com.uy Ernesto Rehermann Uruguay LKSur S.A. Gerente erehermann@lksur.com.uy bean Mariana Robano Uruguay LKSur S.A. Ingeniera mrobano@lksur.com.uy Rodriguez Valentín Bausero Uruguay Canal 12 Periodista valentin@teledoce.com Jefe Departamento Proyectos en Medio Carlos Saizar Uruguay LATU Ambiente csaizar@latu.org.uy Coord. Programa Cambio Luis Santos Uruguay Ministerio Medio Ambiente Climático lsantos@cambioclimatico.gub.uy Nelson Segovia Uruguay Aborgama Director nelson@aborgama.com Milenka Sojachenski Uruguay LKSur S.A. Ingeniera msojachenski@lksur.com.uy Subgerente Planificación Daniel Tasende Uruguay UTE de Inversiones dtasende@ute.com.uy Ruben Tribuzio Uruguay El Pais Administrative odanubio@hotmail.com Juan Guillermo Von Rotz Inguld Uruguay Cap Nevis SA Director wvonrotz@adinet.com.uy Enrique Voulminot Uruguay Aborgama-Ducelit SA Director evoulminot@yahoo.com Esther Yañez Uruguay URSEA Directora esther.yanez@ursea.gub.uy Consultor Proyecto Las Pablo Zamonsky Uruguay Unidad de Cambio Climático/DINAMA Rosas pzamonsky@cambioclimatico.gub.uy Roberto Aiello World Bank World Bank Consultant raiello@worldbank.org Carl Bartone World Bank World Bank Consultant cbartone@worldbank.org Sandra Cointreau World Bank World Bank scointreau@worldbank.org Fernando Cubillos World Bank World Bank Gerente de Proyectos fcubillos@worldbank.org Particip Gerente Fondo Español Eduardo Dopazo World Bank World Bank de Carbono edopazo@worldbank.org an Francisco Grajales World Bank World Bank JPA fgrajalescraviot@worldbank.org ts Daniel Hoornweg World Bank World Bank dhoornweg@worldbank.org in LFG Werner Kornexl World Bank World Bank wkornexl@worldbank.org Sr. Environmental Pro Isabelle Paris World Bank World Bank Specialist iparis@ifc.org ject Horacio Terraza World Bank World Bank Gerente de Proyectos hterraza@worldbank.org Exp o,M ontev ideo ,Urugu ay ,Ju ly7­8,200 5 71 72 Th eLand fill Gas-to-Energy In itiativ efor Latin America an dtheCarib bean Joint UNDP/World Bank ENERGY SECTOR MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME (ESMAP) LIST OF REPORTS ON COMPLETED ACTIVITIES Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA (AFR) Africa Regional Anglophone Africa Household Energy Workshop (English) 07/88 085/88 Regional Power Seminar on Reducing Electric Power System Losses in Africa (English) 08/88 087/88 Institutional Evaluation of EGL (English) 02/89 098/89 Biomass Mapping Regional Workshops (English) 05/89 -- Francophone Household Energy Workshop (French) 08/89 -- Interafrican Electrical Engineering College: Proposals for Short- and Long-Term Development (English) 03/90 112/90 Biomass Assessment and Mapping (English) 03/90 -- Symposium on Power Sector Reform and Efficiency Improvement in Sub-Saharan Africa (English) 06/96 182/96 Commercialization of Marginal Gas Fields (English) 12/97 201/97 Commercilizing Natural Gas: Lessons from the Seminar in Nairobi for Sub-Saharan Africa and Beyond 01/00 225/00 Africa Gas Initiative ­ Main Report: Volume I 02/01 240/01 First World Bank Workshop on the Petroleum Products Sector in Sub-Saharan Africa 09/01 245/01 Ministerial Workshop on Women in Energy 10/01 250/01 Energy and Poverty Reduction: Proceedings from a Multi-Sector 03/03 266/03 And Multi-Stakeholder Workshop Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, October 23-25, 2002. Opportunities for Power Trade in the Nile Basin: Final Scoping Study 01/04 277/04 Énergies modernes et réduction de la pauvreté: Un atelier multi-sectoriel. Actes de l'atelier régional. Dakar, Sénégal, du 4 au 6 février 2003 (French Only) 01/04 278/04 Énergies modernes et réduction de la pauvreté: Un atelier multi-sectoriel. Actes de l'atelier régional. Douala, Cameroun 09/04 286/04 du 16-18 juillet 2003. (French Only) Energy and Poverty Reduction: Proceedings from the Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) Workshops held in Africa 01/05 298/05 Power Sector Reform in Africa: Assessing the Impact on Poor People 08/05 306/05 The Vulnerability of African Countries to Oil Price Shocks: Major 08/05 308/05 Factors and Policy Options. The Case of Oil Importing Countries Angola Energy Assessment (English and Portuguese) 05/89 4708-ANG Power Rehabilitation and Technical Assistance (English) 10/91 142/91 Africa Gas Initiative ­ Angola: Volume II 02/01 240/01 Benin Energy Assessment (English and French) 06/85 5222-BEN Botswana Energy Assessment (English) 09/84 4998-BT Pump Electrification Prefeasibility Study (English) 01/86 047/86 Review of Electricity Service Connection Policy (English) 07/87 071/87 Tuli Block Farms Electrification Study (English) 07/87 072/87 Household Energy Issues Study (English) 02/88 -- Urban Household Energy Strategy Study (English) 05/91 132/91 Burkina Faso Energy Assessment (English and French) 01/86 5730-BUR Technical Assistance Program (English) 03/86 052/86 Urban Household Energy Strategy Study (English and French) 06/91 134/91 Burundi Energy Assessment (English) 06/82 3778-BU Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number Burundi Petroleum Supply Management (English) 01/84 012/84 Status Report (English and French) 02/84 011/84 Presentation of Energy Projects for the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1983-1987) (English and French) 05/85 036/85 Improved Charcoal Cookstove Strategy (English and French) 09/85 042/85 Peat Utilization Project (English) 11/85 046/85 Energy Assessment (English and French) 01/92 9215-BU Cameroon Africa Gas Initiative ­ Cameroon: Volume III 02/01 240/01 Cape Verde Energy Assessment (English and Portuguese) 08/84 5073-CV Household Energy Strategy Study (English) 02/90 110/90 Central African Republic Energy Assessment (French) 08/92 9898-CAR Chad Elements of Strategy for Urban Household Energy The Case of N'djamena (French) 12/93 160/94 Comoros Energy Assessment (English and French) 01/88 7104-COM In Search of Better Ways to Develop Solar Markets: The Case of Comoros 05/00 230/00 Congo Energy Assessment (English) 01/88 6420-COB Power Development Plan (English and French) 03/90 106/90 Africa Gas Initiative ­ Congo: Volume IV 02/01 240/01 Côte d'Ivoire Energy Assessment (English and French) 04/85 5250-IVC Improved Biomass Utilization (English and French) 04/87 069/87 Power System Efficiency Study (English) 12/87 -- Power Sector Efficiency Study (French) 02/92 140/91 Project of Energy Efficiency in Buildings (English) 09/95 175/95 Africa Gas Initiative ­ Côte d'Ivoire: Volume V 02/01 240/01 Ethiopia Energy Assessment (English) 07/84 4741-ET Power System Efficiency Study (English) 10/85 045/85 Agricultural Residue Briquetting Pilot Project (English) 12/86 062/86 Bagasse Study (English) 12/86 063/86 Cooking Efficiency Project (English) 12/87 -- Energy Assessment (English) 02/96 179/96 Gabon Energy Assessment (English) 07/88 6915-GA Africa Gas Initiative ­ Gabon: Volume VI 02/01 240/01 The Gambia Energy Assessment (English) 11/83 4743-GM Solar Water Heating Retrofit Project (English) 02/85 030/85 Solar Photovoltaic Applications (English) 03/85 032/85 Petroleum Supply Management Assistance (English) 04/85 035/85 Ghana Energy Assessment (English) 11/86 6234-GH Energy Rationalization in the Industrial Sector (English) 06/88 084/88 Sawmill Residues Utilization Study (English) 11/88 074/87 Industrial Energy Efficiency (English) 11/92 148/92 Corporatization of Distribution Concessions through Capitalization 12/03 272/03 Guinea Energy Assessment (English) 11/86 6137-GUI Household Energy Strategy (English and French) 01/94 163/94 Guinea-Bissau Energy Assessment (English and Portuguese) 08/84 5083-GUB Recommended Technical Assistance Projects (English & Portuguese) 04/85 033/85 Management Options for the Electric Power and Water Supply Subsectors (English) 02/90 100/90 Power and Water Institutional Restructuring (French) 04/91 118/91 Kenya Energy Assessment (English) 05/82 3800-KE Power System Efficiency Study (English) 03/84 014/84 Status Report (English) 05/84 016/84 2 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number Kenya Coal Conversion Action Plan (English) 02/87 -- Solar Water Heating Study (English) 02/87 066/87 Peri-Urban Woodfuel Development (English) 10/87 076/87 Power Master Plan (English) 11/87 -- Power Loss Reduction Study (English) 09/96 186/96 Implementation Manual: Financing Mechanisms for Solar Electric Equipment 07/00 231/00 Lesotho Energy Assessment (English) 01/84 4676-LSO Liberia Energy Assessment (English) 12/84 5279-LBR Recommended Technical Assistance Projects (English) 06/85 038/85 Power System Efficiency Study (English) 12/87 081/87 Madagascar Energy Assessment (English) 01/87 5700-MAG Power System Efficiency Study (English and French) 12/87 075/87 Environmental Impact of Woodfuels (French) 10/95 176/95 Malawi Energy Assessment (English) 08/82 3903-MAL Technical Assistance to Improve the Efficiency of Fuelwood Use in the Tobacco Industry (English) 11/83 009/83 Status Report (English) 01/84 013/84 Mali Energy Assessment (English and French) 11/91 8423-MLI Household Energy Strategy (English and French) 03/92 147/92 Islamic Republic of Mauritania Energy Assessment (English and French) 04/85 5224-MAU Household Energy Strategy Study (English and French) 07/90 123/90 Mauritius Energy Assessment (English) 12/81 3510-MAS Status Report (English) 10/83 008/83 Power System Efficiency Audit (English) 05/87 070/87 Bagasse Power Potential (English) 10/87 077/87 Energy Sector Review (English) 12/94 3643-MAS Mozambique Energy Assessment (English) 01/87 6128-MOZ Household Electricity Utilization Study (English) 03/90 113/90 Electricity Tariffs Study (English) 06/96 181/96 Sample Survey of Low Voltage Electricity Customers 06/97 195/97 Namibia Energy Assessment (English) 03/93 11320-NAM Niger Energy Assessment (French) 05/84 4642-NIR Status Report (English and French) 02/86 051/86 Improved Stoves Project (English and French) 12/87 080/87 Household Energy Conservation and Substitution (English and French) 01/88 082/88 Nigeria Energy Assessment (English) 08/83 4440-UNI Energy Assessment (English) 07/93 11672-UNI Strategic Gas Plan 02/04 279/04 Rwanda Energy Assessment (English) 06/82 3779-RW Status Report (English and French) 05/84 017/84 Improved Charcoal Cookstove Strategy (English and French) 08/86 059/86 Improved Charcoal Production Techniques (English and French) 02/87 065/87 Energy Assessment (English and French) 07/91 8017-RW Commercialization of Improved Charcoal Stoves and Carbonization Techniques Mid-Term Progress Report (English and French) 12/91 141/91 SADC SADC Regional Power Interconnection Study, Vols. I-IV (English) 12/93 - SADCC SADCC Regional Sector: Regional Capacity-Building Program for Energy Surveys and Policy Analysis (English) 11/91 - Sao Tome and Principe Energy Assessment (English) 10/85 5803-STP Senegal Energy Assessment (English) 07/83 4182-SE 3 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number Senegal Status Report (English and French) 10/84 025/84 Industrial Energy Conservation Study (English) 05/85 037/85 Preparatory Assistance for Donor Meeting (English and French) 04/86 056/86 Urban Household Energy Strategy (English) 02/89 096/89 Industrial Energy Conservation Program (English) 05/94 165/94 Seychelles Energy Assessment (English) 01/84 4693-SEY Electric Power System Efficiency Study (English) 08/84 021/84 Sierra Leone Energy Assessment (English) 10/87 6597-SL Somalia Energy Assessment (English) 12/85 5796-SO Republic of South Africa Options for the Structure and Regulation of Natural Gas Industry (English) 05/95 172/95 Sudan Management Assistance to the Ministry of Energy and Mining 05/83 003/83 Energy Assessment (English) 07/83 4511-SU Power System Efficiency Study (English) 06/84 018/84 Status Report (English) 11/84 026/84 Wood Energy/Forestry Feasibility (English) 07/87 073/87 Swaziland Energy Assessment (English) 02/87 6262-SW Household Energy Strategy Study 10/97 198/97 Tanzania Energy Assessment (English) 11/84 4969-TA Peri-Urban Woodfuels Feasibility Study (English) 08/88 086/88 Tobacco Curing Efficiency Study (English) 05/89 102/89 Remote Sensing and Mapping of Woodlands (English) 06/90 -- Industrial Energy Efficiency Technical Assistance (English) 08/90 122/90 Power Loss Reduction Volume 1: Transmission and Distribution System Technical Loss Reduction and Network Development (English) 06/98 204A/98 Power Loss Reduction Volume 2: Reduction of Non-Technical Losses (English) 06/98 204B/98 Togo Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5221-TO Wood Recovery in the Nangbeto Lake (English and French) 04/86 055/86 Power Efficiency Improvement (English and French) 12/87 078/87 Uganda Energy Assessment (English) 07/83 4453-UG Status Report (English) 08/84 020/84 Institutional Review of the Energy Sector (English) 01/85 029/85 Energy Efficiency in Tobacco Curing Industry (English) 02/86 049/86 Fuelwood/Forestry Feasibility Study (English) 03/86 053/86 Power System Efficiency Study (English) 12/88 092/88 Energy Efficiency Improvement in the Brick and Tile Industry (English) 02/89 097/89 Tobacco Curing Pilot Project (English) 03/89 UNDP Terminal Report Energy Assessment (English) 12/96 193/96 Rural Electrification Strategy Study 09/99 221/99 Zaire Energy Assessment (English) 05/86 5837-ZR Zambia Energy Assessment (English) 01/83 4110-ZA Status Report (English) 08/85 039/85 Energy Sector Institutional Review (English) 11/86 060/86 Power Subsector Efficiency Study (English) 02/89 093/88 Energy Strategy Study (English) 02/89 094/88 Urban Household Energy Strategy Study (English) 08/90 121/90 Zimbabwe Energy Assessment (English) 06/82 3765-ZIM Power System Efficiency Study (English) 06/83 005/83 Status Report (English) 08/84 019/84 4 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number Power Sector Management Assistance Project (English) 04/85 034/85 Power Sector Management Institution Building (English) 09/89 -- Zimbabwe Petroleum Management Assistance (English) 12/89 109/89 Charcoal Utilization Pre-feasibility Study (English) 06/90 119/90 Integrated Energy Strategy Evaluation (English) 01/92 8768-ZIM Energy Efficiency Technical Assistance Project: Strategic Framework for a National Energy Efficiency Improvement Program (English) 04/94 -- Capacity Building for the National Energy Efficiency Improvement Programme (NEEIP) (English) 12/94 -- Rural Electrification Study 03/00 228/00 EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC (EAP) Asia Regional Pacific Household and Rural Energy Seminar (English) 11/90 -- China County-Level Rural Energy Assessments (English) 05/89 101/89 Fuelwood Forestry Preinvestment Study (English) 12/89 105/89 Strategic Options for Power Sector Reform in China (English) 07/93 156/93 Energy Efficiency and Pollution Control in Township and Village Enterprises (TVE) Industry (English) 11/94 168/94 Energy for Rural Development in China: An Assessment Based on a Joint Chinese/ESMAP Study in Six Counties (English) 06/96 183/96 Improving the Technical Efficiency of Decentralized Power Companies 09/99 222/99 Air Pollution and Acid Rain Control: The Case of Shijiazhuang City 10/03 267/03 and the Changsha Triangle Area Toward a Sustainable Coal Sector In China 07/04 287/04 Demand Side Management in a Restructured Industry: How Regulation and Policy Can Deliver Demand-Side Management Benefits to a Growing Economy and a Changing Power System 12/05 314/05 Fiji Energy Assessment (English) 06/83 4462-FIJ Indonesia Energy Assessment (English) 11/81 3543-IND Status Report (English) 09/84 022/84 Power Generation Efficiency Study (English) 02/86 050/86 Energy Efficiency in the Brick, Tile and Lime Industries (English) 04/87 067/87 Diesel Generating Plant Efficiency Study (English) 12/88 095/88 Urban Household Energy Strategy Study (English) 02/90 107/90 Biomass Gasifier Preinvestment Study Vols. I & II (English) 12/90 124/90 Prospects for Biomass Power Generation with Emphasis on Palm Oil, Sugar, Rubberwood and Plywood Residues (English) 11/94 167/94 Lao PDR Urban Electricity Demand Assessment Study (English) 03/93 154/93 Institutional Development for Off-Grid Electrification 06/99 215/99 Malaysia Sabah Power System Efficiency Study (English) 03/87 068/87 Gas Utilization Study (English) 09/91 9645-MA Mongolia Energy Efficiency in the Electricity and District Heating Sectors 10/01 247/01 Improved Space Heating Stoves for Ulaanbaatar 03/02 254/02 Impact of Improved Stoves on Indoor Air Quality in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 11/05 313/05 Myanmar Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5416-BA 5 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number Papua New Guinea Energy Assessment (English) 06/82 3882-PNG Status Report (English) 07/83 006/83 Institutional Review in the Energy Sector (English) 10/84 023/84 Power Tariff Study (English) 10/84 024/84 Philippines Commercial Potential for Power Production from Agricultural Residues (English) 12/93 157/93 Energy Conservation Study (English) 08/94 -- Strengthening the Non-Conventional and Rural Energy Development Program in the Philippines: A Policy Framework and Action Plan 08/01 243/01 Rural Electrification and Development in the Philippines: Measuring the Social and Economic Benefits 05/02 255/02 Solomon Islands Energy Assessment (English) 06/83 4404-SOL Energy Assessment (English) 01/92 979-SOL South Pacific Petroleum Transport in the South Pacific (English) 05/86 -- Thailand Energy Assessment (English) 09/85 5793-TH Rural Energy Issues and Options (English) 09/85 044/85 Accelerated Dissemination of Improved Stoves and Charcoal Kilns (English) 09/87 079/87 Northeast Region Village Forestry and Woodfuels Preinvestment Study (English) 02/88 083/88 Impact of Lower Oil Prices (English) 08/88 -- Coal Development and Utilization Study (English) 10/89 -- Why Liberalization May Stall in a Mature Power Market: A Review 12/03 270/03 of the Technical and Political Economy Factors that Constrained the Electricity Sector Reform in Thailand 1998-2002 Reducing Emissions from Motorcycles in Bangkok 10/03 275/03 Tonga Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5498-TON Vanuatu Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5577-VA Vietnam Rural and Household Energy-Issues and Options (English) 01/94 161/94 Power Sector Reform and Restructuring in Vietnam: Final Report to the Steering Committee (English and Vietnamese) 09/95 174/95 Household Energy Technical Assistance: Improved Coal Briquetting and Commercialized Dissemination of Higher Efficiency Biomass and Coal Stoves (English) 01/96 178/96 Petroleum Fiscal Issues and Policies for Fluctuating Oil Prices In Vietnam 02/01 236/01 An Overnight Success: Vietnam's Switch to Unleaded Gasoline 08/02 257/02 The Electricity Law for Vietnam--Status and Policy Issues-- The Socialist Republic of Vietnam 08/02 259/02 Petroleum Sector Technical Assistance for the Revision of the 12/03 269/03 Existing Legal and Regulatory Framework Western Samoa Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5497-WSO SOUTH ASIA (SAS) Bangladesh Energy Assessment (English) 10/82 3873-BD Priority Investment Program (English) 05/83 002/83 Status Report (English) 04/84 015/84 Power System Efficiency Study (English) 02/85 031/85 Small Scale Uses of Gas Pre-feasibility Study (English) 12/88 -- Reducing Emissions from Baby-Taxis in Dhaka 01/02 253/02 6 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number India Opportunities for Commercialization of Non-conventional Energy Systems (English) 11/88 091/88 Maharashtra Bagasse Energy Efficiency Project (English) 07/90 120/90 Mini-Hydro Development on Irrigation Dams and Canal Drops Vols. I, II and III (English) 07/91 139/91 WindFarm Pre-Investment Study (English) 12/92 150/92 Power Sector Reform Seminar (English) 04/94 166/94 Environmental Issues in the Power Sector (English) 06/98 205/98 Environmental Issues in the Power Sector: Manual for Environmental Decision Making (English) 06/99 213/99 Household Energy Strategies for Urban India: The Case of Hyderabad 06/99 214/99 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation In the Power Sector: Case Studies From India 02/01 237/01 Energy Strategies for Rural India: Evidence from Six States 08/02 258/02 Household Energy, Indoor Air Pollution, and Health 11/02 261/02 Access of the Poor to Clean Household Fuels 07/03 263/03 The Impact of Energy on Women's Lives in Rural India 01/04 276/04 Environmental Issues in the Power Sector: Long-Term Impacts And Policy Options for Rajasthan 10/04 292/04 Environmental Issues in the Power Sector: Long-Term Impacts 10/04 293/04 And Policy Options for Karnataka Nepal Energy Assessment (English) 08/83 4474-NEP Status Report (English) 01/85 028/84 Energy Efficiency & Fuel Substitution in Industries (English) 06/93 158/93 Pakistan Household Energy Assessment (English) 05/88 -- Assessment of Photovoltaic Programs, Applications, and Markets (English) 10/89 103/89 Pakistan National Household Energy Survey and Strategy Formulation Study: Project Terminal Report (English) 03/94 -- Managing the Energy Transition (English) 10/94 -- Lighting Efficiency Improvement Program Phase 1: Commercial Buildings Five Year Plan (English) 10/94 -- Clean Fuels 10/01 246/01 Regional Toward Cleaner Urban Air in South Asia: Tackling Transport 03/04 281/04 Pollution, Understanding Sources. Sri Lanka Energy Assessment (English) 05/82 3792-CE Power System Loss Reduction Study (English) 07/83 007/83 Status Report (English) 01/84 010/84 Industrial Energy Conservation Study (English) 03/86 054/86 Sustainable Transport Options for Sri Lanka: Vol. I 02/03 262/03 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options in the Sri Lanka Power Sector: Vol. II 02/03 262/03 Sri Lanka Electric Power Technology Assessment (SLEPTA): Vol. III 02/03 262/03 Energy and Poverty Reduction: Proceedings from South Asia 11/03 268/03 Practitioners Workshop How Can Modern Energy Services Contribute to Poverty Reduction? Colombo, Sri Lanka, June 2-4, 2003 7 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA (ECA) Armenia Development of Heat Strategies for Urban Areas of Low-income 04/04 282/04 Transition Economies. Urban Heating Strategy for the Republic Of Armenia. Including a Summary of a Heating Strategy for the Kyrgyz Republic Bulgaria Natural Gas Policies and Issues (English) 10/96 188/96 Energy Environment Review 10/02 260/02 Central Asia and The Caucasus Cleaner Transport Fuels in Central Asia and the Caucasus 08/01 242/01 Central and Eastern Europe Power Sector Reform in Selected Countries 07/97 196/97 Central and Eastern Europe Increasing the Efficiency of Heating Systems in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union (English and Russian) 08/00 234/00 The Future of Natural Gas in Eastern Europe (English) 08/92 149/92 Kazakhstan Natural Gas Investment Study, Volumes 1, 2 & 3 12/97 199/97 Kazakhstan & Kyrgyzstan Opportunities for Renewable Energy Development 11/97 16855-KAZ Poland Energy Sector Restructuring Program Vols. I-V (English) 01/93 153/93 Natural Gas Upstream Policy (English and Polish) 08/98 206/98 Energy Sector Restructuring Program: Establishing the Energy Regulation Authority 10/98 208/98 Portugal Energy Assessment (English) 04/84 4824-PO Romania Natural Gas Development Strategy (English) 12/96 192/96 Private Sector Participation in Market-Based Energy-Efficiency 11/03 274/03 Financing Schemes: Lessons Learned from Romania and International Experiences. Slovenia Workshop on Private Participation in the Power Sector (English) 02/99 211/99 Turkey Energy Assessment (English) 03/83 3877-TU Energy and the Environment: Issues and Options Paper 04/00 229/00 Energy and Environment Review: Synthesis Report 12/03 273/03 MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA (MNA) Arab Republic of Egypt Energy Assessment (English) 10/96 189/96 Energy Assessment (English and French) 03/84 4157-MOR Status Report (English and French) 01/86 048/86 Morocco Energy Sector Institutional Development Study (English and French) 07/95 173/95 Natural Gas Pricing Study (French) 10/98 209/98 Gas Development Plan Phase II (French) 02/99 210/99 Syria Energy Assessment (English) 05/86 5822-SYR Electric Power Efficiency Study (English) 09/88 089/88 Energy Efficiency Improvement in the Cement Sector (English) 04/89 099/89 Energy Efficiency Improvement in the Fertilizer Sector (English) 06/90 115/90 Tunisia Fuel Substitution (English and French) 03/90 -- Power Efficiency Study (English and French) 02/92 136/91 Energy Management Strategy in the Residential and Tertiary Sectors (English) 04/92 146/92 Renewable Energy Strategy Study, Volume I (French) 11/96 190A/96 Renewable Energy Strategy Study, Volume II (French) 11/96 190B/96 8 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number Tunisia Rural Electrification in Tunisia: National Commitment, Efficient Implementation and Sound Finances 08/05 307/05 Yemen Energy Assessment (English) 12/84 4892-YAR Energy Investment Priorities (English) 02/87 6376-YAR Household Energy Strategy Study Phase I (English) 03/91 126/91 Household Energy Supply and Use in Yemen. Volume I: Main Report and Volume II: Annexes 12/05 315/05 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN REGION (LCR) LCR Regional Regional Seminar on Electric Power System Loss Reduction in the Caribbean (English) 07/89 -- Elimination of Lead in Gasoline in Latin America and the Caribbean (English and Spanish) 04/97 194/97 Elimination of Lead in Gasoline in Latin America and the Caribbean - Status Report (English and Spanish) 12/97 200/97 Harmonization of Fuels Specifications in Latin America and the Caribbean (English and Spanish) 06/98 203/98 Energy and Poverty Reduction: Proceedings from the Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) Workshop held in Bolivia 06/05 202/05 Power Sector Reform and the Rural Poor in Central America 12/04 297/04 Estudio Comparativo Sobre la Distribución de la Renta Petrolera en Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador y Perú 08/05 304/05 OECS Energy Sector Reform and Renewable Energy/Energy 02/06 317/06 Efficiency Options The Landfill Gas-to-Energy Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean 02/06 318/06 Bolivia Energy Assessment (English) 04/83 4213-BO National Energy Plan (English) 12/87 -- La Paz Private Power Technical Assistance (English) 11/90 111/90 Pre-feasibility Evaluation Rural Electrification and Demand Assessment (English and Spanish) 04/91 129/91 National Energy Plan (Spanish) 08/91 131/91 Private Power Generation and Transmission (English) 01/92 137/91 Natural Gas Distribution: Economics and Regulation (English) 03/92 125/92 Natural Gas Sector Policies and Issues (English and Spanish) 12/93 164/93 Household Rural Energy Strategy (English and Spanish) 01/94 162/94 Preparation of Capitalization of the Hydrocarbon Sector 12/96 191/96 Introducing Competition into the Electricity Supply Industry in Developing Countries: Lessons from Bolivia 08/00 233/00 Final Report on Operational Activities Rural Energy and Energy Efficiency 08/00 235/00 Oil Industry Training for Indigenous People: The Bolivian Experience (English and Spanish) 09/01 244/01 Capacitación de Pueblos Indígenas en la Actividad Petrolera. Fase II 07/04 290/04 Estudio Sobre Aplicaciones en Pequeña Escala de Gas Natural 07/04 291/04 Brazil Energy Efficiency & Conservation: Strategic Partnership for Energy Efficiency in Brazil (English) 01/95 170/95 Hydro and Thermal Power Sector Study 09/97 197/97 Rural Electrification with Renewable Energy Systems in the Northeast: A Preinvestment Study 07/00 232/00 Reducing Energy Costs in Municipal Water Supply Operations 07/03 265/03 "Learning-while-doing" Energy M&T on the Brazilian Frontlines 9 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number Chile Energy Sector Review (English) 08/88 7129-CH Colombia Energy Strategy Paper (English) 12/86 -- Power Sector Restructuring (English) 11/94 169/94 Colombia Energy Efficiency Report for the Commercial and Public Sector (English) 06/96 184/96 Costa Rica Energy Assessment (English and Spanish) 01/84 4655-CR Recommended Technical Assistance Projects (English) 11/84 027/84 Forest Residues Utilization Study (English and Spanish) 02/90 108/90 Dominican Republic Energy Assessment (English) 05/91 8234-DO Ecuador Energy Assessment (Spanish) 12/85 5865-EC Energy Strategy Phase I (Spanish) 07/88 -- Energy Strategy (English) 04/91 -- Private Mini-hydropower Development Study (English) 11/92 -- Energy Pricing Subsidies and Interfuel Substitution (English) 08/94 11798-EC Energy Pricing, Poverty and Social Mitigation (English) 08/94 12831-EC Guatemala Issues and Options in the Energy Sector (English) 09/93 12160-GU Health Impacts of Traditional Fuel Use 08/04 284/04 Haiti Energy Assessment (English and French) 06/82 3672-HA Status Report (English and French) 08/85 041/85 Household Energy Strategy (English and French) 12/91 143/91 Honduras Energy Assessment (English) 08/87 6476-HO Petroleum Supply Management (English) 03/91 128/91 Jamaica Energy Assessment (English) 04/85 5466-JM Petroleum Procurement, Refining, and Distribution Study (English) 11/86 061/86 Energy Efficiency Building Code Phase I (English) 03/88 -- Energy Efficiency Standards and Labels Phase I (English ) 03/88 -- Jamaica Management Information System Phase I (English) 03/88 -- Charcoal Production Project (English) 09/88 090/88 FIDCO Sawmill Residues Utilization Study (English) 09/88 088/88 Energy Sector Strategy and Investment Planning Study (English) 07/92 135/92 Mexico Improved Charcoal Production Within Forest Management for the State of Veracruz (English and Spanish) 08/91 138/91 Energy Efficiency Management Technical Assistance to the Comisión Nacional para el Ahorro de Energía (CONAE) (English) 04/96 180/96 Energy Environment Review 05/01 241/01 Nicaragua Modernizing the Fuelwood Sector in Managua and León 12/01 252/01 Policy & Strategy for the Promotion of RE Policies in Nicaragua. (Contains CD with 3 complementary reports) 01/06 316/06 Panama Power System Efficiency Study (English) 06/83 004/83 Paraguay Energy Assessment (English) 10/84 5145-PA Recommended Technical Assistance Projects (English) 09/85 -- Status Report (English and Spanish) 09/85 043/85 Peru Energy Assessment (English) 01/84 4677-PE Status Report (English) 08/85 040/85 Proposal for a Stove Dissemination Program in the Sierra (English and Spanish) 02/87 064/87 Energy Strategy (English and Spanish) 12/90 -- 10 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number Study of Energy Taxation and Liberalization of the Hydrocarbons Sector (English and Spanish) 120/93 159/93 Reform and Privatization in the Hydrocarbon Sector (English and Spanish) 07/99 216/99 Rural Electrification 02/01 238/01 Saint Lucia Energy Assessment (English) 09/84 5111-SLU St. Vincent and the Grenadines Energy Assessment (English) 09/84 5103-STV Sub Andean Environmental and Social Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations in Sensitive Areas of the Sub-Andean Basin (English and Spanish) 07/99 217/99 Trinidad and Tobago Energy Assessment (English) 12/85 5930-TR GLOBAL Energy End Use Efficiency: Research and Strategy (English) 11/89 -- Women and Energy--A Resource Guide The International Network: Policies and Experience (English) 04/90 -- Guidelines for Utility Customer Management and Metering (English and Spanish) 07/91 -- Assessment of Personal Computer Models for Energy Planning in Developing Countries (English) 10/91 -- Long-Term Gas Contracts Principles and Applications (English) 02/93 152/93 Comparative Behavior of Firms Under Public and Private Ownership (English) 05/93 155/93 Development of Regional Electric Power Networks (English) 10/94 -- Roundtable on Energy Efficiency (English) 02/95 171/95 Assessing Pollution Abatement Policies with a Case Study of Ankara (English) 11/95 177/95 A Synopsis of the Third Annual Roundtable on Independent Power Projects: Rhetoric and Reality (English) 08/96 187/96 Rural Energy and Development Roundtable (English) 05/98 202/98 A Synopsis of the Second Roundtable on Energy Efficiency: Institutional and Financial Delivery Mechanisms (English) 09/98 207/98 The Effect of a Shadow Price on Carbon Emission in the Energy Portfolio of the World Bank: A Carbon Backcasting Exercise (English) 02/99 212/99 Increasing the Efficiency of Gas Distribution Phase 1: Case Studies and Thematic Data Sheets 07/99 218/99 Global Energy Sector Reform in Developing Countries: A Scorecard 07/99 219/99 Global Lighting Services for the Poor Phase II: Text Marketing of Small "Solar" Batteries for Rural Electrification Purposes 08/99 220/99 A Review of the Renewable Energy Activities of the UNDP/ World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme 1993 to 1998 11/99 223/99 Energy, Transportation and Environment: Policy Options for Environmental Improvement 12/99 224/99 11 Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number Privatization, Competition and Regulation in the British Electricity Industry, With Implications for Developing Countries 02/00 226/00 Reducing the Cost of Grid Extension for Rural Electrification 02/00 227/00 Undeveloped Oil and Gas Fields in the Industrializing World 02/01 239/01 Best Practice Manual: Promoting Decentralized Electrification Investment 10/01 248/01 Peri-Urban Electricity Consumers--A Forgotten but Important Group: What Can We Do to Electrify Them? 10/01 249/01 Village Power 2000: Empowering People and Transforming Markets 10/01 251/01 Private Financing for Community Infrastructure 05/02 256/02 Stakeholder Involvement in Options Assessment: 07/03 264/03 Promoting Dialogue in Meeting Water and Energy Needs: A Sourcebook A Review of ESMAP's Energy Efficiency Portfolio 11/03 271/03 A Review of ESMAP's Rural Energy and Renewable Energy 04/04 280/04 Portfolio ESMAP Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Reports 05/04 283/04 1998-2004 (CD Only) Regulation of Associated Gas Flaring and Venting: A Global 08/04 285/04 Overview and Lessons Learned from International Experience ESMAP Gender in Energy Reports and Other related Information 11/04 288/04 (CD Only) ESMAP Indoor Air Pollution Reports and Other related Information 11/04 289/04 (CD Only) Energy and Poverty Reduction: Proceedings from the Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) Workshop on the Pre-Investment Funding. Berlin, Germany, April 23-24, 2003. 11/04 294/04 Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) Annual Report 2003 12/04 295/04 Energy and Poverty Reduction: Proceedings from the Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) Workshop on Consumer Lending and Microfinance to Expand Access to Energy Services, Manila, Philippines, May 19-21, 2004 12/04 296/04 The Impact of Higher Oil Prices on Low Income Countries 03/05 299/05 And on the Poor Advancing Bioenergy for Sustainable Development: Guideline 04/05 300/05 For Policymakers and Investors ESMAP Rural Energy Reports 1999-2005 03/05 301/05 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Financing and Policy Network: Options Study and Proceedings of the International Forum 07/05 303/05 Implementing Power Rationing in a Sensible Way: Lessons 08/05 305/05 Learned and International Best Practices The Urban Household Energy Transition. Joint Report with 08/05 309/05 RFF Press/ESMAP. ISBN 1-933115-07-6 Pioneering New Approaches in Support of Sustainable Development In the Extractive Sector: Community Development Toolkit, also Includes a CD containing Supporting Reports 10/05 310/05 Analysis of Power Projects with Private Participation Under Stress 10/05 311/05 Potential for Biofuels for Transport in Developing Countries 10/05 312/05 Last report added to this list: ESMAP Formal Report 318/05 12