Draft Monitoring Report LMCB May 4, 2006 2

8/2/2019 Draft Monitoring Report LMCB May 4, 2006 2

1/33

MONITORING REPORT

for

REPLACEMENT OF FOSSIL FUEL BY PALM KERNEL SHELL BIOMASSIN THE PRODUCTION OF PORTLAND CEMENT

Lafarge Malayan Cement Bhd,L12, Bangunan TH Uptown 3,

No 3, Jalan SS 21/39, Petaling Jaya,Selangor, MALAYSIA

UNFCCC REF NO 247


2/33

2

By

Table of Contents

Section- I: Introduction ................... ..................... .................... .................... .................... ................. 3

Section- II: Monitoring ................. .................... .................... ................... ................... ...................... 8

Section-III: GHG Emission Reduction ..................... ................... ................... .................... ..........143

Appendix-I - Calculations.............................................................................................................154

Appendix 2......................................................................................................................................17


3/33

3

I: INTRODUCTION

I.1: Purpose

This monitoring report has been prepared for Replacement of Fossil Fuel by Palm KernelShell Biomass in

The Production of PortlandProject project of Lafarge Malayan Cement Bhd, (LMCB), L12, Bangunan TH

Uptown 3, No 3, Jalan SS21/39, Petaling Jaya, Selangor. The project has been registered with UNFCCC as a

CDM project activity under article 12 of the Kyoto protocol. Submission of monitoring report and subsequent

verification has been required mandatory by UNFCCC for issuance of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs)

credits. The monitoring period covered under the report extends from 01/05/2000 to 31/12/2005.

I.2: Project Description

Lafarge Malayan Cement Bhd (LMCB) has exclusively developed the technology and skills to

substitute a significant percentage of the coal used at its Kanthan and Rawang plants with Palm Kernel

Shell (PKS) Biomass from the Oil Palm Industry.

The manufacture of cement is a highly energy intensive activity. The vast majority of this energy is

required to heat the raw materials to a level that brings about the necessary chemical change to createcement clinker. A complete description of the cement manufacturing process is given in Annex 6. InMalaysia, the heating process is predominantly achieved through the firing of coal although some

plants have in recent years also started consuming other fossil fuels such as e.g. pet coke.

The substitution of biomass for fossil fuels in the cement manufacturing process in Malaysia has a

significant contribution to make to the countrys sustainable development plans. LMCB currently

sources all of its coal supplies from outside of Malaysia. The substitution of a locally arising biomass

product for imported fossil fuels not only reduces Malaysias dependence on imports, but also givesrise to environmental benefits from preserving fossil fuels and utilising a waste biomass stream, which

would otherwise be stockpiled and left to biodegrade, open to saturation by tropical rains andultimately of no current use to any industry.

The decision to substitute fossil fuel with biomass is a positive action to reduce CO2 emissions fromthe cement manufacturing process. Its a direct result of the commitments given, originally, by Blue

Circle Industries of the UK in its Environmental Report 1999 (relevant extracts at Annex 7) and

more recently by Lafarge S.A. of France (parent company of LMCB following its acquisition of BlueCircle Industries in 2001) as set out in its first sustainable development report, Building a Sustainable

World (relevant extracts also at Annex 7). This action is also consistent with Lafarges global target

to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% over the period 1990 to 2010. As stated in its 1999 Environmental

Report, Blue Circle committed to support the development of demonstration projects in relation toflexible mechanisms such as CDM under the Kyoto Protocol.

The technology to process and use PKS has been developed in a partnership with Blue CircleIndustries Technical Centre in Europe based on their experiences of combustion of alternative fuels.

Knowledge and expertise have been actively transferred in the development of the project by design

work in Europe and European expert deployment in Malaysia during design, construction andsubsequent follow up adjustments and performance monitoring.

Training of staff and engineers has been provided during the design and commissioning stage of the project.

Especially the transfer of knowledge from foreign visiting experts from Blue Circle and Lafarge Europe has

involved training of local engineers and operators.

This project is in line with Malaysian Sustainability Policy when utilizing biomass (PKS) as a

renewable energy source. The Eight Malaysia Plan (2001-2005) specifically promotes the use of


4/33

4

renewable energy as the fifth fuel. The projects compliance with the Malaysian National Criteria forCDM Energy Projects is attached in Annex 10.

I.3: Project Location

The project activity is located at the LMCB cement works in West Malaysia near the two towns,

Rawang and Kanthan respectively are shown below:

a) West Malaysia b) Rawang Works, Selangor c) Kanthan Works, Perak

1.3:1. Host Party(ies):

>>

The host country is Malaysia

1.3:2 Region/State/Province etc.:

>>

The two project activities are located in the West Malaysian states of Selangor and Perak

1.3:3 City/Town/Community etc:

>>The nearest towns are Rawang and Kanthan

1.3:4 Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique

identification of this project activity (maximum one page):

Rawang works is located at approximately latitude 3o and longitude 101o34.5E next to the roadleading to Kuang from the junction off the trunk road Rawang Batu Arang. It is approximately 4 km

from the North-South Expressway Interchange and 2 km from Rawang town.

Address: Rawang Works

48000 Rawang

Selangor Darul EhsanMalaysia

Kanthan works is located at latitude 4o 46N and longitude 101o 07E next to the trunk road Ipoh-Kuala Kangsar. It is approximately 22 km north of Ipoh.

Address: Kanthan Works

Batu 13, Jalan Kuala Kangsar


5/33

5

31200 ChemorPeral Darul Ridzuan

Malaysia

Both project activities are implemented within the premises of the cement works and does not require

additional land acquisition by the LMCB. The project activity sites are indicated on the site maps

(b)and (c) of the two works are shown above.

I.4: Project Status

The project activity has been registered with UNFCCC as CDM activity1 on 7 April 2006 under

sectoral scope 4 ACM 003: Emissions reduction through partial substitution of fossil fuels with

alternative fuels in cement manufacture, scopes related approved methodologies and Designated

Operational Entities (DOE) (version 02 Feb 06, 07:35 23)

I.5: Baseline Methodology Adopted

Title of approved consolidated baseline methodology:

Emissions reduction through partial substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels in cement

manufacture. Methodology number: ACM0003.ACM0003 is a consolidated methodology based on two methodologies (NM0040 and NM0048-rev). NM0040

was prepared based on the project activity covered by this PDD. Therefore, the ACM0003 is suitable for thisproject activity.

The ACM0003 is applicable under the following conditions:Fossil fuel(s) used in cement manufacture are partially replaced by alternative fuels, including renewable

biomass, where renewable biomass residues are in surplus and leakages in other uses of the renewable biomass

will not occur;

The project activity is to substitute around 5% of the total energy consumed by the plant with PKS, which is a

renewable biomass residue. PKS is a waste product from the palm oil milling process and is used as a fuel in the

palm oil mills together mesocarp fibres, which is another biomass waste product suitable for combustion. The

palm oil mills prefer to use the fibres over the PKS and PKS will normally not exceed about a third of the totalenergy use in the boiler plants.

CO2 emissions reduction relates to CO2 emissions generated from fuel burning requirements only and is

unrelated to the CO2 emissions from decarbonisation of raw materials (i.e. CaCO3 and MgCO3 bearing

minerals);

The project activity and its boundary is confined to the fuel preparation and feeding process of PKS into the

combustion instead of fossil fuels to meet the fuel burning requirements for the cement manufacture process.

The methodology is applicable only for installed capacity (expressed in tonnes clinker/year) that exists by thetime of validation of the project activity;

The project activity is for the existing kilns installations. The project activity commenced in 2000 and therefore

the methodology only applies to existing installations at that time. Any new kilns to increase the productioncapacity will not be included in the project activity at a later stage.

Therefore, LMCB asserts that the PKS will only replace coal and the assertion is not affected by improvementsin output, fuel consumption, and additions of other materials or fuels to the process.


6/33

6

The amount of alternative fuels available for the project is at least 1.5 times the amount required to meet theconsumption of all users consuming the same alternative fuels, i.e. the project and other alternative fuel users.

The estimated total of PKS available in Malaysia in year 2000 was approximately 320,000 tonnes (rf. Annex 8).

The project activity consumes around 68,000 tonnes per year, so the supply of PKS is about five times thedemand.

Within the 180km radius defined in Annex 8, covering the states of Perak, Kelantan, Pahang, Melaka, NegeriSembilan, Selangor and partly Johor, approximately 160,00 tonnes of PKS is available in the year 2004. This

volume is approximately 2.3 times higher than the project requirement. Assuming the palm oil plantation in

Peninsular Malaysia increases by 9% from the year 2000, and back calculating the figures to year 2000,

approximately 140,00 tonnes of PKS was available and this translates to about 2 times higher than the projectdemand.

I.6: Technical description of the project:

1.6 Project DescriptionOVERVIEW OF CEMENT MANUFACTURING PROCESS

Cement manufacture includes three main process steps; preparation of raw materials, producing

clinker, an intermediate, through pyroprocessing of raw materials and grinding and blending clinkerwith other products mineral components to make cement.

There are two main sources of direct CO2 emissions in the production process: combustion of kiln

fuels, and the calcination of raw materials in the pyroprocessing stage. These two sources aredescribed in more detail below. Other CO2 sources include direct emissions from non-kiln fuels (e.g.

dryers, room heating, on-site transports), and indirect emissions from e.g. external power production

and transports. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol are not relevant in the

cement context, in the sense that direct emissions of these gases are negligible.

CO2 from Raw Materials

In the clinker burning process, CO2 is released due to the chemical decomposition of calciumcarbonates (e.g. from limestone) into Lime:

23 COCaOheatCaCO ++

This process is called calcining or calcination. It results in direct CO2 emissions through the kiln

stack. When considering CO2 emissions due to calcination, two components can be distinguished:


7/33

7

This process is called calcining or calcination. It results in direct CO2 emissions through the kilnstack. When considering CO2 emissions due to calcination, two components can be distinguished:

CO2 from actual clinker

CO2 from raw materials discarded (land filled) as partly calcined cement kiln dust (CKD), oras fully calcined bypass dust.

CO2 from actual clinker production is proportional to the lime content of clinker, which in turn varies little in

time or between different cement plants. As a result, the CO2 emission factor per tonne of clinker is fairly stable

(IPCC default: 510 kg CO2/t clinker).

The cement industry traditionally uses various fossil fuels to operate cement kilns, including coal, petroleumcoke, fuel oil, and natural gas. In recent years, fuels derived from waste materials have become important

substitutes. These alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR) include fossil fuel-derived fractions such as e.g.

waste oil and tyres, as well as biomass-derived fractions such s waste wood and dried sludges from waste watertreatment.

Both conventional and alternative fuels result in direct CO2 emissions through the stack. However biomass fuelscan be considered climate-neutral. Use of alternative (biomass or fossil derived) fuels may, in addition, lead to

important emission reductions elsewhere, for instance from waste incineration plants or landfills.

Kiln,

Pre Calciner

Other Fossil Fuel

(Coal or Petcoke)

Fuel

Mixing

Project boundary

PKS Storage

PKS Transportation

PKS Feeding System

Crusher

Fossil Fuel Transportation(On road and sea)


8/33

8

SECTION- II: MONITORING

Section II.1: Monitoring Methodology

Title: Approved monitoring methodology ACM0003, Version 2 Emissions reduction throughpartial substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels in cement manufacture

II.2: Monitoring Period

The monitoring of parameters has been done for both baseline emission and project emissions calculations.

Monitoring period chosen for baseline emissions and project emission calculations is from 01/05/2000 to

31/12/2005. A flow chart of the monitoring system, parameters monitored during the period and their recording

frequency is given below. Data has been archived for verification purpose.

II.3: Monitoring System

II.3:1 Relevant data necessary for determining the baseline of anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs

within the project boundary and how such data will be collected and archived :

ID

number

(Pleaseusenumber

s toease

cross-referencing totable

D.3)

Data

variable

Source of

data

Data

unit

Measured

(m),

calculated (c),

estimated (e),

Recording

frequency

Proportion

of data to be

monitored

How will

the data be

archived?

(electronic/

paper)

Comment

1. Clinkerproduc-

tion[C]

LMCB Ton m, c Monthly 100% Electronic,paper

LMCB monitors the clinkerproduction as a part of theirproduction managementactivities and data is includedin monthly productionreports. Raw material to

produce clinker is measuredusing weighing feeders and

clinker production iscalculated.

2. Alternative fuel

quantity[QAF]

LMCB Ton m Monthly 100% Electronic,paper

LMCB monitors the amountof PKS fuel purchase as a

part of the procurement andpayment for the deliveriesand data is included inmonthly production reports.

Alternative fuel quantity ismeasured using weighing

feeders.


9/33

9

3. Alternative fuelheat

value[HVAF]

LMCB TJ/tonne m, c Monthly 100% Electronic,paper

LMCB monitors the heatvalue of PKS fuel as a part ofthe procurement and payment

for all deliveries and data isincluded in monthly

production reports.Calorimeter is used tomeasure the heat value in

LMCB laboratory4. Alternativ

e fuelheat

[HIAF]

LMCB TJ c Monthly 100% Electronic,paper

Calculation based on themonitored data by the

following formula:

AFAFAF HVQHI =

5. Alternative fuel

emissionfactor[EFAF]

IPCC TCO2 /TJ e Fixed 100% Electronic,paper

This value is fixed at zero, asthe fuel is carbon neutralbiomass.

6. Share ofheat input

from

alternative fuel[SAF]

LMCB % c Monthly 100% Electronic,paper

Calculation based on themonitored data HIAFand HIFFby the following formula:

FFFF

AFAF

HVQ

HIS

= )(

7. Moisturepenalty

[mp]

LMCB MJ/tonne/10%

alt. Fuelshare

c At start ofcreditingperiod

100% Electronic,paper

The moisture penalty will bemeasured and calculatedduring a test of heatconsumption with and withoutapprox. 10% alternative fuelinput

8. Fossilfuel

quantity[QFF]

LMCB Ton m Monthly 100% Electronic,paper

LMCB monitors the amountof fossil fuel purchase as a

part of the procurement andpayment for the deliveriesand data is included inmonthly production reports.Quantity of fossil fuel ismeasured using weighing

feeders before fired into thekiln.

9. FossilfuelHeatvalue

[HVFF]

LMCB TJ/tonne m, c Monthly 100% Electronic,paper

LMCB monitors the heatvalue of fossil fuel as a partof the procurement and

payment for all deliveries anddata is included in monthly

production reports. The valueis measured using

calorimeter.10. Fossil

fuelemissionfactor[EFFF]

IPCC TCO2 /TJ e Fixed 100% Electronic,paper

The emission factor for fossilfuels are fixed at the defaultvalue in the Revised 1996

IPCC Guidelines for NationalGreenhouse Gas Inventories:

Reference Manual:coal of 94.6

kg CO2/GJ,

Petcoke2

92.5kg CO2/GJ,Diesel

374.1 kg CO2/GJ,

Shale4

107 kg CO2/GJ


10/33

10

II.3:2 Description of formulae used to calculate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm,

emissions units of CO2 equ.):

>>

N/A

II.4: Treatment of leakage in the monitoring plan

11.4:1 . If applicable, please describe the data and information that will be collected in order tomonitor leakage effects of the project activity

ID number

(Please usenumbers toease cross-referencingto table

D.3)

Data

variable

Source

of data

Data

unit

Measured

(m),

calculated

(c) or

estimated

(e)

Recording

frequency

Proportion

of data to

be

monitored

How will the

data be

archived?

(electronic/

paper)

Comment

N/A

II .4:2. Description of formulae used to estimate leakage (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm,emissions units of CO2 equ.)

>>

No leakage is derived from the proposed project activity and therefore not monitored and calculated.

II.5 Description of formulae used to estimate emission reductions for the project activity (for each gas,

source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.)

>>

Emissions reduction for the project activity is the amount of GHG emissions that would have beenemitted in the absence of the project i.e. the GHG emissions from the fossil fuel displaced.

AFER= FFGHG

Where:

FFGHG is GHG emissions from fossil fuels displaced by the alternatives (tCO2/yr) see

formula in section D.2.1.4

II.6: Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for

data monitored

Data

(Indicate tableand ID numbere.g. 3.-1.; 3.2.)

Uncertainty level of data

(High/Medium/Low)

Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such

procedures are not necessary.

1 Low The data is already a part of the QA/QC system in LMCB and the data iscompiled in monthly production reports



4 Low N/A this data is calculated


11/33

11

5 Low N/A this data is IPCC defined6 Low N/A this data is calculated7 Low N/A this data is calculated (rf. Annex 13)8 Low The data is already a part of the QA/QC system in LMCB and the data is

compiled in monthly production reports


10 Low N/A this data is IPCC default values

II. 7 Please describe the operational and management structure that the project operator will

implement in order to monitor emission reductions and any leakage effects, generated by the

project activity

>>

Fuels may be purchased from different sources during the same period. Each fuel shipment may vary

in moisture, heat value and weight. Production in some periods may be more efficient than others.Regardless of these variables and due to accurate book-keeping, the percentage of each fuel used and

the amount of cement clinker made in a fixed time period will be recorded. Fuel heat values will besystematically measured and applied and emission factors used are laboratory tested for each fuel type.

Since it is a normal priority for a cement company to track the fuel split, an additional fuel, that isPKS, can be easily absorbed into an existing tracking system.

All fuels are delivered across a weighbridge with delivery notes and in accordance with contracts

respecting the moisture content and heat value of each delivery. Fuels are tested to internationalstandards as part of ISO9001/2 management systems to generate payment to suppliers. LMCB

documents opening stock, closing stock and dispatch of each material to generate production figures.

Fuel testing is on an as received basis determining the real heat value to the process. The % heatcontributed from each fuel can thus be calculated. This is an already established system and company

books are audited as per normal business procedures. LMCB is confident of capturing the actual

tonnages of PKS utilised and the real heat content contributed to the process.

Major data requirements in this monitoring methodology are already covered by the LMCB monthly productionreports for the facilities and information for the monitoring of the emission reductions can be obtained in these

reports. The monthly reports are prepared by the plants manager and reported to the LMCB management.


12/33

II.4.3: Data Monitored for Leakage Calculations

Not Applicable

II: 5 Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (QC) Plan

Quality assurance/quality control plan was made as per ISO-9001 guidelines. Environmental

management cell constituting of specialists has been given the task of monitoring various

parameters involved in the project activity. Monitoring was done with necessary equipments on

intervals mentioned in the methodology adopted for the project activity.

II:5.1 Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for data

monitored

Data

(Indicate tableand ID number

e.g. 3.-1.; 3.2.)

Uncertainty level of

data

(High/Medium/Low

)

Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such

procedures are not necessary.

D.3-1 Low Sampling has been carried out adhering to internationally recognized

procedures

D.3-2 Low Flow meters have undergone maintenance/calibration subject to

appropriate industry standards.

D.3-3 Low This data Not Applicable for the Project Activity.



D.3-5 Low This data Not Applicable for the Project Activity




procedures. This has been carried out at least quarterly.








procedures. This has been carried out at least quarterly.

D.3-13 Low Electricity meters have undergone maintenance/calibration subject to

appropriate industry standards. The accuracy of the meter readings

have been verified.


13/33

13


procedures.





14/33

14

SECTION-III: GHG EMISSION REDUCTION

III. 0 Estimation of GHG emissions by sources

III.1 Estimate of GHG emissions by sources:

>>

Combustion of biomass fuel (PKS) is considered carbon neutral and there will not be any GHGemissions.

III.2 Estimated leakage:

>>

Emissions due to PKS transportation is proven to be insignificant and lower compared to the total

project emissions (rf. Annex 9). Thus leakage from off-site transportation is negligible for this project.

Secondly, there will be no leakage for this project as the alternative fuel source is abundantly available

(See Annex 8) and substituting fossil fuels such as diesel or fuel oil with PKS will not be cost effective

for the existing PKS users.

III.3 The sum ofIII .1 andIII.2 representing the project activity emissions:

>>

Since there is no leakage, and insignificant GHG emissions from the combustion of PKS, the project

activity emissions are zero.

III.4 Estimated anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the baseline:

>>

FFGHG= [(QAF* HVAF) - MPtotal]* EFFF

where:FFGHG= GHG emissions from fossil fuels displaced by the alternatives (tCO2/yr)

QAF* HVAF= total actual heat provided by all alternative fuels (TJ/yr)

MPtotal= total moisture penalty (TJ/yr)

EFFF= emissions factor(s) for fossil fuel(s) displaced (tCO2/TJ).

MPtotal = (SAF/10%) * C * mp

where:SAF = Alternative fuel heat input share of total baseline heat input

C = total clinker production

mp = moisture penalty (MJ/tonne-10% alternative fuel share of total heat input)

mp = (HCAF(i) HCFF)/Si * 10

where:HCAF(i) = specific heat consumption using i% alternative fuel (MJ/tonne clinker)

HCFF = specific heat consumption using fossil fuel only (MJ/tonne clinker)

Si = alternative fuel heat input share of total baseline heat input in the moisture penalty test.


15/33

15

AFFFFF

AFAF

HIHVQ

HIS

+= )(

where:

HIAF = heat input from alternative fuels (TJ/year), calculated as QAF*HVAF

QFF = quantity of each fossil fuel used in baseline (tonne/year)HVFF = lower heating value of the fossil fuel(s) used in baseline (TJ/tonne fuel)

Details of the calculation based on project specific data is presented in Annex 5, Baseline Calculation.

III.5. Difference betweenIII.4andIII.3 representing the emission reductions of the project

activity:

>>Since there is no project emissions and only one alternative fuel (PKS) is used instead of fossil fuel

(Coal), the total project emission reduction can be given as;

AFER= FFGHG

III.6. Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above:

>>The ex postcalculation of baseline emission rates may only be used if proper justification is

provided. Notwithstanding, the baseline emission rates shall also be calculated ex ante andreported in the CDM-PDD. The result of the application of the formulae above shall be indicated

using the following tabular format.

Year Estimation ofproject

activity

emission

reductions

(tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation

of baseline

emission

reductions

(tonnes of

CO2 e)

Estimation of

leakage

(tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of

emission

reductions

(tonnes of

CO2 e)

2000 62,011 0 0 62,011

2001 62,011 0 0 62,011

2002 62,011 0 0 62,011

2003 62,011 0 0 62,011

2004 62,011 0 0 62,011

2005 62,011 0 0 62,011

2006 62,011 0 0 62,011

2007 62,011 0 0 62,011

2008 62,011 0 0 62,011

2009 62,011 0 0 62,011

Appendix-I - Calculations

I. Baseline EmissionsBASELINE INFORMATION


16/33

16

ID

number

Data variable Source of

data

Data unit Data Value Comment

1. Clinker

production

[C]

LMCB Tonne/yr 4,746,624 Average annual clinker

production in the period 2000-

2004

2. Alternative fuelquantity

[QAF]

LMCB tonne 68,000 Average annual consumption ofPKS in the period 2000-2004

3. Alternative fuel

heat value

[HVAF]

LMCB TJ/tonne 0.01313 Average heat value measured

for the purchased PKS.

Measured by LMCB laboratory

4. Alternative fuel

heat

[HIAF]

LMCB TJ 893 Calculation based on the above

data by the following formula:

AFAFAF HVQHI =

5. Alternative fuel

emission factor

[EAF]

IPCC TCO2/TJ 0 This value is fixed at zero, as

the fuel is carbon neutral

biomass

6. Share of heat

input fromalternative fuel

[SAF]

LMCB % 5 Calculation based on the above

data HIAF and HIFF by thefollowing formula:

AFFFFF

AFAF

HIHVQ

HIS

+= )(

7. Moisture penalty

[mp]

LMCB MJ/tonne/10%

alt. Fuel share

100 The moisture penalty has been

assessed in Annex 13 at 10%

for 10% PKS share of the total

heat

Coal 582513

Pet coke 40322

Diesel 12363

8. Fossil fuel

quantity

[QFF]

LMCB tonne

Shale 18997

Average annual consumption of

fossil fuel in the period 2000-

2004

Coal 0.02575

Pet coke 0.03100

Diesel 0.04333

9. Fossil fuel

Heat value

[HVFF]

LMCB TJ/tonne

Shale 0.00940

IPCC default values are used

only in the PDD for estimation

of emission reductions.

Measured local values will be

used during Validation of

CERs. Below is the measured

average LHV from year 2000 to

2005 for comparison. Coal:

0.02404 TJ/t, Pet coke : 0.03188

TJ/t, Diesel : 0.04260 TJ/t,

Shale heat value is not locallyavailable and default IPCC

value will be used.

Coal 94.610. Fossil fuel

emission factor

EFFF

IPCC TCO2/TJ

Pet coke 100.8

The emission factor for fossil

fuels are default values obtained

from the IPCC reference

guidebook as mentioned in


17/33

17

ID

number

Data variable Source of

data

Data unit Data Value Comment

Diesel 74.1

Shale 107.0

ACM0003.

Weighted Average emission

factor (ex-ante) using Option 1

according to ACM0003 will

yield 94.5 tCO2/TJ.


18/33

18

Appendix 2

MONITORING PLAN

All the key monitoring parameters required for this project can be obtained from individual works

Senior Works Manager Report compiled on monthly basis. This report is prepared by the Plant

Controller and approved by the Senior Works Manager. LMCB head quarters receive all theindividual works reports and compile them as per standard ISO requirements. Monitoring data forvalidation and registration for the project and CERs can be obtained from LCMB HQ.

Data recording approach is as per standard business accountancy procedures (Opening Stock plusdeliveries minus closing stock = utilisation) and thus minimises the possibilities of mistakes and

misconceptions. Simplistic in that it requires only inputs that are generated as part of the standardbusiness accountancy system and/or ISO registered and audited quality procedures. These are part

of the normal KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) measured by the respective plant.

Internal Key Performance Indicators in the Senior Works Manager Report will track the following

on a monthly basis;

Cement clinker produced per plant per annum in units of tonnes. This is a publishedbusiness accountancy figure and audited internally and externally. (Data monitored : C,

tonnes of clinker per year)

Net Total specific Heat Consumption of each plant to produce above clinker tonnes perannum in units of kJ/kg clinker. This is a calculated figure based on the management

accounts using weighbridge tickets of fuel supplies to generate payments to fuelsuppliers and weigher-totalisers to record consumption of heat bearing raw materials.

The laboratory quality procedures determine the frequency of fuel/raw material

calorific value testing and this value is applied to the amounts of each fuel/raw materialused. Procedures, frequency and test methods are all defined within each plants quality

management systems. (Data monitored : QAF, HVAF, QFFs, HVFFs)

An assumption is made based on historical lab test data that heat values of PKS fuel as-receivedis approximately the same as heat values of as-fired. High moisture content during delivery will

not be evaporated significantly even after the stock piling for a few weeks. PKS fuel on the

surface of the stockpile will dry after a few days but the inner layer is still wet. High air humidityin Malaysia contributes partly to the moisture in the PKS fuel to remain the same.

The table below shows monitored parameters source of reference and frequency of monitoring.

ID

number

Data variable Source of data Data unit Frequency

OfMonitoring

Comment

1. Clinker production

[C]

Senior Works

Manager Report

tonne Monthly 1) This value is required to calculate

total moisture penalty, MP.


19/33

19

ID

number

Data variable Source of data Data unit Frequency

Of

Monitoring

Comment

2. Alternative fuel

quantity

[QAF]

Senior Works

Manager Report

tonne Monthly 1) The value is required to calculate

the GHG emission reductions from

fossil fuels displaced by the

alternative fuel, FFGHG

2) It is also required to estimate the

share of alternative fuel, SAF in the

moisture penalty, MP calculation.

3. Alternative fuelheat value

[HVAF]

Senior WorksManager Report TJ/tonne Monthly 1) The value is required to calculatethe GHG emission reductions from

fossil fuels displaced by the

alternative fuel, FFGHG

2) It is also required to estimate the

share of alternative fuel, SAF in the

moisture penalty, MP calculation.

3) Heat values are based on as-fired-

basis.

8. Fossil fuel quantity

[QFF]Senior Works

Manager Reporttonne Monthly

1) These values are required to

estimate share of alternative fuel, SAF,

and to calculate emission reductions.

2) Fossil Fuels used are coal, pet coke,

diesel and shale oil.

9. Fossil fuelHeat value

[HVFF]

Senior Works

Manager ReportTJ/tonne Monthly

1) These values are required toestimate share of alternative fuel, SAF,

and to calculate emission reductions.

2) Heat values are based on as-fired-

basis.

3) IPCC Lower Heat Values can be

used if no locally lab test values are

available.


20/33

20

Appendix 3BASELINE DATA

A B C= A X B D E=C/(C+D) F G H=(E x F x G)/10 I*

YearQAF HVAF HIAF HIFF SAF

mpC

MPtotalEFFF

tonnes/yr TJ/tonne fuel TJ/yr TJ/yr % TJ/tonne/10%AF tonnes/yr TJ/yr tCO2/T

2000 68000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0% 0.0001 4746624 237 94[s1].5

2001 68000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0% 0.0001 4746624 237 94.5

2002 68000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0% 0.0001 4746624 237 94.5

2003 68000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0% 0.0001 4746624 237 94.5

2004 68000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0% 0.0001 4746624 237 94.5

2005 68000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0% 0.0001 4746624 237 94.5

2006 68000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0% 0.0001 4746624 237 94.5

2007 68000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0% 0.0001 4746624 237 94.5

2008 68000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0% 0.0001 4746624 237 94.5

200968000 0.01313 893 16964 5.0%

0.0001

4746624

237

94.5

Total

*Option 1 selected according to ACM0003 as it was the lowest of all 3 options described.

Year QFF-Coal HVFF-Coal QFF-Petcokes HVFF-Petcokes QFF-Diesel Oils HVFF-Diesel Oils QFF-Shale Oil HVFF-Shale

(tonnes/yr) (TJ/tonne fuel) (tonnes/yr)(TJ/tonnefuel) (tonnes/yr) (TJ/tonne fuel) (tonnes/yr) (TJ/tonne

2000 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00

2001 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00

2002 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00

2003 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00

2004 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00

2005 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00

2006 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00

2007 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00

2008 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00

2009 582513 0.0258 40322 0.0310 12363 0.0433 18997 0.00


21/33

21

Appendix 4

OVERVIEW OF CEMENT MANUFACTURING PROCESS

Cement manufacture includes three main process steps; preparation of raw materials, producingclinker, an intermediate, through pyroprocessing of raw materials and grinding and blending

clinker with other products mineral components to make cement.

There are two main sources of direct CO2 emissions in the production process: combustion of kilnfuels, and the calcination of raw materials in the pyroprocessing stage. These two sources are

described in more detail below. Other CO2 sources include direct emissions from non-kiln fuels(e.g. dryers, room heating, on-site transports), and indirect emissions from e.g. external power

production and transports. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol are not

relevant in the cement context, in the sense that direct emissions of these gases are negligible.

CO2 from Raw Materials

In the clinker burning process, CO2 is released due to the chemical decomposition of calcium

carbonates (e.g. from limestone) into Lime:

23 COCaOheatCaCO ++

This process is called calcining or calcination. It results in direct CO2 emissions through thekiln stack. When considering CO2 emissions due to calcination, two components can be

distinguished:

CO2 from actual clinker

CO2 from raw materials discarded (land filled) as partly calcined cement kiln dust(CKD), or as fully calcined bypass dust.

CO2 from actual clinker production is proportional to the lime content of clinker, which in turn varies littlein time or between different cement plants. As a result, the CO2 emission factor per tonne of clinker is

fairly stable (IPCC default: 510 kg CO2/t clinker).

Landfilling of kiln dust varies greatly with kiln types and cement quality standards, ranging from

practically zero to over one hundred kilograms per tonne of clinker. The associated emissions are likely tobe relevant in some countries.

CO2 from Fuels for Kiln operation

The cement industry traditionally uses various fossil fuels to operate cement kilns, including coal,

petroleum coke, fuel oil, and natural gas. In recent years, fuels derived from waste materials have becomeimportant substitutes. These alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR) include fossil fuel-derived fractions

such as e.g. waste oil and tyres, as well as biomass-derived fractions such s waste wood and dried sludges

from waste water treatment.

Both conventional and alternative fuels result in direct CO2 emissions through the stack. However biomassfuels can be considered climate-neutral. Use of alternative (biomass or fossil derived) fuels may, in

addition, lead to important emission reductions elsewhere, for instance from waste incineration plants orlandfills.


22/33

22

CO2 Abatement Options

CO2 emissions in the cement industry can be tackled by different measures. The main categories of CO2

abatement potentials include

Energy efficiency: technical and operational measures to reduce fuel and power consumption perunit clinker or cement produced;

Fuel switching: for instance, use of natural gas or AFR instead of coal

Reduction in the dust landfilling (cement kiln dust, bypass dust) where relevant landfilling occurs; MIC: use of mineral components to substitute clinker.

Mineral components (MIC) are natural and artificial materials with latent hydraulic properties. Examples of

MIC include gypsum and natural pozzolanas, blast furnace slag, and fly ash. MIC are added to the clinkerto produce blended cement. In some instances the, pure MIC are directly added to the concrete mixer. MIC

use leads to an equivalent reduction of direct CO2 emissions associated with clinker, both from calcinationand fuel combustion. Artificial MIC is waste materials from other production processes such as, e.g. steel

and coal fired power production. Related GHG emissions are monitored and reported by the corresponding

industry sector. Utilisation of these MICs for clinker or cement substitution does not entail additionalGHG emissions at the production site. As a consequence, indirect emissions must not be included in the

cement production inventory.


23/33

23

APPENDIX 6: PKS AVAILABILITY CALCULATION

The availability of PKS for the project activity is assessed by using official data by the MalaysianPalm Oil Board, who is producing annual statistics for the palm oil sector. There is no direct

statistics on the amount of PKS available in Malaysia and must be calculated by using some

assumptions. However this annex provides a clear and transparent calculation of the PKS

availability and can be applied in the future as well to assess the PKS availability in any givenyear.

The source of the data tabulated below is obtained from the official website of Malaysian Palm

Oil Board.

URL of Data Source : http://econ.mpob.gov.my/economy/annual/stat2004/Stactitle_04.htm

Table :1 Total Malaysian Land Usage for Palm Trees Plantation(Hectare)

Year Mature Immature Total

2000 2,941,791 434,873 3,376,664

2001 3,005,267 493,745 3,499,0122002 3,188,307 481,936 3,670,243

2003 3,303,133 498,907 3,802,040

2004 3,450,960 424,367 3,875,327

Table 2: Yield (Tonnes per hectare)

Year Fresh Fruit

Crude

Palm Palm

Bunches, FFB Oil Kernel

2000 18.33 3.46 1.01

2001 19.14 3.66 1.05

2002 17.97 3.59 0.98

2003 18.99 3.75 1.022004 18.60 3.73 0.98

Calculation on available PKS was based on the assumption tabulated below.

Table 3: Assumptions for PKS availability

PKS out of FFB 6%

Excess PKS available out of total PKS 10%

Quantity of FFB can be calculated by multiplying total planted hectares with the yield in Table 2

for the respective years. It is assumed that PKS is 6%-8% out of total weight of FFB yield (NoelWambeck, Oil Palm Process Synopsis ed. 2, 1999). Out of this 6% about 10% of PKS is assumed

to be available in the palm oil mills in average based on a mass and energy balance for typicalmills (Noel Wambeck, Oil Palm Process Synopsis ed. 2, 1999).


24/33

24

It can be seen on Table 4 that the annual PKS availability is between 320,000 and 385,000

tonne/yr and it has increased over the past five years with a growth rate of 4-5 % p.a. This amount

is about 5 times higher than the total 68,000 tonnes per year of PKS required for this projectoperation.

Even more PKS can be available than the figures calculated above as some of the PKS can be

replaced by empty fruit bunches, EFBs in the palm oil mill boilers. EFB constitutes 25% of the

FFB and is also abundantly available. When PKS have a good commercial value, more EFB is

likely to be used instead of PKS to operate the boilers in palm oil mills. It can therefore all in allbe considered very certain that the project activity will not exhaust the PKS resources and will not

result in any leakage in terms of increased fossil fuel consumption by any present PKS users.

Supply and demand of PKS

The use of PKS has increased over the recent years. Supply companies, that collect the PKS andother biomass at the mills, distribute it to the industrial buyers. The industrial use of PKS in 2000

was very limited and hence the value of PKS was low. Since 2000 more and more buyers have

emerged and this has led to a higher value of PKS because PKS can substitute expensive fuels.The PKS price is now following the increase in oil prices. As oil prices has tripled over the pastfive years the PKS price has gone up similar over the period. Among the PKS buyers are

industries that previously used diesel and fuel oil to generate process steam. They have installed

biomass boilers in order to reduce the cost of steam generation. As the diesel and oil prices arehigher than coal prices these buyers will set the price level as they will be willing to pay the

highest price for PKS.

PKS Source Distance in Peninsular Malaysia

Based on the past 5 years PKS consumption record the percentage of PKS usage in Rawang and

Kanthan is given below.Rawang Kanthan Total

% 53 47 100%

PKS 32860 29140 62000

Table 4: PKS availability

Total

Malaysia

FFB

(tonne)

PKS

(tonne)

PKS available

(tonne)

2000 53,923,029 3,235,382 323,538

2001 57,520,810 3,451,249 345,125

2002 57,293,883 3,437,633 343,763

2003 62,726,499 3,763,590 376,359

2004 64,187,856 3,851,271 385,127


25/33

25

Estimation of the average distance travelled is briefed below.The distance is weighted accordingto the amount of PKS acquired from a certain radius. The total weighted distance is calculated and

multiplied by a road windings factor since the distance is calculated based on radius.

Two cases are presented here;

A) Base Case Scenario

B) Worst Case Scenario

The base case scenario is the most likely source of PKS supply. The total weighted distance isaround 150 km.

A) Base Case Scenario

WorksRadius

(km)PKS

(tonnes) Sourcing Weight factor Weighted Distance (km)

Kanthan 50 14570 50% 0.235 11.75

150 14570 50% 0.235 35.25

Rawang 50 6572 20% 0.106 5.30

150 9858 30% 0.159 23.85

250 16430 50% 0.265 66.25

Total 62000 Total 142

Road Windings Factor : 5% Total Weighted Distance : 150 km

Calculation of the worst case scenario is shown in the table below. To be conservative, it isassumed that 70% of the required PKS is sourced from the furthest distance from both Rawang

and Khantan works. An average distance of 180 km radius is used in the transportation assessment

calculation by rounding up the calculated total weighted distance of 176 km.

B) Worst Case Scenario

WorksRadius

(km)PKS

(tonnes) Sourcing Weight factor Weighted Distance (km)

Kanthan 50 8742 30% 0.141 7.05

150 20398 70% 0.329 49.35

Rawang 50 3286 10% 0.053 2.65150 6572 20% 0.106 15.90

250 23002 70% 0.371 92.75

Total 62000 Total 168

Road Windings Factor : 5% Total Weighted Distance : 176 km


26/33

26

PKS Source Distance and Availability By States in Peninsular Malaysia

*Note :The PKS availability is calculated based on data from MPOB for the year 2004 and thetotal available tonnes within Peninsular Malaysia is approximately 210,000 tonnes. This is

approximately 3 times higher than the project consumption.

50 km

150 km

250 km

Kanthan

Rawang

Selangor - 13,832 tonnes of PKS

N.Sembilan- 11,723 tonnes of PKS

Melaka- 5,600 tonnes of PKS

Johor - 67,148 tonnes of PKS

Perak 34855

tonnes of PKS

Pahang- 55,092 tonnes of PKS

Kedah-7,274 tonnes of PKS

Terengganu-11,041

tonnes of PKS

Kelantan-5,731

tonnes of PKS


27/33

27

Increase of PKS Availability in Malaysia

YearPeninsularMalaysia Sabah & Sarawak Total

2000 201,524 122,014 323,538

2001 211,416 133,709 345,125

2002 207,720 136,043 343,763

2003 219,082 157,277 376,359

2004 212,715 165,930 385,127

Difference (2000-2004), % 9% 36% 19%


28/33

APPENDIX 7: TRANSPORT AND POWER COMPARISONS

CO2 emissions from transportation of fuel

Coal used in LMCB is imported mainly using barge vessels from Sumatra, Indonesia andship vessels from China. A calculation based on an assumption that coal will be imported

from Indonesia. This will lead to more conservative emission estimation where CO2emissions are lesser due to shorter sea travel distance.

It will take 3 days journey in barge vessel from Sumatra with a capacity of 4000 tonnes of

coal per trip. Fuel consumption per trip will be 30 tonnes of HFO 380. If the project could

displace 30,000 tonnes of coal per year, 225 tonnes of HFO 380 can be saved annually.The calculation is shown in the table below.

A B C D =C/D x A E F =D x E

Total Fuel per

trip (tonnes)

Cargo Weight

(tonnes)

Coal Replaced by

PKS (tonnes)

Total Fuel

Consumption

(tonnes)

Emission Factor

(tCO2/t Fuel)-IPCC

Emission

(tCO2/yr)

30 4000 30000 225 3.21 722

Assuming the coal mining area in Sumatra and LMCB works is located within 100 km

radius from ports in Sumatra and Malaysia respectively, 20tonne trucks will be travelling

a distance of 400 km back and forth on road to make the coal available in the works. Iffuel consumption of a 20tonne heavy-duty diesel truck is 2500 km/tonne, on road

transportation will consume 240 tonnes of fuel to transport 30,000 tonnes of coal. The

table below calculates the figures explained above.

A B C

D = (C/20) x 2 x

(A+B) E F = C/D G H = F x G

Distance

from portto LMC

(km)

Distance

from CoalMining to

port (km)

Coal

Replaced byPKS

(tonnes)

Distance

Traveled by 20tTrucks (km)

Fuel

Consumptionby trucks

(km/t)

Total Fuel

Consumption(tonnes)

Emission Factor

(tCO2/t Fuel)-IPCC

Emission

(tCO2/yr)

100 100 30000 600000 2500 240 3.21 770

Comparatively, LMCB have to use in average 2 times more PKS than coal due to lower

heat value and higher moisture content. Since PKS is locally available, only on road

transportation is used. Heavy-duty 20tonnes diesel trucks will be travelling an average

distance of 180 km radius from PKS collection point. By working out the figures above asshown in the table below, on-road transportation of PKS will consume 458 tonnes of fuel

per year.

A B C = (B/20) x 2 x A D E = C/D F F =E x F

Distance

from port

to LMC

(km)

Coal

Replaced by

PKS

(tonnes)

Distance Traveled by

20t Trucks (km)

Fuel

Consumption

by trucks

(km/t)

Total Fuel

Consumption

(tonnes)

Emission

Factor (tCO2/t

Fuel)-IPCC

Emission

(tCO2/yr)

180 63600 1144800 2500 458 3.21 1470


29/33

29

Total emissions from sea and road transportation of coal amounts to 1493 tCO2/yr.Comparatively emissions only from PKS transportation is 1470 tCO2/yr. There is no

significant increase in emissions from transportation by substituting coal with PKS in

LMCB. Therefore, project emission calculations from transportation of fuel areinsignificant in the project activity.

Power Comparisons

The energy consumption for fuel handling and crushing of coal and PKS is estimated to

be about the same amount. Although coal has a heat value that is twice the heat value forPKS and should require less transportation on conveyors etc. it has to be ground finer in

the coal mill, which requires more energy than crushing the PKS. PKS is not prepared to

be as fine as coal in particle size. The emissions difference from the power consumptionfor the fuel handling system is therefore assumed to be negligible.


30/33

30

APPENDIX 8

MOISTURE PENALTY ASSESSMENT

Measured PKS Penalty

Specific heat consumption will be calculated and recorded everyday as LMCB standardoperating procedures. Since the kiln will be operating throughout the year, it is not

possible to stop the clinker production to conduct measurement of specific heat

consumption with and without PKS. Thus data from the days where PKS was not usedwill be compared with data with the days PKS was used to calculate specific heat

consumption for alternative and fossil fuel.(HCAF & HCFF) according to ACM0003. Later,moisture penalty, mp can be calculated by knowing the share of PKS within the same

period of time.

The specific heat consumption varies significantly from day to day due to technical andnon technical reasons. The most common reasons are;

a) Weather Condition- Rainy days, high moisture in the airb) Kiln efficiency factor due to clinker production

c) Process variation

Observing the two specific heat consumption graphs presented below, it can be concludedthat most of the data falls in the range of 800 to 1100 kcal/kg of clinker. To make the

calculation more accurate, all the data values outside the range will be neglected. The data

was extracted from clinker production reports in LMCB from the year 2004 and 2005 to

show moisture penalty from the most recent years.

Variation of Heat Consumption Without PKS(800-1100kcal/kg)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57

Data Points

kcal/kg

954Average


31/33

31

Variation of Heat Consumption With PKS (800-1100kcal/kg)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1 11 22 33 45 56 67 77 87 97 107

Data Points

kcal/kg

960Average

The average specific heat consumption with and without PKS together with average

PKS heat input share for all the relevant data points calculated from the LMCB

production reports are given below.

HCFF = 954 kcal/kg

HCAF = 960 kal/kg

Si = 11%

Thus the moisture penalty can be calculated according to the formula given in

Annex 3 as shown below.

10

=i

FFAF

S

HCHCmp

PKSkgkcalmp %10//51011

954960=

=

This is equivalent to 22.8 MJ/tonne/10% PKS. Since this value is very uncertain due

to the high variation in the actual clinker production data, theoretical value of

moisture penalty need to be calculated from the first principle. The section below is

based on theoretical calculation and a final conclusion is made in comparison of

both measured and theoretical values.

PKS Penalty Calculation


32/33

32

Precalciner Cement Plants are designed with limited retention time in the PrecalcinerVessel to allow quick combustion and heat transfer of a finely ground fossil fuel in order

to decarbonate limestone from CaCO3 to CaO + CO2 up to a 90% completion. Thus

effectively preparing the material to be received by the Rotary Kiln for the progress of theclinkerisation reactions.

The burning of a coarse biomass fuel inside such a vessel has a number of disadvantageswhich require a higher overall heat input to maintain the same process efficiency and

hence production rate from a Cement Rotary Kiln.

These can be defined and calculated as detailed below

1. The addition of a lower heat value fuel that encompasses higher moisture willlead to an increase in the humidity (moisture content) of the combustion gases.

This increased humidity serves no purpose to the cement making process and

requires heating to the process temperature before discharge from the system as itis fully integrated into the gas path from the Cement Kiln. The LHV (net specific

heat value) of the biomass used to calculate the efficiency or overall heat

consumption accounts for the Latent Heat of Vaporisation of moisture in all

fuels. It does not however account for the subsequent heating of that vapour toprocess conditions and the additional heat lost from the Cement manufacturing

process as this gas forms part of the exhaust gases. Heated to 900C in the

Precalciner where the fuel is entered some of this heat is recovered through thepreheater tower of cyclones as it preheats the incoming Raw Meal. However this

water vapour leaves the process at typically 430C carrying some sensible heat

with it. The calculation of a Biomass penalty is therefore applied to heating thewater vapour from ambient temperature of 30C to preheater exit temperature of

430C as follows

Reference Data

Clinker production (C = clinker) 5200 tpd Net Specific Heat Consumption 900 kcals/kg C

Or (900 * 4.181 / 1000) = 3.7656 MJ/kg C

% Heat attained from Biomass PKS 10 %Or (3.7656/100*10) = 0.3766 MJ/kg C

Net Specific Heat of PKS 13.13 MJ/kg PKS

Moisture content of PKS 22 %

Calculation

Heat required for 1 kg water vapour 30-430C = 0.7845 MJ/kg H2O

22% of PKS is water vapour (0.785 * 22%) = 0.1726 MJ/kg PKS

10% of Mjoules comes from PKS (0.173*10%)= 0.0173 MJ/kg C

2. Cement Process operates under a negative pressure and any new material input tothe system will bring with it a quantity of air from outside the process referred to

as inleak as it is of no useful purpose to the process. Heated to 900C in the

Precalciner where the inleak is entered some of this heat is recovered through thepreheater tower of cyclones as it preheats the incoming Raw Meal. However this


33/33

inleak leaves the process at typically 430C carrying some sensible heat with it.The calculation of a Biomass penalty is therefore applied to heating the inleak

from ambient temperature of 30C to preheater exit temperature of 430C as

follows

Reference Data

Clinker production (C = clinker) 5200 tpd

Or (5200 * 1000 / 24) = 216,667 kg/hr C

Measured inleak from PKS system 62 Nm3/minWeight of air (62 * 1.2923 * 60)= 4807 kg/hr Air

Calculation

Heat required for 1 kg air 30-430C = 0.444 MJ/kg Air

Heat Lost per hour by Air (0.444 * 4807) = 2134.31 MJ/hrHeat Lost per kg clinker (2134.31/ 216,667) = 0.0099

MJ/kg C

Total Heat Loss Penalty for additional Water Vapour and inleak

Penalty from additional water vapour = 0.0173 MJ/kg C

Penalty from inleaking air = 0.0099 MJ/kg C--------------------

Total = 0.0272 MJ/kg C

Or (0.0272 * 1000 / 4.184) = 6.5 kcals/kg C

Additional contributions to a Penalty such as Thermal Heat Exchange efficiency betweena coarse Biomass fuel and a finely ground fossil fuel inside the Precalciner vessel,

Increased difficulty in mixing and hence complete combustion within the residence time

available can be considered additional to the above.

It is also recognised within the Cement Industry that runs on a basis of having one major

maintenance period per year that items such as inleak can increase over time due to wearand tear on equipment.

The calculated moisture penalty is about 0.027 MJ/kg which is approximately close to thevalue calculated from the actual measurement. However, due to high variation factor in

the actual measured data, more conservative value should be used. Considering all this

uncertainties, a moisture penalty of 0.1 MJ/kg C per 10% biomass is to be used.

Documents

Draft Monitoring Report LMCB May 4, 2006 2