MONITORING REPORT for REPLACEMENT OF FOSSIL FUEL BY PALM KERNEL SHELL BIOMASS IN 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

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

I: INTRODUCTION I.1: Purpose This monitoring report has been prepared for Replacement of Fossil Fuel by Palm Kernel Shell Biomass in The Production of Portland Project 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 create cement clinker. A complete description of the cement manufacturing process is given in Annex 6. In Malaysia, 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 gives rise 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 and ultimately of no current use to any industry. The decision to substitute fossil fuel with biomass is a positive action to reduce CO2 emissions from the 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 Blue Circle 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 to flexible mechanisms such as CDM under the Kyoto Protocol. The technology to process and use PKS has been developed in a partnership with Blue Circle Industries 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 and subsequent 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 3

renewable energy as the fifth fuel. The projects compliance with the Malaysian National Criteria for CDM 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 1.3:1. >> The host country is Malaysia 1.3:2 >>

b) Rawang Works, Selangor c) Kanthan Works, Perak Host Party(ies):

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 road leading 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 Ehsan Malaysia

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

Batu 13, Jalan Kuala Kangsar 4

31200 Chemor Peral 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 this project 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 total energy 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 the time 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 production capacity 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 improvements in output, fuel consumption, and additions of other materials or fuels to the process.

The amount of alternative fuels available for the project is at least 1.5 times the amount required to meet the consumption 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 the demand. Within the 180km radius defined in Annex 8, covering the states of Perak, Kelantan, Pahang, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, 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 project demand.

I.6: Technical description of the project: 1.6 Project Description OVERVIEW 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 clinker with 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 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:

CaCO 3 + heat CaO + CO 2

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:

PKS Transportation

PKS Storage

PKS Feeding System

Crusher Fuel Mixing Other Fossil Fuel (Coal or Petcoke) Fossil Fuel Transportation (On road and sea) 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: CO2 from actual clinker CO2 from raw materials discarded (land filled) as partly calcined cement kiln dust (CKD), or as fully calcined bypass dust. Kiln, Pre Calciner

Project boundary

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, petroleum coke, 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 water treatment. Both conventional and alternative fuels result in direct CO2 emissions through the stack. However biomass fuels 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 or landfills.

SECTION- II: MONITORING Section II.1: Monitoring Methodology

Title: Approved monitoring methodology ACM0003, Version 2 Emissions reduction through partial 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 (Please use number s to ease crossreferen cing to table D.3) 1. 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

Clinker production [C]

LMCB

Ton

m, c

Monthly

100%

Electronic, paper

2.

Alternativ e fuel quantity [QAF]

LMCB

Ton

Monthly

100%

Electronic, paper

LMCB monitors the clinker production as a part of their production management activities and data is included in monthly production reports. Raw material to produce clinker is measured using weighing feeders and clinker production is calculated. LMCB monitors the amount of PKS fuel purchase as a part of the procurement and payment for the deliveries and data is included in monthly production reports. Alternative fuel quantity is measured using weighing feeders.

3.

Alternativ e fuel heat value [HVAF]

LMCB

TJ/tonne

m, c

Monthly

100%

Electronic, paper

4.

Alternativ e fuel heat [HIAF] Alternativ e fuel emission factor [EFAF] Share of heat input from alternativ e fuel [SAF]

LMCB

TJ

Monthly

100%

Electronic, paper

LMCB monitors the heat value of PKS fuel as a part of the procurement and payment for all deliveries and data is included in monthly production reports. Calorimeter is used to measure the heat value in LMCB laboratory Calculation based on the monitored data by the following formula:

HI AF = Q AF HV AF
IPCC TCO2/TJ e Fixed 100% Electronic, paper This value is fixed at zero, as the fuel is carbon neutral biomass. Calculation based on the monitored data HIAF and HIFF by the following formula:

5.

6.

LMCB

Monthly

100%

Electronic, paper

S AF =

( Q FF

HI AF HVFF ) +

7.

Moisture penalty [mp]

LMCB

MJ/tonn e/10% alt. Fuel share Ton

At start of crediting period

100%

Electronic, paper

8.

Fossil fuel quantity [QFF]

LMCB

Monthly

100%

Electronic, paper

9.

Fossil fuel Heat value [HVFF]

LMCB

TJ/tonne

m, c

Monthly

100%

Electronic, paper

10.

Fossil fuel emission factor [EFFF]

IPCC

TCO2/TJ

Fixed

100%

Electronic, paper

The moisture penalty will be measured and calculated during a test of heat consumption with and without approx. 10% alternative fuel input LMCB monitors the amount of fossil fuel purchase as a part of the procurement and payment for the deliveries and data is included in monthly production reports. Quantity of fossil fuel is measured using weighing feeders before fired into the kiln. LMCB monitors the heat value of fossil fuel as a part of the procurement and payment for all deliveries and data is included in monthly production reports. The value is measured using calorimeter. The emission factor for fossil fuels are fixed at the default value in the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual: coal of 94.6 kg CO2/GJ, Petcoke2 92.5kg CO2/GJ, Diesel3 74.1 kg CO2/GJ, Shale4 107 kg CO2/GJ

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 to monitor leakage effects of the project activity
ID number (Please use numbers to ease crossreferencing to table D.3) N/A 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

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 been emitted 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 table and ID number e.g. 3.-1.; 3.2.) 1 2 3 4 Uncertainty level of data (High/Medium/Low) Low Low Low Low Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such procedures are not necessary. The data is already a part of the QA/QC system in LMCB and the data is compiled in monthly production reports The data is already a part of the QA/QC system in LMCB and the data is compiled in monthly production reports The data is already a part of the QA/QC system in LMCB and the data is compiled in monthly production reports N/A this data is calculated

10

5 6 7 8 9 10

Low Low Low Low Low Low

N/A this data is IPCC defined N/A this data is calculated N/A this data is calculated (rf. Annex 13) The data is already a part of the QA/QC system in LMCB and the data is compiled in monthly production reports The data is already a part of the QA/QC system in LMCB and the data is compiled in monthly production reports 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 be systematically 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 is PKS, 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 international standards 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 % heat contributed 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 production reports 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.

11

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 table and ID number e.g. 3.-1.; 3.2.) D.3-1 D.3-2 D.3-3 D.3-4 D.3-5 D.3-6 D.3-7 D.3-8 D.3-9 D.3-10 D.5-11 D.3-12 D.3-13 Uncertainty level of data (High/Medium/Low ) Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such procedures are not necessary. Sampling has been carried out adhering to internationally recognized procedures Flow meters have undergone maintenance/calibration subject to appropriate industry standards. This data Not Applicable for the Project Activity. Flow meters have undergone maintenance/calibration subject to appropriate industry standards. This data Not Applicable for the Project Activity Flow meters have undergone maintenance/calibration subject to appropriate industry standards. Sampling has been carried out adhering to internationally recognized procedures. This has been carried out at least quarterly. This data Not Applicable for the Project Activity This data Not Applicable for the Project Activity Flow meters have undergone maintenance/calibration subject to appropriate industry standards. Flow meters have undergone maintenance/calibration subject to appropriate industry standards. Sampling has been carried out adhering to internationally recognized procedures. This has been carried out at least quarterly. Electricity meters have undergone maintenance/calibration subject to appropriate industry standards. The accuracy of the meter readings have been verified.

D.5-1 D.5-2 D.5-3

Low Low Low

Sampling has been carried out adhering to internationally recognized procedures. Flow meters have undergone maintenance/calibration subject to appropriate industry standards. This data Not Applicable for the Project Activity

13

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 GHG emissions.
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 of III .1 and III.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.

14

S AF =

( Q FF

HI AF HVFF ) + HI AF

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 between III.4 and III.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 post calculation of baseline emission rates may only be used if proper justification is provided. Notwithstanding, the baseline emission rates shall also be calculated ex ante and reported in the CDM-PDD. The result of the application of the formulae above shall be indicated using the following tabular format.
Year
Estimation of project activity emission reductions (tonnes of CO2 e)
62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011

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 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011 62,011

Appendix-I - Calculations
I. Baseline Emissions

BASELINE INFORMATION

15

ID number 1. 2. 3. 4.

Data variable Clinker production [C] Alternative fuel quantity [QAF] Alternative fuel heat value [HVAF] Alternative fuel heat [HIAF] Alternative fuel emission factor [EAF] Share of heat input from alternative fuel [SAF]

Source of data LMCB LMCB LMCB LMCB

Data unit Tonne/yr tonne TJ/tonne TJ

Data Value
4,746,624

Comment Average annual clinker production in the period 20002004 Average annual consumption of PKS in the period 2000-2004 Average heat value measured for the purchased PKS. Measured by LMCB laboratory Calculation based on the above data by the following formula:

68,000 0.01313 893

HI AF = Q AF HV AF
IPCC LMCB TCO2/TJ % 0 5 This value is fixed at zero, as the fuel is carbon neutral biomass Calculation based on the above data HIAF and HIFF by the following formula:

5. 6.

S AF =

HI AF ( QFF HVFF ) + HI AF

7.

Moisture penalty [mp] Fossil fuel quantity [QFF]

LMCB

MJ/tonne/10% alt. Fuel share

100

8.

Coal Pet coke

582513 40322 12363 18997 0.02575 0.03100 0.04333

The moisture penalty has been assessed in Annex 13 at 10% for 10% PKS share of the total heat Average annual consumption of fossil fuel in the period 20002004

LMCB

tonne
Diesel Shale

9.

Fossil fuel Heat value [HVFF]

Coal Pet coke Diesel

LMCB

TJ/tonne

Shale

0.00940

10.

Fossil fuel emission factor EFFF

IPCC

TCO2/TJ

Coal Pet coke

94.6 100.8

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 locally available and default IPCC value will be used. The emission factor for fossil fuels are default values obtained from the IPCC reference guidebook as mentioned in

16

ID number

Data variable

Source of data

Data unit

Data Value

Comment ACM0003. Weighted Average emission factor (ex-ante) using Option 1 according to ACM0003 will yield 94.5 tCO2/TJ.

Diesel Shale

74.1 107.0

17

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 the individual works reports and compile them as per standard ISO requirements. Monitoring data for validation 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 plus deliveries 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 standard business 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 published business 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 per annum 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 fuel suppliers 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 material used. 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-received is 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 humidity in 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 1. Data variable Clinker production [C] Source of data Senior Works Manager Report Data unit tonne Frequency Of Monitoring Monthly Comment 1) This value is required to calculate total moisture penalty, MP.

18

ID number 2.

Data variable Alternative fuel quantity [QAF]

Source of data Senior Works Manager Report

Data unit tonne

Frequency Of Monitoring Monthly

Comment 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. 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) Heat values are based on as-firedbasis. 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. 1) These values are required to estimate share of alternative fuel, SAF, and to calculate emission reductions. 2) Heat values are based on as-firedbasis. 3) IPCC Lower Heat Values can be used if no locally lab test values are available.

3.

Alternative fuel heat value [HVAF]

Senior Works Manager Report

TJ/tonne

Monthly

8.

Fossil fuel quantity [QFF]

Senior Works Manager Report

tonne

Monthly

9.

Fossil fuel Heat value [HVFF]

Senior Works Manager Report

TJ/tonne

Monthly

19

Appendix 3 BASELINE DATA

A Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total QAF tonnes/yr 68000 68000 68000 68000 68000 68000 68000 68000 68000 68000 B HVAF TJ/tonne fuel 0.01313 0.01313 0.01313 0.01313 0.01313 0.01313 0.01313 0.01313 0.01313 0.01313 C= A X B HIAF TJ/yr 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 D HIFF TJ/yr 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 E=C/(C+D) SAF % 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% F mp TJ/tonne/10%AF 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 4746624 G C tonnes/yr 4746624 4746624 4746624 4746624 4746624 4746624 4746624 4746624 4746624 H=(E x F x G)/10 MPtotal TJ/yr 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 94.5 619,456 I* EFFF tCO2/TJ 94[s1].5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 J=(C-H) x I FFGHG tCO2/yr 61,946 61,946 61,946 61,946 61,946 61,946 61,946 61,946 61,946 61,946

*Option 1 selected according to ACM0003 as it was the lowest of all 3 options described.
Year QFF-Coal (tonnes/yr) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 582513 582513 582513 582513 582513 582513 582513 582513 582513 582513 HVFF-Coal (TJ/tonne fuel) 0.0258 0.0258 0.0258 0.0258 0.0258 0.0258 0.0258 0.0258 0.0258 0.0258 QFF-Petcokes (tonnes/yr) 40322 40322 40322 40322 40322 40322 40322 40322 40322 40322 HVFF-Petcokes (TJ/tonne fuel) 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 QFF-Diesel Oils (tonnes/yr) 12363 12363 12363 12363 12363 12363 12363 12363 12363 12363 HVFF-Diesel Oils (TJ/tonne fuel) 0.0433 0.0433 0.0433 0.0433 0.0433 0.0433 0.0433 0.0433 0.0433 0.0433 QFF-Shale Oil (tonnes/yr) 18997 18997 18997 18997 18997 18997 18997 18997 18997 18997 HVFF-Shale Oil (TJ/tonne fuel) 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 HIFF (TJ/yr) 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964 16964

20

Appendix 4
OVERVIEW 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 clinker with 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 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:

CaCO 3 + heat CaO + CO 2

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: 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 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). 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 to be 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 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 water treatment. Both conventional and alternative fuels result in direct CO2 emissions through the stack. However biomass fuels 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 or landfills.

21

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 per unit 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 clinker to 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 calcination and 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 additional GHG emissions at the production site. As a consequence, indirect emissions must not be included in the cement production inventory.

22

APPENDIX 6: PKS AVAILABILITY CALCULATION

The availability of PKS for the project activity is assessed by using official data by the Malaysian Palm 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 given year. 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 3,499,012 2002 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 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fresh Fruit Bunches, FFB 18.33 19.14 17.97 18.99 18.60 Crude Palm Oil 3.46 3.66 3.59 3.75 3.73 Palm Kernel 1.01 1.05 0.98 1.02 0.98

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

Table 3: Assumptions for PKS availability

PKS out of FFB Excess PKS available out of total PKS

6% 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 (Noel Wambeck, 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 typical mills (Noel Wambeck, Oil Palm Process Synopsis ed. 2, 1999).

23

Table 4: PKS availability Total Malaysia 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 FFB (tonne) 53,923,029 57,520,810 57,293,883 62,726,499 64,187,856 PKS (tonne) 3,235,382 3,451,249 3,437,633 3,763,590 3,851,271 PKS available (tonne) 323,538 345,125 343,763 376,359 385,127

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 project operation. 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 all be 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 and other 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 past five 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 are higher 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.
% PKS Rawang 53 32860 Kanthan 47 29140 Total 100% 62000

24

Estimation of the average distance travelled is briefed below.The distance is weighted according to 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 is around 150 km. A) Base Case Scenario
Works Kanthan Rawang Radius (km) 50 150 50 150 PKS (tonnes) 14570 14570 6572 9858 16430 62000 Sourcing 50% 50% 20% 30% 50% Weight factor 0.235 0.235 0.106 0.159 Weighted Distance (km) 11.75 35.25 5.30 23.85 66.25 142

250 Total Road Windings Factor : 5%

0.265 Total Total Weighted Distance : 150 km

Calculation of the worst case scenario is shown in the table below. To be conservative, it is assumed 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
Radius PKS (km) (tonnes) 50 8742 150 20398 Rawang 50 3286 150 6572 250 23002 Total 62000 Road Windings Factor : 5% Works Kanthan Weight factor Weighted Distance (km) 0.141 7.05 0.329 49.35 0.053 2.65 0.106 15.90 0.371 92.75 Total 168 Total Weighted Distance : 176 km Sourcing 30% 70% 10% 20% 70%

25

PKS Source Distance and Availability By States in Peninsular Malaysia

Kedah-7,274 tonnes of PKS

Kelantan-5,731 tonnes of PKS Perak 34855 tonnes of PKS

Kanthan

50 km

Terengganu-11,041 tonnes of PKS

150 km

Pahang- 55,092 tonnes of PKS

Rawang 250 km

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

*Note :The PKS availability is calculated based on data from MPOB for the year 2004 and the total available tonnes within Peninsular Malaysia is approximately 210,000 tonnes. This is approximately 3 times higher than the project consumption.

26

Increase of PKS Availability in Malaysia Peninsular Year Malaysia 2000 201,524 2001 211,416 2002 207,720 2003 219,082 2004 212,715 Difference (20002004), % 9%

Sabah & Sarawak 122,014 133,709 136,043 157,277 165,930 36%

Total 323,538 345,125 343,763 376,359 385,127 19%

27

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 and ship 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 CO2 emissions 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 Total Fuel per trip (tonnes) B Cargo Weight (tonnes) C Coal Replaced by PKS (tonnes) D =C/D x A Total Fuel Consumption (tonnes) E Emission Factor (tCO2/t Fuel)-IPCC F =D x E 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. If fuel 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 Distance from port to LMC (km) 100 B Distance from Coal Mining to port (km) 100 C Coal Replaced by PKS (tonnes) 30000 D = (C/20) x 2 x (A+B) Distance Traveled by 20t Trucks (km) E Fuel Consumption by trucks (km/t) 2500 F = C/D Total Fuel Consumption (tonnes) G Emission Factor (tCO2/t Fuel)IPCC H=F xG Emission (tCO2/yr)

600000

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 as shown in the table below, on-road transportation of PKS will consume 458 tonnes of fuel per year.
A Distance from port to LMC (km) 180 B Coal Replaced by PKS (tonnes) 63600 C = (B/20) x 2 x A Distance Traveled by 20t Trucks (km) D Fuel Consumption by trucks (km/t) 2500 E = C/D Total Fuel Consumption (tonnes) F Emission Factor (tCO2/t Fuel)-IPCC F =E x F Emission (tCO2/yr)

1144800

458

3.21

1470

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 are insignificant 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 for PKS 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 consumption for the fuel handling system is therefore assumed to be negligible.

29

APPENDIX 8 MOISTURE PENALTY ASSESSMENT

Measured PKS Penalty Specific heat consumption will be calculated and recorded everyday as LMCB standard operating 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 used will 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 and non technical reasons. The most common reasons are; a) Weather Condition- Rainy days, high moisture in the air b) Kiln efficiency factor due to clinker production c) Process variation Observing the two specific heat consumption graphs presented below, it can be concluded that 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)
1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 954 900 800 700 600 500
45 51 47 39 29 31 17 21 13 11 15 19 23 25 27
Data Points

kcal/kg

Average

30

33

35

37

41

43

49

53

55

57

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

1500 1400 1300 1200 1100
kcal/kg

1000 960 900 800 700 600 500

1

Average

11

22

33

45

56
Data Points

67

77

87

97

107

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.

mp =

HC AF HC FF 10 Si

mp =

960 954 10 = 5kcal / kg / 10% PKS 11

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

31

Precalciner Cement Plants are designed with limited retention time in the Precalciner Vessel 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 the clinkerisation reactions. The burning of a coarse biomass fuel inside such a vessel has a number of disadvantages which 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 will lead 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 it is 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 to process 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 the preheater 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 the water vapour from ambient temperature of 30C to preheater exit temperature of 430C as follows Reference Data Clinker production (C = clinker) Net Specific Heat Consumption Or (900 * 4.181 / 1000) = % Heat attained from Biomass PKS Or (3.7656/100*10) = Net Specific Heat of PKS Moisture content of PKS Calculation Heat required for 1 kg water vapour 30-430C = 22% of PKS is water vapour (0.785 * 22%) = 10% of Mjoules comes from PKS (0.173*10%)= 0.7845 MJ/kg H2O 0.1726 MJ/kg PKS 0.0173 MJ/kg C 5200 tpd 900 kcals/kg C 3.7656 MJ/kg C 10 % 0.3766 MJ/kg C 13.13 MJ/kg PKS 22 %

2. Cement Process operates under a negative pressure and any new material input to the 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 the preheater tower of cyclones as it preheats the incoming Raw Meal. However this

32

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) Or (5200 * 1000 / 24) = Measured inleak from PKS system Weight of air (62 * 1.2923 * 60)= Calculation Heat required for 1 kg air 30-430C = Heat Lost per hour by Air (0.444 * 4807) = Heat Lost per kg clinker (2134.31/ 216,667) = MJ/kg C 0.444 MJ/kg Air 2134.31 MJ/hr 0.0099 5200 216,667 62 4807 tpd kg/hr C Nm3/min kg/hr Air

Total Heat Loss Penalty for additional Water Vapour and inleak Penalty from additional water vapour Penalty from inleaking air Total Or (0.0272 * 1000 / 4.184) = = = = 0.0173 MJ/kg C 0.0099 MJ/kg C -------------------0.0272 MJ/kg C 6.5 kcals/kg C

Additional contributions to a Penalty such as Thermal Heat Exchange efficiency between a 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 wear and tear on equipment. The calculated moisture penalty is about 0.027 MJ/kg which is approximately close to the value 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.

33