Improvement of Benchmark Analysis
15
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
15
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
Barriers & Challenges to Financing for Energy Efficiency CDM ProjectsCDM/JISustainable InvestmentM４UDevelopmentFinanceAdvisory Service on Clean Development Mechanism and Financing for SustainabilityMASUDA, Masato President of M4U Limited,Chief Counselor to the president of Japan Carbon Finance, Ltd.on February 25, 2005 at CTI Industrial Joint Seminar on 1Technology diffusion of Energy Efficiency in Asian Countries, Beijing, China1. Outlook for Primary Energy 1. Consumption in Asia by Country by FuelMtoeMtoe5,0005,000Other AsiaRenewable4,500 4,5004,000 4,000IndonesiaNuclear 3,5003,500India3,0003,000Natural2,500 2,500GasP.R.China2,000 2,000Oil1,5001,500SouthKorea1,0001,000CoalJapan500 5000 01990 2000 2010 2020 1990 2000 2010 2020Year Yearfrom The Institute of Energy Economic, Japan, March 200422. Heavy Reliance on Fossil Fuels might cause:• Uncertainty of Economic Growth due to due to bottleneck of energy supply• Tension among Countries due to strengthening energy security• Domestic Environmental Problems caused by emissions of SO2, NOX, etc.X• International / Global Environmental Problems such as transborder pollution, climate change, etc.33. CDM is expected to improve Energy 3. Efficiency in Developing Countries• CDM shall assist Non-Annex I countries in -Annex I countries in achieving Sustainable Development, and assist Annex I countries in achieving compliance with their Kyoto commitments ...
Voir
Publié par
Langue
English
Sustainable Development
Finance
MASUDA, Masato President of M4U Limited, Chief Counselor to the president of Japan Carbon Finance, Ltd.
Advisory Service on Clean Development Mechanism and Financing for Sustainability
CDM/JI
４
on Feb Technology diffursuiaorny o2f5 ,E n2e0r0g5y aEtf fCicTiIe Inncyd uins tArisaila Jno iCnotu Snetrmieisn,a rB eoinji ng, China 1
2000 2010 Year
Mtoe 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1990
Other Asia Indonesia India P.R.China South Korea Japan
2020
by Fuel
by Country
Renewable Nuclear Natural Gas Oil Coal
2020
400
2010
2000 Year
Mtoe 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1990
Problems such as transborder pollution, climate change, etc.
c
emissions of SO 2 , NO X , etc.
E
3
fre
strengthening energy security
c
bottleneck of energy supply
nniatUot ud erowthonomic Gamn g onunCoietreToisnsud eot 
achieving Sustainable Development , and assist Annex I countries in achieving compliance with their Kyoto commitments Non-Annex I country as Host C ountryAnnex I country
GHG emissions
Before Implementation of CDM Project
DOE & EB
Limitation of GHG Emissions
Support (finance &/or technology)
CERs
After Implementation GHG emissions ERs
3 .Developing CountfEificneyci nrove imprgy Enee px Msi dotceetCD
4. Difficulties for Energy Efficiency CDM
5
(a) Methodological Difficulties
(b) None of Energy Efficiency CDM project has been registered
(b) Financial Difficulties
(a) Only 2 methodologies for Energy Efficiency CDM have been approved (as of Feb.18, 2005)
tom ehefas frr ilaei ytRsna aeosniR aM:retitaecxp:on
7
(FCCC/CP/2004/L.2, Para.15.) Encourages project participants to make proposals for new baseline and monitoring methodologies for types of projects activities ･･･ , such as transportation, energy efficiency and district heating, and the Executive Board to consider such proposals with priority and to continue its work on elaborating consolidated methodologies for new sectors
No consensus for Top -down Approach COP s Guidance relating to the CDM
nwodpp Aacrovsh Bo. -ttomaohcpArpu p
Years
Credit Period Project Lifetime
Capex Cash Out-flow Construction z Energy Efficiency CDM is more difficult because of: (a) Big Capital Expenditure (Capex), and (b) Low Global Warming Potential (GWP)
8
Original Cash In-flow to Project
MDCy ncieicff EgyernE fortiestidialonas CInh dAow waCf-ol-nlfhsI ycnerrsh In-flowot Prcejoni trah uc darboCancn niFnisg erb tiddAaC lanoi
Capex: US$33 M including 10 % VAT/Import Duty Net Electricity Generation: 150,000 MWh/y T a r i f f : U S $ 0 . 0 5 / k W h O&M Cost: US$2.0 M Income T ax: 30 % Construction : 2 yrs Operational Lifeti me: 2 0 yrs from Completion Depreciation: by 10 -yr straight -line installments up to 5 % scrap value Carbon Emission Factor of Grid: 0.9 t -CO2/MWh
9
Grid
cteRocae tP orevyr Enerjgeyc tvnImtseisysf ot HetneaalsAnW．teastW i8t ea H riDdio icgnpsalricilecto Grty tlacialP eStnE ll, onmeCe, ntemChitnooCek ,rIry& Power GeneravecoRet eatHanPl gniylrednU
US$, Million
7.5 2.0 0.0
0.0 5.5 1.6 3.9 0.0 0.0 0 0 . 3.9
13 7.5 2.0 0.0
10
5.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9
0.0
3.1
2.0 3.1
7.5 2.0
1.7 3.1
0.7 1.7
2.4 0.7
0.0 2.4
4.8
0.0 4.8
0.0 0.0
3.1 0.0
12 7.5 2.0 3.1
0.0 2.4 0.7 1.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 4.8
0.0 2 4 . 0 7 . 1.7 3.1 0 0 . 0.0 4.8
5 7.5 2.0 3.1
16.5 0.0
0.0 16.5
0.0 6.5
16.5 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 6.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
4 7.5
4.8
0.0 4.8
0.0 0.0
3.1 0.0
1.7 3.1
0.7 1.7
2.4 0.7
0.0 2.4
0.0
3.1
2.0 3.1
7.5 2.0
3 7.5
-16.5 -16.5
0.0 6.5
0.0 0.0
1 0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
2 0.0
1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
2
Year
Equity IRR = 11.6% (Project IRR = 11.6%) Cash Flow Projection
Year
Cash Flow =
9 ． IRR of Model Project
11
10 ． Impact of Incentive Policies on Energy Efficiency Project
budgetary amount （ US$3.0M ） is assumed: (a) Exemption of VAT/ Import Duty （ US$ 3.0M ） Equity IRR = 11.6% 12.9% (+1.3%) (b) Reduction of Income Tax (U S$0. 6 M first 5 yrs ） Equity IRR = 11.6% 12.6% (+1.0%) (c) Subsidy for On -grid Tariff （ US$0.1 5 M 20 yrs) Equity IRR = 11.6% 11.9% (+0.3%) Upfront Incentive seems most attractive for Investors
nIntcee ivliPoescib yoHtsC uotnyr w eht hti emas
