Report about the choices of locations regarding compressed gas stations

Report about the choices of locations regarding

compressed gas stations

Nordic Energy Group OÜ

www.balticbiogasbus.eu 2

Background

• The current report has been prepared within the project “Baltic Biogas Bus”, which is funded by the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013


Aim of the study

• To choose the best locations for biogas/natural gas stations within the limits of Tartu city.


Evaluation criteria• 1) land ownership of the location

• 2) distance from residential areas

• 3) distance from closest residential houses

• 4) noise

• 5) logistical location

• 6) detectability of the location

• 7) possibilities for creating communication means • 8) estimated public opinion about the possible location of a future

compressed gas station

• 9) accessory expenses of the investment


Compared locations:• Location 1 – Turu 34 (79511:001:0001)• Location 2 – Sepa 26 (79511:003:0001)• Location 3 – Turu 47 (79511:007:0008)• Location 4 – Turu 51 (79511:007:0062)• Location 5 – Tehnika 10 (79511:008:0025)• Location 6 – Tehnika 18 (79511:008:0023)• Location 7 – Tähe 118 (79511:011:0007)• Location 8 – Ringtee 8 (79511:005:0003)• Location 9 – Ringtee 25 (79511:006:0022)• Location 10 – Võru 175 (79511:006:0061)• Location 11 – Ringtee 77 (79505:003:0009)• Location 12 – Ringtee 68 (79503:001:0074)• Location 13 – Ilmatsalu 11 (79502:003:0040)


The best locations, found by the study:

• The best locations appeared to be sites 2,3,8,9 ja 11


Location No. 2: Sepa 26

• Pros: • 1) near a street with heavy traffic (advertising)

• 2) nearest house 500 m • 3) 100 per cent industrial land • 4) gas supply within 200 m (Tähe street)

• 5) substation on the property land

• Cons:• 1) detailed plan has been started, which can change the purpose of usage

in the future

• 2) the city is not the owner of the land


Location No. 3: Turu 47

• Pros: • 1) near a street with heavy traffic (advertising) • 2) nearest house 750 m. • 3) 50% industrial land, 50% commercial land • 4) gas supply within 500 m (Tähe street) • 5) substation on the property

• Cons:• 1) detailed plan has been started, which can change the purpose of usage

in the future • 2) the city is not the owner of the land

• 3) 50 per cent commercial land


Location No. 8: Ringtee 8• Pros:• near a street with heavy traffic (advertising, transport) • 100% industrial land• Gas supply, substation present• No detail plan started

• Cons:• Nearest house 200 m• City doesn´t own the land


Location No. 9: Ringtee 25

• Pros: • near a street with heavy traffic (advertising, transport) • 15% industrial land, 85% transport land

• Currently working gas station

• Substation on the property

• Gasline on the next street

• Cons:• Only 200 metres to a residential building

• City doesn´t own the land


Location No. 11 – Ringtee 77

• Pros:• near a street with heavy traffic (advertising, transport) • Nearest house within 400 m• Gas supply available in an adjacent central pipeline

• Currently unimproved building land

• Cons:• 100% commercial land

• Nearest substation within 150 m

• Detailed plan started

• City doesn´t own the land


Conclusion & recommendations• In Ropka industrial region 4 locations should be considered among the

first – 2, 3, 8 and 9.• Location No. 2 is currently provided with a garage of one of the waste

managament companies in the city and location No. 9 has the garage of one of the bus companies serving the city.

• Near the Tallinn-Luhamaa highway, the best location No. 11 hosts several bus stops of the city lines, thus it would be suitable for fuelling up the busses either in the morning or in the evenings of workdays.

• The option to build both gas stations in the Ropka industrial region should also be considered.

• Additionally, the construction costs on the preferred sites should be calculated, rights of use or ownership for the land investigated and size of the investments estimated.

Documents

Report about the choices of locations regarding compressed gas stations