Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Day-by-Day Estimate to determine highest Demand for that Day during last 5 Years Definition of “Influence Area”, whose CBM Capture and Burning can generate CERs Leakage due to Displacement of Methane used in Baseline Leakage due to CBM Seepage from adjacent Seams – 10% Default Leakage due to increased Coal Production – 10% Default Leakage due to CER Impact on Coal Prices Currently not calculated, but can be put back on EB Agenda No ex-ante Monitoring Ex post Monitoring of Methane Concentration in CMM and Methane burnt Characteristics of Coal Seams and CBM Wells “Overlaps”, i.e. displacement of thermal methane uses in the baseline scenario by methane use for electricity generation in the project scenario, do not generate emission reductions. To allow day-by-day projection of thermal methane demand, data for the last five years before project start have to be provided. For each day of a year during the crediting period, the highest demand volume for that day during the last five years will determine baseline scenario demand. For example, if on day x of each of the last five years methane uses were 105, 111, 95, 102 and 108% of the mean daily demand of each year respectively, the projected methane demand for day x will be 111% of the mean daily projection of the project year. If daily demand data are not available, monthly data can be used instead. According to a complex procedure to determine the area influenced by mining where the coal seam is “de-stressed”, the share of “eligible” CBM from wells drilled before mining is determined. Only this share is used to calculate CBM-related baseline emissions, while the total CBM volume including the non-eligible share is used to calculate project emissions, to be on the conservative side. CBM capture only generates reductions once the coal seam is mined through … Leakage consists of four elements. The first is emissions due to “overlaps” as described above, where fossil fuels are now used instead of methane. For the resulting energy shortfall, the energy content is calculated and multiplied by the emissions factor of fuels that would be used to cover the shortfall. The second leakage component is CBM generation which is eligible, but occurring from coal seams outside the de-stressed area, which would happen if the boreholes have no casing and there are no surface boreholes for CBM extraction in the baseline scenario. For this leakage, a default discount of 10% or an ex-ante engineering estimate is to be used. The third component of leakage applies if CMM is ventilated in the baseline scenario. As ventilation in an underground mine cannot transport infinite amounts of methane, CBM/CMM extraction before mining can lead to increased coal production. For this leakage, a default discount of 10% or the share of the additional coal production in total coal production is to be used. The fourth leakage component is very unusual as it wants to address the market impact of CER revenue on coal prices and apply a discount that would capture the coal consumption increase due to reduced market price. This is inconsistent with all other baseline methodologies. For the time being, the fourth component is not to be calculated, as the Meth Panel recommended that the EB should decide after 2-3 years of projects being implemented using ACM 0008 whether it should be revised to reflect price and market impacts. Monitoring: Monitoring shall include the following data (only ex-post): • Amount of CBM/CMM collected, using a continuous flow meter and monitoring of temperature and pressure; • Methane concentration in extracted CBM/CMM, using a continuous analyzer or with periodical measurements, at a 95% confidence level , using calibrated portable gas meters and taking a statistically valid number of samples; • MHC concentration in extracted CBM/CMM; • Electricity, heat and fuel generation and consumption of the project; 104
• Methane used for electricity and heat generation and methane flared, using a continuous flow meter and monitoring of temperature and pressure; • Thickness of coal seams, coal density, gas content of coal, borehole location and CBM flow per borehole. Challenges encountered in the application of the methodology Flare Efficiency Measurement Problem Deviation for Methane from non-coal Mines According to its methodology revision history, the main challenges encountered in the application of ACM0008 was the measurement of flare efficiency, as the methodology was revised twice to align flare efficiency monitoring with the procedures in other methane capture-related methodologies (see discussion in section 5.4). So far no-ACM 8 specific request for review, revision or clarification has been submitted, which is surprising given the complex features of the methodology. One project (UNFCCC no. 1135) had to make corrections but these only relate to the implementation of the investment test. A request for deviation was lodged in March 2007 for the Beatrix gold mine in South Africa, where methane is coming from unclear sources. The developers argued that the mine’s situation was unique and thus would not warrant a specific methodology. The EB rejected the request stating that the methane collected is similar to CBM and that the boreholes would not necessarily be linked to the mined area and thus would not influence the eventual methane emissions in the mined areas. Furthermore, the EB argued that “<strong>CDM</strong> benefits could not (sic!) generate an incentive to drill additional boreholes near emitting ones where the probability to get another emitting borehole may be high. The existing methodology does not provide any procedures to ensure that this is not the case.” Subsequently, the project developer has submitted a new methodology (NM 236). 5.7 Thermal Energy for the User 5.7.1 <strong>Methodologies</strong> analyzed Small Scale AMS-I.C (Thermal energy for the user with or without electricity) 5.7.2 Basic Concept Category Description Renewable Heat This category deals with projects that involve the supply of renewable thermal energy to users and households that displaces fossil fuels usage. Methodological Concept Emissions Reductions are Heat Generation times Emission Factor of Baseline Fossil Fuel Emissions reductions arising from this project type correspond to the emissions that would have been generated to produce thermal energy in the absence of the project. Therefore emission reductions (ERs) are typically calculated as the thermal energy generated by the project (TJ) multiplied by the emission factor (tCO 2 /TJ) of the technology used to estimate the baseline emissions (i.e. the technology that would have been used in the absence of the project). Some leakage may need to be taken into account. 105
Page 1 and 2:
Understanding CDM Methodologies A g
Page 3:
Introduction The success of the Cle
Page 7 and 8:
1. Introduction Climate Change is a
Page 9 and 10:
Aim of Guidebook This guidebook wil
Page 11 and 12:
Special Status of the Marrakech Acc
Page 13 and 14:
Small Scale Thresholds over Time Cr
Page 15 and 16:
Transparency, Conservativeness, Con
Page 17 and 18:
Role of DOEs - Absence of Accredita
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 2: The CDM project cycle CER
Page 21 and 22:
EB Decision Making and the Role of
Page 23 and 24:
While COP/MOP has provided that Lar
Page 25 and 26:
Verification Regarding verification
Page 27 and 28:
3. Barrier analysis, with the aim t
Page 29 and 30:
Rejections due to Lack of Additiona
Page 31 and 32:
4. Methodologies Methodology Case L
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 9: Fuel switch family tree M
Page 35 and 36:
Interpretation of top 20% in Approa
Page 37 and 38:
4.1.4 Leakage Unclear Definition of
Page 39 and 40:
Top-down Methodology Development fo
Page 41 and 42:
Table 4: Methodology revisions 2005
Page 43 and 44:
5. Key elements and application of
Page 45 and 46:
Two Methodologies added Nitric Acid
Page 47 and 48:
Methodological Concept Power Genera
Page 49 and 50:
Box 13: Exclusion of immaterial par
Page 51 and 52:
Build Margin Build Margin: newest P
Page 53 and 54:
Box 16: OM/ BM calculation where th
Page 55 and 56: Project Emissions With the exceptio
Page 57 and 58: Applicability Conditions Grid has t
Page 59 and 60: Leakage Leakage: Transfer of Equipm
Page 61 and 62: Box 20: Sufficient natural gas supp
Page 63 and 64: • Option 3: The emission factor o
Page 65 and 66: Industrial Gas Methodologies 5.3 De
Page 67 and 68: No Additionality Problem Another co
Page 69 and 70: In a second step, it is tested whet
Page 71 and 72: Determination of the Emission Facto
Page 73 and 74: Baseline scenario and additionality
Page 75 and 76: Box 27: Ensuring accuracy of measur
Page 77 and 78: 5.4.2 Basic concept Emissions Reduc
Page 79 and 80: Default Cogen Plant Efficiency 90%
Page 81 and 82: 5.4.4 AMS-II.D Project Description
Page 83 and 84: 5.4.5 AM0046 This methodology warra
Page 85 and 86: • Information on any changes made
Page 87 and 88: Displacement of Natural Gas in Pipe
Page 89 and 90: Landfill gas capture and flaring ac
Page 91 and 92: Ex post: The main parameters that n
Page 93 and 94: Box 31: Deviation of monitoring met
Page 95 and 96: Box 32: Measurement of the flare ef
Page 97 and 98: Expanding of Applicability Conditio
Page 99 and 100: Seven-Step Procedure for Measuremen
Page 101 and 102: Project boundary Transport of Waste
Page 103 and 104: Biomass Leakage: Proving that there
Page 105: 5.6 .3 ACM0008 Description of the c
Page 109 and 110: Applicability conditions Definition
Page 111 and 112: or retrofit. This baseline holds fo
Page 113 and 114: • For biomass-fired projects, a s
Page 115 and 116: A handful of projects have submitte
Page 117 and 118: Submission of further Baseline Scen
Page 119 and 120: Heat only Projects Baseline Scenari
Page 121 and 122: • Quantity of steam diverted from
Page 123: Published by the Department for Env
show all

Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?