Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Box 30: Clarifications on landfill gas flow monitoring Meter Redundancy upheld by EB Gas Flaring Projects only need one Meter Two requests for clarification were submitted questioning the necessity of installing flow meters at all measurement points throughout the flaring and energy system as required by ACM0001. Both requests argued that installing flow meters at each measurement point incurred significant costs for project developers while it did not necessarily increase the level of precision of measurements. The first of these submissions 265 requested clarification on whether projects that flare landfill gas and generate both electricity and thermal energy could install only three flow meters (instead of four) and determine the value of the fourth meter by a simple rule of three. To illustrate this, it proposed to measure the amount of landfill gas flared by subtracting the values of the two meters recording the amount of landfill combusted in an electricity generator and the amount of landfill gas combusted in a boiler, from the value recorded by the meter measuring the total amount of landfill gas captured. The MP responded negatively to this request arguing that the measurement redundancy was in line with the conservativeness of ACM0001. Nonetheless, the MP proposed that a rule of three could occasionally be used in cases where one of the meters would fail, and that a definition of “occasionally” would have to be drafted. EB 24 endorsed the MP’s decision on this issue. In a similar vein, a submission 266 requested clarification from the MP on whether flow meters had to be installed at each measurement point for project activities that only flare the landfill gas. In this case, SGS argued that such projects were required to monitor the “total landfill gas flow” and “the flow to the flare”, which are essentially the same flow. Because installing two flow meters did not increase the level of precision of measurements but increased project costs, they questioned whether the clarification given by the MP on previous clarification also applied to projects that only flare landfill gas, and in such cases, whether it was necessary to install two flow meters. The MP acknowledged that the redundancy in measurements was not necessary for projects that only flare landfill gas. Such decision was supported by EB25 and led to a revision of ACM0001. 231 See AM_CLA_0020 232 See AM_CLA_0028 90
Box 31: Deviation of monitoring methodology ACM0001: Using one flow meter for measuring LFG flow to leachate evaporator and enclosed flare 267 Use of one Meter in specific Case This request was submitted by the project “Anding Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization Project” on September 13, 2006. The DOE who submitted the request raised that the project – which had already been validated – was not using a separate, direct meter for measuring the landfill gas flow to the flare as requested by ACM0001 (version 2). Instead, the project used two indirect flow meters, one for measuring the LFG to the recovery system and one from the capture system to a leachate evaporator unit. The DOE argued that this specification had been considered in the project’s monitoring plan and that there was physically no room for adding a separate flow meter to measure the flow to the flare. According to the DOE, the lack of a separate meter to measure the flow to the flare would not impact the emissions reductions estimates since the system was designed to ensure that all captured LFG not directed to the leachate recovery system was automatically going to the flare. Considering that the requirement to install an individual meter for measuring LFG flow to the flare had only been adopted to ensure redundancy in measurement, the DOE requested a deviation from ACM0001 (version 2) to apply the monitoring plan of the project’s validated PDD. Interestingly, the EB approved the DOE’s request for deviation, although it represented a shift away from the redundancy in measurements principle embedded in the <strong>CDM</strong>. Nonetheless, the EB requested the DOE to submit a request for revision of the project’s monitoring plan to ensure that the project complies with the latest version of ACM0001 for future monitoring periods. 233 See request for deviation “Deviation of monitoring methodology ACM0001: Using one flow meter for measuring LFG flow to leachate evaporator and enclosed flare” at http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Deviations/ index.html, October 1, 2007. 91
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: Ex post: The main parameters that n
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 and 106: 5.6 .3 ACM0008 Description of the c
Page 107 and 108: • Methane used for electricity an
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?