Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Monitoring of Flare Efficiency Project Developer proposed Default Values or Use of Proxies MP Rejection of Proposal Box 32: Measurement of the flare efficiency Another outstanding issue that influenced the development of ACM0001 relates to the requirement to measure the flare efficiency (i.e. the fraction of methane destroyed within the flare) throughout the project cycle. A request for revision 268 argued that the flare efficiency monitoring requirements stipulated in ACM0001 269 posed several limitations: 1. Obtaining reliable and comparable measurements was problematic because sampling of the exhaust gas could hardly be repeated under similar conditions. 2. Project participants generally face difficulties to regularly monitor the exhaust gas of the flare due to the hazardous nature of the operation, the specialized equipment required, the technical expertise needed, and the relatively high costs involved, which often require project participants to hire foreign consultants to perform the operation. 3. Because flares are designed to completely destroy the methane they receive, it is unlikely that even highly precise equipment could detect remaining traces of methane in the flare. It argued that available equipment is primarily designed to detect traces of other exhaust gases (such as NO x , SO x , and VOCs) and therefore may not be precise enough to efficiently detect traces of methane in the exhaust gas. Thus, two alternative methods were proposed to assess flare efficiency: 1. Use of default values: Pointing out that ACM0008 (for flares destroying coalmine methane) and AM0016 (for flares destroying animal waste methane) both permitted the use of default value to estimate flare efficiency (99% for enclosed flares, 50% for open flares), DNV argued that landfill activities flaring methane should be allowed to use the same default values as the processes involved are not technically different. 2. Determination of flare efficiency using flame temperature and combustion time: The submission also argued that increasingly, industrialized countries allowed their methane-regulated industries to measure flare efficiency using flame temperature, pointing out recent peer-reviewed studies showing a correlation between flame temperature and methane destruction level. For instance, it was raised that the Dutch government required a minimum flame temperature of 900˚C to ensure an efficient combustion of methane, while other studies suggested a minimum flame temperature of 760˚C. It was therefore proposed that flare efficiency be determined using flame temperature, providing that a curve correlating a set of combustion temperature values to a set of efficiency values be made available to project proponents. Though it recognized the difficulties related to measuring efficiency of open flares, the MP rejected the request to allow project participants to use default values to assess flare efficiency, arguing that these did not provide the level of precision needed to accurately estimate the emission reductions. It added that the efficiency of enclosed flares could be easily monitored at a relatively low cost. However, the MP did not give any explanation as to why default values could be used under ACM0008 and AM0016 and not under ACM0001. Interestingly, the MP proposed a revision to ACM0001 – albeit unrelated to this request for clarification – allowing project participants to use a default flare efficiency value of 50% in cases where flare efficiency would deliberately not be monitored. This recommendation indirectly contributed to eliminating certain barriers faced by project participants operating an open flare system (as raised by DNV). 234 See AM_REV_0012 235 ACM0001’s guidelines to assess flare efficiency allows for two different monitoring options: (1) continuous monitoring of flare efficiency during operating hours; or (2) quarterly 92
Box 32: Measurement of the flare efficiency (continued) Tool developed to resolve Issue Open Flare Default Efficiency of 50% Enclosed Flare Default of 90%, if Manufacturer Specifications are complied with EB Turnaround regarding Flare Efficiency Additionally, the MP stated that there was not enough evidence to justify using flame temperature to determine flaring efficiency. It recognized that flare efficiency was a function of several parameters, including flame temperature, combustion time and turbulence, but argued that temperature alone could not be used to accurately determine flare efficiency. In line with the MP’s decision, EB 25 rejected DNV’s request. These decisions led to the approval of ACM0001 version 4. However, such revisions did not resolve the issue entirely. Indeed, other methodologies for projects flaring methane had also requested clarifications on flare efficiency measurement guidelines in the past. This led the MP to reconsider the way it interpreted measurement of flare efficiency and led EB 28 to adopt the “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane” (see Box 33) in December 2006. This in turn triggered the revision of several methodologies for project activities that involved methane flaring, including ACM0001. This Tool brought further clarifications to several elements that had been raised throughout the evolution of ACM0001, particularly with regards to the use of alternative methods to assess flare efficiency such as default values and correlated parameters, such as combustion parameters. Notably, the Tool recognized that recording periodic measurements to assess flare efficiency for open flares was a hazardous process and that a flare efficiency default value of 50% could be used providing that it can be demonstrated through constant monitoring that the flare is operating. For enclosed flares, the Tool provided two new options to determine flare efficiency: The use of a default flare efficiency value of 90%, providing a continuous monitoring of compliance with the specifications provided by the flare manufacturer, including temperature, flow rate of residual gas at the inlet of the flare; Continuous monitoring of the flare’s methane destruction efficiency. For open and enclosed flares alike, the Tool specifies that a flare efficiency of 0% must be assumed in cases where the temperature is not recorded or when the combustion temperature is inferior to 500˚C. In cases where project participants choose to measure efficiency using the default value, a seven-step procedure must be applied as stipulated in section II of the Tool 270 . In short, the Tool responded to many of the concerns and modifications requests submitted throughout the evolution of ACM0001 by providing alternative methods to assess flare efficiency. Interestingly, similar flare efficiency measuring methods had been proposed approximately 8 months before the adoption of the Tool (in April 2006) but were rejected by the EB on the basis that these did not meet the level of precision required for flare efficiency measurement under the <strong>CDM</strong>. The reasons behind this turnaround remain dubious. 236 These parameters include: The mass flow rate of the residual gas that is flared, the mass fraction of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in the residual gas, the volumetric flow rate of the exhaust gas on a dry basis, the methane mass flow rate of the exhaust gas on a dry basis, the methane mass flow rate of the residual gas on a dry basis, the hourly flare efficiency, and a calculation of the annual project emission. 93
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: Box 31: Deviation of monitoring met
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?