poa for household biogas to power: a case study of application of multiple methodologies

100125 Beijing Chaoyang DistrictLiangmaqiao Rd. 42, Guangming Apartment 0307(B)P： +86 10 64688669 - 0 F： +86 10 64688669 - 21

北京市朝阳区亮马桥路 42号光明饭店 0307室邮编 :100125 电话： +86 10 64688669 - 0 传真： +86 10 64688669 - 21

PoA for Household Biogas to Power: A Case Study of Application of Multiple

Methodologies

Wang HaiHenning Huenteler

2

07 May 2011 Oasis Science & Technology Ltd.

Sichuan Rural Poor-Household Biogas Development Programme

Distribution of household biogas digesters in rural areas of Sichuan, ChinaExisting governmental subsidy is insufficient for low-income familiesLack of technical knowledge and qualified maintenance results in decreasing gas output of existing digesters

PoA provides additional income and free technical support to low-income householdsPig manure and other organic matter is fed into digester, biogas can be used as cooking fuelDramatically improved living conditions due to

Reduced indoor air pollutionHygienic manure handlingOdor reductionImproved fertilizer quality“Convenient” fuel – no collection, buying, etc.Reduces risk of accidents

3


Sichuan Rural Poor-Household Biogas Development Programme

Target for 2017: 1,000,000 householdRegular baseline surveys in 13 different regions (cities); 1,000 households eachGigantic workload for management, data taking, processing & storage, onsite visits for validation/verification, etc.Close cooperation with local Rural Energy Offices, Sichuan Biogas Society, Academy of Agricultural Engineering

4


Two project components

Situation in Sichuan: Widely distributed small farms (usually <10 pigs, some chicken)Animal manure is stored in pits below animal confinementsMix of different fuels is used for cooking. Vast majority of households includes coal in energy mix. To comply with CDM regulations, only households with coal utilization will be included in the PoA.

Emission reduction based on two principles:Avoidance of methane from existing manure treatment Type IIIPossible methodology: AMS III.R - Methane recovery in agricultural activities at household/small farm level

Replacement of other fuels for thermal applications Type IPossible methodologies: AMS I.C - Thermal energy production with or without electricityAMS I.E - Switch from Non-Renewable Biomass for Thermal Applications by the UserAMS I.I - Biogas/biomass thermal applications for households/small users

5


Two possible combinations

To calculate the emission reductions, different combinations have been discussed:

“Historical solution”: AMS III.R & AMS I.CProblems: Methodology tries to cover a vast range of projects from thousands of household cooking stoves up to a 45 MWth boiler. Several pitfalls arise from broad methodology application.

“New approach”: AMS III.R & AMS I.I (AMS I.I was approved in EB59, 02/2011)

Problems: AMS I.I is a new methodology with no practical experience, typos in formulas, logical mistakes in ER calculation, combination with III.R not approved yet.

6


Combination approval status of methodologies related to HHBG

Combination III.R & I.C was approved by the Board in its 53rd meeting

Combinations of methane-avoidance Type-III SSC-methodologies, (i.e. AMS-III.H, AMS-III.D, AMS-III.F and AMS-III.G), and methane-utilization Type-I methodologies (i.e. AMS-I.A, AMS-I.C, AMS-I.D and AMS-I.F) have been approved by the Board in its 58th meeting

Other combinations of SSC-methodologies that have been applied in a registered project have been approved by the Board in its 58th meeting subject to demonstration of non-interference or conservative assessment of interference

Only combination of AMS III.R and AMS I.C has been approved for PoAs, other combination pending

7


Our approach

Combination of AMS III.R and AMS I.CAdapt to application issues in methodology due to broad scope, e.g. baseline and project quantification, monitoring parametersEmission reduction per household:

AMS III.R: ≈ 0.5 tCO2e

AMS I.C: ≈ 1.5 tCO2e

8


Pitfalls and barriers

Methodologies in household biogas complicated to handle. AMS I.C is too broad, AMS I.I not matured by extensive application

Artificial clustering of units into CPAs to stay below small-scale/micro-scale limits of Type I and Type III. Increase of transaction costs for management, inclusion, verification that does not reflect real project clusters

Several “blurry” definitions, guidelines, procedures, e.g. additionality on PoA/CPA level, starting date, eligibility criteria

Missing details on sampling approaches for data collection

Management of 1,000,000 households is constant learning process and conflicts with fixed procedures, once PoA is registered

Uncertainty on sampling verification during inclusion/verification Difficult cost estimation

9


Possible solutions

Streamlined process for methodology combination. Simplified approval/denial to avoid delays (or black-list instead of white-list approach)

Streamlining process by clearer framework and set of guidelines elaborated specifically for PoAs

New approach for distributed projects to avoid CDM-driven SSC (or micro-scale) clusters

More flexible system of post-registration adaptation and validation of procedures in later CPAs

Close cooperation with developers, DOEs to improve framework constantly taking practical experiences into consideration

10


Thanks for your attention!

poa for household biogas to power: a case study of application of multiple methodologies

Documents