[Digestion] FW: Biogas and CO2 equivalents

[David]

Friends,

On 12/21/2010 4:35 AM, Randy Mott wrote:
> You cannot simply use the methane destroyed to derive credits. You have to demonstrate that the methane destroyed would have otherwise gone into the atmosphere. So a 1 MW biogas plant that actually destroys 116,000 tons of CO2 equivalents a year, will typically receive only about 20-40,000 tons of actual credit. There are elaborate formulas for this calculation .....
>
> See http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/index.html

To add to what Randy said, of course we all realize that carbon 
credits are a very unusual currency, because they are based on what is 
specifically not there. That is, one gains credit for CO2 equivalents 
that are /not/ produced. Thus the question becomes "How does one 
demonstrate that what has been done has resulted in a reduction in CO2 
equivalent emissions?"

Ordinarily, then, the process is first to document the current 
situation at some depth in specified ways. For example, one might 
demonstrate that a certain amount of firewood and kerosene is being 
used on a per capita basis through a given region for cooking and 
lighting. Then one would need to demonstrate that some portion or all 
of the firewood is "non-renewable biomass", NRB. (That is, for 
example, the forests from which it comes are for the most part not 
replanted nor do they regrow naturally, so the CO2 released when the 
wood is burned is not being recaptured locally/regionally in new 
forest biomass.) Assume, for example, that half the firewood is NRB. 
In that case, half the CO2 released from burning wood for cooking can 
be counted as emissions, and of course all the CO2 from the kerosene.

Then one postulates or provides a given number of biogas digesters to 
those in the area of interest. Again using specified methods, one 
would need to demonstrate that people have certain numbers of animals 
of certain kinds, and thus taking into account the regional climate 
and similar factors, each digester can be expected to produce a 
certain amount of biogas, which will then in turn replace a certain 
amount of firewood and kerosene for cooking and lighting. Based on 
those surveys, methods, measures and calculations, one makes an 
assertion about the amount of emissions avoided. To that figure, 
depending, one might also add (as Randy indicated) methane emissions 
avoided because an assumed (demonstrated) amount of dung or kitchen 
waste or what-have-you is not going anaerobic "in the wild".

There is, likewise, considerable concern in the international 
community about what is called "additionality". That means that where, 
say, the credits are from the Clean Development Mechanism 
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/12/credit-where-credit-is-due-understanding-the-clean-development-mechanism> 
(which apparently will continue beyond 2012, based on what happened in 
Cancun), the UNFCCC wants to make sure that whatever is being proposed 
to be done to reduce emissions could not otherwise be done without the 
credits. To say it another way, where a project is self-sustaining 
regardless, it cannot qualify for credits.

The processes established for producing credits are detailed, rigorous 
and complex because the agency or organization must maintain 
credibility. The only source of the value which the credits may 
maintain derives from trust. If that trust is corroded, the associated 
value is corroded. And second, the processes used may, to some, appear 
bureaucratic, but here likewise there is good reason, which is that 
everyone must be treated the same way, and so everyone must follow the 
same process, even if that process is not well suited to the needs or 
ideas of some applicants.

There are, as well, many different kinds of credits: UNFCCC provides 
one kind, called a compliance credit, because it is produced under 
international agreements supported by regulations in the country of 
interest. There are also voluntary credits, perhaps the best of which 
is the Gold Standard <http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/>. (In fact, one 
can apply for both CDM and Gold Standard, although this will not 
result in having duplicated credits, although it will result in having 
credits that are seen in some contexts as being more valuable.)

Finally, it would not make sense to apply for carbon credits on the 
basis of one household digester. Like any similar process, the process 
of applying for carbon credits has fixed and variable costs, and the 
fixed costs of applying for carbon credits are substantial enough that 
it would make little sense for a project developer to apply for them 
where only a few credits will result. There are, likewise, minimums 
that apply within the agencies and organizations that tender the credits.

Thus a single very (very) large digester may qualify, but when dealing 
with digesters as small as household digesters, it will usually only 
make sense to apply for credits if there are going to be a large 
number of them. Carbon credits for biogas are a strategy useful where 
a fairly large effort is being made, implying significant funding, a 
sufficiently-sized organization on the ground and so on.



d.
-- 
David William House
"The Complete Biogas Handbook" |www.completebiogas.com|
/Vahid Biogas/, an alternative energy consultancy |www.vahidbiogas.com

|
"Make no search for water.       But find thirst,
And water from the very ground will burst."
(Rumi, a Persian mystic poet, quoted in /Delight of Hearts/, p. 77)

http://bahai.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101221/dcd9b8b8/attachment.html>