[Stoves] Questions about CDM Methodology AMS.II-G: "Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass"

Thu Jan 23 13:27:28 CST 2014

Dear Candela

There are two important caveats apply in this case:

From
http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/7/m/24G3EKN6PT0QJ1BHRICMYDX97OW8UF.pdf/EB7
0_repan30_AMS-II.G_ver05.0.pdf?t=bld8bXp2OXk4fDCak1UXBBRGYBPhffzyKXiR

(the link below doesn’t work)

1.       Table 1 part 2 (a) refers to the metric which is GHG emissions

This means that the amount of fuel saved (mass) is not the criterion, only
reduction of the total GHG (CO2e) mass emitted, if you choose to use this
method (AMS-IIG v5 though the link source says v.3).

The second is in 2.2 Applicability: The total energy savings in a single
project year (referring to the energy in the burned portion of the fuel that
emits the GHG’s) is limited to 180 GigaWatt hours GWH (thermal) per year in
‘fuel input’. This is a different metric from the one that is being used in
for the GHG reduction calculation.  

The reason for the difference is the whole CDM system did not foresee stoves
that produced large amounts of char and the matter has not been corrected.
So be careful about the project size. The GHG savings is straight forward:
emissions are from non-renewable biomass fuel actually combusted, but the
total project claims are measured according the heat energy available in the
non-renewable biomass fuel taken from the local supply. In the case of
stoves that make say, 25% char, it means the upper limit of the claims is
only ½ of what would be calculated directly from the energy avoided should
the two stoves have the same overall system efficiency.

Switching people from burning whole wood to burning wood gas and leaving the
char will reduce the GHG emissions per MJ of heat released. This is the same
case when switching from wood to LPG, however that is a fact of life, not a
rule in this document.

The implication is that you should carefully check what the project size
limit is before assuming a simply calculation from the ‘saved energy’ will
be interpreted as energy in the ‘fuel input’.

The 2.4 Normative reference is to the CDM requirement for a demonstration of
‘additionality’. There is a lot of wink-wink on this rule so check what
others have done and been successful with.

Footnote 2 states ‘specified efficiency of at least 20%’ but does not state
which efficiency is meant: fuel to pot efficiency, heat released to pot
efficiency, or heat released compensated for combustion efficiency to pot.
Other sections seem to assume it is the heat transfer efficiency: heat
theoretically available in the fuel combusted relative to the heat gained
(net) by the pot.

This reinforces the contrast between the two rules for determining offsets
and the upper claimable limit of total thermal energy for a project.

4.2 Baseline emissions clearly states in the definition of By that the
reduction is calculated in tons of biomass per device per year with an
energy value of 15 MJ/kg (I converted their number).

So you can see why I highlight the difference between energy from fuel
combusted and energy available in the raw fuel. If you do not save fuel
mass, you are not allowed to claim the ‘energy use reduction’ that a
char-making stove might deliver.  Ron Larson has been raising related points
from time to time here. I have been responding by pointing the rules are not
handling this well.

If you have a reduction in GHG emissions without a mass saving in raw fuel
consumption, you have a genuine GHG claim, but not an allowable on according
to the method shown in 4.2 (assuming both stoves use the same amount of raw
fuel and the gasifier produces char).

Note that the method used for determining savings asks for a “KPT” to be
performed. A KPT is not a stove test and there is room for significant error
in savings if the performance of the new stove is significantly better than
the baseline. A quick example is that people will cook longer or engage in
commercial cooking if they have the fuel available especially in a place
where fuel is non-renewable (in short supply). A change in behaviour and
stove use is interpreted by the KPT as ‘the same house doing the same thing
and not saving much’ even if the stove is actually saving a lot. So you
might prefer to choose an uncontrolled cooking test (which GIZ has accepted
in the past) or one of the national standards what evaluates the performance
(raw fuel consumption) by a ‘national method’.

Footnote 4 on page 5/14 answers your question about LPG. It specifically
states that substituting LPG for non-renewable biomass is allowed and gives
the conversion factor and the weighting factor when doing so.

When making the calculation, remember that LPG has lower CO2 emissions than
biomass per kg (if all the biomass is burned, no charcoal being produced).

The baseline products do not have to be assessed individually for
‘efficiency’. You can choose from one of the two categories of device as
explained in para 2. on page 6/14.

The ‘efficiency’ of the new device is to be determined annually but you will
not that no particular water boiling test is defined, only that it should be
‘water boiling’. This leaves you free to conduct an accurate test that
provides the energy efficiency and rates the fuel consumption correctly
meeting both conditions mentioned above.

Option 3 uses a comparison of the ‘Specific Fuel Consumption’ of the two
devices. This is the most unreliable metric because the calculation method
usually applied to produce this number has errors. Were I a CO2 vendor I
would not accept it unless it was demonstrated on paper that the definition
of SCnew,y was met. Even then, the fuel burn rate per hour is a very
unreliable indication of performance.

The problem with energy v.s. fuel consumption inherent in the Method again
arises in 13 (b) when Bold is calculated using ‘the amount of thermal energy
generated’. For some stoves this is significantly different from the total
energy value of the fuel needed to operate the stove, and they are
definitely trying to save fuel mass, confirmed again in 14 where the
charcoal is determined in mass needed, not energy released from the mass
needed.

Again in para 18 on p 8/14 shows that the reduction in fuel mass consumed
per annum is the driver of the equation for calculating fuel saved.

I will end there. The LPG substitution in an area of non-renewable biomass
use is provided for, and a CO2e value given. The test method used to
determine the relative performance must (not maybe) determine the mass of
fuel drawn from the available supply. Be careful that the water boiling test
you select does not evaluate the energy released during cooking and
calculate that back to an equivalent mass of fuel, dry or otherwise or you
will run afoul of the overriding intent of the document which is to reduce
the draw-down of raw fuel per stove per year.  With LPG you can reduce that
draw to zero (theoretically though they will probably still heat water with
wood) but you can’t claim 100% of the reduction, only that fraction allowed
according to the formula.

I hope this is helpful. I suggest you discuss this with any potential funder
so you are agreed on how the calculations will be done.

The uncontrolled cooking test is cheaper than a KPT. A CSI-WBT lab test
would be an even less expensive a culturally appropriate test based on
actual cooking practices, fuels and pots and would provide an accurate
alternative subject to negotiations with the funder.

Regards

Crispin

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Candela de la sota sández
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:44 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Questions about CDM Methodology AMS.II-G: "Energy
efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass"

Hello again!

I'm using the CDM methodology AMS.II-G: "Energy efficiency measures in
thermal applications of non-renewable biomass" and I'm facing some problems.

 I don't know if this methodology can be applied to a project which aims to
deplace traditional biomass by LPG stoves. 

The scope and applicability definition don't consider the option of swiching
non-renewable biomass use by fossil fuel use, but it is not excluded either.

Here is the link to the methodology. I think it is quite ambiguous on this
point. If you look at equation 5 (page 6) is MAYBE here where we can
introduce LPG consumption.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/7/m/24G3EKN6PT0QJ1BHRICMYDX97OW8UF.pdf/EB7
0_repan30_AMS-II.G_ver05.0.pdf?t=NHJ8bXp1bDNufDDA-vLs3oAZbIPBlUqf1vbZ

Could anyone help me with this?

Thank you!

candela

2014/1/22 Candela de la sota sández <candelasota at gmail.com
<mailto:candelasota at gmail.com> >

Dear stovers,

Does anyone know a improved biomass cook stoves Program of Activities under
de Clean Development mechanism of the UNFCCC in Sudan?

 I mean not only registered programs, but any which is being developed...

Thanks a lot in advance!

Candela

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140123/3a885e57/attachment.html>