poa for household biogas to power a case study of application of multiple methodologies n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
PoA for Household Biogas to Power: A Case Study of Application of Multiple Methodologies PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
PoA for Household Biogas to Power: A Case Study of Application of Multiple Methodologies

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 10

PoA for Household Biogas to Power: A Case Study of Application of Multiple Methodologies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 129 Views
  • Uploaded on

PoA for Household Biogas to Power: A Case Study of Application of Multiple Methodologies . Wang Hai Henning Huenteler. Sichuan Rural Poor-Household Biogas Development Programme. Distribution of household biogas digesters in rural areas of Sichuan, China

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'PoA for Household Biogas to Power: A Case Study of Application of Multiple Methodologies' - bailey


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
poa for household biogas to power a case study of application of multiple methodologies

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

Wang Hai

Henning Huenteler

sichuan rural poor household biogas development programme
Sichuan Rural Poor-Household Biogas Development Programme
  • Distribution of household biogas digesters in rural areas of Sichuan, China
  • Existing governmental subsidy is insufficient for low-income families
  • Lack 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 households
  • Pig manure and other organic matter is fed into digester, biogas can be used as cooking fuel
  • Dramatically improved living conditions due to
      • Reduced indoor air pollution
      • Hygienic manure handling
      • Odor reduction
      • Improved fertilizer quality
      • “Convenient” fuel – no collection, buying, etc.
      • Reduces risk of accidents
sichuan rural poor household biogas development programme1
Sichuan Rural Poor-Household Biogas Development Programme
  • Target for 2017: 1,000,000 household
  • Regular baseline surveys in 13 different regions (cities); 1,000 households each

Gigantic 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

two project components
Two project components
  • Situation in Sichuan:
    • Widely distributed small farms (usually <10 pigs, some chicken)
    • Animal manure is stored in pits below animal confinements
    • Mix 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 III
    • Possible methodology:
    • AMS III.R - Methane recovery in agricultural activities at household/small farm level
    • Replacement of other fuels for thermal applications  Type I
    • Possible methodologies:
    • AMS I.C - Thermal energy production with or without electricity
    • AMS I.E - Switch from Non-Renewable Biomass for Thermal Applications by the User
    • AMS I.I - Biogas/biomass thermal applications for households/small users
two possible combinations
Two possible combinations
  • To calculate the emission reductions, different combinations have been discussed:
    • “Historical solution”: AMS III.R & AMS I.C
      • Problems: 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.
combination approval status of methodologies related to hhbg
Combination approval status of methodologies related to HHBG
  • Combination III.R & I.C was approved by the Board in its 53rdmeeting
  • 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
our approach
Our approach
  • Combination of AMS III.R and AMS I.C
  • Adapt to application issues in methodology due to broad scope, e.g. baseline and project quantification, monitoring parameters
  • Emission reduction per household:
    • AMS III.R: ≈ 0.5 tCO2e
    • AMS I.C: ≈ 1.5 tCO2e
pitfalls and barriers
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
possible solutions
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