Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Bonn March 12-13, 2011 Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. Improvement of Methodologies - DOEs perspective - 7 th CDM Joint Workshop, 2010.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Bonn March 12-13, 2011 Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. Improvement of Methodologies - DOEs perspective - 7 th CDM Joint Workshop, 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 Bonn March 12-13, 2011 Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. Improvement of Methodologies - DOEs perspective - 7 th CDM Joint Workshop, 2010

2 Contents Identified shortcomings Improvements Procedures Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.

3 Identified Shortcomings Structure; Chapters are indicated, but requirements not always explicitly listed in the relevant chapter Example ACM0006: - Hidden applicability criteria, e.g. availability of scenarios; - project boundary requirements impeding credits for heat export without plant-specific data of facilities eventually to be replaced. Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.

4 Identified Shortcomings Generally Prosaic language: should be limited to explanation of rationales, but less for describing the actual options, conditions, etc. Lack of rationale explanation, e.g. AM0058: levelized cost of provided heat to be based i.a. on the Lifetime of the project, equal to the remaining lifetime of the existing facility; => levelized cost depends on total lifetime of a technology Leftovers of project-specific descriptions within methodology(?) Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.

5 Identified Shortcomings Parameters to be determined ex-ante or to be monitored: frequently not all parameters are required for a given project (e.g., due to different equations for each scenario); Lists of parameters lacking structure and/or indication for which cases / equations etc. parameters are needed: => source of errors in PDD development => tedious and error-prone validation process Inconsistency of parameter names among various meths and tools (e.g., methane concentration in ACM0001 vs. tool on PE from flaring Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.

6 Identified Shortcomings Allocation of methodologies to Sectoral Scopes - process and criteria not transparent - Example: Waste heat recovery projects based on ACM0012 are related to scopes 1 and 4; if used only for electricity generation, the heat source may be irrelevant for assessment and not be covered by any of the Technical Areas proposed in the Accreditation Standard V02 Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.

7 Improvement potentials Harmonization of Structure Decision trees for the application of different options / equations Clear indication for which equations / options etc. monitored / non- monitored parameters are required Standardizing parameter names Incorporate responses to clarifications, indicate which clarificiations remains to be considered separately Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.

8 Procedural improvements Formal procedure: Request for revision - market hesitation for fear of delays to actual projects - (perceived) little interaction/communication while the request is being processed General review for consistency of structure, approaches, parameters; Other possible means: - Timely Calls for input on specific work done by Meth panel / SSC - Periodic Methodology Roundtable Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.

9 Thank you for your attention! TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. Shin Yokohama Daini Center Bldg , Shin Yokohama Kohoku-ku Yokohama , Japan Phone: Fax: Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.


Download ppt "Bonn March 12-13, 2011 Dr. Manfred Brinkmann TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. Improvement of Methodologies - DOEs perspective - 7 th CDM Joint Workshop, 2010."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google