09:47 24 Jan 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to address the issues below as per paragraphs 372 and 373 of the VVS for project activity.
The spreadsheet “20180121 - 20181031” cell E24 demonstrates the value of FCH4,EL,y for the period 21 – 31/01/2018 as 216 tCH4, which is based on one of the data resulting from the spreadsheet “hourly-201801” column BJ (average CH4 density in LFG sent to generator in hourly (kg-CH4/m3)). Further, there are 10 columns (i.e. from BJ to BS) represent the values of average or individual CH4 density in LFG sent to 8 generators in hourly (kg-CH4/m3). It is not clear how the value(s) of CH4 density in LFG sent to generator would be selected from the applied spreadsheets to decide the value of FCH4,EL,y.
2: The DOE is requested to address the issues below as per paragraph 361 of the VVS for project activity.
MR page 27 reports the option A is applied to determine the flare efficiency, and therefore the default value 90% is used when the following two conditions are met, otherwise the flare efficiency for the minute m (ηflare, m) is 0%:
A. The temperature of the flare (TEG,m) and the flow rate of the residual gas to the flare (FRG,m) is within the manufacturer’s specification for the flare (SPECflare) in minute m; and
B. The flame is detected in minute m (Flamem).
Furthermore, MR page 5 specifies that the flare temperature range (°C) is 500 -1200.
However, the following issues are found. It is important to note that the issues listed below are some examples only, the DOE is requested to address all similar issues throughout the entire monitoring spreadsheets:
(1) There is a lack of information in the calculation spreadsheets (e.g. spreadsheet “hourly-201801”) to demonstrate that the continuous measuring was made every minute.
(2) The value PE flare calculation in the calculation spreadsheets (e.g. spreadsheet “hourly-201801”, cells AI51 and AI52) is not traceable to demonstrate (a) how the MR page 28 formula (8) is applied and (b) whether the MR page 27 the actual flare efficiency value 80% is applied.
(3) The inconsistence of unit applied is found. The spreadsheet “20180121 - 20181031” cells G53 -G55 demonstrate the value PEflare,y project emission from flare number 2 is 0.23 tCO2e, which is resulting from the raw data in the spreadsheet “hourly-201801” cells AI11 to AI274. However, the unit applied for the spreadsheet “hourly-201801” column for PE flare_2 is tCH4/hourly.
(4) It is not clear how the temperature values measured by three thermocouples installed at each flare would be selected to decide and calculate the value of PEflare,y. It is found that the spreadsheet “hourly-201802”, cells AB13, AC13 and AD13 demonstrate 505.52 °C, 422.00 °C and 437.43 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI13 demonstrate 0.08 tCH4/hourly is counted for PE flare_2. It is noted that while addressing this issue, the DOE is requested to take into account the observations found as below:
The values of PE flare is counted when the flare temperature is not within the required range (500 °C – 1200 °C), such as the example of issues listed as below:
a. The spreadsheet “hourly-201801”:
i. Cells AB51, AC51 and AD51 demonstrate 144.40 °C, 132.83 °C and 180.34 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI51 demonstrate 0.13 tCH4/hourly for PE flare_2.
ii. Cells AB52, AC52 and AD52 demonstrate 449.88 °C, 360.35 °C and 391.11 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI52 demonstrate 0.10 tCH4/hourly for PE flare_2.
b. The spreadsheet “hourly-201802”, cells AB38, AC38 and AD38 demonstrate 251.79 °C, 211.40 °C and 219.57 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI38 demonstrate 0.01 tCH4/hourly for PE flare_2.
c. The spreadsheet “hourly-201810” cells AB260, AC260 and AD260 demonstrate 475.74 °C, 438.59 °C and 498.22 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI260 demonstrate 0.15 tCH4/hourly for PE flare_2.
3: The DOE is requested to address the issues below as per paragraphs 372 and 373 of the VVS for project activity.
MR pages 25 and 26 specify that the Option A is selected and that the temperature condition of the gas stream (Tt) while calculating the value of FCH4,EL,y is less than 60 °C at the flow measurement point. The DOE is requested to clarify the issues below:
(1) It is observed that the gas stream (Tt) is not always less than 60 °C, such as that the spreadsheet “hourly-201801” cells AT 15-20, AT 88-90, AT 111-115, AT 135-138, AT 161-163, AT 183-188, AT 207-213 and AT 231-236 demonstrate the temperature as not less than 60 °C. Therefore, it is not clear whether the option A selected would be still appropriate.
(2) MR pages 18-19 provide the reference of data locations in the spreadsheet (i.e. Spreadsheet columns AK, AN, AP, AR, AT, AV, AX, AZ, BB, BD, BF, BH) for the parameter Tt; however, due to lack of traceable of data in the calculation spreadsheets and in the monitoring report, it is not clear which data cells are to be used to determine the value of FCH4,EL,y.
It is important to note that the issues listed above is an example, the DOE is requested to address all similar issues throughout the entire monitoring spreadsheets.
1: The DOE is requested to address the issues below as per paragraphs 372 and 373 of the VVS for project activity.
The spreadsheet “20180121 - 20181031” cell E24 demonstrates the value of FCH4,EL,y for the period 21 – 31/01/2018 as 216 tCH4, which is based on one of the data resulting from the spreadsheet “hourly-201801” column BJ (average CH4 density in LFG sent to generator in hourly (kg-CH4/m3)). Further, there are 10 columns (i.e. from BJ to BS) represent the values of average or individual CH4 density in LFG sent to 8 generators in hourly (kg-CH4/m3). It is not clear how the value(s) of CH4 density in LFG sent to generator would be selected from the applied spreadsheets to decide the value of FCH4,EL,y.
2: The DOE is requested to address the issues below as per paragraph 361 of the VVS for project activity.
MR page 27 reports the option A is applied to determine the flare efficiency, and therefore the default value 90% is used when the following two conditions are met, otherwise the flare efficiency for the minute m (ηflare, m) is 0%:
A. The temperature of the flare (TEG,m) and the flow rate of the residual gas to the flare (FRG,m) is within the manufacturer’s specification for the flare (SPECflare) in minute m; and
B. The flame is detected in minute m (Flamem).
Furthermore, MR page 5 specifies that the flare temperature range (°C) is 500 -1200.
However, the following issues are found. It is important to note that the issues listed below are some examples only, the DOE is requested to address all similar issues throughout the entire monitoring spreadsheets:
(1) There is a lack of information in the calculation spreadsheets (e.g. spreadsheet “hourly-201801”) to demonstrate that the continuous measuring was made every minute.
(2) The value PE flare calculation in the calculation spreadsheets (e.g. spreadsheet “hourly-201801”, cells AI51 and AI52) is not traceable to demonstrate (a) how the MR page 28 formula (8) is applied and (b) whether the MR page 27 the actual flare efficiency value 80% is applied.
(3) The inconsistence of unit applied is found. The spreadsheet “20180121 - 20181031” cells G53 -G55 demonstrate the value PEflare,y project emission from flare number 2 is 0.23 tCO2e, which is resulting from the raw data in the spreadsheet “hourly-201801” cells AI11 to AI274. However, the unit applied for the spreadsheet “hourly-201801” column for PE flare_2 is tCH4/hourly.
(4) It is not clear how the temperature values measured by three thermocouples installed at each flare would be selected to decide and calculate the value of PEflare,y. It is found that the spreadsheet “hourly-201802”, cells AB13, AC13 and AD13 demonstrate 505.52 °C, 422.00 °C and 437.43 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI13 demonstrate 0.08 tCH4/hourly is counted for PE flare_2. It is noted that while addressing this issue, the DOE is requested to take into account the observations found as below:
The values of PE flare is counted when the flare temperature is not within the required range (500 °C – 1200 °C), such as the example of issues listed as below:
a. The spreadsheet “hourly-201801”:
i. Cells AB51, AC51 and AD51 demonstrate 144.40 °C, 132.83 °C and 180.34 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI51 demonstrate 0.13 tCH4/hourly for PE flare_2.
ii. Cells AB52, AC52 and AD52 demonstrate 449.88 °C, 360.35 °C and 391.11 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI52 demonstrate 0.10 tCH4/hourly for PE flare_2.
b. The spreadsheet “hourly-201802”, cells AB38, AC38 and AD38 demonstrate 251.79 °C, 211.40 °C and 219.57 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI38 demonstrate 0.01 tCH4/hourly for PE flare_2.
c. The spreadsheet “hourly-201810” cells AB260, AC260 and AD260 demonstrate 475.74 °C, 438.59 °C and 498.22 °C respectively for flare_2; however, cell AI260 demonstrate 0.15 tCH4/hourly for PE flare_2.
3: The DOE is requested to address the issues below as per paragraphs 372 and 373 of the VVS for project activity.
MR pages 25 and 26 specify that the Option A is selected and that the temperature condition of the gas stream (Tt) while calculating the value of FCH4,EL,y is less than 60 °C at the flow measurement point. The DOE is requested to clarify the issues below:
(1) It is observed that the gas stream (Tt) is not always less than 60 °C, such as that the spreadsheet “hourly-201801” cells AT 15-20, AT 88-90, AT 111-115, AT 135-138, AT 161-163, AT 183-188, AT 207-213 and AT 231-236 demonstrate the temperature as not less than 60 °C. Therefore, it is not clear whether the option A selected would be still appropriate.
(2) MR pages 18-19 provide the reference of data locations in the spreadsheet (i.e. Spreadsheet columns AK, AN, AP, AR, AT, AV, AX, AZ, BB, BD, BF, BH) for the parameter Tt; however, due to lack of traceable of data in the calculation spreadsheets and in the monitoring report, it is not clear which data cells are to be used to determine the value of FCH4,EL,y.
It is important to note that the issues listed above is an example, the DOE is requested to address all similar issues throughout the entire monitoring spreadsheets.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: