19:03 10 Feb 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the implementation status of the project (including a brief description of the installed technology and/or equipments, relevant dates of project activity e.g. date of construction, commissioning, continued operation periods, etc.) during the monitoring period under consideration as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 244.
Issue:
It is stated in the “Assessment Opinion for Post Registration Changes” that the biogas generator had not been in operation for a long time and when the biogas generator resumed operation on 3 February 2014 (items 4.1 and 4.2 of the document). However, electricity generation is recorded for January 2014 and the value is used in the calculation of ERs (please refer to cell C12 of the “Electricity” sheet from the spreadsheet submitted. Please clarify the discrepancy.
2: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain the formulae of calculation that are shown in the spreadsheet cells whenever possible.
Issue: The parameters CODinput and CODoutput were sampled and analysed on a daily basis by a trained Lab Technician and, as part of the QA/QC procedure, weekly samples were sent to an accredited laboratory (i.e. the Environmental Engineering Laboratory of Khon Kaen University) for cross checking purposes.
PP had set a ±10% range when comparing the results between the internally analysed sample and the externally analysed sample. If the result exceeded the range, PP’s internal procedure specifies further actions to be taken.
However, the comparison of COD (internal) and COD (external) contains inconsistencies: for example, when calculating the difference for CODinput in cell E9 from the “COD Comparison” sheet, the denominator should be “D9” (internal), not “C9” (external). Similarly, when calculating the difference for CODoutput, the denominator should be “H4” (internal), not “G4” (external).
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the implementation status of the project (including a brief description of the installed technology and/or equipments, relevant dates of project activity e.g. date of construction, commissioning, continued operation periods, etc.) during the monitoring period under consideration as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 244.
Issue:
It is stated in the “Assessment Opinion for Post Registration Changes” that the biogas generator had not been in operation for a long time and when the biogas generator resumed operation on 3 February 2014 (items 4.1 and 4.2 of the document). However, electricity generation is recorded for January 2014 and the value is used in the calculation of ERs (please refer to cell C12 of the “Electricity” sheet from the spreadsheet submitted. Please clarify the discrepancy.
2: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain the formulae of calculation that are shown in the spreadsheet cells whenever possible.
Issue: The parameters CODinput and CODoutput were sampled and analysed on a daily basis by a trained Lab Technician and, as part of the QA/QC procedure, weekly samples were sent to an accredited laboratory (i.e. the Environmental Engineering Laboratory of Khon Kaen University) for cross checking purposes.
PP had set a ±10% range when comparing the results between the internally analysed sample and the externally analysed sample. If the result exceeded the range, PP’s internal procedure specifies further actions to be taken.
However, the comparison of COD (internal) and COD (external) contains inconsistencies: for example, when calculating the difference for CODinput in cell E9 from the “COD Comparison” sheet, the denominator should be “D9” (internal), not “C9” (external). Similarly, when calculating the difference for CODoutput, the denominator should be “H4” (internal), not “G4” (external).
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: