21:54 15 Nov 26
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list all the data and parameters to be monitored in line with applied methodology as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The PDD (page 9) has stated that "the proposed project involves the main object of improving electrical energy use efficiency, and there would result in a slight amount of the emission reductions from anode effect", whereas it does not list the monitoring parameters regarding the emissions from anode effect. Although it is stated in the PDD (page 9) that the possible PFC emission reductions will not be claimed, PP is requested to include the monitoring parameters related to CF4 and C2F6 emissions in the monitoring plan given that these emissions are included in the project boundary (page 9 of PDD) and it is unclear if such emission reductions will be negative.
2: The DOE is requested to state if all assumptions/ data/references used in the PDD for emission reduction calculations are in line with the methodology as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92(a).
As per AM0059 version 01.1, the specific electricity consumption for the baseline scenario (Eelec,HC) is the minimum between the average specific electricity consumption of electrolysis process in smelter based on three years data prior to implementation of project activity (Econsumption,HC) and the benchmark average specific electricity consumption of electrolysis process in smelter for existing technology from IAI energy benchmarking statistics (Ebenchmark,HC). It is however noted that: (a) Econsumption,HC includes the auxiliary electricity consumption (e.g. electricity consumption measured by meter M203~M206) according to the formulae contained in cells P11,P23 and P35 in sheet “smelter energy” in “EF_Qingtongxia Aluminum.xls”; (b) the DOE does not provide the information on how it has validated the appropriateness of Ebenchmark,HC, given that it is not clear how this value is selected based on IAI statistics (the links provided in the sheet “assumption” in “EF_Qingtongxia Aluminum.xls” and validation report page 13 for this value are not accessible) and it is not clear why the average value taken for Asian region is applied instead of the one taken for the host country, i.e. China. Information is requested on how the DOE has validated the appropriateness of ex-ante determined parameter Eelec,HC.
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list all the data and parameters to be monitored in line with applied methodology as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The PDD (page 9) has stated that "the proposed project involves the main object of improving electrical energy use efficiency, and there would result in a slight amount of the emission reductions from anode effect", whereas it does not list the monitoring parameters regarding the emissions from anode effect. Although it is stated in the PDD (page 9) that the possible PFC emission reductions will not be claimed, PP is requested to include the monitoring parameters related to CF4 and C2F6 emissions in the monitoring plan given that these emissions are included in the project boundary (page 9 of PDD) and it is unclear if such emission reductions will be negative.
2: The DOE is requested to state if all assumptions/ data/references used in the PDD for emission reduction calculations are in line with the methodology as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92(a).
As per AM0059 version 01.1, the specific electricity consumption for the baseline scenario (Eelec,HC) is the minimum between the average specific electricity consumption of electrolysis process in smelter based on three years data prior to implementation of project activity (Econsumption,HC) and the benchmark average specific electricity consumption of electrolysis process in smelter for existing technology from IAI energy benchmarking statistics (Ebenchmark,HC). It is however noted that: (a) Econsumption,HC includes the auxiliary electricity consumption (e.g. electricity consumption measured by meter M203~M206) according to the formulae contained in cells P11,P23 and P35 in sheet “smelter energy” in “EF_Qingtongxia Aluminum.xls”; (b) the DOE does not provide the information on how it has validated the appropriateness of Ebenchmark,HC, given that it is not clear how this value is selected based on IAI statistics (the links provided in the sheet “assumption” in “EF_Qingtongxia Aluminum.xls” and validation report page 13 for this value are not accessible) and it is not clear why the average value taken for Asian region is applied instead of the one taken for the host country, i.e. China. Information is requested on how the DOE has validated the appropriateness of ex-ante determined parameter Eelec,HC.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: