01:38 01 Sep 24
Registration Request for Review Form
CDM project activity/programme of activities registration request review form (CDM-REGR-FORM) (Version 03.0) |
---|
Reference number of the proposed CDM project activity/programme of activities (PoA) submitted for registration | 4293 |
---|---|
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration | Carroll’s Foods do Brasil & LOGICarbon – GHG Emission Reductions from Swine Manure Management System, Diamantino, MT, Brazil |
Please indicate, in accordance with paragraphs 37 and 40 of the CDM modalities and procedures, which validation requirement(s) may require review. A list of requirements is provided below. Please provide reasons in support of the request for review. Including any supporting documentation. | |
The following are requirements derived from paragraph 37 of the CDM modalities and procedures: | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The following are requirements derived from paragraph 40 of the CDM modalities and procedures: | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Additional information | |
1. The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the input values to the investment analysis: (a) as it is not clear whether the input values were available at the time of the investment decision in line with the EB51 Annex 58 paragraph 6, in particular: (i) the O&M cost for the baseline scenario; (ii) the installation cost for the digesters; (iii) the installation cost for monitoring system; (iv) generator and equipment cost; (v) the O&M cost for generator; (vi) generator group cost; (vii) other equipment and installation costs; (viii) the methane production; (ix) the assumed electricity to methane ratio of 10.48 kWh/m3 of CH4; and (x) 35% electricity output of the generator; (b) as insufficient information was provided on how many projects have been compared nor the result of the comparison, in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 111 (b), in particular: (i) the electricity cost; (ii) the electricity consumption; (iii) the electricity sales price; (iv) the O&M cost for the baseline scenario; (v) the installation cost for the digesters; (vi) the installation cost for monitoring system; (vii) generator and equipment cost; (viii) the O&M cost for generator; (ix) generator group cost; (x) other equipment and installation costs; (c) as insufficient information was provided on how they have been validated in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 111 (a) to (d), in particular: (i) the methane production; (ii) the assumed electricity to methane ratio of 10.48 kWh/m3 of CH4; (iii) 35% electricity output of the generator. 2. The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the baseline scenario in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 33 (a) and paragraph 84. In doing so, the DOE should provide its independent opinion regarding the alternative scenarios to the project activity. 3. The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the ex-ante parameters in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 91, in particular Fgasm for aerobic lagoon with natural aeration and Fgasm for aerobic lagoon with forced aeration. 4. The PP is requested to include parameter FAer (fraction of volatile solids directed to aerobic treatment) in the monitor plan as per page 31 of ACM0010 v5. 5. The DOE is requested to explain how monitoring parameter LFAD (Fraction of methane leakage from anaerobic digester) has been validated in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 123 as no information was provided on how the parameter will be determined. |
|
Date | 26 Apr 11 |
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: