04:32 08 Dec 23
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 | 2516 |
---|---|
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration | Zibo Hongda Coking Co. Ltd. Coke Dry Quenching and Waste Heat Utilization for Power Generation Project |
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 shall substantiate on how they confirm that the project activity will supply electricity to parent company of the PP as the PDD submitted for GSP says electricity is exported to the grid. 2. The DOE shall further clarify: (i) the suitability of the input values to the investment analysis as per the guidance of EB 38 paragraph 54(c), in particular, static investment, electricity tariff, O & M cost, coke powder price, and expected annual electricity supplied, and (ii) why the O & M expenditure of CWQ system and the capacity/demand charge, if the parent company has been paid to grid in pre-project scenario, are not considered as revenue in the investment analysis. 3. The DOE should further substantiate elimination of alternative; waste heat is sold as an energy source. 4. The DOE should further substantiate on how it is confirmed that waste heat was released into the atmosphere in the absence of the project activity at existing facility in line with the applicability criteria of the methodology. 5. The means of calculation of fcap is not in accordance with ACM0012 version 2. The DOE is requested to clarify why a Corrective Action Request was not raised during the validation. The quoted clarification is related to measuring of Qwg,y, not for fcap. 6. The PP/DOE shall upload readable version of appendix 1 (Appendix 1 is not in English). |
|
Date | 30 Jul 09 |
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: