[Stoves] CDM decisions update

Mon Jul 17 15:21:36 CDT 2006

Dr Karve and Crispin

This Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) process is burdensome. You will
likely need at least 25,000 stoves installed to recover your costs and that
would be with agri-fuels replacing fossil fuels or wood stoves. You would
likely need 50,000 plus stoves for a wood efficiency stove program. It all
depends on the number of credits your stove and fuel can get and the
up-front price you can get for the credits. We price ours at $5.75/tonne of
carbon dioxide (C02) in our budgeting. 

The project you create needs to be tracked completely. You will need stove
numbers and locations, fuel use assessments pre and post installation in a
representative number of households, emissions analysis,  locations of fuel
production factories and volumes, bill weights on fuel delivery might even
be required to help the monitoring. The problem is fraud, if you just
tracked fuel sales, you could have resale of the fuel. Also you need to know
the stove to calculate emissions and have control over the quality of those
stoves that are manufactured and how long they last.

You can read numerous small scale methodologies on the United Nations
Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC) website to get an idea of what they
need. 

We are looking for investors for CDM projects presently we have in the
Philippines and Nigeria. We would be interested to work with other agencies
in developing these projects with us.  We require about $150-250,000 in
total additional financing for each project. We have a guaranteed buyer for
the carbon credits. Each project is over $5 million dollars in revenue over
10 years in stove sales and carbon credits.

We are also beginning to work with other agencies in providing support on
the CDM process and how it can be worked into your business plans. 

Best regards
Roger Samson
www.reap-canada.com

-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of adkarve
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:21 PM
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Stoves] CDM decisions update

I am a total novice in the field of carbon credits and therefore pose the
following question to more knowledgeable persons.
We are have developed stoves requiring specially prepared fuel. When we
supply such a stove to a client, we are also morally committed to supply him
with the specific fuel. An example is that of stoves using charcoal
briquettes made from sugarcane leaves, or stoves requiring wood chips. These
fuels would be produced by us en masse and sold to the stove users. In such
a case, one need not look at the number of individual stoves in operation or
the period of time that they are in use, but only at the quantity of the
fuel consumed annually by the users of these stoves. Would a manufacturer of
such fuels get the corresponding carbon credits?
Yours
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Ally Charlton <ally.charlton at carbonpositive.com>
To: <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] CDM decisions update

> Hi Roger, et al.
>
> The 2 proposed small scale methodologies referred to below are certainly
> signs of a move in the right direction, but there still seems to be a long
> way to go. These 2 methodologies have been in the pipeline for 6 months or
> so, and various people/organisations have made submissions to the Small
> Scale Working Group emphasising their concerns, as described by Mark,
> particularly around the severe discounting of CERs for projects where the
> true baseline (as opposed to the artificial fossil fuel baseline that the
> new methodologies impose for CER calculation purposes) is the use of
> non-renewable biomass. These concerns have not been addressed during the
> process of development and review of the methodologies, and as far as I
> understand, the meeting next week is purely to give final approval to them
> in their current form - I don't think there is any scope for modifications
> at this stage. As a result, the economics for CDM stove projects which
> involve switching from / reducing consumption of non-renewable biomass
will
> remain extremely challenging.
>
> Is anyone able to provide any additional insight into the workings and
> motives of the SSWG / EB, and thus the likelihood that future developments
> may lead to more favourable conditions for this kind of stove project?
>
> Ally Charlton
>
>
> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:37:46 -0400
> From: "Roger Samson" <rsamson at reap-canada.com>
> Subject: [Stoves] CDM decisions update
> To: "'Stoves-List'" <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <200607131620.k6DGKNWl025777 at mailscan2.cc.mcgill.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> July 11, 2006
>
> Here is an update (below) of the current status of CDM and stoves by Mark
> Purdon. Slowly the CDM small scale panel seems to be coming around to the
> idea that we need a special status for stoves as they are used so
> intermittently and mostly in a simmering mode. REAP-Canada?s recent
> methodology submission for creating a stoves specific category (that was
not
> based on the number of stoves rather than the 45 MW maximum heat output)
was
> rejected at the last meeting in June. However the proposed new
> microtechnology approach now under discussion at the July meeting may
> accomplish the same feat, that is to pull cookstoves out of the thermal
> energy for the user category and create a new category that will work for
> CDM stove project developers.
>
> Roger Samson
>
>
> Recent Decisions Affecting the Treatment of Biomass Projects Under the CDM
>
> UNDP-GEF Briefing Note by Mark Purdon
>
> Introduction
>
> Until 2005 it was possible to develop small-scale projects that reduced
> consumption of non-renewable sources of biomass through renewable energy
> technologies, such as improved biofuel stoves. Recall that at COP8,
> simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale project activities
were
> set forth in Appendix B: Indicative simplified baseline and monitoring
> methodologies for selected small-scale CDM project activity categories.[1]
> Under these categories, biomass projects were possible under ?I.C.:
Thermal
> energy for the user? where renewable energy technologies ?displaces fossil
> fuel or non-renewable sources of biomass?.[2] In particular, Appendix B
> indicated that the simplified baseline would be based on ?the
non-renewable
> sources of biomass consumption of technologies times an emission
coefficient
> for the non-renewable sources of biomass deplaced.?[3] Recent decisions
> taken by the CDM Executive Board have reduced the potential of realizing
> such small-scale projects, much of which is due to complications linked to
> previous decisions pertaining to the role of forests in the CDM.
>
> Deletion of Use of Non-Renewable Biomass Baseline
>
> At EB20 (July 2005) it was suggested that non-forestry small-scale
projects
> that directly or indirectly result in a net increase in carbon pools
should
> not receive CERs for such an increase.[4] Reinforcing this decision, at
EB21
> (Sept 2005) it was formally decided to remove non-renewable biomass as a
> baseline methodology in Appendix B.[5] Credits resulting from increased
> carbon pools are only possible if a project is managed as an
> afforestation/reforestation project.[6] However, at the present time there
> is no consolidated methodology for combined forest and biomass energy
> projects.[7]
>
> Proposed Methodologies for Switching from Non-Renewable Biomass Fuels
>
> Also at EB21, the SSCWG was called up to develop revised methodologies
> proposing the switch from non-renewable biomass.[8] This has resulted in
the
> formal recommendation of two new small-scale project categories by the
> SSCWG[9] which will be considered at the upcoming EB25 (July 2006):
>
> *         SSC Category I. E. - Switch from non-renewable biomass for
thermal
> applications
>
> ?This category comprises of small appliances involving the switch from
> non-renewable biomass to renewable sources of energy. These technologies
> include biogas stoves, use of solar cookers and measures that involve the
> switch to renewable biomass.?
>
> *         SSC Category II. G. - Energy efficiency measures in thermal
> applications of nonrenewable biomass
>
> ?This category comprises of small appliances involving the efficiency
> improvements in the thermal applications of non-renewable biomass. These
> technologies and measures include high efficiency cook stoves and ovens
> using non-renewable biomass. Project activities, which also involve the
> switch to renewable biomass, shall apply using category I-E.?
>
> Baselines for both new small-scale project categories is to based on
locally
> available fossil fuels:[10]
>
> ?It is assumed that in the absence of the project activity, the baseline
> scenario would be the use of fossil fuels commonly observed with local
> consumers, for meeting similar thermal energy needs.?
>
> Criticitisms of the Proposed Methodologies
>
> The above methodologies have been criticized at three levels, particularly
> from the perspective of their application towards household cookstove
> improvement projects.[11]
>
> *         First, the insistance on a fossil fuel baseline reduces the
scope
> of such projects to areas where fossils fuels are locally available. In
many
> of the least developed regions of the world, this is not the case. As
such,
> the new methodologies tend to award a switch from biomass fuels to fossil
> fuels.
>
> *         Secondly, a fossil fuel baseline may significantly discount the
> amount of CERs generated. Fossil fuel stoves are inherently more efficient
> than traditional biomass stoves. As a result, it has been estimated that a
> small-scale project methodology utilising a fossil fuel baseline might
only
> generate 13-36% of the CERs that were available through the previous
> non-renewable biomass baseline.[12]
>
> *         Leakage considerations embedded in the proposed methodologies
> might also adversly impact the economics of such small-scale projects.[13]
>
> Next Steps
>
> The EB will be making decisions on the adoption of the above new
> methodologies at its 25th meeting later this month (July 19-21). Is it
> possible for the UNDP-GEF to submit a commentary on the implications of
> these recent decisions on biomass as they pertain to development,
> particularly in the least developed countries? Possible avenues to explore
> might include:
>
> *         promoting methodological linkages between
> afforestation/reforestation and bioenergy projects, which would imply
> working in conjunction with the CDM Meth Panel, Small-Scale Working Group
> and Afforestation/Reforestation Working Group.
>
> *         Assisting in the development of ?micro-scale? energy systems
which
> are only beginning to be considered by the SSCWG in response to the call
of
> the EB to reconsider the definition of small-scale CDM project
> activities.[14]
>
> *         Promoting other an alternative small-scale CDM category in order
> to accommodate the particular methodological uses of cookstove
projects.[15]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org