Importance of Seaweed in the Climate Change—Seaweed Solution 37
• Baseline emissions of seaweed (BEi, tCO 2 eq ha
–1
) = carbon content per unit length (g C m
–1
) ×
total rope length (m) × 44/12 ÷ 10
6
. For Ecklonia cava, BEi = 435.2 × 4900 × 44/12 ÷ 10
6
= 7.82
tCO 2 eq ha
–1
; E. stolonifera, 889.9 × 4900 × 44/12 ÷ 10
6
= 15.99 tCO 2 eq ha
–1
; and Saccharina
japonica, 1,050.3 × 2,400 × 44/12 ÷ 10
6
= 9.24 tCO 2 eq ha
–1
.
f) Baseline emissions per unit area (BE, tCO 2 eq ha
–1
) = 7.82 ∼ 15.99 tCO 2 eq ha
–1
g) Maximum baseline emissions (BE, tCO 2 eq ha
–1
) = ∼ 16.00 tCO 2 eq ha
–1
2) Project Emissions (PE): PE was defined as the GHG emissions produced by the installation of
the farm structure and transportation of vehicles (trucks) and vessels (work boat) needed for the
plantation project. PE, tCO 2 e = Σ {fuel consumption x fuel calorific value × conversion factor of
calorific value by fuel consumption (4.1868 TJ × 10
–9
kcal
–1
) × CO 2 emission factor (tCO 2 TJ
–1
)}.
Here, we assume the amount of emissions to be zero because the amount of project emission is
relatively small in comparison with baseline emission. Project emission is based on transport for
algae cultivation. It is shown in Table 7.
3) Leakage (L) was assumed to be zero here. Actually there is no leakage in this project.
4) Estimation of greenhouse gas reductions (tCO 2 eq) = BE – PE – L.
Table 7. Project emissions by CDM activities estimated to have occurred during the pilot survey.
Fuel consumption
Diesel (l)
Calorific value
liquid (kcal L
–1
) = 8,540 kcal L
–1
Conversion factor
1 kcal = 4.1868 kJ, 1 ton = 1,000 kg, 1 TJ = 10
9
kJ
Emission factor
CO 2 emission factor = 74.1 tCO 2 TJ
–1
C.4 Treatments of leakage in the monitoring plan
If applicable, we included a description of the data and information that were to be collected in order to
monitor leakage associated with the proposed project activities. We provided details about the formulae
and/or models to estimate L (for each GHG, sources, carbon pool, in units of equivalent), the procedures
for periodic review of the implementation of activities and measures to minimize leakage, and descriptions
of the formulae and/or models used to estimate net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks (for each GHG,
carbon pool, in units of equivalent). Wet (fresh) weights were determined with an electronic balance and
frond (leaf) widths and lengths were measured with a tape. Because of the possibility of instrument error
when sampling convenience was a factor, we undertook procedures for quality control and assurance.
We also presented a description of the operational and management structure(s) that the project
operator would implement in order to monitor actual GHG removals by sinks, as well as any leakage
generated by project activities. The names of persons/entities that determined the monitoring methodology
were recorded.
Persons and agencies associated with PNU, CNU, NIFS, RIST, and RCC were involved in making
baseline decisions.
Section D. Estimation of net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks
D.1 Estimate baseline net GHG removals by sinks
Under the baseline scenario, we assumed that the accumulation of carbon would be due to an increase
in seaweed biomass. If seaweeds were not present above or below the sea surface, the accumulation of
carbon would be zero. Any other reservoir was not considered if it was related to the project scenario and
might produce values lower than our baseline readings.
• Baseline emissions of seaweed (BEi, tCO 2 eq ha
–1
) = carbon content per unit length (g C m
–1
) ×
total rope length (m) × 44/12 ÷ 10
6
. For Ecklonia cava, BEi = 435.2 × 4900 × 44/12 ÷ 10
6
= 7.82
tCO 2 eq ha
–1
; E. stolonifera, 889.9 × 4900 × 44/12 ÷ 10
6
= 15.99 tCO 2 eq ha
–1
; and Saccharina
japonica, 1,050.3 × 2,400 × 44/12 ÷ 10
6
= 9.24 tCO 2 eq ha
–1
.
f) Baseline emissions per unit area (BE, tCO 2 eq ha
–1
) = 7.82 ∼ 15.99 tCO 2 eq ha
–1
g) Maximum baseline emissions (BE, tCO 2 eq ha
–1
) = ∼ 16.00 tCO 2 eq ha
–1
2) Project Emissions (PE): PE was defined as the GHG emissions produced by the installation of
the farm structure and transportation of vehicles (trucks) and vessels (work boat) needed for the
plantation project. PE, tCO 2 e = Σ {fuel consumption x fuel calorific value × conversion factor of
calorific value by fuel consumption (4.1868 TJ × 10
–9
kcal
–1
) × CO 2 emission factor (tCO 2 TJ
–1
)}.
Here, we assume the amount of emissions to be zero because the amount of project emission is
relatively small in comparison with baseline emission. Project emission is based on transport for
algae cultivation. It is shown in Table 7.
3) Leakage (L) was assumed to be zero here. Actually there is no leakage in this project.
4) Estimation of greenhouse gas reductions (tCO 2 eq) = BE – PE – L.
Table 7. Project emissions by CDM activities estimated to have occurred during the pilot survey.
Fuel consumption
Diesel (l)
Calorific value
liquid (kcal L
–1
) = 8,540 kcal L
–1
Conversion factor
1 kcal = 4.1868 kJ, 1 ton = 1,000 kg, 1 TJ = 10
9
kJ
Emission factor
CO 2 emission factor = 74.1 tCO 2 TJ
–1
C.4 Treatments of leakage in the monitoring plan
If applicable, we included a description of the data and information that were to be collected in order to
monitor leakage associated with the proposed project activities. We provided details about the formulae
and/or models to estimate L (for each GHG, sources, carbon pool, in units of equivalent), the procedures
for periodic review of the implementation of activities and measures to minimize leakage, and descriptions
of the formulae and/or models used to estimate net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks (for each GHG,
carbon pool, in units of equivalent). Wet (fresh) weights were determined with an electronic balance and
frond (leaf) widths and lengths were measured with a tape. Because of the possibility of instrument error
when sampling convenience was a factor, we undertook procedures for quality control and assurance.
We also presented a description of the operational and management structure(s) that the project
operator would implement in order to monitor actual GHG removals by sinks, as well as any leakage
generated by project activities. The names of persons/entities that determined the monitoring methodology
were recorded.
Persons and agencies associated with PNU, CNU, NIFS, RIST, and RCC were involved in making
baseline decisions.
Section D. Estimation of net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks
D.1 Estimate baseline net GHG removals by sinks
Under the baseline scenario, we assumed that the accumulation of carbon would be due to an increase
in seaweed biomass. If seaweeds were not present above or below the sea surface, the accumulation of
carbon would be zero. Any other reservoir was not considered if it was related to the project scenario and
might produce values lower than our baseline readings.