Skip to content
CLEVER open consultation
*
1.
Name and surname
(Required.)
*
2.
Organisation
(Required.)
*
3.
Data protection and consent note
Your data will be processed in accordance with CLEVER
Privacy Policy
, the GDPR 2016/679 and the Data Protection Act 2018.
You can request access, rectification, and deletion of your data at any time.
All data will be deleted by the end of the project on 31.06.2027.
Carolina Salas from PNO is the assigned CLEVER project Data Protection Officer (DPO) and thereby the data controller. She is located at C/ París 45-47, 08029 Barcelona, Spain and she can be contacted by e-mail at clever@emissionfactors.eu.
I agree to be publicly listed as open consultation respondent
(Required.)
Yes, with my name and organisation
Yes, but just mention my organisation
No, I want to be anonymous
4.
Scope modularity
Do you agree with the proposed subdivision of elements into the ‘core’ value (covering the climate impact from operational emissions and energy provision of the energy carriers coming from the GHG emissions) and other additional elements (covering additional climate impacts, climate impacts from hydrogen as well as indirect land use change)?
Yes
If no, what would you propose?
I don't know
5.
System boundary (Section 4.4)
A consistent system boundary is needed for a level playing field for all energy carrier pathways and their assessment: it strives to include all relevant elements with potential climate impacts. Here is a visual representation of CLEVER system boundary:
Yes
No
I don't know
Do you agree with the elements included or excluded (as well as whether they are “shall”, “should” or “may”)?
Yes
No
I don't know
If no, please specify why/propose alternatives
Is the cut-off criterion of 3% climate impacts appropriate? (Cumulative cut-off of 3% means that at least 97% of all climate impacts must be accounted for).
Yes
No
I don't know
If no, please specify why/propose alternatives
6.
Data and data quality (Section 4.6)
Our methodology proposes to measure the data quality of all CLEVER datasets consistently and sets minimum requirements for new datasets. Do you agree with the minimum requirements we propose?
Yes
If no, how would you assess data quality?
I don't know
7.
Handling of multifunctionality (section 4.8)
Energy-based allocation* (using the lower heating value) is the preferred method to deal with multifunctionalities for any CLEVER assessment of energy carriers. Do you agree with our allocation hierarchy?
*Allocation = Emissions between different outputs are divided based on the energy-content of the outputs.
Yes
If not, what would you change?
8.
End-of-Life (section 4.9) and Waste definition (
section
4.10)
CLEVER assumes that the burden of the primary production of a good always remains with the first life cycle (100:0) and no credits are given. Wastes are thus available burden free at the point of collection for any further utilization. Do you agree with our waste definition and handling of EoL processes?
Yes
If not, what would you change?
I don't know
9.
Handling of biogenic carbon (section 4.11)
Is -1/+1 the correct method to account for biogenic carbon?
Yes
If no, which alternative would you recommend?
I don't know
10.
Handling of land use and land-use change (section 4.12)
Indirect land use change is often difficult to quantify, but due to its very high impact on certain (crop-based) biofuel pathways, we propose to include values for iLUC as an additional element following the CORSIA methodology.
Yes
No
I don't know
Do you agree with the quantification of iLUC?
Yes
No
I don't know
Do you agree with following the CORSIA methodology?
Yes
No
I don't know
If not, what approach to quantification of iLUC would you recommend?
11.
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (section 4.13)
Yes
No
I don't know
Do you agree with using the GWP100 as the only (mandatory) metric?
Yes
No
I don't know
If not, what would you recommend?
12.
In general, did we miss any important scope elements? If so, please indicate
13.
Do you want to add any additional comments or feedback?