Forgot your password?
Draft chapter 3 for VM2
Comments during VM2
Comments from Statistics Canada
Product_classification.xls (IEA by Karen Treanton, see comment below)
Comments from UNSD-EEA by Alessandra Alfieri
Comments from State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan by Yusif Yusifov
Comments from Statistics Norway by Olav Ljones and Jun Toutain
More comments below:
Comment from Martin Brown-Santirso, Statistics New Zealand
Posted by
Jun
at
2009-11-26 08:02 AM
I agree with Canada's first comment on the sense that coal products of coal (or brown coal) are a subset of coal. The point of a hierarchical organisations is that when the categories are collapsed, the brown coal category would show all brown coal used.
Comment from Iain MacLeay
Posted by
Jun
at
2009-12-01 10:09 AM
In chapter 3 – I don’t see colliery methane in the proposed classification.
Comments from CBS by Hans Pouwelse
Posted by
Jun
at
2009-12-01 10:19 AM
1.. I have no specific comments on the product classification right now, but I still hope that the InterEnerStat group can come to a final generally accepted classification of products (and flows), which can be adopted in IRES completely, without exceptions. In that case chapter 3 can be very short (refer to that internationally agreed classification).
For an individual country, which has to deliver energy information to different international organisations (in the case of the Netherlands to EU, IEA and UN) it is very undesirable to be confronted with different classifications. Moreover the Joint Annual Questionnaires (EU, IEA, UN) can only be continued if classifications on products and flows do not diverge (at most slightly).
For an individual country, which has to deliver energy information to different international organisations (in the case of the Netherlands to EU, IEA and UN) it is very undesirable to be confronted with different classifications. Moreover the Joint Annual Questionnaires (EU, IEA, UN) can only be continued if classifications on products and flows do not diverge (at most slightly).
Comments from Wolfgang Bittermann
Posted by
Jun
at
2009-12-01 10:25 AM
Concerning chapter 3 I agree with Canada’s comments. My only additional point is a further breakdown of Municipial waste in renewable and non renewable and to rename Industrial waste into Non renewable industrial waste.
Comments from IEA by Jean-Yves Garnier
Posted by
Jun
at
2009-12-01 10:42 AM
6 - We suppose that InterEnerStat will have to write this part.
14 - Need inputs from the work of InterEnerStat
15 - a: not clear at all
16 - What does "fuels which are not high in energy content" mean? How do
you define is an energy content is high or not?
Coding System and Classification Structure
23 - We are surprised to see a proposal for classification. We do not
recall that it has already been discussed. As you are aware, there will
a proposal from the InterEnerStat work.
14 - Need inputs from the work of InterEnerStat
15 - a: not clear at all
16 - What does "fuels which are not high in energy content" mean? How do
you define is an energy content is high or not?
Coding System and Classification Structure
23 - We are surprised to see a proposal for classification. We do not
recall that it has already been discussed. As you are aware, there will
a proposal from the InterEnerStat work.
Opportunity to review IRES Draft Version 1 before the worldwide consultation
1. Same comment as in Chapter 2 for the use of "products".
Although I admit that at least in this chapter an attempt has been made
to define what is meant by "product" in paragraph C14.
2. I will not comment on the classification structure since I
already circulated an alternate proposal after the last InterEnerStat
and requested comments. I am attaching it to this email. Note - this
was just a starting point and I didn't bother putting in all the numbers
since we were moving things around. This will at least give an idea of
where we are at this point.
See product classification.xls