More on CO2 emissions

Progress today:
The ventilation/heatpump team spent much of today drilling two more holes (ca 30 cm in diameter each) in the concrete wall into the ventilation room. The last two ventilation pipes will pass through much of the ventilation room and through these holes to other parts of the house. I don't know where they will go from there, but I observe that even more of the house gets occupied by the ventilation system.

More on CO2 emissions:
My understanding of the CO2 quotas is that each country gets a CO2 allowance under the Kyoto protocol, and that this "allowance" is split into CO2 quotas that can be traded globally. If a company generates 1000 tons of CO2 too much they pay 21.600 USD for CO2 quotas in the market (from a company/country that generates less CO2).

Compare the approximate 5 USD per ton CO2 performance of our JAHUS project with the 21.6 USD/ton companies have to pay for CO2 quotas. Looks like JAHUS projects are effective CO2 saving projects.

The price of these quotas are expected to rise to 60 USD by 2020 (medium probability - as shown in the graph - but in Euros).


Rather than these CO2 quotas, some countries have introduced green certificates (see additional comments below). The idea is that projects like our JAHUS project can get a green certificate that can be sold to finance (some of-) the project. The total value of the certificates correspond to the CO2 effect of the project - and there is a local marketplace for these certificates. (There is no such market in Norway at the moment - but it would be a good idea to grant green certificates to JAHUS projects. This would surely boost the number of JAHUS projects).

In Norway the government is now financially backing 8 separate initiatives called Centres for Environment-friendly Energy Research (FMEs) - with approximately 145 MUSD. With a total over 8 years of approximately 18 MUSD the goal of the Bioenergy Innovation Centre (CenBio) is to produce renewable energy at a rate of 10TWh/year. The efficiency of this FME would then be approximately 556USD/ton of CO2. My point is not that these FMEs are too expensive considering their CO2 effect - but it illustrates clearly that these projects should be followed by support for projects with a much higher CO2 effect per invested USD like JAHUS projects (introducing cheap loans, making the products tax-free, introducing green certificates etc.).

I have copied some backgroud info below - to help readers get easy access to some of the background information I refer to in my discussions.

Carbon market overview:
Climate change is mainly caused by an accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. At the Rio Conference in 1992, there was a broad international recognition of the need for a common effort in order to mitigate climate change. This resulted in the first international legally binding agreement aiming to curb greenhouse gas emissions – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). According to the UNFCCC, industrialised countries, or Annex I countries, have the main responsibility to mitigate climate change.

In 1997, concrete targets for curbing GHG emissions were established in the Kyoto Protocol. Each Annex I country that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol is obliged to reach a domestic target for carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions, on average of 5.2 % below 1990 emission levels, by the first commitment period of 2008 to 2012. Annex 1 parties emitted around 64 % of total global GHGs in 1990. Non-Annex 1 countries (primarily developing countries) do not have binding targets under the Kyoto Protocol, but must ratify the Protocol in order to be hosting emission reduction projects under the flexible mechanisms (see below). As of 15 January 2008, 177 countries, plus the European Union, have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

A beginner’s guide to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol: http://unfccc.int/

Challenges of the CO2 market include the fact that countries that used to be behind the "iron curtain" (Russia etc.) are in the midst of a serious financial downturn - and as a result they have much more CO2 quotas than what they need (pushing the price of CO2 quotas in the marketplace down).

A Green Certificate: terminology used in Europe - also known as Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in the USA, are a tradable commodity proving that certain electricity is generated using renewable energy sources. Typically one certificate represents generation of 1 Megawatthour of electricity. What is defined as "renewable" varies from certificate trading scheme to trading scheme. Usually, at least the following sources are considered as renewable:

• Wind: often further divided into onshore and offshore
• Solar: often further divided into photovoltaic and thermal
• Wave: often further divided into onshore and offshore
• Tidal: often further divided into onshore and offshore
• Geothermal
• Hydro: often further divided into small - microhydro - and large
• Biomass: mainly biofuels, often further divided by actual fuel used.

Green certificates represent the environmental value of renewable energy generated. The certificates can be traded separately from the energy produced. Several countries use green certificates as a mean to make the support of green electricity generation closer to a market economy instead of more bureaucratic investment support and feed-in tariffs. Such national trading schemes are in use in e.g. Poland, Sweden, the UK, Italy, Belgium (Wallonia and Flanders), and some US states.

In contrast to CO2e-Reduction certificates, e.g. AAU's or CER's under the UNFCC, which can be exchanged worldwide, Green Certificates cannot be exchanged/traded between e.g. Belgium an Italy, let alone the USA and the EU member States.