Progress:
The ventilation team never showed up today, so we have nothing to report :-(
Events:
In its annual World Energy Outlook released this week the IEA says that unless there is an "energy revolution," the planet will heat up by about 6°C by 2030 — about three times the rate of global warming that is considered manageable by most scientists. That, says the normally sober IEA, "would lead almost certainly to massive climatic change and irreparable damage to the planet." The agency’s chief economist Faith Birol said pre-requisites for such a energy revolution are a strong climate agreement to curtail global emissions up to 2020, and a doubling of carbon prices from current EU levels.
Even after a series of statements like these, some people are still “global warming skeptics” who claim that: “this planet’s natural temperature fluctuations lead to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere – not the other way around”. Should they be correct in their view on CO2 – there is still a need to act now....
The global recession has brought the first significant yearly drop in energy demand since 1981, giving the planet a rare breather from carbon emissions. But this is a "unique" moment, the report says, whose gains will be quickly obliterated without a significant move toward alternative energies. The impending energy crisis is "far greater than many people realize," it says. (Read "Russia and China: An Old Alliance Hinges on Energy.")
Energy demand will rebound sharply once the recession ends and rise about 40% by 2030. Fossil fuels — oil, coal and gas — will make up about three-quarters of the global increase in energy consumption. One example of the recession’s effect on CO2 emissions is Japan – see article “Japan greenhouse gas emissions fell 6.2% last year”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1937160,00.html#ixzz0WXeEw4d4
Copenhagen delay to cost $500bn a year
The International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that holding up a new global climate agreement will add $500 billion for each year of delay to the total cost of measures needed to keep global warming to plus-2 degrees Celsius.
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=1727
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Finally there is progress to report
Progress:
We used to have steady cold breeze coming from the loft hatch in the winter, but yesterday the carpenter replaced it with a new and better isolated hatch (as illustrated in the picture below).
Today when we came home from work the carpenters had closed and filled in all the old air hatches in the house - so from this day on the house is at "low energy house" standard (requiring less than 100 KWh/m2 per year).
Now that the aircirculation is minimal, it was good news that the ventilation team finally reported some progress. They had finalized all the in- and output holes for the fresh and "used air" (see picture from the livingroom below)
They had also started on the piping behind the indoor-part of the heatpump, in the room next to the ventilationroom (this is where the 4 pipes end up after passing through the wall). See the last two pictures.
Backlog:
The ventilation team still needs to finish the piping that will suck heated air from the area around the heatpump - and then redistribute it around the house (and the same for cool air in the summer). They also have to install an extra fan for a separate loop that distributes cooler air from the ground floor to the bedrooms on the first floor. Last box to be installed is the outside-part of the heatpump (and the wooden cover around it - to make it look better on the outside of the house). Then after some calibration work - the complete system should be ready for handover (and then normal operations).
Recents events:
Brazil urges world leaders to attend UN climate meet:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/11/09/09/brazil-urges-world-leaders-attend-un-climate-meet
Obama set to attend Copenhagen:
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=1723
> The fact that Obama and other important leaders intent to participate is probably good news
> I also added the CarbonPositive website to the useful links section (on the right side of this blog) after having found quite a lot of useful background information, facts and a useful FAQ section.
We used to have steady cold breeze coming from the loft hatch in the winter, but yesterday the carpenter replaced it with a new and better isolated hatch (as illustrated in the picture below).
Today when we came home from work the carpenters had closed and filled in all the old air hatches in the house - so from this day on the house is at "low energy house" standard (requiring less than 100 KWh/m2 per year).
Now that the aircirculation is minimal, it was good news that the ventilation team finally reported some progress. They had finalized all the in- and output holes for the fresh and "used air" (see picture from the livingroom below)
They had also installed the last two pipes in the ventilation room (see the lower two pipes in the pictures below)
They had also started on the piping behind the indoor-part of the heatpump, in the room next to the ventilationroom (this is where the 4 pipes end up after passing through the wall). See the last two pictures.
Backlog:
The ventilation team still needs to finish the piping that will suck heated air from the area around the heatpump - and then redistribute it around the house (and the same for cool air in the summer). They also have to install an extra fan for a separate loop that distributes cooler air from the ground floor to the bedrooms on the first floor. Last box to be installed is the outside-part of the heatpump (and the wooden cover around it - to make it look better on the outside of the house). Then after some calibration work - the complete system should be ready for handover (and then normal operations).
Recents events:
Brazil urges world leaders to attend UN climate meet:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/11/09/09/brazil-urges-world-leaders-attend-un-climate-meet
Obama set to attend Copenhagen:
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=1723
> The fact that Obama and other important leaders intent to participate is probably good news
> I also added the CarbonPositive website to the useful links section (on the right side of this blog) after having found quite a lot of useful background information, facts and a useful FAQ section.
Friday, November 6, 2009
How drastic do the CO2 reductions have to be?
Progress:
> I'm not happy to see this type of news - but I'm not very surprised...
> There will be more of these statements in the press to put pressure on the delegates meeting in Copenhagen on December 7th.
U.S. unemployment rate hits 10.2 percent in October, the highest rate since April, 1983. Job losses total 190,000.
> More depressing news.... There is, however, some effects of the financial crisis that can have positive impact on the CO2 reductions we all want. Reduced activity means less CO2 emissions from the industry and transportation sector (in Russia, this effect has been dramatic) - and more importantly this gives governments an extra incentive to initiate projects that will create jobs and at the same time reduce CO2 emissions (like JAHUS projects).
More on current CO2 emissons and targets for 2020:
On Friday afternoon when we came home from work the only progress to report was that the old patio door had been replaced with a new patio door. Finally all the windows and doors included in the project have been replaced, and given that the extra isolation was added to the attic some weeks ago - the house should now be fairly well isolated.
Next week they will block all the current air hatches in the house (where the warm inside air has been flowing freely out from the house). When this last part of the "keep the heat inside" project has been completed - it will hopefully be time for switching on the ventilation system (or else there will not be enough circulation of air in our house, and we have to open windows regularly until the ventilation team is ready).
The ventilation team originally promised to have the project finished one week ago, so on Friday morning I asked them (by email) for a new target date - but so far I have not received a response. To me it looks like we are 2 weeks away from the finishing line (if they send their people here and not to other delayed projects).
Comments on global events:
Climate-Accord Deadline May Slip a Year as Nations ‘Play Games’ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTFXPFqcsfbc> I'm not happy to see this type of news - but I'm not very surprised...
> There will be more of these statements in the press to put pressure on the delegates meeting in Copenhagen on December 7th.
U.S. unemployment rate hits 10.2 percent in October, the highest rate since April, 1983. Job losses total 190,000.
> More depressing news.... There is, however, some effects of the financial crisis that can have positive impact on the CO2 reductions we all want. Reduced activity means less CO2 emissions from the industry and transportation sector (in Russia, this effect has been dramatic) - and more importantly this gives governments an extra incentive to initiate projects that will create jobs and at the same time reduce CO2 emissions (like JAHUS projects).
More on current CO2 emissons and targets for 2020:
In 1990 Norways total emissions of CO2 was ca 50 million tons (or ca 12 tons per capita). The CO2 emissions are expected to increase to 59 million tons of CO2 by 2020 (if nothing is done to reduce the growth in CO2 emissions).
The norwegian government recently stated that by 2020 we will have cut the CO2 emissions by 40% compared to the level in 1990 (50 million tons) - see more on the website below:
"Norway takes over the yellow climate jersey"
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2319
The reduction per capita should according to this target be 12 tons *40%= ca 5 tons CO2 per capita per year. If my estimates for our JAHUS project we will reduce emissions of CO2 by as much as 30 tons CO2 per year - or 6 tons per person living in the house (5).
How does norwegian numbers compare to for example USA?
In 1990 USAs total emissions of CO2 was ca 5000 million tons (or ca 20 million tons per capita). The CO2 emissions had increased to 6000 million tons of CO2 by 2004 (and stayed on that level since then)
I can recommend this website if you want more details on emissions of green house gases:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
> Comment: I understand that there are discussions about which year to refer to when I see that there has been only a small increase in CO2 emissions since 1990 in Norway (and the rest of western Europe) - while in the USA the increase has been 20%.
>If all countries were to reduce the CO2 emissions by 30% compared to 1990 - americans would have to reduce CO2 emissions by 20%+30%=50% compared with todays level, while we here in Europe would be compliant at levels of slightly more than 30%.
- Scientists think that we need to cut global CO2 emissions with as much as 30% (from the 1990 level)
- Developing countries must be allowed some growth in CO2 emissions. Who shall "pay the price"?
- Even if there were no global warming and CO2 problem, there is also a growing concern that there just isn't enough energy available when the supply of fossile fuel runs out (next 50 years).
I will follow up next week with more comments about the "fight" over CO2 reductions - leading up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen in December (Europe-USA-BRIC, developed vs developing countries etc.).
Thursday, November 5, 2009
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:
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.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
CO2 calculations - part 2
Blog contents: You may have noticed that I have added some references to other websites and blogs on the righthand side of the blog. I hope you too will find them interesting.
Progress:
Today it went from bad to near-disaster in what used to be our Biliard-room (now our ventilations room). The picture shows the new piping in the ceiling - and believe it or not, they still haven't finished installing stuff in this room (one more fan and two more pipes).
There was also some good news when I came home from work today - the heatpump had been put where we wanted it. We had to pay 500 USD extra for the pump (incl. the installation job) that moves the condensated humidity from the heatpump to the drainage point.
Progress:
Today it went from bad to near-disaster in what used to be our Biliard-room (now our ventilations room). The picture shows the new piping in the ceiling - and believe it or not, they still haven't finished installing stuff in this room (one more fan and two more pipes).
There was also some good news when I came home from work today - the heatpump had been put where we wanted it. We had to pay 500 USD extra for the pump (incl. the installation job) that moves the condensated humidity from the heatpump to the drainage point.Your own CO2 emissions:
A Audi A4 car sends out 0,197 kg CO2 into the atomspere for every kilometer you drive (http://www.vegvesen.no/). Total emissions during a trip from Oslo to Trondheim and back = 1000km *0,197kg/km= 197 kg CO2
To save 30 tons of CO2 per year (the yearly savings of our JAHUS project, see the blog-post yesterday) - you would have to cut the driving by: 152.000 km !
Most people don't drive that much during a year. A reduction of 5000 km or approx 25% of a normal family cars yearly distance (by using bicycle to work and walking to the grocery store) is more realistic => ca 1 ton CO2
A traditional american diet results in almost 1,5 tons more CO2 emissions a year than a vegetarian diet (with the same number of calories). Converting to a vegetarian diet saves an additional 1.5tons of CO2 per person. With a household of 5 people the savings = 7.5 tons CO2
Drop the 2 trips we (parents only) fly each year to the southern part of Europe. Each person saves 2,6tons of CO2 by not flying to Rome/Italy and back to Oslo - so the total savings is ca 4 * 2,6 = 10,4 tons of CO2
Yes, you can (and should) also do minor things such as limiting the use of warm water for showering, replacing old light bulbs with energy-saver/LED light bulbs, and changing to light bulbs that automatically get switched on when it gets dark and off in the morning.
Add the effects of all the above mentioned measures and we'll still be 10 tons short of matching the estimated savings of 30 tons CO2 associated with our JAHUS project (with no negative effect on lifestyle or comfort). What would you rather do?
A Audi A4 car sends out 0,197 kg CO2 into the atomspere for every kilometer you drive (http://www.vegvesen.no/). Total emissions during a trip from Oslo to Trondheim and back = 1000km *0,197kg/km= 197 kg CO2
To save 30 tons of CO2 per year (the yearly savings of our JAHUS project, see the blog-post yesterday) - you would have to cut the driving by: 152.000 km !
Most people don't drive that much during a year. A reduction of 5000 km or approx 25% of a normal family cars yearly distance (by using bicycle to work and walking to the grocery store) is more realistic => ca 1 ton CO2
A traditional american diet results in almost 1,5 tons more CO2 emissions a year than a vegetarian diet (with the same number of calories). Converting to a vegetarian diet saves an additional 1.5tons of CO2 per person. With a household of 5 people the savings = 7.5 tons CO2
Drop the 2 trips we (parents only) fly each year to the southern part of Europe. Each person saves 2,6tons of CO2 by not flying to Rome/Italy and back to Oslo - so the total savings is ca 4 * 2,6 = 10,4 tons of CO2
Yes, you can (and should) also do minor things such as limiting the use of warm water for showering, replacing old light bulbs with energy-saver/LED light bulbs, and changing to light bulbs that automatically get switched on when it gets dark and off in the morning.
Add the effects of all the above mentioned measures and we'll still be 10 tons short of matching the estimated savings of 30 tons CO2 associated with our JAHUS project (with no negative effect on lifestyle or comfort). What would you rather do?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
For nerds or you and me?
Today we had lengthy discussions about where to put the indoor-part of the heatpump. The guys wanted to put it "right in your face" when entering the house through our frontdoor, but we want it to be placed somewere more discrete.
They told us there will some water coming out of the unit (condensated humidity from the air) so the unit has to be placed higher than the drainage point. This was new information for us - but found a solution where they put the heatpump where we want it and add a small pump that will make sure the water gets to the drainage point even from a lower point.
Except for the good news that much of the garabage in our garden now has been removed (have they read my blog?) - not much more to report from the project itself.
I also promised to share with you some numbers and calculations......
I have had a hard time putting all the CO2- and energy numbers I read about in the press into perspective. I believe that I'm finally begining to make sense of it all - and I hope that sharing my thoughts with you will be helpful.My objective is to help you compare the effects of different types of climate friendly efforts. Provided below is part 1 of this section - and some of the numbers will have to be added tomorrow (part 2).
Experts say a country like Norway has to spend 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) each year on efforts to limit/reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions. (Some even say 3%). For Norway spesifically this means approximately 10billion USD a year or 2.500 USD per person per year. To me this sounds like very high numbers - just think for a moment how much you could do in a house (with 5 people) for 12.500 USD/year.
When they see the amount of CO2 emissions saved in a JAHUS project, the governments should at least use some of the 12.500 USD per person to provide cheap loans for JAHUS-type projects (like in France) and make the JAHUS-type products taxfree. I'll get to that tomorrow when I compare the cost of different efforts for saving a ton of CO2 emissions.
I'll start by estimating the savings as a result of our JAHUS project. Last year we spent more on electricity than the average house of our size - but I'll use the standard number 200 KWh/square meter per year (for houses older than 10 years). After the JAHUS project we expect the house to meet the "low energy house" standard which means we're down to 100 KWh/sq meters per year - or a delta of 100KWh/sqm*300sq.meters= 30.000 KWh/year
How do we "translate" this to amounts of CO2 emissions? The norwegian authorities confirm that if we assume there is enough capacity to transfer excess clean electricity from Norway to the continent - then 1 KWh saved here means 1 KWH less of the most dirty electricity on the continent. 1 KWh produced on coal generates 1 kg of CO2. The savings in our house is expected to result in savings of 30 tons of CO2 per year !
If the total cost of the project should end up at a total of 60.000 USD and we expect it to last at least 10 years => 30tons * 10 years / 60.000 USD = 5 kg CO2/USD. This is the cost before we deduct the savings on the electricity bill. A fairly accurate estimate of the price for electricity on the European continent is 0,2USD per KWh and hence 30.000 KWh per year => 6000 USD per year. Multiply this with 10 years and you get .....yes, 60.000 USD (the price of the project).
Saving 30 tons of CO2 per year, getting better indoor climate and the electricity savings pay for "the party"? Sound like a "no-brainer" to me....
The CO2 effects and cost of other efforts we could do will be presented tomorrow.
They told us there will some water coming out of the unit (condensated humidity from the air) so the unit has to be placed higher than the drainage point. This was new information for us - but found a solution where they put the heatpump where we want it and add a small pump that will make sure the water gets to the drainage point even from a lower point.
Except for the good news that much of the garabage in our garden now has been removed (have they read my blog?) - not much more to report from the project itself.
I also promised to share with you some numbers and calculations......
I have had a hard time putting all the CO2- and energy numbers I read about in the press into perspective. I believe that I'm finally begining to make sense of it all - and I hope that sharing my thoughts with you will be helpful.My objective is to help you compare the effects of different types of climate friendly efforts. Provided below is part 1 of this section - and some of the numbers will have to be added tomorrow (part 2).
Experts say a country like Norway has to spend 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) each year on efforts to limit/reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions. (Some even say 3%). For Norway spesifically this means approximately 10billion USD a year or 2.500 USD per person per year. To me this sounds like very high numbers - just think for a moment how much you could do in a house (with 5 people) for 12.500 USD/year.
When they see the amount of CO2 emissions saved in a JAHUS project, the governments should at least use some of the 12.500 USD per person to provide cheap loans for JAHUS-type projects (like in France) and make the JAHUS-type products taxfree. I'll get to that tomorrow when I compare the cost of different efforts for saving a ton of CO2 emissions.
I'll start by estimating the savings as a result of our JAHUS project. Last year we spent more on electricity than the average house of our size - but I'll use the standard number 200 KWh/square meter per year (for houses older than 10 years). After the JAHUS project we expect the house to meet the "low energy house" standard which means we're down to 100 KWh/sq meters per year - or a delta of 100KWh/sqm*300sq.meters= 30.000 KWh/year
How do we "translate" this to amounts of CO2 emissions? The norwegian authorities confirm that if we assume there is enough capacity to transfer excess clean electricity from Norway to the continent - then 1 KWh saved here means 1 KWH less of the most dirty electricity on the continent. 1 KWh produced on coal generates 1 kg of CO2. The savings in our house is expected to result in savings of 30 tons of CO2 per year !
If the total cost of the project should end up at a total of 60.000 USD and we expect it to last at least 10 years => 30tons * 10 years / 60.000 USD = 5 kg CO2/USD. This is the cost before we deduct the savings on the electricity bill. A fairly accurate estimate of the price for electricity on the European continent is 0,2USD per KWh and hence 30.000 KWh per year => 6000 USD per year. Multiply this with 10 years and you get .....yes, 60.000 USD (the price of the project).
Saving 30 tons of CO2 per year, getting better indoor climate and the electricity savings pay for "the party"? Sound like a "no-brainer" to me....
The CO2 effects and cost of other efforts we could do will be presented tomorrow.
- introduce 3 meat-free days a week
- bike to work and leave the car at home
- drop the yearly vacation trip to sunny Spain (by air)
- limit showers to 5 minutes
- drop temperature inside by 1C
How many of these efforts would you have to do to match the effect of a JAHUS project? Join me tomorrow :-)
Monday, November 2, 2009
Delays, delays, delays…
We hope, and believe, that there will be plenty of reasons for being excited when we finally finish this JAHUS project and can share with you information about the deep cuts in electricity bills and the improved indoor climate.
I feel, however, that it is important that I give you a balanced view of the project. As mentioned in an earlier blog-entry, we were surprised by the dimensions of the ventilation system and today I want to air some frustration regarding delays in the project.
Not only have we lived in a draughty and cold house for more than 2 months, but as you can see from the picture – the construction company has stopped using containers and our garden is now storage area for all the removed windows and other garbage from the construction work.
We have added more pictures of the half-finished ventilation system at the end of this blog-post.
There are two aspects to delays – the delay itself and how the expectations are set by the project leader. We have many times been promised that a milestone will be reached one week later – and then two weeks later, when we ask for status, they say (again) that it will be finished next week.
We don’t have a contract with given deadlines and penalties associated with delays. Such a contract would probably have helped – but I expect that the total price would have gone up, and I do understand the problem they face when personnel call in sick (the flue) and the delivery of windows is delayed from the subcontractor. I prefer to work with the team rather than against them (pointing at the contract all the time).
If the expectations had been set more correctly, I still believe that we would have initiated this project – but there would have been considerably less frustration on our part.
Like they say on commercial TV stations...."Don't go away! After the break we have all these goodies lined up for you.." What effect would you get from cancelling the charter-trip by plane to Spain or sell your thirsty SUV? Maybe the effect of a JAHUS project reduces CO2 emissions more - and much more pleasantly than “extreme actions” such as not eating meat or jumping on your bicycle to get to work rather than in the comfort of your car? In my next blog-post (tomorrow) I will include some thoughts and calculations on energy saved (and equivalent CO2 emissions) for different scenarios.
Some of the facts about the delays have been included below for reference.
Like most energy efficiency projects, this one started off as a renovation project (a bedroom, a bathroom and a restroom/WC). During the summer I read the book “Sustainable energy without the hot air” (http://www.withouthotair.com/) - and as a result we decided to add isolation, replace old windows, buy a heatpump and add a ventilation system (see proposal 2).
I feel, however, that it is important that I give you a balanced view of the project. As mentioned in an earlier blog-entry, we were surprised by the dimensions of the ventilation system and today I want to air some frustration regarding delays in the project.
Not only have we lived in a draughty and cold house for more than 2 months, but as you can see from the picture – the construction company has stopped using containers and our garden is now storage area for all the removed windows and other garbage from the construction work.We have added more pictures of the half-finished ventilation system at the end of this blog-post.
There are two aspects to delays – the delay itself and how the expectations are set by the project leader. We have many times been promised that a milestone will be reached one week later – and then two weeks later, when we ask for status, they say (again) that it will be finished next week.
We don’t have a contract with given deadlines and penalties associated with delays. Such a contract would probably have helped – but I expect that the total price would have gone up, and I do understand the problem they face when personnel call in sick (the flue) and the delivery of windows is delayed from the subcontractor. I prefer to work with the team rather than against them (pointing at the contract all the time).
If the expectations had been set more correctly, I still believe that we would have initiated this project – but there would have been considerably less frustration on our part.
Like they say on commercial TV stations...."Don't go away! After the break we have all these goodies lined up for you.." What effect would you get from cancelling the charter-trip by plane to Spain or sell your thirsty SUV? Maybe the effect of a JAHUS project reduces CO2 emissions more - and much more pleasantly than “extreme actions” such as not eating meat or jumping on your bicycle to get to work rather than in the comfort of your car? In my next blog-post (tomorrow) I will include some thoughts and calculations on energy saved (and equivalent CO2 emissions) for different scenarios.
Some of the facts about the delays have been included below for reference.
Like most energy efficiency projects, this one started off as a renovation project (a bedroom, a bathroom and a restroom/WC). During the summer I read the book “Sustainable energy without the hot air” (http://www.withouthotair.com/) - and as a result we decided to add isolation, replace old windows, buy a heatpump and add a ventilation system (see proposal 2).
The initial proposal (1) was accepted July1st
- The actual construction work started after the summer vacation on August 24th. (according to plan). 3 months later we believe they will have finished this project.
- They said that 3-4 weeks from project start they would start to install the new bathroom furniture. Two months and two weeks later we hope that this work will be completed (by the end of this week).
- The new shower cabinet was ordered on September 10th. Nobody said anything about delivery problems, but it will not be delivered until Friday November 13th (9 weeks later)
- Tiles, bathroom furniture and the wardrobe cabinet were chosen “just in time” (when they asked us). There should have been no delays caused by late decision from us.
Proposal 2 included the actual JAHUS project - adding isolation, replacing old windows/doors, a heatpump and a ventilation system.
- Add isolation to the attic: was accepted August 31st. Delivered on time.
- Replacing windows/doors: was accepted August 20th. 11 weeks later we are still waiting for the patio door, but the windows have been replaced (and the “makup” work will be finalized this week).
- Ventilation system and heatpump: was accepted the proposal on September 18th and is now (6 weeks later) still work-in-progress. 2 weeks ago they promised to have it completed last week, but we expect at least 2 more weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
