Manhattan - the greenest place on our planet

Event 1: Accellerating electricity prices  

The price of electricity (highest in Europe) has been the top story in our biggest newspaper (Aftenposten) two days in a row. It is caused by a combination of cold weather and lower than normal production in Swedish nuclear plants (40% lower due to maintenance).

With a price per KWh of 2USD - some of the bigger "power-hungry" companies have cut production during peak hours - and only run at night when the prices come down.

There is also some concern about the lower than normal amount of water in the dams up in the mountains (water that will run through the turbines this winter/spring to generate electricity) and also less snow in the mountains (not as much melting water this spring). The prices may stay high even when Sweden is back to normal production in their nuclear plants.      

Comment 1: Higher energy prices are welcome 

I have in previous blog posts argued that we should increase the prices of electricity - to raise awareness and accellerate the implementation of energy saving projects (in private homes and businesses).

With a higher price on electricity the danger of overheated economy is reduced - and the rate of interest hikes from the Central Bank should therefore slow down.   

Event 2: Manhattan - the greenest place on our planetI got a Kindle e-book reader for Christmas and the first book I downloaded and have started reading is "Whole Earth Discipline: an Ecopragmatist Manifesto" by the American social entrepreneur and technology guru Stewart Brand.

I really enjoy reading this book and want to recommend it to others who are interested in these global challenges - and would appreciate a new perspective on some of these questions. The book examines four "tools that environmentalists have distrusted and now need to embrace":

• Urbanization: the footprint per person is less in cities 
• Nuclear power: energy without greenhouse gases 
• Geo-engineering: manipulate the climate
• Biotechnology: grow more on less space and with less resources (even within cities) 

Progress:

Yesterday they stopped by our house, but they triggered the alarm system when they entered the house. We initialized the alarmsystem before we left for the mountains (school is out and many people head for the mountains in what we call "winter vacation") - and didn't expect them to show up during this vacation week. 

We talked on the phone and they said that they would return today. I don't think they did because the ventilation pipes in the attic are still not completely covered in new isolation material.    

We are still waiting for a suggestion on how to fix the problem with the outdoor part of our heatpump (to conform with the installation manual it should be moved away from the corner closest to our neighbor - because of the noice problem).          

Many good discussions on energy and CO2 cuts

Event 1:  "The great climate change retreat?"The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming and today they published another article that will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made. (link).

The result is many conspiracy theories - like ""the governments are only using global warming as an excuse to.....":

• "put their clammy hands on more of our money". Do the climate sceptics think that we should drop all efforts to make our houses more energy efficient and perhaps buy more SUVs?    
• "force the transfer of wealth from developed- to developing countries": in the west we have occupied all of the available "CO2 space" (they say) as a result of our transformation to developed countries. Now that developing countries want to go through the same process - there is no more CO2 space availble, and they therefore say (and who can blaim them?) that the developed nations should finance their extra cost of transformation to developed countries.

Comments: "Call to action"
In two previous blog posts I argued that even climate sceptics should agree to the fact that we, regardless of global warming, need to do something with our demand for energy (not only fossil fuel):

• "Errors and lies thrive in cold weather": comments on the warming or cooling of our planet (link)
• "Energy for the Future": minutes from a presentation by Helge Lund CEO of Statoil. (link) 

Why will the demand for energy increase by almost 50% by 2030 (fossil fuels included, both for transportation, heating and for generating electricity) ?

• The people living on this globe will have almost doubled (to ca 10 billion) 
• More of the developing countries will "develop" and their people will get:
• access to electricity: there are 1.6 billion people without electrical power today 
• own a car
• buy "more stuff"

You may also find inspiration (like I did) in David MacKays book “Sustainable Energy without the hot air”. This book estimates this planet's demand for energy in 2030, and looks at ways to fill the gap between projected energy generation and energy demand. It can downloaded free of charge from
http://www.withouthotair.com/.

Event 2:
The report "Klimakur2020" was handed over to the Norwegian Minister of the Environment and International Development Erik Solheim yesterday. When giving his "thank you" speach afterwards, he said that this 300+ pages report is probably one of the worlds most comprehensive studies of efforts to reduce a country's emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG=CO2, methan etc.).

It came as no surprise that increasing fuel prices and road toll by 100% triggered the most discussions. People do not have to agree with the suggestions in this report - but by triggering many discussions around coffee machines and in the media they have already reached one of the goals for their work (raise awareness and get people to discuss pros and cons of the different measures).

Comments:

Pluses

• It's provocing suggestions has already made this report an important happening in our efforts to ajust to the new reality - with threats of global warming and energy shortages looming in the not so distant future. 
• The way they have put a price on CO2 cuts for each sector should provide the politicians with excellent guidelines as to which efforts give "the most bang for the buck". Politicians also have to fight over side effects such as:
• Higher fuel prices: forcing people to move from the countryside to the cities
• Higher price of electricity: will result in fewer jobs in industry with high demand for electrical power (forcing Norsk Hydro to move aluminum production out of Norway), but it will also accellerate home improvement programs...   

Minuses

• I had hoped that the report would put more emphasis on the efforts "you and I" can do today, but I fear that the key message that most people get from this report is that the ball is now in the politicians' court. ("I'll just have to wait for the government to introduce the appropriate new laws and regulations")
• One of the cheapest ways to reduce our energy usage is by making our buildings more energy efficient. Sintef Byggforsk has estimated the potential savings in this sector to 12 TWh per year by 2020. Because most of these savings come from clean energy sources (hydro electric power) - the importance of these efforts came in the shadow of doubled fuelprices for cars etc. This is very unfortunate because a 12TWh per year cut is important in the efforts to reduce the total energy demand in Norway, and it can lead to the following CO2 cuts (copied from yesterday's blog post): 
• Electrifying the transport sector: providing the required energy for CO2 cuts in the transport sector
• Replacing heating based on fossil-fuels: driving heatpumps, balanced ventilation and even traditional electrical ovens
• Producing aluminum with electricity in Norway rather than with coal in other countries: is good for the planet even though it might not affect the CO2 numbers for Norway
• Establishing Norway as the "green battery" of Europe: when renewable energy sources such as wind and sun stops producing electricity (cold, cloudy and no wind), the powergrid in Europe will need electricity from other sources - and Norway can fill this temporary gap between supply and demand. The alternative for Europe is generating nuclear or fossil-fueled electricity (=CO2 emissions).
• A welcome side effect is also the ability to store excess energy in our "green battery" when Europe generates more electrical power than it can use (a sunny and windy day in July when the demand for heating is at it's minimum): it can be exported to Norway and used for pumping water from sealevel to the dams high up in the mountains (to be released through our turbines when the supply-demand situation has switched as mentioned above).                  
• Export of clean electricity to countries where they use coal and oil for the production of electricity. Replacing 1 KWh of coal-based electricity can save almost 1 kg of CO2 emissions. If we could save 12 TWh of electricity per year in the building sector like Sintef Byggforsk has claimed, and all of this energy replaced coal-based electricity in EU - then theoretically our efforts here would save almost 12 megatonnes of CO2 per year in EU. We loose some of the energy while sending the electricity over cables to EU etc, but still... 

Progress:

The project leader came to our "Jahus" yesterday and we discussed the remaining tasks.

1. Heat loss in the attic (and thus problems with icicles): "We will improve the isolation of all the pipes in the loft. John M agreed in the fact that there is heat loss from the pipes in the attic. The attic will become cooler and the livingroom warmer! (Icicles will not return)" said the Project Leader.
• I agreed with the engineers on Friday that the measurements of heat loss must be performed when the ventilation system is in normal operation - ie minimum 20C supply air in the livingroom (farthest away). My point is that they can not come up with proof that there is no heat loss if they turn off the supply of hot air from the heat pump (the air transported through the attic and flowing in to the living room will be well below 20C).
• The Project Leader saw with his own eyes that the surface temperature of the ventilation pipes which have yet to get extra isolation are well above 8C (see attached picture). He agrees that this must be fixed to get rid of the icicles problem (and improve the energy efficiency of the solution by reducing the heat loss between the aggregate and the livingroom).     
2. Problems with the regulation and noise from the fans: "There was talk about looking at the fans possibly be replaced with slightly smaller fans, with lower power (thought this was completed)".  
• On Friday, the engineers said that howling from the fans could be stopped by the electrician (something that must be adjusted inside the dimmer).
• "We should try to reduce the fan noise today with rubber bushings so that there is no direct contact between the fan and the channel network"
• Yesterday they said that they had decided to replace the fans (with smaller fans) 
3. Problems with noise from the outdoor part of the heat pump: "We came to much the same conclusion as P E Hansen (the heatpump distributor). It might be that it should be free-standing. In addition, it stands too close to bedroom wall (the wall is far from soundproof). It is possible that it should be moved" - said the Project Leader. 
• I mentioned to the Project Leader yesterday that the Installation Manual clearly states that care should be taken when installing the heatpump so that it minimizes the noice problem for the neighbors. The current location of the heatpump is THE place on our house which is the closest to our neighbors (less than 3 meters from our border and ca 10 meters from their house.     
• The noise would have been much less of a problem if it was placed outside the new bathroom. There is no sleepingroom nearby and it is further away (and partly shielded) from our neighbors.
• The Project Leader agrees that it shouldn't be a technically challenging project to move the heatpump (shorter distance between the outdoor- and indoor parts of the heatpump). He indicated that a solution could be to split the bill in 3 - one for us, one for them and one for the subcontractor who placed the heatpump where it is today.   
4. One of the two entrypoints for fresh air from the ventilation system to the livingroom (over the stove) is positioned incorrectly in relation to the hole in the roof: "Should be rectified!" 
5. The heat exchanger inside the ventilation aggregate has stopped working a number of times when the outside temperature was below-13C: "....is in dialogue with the supplier. There's no explanation yet as to why this happens. Once you find an answer / solution will let you know".
• This has not happened after they used the thicker insulation on the supply- and exhaust air, but I do not know if the problem therefore has been fixed. 
• Yesterday we agreed that we just leave it as it is, and if it happens again I will contact them.  

The cost of CO2 cuts

Comments:When the Climate and Pollution Control Directorate (Klima- og forurensingsdirektoratet) presented their report "Klimakur 2020", they showed a cost of 1100 NOK (ca 200 USD) per ton of CO2 reduction - when the target for cuts is 12 million tonnes of CO2.

The head of Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Agnar Aas presented the sector "buildings and their energy consumption" (representing 26% of the Norwegian CO2 emissions). He started by reflecting on the fact that most of the energy consumed in this sector is electrical power produced with close to zero CO2 emissions (hydro electric power). Cuts will therefore not directly affect the emissions of CO2. Indirectly, however, the cuts will be important:

• Electrifying the transport sector: providing the required energy for CO2 cuts in the transport sector
• Replacing heating based on fossil-fuels: driving heatpumps, balanced ventilation and even traditional electrical ovens
• Producing aluminum with electricity in Norway rather than with coal in other countries: is good for the planet even though it might not affect the CO2 numbers for Norway    
• Export of clean electricity to countries where they use coal and oil for the production of electricity. Replacing 1 KWh of coal-based electricity can save 1 kg of CO2 emissions. If we could save 12 TWh of electricity per year in the building sector like Sintef Byggforsk has claimed, and all of this energy replaced coal-based electricity in EU - then theoretically our efforts here would save 12.000.000 tonnes of CO2 per year in EU (12 Mt of CO2). We loose some of the energy while sending the electricity over cables to EU, but still...                       

He did, however, not say that there are no possibilities for direct CO2 cuts in "his sector". He said that the mentioned efforts to replace fossil-fuel burners for heating could result in a 1.3 Mt of direct CO2 cuts - at moderate cost compared to the other efforts mentioned in the other sectors (most of the efforts were estmated below 1000 kr/ton).

I wanted to compare these numbers to the cost of energy cuts (and hence CO2 cuts) in the real-world example here in our "Jahus". In a previous blog post (link) I estimated the cost mer ton CO2 to be: 5 kg CO2 per USD or 1 NOK/kg CO2. Take this number and convert it to NOK/ton of CO2 and you get 1000 NOK/ton.

It is very important to note that this is before the return on investment such as savings on the electricity bill (50%) and increased value of the house (increasingly true when energy efficiency lables become obligatory on all houses for sale in Norway from July 1st 2010). The estimated return on investment is 10 years when we only count the savings on the electricity bill (not the expected increase in value of the house). If tax cuts, cheap loans and other incentives were introduced - the ROI could come down to 5 years, and more people would feel tempted to do this in their houses. 



In the most unlikely scenario that the government decided to pay for all "Jahus" projects, the cost per ton of CO2 reduction (1000) would be below the 1100 NOK/ton they estimated in the report and the total savings could be above 10 Mt of CO2. Not entirely true of course because 1 KWh is not equal to 1 kg of CO2 in the real world:
- 1 KWh transferred from Norway to Poland is not 1 KWh when it arrives (transmission losses)
- Norway does not have the capacity to export this amount of energy to EU (need more powercables)
- There are efforts underway to convert coal and oilbased powerstations to gas (which reduces the CO2 emissions by almost 50%)

The tipping point?

Events: Call to action
The government has been agressive when communicating the goal for CO2 cuts in Norway, but the part on how to actually meet these goals have been missing.

Today, however, the Climate and Pollution Control Directorate (Klima- og forurensingsdirektoratet) will present measures and means to reduce Norwegian emissions of greenhouse gases 15-17 million tonnes (including forestry) in 2020. The document "Klimakur 2020" will form the basis for the government's assessment of the climate policy that will be presented to the Parliament.      

(In Norwegian): Follow the session on net-TV http://presenter.qbrick.com/?pguid=9816df16-977e-41bb-b02c-cdbb3cff2b00

(In Norwegian): "Klimakur som syretest" av Av Rasmus Hansson, Generalsekretær WWF-Norge.

Progress: Checkpoint
It is currently -4C outside and +4C in the attic. The result can be seen outside - the water is dripping from the icicles (and they are therefore growing in size).   

The project leader will visit today to discuss the remaining tasks.  

The Climate Dance continues

Events:
The Copenhagen climate dance continues. Before the end of January 55 nations representing 78 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions from energy use, submitted pledges to the UN to cut emissions by 2020.


The commitments were made to meet a deadline set at the climate talks held in Copenhagen in December. But they mostly reiterate national pledges made before the summit, and are steeped in conditions. The US, for instance, reaffirmed its commitment to cut emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels, contingent on legislation being passed at home. China repeated that it would "endeavour to lower its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 per cent" between 2005 and 2020.

"The vast majority of nations has failed to seize this opportunity to make their pledges more ambitious," says Niklas Höhne, a policy analyst at Ecofys in Cologne, Germany. "Our analysis suggests that the world is still on track for a 3.5 °C rise."

Listed below is the table showing developing countries and their pledges (the developed countries are listed above).

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Progress:
On Friday I was given a quick introduction to operation and maintenance of the ventilation aggregate and the heatpump. The first part was very useful. They even showed me ways to extend the solution with connection to external control programs/consoles.    
 
The second part on the use- and maintenance of the heatpump, however, was done in 30 seconds and basically consisted of handing over the instruction manual - "it's all in there".  
 
They have promised to reduce the noice from the two extra fans - by using rubber bushings to avoid direct contact between the fans and ventilation network. On Friday they also said that the high frequency sound that we get when we reduce the effects on the fan - can be avoided if the electrician modifies a setting on the dimmer.  
 
I am looking forward to hear the results of these modifications.        
 
I should also add that one of the two passive houses I visited last week ("the house on the hill" in Lier outside Oslo) had the same ventilation aggregate that we have in our house. Given that SINTEF/Byggforsk and other power houses have been involved - I take this as proof that the product was a good choice and the issues we're facing are associated with the implementation project. For more info (in Norwegian: http://www.husbanken.no/Venstremeny/Miljo%20og%20energi/Passivhus_meny/Huset%20pa%20Haugen%20reiser%20seg.aspx)
    
   

Improving isolation in the attic (cont.)

Progress:
As mentioned yesterday. they put some isolation mats on top of the ventilation pipes in the attic on Friday. In the first of the attached pictures you can see the black outside (and the yellow isolation material) of these mats.

Today I measured the temperature on the surface of these mats compared to the mats further in (where there are no ventilation pipes). The area without ventilation pipes was at 0C, while the outside temperature of the mats that were sitting directly on top of the ventilation pipes was +5C.

The pictures attached below show that there are still ventilation pipes in the attic where there have been no attempt at improving the isolation. At these points, like the the "silver-covered" boxes that sit on top of the ventilation valves in the livingroom, the surface temperature is actually at +7C to +10C. 

Since they have not told me that they consider themselves finished in the attic, I will sit patiently and wait for a statusmessage from them.         

      

Improving isolation in the attic

Progress:
On Friday they put some isolation mats on top of some of the ventilation pipes in the attic - to reduce the loss of heat that has caused a serious problem with icicles (snow melting on the roof even at outside tempereatures well below zero).

I was therefore frustrated when I noticed that there was water dripping from the icicles today, even when the outside temperature was -2C.

• Are the ventilation pipes still leaving too much heat/energy on it's way through the attic....  
• Or, do we now leak heat through the openings in the ceiling isolation that had to be made to get fresh air into each room - and pull exhaust air out of each room?             

I will send the ventilation team a report and hope that they have more actions up their sleeves.