university of toledo climate action report

University of Toledo Climate Action ReportScope 1

By Rachel Beres, Andrew Kulikowski, Jon Lockie, Chad Pietkowski, Ken Samoei, and Cory

Williams

Carbon FootprintA rising trend in sustainable “green”

engineeringeffective way to measure emissionsCompare to other campuses

◦Of different populations and locations◦Helps to know Toledo’s impact

compared to other collegesPlan for the future

◦Lower carbon dioxide based on the carbon footprint

Scope 1On-campus co-generation plant

◦ A power plant that produces both electricity and heat◦ Toledo does not have a co-generation plant

On-campus stationary source◦ A steam plant powered by coal

Direct transportation sources◦ Public buses, maintenance and police vehicles◦ Different types of fuels used in these vehicles

Refrigerants and chemicals as well as agricultural sources◦ Any chemicals used in refrigerators and freezers and

other cooling devices◦ One small vegetable garden

ObjectivesCreate a campus climate action report

◦Shows where we currently stand and projects future environmental impact at current rate.

Highlight problem areas◦Shows where largest environmental

impact is and gives a starting point for reductions

Provide a summary of the University of Toledo’s carbon footprint

MethodsEach fuel source emits certain

chemicals when burned.When coal is burned CO2, CH4, and

N2O are released. These compounds are then

converted to carbon emissions and represented as MT eCO2.

Each fuel source that is burned on campus is converted to MT eCO2.

MethodsOnce each source of energy is

converted to MT eCO2 it is then summed and used to show the total carbon emissions or “carbon footprint” of the University of Toledo campus.

The University currently uses coal, gasoline, diesel, E85, and biodiesel 20. The emissions from refrigerant use and animal husbandry was also calculated.

Results

MODULE Summary           

WORKSHEET Total Emissions in Metric Tones CO2 Equivalents

UNIVERSITY University of Toledo          

 Scope 1

Fiscal Year Other On-Campus Stationary Direct Transportation Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture

 MT eCO2 MT eCO2 MT eCO2 MT eCO2

2007- - - -

2008- - - -

2009- - - -

InterpretationProblems

◦Transportation Gas Diesel Biodiesel

◦Power supply Coal Natural Gas

InterpretationGood News

◦Wind power◦Solar power◦Biodiesel bus fleet

InterpretationCompared to others

◦Use more power overall than Ball State University

◦Use less coal than Ball State University

◦Use more natural gas than Ball State University

Vs.

Projections

Blue line – represents campus’ emissions if no action is takenRed line – represents the emission if the university is able to reach its goal of carbon neutrality

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 20600

5

10

15

20

25

30

CO2 Emission

baselinefuture goal

year

CO2

Em

issi

on (

1,00

0ton

/yr)

ProjectionsWhy are they useful?

◦Allows people to see the upward trend in emissions if no action is taken

◦Visually shows the difference when action is taken

◦Shows whether decisions made bring the university closer to carbon neutrality or further away

Reduction of Greenhouse GasesEfficiencies:

◦ Increasing the efficiency of current operations that produce greenhouse gases, which largely means reducing current and future fossil fuel energy consumption by buildings.

Building and system design (new buildings) Building & system operation (existing buildings) Central system operation (steam, chilled water,

electricity Equipment purchasing and operation An immediate review of University’s design and

operational standards should be initiated for both new and existing buildings.

Reductions cont’dConservation:

◦ New efficiencies can be also achieved through changes in consumption habits and patterns such as the usage of electronic equipment and waste recycling.

Renewable: ◦ Switching to carbon-free and renewable sources of

energy, or increasing the recycling of emission causing materials.

Offsets: ◦ Purchasing or producing carbon offsets through more

direct projects. Offsets like the wind purchase should only be employed after other sources have been full explored

Conclusions

The data that has been collected thus far points towards an increase in our campus’ energy consumption, a less than sustainable usage of non-renewable resources, and an undesirable level of greenhouse gas emissions•Main campus’ power plant gas usage – obvious increase in consumption

Conclusions cont’d

Safe to assume that the transportation sector of the university’s emissions and consumption will have the most environmental impact out of all other sources – Mainly Commuter Campus

Conclusions cont’d

Recap on Methods of Reducing our Emissions and Consumption:•Important for the University to become increasingly efficient in our operations•New and existing building on campus energy efficient in design and operation•Conservation – utilizing renewable resources, look in to furthering our recycling program

•Look in to purchasing or producing carbon offsets

Call to Action

Being a part of the ACUPCC, it is imperative that the University of Toledo as a whole continue to monitor our impact on the environment and that we make changes in our normal operations and habits that will result in minimizing our carbon footprint.*It is absolutely necessary that actions must be taken not only by the university but by its students in order to reach our long term goal of carbon neutrality