draft, april 14 –all data are preliminary, need verification class project report sustainable air...
TRANSCRIPT
DRAFT, April 14 –All data are preliminary, need verification
Class Project ReportSustainable Air Quality, EECE 449/549, Spring 2008
Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus
Instructors: Professor Rudolf B. Husar, Erin M. Robinson
For more details see the class wiki
Students:Devki DesaiMartin GroenewegenTyler NadingKate NelsonMatt SculnickAlyssa SmithVarun Yadav
Class Project: Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus
Objectives:
1. Develop and Apply Carbon Emission Estimation Model2. Estimate Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus3. Calculate the Potential Carbon Cost with Chicago
Climate Exchange4. Compare the Estimates to Other College Campuses
Washington University Carbon Footprint
The impact on carbon arises from on-campus energy use and from transportation
On Campus Energy Use Carbon Impact
Students
Heating
Cooling
Appliances
Faculty/Staff
Transportation Carbon Impact
Commuting
Air Travel
University Fleet
On Campus Energy Use
Kate Nelson
Alyssa Smith
Danforth Campus Population
• From 1990-2005 the Campus population has fluctuated between 14-16,000 people• Students account for 80 percent of the population on campus
Danforth Campus Population
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
11
20
13
20
15
20
17
20
19
20
21
20
23
20
25
20
27
20
29
Year
# o
f P
eo
ple
(th
ou
san
ds
)
Staff Faculty Students
Population Increased 10%Students
Faculty
Staff
University Expenditures and Building Area
Expenditures Include: Research, Academic, Student Support, O/M of Physical Plant
Between 1990-2005, the expenditures increased by 70%
University Expendenditures
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
$ (m
illio
ns),
adju
sted
for
infla
tion
Operational Expendenditures ($)
Danforth Campus Square Footage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Sq.
Ft.
(mill
ions
)Total Square Footage
60% increase70%
increase
During the same time period, the building area (sq ft) has increased by 60 percent.
Danforth Campus Electric Energy and Fuel Consumption
Purchased electricity increased 90% between 1990-2005.
The total energy for electricity includes losses in the power plant and during transmission.
Danforth Campus Stationary Sources
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
mm
btu
(thou
sand
s)
Tot Fuel Consumed on Campus (mmbtu) Coal Consumed on Campus (mmbtu)
Oil Consumed on Campus (mmbtu) Natural Gas Consumed on Campus (mmbtu)
Total
Natural Gas
Coal
Oil
• Fuel used on campus for heating and hot water: coal, oil and natural gas.
• In 1993, the University made several upgrades:– Switched from coal to natural gas– Switched to electric chillers– Shut off steam plant from May-October hot water
Danforth Campus Electric Energy Consumption
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Year
mm
btu
(tho
usan
ds)
WASTE Energy at Power Plant
Purchased Electricity
Transmission losses
90% Increase in Electricity Usage
Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint – Buildings (link)
• The carbon impact of on-campus energy is due to direct fuel consumption and indirectly from electricity use
• The overall carbon impact for on campus energy consumption has increased 50% from 1990-2007
• Electricity use contributed about 80 percent to the on-campus carbon impact
PopulationStudents
Activities $ Expend./yr
Buildings Sq. Ft
Fuel Cons. BTU/yr
C Emission Ton C/yr
Fuel Cons.BTU/yr
C EmissionTon C/yr
Electr. ConsKw-Hr/yr
$/Student Sq. Ft./$ BTU/Sq.Ft.
Kw-hr/Sq.Ft.
BTU/Kw-hr Carbon/BTU
Carbon/BTU
Carbon Emission due to On Campus Energy Use,Danforth Campus 1990-2007
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Year
C T
onne
s (t
hous
ands
)
50% Increase
Electricity
Fuel Cons.
Carbon Emission Summary – Energy Use on Campus
Energy
Carbon
SqFt
Energy
Expen
FtSq
Student
ExpenStudentsEmission
$
$#
Change in Causality Drivers from 1990-2005 for On Campus Energy Consumption
Students
$ per student
Sq.ft per $
Energy per Sq. Ft.
Carbon Emission- Buildings
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% C
ha
ng
e 1
99
0-2
00
5
Students $ per student Sq.ft per $ Energy per Sq. Ft. Carbon Emission- Buildings
Energy
Carbon
SqFt
Energy
Expen
FtSq
Student
ExpenStudentsEmission
$
$#
Causality Drivers for Carbon Emission due to All Energy Use on Danforth Campus
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Year
Rati
o t
o 1
990
Emission
$/Student
# Students
$/Sq.Ft
Energy/Sq.Ft.
• The student population has remained roughly constant since 1990
• However, the expenditures/student have increased by 60 percent
• The building area has grown in proportion to the expenditures, while the energy use/sq ft and the C emission factor have remained constant
• Evidently, the key driver for carbon emission growth of 60%?) was the growth in the physical campus expansion
Transportation
Devki Desai
Tyler Nading
Varun Yadav
Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Transportation
• Overall the transportation carbon emissions have remained roughly at 1990 level
PopulationPeople
Transportation
Miles
Fuel Cons. Gal./yr
C Emission Ton C/yr
Miles/Person Gal./Mile Carbon/Gal
Washington University Transportation Emission
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
Car
bon
(Tho
usan
d To
nnes
)
Commuter Students Carbon (tonnes) - all Faculty/Staff Commuter Carbon (tonnes) - All Transportation - All
Transportation Emission
Faculty/Staff Commuting
Student Commuting
Carbon Emission – Danforth Campus
• Carbon Emissions have increased almost 60% from 1990 to 2005.
• Electricity is the main component of emissions and also drives the emissions trends
Danforth Campus Carbon Emission, 1990-2007
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
11
20
13
20
15
20
17
20
19
20
21
20
23
20
25
20
27
20
29
Year
C T
on
ne
s (
tho
us
an
ds
)
Overall 60% Increase
Electricity
Fuel Cons.
Transportation
Washington University and the Chicago Climate Exchange
Matt Sculnick
Other University Comparison
Martin Groenewegen
Tyler Nading
Total Emission Comparison between Universities
• Data from 14 campuses show that the carbon impact is roughly proportional to the campus size.
• Our data indicate that WU emissions/area are comparable to the other schools
Campus-wide CO2 Emissions as a function of Building AreaU.S. University Campuses
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Building Square Feet, Millions
CO
2 E
mis
sio
n, M
etri
c T
on
nes
/yr,
Th
ou
san
ds
Washington University
Transportation Emission Comparison between Universities
• Transportation carbon emission estimates for ten campuses indicate a relationship to school population• Washington University estimates are uncertain and given as a range based on two calculation methods • Evidently, the WU transportation carbon emissions are also comparable to the other colleges.
Transportation CO2 Emissions as a function of University PopulationU.S. University Campuses
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Total University Population, Thousands
Tra
ns
po
rta
tio
n E
mis
sio
ns
(m
T/y
r), T
ho
us
an
ds
Washington University - All Commute
Washington University - Permits Only
Working Toward a Sustainable Transition
Alyssa Smith