carbon footprint analysis

7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis

1/112

Carbon Footprint

Analysis of Baldwin-

Wallace College

Rel-262/Bus-250: Green Business

Spring 2010

May 4, 2010


2/112

2

Table of Contents

I. Acknowledgements.3

II. Introduction.4-8

III. Natural Gas9-14

IV. Vehicle Pool15-17

V. Buildings and Grounds18-20

VI. Refrigerants...21-33

VII. Electricity34-40

VIII. Commuters.41-46

IX. Faculty Travel and Study Abroad.....47-65

X. Conclusion..66-67

XI. Works Cited68-73

Appendix A.....74-76

Appendix B..77-100

Appendix C101-108

Appendix D...109-110

Appendix E111-112


3/112

3

I. Acknowledgements

IntroductionJessica La Fave, David Krueger, Sabina Thomas

Natural GasAshley Warholic and Nate Parker

Vehicle PoolJohn Pickett, Gavin Monsi, and Steve Tuma

Buildings and GroundsBrendan McCool and Andrew Ventura

Refrigerants

Kristi Reklinski

ElectricityEmily Dempster, Evan Janoch, Madeline Ashwill

CommutersBrian Javor, Brian Corrigan, Kim Hopkins, and Frank Waldman

Faculty Travel and Study AbroadAriana Roberts, Judy Patterson, Jessica La Fave, and Jennifer Shimola

ConclusionJessica La Fave, David Krueger, Sabina Thomas

PowerPoint EditorsAriana Roberts and Judy Patterson

General EditorJessica La Fave

Professors

Dr. David KruegerDr. Sabina Thomas


4/112

4

II. Introduction

Baldwin-Wallace College has taken great strides in the area of sustainability: it has

both a sustainability major and minorthe first college to do so in Ohio, it has three

buildings dedicated to sustainability (Ernsthausen, the Science Center and CIG) and it is

committed to installing many new sustainability technologies such as wind and solar.

The fall semester 2010 Green Business course has now completed a preliminary

Carbon Footprint Analysis of the college. A carbon footprintis a measure of the impact of

our activities on the environment, and in particular its ramification for climate change. It

relates to the amount of greenhouse gases produced in our day-to-day lives through

burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating and transportation etc.

Establishing a baseline for our current use of resources and carbon output will help

the college to take tangible action steps to reduce our carbon emissions. Not only will this

aid Baldwin-Wallace in being more sustainable, it will also provide the school with

recommendations that can save thousands of dollars every year. An additional plus would

be the colleges recognition among the many institutions that have used this or other

carbon-footprint metrics in their efforts to reduce their environmental footprint.

The Clean Air Cool Planet Carbon Calculator

We used the Clean Air Cool Planet carbon calculator, one of many that are

available, for the following reasons: It is free and it has been recommended by AASHE

(Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education; B-W recently

became a member) and by the ACUPCC (American College & University Presidents Climate

Commitment).


5/112

5

In our data collection, we used the equity-share approach, i.e., we only measured

the emission of sources and facilities that B-W owns. That includes for example all

buildings on the main campus (lecture halls and labs, administrative and utility buildings

dorms, etc.) butnotthe facilities at B-W East since they are leased. (The alternative would

be the more comprehensive controlapproach, which would include everything that B-W is

using, but B-W does not really manage those buildings.).

We collected data for the three fiscal years of 2007, 2008, and 2009 in order to

establish a baseline that represents the average energy usage of the college.

There are some limitations to our data:

o Some data were just not available, such individual electricity consumption for

individual building because we do not yet have metering devices installed in all

of them.

o For some categories it was unpractical to retrieve data (gas & diesel for

Buildings & Grounds). In that case we only collected data from the most recent

academic year (2009) and assumed that the previous years consumption was

identical.

o We also conducted a survey (commuter) during the spring of 2010, i.e., outside

our selected time range for the baseline. Again, we extrapolated the data and

expanded them for the previous three academic years, assuming similar

commuting behavior for all four academic years.

o Some data are not included because their addition or omission would not make

a big difference (yet; as is the case for biodiesel), or they were difficult to come

by.


6/112

6

o We have all been doing this for the first time and some data collection could have

been done more efficiently or better streamlined.

In spite of these shortcomings we now have a good baseline from which we can

gauge and determine changes for the future. For further information on the Carbon

Calculator, Clean Air Cool Planet, please consult theCalculator User Guidethat

accompanies the Campus Carbon Calculator. It can be found athttp://www.cleanair-

coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.php

A Carbon Footprint Analysis consists of analyzing data from all areas of the college to see

how much carbon dioxide (CO2) (and its equivalents) we produce. These carbon-emitting areas

have been separated into three scopes, according to three levels of responsibility for emissions

that an institution has, directly or indirectly, control over.

1. Scope One consists of sources of carbon emissions directly owned or controlled by the

college, such as our vehicle fleet. Four groups in the class focused on this vast area: the

Natural Gas, Vehicle Pool, Gas and Diesel, and the Refrigerant groups. Reducing

emissions will be easiest in these areas because B-W has direct control over these

emissions.

2. Scope Two is an area with less control than Scope One, -- indirect emissions. These

emissions are from sources that are neither owned nor operated by B-W but are

directly linked to energy consumption on-campus. The largest focus for this Scope is

electricity, since we do not own our own generator, but rather purchase our electricity.

We offer several suggestions for reducing our emissions in this area.

3. Scope Three is dedicated to optional emissions made by the school; ones that are

neither owned nor operated by B-W but are attributed to the school, through activities
https://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cleanair-coolplanet.org%2ftoolkit%2finv-calculator.phphttps://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cleanair-coolplanet.org%2ftoolkit%2finv-calculator.phphttps://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cleanair-coolplanet.org%2ftoolkit%2finv-calculator.phphttp://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.phphttp://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.phphttp://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.phphttp://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.phphttp://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.phphttp://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.phphttps://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cleanair-coolplanet.org%2ftoolkit%2finv-calculator.php


7/112

7

associated with our campus. This includes commuting, faculty travel, and study

abroad. Other Scope-3 targets that could be considered for carbon-footprint

measurements in the future are the effects of solid waste management, and emissions

associated with paper production, food production etc.

Having calculated our carbon footprint is not useful unless we also understand why

it is important. Establishing where we produce the most carbon will help determine areas

that we can most efficiently and effectively reduce those emissions for the benefit of the

planet, but also reduce financial costs substantially for the college over the short and long-

term. In addition, B-W can create a greater sense of community by uniting students,

faculty, and staff around campus-wide goals.

So that the college can become a more responsible citizen of the world, as it invokes

its own students to become, we advocate that the college boldly exercise its leadership

within the regions academic and corporate communities through the immediate creation

and careful monitoring of carbon-reduction goals. As leading sustainable corporations

have already begun this institutional journey, so should Baldwin-Wallace College.

Consistent with larger global carbon reduction initiatives, we recommend that the college

adopt the goal of 20+ by 2020. As an institution, our campus leadership, including

president, Board of Trustees, and senior management, ought to rise to the challenge of

reducing our carbon emissions by at least 20% by the year 2020. At the very least, this

allows the college to begin the process of shrinking its own carbon footprint at a pace that

will be necessary to stave off the worst possible climate change scenarios projected for the

second half of our century, when the next generations of students, faculty, and

administrators will reside in our places at this college47. Our college, and all comparable


8/112

8

institutions today, has the ingenuity, creativity, managerial expertise, and technology,

necessary for this task. It is only a matter of will and institutional priority. There is no

other undertaking more vital to the future that can wait for another day.


9/112

9

III. Natural Gas

Our world is in a fragile state and it is important that each individual and institution

know their harmful impact on the Earths delicate balance. Although difficult, we have

tackled emissions of natural gas produced by Baldwin-Wallace College and have developed

a greater understanding for the needs of the campus related to this resource and

sustainability. We offer recommendations regarding heating, ventilation and air

conditioning (HVAC) systems, insulation, windows, roofing, paints and glosses to help

reduce carbon emissions by 20% by 2020.

Our 2007 data shows that all buildings produced 784,704 CCF (or hundred cubic

feet). Emissions produced in 2008 increased to 1,018,226 CCF. However, in 2009 they

decreased to 877,528 CCF. The increase in CCF in 2008 is curious due to the fact that

average low temperatures for all three years are within .9 degrees Fahrenheit of each other

(42.7, 41.8, 42.3). Although in 2008, Cleveland had the snowiest March on record, the

lowest temperature of the year was 1 degree Fahrenheit, which is relatively warm

considering in 2009 the lowest temperature was -13 degrees Fahrenheit. More research

must be done to try to identify the cause for the significant increase in natural gas

consumption. However, this information provided us with an average and baseline for our

work. It also offers B-W significant room for improvement.

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems, although difficult to change

immediately, provide long lasting changes toward a positive environmental

transformation. Costly and cumbersome, these systems may not be low-cost for our goal of

reducing B-Ws carbon emissions by 20% by 2020, but the impact of these systems must be


10/112

10

addressed as it is an extremely important factor for the overall carbon footprint of the

college.

B-W is taking significant strides to become more sustainable by adopting

geothermal heating and cooling systems with large construction renovations. With every

addition or renovation of a large building on campus, a new geothermal system replaces

the old, outdated, standard natural gas system. The college has added a geothermal system

to Ernsthausen Residence Hall, The Center of Innovation and Growth, The Life and Earth

Sciences Building, and plans for sections of Merner-Pfeiffer Hall to use geothermal.

Geothermal eliminates the need for natural gas, excluding some superficial usages, such as

the fireplace in Ernsthausen Hall, but ultimately produces no emissions. Research shows

that geothermal is one of the most efficient ways to heat and cool buildings without

producing carbon emissions31. Geothermal is effective because a large pumping system is

placed underground tapping into the Earths constant temperature of 50 degrees

Fahrenheit. In the winter the air is pre-warmed and then pumped inside the building.

During summer months however, warm air inside a building is pumped out and into the

ground. Although more expensive initially, we found through a personal interview that the

payback period for a geothermal system is between six to ten years and B-W has seen a

40%-60% energy savings on the buildings that have already adopted this new system. This

process ensures a sustainable, reliable and comfortable future for heating and cooling.

CHP, or combined heating and power, is another innovative way to heat and cool

buildings with the added element of power. While producing electricity, the system

collects heat that is created in that process and transfers it to the space heating system,

which is also connected to the gas line in case the heat needs to be supplemented. In


11/112

11

addition to providing warmth, the system also produces electricity. More research would

need to be conducted to see if the relationship between the carbon emissions produced and

electrical output would be more beneficial than harmful but nonetheless a CHP system

would be more beneficial than a standard natural gas system. Information on the cost of a

CHP system is all relative to the building however a system could payback as soon as five

years after the project. For a better estimation consult,

http://www.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap?user=chpcalc&script=CHP_payback.cgi.

Williams College in Massachusetts converted to a CHP system in 2004. Their system

initially cost $2.7 million, however they think that the payback will be realized sometime in

2009. For more information on their experience with CHP see,

http://www.chpcentermw.org/rac_profiles/Northeast/WilliamsCollege%2520profile.pdf

Although difficult to install immediately, insulation is a huge aspect of heating and

cooling that B-W has been unable to realize in their quest to become more sustainable and

energy efficient. After consulting with Buildings and Grounds Manager, Bill Kerbusch, it

became apparent that insulation was not a high priority on campus. Providing better,

sustainable insulation needs to become a priority in the construction and renovation of

new and existing buildings.

Cellulose insulation is a relatively inexpensive yet sustainable option for insulation.

It is installed by spraying in insulation which is composed of 75-85% recycled paper fiber,

which is mostly post-consumer use newsprint, and 15% boric acid, which acts as a fire

retardant. Cellulose insulation has an R-value (measure of materials resistance to heat

flow) of 3.6 to 4.036.
https://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ornl.gov%2fcgi-bin%2fcgiwrap%3fuser%3dchpcalc%26script%3dCHP_payback.cgihttps://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ornl.gov%2fcgi-bin%2fcgiwrap%3fuser%3dchpcalc%26script%3dCHP_payback.cgihttps://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.chpcentermw.org%2frac_profiles%2fNortheast%2fWilliamsCollege%252520profile.pdfhttps://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.chpcentermw.org%2frac_profiles%2fNortheast%2fWilliamsCollege%252520profile.pdfhttps://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.chpcentermw.org%2frac_profiles%2fNortheast%2fWilliamsCollege%252520profile.pdfhttps://pod51000.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2291526380a944a29476d303562c26b2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ornl.gov%2fcgi-bin%2fcgiwrap%3fuser%3dchpcalc%26script%3dCHP_payback.cgi


12/112

12

Recycled cotton insulation is beneficial to the quality of air, boasting no harmful

chemicals, and also to the environment, helping cotton by reused as another material.

Recycled cotton R-values range from 3.7 to 30 and provides no harm when installing.

Greenbuildingsupply.com offers options on UltraTouch insulation varying from R-13

insulation that includes 10 batts for $93.67 per .88 square foot to R-30 including 5 batts for

$100.76 for1.86 square foot. This option could improve the quality of air in buildings and

also serve as an environmentally friendly selection.

Vegetable oil based insulation is a spray-in type insulation that possesses qualities

that provide reductions in airborne allergens, better air quality, insulate as well as give an

air barrier, and is earth-friendly because it is derived from a renewable resource. The price

of this product ranges from $1.45 to $1.65 per square foot and could increase energy

efficiency up to 50%. This product could help B-W become more sustainable and

healthier18.

As B-W renovates and builds, new windows are continuously changed. However, it

is important to consider sustainable factors while making purchasing choices for new

windows. Characteristics that set energy efficient windows apart from standard windows

are double panes, low-emittance coating and low-conductance spacers. All of these aspects

provide benefits for heating and cooling a home. Double or triple pane windows provide

more resistance to heat escaping in addition, low-emittance coatings help suppress heat

flow, creating a more energy efficient and sustainable building. The payback period for this

type of window ranges from 2 to 10 years. Double pane windows are located in Heritage

Residence Hall, Ernsthausen Residence Hall, Constitution Residence Hall and seven other

buildings on campus. Low-conductance spacers are materials that are used to provide


13/112

13

extra coverage between the window and insulation helping keep heat from traveling

beyond the glass. Windows are an important part of creating an energy efficient,

sustainable building and by selecting products that provide eco-friendly features Baldwin-

Wallace will be positively influencing the environment and the bank account.

After speaking with Bill Kerbusch, it is apparent that roofing is another aspect of

sustainable design that B-W is unable to give high priority, surely due to financial cost.

Although some changes have been made to increase the R-value and ultimately the energy

efficiency of roofing systems, other options, standard and unique, can be employed to help

reduce energy loss through heating and cooling.

Reflective roofing helps lower energy consumption by up to 40%. In addition, it

increases the efficiency of insulation and HVAC systems, and also takes stress off of each.

Furthermore this system also reduces the Urban Heat Island Effect and urban air pollution

which is an added bonus to combat harmful effects individuals have on the planet30.

Milk jugs to tires to carpet and aluminum; there are many materials that are being

recycled into sustainable roofs. Most roofing systems that boast this feature contain 60-

100% recycled material in their product, can withstand 100 mile per hour winds and have

warranties that last fifty to sixty years and do not need any maintenance. Ecostar.com has

other useful information that can provide more insight on this technology. Recycled

Roofing will help keep junk out of the landfill and on your roof however will not contribute

a great deal to the energy efficiency of the building23.

The addition of green roofs on campus would help promote conversation of the

colleges intent to decrease carbon emissions by 20% for the year 2020. A green roofing

system requires a stable infrastructure and offers many positive benefits. It can reduce


14/112

14

energy costs by providing sound insulation and roofing benefits in addition to reducing the

Heat Island Effect. Also, it can aid with storm water management and does not need to be

replaced frequently. Furthermore, vegetation in addition to grass could be added and

perhaps used as produce for any of the dining halls. The cost for an extensive roof, which is

simple and less intrusive, varies from $9 a square foot to $25 a square foot and weighs only

10 to 50 pounds. Another option is an intensive roof which costs between $25 and $40 a

square foot and can weigh anywhere from 80 to 120 pounds. A green roof would not only

be unique and aesthetically pleasing it would provide great energy efficiency and be a

sustainable step in the right direction37.

The most cost efficient and least labor intensive option to help aid in the heating and

cooling process of our campus could be the use of paints and glosses. By coating buildings

with these special products, a reduction in energy usage will quickly follow. Light

Reflecting paints and glosses will help reflect light off the building therefore reducing the

amount of energy needed to heat and cool the building. Exterior surfaces can be changed

by 50 degrees Fahrenheit by certain types of paint while interior surfaces can be altered by

15 degrees, drastically reducing the need for air conditioning in the summer and heating in

the winter49.

Heating and cooling can be a huge factor in energy savings and carbon reductions on

our campus. Simple changes and more extensive projects over time will help B-W reduce

our carbon emissions by 20% by the year 2020. Our recommendations should be

thoroughly considered and implemented in the years to come in order to make any

significant improvement.


15/112

15

IV. Vehicle Pool

We offer various recommendations to reduce B-Ws carbon footprint through its use

of campus vehicles. The first being for each vehicle, create a data log of gallons purchased,

total mileage, date of purchase, total cost of fuel purchased and locations traveled. This

system could possibly help B-W better identify inefficient vehicle use and propose more

sustainable strategies for transportation on campus.

Buildings and Grounds operates the majority of campus vehicles, most of which are

older large vehicles with low gas mileage. We think B&G has much potential, over time, to

lower our schools carbon footprint.

For example, during the winter, larger model trucks plow snow. However during the

summer, B&G uses the same larger model trucks to do landscaping throughout the campus.

In these cases snow isnt an issue, and neither is time in order to get job done . In summer

months, we suggest using smaller model vehicles to transport needed materials as well as

keeping supplies in areas they plan to work in as to decrease the amount of trips taken.

Regarding larger vehicles we recommend eventual purchase of vehicles with higher

fuel efficiency and that are sized for specific tasks. For instance, the 2011 Ford Super Duty

with a 6.7-liter power stroke V8 has 29.2 MPG. Ford offers Flex Fuel for all such vehicles.

The Flex Fuel allows engines to run cleaner with higher fuel efficiency than standard

models. Another possibility is the GMC Sierra 1500 hybrid. The hybrid model has all the

4x4 capabilities and all the power from the 6.0 liter V8. The hybrid engine is the first two

mode hybrid propulsion system in a full size vehicle. The first mode is used at low speeds

and light loads; in this mode the engine can choose from three ways to power it. The first is


16/112

16

electric power only, the second is engine power only and the third is a combination of the

two. The second mode is primarily used at high speeds, the only time the V8 engine is

using its full power is when certain conditions demand it such as towing, passing on the

highway, and climbing steep grades. The hybrid engine will allow the truck to run on all

electric power up to 30-miles per hour. We offer these models because of their more fuel-

efficient specifications and their capacity to fulfill important functions required at B-W27.

Although the complete revamping of the vehicle fleet would be quite expensive, the

savings in total gas consumption and reduction in carbon emissions would be immediate.

By meeting with the Buildings and Grounds we could possibly allocate a sufficient amount

of vehicles and with the remainders, they could be sold to put money towards the purchase

of the new vehicles.

The second department that provides significant opportunities for carbon

reductions is Safety and Security. Although this department currently only has two

vehicles, 2007 Chevy Trailblazers, use of these vehicles can probably incur higher fuel costs

and carbon emissions. To combat this, we recommend that the college institute no idling

policy, particularly since weather conditions

do not always require heating or cooling in the

vehicle. For warmer weather, a possible

alternative to the Trailblazers could be an

electric golf cartthey seat up to four and can

travel up to 25 miles per hour, which is

suitable for our small campus. The battery

lasts up to 50 miles, and the motor only runs if


17/112

17

the accelerator is pushed. To our current knowledge, Case Western Reserve has similar

vehicles currently implemented around their campus.

Another alternative is the T3 series, which has

zero gas emissions, and operates for less than 10 cents a

day. All that has to be done to this vehicle is let it charge

for 3 to 4 hours and it travels at speeds from 0 to 14mph.

The next proposal is a Segway, which some departments

could use to get around campus, such as Safety and Security and our

parking services54. It travels up to 12mph and can last up to 12

miles if ran continuously.

Another problem we see would be the tours held on campus for prospective

students. Normally students commence the tours by walking, however many times theyre

carted around in B-W vans instead, regardless of the weather. We believe the emissions

that the vans produced are highly unnecessary; given the brief amount of time the people

spend in the vehicle for each stop for the tours. Instead, we recommend a vehicle such as

the GEM e6 model that runs on an all electric 7.0 horsepower engine, can carry up to 6

people and can travel 30 miles on one charge. It can also reach up to speeds of 25miles per

hour. The cost is $12,995.0057. In sum, the college has tremendous opportunities to reduce

its carbon footprint, not only through immediate changes in vehicle use with a no idling

policy, and elimination of unnecessary transportation, amongst other things, but also by its

phase-in of higher efficiency, lower carbon emitting vehicles.


18/112

18

V. Buildings and Grounds

This section of the report focuses on the Buildings and Grounds Departments use of

gasoline and diesel and their contributions to the B-W carbon footprint. On average, per

budgetary year, the Building and Grounds Department uses 16,024 gallons of gasoline

costing $45,809 at $2.85 per gallon. Diesel fuel adds another 3300 gallons costing $9,537

at $2.89 per gallon. We offer recommendations to help reduce the use of these carbon

producing fuels that cost thousands of dollars per year and contribute to greenhouse gas

emissions.

Engines that power buildings and grounds vehicles are major contributors to

greenhouse gas emissions. As vehicles are replaced, we recommend that they be replaced

with electric vehicles when possible, and diesel powered vehicles when electric is not

possible. Buildings and Grounds currently has 13 Ford E-150 vans and 5 E-250 vans that

serve as primary vehicles for staff to carry their equipment and supplies to the jobsite.

Using electric vehicles, such as Miles Electric Vehicles that have been purchased by Case

Western Reserve University, could be an excellent way to cut emissions of campus

vehicles2. Not only do they pollute less than a vehicle powered by an internal combustion

engine, but they are also cheaper, costing approximately $18,000 versus $27,000 for a new

E-150 van. While not all vans could be replaced with electric vehicles, as an electric vehicle

cannot carry as much as a van and their top speed is only 25mph, limiting their ability to

leave campus, replacing half the fleet of vans would save thousands of gallons of fuel per

year, reducing the fleets carbon emissions according to an interview with Eugene

Matthews of Case Western University.


19/112

19

Unfortunately, pickup trucks and Kubota RTVs used around campus cannot be

downsized as they are needed for snow removal. These are all larger F-350 pickup trucks,

which are diesel powered, as well as the diesel engines that are in the Kubota RTVs. We

recommend that the vehicles are powered on biodiesel. The campus has a readymade

source from the fryers in the cafeteria, as well as the numerous restaurants within five

minutes of campus. The fuel could be processed in the chemistry lab with the equipment

that has already been purchased, and then used in vehicles powered by the diesel engines.

This would not only recycle a product that the college would have to pay to dispose of, but

it would reduce the amount of diesel fuel purchased by buildings and grounds. While not

as clean as electric, B100 biodiesel offers emissions reductions of all major tailpipe gases

by 75%13.

The next suggestion for Buildings and Grounds is to convert more college lawn

space into low maintenance garden space. Converting this space into flowerbeds,

populated with native species, and low maintenance plants such as Bethlehem Sage, will

reduce the amount of lawn that has to be mowed, and reduce emissions from gas powered

lawnmowers. Also, allowing the grass to grow taller could reduce the number of times it

has to be mowed. Currently, the lawn is mowed on an as needed basis to a height of three

inches. Mowing shorter, to approximately two inches, and allowing it to grow longer,

perhaps to four inches, could reduce the number of times it has to be mowed, and thereby

reducing emissions produced by gas powered lawnmowers.

We also recommend improving the record keeping system for Buildings and

Grounds gasoline and diesel consumption. The Vehicle Emission Pool team proposed a gas

records system to accurately monitor the ongoing fuel efficiency of vehicles by individually


20/112

20

recording the gallons purchased, total mileage, amount paid, and date of the fill-up. While

this record keeping system monitors fuel efficiency, it can also be used to record the

Buildings and Grounds gasoline and diesel consumption at their gasoline and diesel tank

containers. The amount of gas or diesel received can be gauged in the tanks, along with the

current odometer reading of the vehicle. This way, Buildings and Grounds would be able to

efficiently monitor their use of gas and diesel, which provides more room for improvement

by seeing which medium uses the most fuel and where fuel can be more proficiently used.

In sum, implementing these recommendations can significantly lower its contribution our

carbon footprint.


21/112

21

VI. Refrigerants

Introduction

This section of the report concerns Scope One refrigerant emissions specifically

refrigerant emissions from air conditioning (A/C) units on B-Ws campus.

Refrigerant Data Collection

Initially, the team was provided records from Building & Grounds (B&G) detailing

A/C maintenance on B-Ws buildings. After reviewing the records, the team determined

that the maintenance records did not provide adequate information for determining

accurate refrigerant emissions for the entire campus.

With assistance from Larry Seitz, HVAC technician for B-W, we determined the

buildings on campus that had A/C units, those that used geothermal systems and those that

were currently being renovated for geothermal systems in the future. Mr. Seitz explained

that the main refrigerant used in the A/C units on campus is R-22 (HCFC-22) with R-410a

refrigerant being used minimally in new or geothermal units. (See Appendix A for campus

buildings with A/C, geothermal systems and the type of refrigerant used). A meeting

between Dr. Sabina Thomas and Mr. Seitz determined that the college contracts and utilizes

two A/C maintenances services: The Smith & Oby Service Company and the Price & James

Heating & Refrigeration Company.

Refrigerant Data Analysis

After collecting the refrigerant data, we sought analysis assistance from R. Scott

Thomas, Director of Environmental Affairs, and Barry Culp, Corporate Environmental

Affairs Project Manager, of The Sherwin-Williams Company. Per their recommendations


22/112

22

and calculation examples, we determined an estimate of refrigerant emissions for the

campus. This was calculated by using the following factors: conditioned square footage of a

building (ft2), 1 ton coolant per 500ft2, refrigerant R-22 with a global warming potential

(GWP) 1700, charge of coolant 1kg/ton and estimated loss of emissions at 10% per year.

The total estimated refrigerant emission loss per year was determined to be 427 lbs. The

CO2 equivalent for this loss is 330 tons a year. Per this projects required research period,

the estimated refrigerant emission loss over the course of three academic years (2006-

2009) is 1282 lbs. and the CO2 equivalent emissions is 988 tons. (See Appendix B for

Refrigerant Calculations).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Many recommendations in this report are two-fold: they would not only reduce the

reliance on A/C systems but they would also reduce energy consumption and the carbon

footprint for the college. The short-term recommendations discussed are the least costly

for the college to implement. The longer-term recommendations are more costly for B-W

to implement campus wide.

SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS

Refrigerant and A/C maintenance record keeping

The first recommendation for the college is to have B&G maintain accurate A/C

records on refrigerant use and A/C maintenance. Currently, records are only kept by the

contracted service companies when maintenance is completed. These records are not

complete and the therefore the data are incomplete.

Using the service companys maintenance sheets as an example, an electronic

database or worksheet that inventories the following is ideal:


23/112

23

XII. All buildings (campus and residential) that have A/C units

XIII. Square footage of the building (ft2)

XIV. Size of the A/C unit (type or #)

XV. Refrigerant type used (e.g. R-22, R-410a, R-134a)

XVI. Replacement/Leakage

XVII. Service company that completed maintenance (Oby, Price & James)

XVIII. Dates of maintenance

XIX. Propellant used/1,000 ft2

XX. Amount of propellant recovered (lbs.)

Amount of propellant needed (lbs.)

Example Electronic Database A/C Record

Accurate record keeping will provide B&G better data to determine leaks and to

determine an accurate estimate of emission loss. It will also provide data to implement a

regular maintenance schedule which in turn can provide preventive maintenance measures

uilding Square

footage

A/C

Unit

(type

or #)

Refrigerant Type

used

Replacement/Leakage details Date of

service,

which

company

Propellant/

1,000 ft2

Amount of

propellant

recovered

(lbs.)

Amount

propellan

needed (


24/112

24

to be implemented. This would reduce refrigerant emission loss. In addition, a well

maintained system runs more efficiently which will reduce energy consumption as well.

The cost of establishing and implementing an electronic system through Microsoft Access

or Excel would be minimal. Cost would be training employees on how to input the data

into the system. B-W has a full service Information Technology (IT) Department on

campus for development of a database and training.

Increasing thermostat control set points 1-2 degrees during warmer seasons

Last academic year (2008-2009), the Bonds Administration Building and Marting

Hall were part of a test to determine energy savings. The temperature controls were

reprogrammed in these buildings by 1-2 degrees to determine energy savings. Per Bill

Kerbusch, Director of B&G, the test cycle was a success. As a result, B-Ws administration

agreed to set heating and cooling temperatures in all academic and administration

buildings (residential halls are an exception). Through B&Gs temperature management

control, the heating thermostat temperature is set at 68o and the cooling thermostat

temperature is set at 76o for these buildings.

The second short-term recommendation is increasing building temperature controls

by another 1-2 degrees. For example, we could increase temperature set points in later

spring, summer and early fall seasons to 78o instead of 76o. With the higher set point

temperature, the A/C system will run less often, for shorter periods of time and only when

buildings are warmer. This practice not only ensures less stress on an A/C system but also,

less use of refrigerants from possible emissions loss for running shorter periods of time. It

also reduces energy consumption.


25/112

25

The cost for resetting the temperature control is nothing. The energy savings for

increasing the temperature for each degree above 72 degree is 1-3% per degree21.

Other heat reducing recommendations

Other heat reducing options to cool buildings that require no or minimal financial

cost are to the college are: turning lights off, opening doors and windows in place of A/C

usage and planting trees to shade buildings.

Lights are a heat generating source. Turning lights off in classrooms, hallways and

buildings in warmer seasons and when natural light is available would reduce the amount

of heat generated in a room or building. Opening doors and windows on seasonal days in

place of using an A/C unit is an option as well. This can create a cross breeze that cools the

building and would eliminate the use of a fans too which consume energy.

Planting trees to shade areas or sides of buildings that receive the most intense rays

of sunlight would cool buildings also. Trees planted to shade homes and/or office buildings

have been shown to reduce A/C needs by up to 30%11. Trees would even create a positive

feedback loop with the trees sequestering CO2 and releasing O2 into the air.

The cost of planting a tree would be the highest in comparison to shutting lights off or

opening doors and windows. It would include cost of the tree and cost of digging or

excavating a hole to plant it. The cost could still be minimal if the tree was donated. The

downside tree planting would be the time period in which it would take for the tree to

mature to provide shade. Also, there is the possibility that adult tree roots can enter a

ground water system or under foundations and cement sidewalks, wreaking havoc. To

combat this, the tree would have to be strategically placed to avoid these types of problems.


26/112

26

Overall, implementing these simple practices would demand less from an A/C

system and reduce energy consumption for B-W.

LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS

Use of Dunlap white rubber reflective roofing on all roofs; painting rooftops of

buildings white or cool colors

We have learned from Bill Kerbusch that the college has installed Dunlap Roofing on

several campus buildings. This type of roof is comprised of white rubber and therefore, has

a reflective surface. In addition, the seams of these rubber roofs are heat welded together

to create a durable seal. This type of reflective roofing has reduced energy consumption for

B-W. Currently this type of rooftop is installed at Kamm Hall, Bonds Administration

Building, Lou Higgins Recreation Center and others. A recommendation could be to have as

many campus roofs as possible be Dunlap white rubber roofs.

In addition, a long-term recommendation we are suggesting is a simple concept:

paint flat building rooftops white and sloped rooftops in cool colors. The white or cool

colored rooftop reflects sun back into the atmosphere and therefore, the building absorbs

less heat. (This is contrary to black or dark rooftops that absorb heat.) A light-colored

rooftop reduces the heat in a building and keeps it significantly cooler. Studies have shown

that white flattop roofs reduce electricity use for A/C by 15% (Stephen Chu, Secretary of

Energy)45. Less energy consumption reduces CO2 emissions and B-Ws carbon footprint.

Cool colored rooftops are mainly found in southern or western states, and have not

necessarily caught on in the Midwest. This is due to the Midwests four seasoned climate.

Cool colored rooftops may reduce energy and emissions during the summer months but

they would be a deterrent during winter months. During winter months, a dark rooftop


27/112

27

that absorbs the sun rays is ideal to reduce heating energy consumption. The benefits of

painting rooftops in either white or cool colors would have to be weighed against having

dark rooftops that absorb heat in winter months for the Midwest seasonal climate. The

cost of this recommendation would be the cost of paint and labor for the building rooftops.

A compromise to test the savings for cool rooftops may be painting some campus rooftops

white and leaving others dark.

Conversion of R-22 (HCFC-22) and R-410a to R-134a (HFC-134a, H-134a) refrigerant

As previously mentioned, in a meeting with Larry Seitz, HVAC technician for B-W,

we learned that the college uses R-22 as the main refrigerant for A/C systems. R-22 is a

halocarbon (HCFC). It has a GWP of 1700, its emissions are ozone depleting, its a

greenhouse gas and the manufacturing of this refrigerant contributes to climate change34.

The amended Montreal Protocol of 1992 determined a phase-out of R-22. In 2010,

the refrigerant cannot be used in new equipment. By 2020, production of the refrigerant

will cease. At that point, recycled or recovered R-22 can be used in existing A/C equipment

after 2020. The goal is a complete phase-out of the refrigerant by 205034.

The main replacement refrigerant is R- 410a. R-410a is a mixture of hydro

fluorocarbons (HFC) with 50% R-32 and 50% R-125. This mixture does not contribute to

ozone depletion but it does contribute to global warming and climate change32,35. Its GWP

factor higher than R-22 172532.

Therefore, we recommend substituting refrigerants R-22 and R-410a with R-134a

(HFC 134a, H-134a) refrigerant where possible. R-134a has a significantly lower GWP at

1300.4Use of this substitute refrigerant would greatly reduce emissions that contribute to


28/112

28

climate change. In the case of utilizing R-134a in place of R-410a, the reduction in CO2 over

the course of a three year academic period would be 250 kg (See Graph 1).

It is understandable that the substitute would have to work with already existing

HVAC equipment on campus. But according to the Environmental Protection Agencys

website on Ozone Layer Depletion Alternatives HFC 134a (R-134a, H-134a) is an

acceptable substitute for R-22 and R-410a refrigerant33.

Use of R-134a refrigerant is currently more cost effective as well. The price of R-22

is going to continue to rise as the phase-out process continues. Current prices for these

refrigerants based on The Refrigerant Store website are as follows (priced per unit): the

price of 1-2 30 lb. cylinder of R-22 is $195.0050; 1-2 25 lb. cylinder of R-410a $213.0051; a

1-2 30 lb. cylinder of R-134a is the cheapest at $175.0052. There is also a reduction in price

for multiple cylinders ordered. Therefore, with the estimated calculation lbs. of refrigerant

loss annually by the college (427lbs) to replace just the amount loss, the college would

need approximately 15 cylinders (30 lbs. each) of refrigerant. The cost of 15 cylinders of R-

22 = $2520.00, R-410a = $2475.00, R-134a = $2265.00. R-134a is the cheapest.

GRAPH 1: Comparison CO2 Equivalent Emissions (Mt): Refrigerant Loss

Comparison of refrigerant

types, loss and CO2 emission

equivalent


29/112

29

Geothermal Heating and Cooling Systems

Geothermal systems to heat and cool buildings have been rapidly developing since

the 1980s. Geothermal processes works by harnessing heat from underneath the Earths

crust the hot and molten rock layer called magma There are three designs for geothermal

but all work mainly in the same way by extracting hot water and steam from the ground

that has been warmed by the magma. The steam drives a turbine to generate power for the

building.

For ground-source heating and cooling geothermal pumps, the temperature of the

ground is normally constant - around 50o degrees. Outside tubes and pipes run into the

ground and from the ground into the building to ventilate the building. In the winter, the

liquid moves heat into the building from the ground. In the summer, it moves heat out of

the building to cool and runs it back down into the ground. These systems may have

compressors and pumps to maximize heat transfer between the building and the ground

source61.

These ground-source heat pump geothermal systems have been shown to be very

efficient in the summer. They are the most energy-efficient and environmentally friendly

as well. They have been found to be more efficient than electric heating and cooling and

can move as much as 3 to 5 times the energy they used to process power. In addition, the

U.S. Department of Energy has determined that ground-source heat pumps for geothermal

systems can save hundreds of dollars in energy costs each year61.

Currently, B-W is using geothermal ground-source systems (also referred to as

vertical geothermal systems) in a few buildings on campus. The first building to utilize a

geothermal system was Ernsthausen Hall. The most recent building to use geothermal is


30/112

30

the Center for Innovation and Growth (CIG). The CIG does contain a compressor to assist in

cooling in the summer months which does utilize a refrigerant R- 410a. However, per Bill

Kerbusch, the system only utilizes the refrigerant in the compressor area of the system and

it does not circulating through the entire system like a conventional air conditioning

system. Therefore, much less refrigerant is used in the system as opposed to a

conventional central air conditioning unit that circulates refrigerant through the entire

system. Furthermore, the compressor only initiates when the building temperature

exceeds the temperature control set point thus, saving energy.

Renovations on the Life & Science Building, Wilker Hall and McKelvey (with the

possibility of the Conservatory) are all scheduled to include geothermal systems for heating

and cooling of these buildings. With the success of the geothermal systems on campus, our

long-term recommendation would be for all campus buildings to utilize this method of

heating and cooling. Once again, as with the painting of rooftops, this recommendation is

more costly (cost of excavating the dig, pipes, converting over equipment for ventilation

purposes) and would have to be slowly implemented over time as opposed to other short-

term recommendations. From information that we received from Mr. Kerbusch, the cost

and savings of a geothermal system versus a conventional A/C system is $500,000.

LONGER-TERM RECOMMENDATION

Rooftop gardens living rooftops& vertical vegetative walls

In William McDonough and Michael Braungarts Cradle-to-Cradle they discuss the

use of rooftop gardens on commercial buildings to heat and cool. A rooftop garden or

living rooftop consists of: waterproofing membrane, insulation protection layer, drainage


31/112

31

layer, filter mat, soil layer and plant life44,56. The vegetation can be turf grass, shrubs or

even trees.14 Roof-top gardens are a longer-term recommendation for B-Ws campus.

Rooftop gardens are not only effective in insulating a building on cold days but also,

they provide cooling in hot weather. It can protect the life of a roof by shielding it from the

suns rays and provide storm water runoff protection44. In the summer, rooftop gardens

can retain up to 70-100% of the precipitation that falls on them; in the winter they can

retain about 40-50%. The reduction in the total annual runoff volume for both winter and

summer is 50-60%25. Also, the plant life in the garden gives back to the environment by

taking carbon dioxide in and giving off oxygen44.

The strategy to implement rooftop gardens for B-Ws campus would be to determine

if a building has the load-bearing capacity to support the weight of a garden. Both flat and

sloped rooftops can be utilized for a rooftop garden. Turf grass rooftops weigh 5-30 lbs.

per square foot and plant and vegetative gardens weigh 40-100lbs per square foot. B-W

does have several older buildings and a structural engineer would need to be consulted

with to determine if any buildings are structurally sound for the weight of a garden14.

However, the investments in a garden rooftop can be cost-effective. The initial cost

is estimated at 30% greater than a conventional roof. Cost projections can range from $33-

$55 a square foot for not only re-roofing but for installation of the garden. But garden

maintenance in place of long term maintenance on a roof can prolong the roof up to 20

years while off-setting energy costs25. Plus, it removes refrigerants from the equation

completely therefore, eliminating refrigerant cost, A/C maintenance, and roofing repair

maintenance. Rooftop gardens also greatly reduce ozone depleting emissions and reduce

to CO2 emissions that contribute to climate change.


32/112

32

Examples of Rooftop Gardens

Kansas State University, Kansas41

Trent University, Canada20

Similar to the rooftop gardens, a new architectural structures consisting of

vegetative walls (also called vegetative fins) are now being designed for use. Instead of


33/112

33

being built on top of a building, a vertical garden is grown on one side of a building. Fed by

rainwater that is captured on the roof or gray water recycled from internal plumbing, this

vertical garden changes with the seasons. The vegetation on the wall blooms in the

warmer months creating shade to cool the building. In colder months, the vegetation dies

off, allowing sunlight in to warm the building. The energy savings with a vertical garden

are estimated between 60-65%67.

Architectural designs have been drawn to implement a model like this on the

renovation work for the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building which is a federal

building in Portland, Oregon. The General Services Administration who is heading up the

renovation work for this project states that the building could save as much as $280,000 in

energy savings67.

Example of Vertical Garden

Architectural rendering main Federal Building, Portland, Oregon67


34/112

34

VII. Electricity

Introduction

Team D focuses on purchased electricity, part of Scope Two institutional emissions,

and offers a variety of recommendations how to reduce our carbon-based use of electrical

energy.

Electricity Data

Electricity data presented is for all residence halls and apartments only. Complete

data was not readily accessible for all academic and rental buildings. The total kWh for

2007 through 2009 was found by adding the kWh for each month for each year. The total

kWh for 2007 was 5,106,315. Total cost was $408,505.20 based on the $0.08 per kWh cost

in 2007. The total kWh for 2008 was estimated to be 5,137,735. Complete data were

unavailable for the month of November; therefore, the total kWh was estimated based on

previous data for that month. Total cost was $462,396.15 based on the $0.09 per kWh in

2008. The total kWh for 2009 was estimated to be 4,797,091. Complete data was

unavailable for the months of July, August, and September; therefore, the total kWh was

estimated based on previous data for those months(See Appendix E for total kWh by

building and by month). Total cost was $575,650.92 based on the $0.12 per kWh in 2009.

Recommendations

Recommendations are prioritized as either short-term or long-term. Short-term

recommendations are easiest and most cost-effective to achieve. Long-term

recommendations are more difficult and/or costly to implement.

Short-Term Recommendations


35/112

35

The college can immediately reduce electricity consumption by changing all

incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). The elimination of all

incandescent light bulbs should be the colleges first priority regarding electricity. An

Energy Star qualified compact fluorescent light bulb uses 75% less energy and lasts about

ten times longer than an incandescent light bulb43. The green business class counted 1,791

incandescent light bulbs on campus in March 2010. (See charts below for total light bulbs

by building.) Of those light bulbs, 59 percent were college or faculty owned, while 41

percent were student owned. Most incandescent bulbs were

found in personal lamps in students dorms and in faculty

members offices. It would be cost effective to provide free

compact fluorescent light bulbs to students and faculty for

personal use. The payback period for two 32 watt CFLs is

approximately 0.10 years. (Small Business Pollution

Prevention Center)26. There are approximately 1,900 students living on campus and 167

full-time faculty members. We recommend that the school provide one compact

fluorescent light bulb to each student living on campus and to every full-time faculty

member for each school year. This totals approximately 2,100 bulbs, depending on the

total of number of on-campus residents and faculty. As a direct result of this Carbon

Footprint Project, Sams Club has agreed to donate 1,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs to

Baldwin-Wallace for the 2010-2011 academic year. Because CFLs contain a small amount

of mercury, the college should post information in all residence halls and academic

buildings on how to properly clean-up broken bulbs and on how to dispose of CFLs. The

posted information should include the following EPA recommendations: 1) If the bulb


36/112

36

breaks, open a window and leave the room for at least fifteen minutes to properly ventilate

the area. 2) Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a sealed plastic bag before

placing them in a trash container. 3) Wash your hands after disposing of the broken

materials. Posting this information will ensure the safety of students and faculty when

handling broken CFLs. We recommend that the college create a means for safe disposal of

used CFL bulbs.

Light Emitting Diode (or LED) lighting is another option the college should consider.

Energy Star LED lighting uses at least 75% less energy and lasts about twenty-five times

longer than incandescent lights43. LED lights are better at directing light in a single

direction and are thus optimal for hallways and staircases.

Inventory of Incandescent Light Bulbs

Around Campus in March 2010

21 Beech Street 23

Alumni House 3

Bagley Hall 28

Bonds Hall 22

Carmel Hall 50

Conservatory 100

Constitution Hall 130

Dietsch Hall 40

Ernsthausen Hall 20

Findley Hall 351

Heritage Hall 192

Kamm Hall 7


37/112

37

Klein Hall 300

Kohler Hall 290

Lindsay-Crossman Chapel 50

Lou Higgins Center 27

Marting Hall 30

Math and Computer Science 14

Ritter Library 11

Strosacker College Union 103

TOTAL 1791

(NOTE: Residence hall numbers are

based on a sample of the total rooms.)

One large problem while assessing campus electrical usage was the absence of

records. The schools available records only go to 2007. This is in part due to the fact that

Greg Paradis, B-W Custodial Supervisor, began keeping these records when he was hired.

If the school were to keep better records they would be able to assess the change in a

buildings kWh after innovations take place. We offer one possible example of a better

record keeping system in Appendix D.

The school should install more meters to have records of kWh usage for each

building. Currently, total kWh usage per building is roughly estimated by dividing the total

kWh based on the square footage of each building. This does not take into account

variable lighting systems in each building. For example, better metering would allow the

college to compare the energy savings of Ernsthausen Hall with other less energy efficient


38/112

38

buildings, especially other residence halls. Also, in original records it sometimes becomes

difficult to differentiate between buildings in the absence of differentiated metering.

We recommend the school begin programs like turning off most hallway lights

during the day or even just keeping 1/3 on during the day where sufficient natural light is

available. The school can also shut off lights for unused buildings during school scheduled

breaks. Additionally, academic buildings do not need lights on during hours when the

building is closed. It has been reported that lights are on in unused sections of buildings

throughout entire breaks; this is a useless waste. Therefore, the college could install more

motion sensors, especially in common areas.

We recommend that the school shut down all campus computers at a certain time

each night. This goal would be easily achieved with a programming script that Baldwin-

Wallace IT could institute on computer lab computers. Computers in classrooms and

computer-lab class rooms already have this option installed and will turn off after a period

of inactivity. Adding this feature to the 24-hour labs would be an easy change that could

help reduce electrical consumption.

Long-Term Recommendations

The school can also consider investing in solar panels for rooftops of some campus

buildings. The school can buy these through wholesale

manufacturers. Depending on the price per wattage a

solar panel can range from $2.50 to $6.00 per watt. A

single pallet of 20 solar panels can go for around $10,000.

This would be a very large initial investment, but the

money the school would save over the following years


39/112

39

could pay back this price over time9,66. The average solar panel system pays for itself

within the first 10 years, depending upon system cost and utilities pricing. The college can

look into making a single building solar powered to further explore this possibility. The

Center for Innovation and Growth would be a good example. The CIGs size, sunlight

exposure, and flat roof make it an ideal subject for a solar panel test. The college is already

moving forward with a Power Purchase Agreement for the CIG, wherein the college buys

the energy from a third party investor and thus has no capital costs. An additional

incentive that the government is offering is a 30% federal investment tax credit with a 5

year accelerated depreciation to help reduce the financial impact of installing solar power.

These changes, while initially costly, will eventually pay for themselves and will then

continue to help the college save money for years to come.

If the school does not already have variable frequency drives (VFDs) installed on

most appliances requiring motors, these items can help reduce energy consumption of

these appliances. Variable frequency drives are additional parts to the motor that can

control motor speed by controlling frequency of the electrical power supplied by the motor.

VFDs initially apply a low frequency and voltage to the motor, avoiding the high current

that usually occurs when motors are first turned on. An additional benefit is that the drives

will increase the life of the motor as a result of the decreased stress upon it. These VFDs

can be installed on motors ranging from fans, elevators, various pumps, and heating,

ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) utilities. The average industrial VFD cost around

$600-$1,500 and helps control electrical consumption by making the motor more efficient.

One problem for VFDs is that the cable leading to the drive can become worn out from

resending of electricity back up the cable; this eventually will wear out the insulation. To


40/112

40

combat this, the owner can replace the cable or

even increase the size of the cable to offset the

degradation of insulation. This problem aside, a

variable frequency drive can reduce electrical

consumption while increasing motor life63,64.

Conclusion

In order to achieve the goal of reducing the colleges carbon footprint by 20% by

2020, the college should begin implementing these changes. The college can immediately

implement the short-term recommendations of eliminating all incandescent light bulbs and

of keeping better electricity records. The other short-term recommendations are also

easily attainable. The college should seriously consider the long-term recommendations

presented in this report. Although they are initially more costly, installing solar panels and

variable frequency drives will save the college money in the long run. The energy savings

will not only reduce the colleges environmental impact but will also save the college

money.


41/112

41

VIII. Commuters

Commuter Group Recommendation Overview

The commuter group focuses our recommendations on ways to reduce carbon

emissions from travel associated with students, faculty and staff that travel to campus each

day. We evaluate each recommendation with three factors. The first and most important

factor is financial cost. The second is the efficiency for maximizing reductions in carbon

emissions. The final factor is the ease or difficulty level of making the change, independent

of financial costs.

Our first recommendation is to discount carpool and high efficiency vehicle parking

permits. Our second is to establish designated parking areas for students who either

carpool or drive a high efficiency vehicle to college. The third recommendation is to

develop and communicate information to students and other commuters on how to

generate higher fuel efficiencies for vehicles and statistics relative to gas consumption. The

fourth is to have a ride board for students who wish to either carpool or travel to out of

town locations. The fifth proposes that the Union accept credit/debit cards. Sixth is that

the college creates storage units for student bikes as an alternative to motorized vehicle

transportation. Our seventh recommendation involves the college expanding the

commuter lounge to provide appropriate space and technology for all commuters, which

would thereby encourage commuters to remain on campus throughout the day.

Carpool and High Efficiency Vehicle Parking Permit Discounts

Although we donthave evidence to support this claim, we believe that discounted

student carpool and high efficiency vehicle permits might generate higher use of these


42/112

42

types of transportation. The annual cost of a parking pass at B-W is $120 for residents and

$60 for commuter students16. The California Energy Commissions Consumer Energy

Center reports that the average fuel economy of U.S. passenger vehicles is 21 mpg and that

of Accord, Civic, Escape and Prius hybrids is between 46 -55 mpg40. We recommend that

students who either carpool or have a vehicle that exceeds a fuel efficiency standard of at

least 40 MPG should receive a free parking permit. We recommend that the college include

a survey with every parking permit application to determine the level of student interest in

this proposal. As college students we are all aware of how expensive it is to attend college,

particularly given that most students receive financial assistance. That being said, few

students would pass up the opportunity to receive a free parking permit. However, this is

the only cost for implementing this recommendation. Also, there will be an additional

benefit in that as more students participate in carpool rides, fewer parking spots will be

required for students and staff, which will then free up additional parking spaces for

visitors and prospective admission applicants. The idea to include high efficiency vehicles

may not generate much change in vehicle ownership since few people drive these vehicles

due to higher purchase price or other vehicle preferences. But it would send a message to

our students and to the larger public that B-W supports use of high efficiency vehicles.

Free permits to those who carpool could result in a modest reduction in the number of

vehicles on campus. The central part of the idea is that automobiles are one of the largest

producers of carbon emissions and that by reducing the number of vehicles on the campus;

we will therefore lower our carbon emissions. We could also differentiate the carpool /

high efficiency vehicle discount permits from other parking permits by putting a green

mark on the discount permits and parking spots. Currently, students must complete the


43/112

43

student parking application for every semester/ year and identify if they are a resident or

commuter, their make/model of car and license number. We would suggest that the

application be modified to include carpool and high efficiency vehicle permit designations.

If the student applies for one of these designations, they would be required to identify the

names of their passengers and who is the primary driver thereby eliminating the issuance

of multiple passes. The college would police the carpooling situation in the same manner in

which they police permits for handicap permits of student/faculty/staff.

Designated Parking Areas

Building upon that idea, we would ask the college to provide designated sections of

the parking lots for carpool drivers and high efficiency vehicles. The only people allowed in

these spots would be those individuals who have the free parking permits. It would not

require the college to obtain any additional parking lots/spaces but rather redefine existing

space which has become available as a result of students who are now carpooling. The

financial cost to implement such an idea would be the cost to paint the designated spots.

By designating specific spots for carpooling and high efficiency cars and other vehicles, the

college would make the statement that they are committed to finding solutions to reducing

our large institutional carbon footprint. If the college is concerned about spots being

empty, we suggest that the spots be distributed throughout the campus. We could use the

design of a handicapped parking spot as a launching pad for the design of the carpool/ high

efficiency vehicle spots. For example, the college could outline the carpool permits in green

and include an image of a plant in the center of the permit and paint parking places green:

Green on the Green. Since we would use many available parking spots that many single

drivers currently use on a daily basis, there may be fewer places for them to park. We view


44/112

44

this as a positive benefit, because it would encourage those drivers to carpool as a way to

get more preferable parking spaces. The college could also encourage students to

carpool/drive high efficiency vehicles by designating these spots at the nearest parking

spaces to the buildings. This would give students an even greater incentive to carpool with

fellow classmates and provoke community education.

Student Information Campaign

A fourth recommendation that would be low-cost, effective and easy would be to

distribute information, ideally electronic and paperless, on how to generate higher fuel

efficiencies for vehicles. The information could be passed out when students receive their

parking pass and made available on-line. The document could include information about

car idling, avoiding intra-campus driving, promoting bicycle use at school and carpooling.

Miami University has also shown an interest in providing information to students on

vehicle fuel efficiency.

Student Ride Board

A fifth recommendation is for student government to organize a ride board such as

a paper ride board in the student union and/or an electronic ride board on the B-W

intranet. Having a ride board will allow commuters to post when they are going

somewhere and how many people they can take. Say a student, John, lives in Cincinnati

and wants to go home for the weekend. Another student, Sue lives in Columbus and wants

to go home the same weekend. Sue goes to the Union and sees the ride board sheet. She

sees that John is going the same weekend. She signs her name and calls John to confirm a

time and place. All Sue needs to do is pay John a small fee for him taking her home. Ohio


45/112

45

University5 uses a ride board as does Ohio State University4. They are successful and used

by many students weekly.

Student Payment Changes at the Union

Another idea that could be inexpensive and effective would be to change payment

systems on vending machines and, more importantly, the union to use credit or debit cards.

Commuters do not always carry cash on their Jacket Express; most college students do not

carry cash. Therefore, commuters tend to leave campus and go to someplace like Panera,

Chipotle or another fast food restaurant for food and travel back to campus for class. That

is wasteful and may be difficult to change. If the college allowed credit and debit cards to

be used, it could reduce travel emissions. Students would not have to travel off campus for

food and it would bring in more cash flow for Baldwin-Wallace. Its not as easy for

commuters to have money readily available on their Jacket Express as it is for residents

because as local residents they are less likely to use a Jacket card. Putting money on Jacket

Express requires cash, check or an alternative that parents do not favor, adding money to

their payment for B-W. If commuters had enough money to add it to their Jacket Express,

they would just use it at the vending machine or in the Union.

Commuter Lounge

The current commuter lounge does not have sufficient space to accommodate the

number of commuters who are willing to use the facility. This reason causes some students

to go elsewhere between classes because of overcrowding. The expansion of the commuter

lounge would give students who have the highest carbon footprint an incentive to stay on

campus between classes and other breaks throughout the day. More area is needed for

commuters, they make up a substantial portion of the college population and they usually


46/112

46

live close to campus making it appealing to go home during the day. A large space

somewhere on campus would cut back on the amount of trips to and from the college

everyday for a number of students. Another thing that would be helpful in an updated

commuter lounge would be more computers. Commuters can congregate in the Cyber-caf

but it only has 12 or so computers and no printer, which is a downside. Consequently,

more computers would be another reason for commuters to stay on campus instead of

going elsewhere.

Campus Bike Barns

We recommend that the college take actions to promote higher bike use on campus.

This would include increased availability of bike racks. In addition, Bike Barns are fully

covered and secure bike rack locations for not just commuter students but all students for

that matter to place their bikes when they are not in use. Having perhaps three to four

covered locations around campus would allow students to not worry about their bikes

being stolen and would keep them out of the weather. Students can pick where they want

to keep their bikes. The bike barns would not just be for commuters but also for residents

which makes this a great project for the college to take up3.

Conclusion

As one can see, our group has come up with many possible recommendations for the

college to reduce commuter and faculty vehicle emissions. Many are inexpensive and easy

to achieve and can be implemented immediately. Some are more expensive and can be

achieved in the future, but all could be great ideas for the college to implement.


47/112

47

IX. Faculty Travel and Study Abroad

Our group focuses on study abroad travel and school-funded faculty travel to

calculate what effect these trips have on the colleges carbon footprint. Travel related to

the Conservatory and the Division of Business Administration has the highest emissions,

but the political science department has the highest emissions per capita faculty. In terms

of study abroad data, we calculated that trips to India involved the largest carbon

emissions. In light of these discoveries we offer several recommendations for

improvements that Baldwin-Wallace could adopt to reduce its overall carbon footprint and

help to reach the goal of at least a 20% carbon dioxide equivalent reduction by the year

2020.

Assumptions

Over the course our project we found that many departments do not keep good

records, which required that we make some assumptions regarding our calculations. We

assumed that each line listed on the excel document the Explorations Office gave us was a

separate person. We also regarded each person as taking a separate flight and that the

cheapest flight was used. If the location did not have its own airport, our group selected

the closest airport to the location. The websites we used to find the cheapest flights was

Tripadvisor.com and to calculate the miles between these airports we used

distancecalculator.globefeed.com. Once we calculated miles, we converted miles to tons of

carbon dioxide using the formula: CO2 emissions= 1 mile* 1 ton CO2/2062 miles/person =

0.000485 tons of CO2. We then multiplied this number by the number of faculty and

students on each trip. For some destinations, the data were too vague to convert. For

example, one professor flew to the Midwest; however we had no idea where in the Midwest


48/112

48

he flew, so we ignored that trip. We also ignored two study abroad trips to Muskingum

China, because such a destination does not appear to exist. Other trips required

assumptions. We assumed that a flight to New Mexico went to the largest airport and from

there; travelers drove to the event they were attending. For the CEA trip we assumed

travelers went to Paris, France since that was the most likely trip the school went on

according to options for destinations and the years of each trip. When locations for multi-

country trips were in doubt we used the latest itinerary for all trips. We assumed that all

group trips were led by two faculty members, which we accounted for in the measuring the

carbon emissions. For faculty travel we assumed the shortest driving route and that any

trip that was farther than 300 miles was flown. If the state was not given, we picked the

most common location for that trip. We did not include the Gund Reconciliation trip,

because we had no data on what state that was in. We also believed that if two of the same

destination were listed consecutively, that they were the same professor on consecutive

trips.

Current Effects:

For the year 2006-2007, faculty

travel equated to a total of 255975.3 miles;

3151.2 miles were driven and 252824.1

miles were flown. For the year 2007-2008

faculty travel was 282155.9 miles with

9456.4 miles driven and 272699.5 miles

flown. In the year 2008-2009, the total

mileage was 292623.9, having driven 7571.4 and having flown 285052.5 miles. This leads

Driving Flying Total

2006/2007 3151.2 252824.1 255975.3

2007/2008 9456.4 272699.5 282155.9

2008/2009 7571.4 285052.5 292623.9

Total 20179 810576.1 830755.1

Tons CO2: 402.89


49/112

49

to a total for all three years of 20179 miles driven and 810576.1 miles flown for a total of

810576.1 miles. When converted in carbon dioxide, this equals 402.89 tons of CO2.

Of the various departments, the Division of Business Administration was the highest

emitter with 58.3 tons of CO2 released and the conservatory emitted 51.27 tons of CO2,

making it the second highest emitter. Emissions in the political science department were

the highest per person with 5.87 tons of CO2 released per person. (See graph below)


50/112

50

In terms of study abroad data, we found that travel to India releases the largest

amount of CO2 with 219.45 tons of CO2 emitted for a trip there and back, most likely due to

the high number of students and faculty who went on the trip. The second highest was

China, emitting 188.276 tons of CO2 per round trip. (See graph below)


51/112

51

In terms of miles per semester, the Fall/Spring semester of 2008-2009 has the most

miles at 1165300.885 miles flown. The total miles flown from Spring of 2006 to Fall of

2009 was 2440230.945 miles.

Recommendations:

After reviewing this data our group offers several recommendations to move

toward our goal of 20% reduction in carbon dioxide by the year 2020. Initially Baldwin-

Wallace needs to gather accurate information to better understand what changes can best

reduce our emissions. A method of ongoing record-keeping must be initiated to document

the effects of changes implemented. If the Study Abroad office and Bonds kept a record of

every student/faculty members name, where they went, when they traveled, with flights


52/112

52

and airlines, our carbon footprint would be considerably more accurate. More accurate

data collection would help B-W to better identify any trends or patterns and better

understand where the majority of emissions are being released.

A possible solution to reducing carbon emissions is to substitute some faculty travel

with video conferencing. The Boston Consulting Group and the Climate Group estimated

that IT-optimized businesses in the U.S. (which includes "smart buildings," substituting

virtual meetings for business travel, and allowing employees to work remotely) could get

rid of almost 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year and save up to

$170 billion42. By 2030 the World Wildlife Fund predicts that telecommuting and virtual

meetings could decrease nearly 1 billion tons of emissions annually42. Three types of video

conferencing may be feasible for the college. The first is Skype, which is free and available

for Smartphones and videophones62. Unfortunately, small screen size and limited

conferencing capacityonly four users can use it at one timeare among drawbacks. It

has a subscription fee for international calls of $12.95 per month, but only if used to call

landlines or cell phones62.

Cisco Telepresence at Berkeley (ABCs of Videoconferencing)


53/112

53

The next alternative is Cisco Telepresence which carries an expensive initial start-

up cost of $600 to $3000 for hardware based desktop system8. Small-group systems cost

between $3,000 and $12,000 with an appliance of $6,000 to $14,000 for a PC-based

system8. Large group or boardroom systems provide the highest quality video and come

with a high start-up cost of $10,000 to $300,0008. These are ISDN or IP-based, do not have

a subscription fee and can accommodatemultiple users at one time. Images appear at life

size and the system can be fitted to a desk or office. Generally, base Cisco Telepresence

systems have a 65-inch plasma screen with an embedded camera24. The final video

conferencing alternative is Nefsis, an IP-based system which costs $350 a month46.

Another option is to participate in carbon offset programs to make up for carbon

emissions from study abroad trips and for when teleconferencing is not feasible. We have

identified types of carbon offsetting programs: airline carbon offsetting (included in the

ticket purchase), students and faculty initiating their own carbon offsetting programs

(Some common alternatives are planting trees or renewable energy projects), or other

companies that provide offsetting programs for a charge. All of these alternatives would

theoretically make up for the carbon emitted through travel. In the longer term, the school

could require students/faculty to calculate their total emissions and then ensure that they

counteract that the entireamount byparticipating in one of these three offsetting

programs.

Faculty could also take responsibility for educating students traveling abroad.

Middlebury College claims success with their Green Passport Program, a low-maintenance

social networking site designed to heighten students ecological conscience. Participating

students agree to reduce their environmental impact, respect the culture they are visiting,


54/112

54

and give back to the community17. The site also partners with other colleges, Abroad View

magazine, and sustainable travel agencies to offer sustainable study abroad programs. For

instance, through the Living Routes-Green Passport partnership, students from several

majors including teaching, English, French, communications, business, anthropology,

sustainability, and the arts may live in ecovillages and learn about sustainable community

development, agriculture, indigenous cultures, and more. Students participate in carbon

offsetting programs through the village and develop skills that will help them reduce the

co

carbon footprint analysis

Documents