Download - 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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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).
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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 -
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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 -
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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:
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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 (
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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.
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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)
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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)
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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)
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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,
-
7/27/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis
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