Class Project Report Sustainable Air Quality, EECE 449/549, Spring 2008 Washington University, St. Louis, MO The Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus and its Causality Drivers Instructors: Professor Rudolf B. Husar, Erin M. Robinson For more details see the class wikiclass wiki Students: Devki Desai Martin Groenewegen Tyler Nading Kate Nelson Matt Sculnick Alyssa Smith Varun Yadav

Class Project: Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus Specific Objectives: 1.Develop and apply carbon emission estimation model 2.Estimate the carbon footprint of Danforth Campus 3.Establish the key causality drivers for the emissions 4.Calculate the Potential Cost at Chicago Climate Exchange 5.Compare the WU carbon emissions to other Universities

Main Causality Drivers of Carbon Impact: Students, Faculty, Staff and their Expenditures Between the WU population has fluctuated between 14-16,000 people Students accounted for about 80 percent of the WU population A measure of WU activities is the expenditure: Between , the expenditures increased by 70% 70% increase

Main Components of WU Carbon Emissions: On Campus Energy Use in Buildings and Transportation The impact on carbon arises from on-campus energy use and from transportation On Campus Energy Use Carbon Impact Students Heating Cooling Appliances Faculty/Staff Transportation Carbon Impact Commuting Air Travel University Fleet

Transportation Devki Desai Tyler Nading Varun Yadav

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Transportation Overall the transportation carbon emissions have remained roughly at 1990 level Population People Transportation Miles Fuel Cons. Gal./yr C Emission Ton C/yr Miles/PersonGal./MileCarbon/Gal

On Campus Energy Use Kate Nelson Alyssa Smith

Trend ( ) of University Expenditures and Building Area 60% increase During the period, the building area on the Danforth Campus has increased by about 60 percent. The 2006 Map of Danforth Campus The new buildings since 1990 are shaded black

Danforth Campus Electric Energy and Fuel Consumption Purchased electricity increased 90% between The total energy for electricity includes losses in the power plant and during transmission. Fuel used on campus for heating and hot water: coal, oil and natural gas. In 1993, the University made several upgrades: –Switched from coal to natural gas –Switched to electric chillers –Shut off steam plant from May-October hot water

Linear Causality Model for Campus Carbon Emissions The carbon impact of on-campus energy is due to direct fuel consumption and indirectly from electricity use The overall carbon impact for on campus energy consumption has increased 50% from Electricity use contributed about 80 percent to the on-campus carbon impact Population Students Activities $ Expend./yr Buildings Sq. Ft Fuel Cons. BTU/yr C Emission Ton C/yr Fuel Cons. BTU/yr C Emission Ton C/yr Electr. Cons Kw-Hr/yr $/StudentSq. Ft./$BTU/Sq.Ft. Kw-hr/Sq.Ft. BTU/Kw-hr Carbon/BTU

The student population increased only by 10% since 1990 However, the expenditures/student have increased by 60 percent The buildings/expenditure has barely changed and the increased expenditures were matched by 60% growth in campus building area Neither the energy use/sq ft nor the C emission/energy use has changed much Hence, the key driver for the 60% carbon emission growth were the increased expenditures (prosperity) and the associated growth in the physical campus expansion.

Other University Comparison Martin Groenewegen Tyler Nading

Total Emission Comparison between Universities In the class project, the published carbon emissions of 14 Universities were analyzed Evidently, the carbon emissions are roughly proportional to the campus building square footage. This class project data indicate that WU emissions/area are comparable to the other schools

Transportation Emission Comparison between Universities The transportation portion of carbon emissions indicate rough proportionality to school population Evidently, the WU transportation carbon emissions are also in line with other colleges. However, the WU estimates are uncertain and given as a range based on two calculation methods

Washington University and the Chicago Climate Exchange Matt Sculnick

Washington University and the Chicago Climate Exchange Chicago Climate Exchange – Voluntary trading system to reduce carbon emissions from participants 6% by 2010 Washington University would have needed $21,000 worth of permits to account for the difference between the actual and allowed emissions.

Working Toward a Sustainable Transition Alyssa Smith

Working Toward a Sustainable Transition Common Concerns, Differing Emphases –What Is To Be Sustained –What Is To Be Developed –The Links Between –For How Long? Goals for a Sustainability Transition –Meeting Human Needs, Education, Research –Preserving Life Support Systems –The Transition to Sustainability as Social Learning