1. Class Project Report Sustainable Air Quality, EECE 449/549, Spring 2008 W ashington University, St. Loui, MO Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus 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

2. Washington University Carbon Footprint On Campus Energy Use Carbon Impact Students Heating Cooling Appliances Faculty/Staff Transportation Carbon Impact Commuting Air Travel University Fleet

3. Danforth Campus Population The population is driven by student population From 1990-2005 the population has fluctuated with one decade of decline and one decade of growth. Overall there has been a 10% increase in student population

4. University Expenditures Expenditures adjusted for inflation include: Instruction, Research, Academic, Student and Institutional support, Scholarships/Fellowships, and Operation and Maintenance of Physical Plant University Expenditures increased by 70% between 1990-2005; Research expenditures increased by 100% over the same time period. Expenditures are a measure of prosperity since the University cannot spend money that it doesn’t have. 60% increase 70% increase

5. Danforth Campus Fuel and Electric Energy Consumption The purchased electricity is about 1/3 of total expended energy need to produce that electricity. 10% is lost through line transmission. 2/3 of the energy produced is lost as heat (Waste Energy). For this analysis we will use the total produced energy (black line) when comparing electricity to other on campus energy sources. Purchased electricity increased 90% between 1990-2005. Fuel used: coal, oil and natural gas. Stationary sources are the on campus fuel used for heating and hot water generation. In 1993, the University made several upgrades: –Switched from coal to natural gas –Switched to electric chillers –Shut off steam plant from May-October

6. Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Buildings Each fuel has Carbon/BTU ratio The overall carbon emission for on campus energy consumption has increased 50% from 1990-2007 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

7. Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Transportation Overall Transportation emissions have stayed constant The student commuters’ emissions have dropped because more students are living closer to campus The faculty/staff emissions are increasing as people are living farther away due to housing availability/costs Population People Transportation Miles Fuel Cons. Gal./yr C Emission Ton C/yr Miles/PersonGal./MileCarbon/Gal

8. Carbon Emission – University Carbon Emissions have increased almost 60% from 1990 to 2005. Electricity is the main component of emissions

9. Carbon Emission Summary – Energy Use on Campus

11. Total Emission Comparison between Universities For Wash. U. Emissions include on campus fuel burned, purchased electricity and transportation for faculty/staff/student commuting (permit/all) and university fleet

12. Transportation Emission Comparison between Universities Transportation includes airline emission for study abroad and athletic travel, commuters and university fleet. Wash. U. Transportation Emission estimate is a range. The lower bound is the carbon number for only those students, faculty and staff who purchased parking passes. The upper bound is the carbon number for all students, faculty and staff and assumes that they drive every day. This only includes people with valid zip code given.