DRAFT, April 14 –All data are preliminary, need verification

Class Project ReportSustainable Air Quality, EECE 449/549, Spring 2008

Washington University, St. Louis, MO

Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus

Instructors: Professor Rudolf B. Husar, Erin M. Robinson

For more details see the class wiki

Students:Devki DesaiMartin GroenewegenTyler NadingKate NelsonMatt SculnickAlyssa SmithVarun Yadav

Class Project: Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus

Objectives:

1. Develop and Apply Carbon Emission Estimation Model2. Estimate Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus3. Calculate the Potential Carbon Cost with Chicago

Climate Exchange4. Compare the Estimates to Other College Campuses

Washington University Carbon Footprint

The impact on carbon arises from on-campus energy use and from transportation

On Campus Energy Use Carbon Impact

Students

Heating

Cooling

Appliances

Faculty/Staff

Transportation Carbon Impact

Commuting

Air Travel

University Fleet

On Campus Energy Use

Kate Nelson

Alyssa Smith

Danforth Campus Population

• From 1990-2005 the Campus population has fluctuated between 14-16,000 people• Students account for 80 percent of the population on campus

Danforth Campus Population

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

11

20

13

20

15

20

17

20

19

20

21

20

23

20

25

20

27

20

29

Year

# o

f P

eo

ple

(th

ou

san

ds

)

Staff Faculty Students

Population Increased 10%Students

Faculty

Staff

University Expenditures and Building Area

Expenditures Include: Research, Academic, Student Support, O/M of Physical Plant

Between 1990-2005, the expenditures increased by 70%

University Expendenditures

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

$ (m

illio

ns),

adju

sted

for

infla

tion

Operational Expendenditures ($)

Danforth Campus Square Footage

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Sq.

Ft.

(mill

ions

)Total Square Footage

60% increase70%

increase

During the same time period, the building area (sq ft) has increased by 60 percent.

Danforth Campus Electric Energy and Fuel Consumption

Purchased electricity increased 90% between 1990-2005.

The total energy for electricity includes losses in the power plant and during transmission.

Danforth Campus Stationary Sources

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

mm

btu

(thou

sand

s)

Tot Fuel Consumed on Campus (mmbtu) Coal Consumed on Campus (mmbtu)

Oil Consumed on Campus (mmbtu) Natural Gas Consumed on Campus (mmbtu)

Total

Natural Gas

Coal

Oil

• Fuel used on campus for heating and hot water: coal, oil and natural gas.

• In 1993, the University made several upgrades:– Switched from coal to natural gas– Switched to electric chillers– Shut off steam plant from May-October hot water

Danforth Campus Electric Energy Consumption

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Year

mm

btu

(tho

usan

ds)

WASTE Energy at Power Plant

Purchased Electricity

Transmission losses

90% Increase in Electricity Usage

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint – Buildings (link)

• The carbon impact of on-campus energy is due to direct fuel consumption and indirectly from electricity use

• The overall carbon impact for on campus energy consumption has increased 50% from 1990-2007

• Electricity use contributed about 80 percent to the on-campus carbon impact

PopulationStudents

Activities $ Expend./yr

Buildings Sq. Ft

Fuel Cons. BTU/yr

C Emission Ton C/yr

Fuel Cons.BTU/yr

C EmissionTon C/yr

Electr. ConsKw-Hr/yr

$/Student Sq. Ft./$ BTU/Sq.Ft.

Kw-hr/Sq.Ft.

BTU/Kw-hr Carbon/BTU

Carbon/BTU

Carbon Emission due to On Campus Energy Use,Danforth Campus 1990-2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Year

C T

onne

s (t

hous

ands

)

50% Increase

Electricity

Fuel Cons.

Carbon Emission Summary – Energy Use on Campus

Energy

Carbon

SqFt

Energy

Expen

FtSq

Student

ExpenStudentsEmission

$

$#

Change in Causality Drivers from 1990-2005 for On Campus Energy Consumption

Students

$ per student

Sq.ft per $

Energy per Sq. Ft.

Carbon Emission- Buildings

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% C

ha

ng

e 1

99

0-2

00

5

Students $ per student Sq.ft per $ Energy per Sq. Ft. Carbon Emission- Buildings

Energy

Carbon

SqFt

Energy

Expen

FtSq

Student

ExpenStudentsEmission

$

$#

Causality Drivers for Carbon Emission due to All Energy Use on Danforth Campus

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Year

Rati

o t

o 1

990

Emission

$/Student

# Students

$/Sq.Ft

Energy/Sq.Ft.

• The student population has remained roughly constant since 1990

• However, the expenditures/student have increased by 60 percent

• The building area has grown in proportion to the expenditures, while the energy use/sq ft and the C emission factor have remained constant

• Evidently, the key driver for carbon emission growth of 60%?) was the growth in the physical campus expansion

Transportation

Devki Desai

Tyler Nading

Varun Yadav

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Transportation

• Overall the transportation carbon emissions have remained roughly at 1990 level

PopulationPeople

Transportation

Miles

Fuel Cons. Gal./yr

C Emission Ton C/yr

Miles/Person Gal./Mile Carbon/Gal

Washington University Transportation Emission

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Year

Car

bon

(Tho

usan

d To

nnes

)

Commuter Students Carbon (tonnes) - all Faculty/Staff Commuter Carbon (tonnes) - All Transportation - All

Transportation Emission

Faculty/Staff Commuting

Student Commuting

Carbon Emission – Danforth Campus

• Carbon Emissions have increased almost 60% from 1990 to 2005.

• Electricity is the main component of emissions and also drives the emissions trends

Danforth Campus Carbon Emission, 1990-2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

11

20

13

20

15

20

17

20

19

20

21

20

23

20

25

20

27

20

29

Year

C T

on

ne

s (

tho

us

an

ds

)

Overall 60% Increase

Electricity

Fuel Cons.

Transportation

Washington University and the Chicago Climate Exchange

Matt Sculnick

Other University Comparison

Martin Groenewegen

Tyler Nading

Total Emission Comparison between Universities

• Data from 14 campuses show that the carbon impact is roughly proportional to the campus size.

• Our data indicate that WU emissions/area are comparable to the other schools

Campus-wide CO2 Emissions as a function of Building AreaU.S. University Campuses

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Building Square Feet, Millions

CO

2 E

mis

sio

n, M

etri

c T

on

nes

/yr,

Th

ou

san

ds

Washington University

Transportation Emission Comparison between Universities

• Transportation carbon emission estimates for ten campuses indicate a relationship to school population• Washington University estimates are uncertain and given as a range based on two calculation methods • Evidently, the WU transportation carbon emissions are also comparable to the other colleges.

Transportation CO2 Emissions as a function of University PopulationU.S. University Campuses

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Total University Population, Thousands

Tra

ns

po

rta

tio

n E

mis

sio

ns

(m

T/y

r), T

ho

us

an

ds

Washington University - All Commute

Washington University - Permits Only

Working Toward a Sustainable Transition

Alyssa Smith