REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS, CUTTING COSTS AND REVENUE GENERATION BY INCORPORATING RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

Robert S. PagliariFlorida Institute of Technology

H. Greg Peebles III, P.E.Florida Institute of Technology

H. Greg Peebles III, P.E.Director of Environmental & Regulatory Compliance Florida Institute of Technology150 W. University BlvdMelbourne, Florida 32901(321) 674-7715 office (321) 674-7586 cellpeebles@fit.edurpagliari2009@my.fit.edu

Abstract

Set in motion by an impromptu, campus wide, inspection from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in 2007, changes resulting in best practices were made at the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT). After investing considerably more than requested by the FDEP in infrastructure intended to lower carbon emissions and save money over time, the difficult, but worthwhile, implementation of these practices resulted in the Pollution Prevention Project (P2) and follow up study used as the basis for the guidelines presented in this document.

In May 2010, FIT successfully completed a technological overhaul in both its Facilities Maintenance and Marine Operations departments. Facilities Maintenance was outfitted with twenty one (21) new electric vehicles which, after decommissioning their outdated petroleum predecessors, reduced carbon emissions by more than eleven (11) tons per year. The savings for FIT is an estimated eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000.00) in fuel and twelve thousand (12,000) man hours in labor costs per year (less than a 3 year simple payback). These electric vehicles are recharged by a 9.6 kilowatt solar photovoltaic array, another P2 upgrade, erected on the southwest corner of FIT’s main campus in Melbourne, Florida. Marine Operations experienced a reduction of nearly seven (7) tons annual carbon emissions, from engine upgrades, and savings of around fifteen hundred ($1,500.00) in fuel and oil costs.

These savings will continue far into the future and the solar array will continue to generate revenue by selling electricity back to the power company. These savings are not specific to FIT, but because Florida is well known for its sunny weather, the instrument of choice was, of course, a solar array. Others may choose alternatives to solar such as wind or geothermal technologies, but even without the renewable energy facility, the switch to electric vehicles was a carbon emissions and money saving move. By following FIT’s path through the jungle of logistic nightmares, and implementing this revolutionary methodology, similar results for other institutions could be realized with a less treacherous journey.

Introduction of the Organization

Florida Institute of Technology is an accredited, coeducational, independently controlled and

supported University. It is committed to the pursuit of excellence in teaching and research.

Undergraduate programs in science and engineering, aviation, business, humanities, psychology

and communication are offered. Doctoral degrees are offered in science, engineering and

psychology; while master's degrees are offered in engineering, science, aeronautics, business and

communication.

Founded in 1958, Florida Tech is rich in history with many fascinating links to the development

of Brevard County and our nation's space program. Originally founded to offer continuing

education opportunities to scientists, engineers and technicians at what is now NASA's Kennedy

Space Center, the university's growth has paralleled the area's rapid development.

Known for a progressive business climate, excellent weather and a growing, vital population, our

Melbourne location is ideal. Brevard County, on Florida's Space Coast, is home to space shuttle

launches and landings, marine science research projects, alternative energy development and

more than 70 miles of un-crowded beaches.

The Atlantic Ocean and Indian River Lagoon are just minutes away and provide unlimited

research and recreational opportunities. It is about an hour's drive west to Orlando, which has

world-famous theme parks, resorts and one-of-a-kind attractions.

Despite the busy surroundings, Florida Tech's campus is quiet and comfortable, with more than

130 acres of tropical greenery within a suburban setting.

Statement (Restatement) of the Problem/Initiative

The goals of the P2 project were simple; lower carbon emissions overall and save money over

time. After a little planning and insight it was discovered that this could be achieved with the

added benefits of providing a new engineering project for future renewable energy research and,

potentially, provide an additional revenue stream using solar power. In light of the obstacles

overcome during the execution of these undertakings, it seems a likely endeavor to outline the

challenges and solutions encountered to help others that may wish to follow along this path.

Design

While the presented concepts of using renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions and save money are

straightforward, in practice, some unforeseen challenges were experienced during the project execution.

The best practices outlined are a result of the trials and errors that occurred along the way.

FIT decided on essentially three steps to achieve carbon reduction. The first, and perhaps the

most effective, was to reduce gas vehicle fuel consumption by the facilities management

department by replacing twelve (12) gas powered vehicles with electric utility vehicles. The

second was involved replacing nine (9) carbureted two stroke engines in the marine operations

department with computer controlled direct injection two strokes. The last step was to install a

solar recharging station for the electric vehicles.

Three ways to achieving money savings and generating revenue resulted from the upgrades. Perhaps the

most obvious savings occurred by switching to electric vehicles thereby using less fuel. The biggest

savings, however, was a reduction in wasted man hours normally spent driving. As an added benefit, the

solar charging station now doubles as a revenue stream by selling electricity back to the power company.

A carbon reduction measure in the Facilities Management Department was the replacement of

pre-2004 model, “Vintage gas guzzlers,” (Figure 1) with electric vehicles. These electric

vehicles are Club Car’s Carry All 6 model, which boasts a 48 volt DC shunt electric motor with a

21 horse peak power output (Figure 2). Each of the vehicles utility boxes was constructed and

customized, in house; to meet the specific needs of the facility worker tasks. Supplies and

equipment are thus kept local to the job site saving time and money.

In the second part of the project FIT replaced nine (9), pre 2000 model, two-stroke, marine

outboard engines with 2009 model Evinrude E-tec outboards with similar horsepower (Figures 3

and 4). These engines use a patented fuel injection technology to greatly improve fuel efficiency

and reduce carbon emissions.

The final energy conservation measure was the installation of a 9.6 kW solar photovoltaic system

installed on the roof of a 24’ x 192’ x 7’ covered Electric Utility Vehicle (EUV) charging and

storage facility erected in the southwest corner of FIT’s main campus (Figure 5).

Figure 1 shows a pre-2004 gas vehicle Figure 2 two customized electric utility vehicles

Figure 3 pre-2000 outboard engine Figure 4 90 HP E-tec replacement outboards engines

Implementation

The discreet processes from beginning to end were impromptu inspection, negotiation towards a

formal P2 plan, begin marine operations repower simultaneously with electric vehicle purchases,

construction of solar recharging facility, power company inspection, commencement of follow

up study, and finally a FDEP walkthrough. The total time to complete this evolution was three

years and five months.

Negotiations between FIT and the FDEP began immediately after the inspection on February 14,

2007. By December 22, 2008, the final P2 plan whose scope was considerably in excess of that

required by FDEP was agreed upon.

When marine operations repowering began on January 22, 2009, it was decided to complete each

marine repower individually as shipments of new engines arrived instead of all at once as

originally planned. This allowed for uninterrupted marine operations for FIT. After repowering

Figure 5 completed solar charging facility

of the first seven boats was completed, it was discovered that a remaining trade-in credit from

the original used outboard engines existed. It was decided to apply this towards the repowering

of two additional vessels and the installation of an I-command remote fuel metering

instrumentation, which was found to provide the most useful data set during the follow up study.

Permitting delays proved to be the most time consuming facet of this project. The approximated

eighteen (18) weeks, from Jan 22 – June 22, 2009, to complete a solar facility, including grid tie-

in, was extended due to permitting delays. Actual work could not begin until permitting approval

on June 26, 2009. The total amount of time required for the erection of the shed and solar panel

installation was approximately five (5) months from June 26 to October 23, 2009. At that point

electric vehicles could be charged during daylight hours, but no power was being supplied to

offset peak consumption. An additional six (6) months of wait time occurred for the power

company’s availability to install power metering and grid tie-in capability. After completion,

however, it was found that the incorrect metering system was installed by the power company

and the power company’s next availability was three (3) months later. FIT began supplementing

local electric demand once the correct meter was installed on July 19, 2010 at the going rate per

kilowatt hour. Negotiations of reduced power rates for FIT, during off peak conditions, as of

January 2011, continue.

Commencement of a follow up study to measure the effectiveness of the P2 project began on

January 15, 2010. The study was performed by an FIT ocean renewable energy graduate student

for nine months. The results verified, albeit not refereed journal quality because of reasons

mentioned in the retrospect section below, the effectiveness of carbon emissions reduction and

money savings.

Benefits

Ultimately, the benefits gained from this practice can be quantified by lower carbon emissions to

the environment, cost savings in fuel and labor, and revenue from renewable energy.

In summary, taking 12 gas vehicles out of service reduced FITs carbon emissions by 16.7

Ton/year and, assuming a 20% daily charge requirement based on user testimony, the EUV

charging costs 5 Ton/year, therefore, FIT realized an 11.7 Ton/year reduction as a result of

vehicle replacement. The PV system reduced 5.3 tons of carbon leaving FIT’s overall carbon

emissions reduction, as a result of the P2 Solar Electric Vehicle Project as 17 Tons/year. This

total does not include results of the P2 marine repowering project. Repowering 9 vessels,

inconclusively, reduced carbon emissions by 6.9 Ton/year and probably saved around $1500.00

in fuel and oil costs. The combined benefit to FIT as a result of the best practice is estimated to

be a twenty four (24) ton reduction in carbon emission, nineteen thousand five hundred

($19,500.00) dollars in fuel and twelve thousand (12,000) man hours in labor costs per year.

After the combined outlay of just over three hundred seventy thousand ($370,000.00) dollars, a

simple payback schedule is estimated at less than three years, varying mostly with employee

salary and local fuel prices.

Retrospect

While some academic merit was imposed on the follow up study, perhaps the only shortfall of

the P2 plan was its failure to exploit many interesting opportunities that could benefit students.

Many educational applications in areas such as architecture, design, project management,

electrical engineering, pollution chemistry, etc. could be incorporated into future projects.

Following that note, some lessons learned during the follow up study are presented here.

Almost immediately, it became obvious that, due to the nature of renewable energy technologies,

power monitoring systems need to be automated to ensure accurate data sets. Figure 6 presents a

layout of the installed solar energy system and feasible location for an effective power sub

metering station. Baseline data sets for powered loads, fuel economy and solar climate were

decided to be essential for accurate and conclusive comparisons.

These shortcomings, however, were unavoidable given the nature of the P2 project’s origin. If it

had been designed as a scientific study from the beginning, having time to collect more

preliminary control data and establish effective collection methods, conclusive technical results

could have been expected. Instead, most of the comparisons were extrapolated from what useful

empirical data could be obtained during the brief follow up study and existing accounting records

of the impacted operations. While the initial plan was good, in retrospect, logistics could have

gone smoother with the newly obtained knowledge of permitting process delays, negotiations

needed to establish a working relationship with FDEP oversight teams, and now, a template to

follow. A general list of tips is given below that might help ensure a smoother transition to

renewable energy.

Assess carbon inventory and begin tracking emissions ASAP. You can never have too much data.

Figure 6 A simple schematic of solar electric configuration showing the ideal location for submetering

Apply for permits to build anything first as this takes the longest.

Establish a relationship with the Power Company and plan, if possible, up to a year in advance for

reverse metering installations.

Design scientific studies and incorporate students before hand to provide academic opportunities.

Meter, meter, meter! Automate sub-metering processes. One cannot stress the importance of

accurately quantified data sets.

As this project continues at Florida Tech, these practices will be followed. The reduction in

annual; carbon emissions (24 tons), labor costs (12,000 man hours), fuel savings of $19,500 and

the new revenue stream from generated solar electricity made these P2 best practices a

surprisingly positive experience (less than 3 year simple pay-back with ongoing benefits) that

other Universities could implement and benefit from.