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

Washington University Carbon Footprint Transportation On Campus Students heat cool appliances Fac/Staff

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Buildings Each of the boxes is a physical quantity that can be measured and tracked Looking at the causality factor trends the relationship between the parameters is established. 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-hrCarbon/BTU

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Buildings 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 $/Student Sq. Ft./$BTU/Sq.Ft. Kw-hr/Sq.Ft. BTU/Kw-hrCarbon/BTU

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Buildings The campus size in sq. ft. and expenditures increased at about the same rate. Therefore the change was insignificant. 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 $/Student Sq. Ft./$ BTU/Sq.Ft. Kw-hr/Sq.Ft. BTU/Kw-hrCarbon/BTU

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Buildings The on campus fuel: coal, oil, natural gas The fuel used/sq ft. has fluctuated. The dip after 1993 was caused by system upgrades 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-hrCarbon/BTU

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Buildings 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-hrCarbon/BTU

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Buildings 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). 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

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Buildings Each fuel has Carbon/BTU ratio The overall carbon emission for buildings has increased 70% from 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

Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint - Buildings Each fuel has Carbon/BTU ratio The overall carbon emission for buildings has increased 60% from 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

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

Carbon Emission – University Cumulative plot of campus emissions. Electricity is the main component followed by on campus fuel usage and transportation. Carbon Emissions have increased almost 60% from 1990 to 2005.

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

University Expenditures Adjusted for inflation… Expenditures include Instruction, Research, Academic, Student and Institutional support, Scholarships/Fellowships, Operation and Maintenance of Physical Plant University Expenditures increased by 70% between ; Research expenditures increased by 100% over the same time period. Measure of prosperity.

University Expenditures per Student Since fluctuations in population are due to the student population magnitude and fluctuation, student pop. is used as a normalizer. $/Student have increased by over 50% between

Danforth Campus Size Total square feet for the Danforth Campus has increased by over 60%. Assigned research square footage doesn’t show a clear trend, however it is a small portion of the overall space. Total square feet /student increased by almost 50%.

Danforth Sq Ft per Total Expenditure Between square feet/$ remained constant, decreasing less than 10%. This indicates that the campus size increased at the same rate that the expenditures did. The dramatic decrease of sq feet/$ before 1990 occurred because the expenditures increased at a faster rate than the campus size.

Danforth Campus Electric Energy Cons. 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 Transmission Losses

Danforth Campus Stat. Sources Stationary sources are the on campus fuel used for heating and hot water generation. Fuel used: coal, oil and natural gas. The peak around 1990 may be from not apportioning coal used to the S40. At this time it was also energy intensive to get steam to S40. In 1993 we switch to natural gas AND the S40 got it’s own steam plant.

Danforth Energy Use Per Sq. Ft. Overall Energy Use has fluctuated over the period Electricity/sq. ft. has increased by more than 10% On Campus fuel use shows fluctuation, but no increase.

Carbon Emission – University Cumulative plot of campus emissions. Electricity is the main component followed by on campus fuel usage and transportation. Carbon Emissions for buildings have increased almost 60% from 1990 to 2005.

Carbon Emission Summary

Wash. U. Compared to Other Schools 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.

Wash. U. Compared to Other Schools For Wash. U. Emissions include on campus fuel burned, purchased electricity and transportation for faculty/staff/student commuting (permit/all) and university fleet