DRAFT, April 24 –All data are preliminary, need verification

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

Washington University, St. Louis, MO

The Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campusand its

Causality Drivers

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

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. Compare the WU carbon emissions to other Universities

5. Calculate the Potential Cost at Chicago Climate Exchange

Main Causality Drivers of Carbon Impact: Students, Faculty, Staff and their Expenditures

Between 1990-2005 the WU population has fluctuated between 14-16,000 people

Students accounted for about 80 percent of the WU population

Danforth Campus Population

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

Year

# o

f P

eop

le (

tho

usa

nd

s)

Staff Faculty Students

Population Increased 10%Students

Faculty

Staff

University Expendenditures

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

$ (

mill

ion

s),

ad

jus

ted

fo

r in

fla

tio

n

Operational Expendenditures ($)

A measure of WU activities is the expenditure:Research, Academic, Stud. Sup., Physical Plant Between 1990-2005, 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

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

On Campus Energy Use

Kate Nelson

Alyssa Smith

How about the student pics form the WebFac??

Trend (1990-2006) of University Expenditures and Building Area

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% increase

During the 1990-2006 period, the building area (sq ft) has increased by about 60 percent.

On Danforth??

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 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

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 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.

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

Rat

io to

199

0

Emission

$/Student

# Students

$/Sq.Ft

Energy/Sq.Ft.

Energy

Carbon

SqFt

Energy

Expen

FtSq

Student

ExpenStudentsEmission

$

$#

• 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.

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

han

ge

1990

-200

5

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

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

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

• 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

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

Washington University and the Chicago Climate Exchange

Matt Sculnick

Working Toward a Sustainable Transition

Alyssa Smith