Initial Analysis of Causality Drivers for University Carbon Footprint

1
Initial Analysis of Causality Drivers for
University Carbon Footprint Danforth Campus
Buildings

• Sustainable Air Quality
• EECE 449/549, Spring 2008
• Devki Desai, Martin Groenewegen, Tyler Nading,
  Kate Nelson,Matt Sculnick Alyssa Smith, Varun
  Yadav
• Instructors Rudy Husar, Erin Robinson

For more details see the class wiki
2
Causality Framework for University Carbon
Footprint
Appliances
mmbtu
Carbon
Students
Activities
Buildings
Heating
mmbtu
Carbon
Sq. Ft.
Cooling
mmbtu
Carbon

• People do activities, which need materials,
  materials need energy and energy produces carbon
  emission.
• Collecting data we can look at historical trends
  and using causality factors we can project
  different scenarios.

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

• 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
  1990-2005 Research expenditures increased by
  100 over the same time period.
• Measure of prosperity.

5
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
  1990-2005.

6
Danforth Campus Size

• Total square feet for the Danforth Campus has
  increased by over 60. Assigned research square
  footage doesnt show a clear trend, however it is
  a small portion of the overall space.
• Total square feet /student increased by almost
  50.

7
Danforth Sq Ft per Total Expenditure

• Between 1990-2005 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.

8
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
  1990-2005.

9
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 its own
  steam plant.

10
Danforth Energy Use Per Sq. Ft.

• Overall Energy Use has fluctuated over the
  1990-2005 period
• Electricity/sq. ft. has increased by more than
  10
• On Campus fuel use shows fluctuation, but no
  increase.

11
Carbon Emission - Danforth Buildings

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

12
Carbon Emission Summary
13
Carbon Emission Summary