Scope 1 Campus Action Report

Abstract

The rising trend in green engineering gives way to advances in new technology and software to better the environment and the people in it. Many companies are choosing to become more environmentally conscious by means of recording a carbon footprint. The University of Toledo has undertaken this sort of responsibility and has collectively calculated their very first carbon foot print. This report will explain what is involved in only a portion of the report pertaining to direct emissions from sources owned by the University of Toledo. The methods as to how the raw data was utilized will be thoroughly explained in the report as well as the software that was used to carry out the necessary calculations. Plans for the future will also be discussed along with a comparison to what may happen if nothing is done about the rising carbon dioxide emissions. The report concludes with a section on reductions which describes a strategy that must be taken in order to lower the school’s carbon emissions.

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Equations

1. Introduction

2. Objectives

3. Methods

3.1 Data Collection

3.2 The Carbon Calculator

3.3 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for on campus coal usage

3.4 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Natural Gas

3.5 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Gasoline

3.6 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Diesel

3.7 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for E85

3.8 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Biodiesel (B20)

3.9 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Fertilizer

3.10 CO2 Equivalence calculation

3.12 Constants used in equations

4. Results

4.1 Summary of collected data

4.2 Emissions

5. Interpretation

6. Projections

7. Reductions

8. Conclusions

9. References

10. Appendix

List of Figures

Figure 1: Baseline and Goals of UT

List of Tables

Table 1: Data Collection Summary

Table 2: Description and Source of Constants

Table 3: Summary of Collected Data for each Year

Table 4: Spreadsheet of data given in MT eCO2

List of Equations

Equation 1: Coal to kg CO2

Equation 2: Coal to kg CH4

Equation 3: Coal to kg N2O

Equation 4: Natural Gas to kg CO2

Equation 5: Natural Gas to kg CH4

Equation 6: Natural Gas to kg N2O

Equation 7: Gasoline to kg CO2

Equation 8: Gasoline to kg CH4

Equation 9: Gasoline to kg N2O

Equation 10: Diesel to kg CO2

Equation 11: Diesel to kg CH4

Equation 12: Diesel to kg N2O

Equation 13: E85 to kg CO2

Equation 14: E85 to CH4

Equation 15: E85 to N2O

Equation 16: Biodiesel to kg CO2

Equation 17: Biodiesel to kg CH4

Equation 18: Biodiesel to kg N2O

Equation 19: Fertilizer to kg N2O

Equation 22: Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalence

1.Introduction

The rising popularity in sustainable engineering has inspired many companies to take action in order to monitor their impact on the environment. The most common and rather effective way of monitoring a company’s impact is to create what is known as a carbon footprint. A carbon footprint organizes all of the different types of sources that may cause carbon emissions. The University of Toledo has decided to create their own carbon footprint in order to better monitor their emissions. With the carbon footprint data, the university will better be able to plan for the future and be more aware of its current and future impact on the environment. They could choose where there is too much carbon dioxide being emitted and how to lower the emissions. In addition, the university can then compare its own emissions to that of neighboring schools of various sizes and locations. This could help them in knowing the amount of impact that the school causes compared to other schools.

Before any emissions can be lowered, the school must first decide where to draw all of their data from. Carbon emissions are categorized in three main categories: large stationary sources, utilities, and the student and staff impacts. Each category is labeled with its respective scope number in order to differentiate between the three. For the purpose of this report, only scope 1 will be discussed in its entirety.

Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from sources that are owned by the University of Toledo. Within scope 1 there are four major aspects that were addressed. The very first aspect is an on-campus co-generation plant. This usually would include a power plant that creates electricity and heat; however the University of Toledo does not have such a plant and will not be considered within the data. The second aspect of scope 1 is any on-campus stationary sources. The university does actually have a stationary power source. The steam plant powered by coal is the only stationary power/heat source. The third aspect includes direct transportation sources. Direct transportation sources include, but are not limited to public buses, maintenance vehicles and police vehicles owned and operated by the University of Toledo. Within this aspect, all different types of fuels that power these vehicles also are considered because of their different impacts. The final aspect within scope 1 is refrigerants and chemicals as well as agricultural sources. Refrigerants and chemicals include any chemicals that are used in refrigerators and freezers and any other sort of cooling device. The agricultural source on the University campus is very small and will have a rather small impact on the carbon footprint. Hopefully by forming this carbon footprint, the University of Toledo can successfully lower their harmful impact on the environment and be an influential model to other companies aspiring to lower their carbon emissions.

2. Objectives

The goal of the scope 1 study was to collect resource usage data from the campus power plant, direct transportation, and agricultural sources, estimate the emissions from these sources using a previously developed campus carbon calculator (Clean Air Cool Planet, 2009), and interpret these results as well as provide recommendations for emission reductions and make projections for future emissions.

3. Methods

3.1 Data Collection

Data collection for scope 1 was somewhat difficult. A summary of data collected is shown in Table 1. The natural gas usage amounts were provided by Harvey Vershum of Plant Operations for the University of Toledo. The direct transportation data for the university was provided by Steven Wise from the transportation department. The University of Toledo no longer uses refrigerants and is phasing out their usage. There is data on the fertilizer used by the university. This data was provided by Matthew Hemming, who is the grounds foreman for the University of Toledo. There also are no animal sources of emissions on the University of Toledo’s campus.

Table 1: Data Collection Summary

3.2 The Carbon Calculator

An excel spreadsheet based campus carbon calculator (Clean Air Cool Planet, 2009) was used to estimate the emissions. The campus carbon calculator converts the raw data to carbon emissions. The calculator also illustrates how much carbon is emitted from each source and gives a carbon, “footprint”.

3.3 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for on campus coal usage

Purchased electricity is very costly and it can be assumed that the University of Toledo’s power plant doesn’t produce enough electricity to meet the daily demand of the university. The power plant supplements purchased electricity from Toledo Edison saving the university revenue. The University of Toledo currently uses only natural gas as a fuel for the power plant on campus, however at the start of scope 1’s research it was believed that coal was also used as a fuel for the steam generation plant. The following equations were initially provided for converting coal usage in short tons to kg CO2, kg CH4, and kg NO2.

Equation 1: Coal to kg CO2

Equation 2: Coal to kg CH4

Equation 3: Coal to kg N2O

3.4 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Natural Gas

Greenhouse gas emissions due to on campus natural gas usage were estimated using equations 4, 5, and 6:

Equation 4: Natural Gas to kg CO2

Equation 5: Natural Gas to kg CH4

Equation 6: Natural Gas to kg N2O

The University of Toledo currently uses 4 types of fuel in its fleet vehicles: Gasoline, Diesel, E85 and Biodiesel 20. Each fuel sources has a set of equations converting from gallons to kg CO2, kg CH4, and kg NO2.

3.5 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Gasoline

Greenhouse gas emissions due to fleet vehicle gas usage were estimated using equations 7, 8, and 9:

Equation 7: Gasoline to kg CO2

Equation 8: Gasoline to kg CH4

Equation 9: Gasoline to kg N2O

3.6 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Diesel

Greenhouse gas emissions due to fleet vehicle diesel usage were estimated using equations 10, 11, and 12:

Equation 10: Diesel to kg CO2

.

Equation 11: Diesel to kg CH4

Equation 12: Diesel to kg N2O

3.7 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for E85

Greenhouse gas emissions due to fleet vehicle E85 usage were estimated using equations 13, 14, and 15:

Equation 13: E85 to kg CO2

Equation 14: E85 to CH4

Equation 15: E85 to N2O

3.8 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Biodiesel (B20)

Greenhouse gas emissions due to fleet vehicle biodiesel usage were estimated using equations 16, 17, and 18:

Equation 16: Biodiesel to kg CO2

Equation 17: Biodiesel to kg CH4

Equation 18: Biodiesel to kg N2O

3.9 Greenhouse gas emission calculations for Fertilizer

Equation 19 was used to convert pounds of fertilizer (synthetic or organic) into kg N20.

Equation 19: Fertilizer to kg N2O

The input in pounds can be synthetic or organic.

3.10 CO2 Equivalence calculation

Once the kg CO2, kg CH4, and kg N2O have been calculated for each fuel source they are then summed together to get a total kg CO2, kg CH4, and kg N2O. These totals are then used in the Mega Tons of CO2 equivalence Equation 22 to estimate total emissions from the university.

Equation 20: Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalence

(

3.12 Constants used in equations

Table 2 is a summary of each constant in the conversation equations. This table also gives the source and brief description of what each constant means.

Table 2: Description and Source of Constants

4. Results

4.1 Summary of collected data

Table3 Summarizes the data collected for each resource broken down into each year. It can be seen that over the past three years, the natural gas MMBtu values have been on an increasing trend. The gasoline usage increased from 2007 to 2008 and then decreased slightly from 2008 to 2009. The biodiesel (B20) usage has generally decreased over the past three years. When it comes to the agricultural data, fertilizer usage has remained constant over the past three fiscal years.

Table 3: Summary of Collected Data for each Year

4.2 Emissions

Table 4on the next page is a summary spreadsheet of Scope 1’s data, showing the MTeCO2 of the campus’s energy sources.The first column refers to the amount of emissions released on campus by the consumption of natural gas. This is deemed a stationary source because the natural gas is actually bought and then burned on campus for steam generation making it a stationary source of emissions. As the table shows the amount of natural gas purchased is very dependent on the winter weather and will continue to fluctuate from year to year. When looking at the eCO2 values for direct transportation, the emissions decreased between 2007 and 2008 and then increased from 2008 to 2009. The term “direct transportation” refers to the emissions due to the gasoline fleet vehicles. When looking at the eCO2 emissions in the biogenic category, it can be seen that the values decreased from 2007 to 2008 and then increased slightly from 2008 to 2009. The category of “biogenic” refers to the fleet of vehicles operating on biodiesel. The agricultural eCO2 emissions have remained at a constant 7.5 MT eCO2 over the past three fiscal years.

Table 4: Spreadsheet of data given in MT eCO2

5. Interpretation

There is much to be learned from the current collected data. By looking at the past, we can begin to predict the future based on the trend set forth within the previous years. Issues that may not currently seem detrimental can be viewed on a large scale to see the “big picture.” The results of the data and projections will make it appropriately easy to compare The University of Toledo to other schools of like size. Also, this data will help to illustrate the areas on campus where there is the biggest concern. It will demonstrate not only which value is highest but also the proportion to the area on campus that uses the most of that resource. We can then begin to see the problem for what it is and where it will need to be addressed. The collected data will also represent our current attempts to reduce the use of certain products and energies.

The data demonstrates that the University of Toledo is currently using many resources in excess. One of these includes natural gas which accounts for the university uses for steam generation. This is a problem because it is a limited resource that not only is very costly monetarily, but also is very costly and harmful to the environment by causing a major greenhouse gas problem. Table 3 accurately represents the amount of eCO2 that the university has used over the past 3 fiscal years. The numbers do not immediately send up a red flag, but upon closer review, the numbers can be found to be drastically increasing every year. In fact, there has been a 10% increase within the last three years in stationary source carbon usage. On a good note, however, Table 3demonstrates that the amount of agricultural emissions due to fertilizerappplication is rather low and not increasing with time. The past three fiscal years have seen a constant 7.5 MT of eCO2emission. Also, transportation due to the university’s bus fleet and maintenance vehicles can be found to be very constant over the past three years.

The university does have a vast transportation fleet including a number of buses, transit vans, and maintenance trucks. The carbon data for these vehicles can be viewed in Table 3. Even with the immense usage by these vehicles, the carbon output by these vehicles accounts for a small percentage of the university’s overall carbon footprint. This is most likely because the bus fleet the university now uses is run solely on biodiesel and. This greatly reduces the overall impact compared to a traditional gas or regular diesel fleet that the university used to utilize. Also, it needs to be understood that by incorporating this mass-transit system, the carbon footprint due to commuters and individual drivers is greatly decreased. One evil is definitely better than the other.

Compared to Ohio University, which is roughly the same size, having 20,672 students to Toledo’s 25,280, Toledo has a much smaller carbon footprint in scope 1. Ohio University uses 69,331 metric tons of eCO2 on stationary sources to generate power. That number seems astronomical compared to Toledo’s emissions of 18,193.0 metric tons of eCO2 in the same category. That is a 365% larger emission rate per student compared to The University of Toledo. Even though Toledo’s carbon footprint in stationary sources is lower than Ohio University, the number is still higher than desirable. The large amount of eCO2 in stationary sources can somewhat be contributed to the fact that UT is largely a science/engineering school with many of its buildings having vast labs and equipment that require a constant yearly temperature for use. This makes sense, and perhaps it is those buildings that will need to be looked at closest to decide how the steam consumption can be reduced.

The University of Toledo also outputs much less carbon due to university owned transportation than Ohio University. Toledo uses 1078.9 metric tons of eCO2 compared to Ohio’s 1243 metric tons of eCO2 in this area. That is a 41% higher emission rate per student compared to the University of Toledo. Perhaps it is the density of the campus that plays a role in this category. The University of Toledo Main Campus is rather dense and requires less bus traffic and shorter routes which would require less carbon output.

According to the numbers, The University of Toledo has emitted 7.5 metric tons of eCO2 during each of the past three years, when factoring in agricultural sources such as fertilizer Ohio University emits 17 metric tons of eCO2. That is a 196% higher emission rate per student compared to The University of Toledo. Once again, this makes sense due to the density of the campus. With a more compact space, Toledo requires less fertilizer for landscaping because there is less total landscaping.

The University of Toledo has recognized the need for more sustainable methods such as implementing wind and solar power to help reduce the amount of electricity that is purchased from off campus sources. If these practices continue, the current carbon numbers will get better. If the correct measures are taken, as intended, The University of Toledo will eventually become a self-sufficient site and hopefully, a role-model for others to follow.