1 / 16

Instructors: Professor Rudolf B. Husar, Erin M. Robinson

Class Project Report Sustainable Air Quality, EECE 449/549, Spring 2008 W ashington University, St. Loui, MO Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus Buildings. Students: Devki Desai Martin Groenewegen Tyler Nading Kate Nelson Matt Sculnick Alyssa Smith Varun Yadav.

brent-leonard
Download Presentation

Instructors: Professor Rudolf B. Husar, Erin M. Robinson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Class Project ReportSustainable Air Quality, EECE 449/549, Spring 2008Washington University, St. Loui, MO Carbon Footprint of Danforth Campus Buildings Students: Devki Desai Martin Groenewegen Tyler Nading Kate Nelson Matt Sculnick Alyssa Smith Varun Yadav Instructors: Professor Rudolf B. Husar, Erin M. Robinson For more details see the class wiki

  2. Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint Appliances Fuel Cons. C Emission University Population Activities (Expenditures) Buildings Sq. Ft Heating Fuel Cons. C Emission Cooling Fuel Cons. C Emission Transportation • 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. Causality Framework for University Carbon Footprint Fuel Cons. C Emission University Population Activities (Expenditures) Buildings Sq. Ft Electr. Cons Fuel Cons. C Emission Fuel Cons. Fuel Cons. C Emission Transportation • 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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%.

  8. 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.

  9. Danforth Campus Electric Energy Cons. Transmission Losses • 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. Carbon Emission Summary

  14. Carbon Emission Summary

  15. 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. Both numbers include the airline carbon. • This only includes people with valid zip code given.

  16. 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 air travel by study abroad and athletes

More Related