Bluleprint for a Green Campus (2001 Update)
Table of Contents | Introduction | Climate-Friendly Campus | Growing Without Increasing Traffic | Safe/Healthy Campus | Consumption and Disposal Habits | 2002 Blueprint Update | Original Blueprint
Creating
a Climate-Friendly Campus
The Vision
CU commits to meet the emissions reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol,
which would reduce CU's greenhouse gas emissions by seven percent below
1990 levels by 2010.
The Blueprint committee asked that an emissions inventory be completed
prior to deciding whether to adopt the goal. A team of student researchers
have completed the inventory which shows that emissions have increased
by nine percent. However, alternative assumptions could be made that significantly
affect this conclusion. It is also important to consider that emissions
would be far higher without the 1991 conversion of the steam plant to
a high efficiency co-generation facility. Please see the attached inventory.
Progress
Within the Past Year
Wind Power Purchase
Students voted last spring to increase their fees by $1 a semester for
the next four years to purchase wind power for the University. This is
enough money ($50,000 per year) to purchase the output of an entire wind
turbine (2 million kWh/year). The emissions saved are approximately 567
tons of carbon, 7 tons of sulfur dioxide and 5 tons of nitrogen oxide.
Energy Efficiency
Facilities Management has recently been funded by the Chancellor to implement
a lighting upgrade for fifteen general fund buildings on campus including
Norlin Library, the Koenig Alumni Center and the Engineering Center. The
carbon savings for this lighting upgrade project will be approximately
921 tons.
Facilities Management has also purchased nine new "alternative" vehicles
in the past year including four metro micro vans (gas), 3 Mitsubishi's
(gas), and 2 Club Cars" (electric). Two older Mitsubishi's were also refurbished
and returned to service. The department now has a total of 20 alternative
vehicles.
Additionally, a Utilities Master Plan Committee has been created to look
into three options to bring/create more power on campus to fulfill campus
energy needs.
The Department of Housing has also taken significant steps towards reducing
energy use. Student rooms in Farrand and Aden were equipped with individual
heat controls, and the buildings systems were "rezoned" to more appropriately
deliver steam where it is needed. Incandescent lights were replaced with
fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts in the Farrand lounges. This
project improved lighting quality and realized an approximate energy savings
of seven percent. In Cheyenne-Arapaho, 90-watt incandescent hallway lighting
has been replaced with 32-watt fluorescent T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts.
In Family Housing, space heating and domestic water heating energy has
been saved as a result of installing more efficient, staged boilers at
Newton Court. The new boilers use roughly 60% less energy than the original
boilers. Insulation levels were increased from R-3 to R-36 in the new
roofs on two Smiley Buildings. A combination of approximately 300 higher-efficiency
refrigerators and stoves replaced older appliances. In the Service and
Administration areas the insulation level was increased from R-7 to R-51
in the new roof on the College Inn.
A resolution supporting energy efficiency on campus and expanded use
of renewable energy was approved by the UCSU Environmental Board and University
of Colorado Student Union Legislative Council, and unanimously "applauded
and strongly supported" by the Boulder Campus Planning Commission. The
Resolution is attached as an appendix to this section.
Plans for
Upcoming Year
Facilities Management is looking to purchase a street-legal electric
"GEM" car this spring. Housing has several plans, including
installing about 150 new appliances in Family Housing. Housing also plans
to work with Transportation Services and the Alternative Transportation
Coordinator to consider the feasibility of phasing in the replacement
of service vehicles with cleaner vehicles. Also, they will investigate
purchase options for an alternative-fuel vehicle for employees needing
to travel between East and Main Campus.
Students will continue to work with the energy resolution as a tool for
gathering support from several major departments on campus and the Boulder
Faculty Assembly for energy efficiency on campus.
New Issues
With increasing gas prices, the current energy crisis in California,
and a new administration actively pushing for increased drilling on public
lands, energy issues have entered the public arena and dialogue with new
vigor.
Universities and companies around the world are continuing to make energy
reduction and efficiency a priority, despite the inability of several
countries' representatives to come to agreement on the Kyoto Protocol.
For example, the presidents of all 56 colleges and universities in New
Jersey as well as 13 other New Jersey organizations and businesses endorsed
a Sustainability Greenhouse Gas Action Plan for New Jersey. The plan calls
for a 3.5 percent reduction below 1990 levels in the state's greenhouse
gas emissions by the year 2005. By signing onto the plan, the signers
commit to the implementation of voluntary programs and initiatives to
accomplish the plan's goal. (Go to http://www.ramapo.edu/njheps
or http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/gcc/gcc.htm
for more information on the New Jersey commitment.)
In addition, Oberlin College has begun a 20/20 project that has the goal
of reaching campus-wide climate neutrality by the year 2020. Climate neutrality
means having a net total of emissions for the college equal to zero. To
do this, the campus has created an emissions inventory of all greenhouse
gases emitted through the college and secondary sources. They are now
working to create several scenarios to reach climate neutrality which
include reducing emissions, increasing efficiency and using alternative
sources or energy. To offset the emissions produced, some ideas are to
look into carbon sequestration or projects helping other businesses in
the area to reduce their emissions. When the report of scenarios for climate
neutrality is completed, the College will decide what actions to take.
(Go to http://www.oberlin.edu/~envs/2020proj/home.htm
for more information on the Tufts 20/0 Project.)
At CU, students and staff are working with Off-Campus Housing to actively
distribute wind power information to students looking for apartments off
campus. Students are also working with Housing and making plans to work
with several other departments to buy wind power. In addition, the Boulder
Campus Planning Commission unanimously voted in support of the creation
of an energy/resource committee.
Finally CU's natural gas contract will be ending within the next few
years. As gas prices continue to rise, it may open up an opportunity to
purchase other sources of energy, such as wind power for the campus.
Shortcomings
- The CU administration has not yet agreed to formally adopt the emissions
reduction goal.
- Energy use continues to grow at 4 to 5 percent annually.
Discussion
Topics
- How can individual departments continue to/ and begin to reduce emissions
and decrease energy use?
- There was some discussion in BCPC to create a campus energy or resource
committee. Who should be involved with BCPC's recommended campus energy/resource
committee? What should the focus of the committee be?
Carbon
Emissions Inventory
University of Colorado Boulder Campus
Introduction
In the United States, 98% of carbon dioxide is emitted as the result
of the combustion of fossil fuels. Consequently, carbon dioxide emissions
and energy use are highly correlated. At the University of Colorado, electricity
and steam consumption have increased substantially between 1990 and 1999,
However, the cogeneration plant has also substantially decreased the carbon
output per unit of energy consumed. This inventory compares carbon dioxide
emissions from 1990 and 1999 to see how the cogeneration plant and increased
energy demand has effected emissions.
We calculate it using two different assumptions on the proper valuation
of electricity exported from campus. One assumption shows emissions going
down 7%over the 10 year period ; the other shows emissions going up 9%
during the 1990s. For comparison, electricity use has been going up 4-5%
every year.
Methodology
What this inventory includes:
- CO2 emissions due to heating, cooling, and providing electricity
to campus buildings
- CO2 emissions due campus fleet vehicles
- Carbon equivalent due to leakage of natural gas in pipelines
What this inventory does not include:
- Emissions due to trips to and from campus by faculty and students
in non university vehicles
- Emissions due to burning fuels other than natural gas on campus
- Emissions due to CFC's leaking from cooling systems
- Emissions due to gases other than CO2(except for natural
gas leakage)
A "bubble" was placed around the CU campus. For 1990, this
bubble includes the central steam and chiller plant and all the campus
buildings. For 1999 the bubble now includes the cogeneration plant in
place of the steam plant. Emissions are calculated at each interface of
this bubble, whether energy is entering or leaving the campus. For example,
in 1999-2000, emissions from natural gas are calculated in two places:
1) from natural gas that the cogeneration facility purchases and 2) natural
gas that individual campus buildings purchase. In 1999-2000, emissions
from electricity is actually calculated at three different interfaces:
1) electricity purchased form PSCO by the cogeneration facility, 2) electricity
purchased by PSCO from the cogeneration facility, and 3) electricity
purchased from PSCO from individual campus buildings. The campus is a
net exporter of electricity. There is an unresolved conceptual issue on
the appropriate carbon valuation for power export - should we value the
net export based upon the actual fuel mix for CU power production Public
Service's overall fuel mix, or the fuel used by PSCO for expanding their
generating capacity? Reasonable arguments can be made for each of these,
and this leads to substantial changes in the bottom line.
In 1990, this methodology is much simpler, simply because CU did not
export any electricity before the cogeneration plant was built. Therefore
all emissions are calculated based on energy, either in the form of natural
gas or electricity, entering the "bubble" that represents the
campus. The emissions coefficients used in this inventory assume, of course,
that all natural gas that enters the campus is eventually combusted.
Natural Gas. Natural gas is actually purchased from both the central
plant and individual campus buildings. Emissions were calculated by applying
emission coefficients (obtained from the Department of Energy) to the
amount of gas used at both points.
Electricity. In 1990, emissions from electricity were calculated
by multiplying an emission coefficient by the amount of electricity bought
from the utility. This is based upon the actual fuel mix of Public service
(almost all coal). This methodology was somewhat complicated by the implementation
of the cogeneration plant in 1992. Today, the cogeneration plant provides
most of the campus with electricity in addition to selling back to the
utility. However, the cogeneration plant (as well as several campus buildings)
still purchases electricity from the utility. The emissions due to the
net export of electricity are calculated and credited (subtracted) from
the emissions inventory.
We calculated the emissions credit with two different sets of assumptions.
One methodology is to assume that the net sales from the cogeneration
plant are displacing electricity production that would have been produced
at the average fuel mix of PSCO - overwhelmingly coal. Under this assumption,
total emissions from CU actually drop from 1990-1999 due to the fact that
our relatively low emissions cogeneration plant is displacing relatively
dirty coal burning.
The other approach is to assume that the net exports are replacing electricity
that would have been produced by PSCO in natural gas turbines. The argument
for this assumption is that while the bulk of power production by PSCO
is coal, the marginal production is in natural gas turbines. That
is, the bulk of their new capacity, and the plants whose ouput can rapidly
vary in response to load fluctuations are natural gas power plants. Under
this assumption, total emissions have gone up over the last decade.
Fleet Vehicles. Emissions from campus fleet vehicles were calculated
by multiplying the total number of gallons of gasoline used (obtained
from the Transportation Center) by an emissions coefficient for gasoline.
Carbon Emissions
Summary
University of Colorado
at Boulder
1990
Amount
Unit
Emissions
Equivalent (Tons Carbon)
Natural
Gas Purchases
For Central Steam Plant
634,159
MMBtu
10,115
For Individual Buildings
55,326
MMBtu
882
+ Williams Villiage
60,649
MMBtu
967
Natural Gas Leakage
(0.07%)
525
MMBtu
-
Electricity
Purchases
-- Central Meter
66,024,000
kWh
18,476
-- Other buildings
15,596,910
kWh
4,365
-- Williams Villiage
5,185,600
kWh
1,451
Transportation
Unleaded fuel vehicles
62,410
Gallons
167
Diesel Fuel vehicles
16,133
Gallons
43
Total
1989-1990 Emissions, in US Tons:
36,466
2000
Amount
Unit
Emissions
Equivalent (Tons Carbon)
Cogeneration
Plant
Natural Gas Purchased
By Co-Gen Plant
1,936,341
MMBtu
30,885
Electricity bought from
Public Service Co.*
39,937,364
kWh
Electricity sold to
Public Service Co.*
74,893,631
kWh
Net electricity sold
to Public Service Co.
34,956,267
kWh
(9,310)
(this values net export
at the PSCO fuel mix - primarily coal)
Net electricity sold
to Public Service Co.
34,956,267
kWh
-
(this values net exports
at the marginal fuel use by PSCO - natural gas)
Buildings
not served by Cogen Plant
Electricity bought from
PSCO
3,971,104
kWh
1,058
+ Williams Villiage
5,998,904
kWh
1,598
Natural gas purchased
(non-cogen)
596,402
MMBtu
9,513
+ Williams Villiage
35,575
MMBtu
567
Natural Gas Leakage
(0.07%)
442
MMBtu
-
Transportation
Total Campus Fleet Vehicles
96,878
Gallons
256
Total 1999-2000 Emissions, in
US Tons
(based on valuing electricity exports
as replacing coal generation)
34,567
Percent
Change =
-5.2%
