UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Transcription

1 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: 3-Nov-2010 I, Neha Sharma, hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Science in Environmental Science It is entitled: Carbon Footprint Accounting Using Various Tools and Techniques, Comparison and Uncertainties. Student Signature: Neha Sharma This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: Timothy Keener, PhD Timothy Keener, PhD Mingming Lu, PhD Mingming Lu, PhD Joseph H. Harrell, PE, CEM Joseph H. Harrell, PE, CEM 11/10/2010 1,183

2 Carbon Footprint Accounting Using Various Tools and Techniques; Comparison; and Uncertainties A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in the School of Energy, Environmental, Biological and Medical Engineering of the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences By Neha Sharma 2010 Committee Dr. Tim C. Keener (Chair) Dr. Mingming Lu Joseph Harrell

3 ABSTRACT The main objective of this study is to create a baseline emission for University of Cincinnati which will be directly usable information for campus sustainability planning as well as to other research and campus administration professionals implementing sustainability as part of their own planning efforts. Clean Air Cool Planet (CA-CP) Campus Carbon Calculator version 5.0 is the model used for calculating the carbon footprint for the university as a part of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). Various other carbon footprint accounting tools, techniques, and guidelines competitive to CA-CP Campus Carbon Calculator are also used to calculate the carbon footprint of university to ensure credibility of the results from CA-CP Campus Carbon Calculator. Comparisons and evaluations are also done, to know how different techniques impact the final results. The study also helps us determine important parameters which effect the emissions. It also provides a sensitivity analysis on the various data inputs to estimate the impact of the data quality on the results using University of Cincinnati as a test case. It was estimated that on annual basis, University of Cincinnati emits an average of approximately 315,000 MTCO 2 e. Annually there is an approximate increase of 3% since Overall, University of Cincinnati s carbon footprint has increased by 16.5% from 288,723 MTCO 2 e for fiscal year 2004 to 336,273 MTCO 2 e for fiscal year Purchased electricity and on-campus stationary sources are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and comprise 90% of the total carbon footprint for fiscal year A significant difference of 13% was observed between the highest and lowest estimating tools. iii

4

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people who have encouraged and guided my research. I express my deep and sincere gratitude to my academic advisor and mentor, Dr. Tim C. Keener. His guidance, comments, and encouragement were instrumental in completion of my research work. I would also like to thank my committee member and mentor Dr. Mingming Lu for her valuable support and remarks. I would like to thank Joseph Harrell, Utilities Director University of Cincinnati for constant guidance, suggestions, and for serving on my committee. I would also like to acknowledge Maury DuPont for his guidance, immense support and help. I am grateful to Sumana Keener, Andy Porter, Carey Hoffman, Greg Mendell, Thomas Guerin, Denise Gibson, Darlene S Bunton, Bill Duncan, and Mary Mc Cann for providing me with all the necessary data for completion of my research project. I would like to thank my friends and pillar of my life Kunal and Arti for their unconditional support. I would also like to thank my friends Taher, Nikhil Jain, Amit, Nikhil Satish, Karthik, Jaynth, Sathya, Ghazal, Shreya, Abhishek, Rishab, Srinivas, Rachel, Ana, Avani, Bhavna and many more. Last but not the least, I express my gratitude to my loving parents and brothers for their constant inspiration and support. Without their love, affection and encouragement this work would not have been possible. I dedicate my thesis to them. iv

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Introduction 1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1.3 Carbon Neutrality CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW 2.1 University of Cincinnati 2.2 Tools and Techniques Clean Air Cool Planet (CA-CP) Campus Carbon Calculator Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders Program Energy Information Administration The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Climate Neutral Network CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY- UC S CARBON FOOTPRINT 3.1 Global Warming Potential 3.2 Boundary Conditions 3.3 Gathering Data CHAPTER 4 RESULTS v

7 4.1 University Greenhouse Gas Emissions Campus Overview Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sectors 4.2 Comparison of Different Tools 4.3 Comparison with Other Institutions 4.4 Sensitivity Analysis and Uncertainties CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions 5.2 Recommendations References Appendix A. Global warming potential for given time horizon Appendix B. Total input values used for calculation Appendix C. GHG emissions for (MTCO 2 e) fiscal year 2008 by scope and source Appendix D. Conversion factors used by CA-CP campus carbon calculator Appendix E. Comparison of emission factors for different tools Appendix F. Formulas Appendix G. Calculations Appendix H. List of other tools available Appendix I. Appendix J. Abbreviations CA-CP Input Module vi

8 List of Figures 1. Correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature over time 2. Projected surface temperature change by end of 21 st century, based on three emissions scenarios (low, medium, and high growth) 3. Impact of global average temperature change 4. Cumulative change in annual U.S. GHG emissions relative to Inventory Cycle 6. Screenshot of CA-CP campus carbon calculator 7. Trend of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for UC from fiscal years Total GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) versus student full time equivalent 9. Total GHG emissions (kg CO 2 e/ft^2) for total building space 10. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for UC in fiscal year (a) CH 4 emissions (MTCO 2 e) for UC in fiscal year 2008 (b) CO 2 emissions (MTCO 2 e) for UC in fiscal year Comparison of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years by purchased electricity 14. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years by on-campus energy source 15. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year 2008 by different components of transportation 16. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year 2008 by different components of transportation 17. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years by solid waste vii

9 18. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years by refrigerants and other chemicals 19. Comparison of total GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) by different tools and protocols 20. Comparison of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) from purchased electricity by different tools 21. Comparison of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) from on-campus sources by different tools 22. Comparison of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) profile for purchased electricity and on-campus stationary sources 23. Comparison of CO 2 (kg CO 2 ) emissions from coal by different tools and mass balance calculation 24. Comparison of CO 2 emissions (kg CO 2 ) from distillate oil by different tools and mass balance calculation 25. Comparison of CO 2 emissions (kg CO 2 ) from natural gas by different tools and mass balance calculation 26. Sensitivity analysis of different sources of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year Comparison of sensitivity of solid waste and refrigerants on GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year 2008 by scope viii

10 List of Tables 1. Comparison of 100 year global warming potentials IPCC reports 2. Sources of GHG emissions divided into scopes 3. Sources of GHG emissions by category 4. Summary of GHG emissions by category for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year Comparison of CO 2 emissions using various tools and techniques 6. Comparison for GHG emissions for different universities ix

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

12 1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Earth s climate is a dynamic system and gradual changes have been observed many times in the past. Significant rise in earth s surface temperature has been observed in the past few decades. This rise is mainly due to increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases, which are produced due to combination of both increased fossil fuel usage, and deforestation. According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), greenhouse gases are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorbs and emit radiations at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth s surface, the atmosphere itself, and by the clouds, which causes the greenhouse effect [1]. These greenhouse gases mainly include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and ozone (O 3 ) and water vapor [1]. In addition, industrialization and rapid urbanization has increased greenhouse gases, such as the halocarbons and other chlorine and bromine containing substances namely sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6 ), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Halocarbons containing chlorine and bromine also cause the depletion of ozone [2]. Increase in the atmospheric concentrations of all these gases can disturb the equilibrium of energy transfers between the ocean, land, space and the atmosphere [2]. The incoming energy will be significantly more than the outgoing energy, which will result in higher absorption of energy by the earth causing climate change. The concentration of these greenhouse gases is ever increasing with the increasing population, and escalating use of fossil fuels in form of coal, oil and natural gas. For the past 150 years rapid industrialization has disturbed the natural greenhouse gas equilibrium in the atmosphere, disturbing the natural balance on this planet. Consequently, we have increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to the point where climate change (particularly global warming) is inevitable; 2

13 and will continue for more than a millennium, due to the timescale required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. Records of past 420,000 years from Vostok ice core in East Antarctica shows apparent correlation of carbon dioxide in atmosphere with respect to temperature (Figure 1) [3, 4]. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF in the last 100 years [5, 6]. The eleven warmest years on record since 1850 have all Figure 1. Correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature over time [3, 4] 3

14 occurred in last 15 years, with the warmest year being 2005 [7, 8]. If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 3.2 to 7.2ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century [8]. This warming will not be even throughout the surface of the earth (Figure 2). The average rate of global warming Figure 2. Projected Surface temperature change by end of 21 st century, based on three emissions scenarios (low, medium, and high growth) [10]. 4

15 Figure 3. Impact of global average temperature change [9] 5

16 will be twice as compared to the 20 th century. Land and inhabited area are going to experience more warming in comparison with oceans and water bodies as water has more ability to store the heat [10]. This major shift in temperature will have a huge impact on environment and humans. Human health, agriculture, forest, bio-reserves, sanctuaries, energy production, and all other climate sensitive systems will be adversely affected. In Figure 3 we can see impact of global average temperature change, the black lines link impacts and the broken lines indicate impacts continuing with increasing temperature [9]. Global warming will also cause a major shift in weather patterns and climate by causing world-wide sea level rise, arctic ice shelve shrinkage, glacial retreat, changes in the amount of precipitation, droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events [11]. 1.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The United States is one of the major emitter of greenhouse gases and the emissions are increasing annually. Until 2006, U.S. was the top emitter, a place now occupied by China. In 2007, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 7,150.1 teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents (Tg CO 2 e) [10]. According to the EPA report [12], the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have raised by 17 percent from 1990 to 2007, and carbon dioxide emissions grew up by 20.3 percent (1,026.7 Tg CO 2 e) during the same period. From 2006 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased from 952 Tg CO 2 e to 1051 Tg CO 2 e accounting for 1.4 percent rise [12]. In the Figure 4, we can see the increase in greenhouse gas emissions relative to Extensive use of fossil fuels for production of electricity and transportation is the major cause for this increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The population of U.S. accounts for 5 percent of the world s total population but disproportionately consumes about 25 percent of the world s energy (13). 6

17 Figure 4. Cumulative change in annual U.S. GHG emissions relative to 1990 [12]. Extensive worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and to minimize global warming had been taken. Formation of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1998 was the first worldwide effort towards awareness of climate change and global warming. IPCC was formed by United Nations Environment Programme and World Meteorological Organization; and has a panel of over 2000 scientists from all over the world working and analyzing all the scientific data pertaining to climate change. IPCC presented their first Assessment Report in Geneva in 1990, which created awareness across the world to protect and cope from the effects of climate change. An international treaty, United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the result of the first Assessment Report presented by IPCC. The Kyoto Protocol is one of the first collective steps towards abatement of greenhouse gases. It is a protocol to the UNFCCC and calls for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below the level of 1990 by 2012 [14]. The objective is to achieve, "stabilization of the greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic 7

18 interference with the climate system" [15]. Till date 187 countries signed and ratified this agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention. Although, U.S. has not ratified the protocol, but the standards for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is set to be 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 [16]. The target covers six types of greenhouse gases; namely carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. Apart from the concern at a global scale a tremendous concern has been shown at Universities level too, as university campuses are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) was established in collaboration with Association for the Advancement of sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), Second Nature and ecoamerica, which encourages institutions and universities to minimize greenhouse gas emissions; and to be cleaner greener. ACUPCC realized the tremendous potential higher education in United States has, as there are about 17 million students, 1.7 million faculty and about 1.8 million staff people enrolled and employed [17]. This massive number of students, faculty and staff comprises of 6.5 percent of the United States total population and has about $320 billion budget [17]. It is estimated that all the institutes of higher education in United States emit about 42,389,967 MTeCO 2 for the year 2008 [17]. Substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is possible if all the university and colleges in United States commits to ACUPCC commitment. Six hundred sixty seven universities and colleges have signed the commitment, and are on way to becoming carbon neutral. By signing off this commitment a college abides to complete the following actions: Completing an emissions inventory; [18] 8

19 Within two years, setting a target date and interim milestones for becoming climate neutral; [18] Taking immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by choosing from a list of short-term actions; [18] Integrating sustainability into the curriculum and making it part of the educational experience; [18] Making the action plan, inventory and progress reports publicly available [18]. 1.3 CARBON NEUTRALITY Carbon neutrality refers to the zero emission of greenhouse gases. That does not mean the elimination of all carbon emissions; the net emissions and gross emissions being the two different aspects. Gross emissions are the sum of all emissions released, whereas net emissions are equivalent to the gross emissions minus any carbon offset. One can be carbon neutral by offsetting the carbon produced. A carbon offset is an activity that reduces carbon emissions, in order to exactly compensate for a carbon emitting activity elsewhere [18]. To achieve this it is essential to first take an inventory of the emissions, so as to monitor the carbon emissions and plan accordingly. The carbon footprint can be reduced by reducing the amount of energy usage; mainly through a variety of energy efficiency measures or by purchasing carbon offsets. Many corporations like Dell, Google, HSBC, PepsiCo, Tesco have shown intend to become fully carbon neutral. Carbon footprint is the net amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted. It generally includes, direct and indirect emission sources. Direct emissions must be reduced and offset completely, while indirect emissions from purchased electricity can be 9

20 reduced with renewable energy purchases. Both individual and organization level reduction of greenhouse gases is really important to become carbon neutral. 10

21 CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW 11

22 2.1 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI University of Cincinnati (UC) is one of the biggest universities in Ohio. It is the largest employer in the Cincinnati region, with an economic impact of more than $3 billion [19]. UC is advancing and growing each year in the field of research, building space, number of students and employees. About 5,000 students graduate each year, adding more than 200,000 living alumni around the world. In the revised budget of fiscal year 2008, it is mentioned that the total expenditure for uptown campus and all the branch campuses for fiscal year 2008 was $981,492,000 [20]. Most of the expenditure is on instruction and general education which is 30 percent of the total expense. The second highest expense was for research and accounts for 17 percent of the total expense. The majority of the other expenses were nearly the same size, representing the remaining 53 percent of the total expenses. Enrollment number are going up every year, fall 2007 brought UC its largest first-year class in 16 years, while fall 2008 enrollment hits an 18 years record at over 37,000. The number of transfer students also increased by about 20 percent for the same year [21]. In fiscal year 2008, UC had a total student population of nearly 30,000 students, a faculty size of 3,300 and staff and administration of almost 12,000 [22, 23]. Altogether the total UC population was 44,505 individuals who attended, taught or worked at the University. These people go to different buildings spread across the University s campus. University campus has been renovated for past many years. A lot of buildings have been demolished and significant amount of new environment friendly buildings have been constructed all across the East and West Campus. The buildings on East and West Campus in fiscal year 2008 after all demolition and construction represent 12,574,783 Gross Square Feet (GSF) of area and total research building space of 795,371 square feet [24]. 12

23 University of such a big population and area size requires a lot of energy to power their buildings, labs, equipment s and computers. UC uses several types of energy to power its campus. The energy budget including all expenditures related to the purchase of electricity and of raw fuel for the generation of onsite energy was about $24,475,705 for fiscal year 2008 [25]. Portion of electricity and natural gas is supplied from Duke Energy Corporation. Rest of the electricity and other utility services like heating, cooling etc are provided by the power plant oncampus. UC s cogeneration power plant was constructed and is functional since June 2004, before that all the energy was purchased from Cinergy (now called Duke Energy Corporation). There are two power plants at UC: Central Utility Power Plant (CUP) and East Campus Power Plant. These two power plants burn a variety of fuels such as natural gas, oil and coal efficiently and serve UC s campuses and six hospitals. Natural gas is the most used fuel as the source of energy at oncampus power plant. Services include: 1) Production of over 864,237 k-lbs of steam mainly for heating; 2) 58 million ton hours of chilled water for air conditioning; 3) 817 million gallons of water; and 4) Over 293 million kilowatt hours of electricity [26]. It is evident that UC uses quite a lot of resources throughout the year in order to support the activities of 44,505 people at UC. This will result in greenhouse gas emissions which will also be called carbon footprint for University of Cincinnati. Term greenhouse gas emissions will be frequently used instead of carbon footprint in following chapters, as greenhouse gas emissions more appropriately covers all the greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas emissions term has also been extensively used in various protocols, treaties, guidelines and tools. Some of these tools and techniques are used in our study and will be explained in the following chapters. 13

24 2.2 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES A great number of tools, methodologies, techniques, models and software are available to calculate the carbon footprint. IPCC has published four assessment report and various guidelines and methodologies to calculate GHG emissions, technical papers and various reports. They also establish and maintain emission factors and global warming potential for gases. IPCC has three working groups and one task force [27]. Three working groups respectively take account of science of climate change; impacts, adaptation and vulnerability and mitigation of climate change in details. Task force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) works on developing GHG methodologies, tools, and software [27]. The main objective of IPCC team is to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to the understanding of human induced climate change, potential impacts of climate change and options for mitigation and adaptation [27, 28]. IPCC provides guidelines and methodologies for national greenhouse gas emissions, but the standards and some of the methods are widely used by corporate sector and others to calculate their emissions. They also form the base for many tools and software which are widely used to perform greenhouse gas emission inventory. There are mainly three steps involved in an inventory. First and foremost being data collection. This is the most difficult and important part of inventory. It is very difficult to decide which sources to include, as sometimes double counting can take place. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resource Institute (WBCSD/WRI) jointly established a set of accounting standards that helps in identifying operational boundaries for institutions to scope their sources of emissions in order to provide accountability for prevention of double counting or conversely, double credits [29]. These scopes are following: 14

25 Scope 1 - includes all direct sources of greenhouse gas emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by your institution, including (but not limited to): production of electricity, heat, or steam; transportation or materials, products, waste, and community members; and fugitive emissions (from unintentional leaks) [29]. Scope 2 - includes greenhouse emissions from imports of electricity, heat or steam generally those associated with the generation of imported sources of energy [29]. Scope 3 - includes all other indirect sources of greenhouse emissions that may result from the activities of the institution but occur from sources owned or controlled by another company, such as: business travel, outsourced activities and contracts, emissions from waste generated by the institution when the greenhouse emissions occur at a facility controlled by another company, for example, methane emissions from waste landfill, and the commuting habits of community members [29]. Five tools and techniques were used by University of Cincinnati to estimate their carbon footprint. These tools and techniques will be discussed in the following section: Clean Air Cool Planet (CA-CP) Campus Carbon Calculator The organization Clean Air Cool Planet (CA-CP) was formed in It is one of the leading organizations working on finding and promoting solution to global warming [30]. They are working with a large number of universities, companies and communities in order to help them calculate and reduce their carbon footprint. The organization also educates their partners, regional opinion leaders and stakeholders about the impact of global warming, solutions on reduction of carbon emissions, economic opportunities and environmental benefits associated with early actions on climate change [30]. They launched their campus greenhouse gas inventory 15

26 tool in July 2001 in partnership with University of Hampshire (30). A team consisting of graduate student, faculty and staff from University of Hampshire developed the spreadsheet template to measure carbon footprint for their university. Since then this tool has been progressively improved. Along with the tool CA-CP also provided a number of reports and case studies on climate actions done by leading corporate organizations and colleges to mitigate their carbon emissions. Two different tool kits, campus climate action toolkit and small town carbon calculator are provided by CA-CP respectively for campuses and community purpose. Campus climate action toolkit for campuses contains guidelines and calculator for calculating carbon emissions for campuses and universities. Clean Air Cool Planet s (CA-CP) campus carbon calculator version 5.0 is the calculator used promoted by ACUPCC and used by University of Cincinnati for carbon emissions estimation. It is a MS Excel workbook which quantifies all the six greenhouse gas emissions that result from university operations, like electricity, natural gas, transportation and waste. Methodology and details of this tool are further discussed in Chapter Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders Program EPA s Climate Leaders Program is an initiative collaborating industry and government in which participating companies commits to develop a long-term, comprehensive climate change mitigation action plan. EPA s Climate Leaders provides technical assistance to large emitters, and have an elaborated Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance to help small sized companies to develop a comprehensive inventory [31]. Greenhouse Gas inventory guidance is a modified version of an existing protocol developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) better suited for corporate sectors [31]. Emissions of all the six major greenhouse gases from direct and indirect sources are 16

27 measured. The inventory guidance consists of various sections like design principles guidance, cross-sector core modules guidance, sector-specific core modules guidance, and optional modules guidance. Design principle guidance mainly covers the basic and informative part, defining boundaries, goals, data, design, identifying sources, base year etc. Cross sector core module guidance covers various direct and indirect sources from different sectors like stationary combustion, electric and steam purchase, mobile combustion and refrigeration. Other modules are industry specific and provide guidance for accounting and reporting for specific industries. Although EPA s Climate Leader Guidance is mainly for industries and corporate sector; but they have also provided a simplified greenhouse gas emission calculator, which can be used to calculate emissions for UC. It is sensible to use this calculator for UC as it measures emissions from on site combustion, purchased electricity, refrigeration, and air conditioning, which are the foremost sources of UC s carbon footprint Energy Information Administration Energy Information Administration is the statistical and analytical branch of the Department of Energy, which has a program called voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas program. This program began in 1994 and provides guidelines, tools, emission factors and other data and reports required to report greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002 President asked for improvements and changes to the voluntary emission reduction registration program under section 1605(b) of the 1992 Energy Policy Act [32]. The Secretary of Energy in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency were asked to propose these improvements and changes [32]. The guidelines for the voluntary reporting program consist of two part, general guidelines and technical guidelines. 17

28 Technical guidelines include details on calculating emissions, emission factors and reductions. The improvements were to enhance measurement accuracy, reliability and verifiability, working with and taking into account the emerging domestic and international approaches [32]. A number of MS Excel workbooks are provided by Energy Information Administration s Voluntary Reporting Program for estimation of greenhouse gas emissions like Simplified Emissions Inventory Tools (SEIT) which covers both indirect and direct emissions. Separate workbooks are also provided for purchase electricity and stationary combustion. Information and details for global warming potentials, electricity emission factors and conversion factors are also provided in workbooks The Greenhouse Gas Protocol The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is one of the widely used protocols to calculate and manage emissions. It was established in 1998 jointly by World Resource Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Their first edition The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard was published in 2001 [33]. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol has two types of accounting methodologies for corporate specific and for project specific, though both of them are based on same standards. Various calculation tools are also provided by The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, which covers almost every corporate sector and industries like cement, aluminum, iron and steel, lime, ammonia, and nitric acid producing industries. Sector based tools are also available, which cover all indirect and direct sources of emissions from stationary combustion, purchased electricity, mobile sources, employee communication, combined heat and power plant, and refrigerants. These tools are MS Excel based tools which are provided with detailed guidance report. Apart from sector based tools, a tool and guide is also provided to estimate the uncertainty associated with the emissions. 18

29 The default emission factors are averages based on the most extensive data sets available and they are largely identical to those used by IPCC [33] Climate Neutral Network Climate Neutral Network (CNN) is a Portland, Oregon based non-governmental organization incorporated in CNN is a network of companies and organizations committed to develop products, services, and enterprises that have a net-zero impact on global warming [34]. To counteract the climate impacts of products, services or operations, certification requires that a company create a portfolio of projects that include internal, on-site reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and external offset projects which zero out the company s emissions (enterprise protocol). CNN reviews and provide certification to the companies which are carbon neutral and contribute net zero impact on climate change and global warming. Climate Cool is a trade mark of CNN and is used to represent that all the Climate Cool products or services are associated to achieve a net zero impact on the earth's climate. Till now they have certified eight companies and are engaged with many other leading companies and organizations. Along with four principles and protocols namely CNN design principles, CNN enterprise protocol, CNN offset protocol, and CNN product protocol, they have also provided calculators available to calculate greenhouse gas emissions. One of the calculating tools is CNN Event Calculator which can calculate the emissions from a particular event like conference, workshop or any other event. The other calculator is a Climate Neutral Matrices, which is a tool to calculate greenhouse gas emissions for corporate sector. This matrix is a guided MS Excel spreadsheet which helps estimating emissions. Emission standards and factors are similar to The Greenhouse Gas Protocol s standard with minor changes. 19

30 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY: UC s CARBON FOOTPRINT 20

31 INTRODUCTION The primary goal of this research project is to determine baseline greenhouse gas emissions for University of Cincinnati campus, which will in turn be directly usable to make a climate action plan to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions. In figure 5, the inventory cycle, we can see a systematic approach to conduct an inventory, make climate action plans, mitigate emissions, apply mitigation strategies, and meet the reduction targets. Most important part of this inventory cycle is to set a baseline emission, for that first and foremost step is to determine the methodology to perform the greenhouse gas emission inventory. Few of the methodologies which are highly popular and can be used at university level are mentioned in the previous chapter. UC decided to choose CA-CP campus carbon calculator over the rest of the methods and tools to report their emissions in ACUPCC. This particular tool was chosen, because it is widely respected and used by a number of universities. It is also promoted by ACUPCC because of the scope and detail built into this tool, and because a version was specifically created for calculating university carbon footprints. It will also allow UC to compare its carbon footprint with other universities which are also using this calculator. The emissions are calculated into standard unit of metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2e ). As the gases contribution towards global warming and their potential to cause global warming differs, we need to change them to a common metric unit, called as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e). For a given amount of any other greenhouse gas emissions, the comparable CO 2 e would be the amount of carbon dioxide needed to cause same amount of global warming. This concept is called the Global Warming Potential. 21

32 3.1 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL There are many greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming, though the potential to cause warming of these gases differ. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is one type of simplified index based upon radiative properties that can be used to estimate the potential future impact of emissions of different gases upon the climate system in a relative sense [35]. Apart from radiative property, GWPs are also based upon the decay rate of the gas, which is the amount of removal or decay of the gas from atmosphere over particular number of years relative to carbon dioxide [35]. Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in Perform yearly GHG Inventory Select Tool/ Protocol/ Method Data Collection Mitigation Plan & Strategies Review other University Inventory Conduct GHG Inventory Report Compilation Uncertainty Analysis Figure 5. Inventory Cycle 22

33 altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth s atmosphere system, it is given in units of Watts per square meter (Wm 2 ) [36]. Positive radiative forces lead to a global mean surface warming and negative radiative forces to a global mean surface cooling [36]. The GWP has been defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas [35]: Where, TH is the time horizon, using which the calculation are done; a x is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase in atmospheric abundance of the substance (i.e., Wm -2 kg -1 ), and [x(t)] is the time-dependent decay in abundance of the substance following an instantaneous release of it at time t=0 [35]. The denominator contains the corresponding quantities for the reference gas, which is carbon dioxide [35]. The radiative efficiencies a x and a r are not necessarily constant over time. Appendix 1 [36] illustrates the differences in the estimated GWP values as a factor of time horizon by IPCC Climate change IPCC has published new GWP s in all their three assessment report with minor changes. As a result of more accurate research and reduced scientific uncertainties the value of GWP s has significantly improved and changed from IPCC SAR to IPCC AR4. A comparison between the three assessment reports by IPCC is illustrated in Table 2. 23

34 Table 1. Comparison of 100 year Global Warming Potentials IPCC reports Gas SAR TAR AR4 Change from SAR to AR4 CO CH N 2 O HFC HFC HFC HFC-134a HFC-143a HFC-152a HFC-227ea HFC-236fa HFC-4310mee CF C 2 F C 4 F C 6 F SF

35 3.2 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Organizational Boundaries: The first and foremost task in calculating greenhouse gas emissions is to define boundaries. Primarily there are two types of boundaries, organizational boundaries and operational boundaries. Organizational boundaries refers to- defining which buildings and facility are under and controlled by UC and need to be included in the greenhouse gas inventory [37]. UC has many branch campuses and hospitals under their administration and control. It was determined that the emissions for Uptown campus, which includes east and west campuses will be accounted for this study. Emissions from the UC s Hospitals and other branch campuses will not be included in carbon footprint of UC. Emissions for Uptown campus from last five fiscal years (July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2008) were calculated and emission profile was obtained. Operational Boundaries: Second type of boundary needs to be taken in account are operational boundaries. Operational boundaries refer to determining the operational activity at UC needs to be included [37]. It includes all the direct, indirect emissions that results from the activity of UC. As mentioned in Chapter 2, all the direct and indirect emissions accounted are identified as scope 1 (core-direct), scope 2 (core-indirect) and scope 3 (other indirect). So, dividing emissions into three following scopes: Scope 1- Direct emissions from sources directly owned by University of Cincinnati. Scope 2- Indirect emissions from purchased electricity, Scope 3- Other indirect emissions related to University of Cincinnati but not caused by sources owned by University of Cincinnati. 25

36 All the emissions are calculated and given in standard unit of metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2 e). Table 2. Sources of GHG emissions divided into scopes Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Production of electricity Production of heat Solid waste Production of steam Purchased electricity University fleet Commuting Refrigerants Air travel The chosen CA-CP campus carbon calculator has seven categories of data- institutional data, energy, transportation, agriculture, solid waste, refrigeration, and greenhouse gas emission offsets. Six of these categories were applicable for UC, except for agriculture, as UC does not have any agricultural land. These categories were further divided into sub-categories, and not all of them were applicable for UC too. Table 4 lists all the categories from CA-CP campus calculator which were applicable for UC. CA-CP campus carbon calculator can also be categorized in modules, depending upon the nature of their function. The calculator is split into three general modules: data input (Input Module), calculations (Emissions Factors Module), and results (which includes Summary Module, Advanced Energy Demand and Cost Module, and Project Calculator) [29]. These three sections can be seen in detail in figure 6. This figure is a screenshot of spreadsheet map built into the CA-CP campus carbon calculator. It also details the complex relationship between these three general categories and the individual spreadsheets contained in the tool. Table 3. Sources of GHG emissions by category 26

37 Institutional Data Purchased electricity On campus stationary sources Transportation Solid waste Refrigerants and other chemicals Offsets Operating budget Budget Research dollars Energy budget Full-time students Part-time students Population Summer school students Faculty Staff Total building space Physical size Total research building space Electric produced off-campus Natural gas Electric output On campus cogeneration plant Steam output Electric efficiency Steam efficiency Distillate oil On campus stationary sources Natural gas Coal Gasoline fleet University fleet Diesel fleet Ethanol fleet Faculty/staff business Air travel Student programs Land filled waste with CH 4 recovery and electric generation HFC-134a HFC-404a HCFC-22 All other greenhouse gases R-12 R-414b R-500 R-502,503 Composting 27

38 Figure 6. Screenshot of CA-CP campus carbon calculator 28

39 3.3 GATHERING DATA Institutional Data: Institutional data related to budget (operating, research and energy), population (full time students, part time students, summer school students, faculty and staff), and physical size (total building space) are required by CA-CP campus carbon calculator in order to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions. Along with emissions, energy use in categorical order and energy use per capita are also estimated by help of institutional data. All this data is important to include in the inventory as it gives a better understanding of various sources, fluctuations and means of comparisons [29]. A good example to explain that would be- significant increase in carbon footprint due to construction of new building on campus, but if we see the emissions versus total building space we will understand the cause for increase and can analyze it better [29]. All the budget data are readily available at UC. Research and operating budgets were obtained from UC Office of the Administration and Finance s yearly Budget Plans. Along with energy budget was obtained from the records of Rate Proposal Plans. Purchased Electricity: UC has two power plants on campus, central utility plant and east campus utility plant. About 47MW of electricity is produced at these two power plants and the remaining electricity is purchased from Duke Energy Corporation. This purchased electricity accounts for more than half of the universities electricity consumption. Billing and records of purchased electricity are maintained by the Utilities and Facilities Department for all the buildings at UC. These billings provide the electricity use for every month in kilo watt hours (kwh). All the buildings are individually metered, so only the uptown campus buildings were taken into account for 29

40 emissions through purchased electricity. From the invoices electricity used by the branch campus buildings and UC s hospitals were accounted and deducted from the total Duke Energy Corporations monthly bill invoices. This provided us the amount of electricity purchased for uptown campus buildings use. About 195,968,788 kwh of electricity was consumed by universities uptown campus buildings and was purchased from Duke Energy Corporation. Although CA-CP campus carbon calculator also accounts for purchased steam and chilled water, but as UC do not purchase any steam or chilled water from outside source nothing was accounted for that section. On-campus Stationary Sources: As mentioned in the previous section UC has a cogeneration plant on campus. This cogeneration power plant came online in June This plant is the source of electricity, chilled water and steam to all the university s buildings. A variety of fossil fuels like natural gas, coal and oil are used for the production of electricity, chilled water and steam. Among all these fossil fuels natural gas is most used fossil fuel. About 755,157 MMBtu of natural gas was used by UC s power plant for the fiscal year Natural gas is mainly purchased from Energy USA and Duke Energy Corporation. Accounting of natural gas use has been done in two parts in CA-CP campus carbon calculator, one for on campus cogeneration plant and second for on campus stationary sources. About 298,222 MMBtu of natural gas was utilized at co-generation facility. Remaining 456,235 MMBtu of natural gas was used for stationary purposes Natural gas for the stationary sources includes all the gas used in heating, cooling, cooking and on-campus laundry, laboratories, incinerators, kilns etc. at the university. Along with natural gas distillate oil is used in the cogeneration power plant as a backup fuel for the production of electricity and steam. 30

41 From utility billing it is estimated that about 12,565 gallons of distillate oil was purchased from external source. The conventional coal power plant generates electricity using coal has an approximate efficiency of 31 percent. That means that for every 100 btu s of potential energy that is put into the coal boiler; only 31 percent is converted into electricity. The other 69 percent of the energy is lost through the power plants smoke stacks in the form of heat [38]. In comparison with that UC s cogeneration plant is highly efficient. The electric efficiency for the cogeneration system was approximately 75 percent, much higher than conventional coal power plant. Steam efficiency for the cogeneration system is even higher than electric efficiency and is about 85 percent. Cogeneration system is more efficient than electric power production alone because waste heat from the combustion turbines is recovered and is reused to produce steam for use. The third fossil fuel used at east utility plant is bituminous coal. This coal has low sulfur and ash content. About 36, 261 tons of coal is burnt in fiscal year Significant amount of electricity was produced at the two utility plants at UC. About 29,123,233 kwh of electricity and 144,129 MMBtu of steam was produced on-campus at UC. All the data for stationary sources and cogeneration are obtained from utility billing and plant production reports. Transportation: Transportation data accounts for university fleet and all the travel emissions associated with UC. Travel emissions specifically include greenhouse gas emissions resulting from daily commuting by students, faculty and staff and also from air travel associated with them for university purpose. Collecting data for transportation sector was one of the most challenging tasks. Due to 31

42 lack of comprehensive data for transportation sector few assumptions were made to simplify calculations. Contrary to the other sections under transportation, data for university fleet was readily available and no assumptions were made for this particular section. University fleet data includes gasoline, ethanol and diesel used by 304 university owned vehicles for university purposes. All the fleet data was obtained from the invoices maintained by UC s transportation services. About 102,172 gallons of gasoline was used by 246 university owned gasoline powered vehicles in fiscal year There are 52 ethanol powered (E85) vehicles and 6 diesel powered vehicles owned by UC. Close to 2,111 gallons of diesel and 9,182 MMBtu of ethanol was purchased from external sources in fiscal year All the purchases for gasoline fuel were made at off-campus gas dispensing facility. Gasoline purchases made on weekends, holidays and out-of-town purchases for university purpose were also accounted in university fleet data. Most of these purchases were through personal credit cards, which were reimbursed by the university. Travel emissions include all the emissions due to daily commuting of students, faculty and staff to college. It also includes air travel by student and faculty for conferences, seminars, presentations and other college related purposes. University s travel agency, AAA Travels manages the travel arrangement for professors and student at UC. They have a record of tickets purchased for official trips by faculty and students. Although many students and faculty members purchases their own tickets and get their money reimbursed by the university. As there are no records for tickets purchased personally, the data provided by UC s travel agent was inflated by 25 percent to compensate for the tickets not purchased through AAA travels. The data provided by AAA Travels was in the miles travelled each year. According to AAA Travels about 2,346,376 miles were travelled by faculty and students for fiscal year This figure was 32

43 inflated by 25 percent and was 2,932,970 miles for fiscal year The inflated amount was divided into a ratio of 7:3 for students and faculty respectively. Day to day commuting data has the maximum assumptions as it was difficult to determine the nature and mode of travel by each and every student. Greenhouse gas emissions due to commuting largely depend upon the commuting behavior, for example carpool, single driver, frequency of trips to campus, commuting distance. CA-CP campus carbon calculator estimates the emissions from commuting using these factors. For UC emissions only from personal vehicles and buses were considered. The emissions from rail or train were not accounted, as there is no railways system in Cincinnati. To determine the number of students and faculty using personal vehicle decals (pass) sold by the Parking Services Department were taken into account. The numbers of decals sold or purchased were assumed to be the number of people travelling by their personal vehicles. Although the figure provided by Parking Services Department was increased to account for the vehicles parked off campus or on streets close to college. A 10 percent factor was added to the total number of decals sold to include the cars parked off campus. It was assumed that only 1 percent of the student, faculty and staff using their personal vehicles were doing car pool and rest were assumed to be driving alone. For other major mode of transport, bus was calculated by subtracting the number of student and faculty travelling by car from the total number of students, faculty and staffs. It was assumed that all full time students commute to college thrice a week, or about 108 days in a year. It was also assumed that they commute once a day to college and travel about 19 miles in each trip to college. For summer students, the number of trips to college and the distance was assumed to be same, although it was calculated that they travel only 36 days to college in summer quarter. Similar to the students, the 33

44 faculty and staff were also assumed to travel 19 miles once a day. It was also assumed that faculty and staff travels thrice a week to college, making it 144 days in a year. Solid Waste: Solid waste data includes all the solid waste generated by campus excluding recyclable and composting waste. All the data for solid waste was obtained from the facility management. They have maintained a record of waste produced at UC and of waste disposed to the Rumpke. Rumpke is the waste management facility for UC. The waste generated by UC goes to Rumpke s Landfill with methane recovery and electric generation. About 3,657 tons of waste was sent to Rumpke Landfill for fiscal year The waste mainly includes paper, cardboard, aluminum, metal, plastic, glass, tire, oil, skids, batteries and fly ash from utilities. It also includes a lot of scrap metal waste as UC has gone under a lot renovation, demolition and construction of new buildings in the past few years. All this scrap metal waste goes to Garden Street for recycling the yard waste is recycled at the Winslow Shop at Cincinnati Children Hospital Medical Center compost location. Refrigeration and Chemicals: Some refrigerants and chemicals are used in equipments at power plants for cooling purposes. Manufacturer of these equipment determines the type of refrigerant to be used. Approximately, 2863 kg of refrigerants were used by UC for fiscal year Primarily HFC-134a, HFC-404a, HCFC-22, R-12 and R-414B were the chemicals, which accounted for the emissions through refrigeration and chemicals. 34

45 Offsets: Recycling and composting programs are the only section which accounts for offset for UC. For fiscal year 2008, 146 tons of composting was done by UC, which helped in offsetting some of the CO2 from UC s greenhouse gas emissions total. 35

46 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 36

47 4.1 UNIVERSITY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Campus Overview In fiscal year 2008 University of Cincinnati s greenhouse gas emissions were approximately 336,273 MTCO 2 e. Majority (50 percent of the overall University s emissions) of which is due to purchased electricity. Greenhouse gas emissions have been steadily increasing since fiscal year For fiscal year period, highest greenhouse gas emissions were accounted for fiscal year 2008 and was 336,273 MTCO 2 e and lowest for fiscal year 2004 and was 288,723 MTCO 2 e, with a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 16.5 percent. Greenhouse gas emissions from the sectors like purchased electricity, on-campus stationary sources and transportation, which accounts for almost 100 percent of University s emissions have also increased since fiscal year Highest increase was observed in on-campus stationary source, a 43.6 percent of increase from fiscal year 2004 to This increase is due to start of cogeneration power plant at University since The aim of bringing cogeneration power plant online was to reduce the amount of electricity purchased from Duke Energy in order to become more self reliable. This on-campus cogeneration facility makes the University of Cincinnati more economically flexible and is more efficient way of energy production in comparison with conventional coal based power plants [38]. In accordance with the purpose of making cogeneration power plant functional on campus, a very small increase of 3.8 percent is seen in greenhouse gas emissions from purchased electricity since fiscal year Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions for University of Cincinnati from solid waste and refrigerants is negligible and accounts for less than 1 percent of the total. Due to many ongoing recycling programs at University decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste is observed. 37

48 MT CO2e Greenhouse gas emissions from refrigerants and other chemicals have been fluctuating since Table 4. Summary of GHG emissions by category for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2008 Category Increase (%) Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions 288, , Purchased Electricity 184, , Sector vise On-campus Stationary Source 76, , GHG Transportation 25,993 33, Emissions Solid Waste Refrigerants and Other Chemicals Students (Full Time and Part Time) 27,178 29, GHG Emissions per Student Total Building Space (Square feet) 11,272,321 12,574, GHG Emissions per Total Building Space , , , , , , , , , , ,000 50, Fiscal Year Figure 7. Trend of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for UC from fiscal years

49 MT CO2e With time the University of Cincinnati population has risen. More and more students are getting enrolled and more employees are also hired at University of Cincinnati resulting in a bigger community ever. At UC s main campus about 29,622 fulltime students and part time students attended the school for fiscal year About 9,533 faculty and staff were employed for the same year making a total of 39,155 individuals coming to school and contributing to carbon footprint of UC. Total number of students attending school has been constantly increasing. About 9 percent increase in the total number of full time students and part time students has been recorded from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year Every individual student attending UC on an average contributes about 12.5 MTCO 2 e every year. Greenhouse gas emissions per student have risen from MTCO 2 e to 12.9 MTCO 2 e from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2008 (Figure 8). An increase of approximately 1 million tons of CO2e in period of five years has been observed Fiscal Year Figure 8. Total GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) versus student full time equivalent 39

50 kg CO2e/ft^2 A lot of construction has taken place at University of Cincinnati lately to accommodate the growing population size. Many old buildings have been demolished and new environmental friendly buildings with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification have been constructed at UC uptown campus. Eight new buildings have been constructed in the period of adding about 1,502,872 gross square feet to the existing university. Majority of the construction, seven of all eight newly constructed buildings took place at the west campus. 1,252,085 gross square feet of construction took place at west campus alone during Total building space was increased from 11,272,321 square feet to 12,574,783 square feet for fiscal year 2004 and 2008 respectively, an increase of 11.5 percent. In Figure 9 we can see the trend of total greenhouse gas emissions opposed to total building space for period of Greenhouse gas emissions against total building space have increased marginally from fiscal year 2004 to 2005, as majority of construction took place during this year. A small increase of 4.4 MTCO 2 e has been observed for fiscal year 2008 over Fiscal Year Figure 9. Total GHG emissions (kg CO 2 e/ft^2) for total building space 40

51 In fiscal year 2008 the greenhouse gas emissions were mainly from eight sectors mentioned in the previous chapter and were 336,273 MTCO 2 e. Purchased electricity from Duke Energy Corporations was one of the sectors which accounted for more than half of the UC s total greenhouse gas emissions. About 195,968,788 kwh of electricity was purchased for the fiscal year 2008 resulting in 191,478 MTCO 2 e emissions, about 56.9 percent of the overall emissions. Second major source of greenhouse gas emissions is on-campus stationary sources which includes emissions from non-cogeneration, cogeneration steam and co-generation electricity. It accounts for a total of 110,001 MTCO 2 e, 32.7 percent of the total emissions. Remaining six sectors accounts for ~10 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions for UC. Emissions from university fleet, solid waste, refrigerants and other chemicals are negligible and contribute less than 1 percent of the total. As low as 0.3 percent, 0.16 percent and 0.09 percent of the total emissions is the contribution by university fleet, solid waste and refrigerants and other chemicals respectively. Transportation is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions for UC, adding about 33,955 MTCO 2 e, approximately 9 percent of the total emissions. Student commuters, faculty and staff commuters, air travel and university fleet are the sectors which comprise the emissions from transportation sector. As a lot of students lives off campus they drives their personal vehicle or uses public transport to commute to university, more than 50 percent of the transportation sectors greenhouse gas emissions are due to student commuting. 19,299 MTCO 2 e was added to the total of UC s emissions profile as a result of student commuting, which is 5.7 percent of the total emissions. Faculty and staff commuting and air travel accounts for 2.7 percent and 1.4 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions. Refrigerants and other chemicals contribute negligibly to the UC s greenhouse gas emissions profile. 41

52 Fleet 0.28% Student Commuters 5.74% Faculty/Staff Commuters 2.73% Air Travel 1.36% Solid waste 0.16% Refrigerants 0.09% Oncampus 32.71% Electricity 56.94% Figure 10. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for UC in fiscal year % 10% 28% 56% 33% 57% 13% Electricity Oncampus Transportation Solid waste Refrigerants Figure 11. (a) CH 4 emissions (MTCO 2 e) for UC in fiscal year 2008 (b) CO 2 emissions (MTCO 2 e) for UC in fiscal year

53 Carbon dioxide is the one of the major greenhouse gas which contributes to the overall UC s emission. It accounts for approximately 99 percent of the total emissions. Apart from carbon dioxide remaining 1 percent is from methane and nitrous oxide. The emission profile for carbon dioxide is almost similar to the greenhouse gas emission profile for UC. All the carbon dioxide emissions are from purchased electricity, on-campus stationary sources and from transportation sectors. Purchased electricity being the largest source and accounts for about 57 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for UC. On the other hand methane emission profile is very different form the carbon dioxide emission profile and greenhouse gas emission profile (Figure 11). There are primarily four sectors which contribute to the methane emissions for UC, namely solid waste, on-campus stationary sources, transportation and purchased electricity. Solid waste produced at UC accounts for the majority of methane emissions, more than half of the total methane emissions (~56 percent). A total of 3,657 tons of solid waste landed up in Rumpke s landfill for fiscal year As solid waste with a lot of organic matter lies compacted at landfill in anaerobic conditions, it goes through decomposition by the help of methanogenic bacteria. This decomposition of organic matter at landfills produces a lot of methane, although the amount of methane emissions depends upon the quantity of organic matter and moisture content of waste [39]. Second largest source of methane emission is on-campus stationary sources, accounting for ~28 percent of the total methane emissions. As methane is the primary component of natural gas, some loss occurs during storage, processing and transportation of natural gas. Substantial amount of natural gas is used and stored at UC s power plant, which explains the fact that on-campus stationary source is the second largest source of methane emissions [39]. Methane emissions from transportation and purchased electricity accounts for 13 percent and 3 percent respectively. 43

54 9.75% FY % 0.34% FY % 0.23% 0.37% 26.31% 63.37% 41.85% 47.05% 10.02% FY % 0.05% 10.27% FY % 0.31% 48.38% 41.35% 37.53% 51.74% Electricity Oncampus Transportation Solid waste Refrigerants Figure 12. Comparison of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years

55 4.1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sectors Purchased Electricity: University of Cincinnati purchase electricity from Duke Energy Cooperation s, which falls under East Central Area Reliability Region according to US EPA s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (egrid). egrid is a spreadsheet database which provides emission data for the grid connected power plants in United States [40]. egrid data is mainly based upon regional power plant emissions data and not on the fuel specifics and source. As University of Cincinnati and Duke Energy Corporations both comes under ECAR Ohio Valley Region, the emissions factors for ECAR Ohio Valley Region were taken from egrid database for calculation of greenhouse gas emissions. All egrid values were multiplied by a factor of 1.09 to account for average of 9% transmission and distribution losses. The greenhouse emissions from purchased electricity have gone down by 23.05% from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005, as on-campus cogeneration plant came online. Since fiscal year 2005 the amount of purchased electricity from Duke Energy Cooperation s has increased resulting in increase of greenhouse gas emissions also. For all the fiscal years, from 2004 to 2008 purchased electricity has been the largest contributor to the total emissions. On-Campus Stationary Sources: In fiscal year 2005 a huge jump in greenhouse gas emissions from on-campus sources has been observed as central utility plant came online in As shown on the next page, figure 13 and figure 14 illustrates a relationship between emissions from purchased electricity and on-campus 45

56 MT CO2e MT CO2e stationary sources. Contrary to emissions from purchased electricity a sharp increase of 64.8% was observed from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005 for on-campus stationary sources. 250, , , , , , , , ,000 50, Fiscal Year Figure 13. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years by purchased electricity 140, , , , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, , Fiscal Year Figure 14. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years by on-campus energy source 46

57 Since then a small increase was observed for fiscal year 2006, with a continuous decrease thereafter. Greenhouse gas emissions profile for purchased electricity and on-campus stationary sources are indirectly proportional to each other. After purchased electricity on-campus stationary sources were the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation: Transportation is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions for UC. Gradual and slight increase in the emissions from transportation is observed from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year Over the period of five years the emissions have increased by 30.6%. This transportation sections includes all the emissions from university fleet, student commuters, faculty and staff commuters and air travel. From figure 16, it can be seen that for fiscal year 2008 more than half of the emissions for transportation sector are due to student commuting. About 84% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are alone from commuting. As the population size for University of Cincinnati is increasing the emissions from commuting are also increasing. Emissions from the university fleet are almost negligible and account for ~3% of all transportation. This university fleet includes all the emissions from the university owned vehicles like shuttle buses. Solid Waste: Greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste are not so significant and accounts for less than 1% of the total emissions for UC. Very small decrease in greenhouse gas emissions has been observed for solid waste over the period of five years. Greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by 152 MTCO 2 e from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year This decrease in the emissions is 47

58 MT CO2e 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 25,993 29,189 29,179 30,821 33,955 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Fiscal Year Figure 15. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years by transportation 13% 3% 27% 57% Fleet Student Commuters Faculty/Staff Commuters Air Travel Figure 16. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year 2008 by different components of transportation 48

59 MT CO2e mainly due to the enforcing and encouragement of waste reduction programs. Students are motivated to recycle, reuse and reduce the waste they are producing at UC to minimize the greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste. Refrigerants and Other Chemicals: A lot of refrigerants and chemicals are used at power plant for the cooling purpose. HFC-134a, HFC-404a, HCFC-22, CFC-12, R-414b, R-500, R-502 and R-503 are all the refrigerants used over the period of five years. HCFC-22 was the most used over the period of five years. Greenhouse gas emissions from the refrigerants are fluctuating. Highest emissions were observed for fiscal year 2005 and were 1,111 MTCO 2 e and the lowest were observed for fiscal year 2006 and were 151 MTCO 2 e Fiscal Year Figure 17. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years by solid waste 49

60 MT CO2e 1,200 1, ,111 1, Fiscal Year Figure 18. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal years by refrigerants and other chemicals 4.2 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TOOLS As 90% of the total greenhouse gas emissions are from purchased electricity and on-campus generation sources, it was more appropriate to compare these two sources using different tools and protocols. Five tools and protocols were used and the results from these tools significantly vary from each other, with the highest variation between the lowest estimate and the highest estimate being 13%. CA-CP campus carbon calculator, which was used by UC in accordance with American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, estimates the highest value for total emissions (purchased electricity and on-campus stationary source). On the contrary, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol estimates the lowest value. Significant difference of 39,944 MTCO 2 e was observed between total greenhouse gas emissions for these two tools and 50

61 MT CO2e 350, , , , , , , , , , ,000 50,000 0 CACP CNN EIA EPA Climate Leaders GHG Protocol Figure 19. Comparison of total GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) by different tools and protocols protocols. Results from Climate Neutral Network, Energy Information Administration and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders were also less than CA-CP campus carbon calculator by the factor of 6.2%, 8.6% and 12 % respectively for the total emissions. Trend of emission estimates from purchased electricity is very similar to the total greenhouse gas emissions. Difference between the highest and lowest estimate is even more for the purchased electricity and is about 28.2%. Estimates from EPA Climate Leaders Program and GHG Protocol are almost equal, 139,060 MTCO 2 e and 137,419 MTCO 2 e respectively (Figure 20). The estimate for emissions from purchased electricity by CA-CP Calculator is significantly high from the rest of the four tools and protocols. Difference between CA-CP campus carbon calculator estimates and the CNN estimate which is the second highest estimate is 15.7%. On the other hand, the estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from on-campus sources have a very different profile. CA-CP campus carbon calculator estimates are lowest of the five tools and protocols. The 51

62 MT CO2e highest estimate of 126,207 MTCO 2 e is from EPA Climate Leaders Programs and the lowest estimate of 110,001 MTCO 2 e is from CA-CP campus carbon calculator (Figure 21). Although the results from different tools and protocols for on-campus stationary sources does not differ much. The result from CNN and EIA are almost equal and comparable. The difference between the highest and lowest estimates is the factor of 12.8%. The variations in the results are mainly due to the difference in the emission factors (Appendix E). Some of the variations are also due to the difference in the conversion factors used by different tools. Though the values of emission factor and conversion factor do not vary significantly but a huge difference in the results have been observed. This variation in the results is due to the usage of very high input values for estimation of greenhouse gas emissions. 210, , , , , , , , ,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0 CACP CNN EIA EPA Climate Leaders GHG Protocol Figure 20. Comparison of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) from purchased electricity by different tools 52

63 MT CO2e MT CO2e 140, , , , , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 CACP CNN EIA EPA Climate Leaders GHG Protocol Figure 21. Comparison of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) from on-campus sources by different tools 210, , , ,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0 CACP CNN EIA EPA Climate Leaders GHG Protocol Figure 22. Comparison of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) profile for purchased electricity (blue) and on-campus stationary sources (red) 53

64 Under on-campus stationary sources three fuels are mainly used coal, distillate oil and natural gas. Ultimate analysis data for these specific fuels are available at University of Cincinnati power plant. Applying mass balance for the fuel used at UC carbon dioxide emissions result were obtained, which were compared with CA-CP campus carbon calculator and other tools. A significant variation between the mass balance calculations and other tools was observed. Variations between the emission values for coal fuel were largest. The biggest difference of 28.9% was observed between CA-CP campus carbon calculator and the mass balance calculations for coal. The carbon dioxide emissions according to mass balance of fuels were 97,665,015 kg CO 2 whereas for CA-CP campus carbon calculator was 69,403,554 kg CO 2. In comparison with coal lesser variations were observed for distillate oil. Almost all the emission values from all the tools and protocols were in same range (Table 5). A small difference of 4,448 kg CO 2 was determined between the highest and the lowest values of carbon dioxide emissions from distillate oil. This variation of 3.4% was observed between UC specific values and CA-CP campus carbon calculator, later being the lower. Difference for natural gas was small in comparison with coal. Carbon dioxide estimates for natural gas from CA-CP campus carbon calculator were very close to those of EIA. Table 5. Comparison of CO 2 emissions using various tools and protocols Tools and Protocols Coal - *10 6 kg CO 2 % Change Natural Gas- *10 6 kg CO 2 % Change Distillate Oil- *10 4 kg CO 2 % Change Mass Balance CA-CP CNN EIA EPA Climate Leaders GHG Protocol

65 kg CO2 kg CO2 100,000,000 80,000,000 97,665,015 81,181,127 84,489,580 81,402,682 80,286,170 69,403,554 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 Mass Balance CA-CP CNN EIA EPA Climate Leaders GHG Protocol Figure 23. Comparison of CO 2 (kg CO 2 ) emissions from coal by different tools and mass balance calculation 140, , , , , , , , ,027 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Mass Balance CA-CP CNN EIA EPA Climate Leaders GHG Protocol Figure 24. Comparison of CO 2 emissions (kg CO 2 ) from distillate oil by different tools and mass balance calculation 55

66 kg CO2 45,000,000 39,974,165 39,868,433 39,385,088 39,959,061 44,701,886 40,072,345 36,000,000 27,000,000 18,000,000 9,000,000 0 Mass Balance CA-CP CNN EIA EPA Climate Leaders GHG Protocol Figure 25. Comparison of CO 2 emissions (kg CO 2 ) from natural gas by different tools and mass balance calculation 4.3 COMPARISON WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS It is very important to compare University of Cincinnati s greenhouse gas emissions results with other universities. Comparison data is readily available as many universities have signed American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment and have completed their greenhouse gas emission inventory. Even though it is very difficult to have an even comparison between universities, as most of the universities vary in their community size, geographical location, infrastructure and climate but at the same time it is very important to compare universities with most similarities. Purpose of comparison goes away if there is lot of differences in the universities. A comparison between greenhouse gas emissions results for different universities are illustrated in Table 6 on the next page. Purdue University, Duke University, 56

67 University of Maryland, University of Pennsylvania and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill is comparable to University of Cincinnati in size, population and climatic condition. University of California, Berkley is of comparable size and population but the climatic conditions show a large variation. It can be seen that the greenhouse gas emissions estimate for University of Cincinnati is in the close range with estimates for the other comparable universities. Emissions from Purdue University are really high and are almost double the emissions for our university. Similarly emissions from University of Michigan are quite high which could be justified by bigger campus with larger population size. Table 6. A comparison for greenhouse gas emissions for different universities University Year Emissions (MTCO 2 e) University of Michigan ,932 Purdue University* ,670 Duke University* ,000 University of Maryland* ,703 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill* ,483 University of Cincinnati ,273 University of Pennsylvania* ,000 University of California, Berkley ,000 University of Connecticut ,943 Oregon State University ,287 Utah State University ,687 University of California, Santa Barbara ,814 California State Polytechnic University ,779 San Francisco State University ,184 * Universities with comparable size, population and climatic conditions. 57

68 4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND UNCERTAINTIES Like any model, the results are as good as the data and the parameters used. There will be some variation in the results as many emission-generating processes are by nature variable in space and time and it is difficult to define appropriate estimation model and estimation data [41]. Variation in results may appear due to various reasons, like calculation method, different conversion factors, emission factors etc [42]. It s important to understand the reason of variations, to minimize the differences in the results. Some parameters chosen for inclusion in the inventory are more important than the other parameters. These parameters are called Key Parameters. The result of the inventory is highly related to selection of these parameters. The main challenge is to identify these parameters. Key method to identify these parameters is Sensitivity Analysis. Sensitivity analysis may be defined as the computation of the effect of changes in input values or assumptions on the output [43]. The main purpose of this sensitivity analysis check is to identify the main part which will influence the results. A sensitivity analysis may be performed at several levels [41, 43]: 1. Analysis of each parameter separately, holding other factors constant; 2. Determine joint analysis, varying more than one factor at the time; 3. Parametric analysis, moving one or more input parameters across reasonable selected values; 4. Probabilistic analysis, using correlation or other means to examine how much uncertainty in conclusions is attributable to which inputs. For the University of Cincinnati analysis of each parameter was done separately. Approach one mentioned above was used to perform sensitivity analysis. Input values for each parameter was 58

69 MT CO2e raised by 10% each time and CA-CP campus carbon calculator was used to check the sensitivity. It was seen that the purchased electricity was the most sensitive of all, followed by on-campus stationary sources and transportation. This high sensitivity of purchased electricity was due to the very high input values (Figure 26). Slightest change in the input value for purchased electricity results in a very high variance. Variation for solid waste and refrigerants were really minimal in comparison with purchased electricity, on-campus stationary sources and transportation. Among the lower two solid waste was observed to be more sensitive than refrigerants. A lot of work on uncertainties computation and analysis has been done for national level inventories; many countries have done the estimation of uncertainties for their inventory. The estimated uncertainties for these national inventories usually range from 5 to 20 percent for few high quality inventories [41]. No considerable work has been done on estimations of 600, , , , , , , Percentage Increase Purchased Electricity Oncampus Source Transportation Solid Waste Refrigerant Figure 26. Sensitivity analysis of different sources of GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year

70 MT CO2e 337, , , , , , , Percentage Increase Solid Waste Refrigerant Figure 27. Comparison of sensitivity of solid waste and refrigerants on GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year 2008 uncertainties at universities level till date. Nevertheless, lesser uncertainties are expected at university level in comparison with national level inventory results. Uncertainties associated with greenhouse gas inventories are usually of three types namely, scientific uncertainties, model uncertainties and parameter uncertainties [44]. Scientific uncertainties are extremely difficult to estimate as it deals with the uncertainties associated with the science of greenhouse gases, their global warming potential etc. [44]. Model uncertainties are uncertainties occurring due to the error in mathematical calculations in the model. Usually the calculations are simple multiplication of activity data and emission factors, but sometimes model includes complex calculations for few particular categories where relationship of various parameters and emission factors are unclear and complex. Parameter uncertainties are the most common and easy to estimate. It includes uncertainties associated with the input data, emission factors and 60

71 assumptions. At university level it is most practical to estimate parameter uncertainties as there are high probability of occurrence. The GHG Protocol provides an uncertainty tool for estimation of aggregated uncertainty and quality of inventory. This tool estimates uncertainties due to both direct and indirect sources. The first step of calculations is to determine a confidence level for inventory. A confidence level of 95% was used as it is suggested by IPCC and is most appropriate [44]. An emission factor uncertainty and activity data uncertainty of 7% was taken from Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reporting Instruction. Using these values an overall uncertainty of 9.8% was calculated using The GHG protocol s uncertainty tool, which is a good uncertainty ranking. 61

72 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 62

73 5.1 CONCLUSIONS This study has provided baseline emissions and identifies the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions for the University of Cincinnati, which will be directly usable information for campus sustainability planning as well as to other research and campus administration professionals implementing sustainability as part of the planning efforts. Portion of this study was integral part and basis of American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. Greenhouse gas emissions profile for last five years and major sources of emissions were also provided which will be directly helpful in developing mitigation strategies and climate action plan for university. Key Findings The overall, University of Cincinnati s greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 16.47% from 288,723 MTCO 2 e for fiscal year 2004 to 336,273 MTCO 2 e for fiscal year On annual basis, University of Cincinnati emits an average of approximately 315,000 MTCO 2 e and campus greenhouse gas emissions have increased annually by approximately 3% every year since Emissions per student have also increased by approximately 7% from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year Along with greenhouse gas emissions the total number of students and building space has also increased with a growth rate of approximately 9% and 12 % respectively from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year Purchased electricity and on-campus stationary sources comprise 90% of the total greenhouse gas emissions for University of Cincinnati for fiscal year Purchased electricity is the largest source of emissions, which is about 57% of the total greenhouse 63

74 gas emissions and on-campus stationary sources being the second largest source and contributing about 33% to the total. Greenhouse gas emissions due to solid waste and refrigerants are negligible and contribute less than 1% to the total. Greenhouse gas emissions from CA-CP campus carbon calculator are highest among the five tools and protocols used to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions. A difference of approximately 13% is observed between CA-CP campus carbon calculator and GHG Protocols being the highest and lowest estimating tools respectively. Purchased electricity was found to be the most sensitive of all, followed by on-campus stationary sources and transportation. Overall uncertainty of 9.8% was calculated for greenhouse gas inventory, which is a good uncertainty ranking. 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Greenhouse gas emissions inventory should be done every single year to see the increase or decrease in the emission profile. It should be done separately for all the branch campuses and main campus. It is critical that the inventory is accurate and transparent. Methodology used by all the tools is almost similar, but I would strongly recommend either building a tool specific for University of Cincinnati in accordance with the university s fuel values and emission factors or customizing the CA-CP campus carbon calculator according to university. As emission factors are the key parameters while calculating the emissions. Emission factors, which are best fit for the university and matches the fuel specific used at university owned power plant, should be used. As purchased electricity accounts for more than 50% of the total greenhouse emissions, it 64

75 is crucial to investigate and use the fuel mix and emission coefficient for the specific fuel used by the electricity provider, Duke Energy Cooperation in case of our university. Data collection techniques and measurement should also be improved, especially for the transportation section. A lot of assumptions were made for transportation because of lack of data, which needs to be improved. Among all the categories under transportation, commuting was one of the toughest categories to collect data for. I would recommend doing a comprehensive community survey for at least a quarter to determine the commuting behavior of students and faculty. This commuting survey should include factors like miles travelled each day, mode of transportation, number of visits to college, carpool etc. There are few important aspects not covered by CA-CP campus carbon calculator. I would also like to recommend incorporating the following aspects also in the next greenhouse gas emissions inventory. These aspects are: A lot of new construction is happening at University of Cincinnati. It is important to account for emission due to these new construction and demolition at university. CA-CP campus carbon calculator also does not account for emissions from food, stationary supplies, and other miscellaneous supplies used by students, faculty and staff at University of Cincinnati. There are direct and indirect emission in the process of creating and transporting these materials. Greenhouse gas emissions should be calculated with respect to the heating degree days and cooling degree days to see variation in the emissions relative to months and seasons. 65

76 Offsets (except composting) were not considered in this greenhouse gas inventory due to lack of data. In future offsets should be given high priority and should be incorporated in the inventory. 66

77 References: [1] B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press, [2] "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Sinks: " U.S. EPA 430-R , Washington, DC, U.S.A, April [3] J. R. Petit, J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N. I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davisk, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V. M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V. Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pe pin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzmank & M. Stievenard. "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica." Nature 399 (June 1999): [4] United Nations Environment Programme: Environmental Knowlwdge for Change. n.d. (accessed 2010). [5] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. State of the Climate Report (accessed 2010). [6] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (accessed 2010). [7] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. n.d. (accessed 2010). 67

78 [8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change Science. n.d. (accessed 2010). [9] IPCC. "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Geneva, Switzerland, 2007, 104. [10] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Future Temperature Change. n.d. (accessed 2010). [11] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health and Environmental Effects. n.d. (accessed 2010). [12] "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: " U.S. EPA 430-R , Washington, DC, U.S.A, April [13] Westervelt, Donald F. Fournier and Eileen T. "Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations." ERDC/CERL TR-05-21, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, IL, September [14] UNFCCC. Fact sheet: An introduction to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. n.d. (accessed 2010). [15] "Full Text of the Convention, Article 2: Objective." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). n.d. (accessed 2010). 68

79 [16] "Kyoto Protocol." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). n.d. [17] "American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment." Annual Report, [18] Julian Dautremont-Smith, Associate Director, AASHE. "ACUPCC Implementation Guide." American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment., [19] University of Cincinnati Facts. n.d. (accessed 2009). [20] "University Current Funds Budget Plan FY " University of CIncinnati Office of the Administration and Finance, [21] "University of Cincinnati President's Report Card." (accessed 2009). [22] "University of Cincinnati Student Fact Book." Books/UC_Student_Factbook_ pdf (accessed 2009). [23] "University of Cincinnati Faculty & Staff Reports." (accessed 2009). [24] University of Cincinnati. "Ohio Board of Regents Physical Structure Report." [25] University of Cincinnati. "Energy Budget Report."

80 [26] UC: Utility Distribution [27] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Groups/ Task Force. n.d. (accessed 2010). [28] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Organization. n.d. (accessed 2010). [29] "Clean Air Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator User s Guide." [30] Clean Air-Cool Planet. "About CA-CP." n.d. (accessed 2010). [31] Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol- Design Principles. May [32] "Technical Guidelines Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (1605(b)) Program." Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, January [33] The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. n.d. (accessed 2010). [34] Climate Neutral Network: Background, Introduction, History, Services. n.d. (accessed 2010). [35] IPCC. "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Cambridge, United Kingdom,

81 [36] Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, H.L. Miller. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2007, Chapter 2. [37] J. Wintergreen, T. Delaney. "International Standard for GHG Emissions Inventories and Verification." ISO (accessed 2010). [38] Delambre, Jason. "A Sense of Power: An Energy Analysis of the University of Cincinnati s West Campus." 2007: 121. [39] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change: Methane. (accessed 2010). [40] Susy S. Rothschild, C. Quiroz, M. Salhotra, A. Diem. "The Value of egrid and egridweb to GHG Inventories." December [41] Rypdal, K, and K Flugsrud. "Sensitivity analysis as a tool for systematic reductions in greenhouse gas inventory uncertainties." Environmental Science & Policy, 2001: [42] Padgett, J.P., Steinemann, A.C., Clarke, J.H., Vandenbergh, M.P. "A comparison of carbon calculators." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008): [43] Morgan, M.G., Henrion, M. "Uncertainty. A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis." Cambridge University Press,

82 [44] "GHG Protocol guidance on uncertainity assessment in GHG inventories and calculating statistical parameter uncertainity." The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, September

83 Appendix A. Global Warming Potential for given time horizon Gas Chemical Formula 20 yr 100 yr 500 yr Carbon dioxide CO Methane CH Nitrous oxide N 2 O Substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol CFC-11 CCl 3 F 6,730 4,750 1,620 CFC-12 CCl 2 F 2 11,000 10,900 5,200 CFC-13 CClF 3 10,800 14,400 16,400 CFC-113 CCl 2 FCClF 2 6,540 6,130 2,700 CFC-114 CCLF 2 CClF 2 8,040 10,000 8,730 CFC-115 CClF 2 CF 3 5,310 7,370 9,990 Halon-1301 CBrF 3 8,480 7,140 2,760 Halon-1211 CBrClF 2 4,750 1, Halon-2402 CBrF 2 CBrF 2 3,680 1, Carbon tetrachloride CCl 4 2,700 1, Methyl bromide CH 3 Br Methyl chloroform CH 3 CCl HCFC-22 CHClF 2 5,160 1, HCFC-123 CHCl 2 CF HCFC-124 CHClFCF 3 2, HCFC-141b CH 3 CCl 2 F 2, HCFC-142b CH 3 CClF 2 5,490 2, HCFC-225ca CHCl 2 CF 2 CF HCFC-225cb CHClCF 2 CClF 2 2, Hydrofluorocarbons HCFC-23 CHF 3 12,000 14,800 12,200 HCFC-32 CH 2 F 2 2, HCFC-125 CHF 2 CF 3 6,350 3,500 1,100 HCFC-134a CH 2 FCF 3 3,830 1, HCFC-143a CH 3 CF 3 5,890 4,470 1,590 HCFC-152a CH 3 CHF

84 HCFC-227ea CF 3 CHFCF 3 5,310 3,220 1,040 HCFC-236fa CF 3 CH 2 CF 3 8,100 9,810 7,660 HCFC-245fa CHF 2 CH 2 CF 3 3,380 1, HCFC-365mfc CH 3 CF 2 CH 2 CF 3 2, HCFC-43-10mee CF 3 CHFCHFCF 2 CF 3 4,140 1, Perfluorinated compounds Sulphur hexafluoride SF 6 16,300 22,800 32,600 Nitrogen trifluoride NF 3 12,300 17,200 20,700 PFC-14 CF 4 5,210 7,390 11,200 PFC-116 C 2 F 6 8,630 12,200 18,200 PFC-218 C 3 F 8 6,310 8,830 12,500 PFC-318 c-c 4 F 8 7,310 10,300 14,700 PFC C 4 F 10 6,330 8,860 12,500 PFC C 5 F 12 6,510 9,160 13,300 PFC C 6 F 14 6,600 9,300 13,300 PFC C 10 F 18 >5,500 >7,500 >9,500 Trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride SF 5 CF 3 13,200 17,700 21,200 Fluorinated ethers HFE-125 CHF 2 OCF 3 13,800 14,900 8,490 HFE-134 CHF 2 OCHF 2 12,200 6,320 1,960 HFE-143a CH 3 OCF 3 2, HCFE-235da2 CHF 2 OCHClCF 3 1, HFE-245cb2 CH 3 OCF 2 CHF 2 2, HFE-245fa2 CHF 2 OCH 2 CF 3 2, HFE-254cb2 CH 3 OCF 2 CHF 2 1, HFE-347mcc3 CH 3 OCF 2 CF 2 CF 3 1, HFE-347pcf2 CHF 2 CF 2 OCH 2 CF 3 1, HFE-356pcc3 CH 3 OCF 2 CF 2 CHF HFE-7100 C 4 F 9 OCH 3 1, HFE-7200 C 4 F 9 OC 2 H H-Galden 1040x CHF 2 OCF 2 OC 2 F 4 OCHF 2 6,320 1, HG-10 CHF 2 OCF 2 OCHF 2 8,000 2, HG-01 CHF 2 OCF 2 CF 2 OCHF 2 5,100 1,

85 Perfluoropolyethers PFPMIE CF 3 OCF(CF 3 )CF 2 OCF 2 OCF 3 7,620 10,300 12,400 Hydrocarbons and other compounds Dimethylether CH 3 OCH <<1 Methylene chloride CH 2 Cl Methyl chloride CH 3 Cl

86 Appendix B. Total input values used for calculation Purchased Electricity Fiscal Year On-campus Stationary Transportation Refrigerants Offsets Sources Solid & other Natural Distillate Air Waste Coal University Fleet Commute chemicals Composting Gas Oil Travel kwh MMBtu Gallons Tons Gasoline Diesel Ethanol Miles Gallons MMBtu Gasoline Diesel Tons Kilograms Tons Gallons ,795, , ,718 25, ,144 3,045 7,753 6,860,675 2,013, ,294 4,689 2, ,267,991 1,510,685 86,556 23, ,144 3,045 7,753 8,272,559 2,220, ,045 4,715 2, ,688,545 1,384,239 3,152 30, ,514 2,897 11,484 5,001,734 2,480, ,871 4, ,273,170 1,139,523 37,424 32, ,727 3,454 8,617 4,775,429 2,650, ,219 3,657 2, ,968, ,227 12,565 36, ,172 2,111 9,182 5,865,940 2,850, ,592 3,

87 Appendix C. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year 2008 by scope and source Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 On-campus Stationary Source 110, University Fleet Refrigerants Purchased Electricity - 191,478 - Solid Waste Commuting ,464 Air Travel - - 4,557 Total 111, ,478 33,557 Scope 3 10% Scope 1 33% Scope 2 57% Figure 28. GHG emissions (MTCO 2 e) for fiscal year 2008 by scope 77

88 Appendix D. Conversion factors used by CA-CP campus carbon calculator From To Multiply by pound kilogram short ton pounds 2,000 short ton tonne cubic foot cubic meter US gallon liters barrel cubic meter CO 2 C C CO Tg Carbon/QBtu kg C / MMBtu 1 MMBtu Terajoules (TJ) foot pound Btu acre hectare square meter hectare mile kilometer barrel gallon petroleum 42 imperial ton kilogram 1,016 imperial ton short ton MMBtu Btu Btu Joule 1,

89 Appendix E. Comparison of emission factors for different tools Tools Electricity Natural Gas Distillate Oil Coal (lbco 2 /kwh) (kgco 2 /MMBtu) (kgco 2 /Gallon) (kgco 2 /Ton) Mass Balance ,693.4 CA-CP ,914 CNN ,238.8 EIA ,244.9 EPA Climate ,330 Leaders GHG Protocol ,

90 Appendix F. Formulas Purchased electricity: [Electricity used (kwh/year) * Regional Emission Factor (lbsco 2 /kwh)]/2205 = CO 2 emissions [Electricity used (kwh/year) * Regional Emission Factor (lbsch 4 /kwh)]/2205 = CH 4 emissions [Electricity used (kwh/year) * Regional Emission Factor (lbsn 2 O/kWh)]/2205 = N 2 O emissions GHG Emissions (MTCO 2 e) = CO 2 emissions + CH 4 emissions + N 2 O emissions On campus stationary sources: [Fuel used (MMBtu/Ton/Gallon) * Emission factor (kgco 2 /(MMBtu/Ton/Gallon))]= CO 2 emissions [Fuel used (MMBtu/Ton/Gallon) * Emission factor (lbsch 4 /(MMBtu/Ton/Gallon))/2205]= CH 4 emissions [Fuel used (MMBtu/Ton/Gallon) * Emission factor (lbsn 2 O/(MMBtu/Ton/Gallon))/2205]= N 2 O emissions GHG Emissions (MTCO 2 e) = CO 2 emissions + CH 4 emissions + N 2 O emissions 80

91 Appendix G. Calculations Natural Gas Heating Value = 1010 btu/scf Volume = 990 ft 3 Temperature = 60 F Composition: Methane = 94.4% Ethane = 2.77% Propane = 0.5% Moles of CO 2 in natural gas = [(1*0.944) + (2*0.0277) + (3*0.005)] = 2.65 Emission factor for natural gas = 2.65 * 44 = lb CO 2 /MMbtu = kg CO2/MMBtu Coal Heating Value = 13,489 btu/lb Percentage of Carbon = 81% = kg C/MMbtu = MMbtu/ton Emission Factor for coal = kg C/MMbtu * MMbtu/ton * 44/12 = 2693 kg CO 2 /ton 81

92 Distillate Oil # 2 Heating Value = 19,500 btu/lb Percentage of Carbon = 87.3% = lb CO 2 /MMbtu = kg CO 2 /MMbtu = MMbtu/gallon Emission factor for distillate oil # 2 = kg CO 2 /MMbtu * MMbtu/gallon = kg CO 2 /gallon 82

93 Appendix H. List of tools and protocols available 1. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2. ISO , Specification with the guidance at the organizational level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions removals*. 3. Torrie Smith Associates- emission greenhouse gas strategy software*. 4. ICLEI local governments- Clean air and climate protection for sustainably software. 5. Association for the advancement of sustainability in higher education- assessment tools*. 6. Clean air cool planet campus carbon calculator. 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Climate leaders. 8. Climate Neutral Network- Corporate level greenhouse gas accounting worksheet. 9. U.S. Energy Information Administration- Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases program. 10. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol- Calculation tools. *Paid 83

94 Appendix I. Abbreviations AASHE - Association for the Advancement of sustainability in Higher Education ACUPCC - American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment CA-CP - Clean Air Cool Planet CH 4 - Methane CNN - Climate Neutral Network CO 2 - Carbon Dioxide CUP - Central Utility Plant EIA - Energy Information Administration EPA - Environmental Protection Agency FTE - Full Time Equivalent GHG - Greenhouse Gas GSF - Gross Square Feet GWP - Global Warming Potential HFCs - Hydrofluorocarbons H 2 O - Water Vapours IPCC AR 4 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC SAR - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change kwh - Kilo watt hours MMBtu - Million British Thermal Units MTCO 2 e - Metric Ton Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 84

95 N 2 O - Nitrous Oxide O 3 - Ozone PFCs - Perfluorocarbons SF 6 - Sulphur Hexafluoride Tg CO 2 e - Teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents UC - University of Cincinnati UNFCCC - United Framework Convention on Climate Change WRCSD - World Business Council for Sustainable Development WRI - World Resource Institute 85

96 Appendix J. CA-CP Input Module 86

97 CA-CP Input Module 87

98 CA-CP Input Module- Transportation 88