Carbon Footprint
Analysis of BaldwinWallace College
Rel-262/Bus-250: Green Business
Spring 2010
May 4, 2010
Table of Contents
I.
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………….……3
II.
Introduction……………………………………………………………….…4-8
III.
Natural Gas…………………………………………………………………9-14
IV.
Vehicle Pool………………………………………………………………15-17
V.
Buildings and Grounds………………………………………………18-20
VI.
Refrigerants……………………………………………………………...21-33
VII. Electricity…………………………………………………………………34-40
VIII. Commuters……………………………………………………………….41-46
IX.
Faculty Travel and Study Abroad…………………………….....47-65
X.
Conclusion………………………………………………………………..66-67
XI.
Works Cited………………………………………………………………68-73
Appendix A...……………………………………………………………………..74-76
Appendix B……………………………………………………………………..77-100
Appendix C……………………………………………………………………101-108
Appendix D…………………………………………………………………...109-110
Appendix E……………………………………………………………………111-112
2
I.
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Jessica La Fave, David Krueger, Sabina Thomas
Natural Gas
Ashley Warholic and Nate Parker
Vehicle Pool
John Pickett, Gavin Monsi, and Steve Tuma
Buildings and Grounds
Brendan McCool and Andrew Ventura
Refrigerants
Kristi Reklinski
Electricity
Emily Dempster, Evan Janoch, Madeline Ashwill
Commuters
Brian Javor, Brian Corrigan, Kim Hopkins, and Frank Waldman
Faculty Travel and Study Abroad
Ariana Roberts, Judy Patterson, Jessica La Fave, and Jennifer Shimola
Conclusion
Jessica La Fave, David Krueger, Sabina Thomas
PowerPoint Editors
Ariana Roberts and Judy Patterson
General Editor
Jessica La Fave
Professors
Dr. David Krueger
Dr. Sabina Thomas
3
II. Introduction
Baldwin-Wallace College has taken great strides in the area of sustainability: it has
both a sustainability major and minor—the first college to do so in Ohio, it has three
buildings dedicated to sustainability (Ernsthausen, the Science Center and CIG) and it is
committed to installing many new sustainability technologies such as wind and solar.
The fall semester 2010 Green Business course has now completed a preliminary
Carbon Footprint Analysis of the college. A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact of
our activities on the environment, and in particular its ramification for climate change. It
relates to the amount of greenhouse gases produced in our day-to-day lives through
burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating and transportation etc.
Establishing a baseline for our current use of resources and carbon output will help
the college to take tangible action steps to reduce our carbon emissions. Not only will this
aid Baldwin-Wallace in being more sustainable, it will also provide the school with
recommendations that can save thousands of dollars every year. An additional plus would
be the college’s recognition among the many institutions that have used this or other
carbon-footprint metrics in their efforts to reduce their environmental footprint.
The Clean Air – Cool Planet Carbon Calculator
We used the Clean Air – Cool Planet carbon calculator, one of many that are
available, for the following reasons: It is free and it has been recommended by AASHE
(Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education; B-W recently
became a member) and by the ACUPCC (American College & University Presidents Climate
Commitment).
4
In our data collection, we used the equity-share approach, i.e., we only measured
the emission of sources and facilities that B-W owns. That includes for example all
buildings on the main campus (lecture halls and labs, administrative and utility buildings
dorms, etc.) but not the facilities at B-W East since they are leased. (The alternative would
be the more comprehensive control approach, which would include everything that B-W is
using, but B-W does not really manage those buildings.).
We collected data for the three fiscal years of 2007, 2008, and 2009 in order to
establish a baseline that represents the average energy usage of the college.
There are some limitations to our data:
o
Some data were just not available, such individual electricity consumption for
individual building because we do not yet have metering devices installed in all
of them.
o
For some categories it was unpractical to retrieve data (gas & diesel for
Buildings & Grounds). In that case we only collected data from the most recent
academic year (2009) and assumed that the previous years’ consumption was
identical.
o
We also conducted a survey (commuter) during the spring of 2010, i.e., outside
our selected time range for the baseline. Again, we extrapolated the data and
expanded them for the previous three academic years, assuming similar
commuting behavior for all four academic years.
o
Some data are not included because their addition or omission would not make
a big difference (yet; as is the case for biodiesel), or they were difficult to come
by.
5
o We have all been doing this for the first time and some data collection could have
been done more efficiently or better streamlined.
In spite of these shortcomings we now have a good baseline from which we can
gauge and determine changes for the future. For further information on the Carbon
Calculator, Clean Air – Cool Planet, please consult the Calculator User Guide that
accompanies the Campus Carbon Calculator. It can be found at http://www.cleanaircoolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.php
A Carbon Footprint Analysis consists of analyzing data from all areas of the college to see
how much carbon dioxide (CO2) (and its equivalents) we produce. These carbon-emitting areas
have been separated into three scopes, according to three levels of responsibility for emissions
that an institution has, directly or indirectly, control over.
1.
Scope One consists of sources of carbon emissions directly owned or controlled by the
college, such as our vehicle fleet. Four groups in the class focused on this vast area: the
Natural Gas, Vehicle Pool, Gas and Diesel, and the Refrigerant groups. Reducing
emissions will be easiest in these areas because B-W has direct control over these
emissions.
2.
Scope Two is an area with less control than Scope One, -- indirect emissions. These
emissions are from sources that are neither owned nor operated by B-W but are
directly linked to energy consumption on-campus. The largest focus for this Scope is
electricity, since we do not own our own generator, but rather purchase our electricity.
We offer several suggestions for reducing our emissions in this area.
3.
Scope Three is dedicated to “optional” emissions made by the school; ones that are
neither owned nor operated by B-W but are attributed to the school, through activities
6
associated with our campus. This includes commuting, faculty travel, and study
abroad. Other Scope-3 targets that could be considered for carbon-footprint
measurements in the future are the effects of solid waste management, and emissions
associated with paper production, food production etc.
Having calculated our carbon footprint is not useful unless we also understand why
it is important. Establishing where we produce the most carbon will help determine areas
that we can most efficiently and effectively reduce those emissions for the benefit of the
planet, but also reduce financial costs substantially for the college over the short and longterm. In addition, B-W can create a greater sense of community by uniting students,
faculty, and staff around campus-wide goals.
So that the college can become a more responsible citizen of the world, as it invokes
its own students to become, we advocate that the college boldly exercise its leadership
within the region’s academic and corporate communities through the immediate creation
and careful monitoring of carbon-reduction goals. As leading sustainable corporations
have already begun this institutional journey, so should Baldwin-Wallace College.
Consistent with larger global carbon reduction initiatives, we recommend that the college
adopt the goal of “20+ by 2020”. As an institution, our campus leadership, including
president, Board of Trustees, and senior management, ought to rise to the challenge of
reducing our carbon emissions by at least 20% by the year 2020. At the very least, this
allows the college to begin the process of shrinking its own carbon footprint at a pace that
will be necessary to stave off the worst possible climate change scenarios projected for the
second half of our century, when the next generations of students, faculty, and
administrators will reside in our places at this college47. Our college, and all comparable
7
institutions today, has the ingenuity, creativity, managerial expertise, and technology,
necessary for this task. It is only a matter of will and institutional priority. There is no
other undertaking more vital to the future that can wait for another day.
8
III. Natural Gas
Our world is in a fragile state and it is important that each individual and institution
know their harmful impact on the Earth’s delicate balance. Although difficult, we have
tackled emissions of natural gas produced by Baldwin-Wallace College and have developed
a greater understanding for the needs of the campus related to this resource and
sustainability. We offer recommendations regarding heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems, insulation, windows, roofing, paints and glosses to help
reduce carbon emissions by 20% by 2020.
Our 2007 data shows that all buildings produced 784,704 CCF (or hundred cubic
feet). Emissions produced in 2008 increased to 1,018,226 CCF. However, in 2009 they
decreased to 877,528 CCF. The increase in CCF in 2008 is curious due to the fact that
average low temperatures for all three years are within .9 degrees Fahrenheit of each other
(42.7, 41.8, 42.3). Although in 2008, Cleveland had the snowiest March on record, the
lowest temperature of the year was 1 degree Fahrenheit, which is relatively warm
considering in 2009 the lowest temperature was -13 degrees Fahrenheit. More research
must be done to try to identify the cause for the significant increase in natural gas
consumption. However, this information provided us with an average and baseline for our
work. It also offers B-W significant room for improvement.
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems, although difficult to change
immediately, provide long lasting changes toward a positive environmental
transformation. Costly and cumbersome, these systems may not be low-cost for our goal of
reducing B-W’s carbon emissions by 20% by 2020, but the impact of these systems must be
9
addressed as it is an extremely important factor for the overall carbon footprint of the
college.
B-W is taking significant strides to become more sustainable by adopting
geothermal heating and cooling systems with large construction renovations. With every
addition or renovation of a large building on campus, a new geothermal system replaces
the old, outdated, standard natural gas system. The college has added a geothermal system
to Ernsthausen Residence Hall, The Center of Innovation and Growth, The Life and Earth
Sciences Building, and plans for sections of Merner-Pfeiffer Hall to use geothermal.
Geothermal eliminates the need for natural gas, excluding some superficial usages, such as
the fireplace in Ernsthausen Hall, but ultimately produces no emissions. Research shows
that geothermal is one of the most efficient ways to heat and cool buildings without
producing carbon emissions31. Geothermal is effective because a large pumping system is
placed underground tapping into the Earth’s constant temperature of 50 degrees
Fahrenheit. In the winter the air is pre-warmed and then pumped inside the building.
During summer months however, warm air inside a building is pumped out and into the
ground. Although more expensive initially, we found through a personal interview that the
payback period for a geothermal system is between six to ten years and B-W has seen a
40%-60% energy savings on the buildings that have already adopted this new system. This
process ensures a sustainable, reliable and comfortable future for heating and cooling.
CHP, or combined heating and power, is another innovative way to heat and cool
buildings with the added element of power. While producing electricity, the system
collects heat that is created in that process and transfers it to the space heating system,
which is also connected to the gas line in case the heat needs to be supplemented. In
10
addition to providing warmth, the system also produces electricity. More research would
need to be conducted to see if the relationship between the carbon emissions produced and
electrical output would be more beneficial than harmful but nonetheless a CHP system
would be more beneficial than a standard natural gas system. Information on the cost of a
CHP system is all relative to the building however a system could payback as soon as five
years after the project. For a better estimation consult,
http://www.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap?user=chpcalc&script=CHP_payback.cgi.
Williams College in Massachusetts converted to a CHP system in 2004. Their system
initially cost $2.7 million, however they think that the payback will be realized sometime in
2009. For more information on their experience with CHP see,
http://www.chpcentermw.org/rac_profiles/Northeast/WilliamsCollege%2520profile.pdf
Although difficult to install immediately, insulation is a huge aspect of heating and
cooling that B-W has been unable to realize in their quest to become more sustainable and
energy efficient. After consulting with Buildings and Grounds Manager, Bill Kerbusch, it
became apparent that insulation was not a high priority on campus. Providing better,
sustainable insulation needs to become a priority in the construction and renovation of
new and existing buildings.
Cellulose insulation is a relatively inexpensive yet sustainable option for insulation.
It is installed by spraying in insulation which is composed of 75-85% recycled paper fiber,
which is mostly post-consumer use newsprint, and 15% boric acid, which acts as a fire
retardant. Cellulose insulation has an R-value (measure of materials resistance to heat
flow) of 3.6 to 4.036.
11
Recycled cotton insulation is beneficial to the quality of air, boasting no harmful
chemicals, and also to the environment, helping cotton by reused as another material.
Recycled cotton R-values range from 3.7 to 30 and provides no harm when installing.
Greenbuildingsupply.com offers options on UltraTouch insulation varying from R-13
insulation that includes 10 batts for $93.67 per .88 square foot to R-30 including 5 batts for
$100.76 for1.86 square foot. This option could improve the quality of air in buildings and
also serve as an environmentally friendly selection.
Vegetable oil based insulation is a spray-in type insulation that possesses qualities
that provide reductions in airborne allergens, better air quality, insulate as well as give an
air barrier, and is earth-friendly because it is derived from a renewable resource. The price
of this product ranges from $1.45 to $1.65 per square foot and could increase energy
efficiency up to 50%. This product could help B-W become more sustainable and
healthier18.
As B-W renovates and builds, new windows are continuously changed. However, it
is important to consider sustainable factors while making purchasing choices for new
windows. Characteristics that set energy efficient windows apart from standard windows
are double panes, low-emittance coating and low-conductance spacers. All of these aspects
provide benefits for heating and cooling a home. Double or triple pane windows provide
more resistance to heat escaping in addition, low-emittance coatings help suppress heat
flow, creating a more energy efficient and sustainable building. The payback period for this
type of window ranges from 2 to 10 years. Double pane windows are located in Heritage
Residence Hall, Ernsthausen Residence Hall, Constitution Residence Hall and seven other
buildings on campus. Low-conductance spacers are materials that are used to provide
12
extra coverage between the window and insulation helping keep heat from traveling
beyond the glass. Windows are an important part of creating an energy efficient,
sustainable building and by selecting products that provide eco-friendly features BaldwinWallace will be positively influencing the environment and the bank account.
After speaking with Bill Kerbusch, it is apparent that roofing is another aspect of
sustainable design that B-W is unable to give high priority, surely due to financial cost.
Although some changes have been made to increase the R-value and ultimately the energy
efficiency of roofing systems, other options, standard and unique, can be employed to help
reduce energy loss through heating and cooling.
Reflective roofing helps lower energy consumption by up to 40%. In addition, it
increases the efficiency of insulation and HVAC systems, and also takes stress off of each.
Furthermore this system also reduces the Urban Heat Island Effect and urban air pollution
which is an added bonus to combat harmful effects individuals have on the planet30.
Milk jugs to tires to carpet and aluminum; there are many materials that are being
recycled into sustainable roofs. Most roofing systems that boast this feature contain 60100% recycled material in their product, can withstand 100 mile per hour winds and have
warranties that last fifty to sixty years and do not need any maintenance. Ecostar.com has
other useful information that can provide more insight on this technology. Recycled
Roofing will help keep junk out of the landfill and on your roof however will not contribute
a great deal to the energy efficiency of the building23.
The addition of green roofs on campus would help promote conversation of the
college’s intent to decrease carbon emissions by 20% for the year 2020. A green roofing
system requires a stable infrastructure and offers many positive benefits. It can reduce
13
energy costs by providing sound insulation and roofing benefits in addition to reducing the
Heat Island Effect. Also, it can aid with storm water management and does not need to be
replaced frequently. Furthermore, vegetation in addition to grass could be added and
perhaps used as produce for any of the dining halls. The cost for an extensive roof, which is
simple and less intrusive, varies from $9 a square foot to $25 a square foot and weighs only
10 to 50 pounds. Another option is an intensive roof which costs between $25 and $40 a
square foot and can weigh anywhere from 80 to 120 pounds. A green roof would not only
be unique and aesthetically pleasing it would provide great energy efficiency and be a
sustainable step in the right direction37.
The most cost efficient and least labor intensive option to help aid in the heating and
cooling process of our campus could be the use of paints and glosses. By coating buildings
with these special products, a reduction in energy usage will quickly follow. Light
Reflecting paints and glosses will help reflect light off the building therefore reducing the
amount of energy needed to heat and cool the building. Exterior surfaces can be changed
by 50 degrees Fahrenheit by certain types of paint while interior surfaces can be altered by
15 degrees, drastically reducing the need for air conditioning in the summer and heating in
the winter49.
Heating and cooling can be a huge factor in energy savings and carbon reductions on
our campus. Simple changes and more extensive projects over time will help B-W reduce
our carbon emissions by 20% by the year 2020. Our recommendations should be
thoroughly considered and implemented in the years to come in order to make any
significant improvement.
14
IV. Vehicle Pool
We offer various recommendations to reduce B-W’s carbon footprint through its use
of campus vehicles. The first being for each vehicle, create a data log of gallons purchased,
total mileage, date of purchase, total cost of fuel purchased and locations traveled. This
system could possibly help B-W better identify inefficient vehicle use and propose more
sustainable strategies for transportation on campus.
Buildings and Grounds operates the majority of campus vehicles, most of which are
older large vehicles with low gas mileage. We think B&G has much potential, over time, to
lower our school’s carbon footprint.
For example, during the winter, larger model trucks plow snow. However during the
summer, B&G uses the same larger model trucks to do landscaping throughout the campus.
In these cases snow isn’t an issue, and neither is time in order to get job done. In summer
months, we suggest using smaller model vehicles to transport needed materials as well as
keeping supplies in areas they plan to work in as to decrease the amount of trips taken.
Regarding larger vehicles we recommend eventual purchase of vehicles with higher
fuel efficiency and that are sized for specific tasks. For instance, the 2011 Ford Super Duty
with a 6.7-liter power stroke V8 has 29.2 MPG. Ford offers “Flex Fuel” for all such vehicles.
The Flex Fuel allows engines to run cleaner with higher fuel efficiency than standard
models. Another possibility is the GMC Sierra 1500 hybrid. The hybrid model has all the
4x4 capabilities and all the power from the 6.0 liter V8. The hybrid engine is the first two
mode hybrid propulsion system in a full size vehicle. The first mode is used at low speeds
and light loads; in this mode the engine can choose from three ways to power it. The first is
15
electric power only, the second is engine power only and the third is a combination of the
two. The second mode is primarily used at high speeds, the only time the V8 engine is
using its full power is when certain conditions demand it such as towing, passing on the
highway, and climbing steep grades. The hybrid engine will allow the truck to run on all
electric power up to 30-miles per hour. We offer these models because of their more fuelefficient specifications and their capacity to fulfill important functions required at B-W27.
Although the complete revamping of the vehicle fleet would be quite expensive, the
savings in total gas consumption and reduction in carbon emissions would be immediate.
By meeting with the Buildings and Grounds we could possibly allocate a sufficient amount
of vehicles and with the remainders, they could be sold to put money towards the purchase
of the new vehicles.
The second department that provides significant opportunities for carbon
reductions is Safety and Security. Although this department currently only has two
vehicles, 2007 Chevy Trailblazers, use of these vehicles can probably incur higher fuel costs
and carbon emissions. To combat this, we recommend that the college institute no idling
policy, particularly since weather conditions
do not always require heating or cooling in the
vehicle. For warmer weather, a possible
alternative to the Trailblazers could be an
electric golf cart—they seat up to four and can
travel up to 25 miles per hour, which is
suitable for our small campus. The battery
lasts up to 50 miles, and the motor only runs if
16
the accelerator is pushed. To our current knowledge, Case Western Reserve has similar
vehicles currently implemented around their campus.
Another alternative is the T3 series, which has
zero gas emissions, and operates for less than 10 cents a
day. All that has to be done to this vehicle is let it charge
for 3 to 4 hours and it travels at speeds from 0 to 14mph.
The next proposal is a Segway, which some departments
could use to get around campus, such as Safety and Security and our
parking services54. It travels up to 12mph and can last up to 12
miles if ran continuously.
Another problem we see would be the tours held on campus for prospective
students. Normally students commence the tours by walking, however many times they’re
carted around in B-W vans instead, regardless of the weather. We believe the emissions
that the vans produced are highly unnecessary; given the brief amount of time the people
spend in the vehicle for each stop for the tours. Instead, we recommend a vehicle such as
the GEM e6 model that runs on an all electric 7.0 horsepower engine, can carry up to 6
people and can travel 30 miles on one charge. It can also reach up to speeds of 25miles per
hour. The cost is $12,995.0057. In sum, the college has tremendous opportunities to reduce
its carbon footprint, not only through immediate changes in vehicle use with a no idling
policy, and elimination of unnecessary transportation, amongst other things, but also by its
phase-in of higher efficiency, lower carbon emitting vehicles.
17
V. Buildings and Grounds
This section of the report focuses on the Buildings and Grounds Department’s use of
gasoline and diesel and their contributions to the B-W carbon footprint. On average, per
budgetary year, the Building and Grounds Department uses 16,024 gallons of gasoline
costing $45,809 at $2.85 per gallon. Diesel fuel adds another 3300 gallons costing $9,537
at $2.89 per gallon. We offer recommendations to help reduce the use of these carbon
producing fuels that cost thousands of dollars per year and contribute to greenhouse gas
emissions.
Engines that power buildings and grounds vehicles are major contributors to
greenhouse gas emissions. As vehicles are replaced, we recommend that they be replaced
with electric vehicles when possible, and diesel powered vehicles when electric is not
possible. Buildings and Grounds currently has 13 Ford E-150 vans and 5 E-250 vans that
serve as primary vehicles for staff to carry their equipment and supplies to the jobsite.
Using electric vehicles, such as Miles Electric Vehicles that have been purchased by Case
Western Reserve University, could be an excellent way to cut emissions of campus
vehicles2. Not only do they pollute less than a vehicle powered by an internal combustion
engine, but they are also cheaper, costing approximately $18,000 versus $27,000 for a new
E-150 van. While not all vans could be replaced with electric vehicles, as an electric vehicle
cannot carry as much as a van and their top speed is only 25mph, limiting their ability to
leave campus, replacing half the fleet of vans would save thousands of gallons of fuel per
year, reducing the fleet’s carbon emissions according to an interview with Eugene
Matthews of Case Western University.
18
Unfortunately, pickup trucks and Kubota RTV’s used around campus cannot be
downsized as they are needed for snow removal. These are all larger F-350 pickup trucks,
which are diesel powered, as well as the diesel engines that are in the Kubota RTV’s. We
recommend that the vehicles are powered on biodiesel. The campus has a readymade
source from the fryers in the cafeteria, as well as the numerous restaurants within five
minutes of campus. The fuel could be processed in the chemistry lab with the equipment
that has already been purchased, and then used in vehicles powered by the diesel engines.
This would not only recycle a product that the college would have to pay to dispose of, but
it would reduce the amount of diesel fuel purchased by buildings and grounds. While not
as clean as electric, B100 biodiesel offers emissions reductions of all major tailpipe gases
by 75%13.
The next suggestion for Buildings and Grounds is to convert more college lawn
space into low maintenance garden space. Converting this space into flowerbeds,
populated with native species, and low maintenance plants such as Bethlehem Sage, will
reduce the amount of lawn that has to be mowed, and reduce emissions from gas powered
lawnmowers. Also, allowing the grass to grow taller could reduce the number of times it
has to be mowed. Currently, the lawn is mowed on an as needed basis to a height of three
inches. Mowing shorter, to approximately two inches, and allowing it to grow longer,
perhaps to four inches, could reduce the number of times it has to be mowed, and thereby
reducing emissions produced by gas powered lawnmowers.
We also recommend improving the record keeping system for Buildings and
Grounds gasoline and diesel consumption. The Vehicle Emission Pool team proposed a gas
records system to accurately monitor the ongoing fuel efficiency of vehicles by individually
19
recording the gallons purchased, total mileage, amount paid, and date of the fill-up. While
this record keeping system monitors fuel efficiency, it can also be used to record the
Buildings and Grounds gasoline and diesel consumption at their gasoline and diesel tank
containers. The amount of gas or diesel received can be gauged in the tanks, along with the
current odometer reading of the vehicle. This way, Buildings and Grounds would be able to
efficiently monitor their use of gas and diesel, which provides more room for improvement
by seeing which medium uses the most fuel and where fuel can be more proficiently used.
In sum, implementing these recommendations can significantly lower its contribution our
carbon footprint.
20
VI. Refrigerants
Introduction
This section of the report concerns Scope One refrigerant emissions specifically
refrigerant emissions from air conditioning (A/C) units on B-W’s campus.
Refrigerant Data Collection
Initially, the team was provided records from Building & Grounds (B&G) detailing
A/C maintenance on B-W’s buildings. After reviewing the records, the team determined
that the maintenance records did not provide adequate information for determining
accurate refrigerant emissions for the entire campus.
With assistance from Larry Seitz, HVAC technician for B-W, we determined the
buildings on campus that had A/C units, those that used geothermal systems and those that
were currently being renovated for geothermal systems in the future. Mr. Seitz explained
that the main refrigerant used in the A/C units on campus is R-22 (HCFC-22) with R-410a
refrigerant being used minimally in new or geothermal units. (See Appendix A for campus
buildings with A/C, geothermal systems and the type of refrigerant used). A meeting
between Dr. Sabina Thomas and Mr. Seitz determined that the college contracts and utilizes
two A/C maintenances services: The Smith & Oby Service Company and the Price & James
Heating & Refrigeration Company.
Refrigerant Data Analysis
After collecting the refrigerant data, we sought analysis assistance from R. Scott
Thomas, Director of Environmental Affairs, and Barry Culp, Corporate Environmental
Affairs Project Manager, of The Sherwin-Williams Company. Per their recommendations
21
and calculation examples, we determined an estimate of refrigerant emissions for the
campus. This was calculated by using the following factors: conditioned square footage of a
building (ft2), 1 ton coolant per 500ft2, refrigerant R-22 with a global warming potential
(GWP) 1700, charge of coolant 1kg/ton and estimated loss of emissions at 10% per year.
The total estimated refrigerant emission loss per year was determined to be 427 lbs. The
CO2 equivalent for this loss is 330 tons a year. Per this project’s required research period,
the estimated refrigerant emission loss over the course of three academic years (20062009) is 1282 lbs. and the CO2 equivalent emissions is 988 tons. (See Appendix B for
Refrigerant Calculations).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Many recommendations in this report are two-fold: they would not only reduce the
reliance on A/C systems but they would also reduce energy consumption and the carbon
footprint for the college. The short-term recommendations discussed are the least costly
for the college to implement. The longer-term recommendations are more costly for B-W
to implement campus wide.
SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
Refrigerant and A/C maintenance record keeping
The first recommendation for the college is to have B&G maintain accurate A/C
records on refrigerant use and A/C maintenance. Currently, records are only kept by the
contracted service companies when maintenance is completed. These records are not
complete and the therefore the data are incomplete.
Using the service company’s maintenance sheets as an example, an electronic
database or worksheet that inventories the following is ideal:
22
XII.
All buildings (campus and residential) that have A/C units
XIII.
Square footage of the building (ft2)
XIV.
Size of the A/C unit (type or #)
XV.
Refrigerant type used (e.g. R-22, R-410a, R-134a)
XVI.
Replacement/Leakage
XVII.
Service company that completed maintenance (Oby, Price & James)
XVIII.
Dates of maintenance
XIX.
Propellant used/1,000 ft2
XX.
Amount of propellant recovered (lbs.)
Amount of propellant needed (lbs.)
Example Electronic Database A/C Record
Building
Square
A/C
Refrigerant Type
footage
Unit
used
Replacement/Leakage details
Date of
Propellant/
Amount of
Amount of
service,
1,000 ft2
propellant
propellant
needed (lbs.)
(type
which
recovered
or #)
company
(lbs.)
Accurate record keeping will provide B&G better data to determine leaks and to
determine an accurate estimate of emission loss. It will also provide data to implement a
regular maintenance schedule which in turn can provide preventive maintenance measures
23
to be implemented. This would reduce refrigerant emission loss. In addition, a well
maintained system runs more efficiently which will reduce energy consumption as well.
The cost of establishing and implementing an electronic system through Microsoft Access
or Excel would be minimal. Cost would be training employees on how to input the data
into the system. B-W has a full service Information Technology (IT) Department on
campus for development of a database and training.
Increasing thermostat control set points 1-2 degrees during warmer seasons
Last academic year (2008-2009), the Bonds Administration Building and Marting
Hall were part of a test to determine energy savings. The temperature controls were
reprogrammed in these buildings by 1-2 degrees to determine energy savings. Per Bill
Kerbusch, Director of B&G, the test cycle was a success. As a result, B-W’s administration
agreed to set heating and cooling temperatures in all academic and administration
buildings (residential halls are an exception). Through B&G’s temperature management
control, the heating thermostat temperature is set at 68o and the cooling thermostat
temperature is set at 76o for these buildings.
The second short-term recommendation is increasing building temperature controls
by another 1-2 degrees. For example, we could increase temperature set points in later
spring, summer and early fall seasons to 78o instead of 76o. With the higher set point
temperature, the A/C system will run less often, for shorter periods of time and only when
buildings are warmer. This practice not only ensures less stress on an A/C system but also,
less use of refrigerants from possible emissions loss for running shorter periods of time. It
also reduces energy consumption.
24
The cost for resetting the temperature control is nothing. The energy savings for
increasing the temperature for each degree above 72 degree is 1-3% per degree21.
Other heat reducing recommendations
Other heat reducing options to cool buildings that require no or minimal financial
cost are to the college are: turning lights off, opening doors and windows in place of A/C
usage and planting trees to shade buildings.
Lights are a heat generating source. Turning lights off in classrooms, hallways and
buildings in warmer seasons and when natural light is available would reduce the amount
of heat generated in a room or building. Opening doors and windows on seasonal days in
place of using an A/C unit is an option as well. This can create a cross breeze that cools the
building and would eliminate the use of a fans too which consume energy.
Planting trees to shade areas or sides of buildings that receive the most intense rays
of sunlight would cool buildings also. Trees planted to shade homes and/or office buildings
have been shown to reduce A/C needs by up to 30%11. Trees would even create a positive
feedback loop with the trees sequestering CO2 and releasing O2 into the air.
The cost of planting a tree would be the highest in comparison to shutting lights off or
opening doors and windows. It would include cost of the tree and cost of digging or
excavating a hole to plant it. The cost could still be minimal if the tree was donated. The
downside tree planting would be the time period in which it would take for the tree to
mature to provide shade. Also, there is the possibility that adult tree roots can enter a
ground water system or under foundations and cement sidewalks, wreaking havoc. To
combat this, the tree would have to be strategically placed to avoid these types of problems.
25
Overall, implementing these simple practices would demand less from an A/C
system and reduce energy consumption for B-W.
LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
Use of Dunlap white rubber reflective roofing on all roofs; painting rooftops of
buildings white or cool colors
We have learned from Bill Kerbusch that the college has installed Dunlap Roofing on
several campus buildings. This type of roof is comprised of white rubber and therefore, has
a reflective surface. In addition, the seams of these rubber roofs are heat welded together
to create a durable seal. This type of reflective roofing has reduced energy consumption for
B-W. Currently this type of rooftop is installed at Kamm Hall, Bonds Administration
Building, Lou Higgins Recreation Center and others. A recommendation could be to have as
many campus roofs as possible be Dunlap white rubber roofs.
In addition, a long-term recommendation we are suggesting is a simple concept:
paint flat building rooftops white and sloped rooftops in cool colors. The white or cool
colored rooftop reflects sun back into the atmosphere and therefore, the building absorbs
less heat. (This is contrary to black or dark rooftops that absorb heat.) A light-colored
rooftop reduces the heat in a building and keeps it significantly cooler. Studies have shown
that white flattop roofs reduce electricity use for A/C by 15% (Stephen Chu, Secretary of
Energy)45. Less energy consumption reduces CO2 emissions and B-W’s carbon footprint.
Cool colored rooftops are mainly found in southern or western states, and have not
necessarily caught on in the Midwest. This is due to the Midwest’s four seasoned climate.
Cool colored rooftops may reduce energy and emissions during the summer months but
they would be a deterrent during winter months. During winter months, a dark rooftop
26
that absorbs the sun rays is ideal to reduce heating energy consumption. The benefits of
painting rooftops in either white or cool colors would have to be weighed against having
dark rooftops that absorb heat in winter months for the Midwest seasonal climate. The
cost of this recommendation would be the cost of paint and labor for the building rooftops.
A compromise to test the savings for cool rooftops may be painting some campus rooftops
white and leaving others dark.
Conversion of R-22 (HCFC-22) and R-410a to R-134a (HFC-134a, H-134a) refrigerant
As previously mentioned, in a meeting with Larry Seitz, HVAC technician for B-W,
we learned that the college uses R-22 as the main refrigerant for A/C systems. R-22 is a
halocarbon (HCFC). It has a GWP of 1700, its emissions are ozone depleting, it’s a
greenhouse gas and the manufacturing of this refrigerant contributes to climate change34.
The amended Montreal Protocol of 1992 determined a phase-out of R-22. In 2010,
the refrigerant cannot be used in new equipment. By 2020, production of the refrigerant
will cease. At that point, recycled or recovered R-22 can be used in existing A/C equipment
after 2020. The goal is a complete phase-out of the refrigerant by 205034.
The main replacement refrigerant is R- 410a. R-410a is a mixture of hydro
fluorocarbons (HFC) with 50% R-32 and 50% R-125. This mixture does not contribute to
ozone depletion but it does contribute to global warming and climate change32,35. It’s GWP
factor higher than R-22 172532.
Therefore, we recommend substituting refrigerants R-22 and R-410a with R-134a
(HFC 134a, H-134a) refrigerant where possible. R-134a has a significantly lower GWP at
1300.4 Use of this substitute refrigerant would greatly reduce emissions that contribute to
27
climate change. In the case of utilizing R-134a in place of R-410a, the reduction in CO2 over
the course of a three year academic period would be 250 kg (See Graph 1).
It is understandable that the substitute would have to work with already existing
HVAC equipment on campus. But according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s
website on Ozone Layer Depletion Alternatives –HFC 134a (R-134a, H-134a) is an
acceptable substitute for R-22 and R-410a refrigerant33.
Use of R-134a refrigerant is currently more cost effective as well. The price of R-22
is going to continue to rise as the phase-out process continues. Current prices for these
refrigerants based on The Refrigerant Store website are as follows (priced per unit): the
price of 1-2 30 lb. cylinder of R-22 is $195.0050; 1-2 25 lb. cylinder of R-410a $213.0051; a
1-2 30 lb. cylinder of R-134a is the cheapest at $175.0052. There is also a reduction in price
for multiple cylinders ordered. Therefore, with the estimated calculation lbs. of refrigerant
loss annually by the college (427lbs) to replace just the amount loss, the college would
need approximately 15 cylinders (30 lbs. each) of refrigerant. The cost of 15 cylinders of R22 = $2520.00, R-410a = $2475.00, R-134a = $2265.00. R-134a is the cheapest.
GRAPH 1: Comparison CO2 Equivalent Emissions (Mt): Refrigerant Loss
Comparison of refrigerant
types, loss and CO2 emission
equivalent
28
Geothermal Heating and Cooling Systems
Geothermal systems to heat and cool buildings have been rapidly developing since
the 1980’s. Geothermal processes works by harnessing heat from underneath the Earth’s
crust – the hot and molten rock layer called magma There are three designs for geothermal
but all work mainly in the same way by extracting hot water and steam from the ground
that has been warmed by the magma. The steam drives a turbine to generate power for the
building.
For ground-source heating and cooling geothermal pumps, the temperature of the
ground is normally constant - around 50o degrees. Outside tubes and pipes run into the
ground and from the ground into the building to ventilate the building. In the winter, the
liquid moves heat into the building from the ground. In the summer, it moves heat out of
the building to cool and runs it back down into the ground. These systems may have
compressors and pumps to maximize heat transfer between the building and the ground
source61.
These ground-source heat pump geothermal systems have been shown to be very
efficient in the summer. They are the most energy-efficient and environmentally friendly
as well. They have been found to be more efficient than electric heating and cooling and
can move as much as 3 to 5 times the energy they used to process power. In addition, the
U.S. Department of Energy has determined that ground-source heat pumps for geothermal
systems can save hundreds of dollars in energy costs each year61.
Currently, B-W is using geothermal ground-source systems (also referred to as
“vertical” geothermal systems) in a few buildings on campus. The first building to utilize a
geothermal system was Ernsthausen Hall. The most recent building to use geothermal is
29
the Center for Innovation and Growth (CIG). The CIG does contain a compressor to assist in
cooling in the summer months which does utilize a refrigerant – R- 410a. However, per Bill
Kerbusch, the system only utilizes the refrigerant in the compressor area of the system and
it does not circulating through the entire system like a conventional air conditioning
system. Therefore, much less refrigerant is used in the system as opposed to a
conventional central air conditioning unit that circulates refrigerant through the entire
system. Furthermore, the compressor only initiates when the building temperature
exceeds the temperature control set point thus, saving energy.
Renovations on the Life & Science Building, Wilker Hall and McKelvey (with the
possibility of the Conservatory) are all scheduled to include geothermal systems for heating
and cooling of these buildings. With the success of the geothermal systems on campus, our
long-term recommendation would be for all campus buildings to utilize this method of
heating and cooling. Once again, as with the painting of rooftops, this recommendation is
more costly (cost of excavating the dig, pipes, converting over equipment for ventilation
purposes) and would have to be slowly implemented over time as opposed to other shortterm recommendations. From information that we received from Mr. Kerbusch, the cost
and savings of a geothermal system versus a conventional A/C system is $500,000.
LONGER-TERM RECOMMENDATION
Rooftop gardens –“living rooftops”& vertical vegetative walls
In William McDonough and Michael Braungart’s Cradle-to-Cradle they discuss the
use of rooftop gardens on commercial buildings to heat and cool. A rooftop garden or
“living rooftop” consists of: waterproofing membrane, insulation protection layer, drainage
30
layer, filter mat, soil layer and plant life44,56. The vegetation can be turf grass, shrubs or
even trees.14 Roof-top gardens are a longer-term recommendation for B-W’s campus.
Rooftop gardens are not only effective in insulating a building on cold days but also,
they provide cooling in hot weather. It can protect the life of a roof by shielding it from the
sun’s rays and provide storm water runoff protection44. In the summer, rooftop gardens
can retain up to 70-100% of the precipitation that falls on them; in the winter they can
retain about 40-50%. The reduction in the total annual runoff volume for both winter and
summer is 50-60%25. Also, the plant life in the garden gives back to the environment by
taking carbon dioxide in and giving off oxygen44.
The strategy to implement rooftop gardens for B-W’s campus would be to determine
if a building has the load-bearing capacity to support the weight of a garden. Both flat and
sloped rooftops can be utilized for a rooftop garden. Turf grass rooftops weigh 5-30 lbs.
per square foot and plant and vegetative gardens weigh 40-100lbs per square foot. B-W
does have several older buildings and a structural engineer would need to be consulted
with to determine if any buildings are structurally sound for the weight of a garden14.
However, the investments in a garden rooftop can be cost-effective. The initial cost
is estimated at 30% greater than a conventional roof. Cost projections can range from $33$55 a square foot for not only re-roofing but for installation of the garden. But garden
maintenance in place of long term maintenance on a roof can prolong the roof up to 20
years while off-setting energy costs25. Plus, it removes refrigerants from the equation
completely therefore, eliminating refrigerant cost, A/C maintenance, and roofing repair
maintenance. Rooftop gardens also greatly reduce ozone depleting emissions and reduce
to CO2 emissions that contribute to climate change.
31
Examples of Rooftop Gardens
Kansas State University, Kansas41
Trent University, Canada20
Similar to the rooftop gardens, a new architectural structures consisting of
vegetative walls (also called “vegetative fins”) are now being designed for use. Instead of
32
being built on top of a building, a vertical garden is grown on one side of a building. Fed by
rainwater that is captured on the roof or “gray water” recycled from internal plumbing, this
vertical garden changes with the seasons. The vegetation on the wall blooms in the
warmer months creating shade to cool the building. In colder months, the vegetation dies
off, allowing sunlight in to warm the building. The energy savings with a vertical garden
are estimated between 60-65%67.
Architectural designs have been drawn to implement a model like this on the
renovation work for the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building which is a federal
building in Portland, Oregon. The General Services Administration who is heading up the
renovation work for this project states that the building could save as much as $280,000 in
energy savings67.
Example of Vertical Garden
Architectural rendering – main Federal Building, Portland, Oregon67
33
VII. Electricity
Introduction
Team D focuses on purchased electricity, part of Scope Two institutional emissions,
and offers a variety of recommendations how to reduce our carbon-based use of electrical
energy.
Electricity Data
Electricity data presented is for all residence halls and apartments only. Complete
data was not readily accessible for all academic and rental buildings. The total kWh for
2007 through 2009 was found by adding the kWh for each month for each year. The total
kWh for 2007 was 5,106,315. Total cost was $408,505.20 based on the $0.08 per kWh cost
in 2007. The total kWh for 2008 was estimated to be 5,137,735. Complete data were
unavailable for the month of November; therefore, the total kWh was estimated based on
previous data for that month. Total cost was $462,396.15 based on the $0.09 per kWh in
2008. The total kWh for 2009 was estimated to be 4,797,091. Complete data was
unavailable for the months of July, August, and September; therefore, the total kWh was
estimated based on previous data for those months(See Appendix E for total kWh by
building and by month). Total cost was $575,650.92 based on the $0.12 per kWh in 2009.
Recommendations
Recommendations are prioritized as either short-term or long-term. Short-term
recommendations are easiest and most cost-effective to achieve. Long-term
recommendations are more difficult and/or costly to implement.
Short-Term Recommendations
34
The college can immediately reduce electricity consumption by changing all
incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). The elimination of all
incandescent light bulbs should be the college’s first priority regarding electricity. An
Energy Star qualified compact fluorescent light bulb uses 75% less energy and lasts about
ten times longer than an incandescent light bulb43. The green business class counted 1,791
incandescent light bulbs on campus in March 2010. (See charts below for total light bulbs
by building.) Of those light bulbs, 59 percent were college or faculty owned, while 41
percent were student owned. Most incandescent bulbs were
found in personal lamps in students’ dorms and in faculty
members’ offices. It would be cost effective to provide free
compact fluorescent light bulbs to students and faculty for
personal use. The payback period for two 32 watt CFLs is
approximately 0.10 years. (Small Business Pollution
Prevention Center)26. There are approximately 1,900 students living on campus and 167
full-time faculty members. We recommend that the school provide one compact
fluorescent light bulb to each student living on campus and to every full-time faculty
member for each school year. This totals approximately 2,100 bulbs, depending on the
total of number of on-campus residents and faculty. As a direct result of this Carbon
Footprint Project, Sam’s Club has agreed to donate 1,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs to
Baldwin-Wallace for the 2010-2011 academic year. Because CFLs contain a small amount
of mercury, the college should post information in all residence halls and academic
buildings on how to properly clean-up broken bulbs and on how to dispose of CFLs. The
posted information should include the following EPA recommendations: 1) If the bulb
35
breaks, open a window and leave the room for at least fifteen minutes to properly ventilate
the area. 2) Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a sealed plastic bag before
placing them in a trash container. 3) Wash your hands after disposing of the broken
materials. Posting this information will ensure the safety of students and faculty when
handling broken CFLs. We recommend that the college create a means for safe disposal of
used CFL bulbs.
Light Emitting Diode (or LED) lighting is another option the college should consider.
Energy Star LED lighting uses at least 75% less energy and lasts about twenty-five times
longer than incandescent lights43. LED lights are better at directing light in a single
direction and are thus optimal for hallways and staircases.
Inventory of Incandescent Light Bulbs
Around Campus in March 2010
21 Beech Street
23
Alumni House
3
Bagley Hall
28
Bonds Hall
22
Carmel Hall
50
Conservatory
100
Constitution Hall
130
Dietsch Hall
40
Ernsthausen Hall
20
Findley Hall
351
Heritage Hall
192
Kamm Hall
7
36
Klein Hall
300
Kohler Hall
290
Lindsay-Crossman Chapel
50
Lou Higgins Center
27
Marting Hall
30
Math and Computer Science
14
Ritter Library
11
Strosacker College Union
103
TOTAL
1791
(NOTE: Residence hall numbers are
based on a sample of the total rooms.)
One large problem while assessing campus electrical usage was the absence of
records. The school’s available records only go to 2007. This is in part due to the fact that
Greg Paradis, B-W Custodial Supervisor, began keeping these records when he was hired.
If the school were to keep better records they would be able to assess the change in a
building’s kWh after innovations take place. We offer one possible example of a better
record keeping system in Appendix D.
The school should install more meters to have records of kWh usage for each
building. Currently, total kWh usage per building is roughly estimated by dividing the total
kWh based on the square footage of each building. This does not take into account
variable lighting systems in each building. For example, better metering would allow the
college to compare the energy savings of Ernsthausen Hall with other less energy efficient
37
buildings, especially other residence halls. Also, in original records it sometimes becomes
difficult to differentiate between buildings in the absence of differentiated metering.
We recommend the school begin programs like turning off most hallway lights
during the day or even just keeping 1/3 on during the day where sufficient natural light is
available. The school can also shut off lights for unused buildings during school scheduled
breaks. Additionally, academic buildings do not need lights on during hours when the
building is closed. It has been reported that lights are on in unused sections of buildings
throughout entire breaks; this is a useless waste. Therefore, the college could install more
motion sensors, especially in common areas.
We recommend that the school shut down all campus computers at a certain time
each night. This goal would be easily achieved with a programming script that BaldwinWallace IT could institute on computer lab computers. Computers in classrooms and
computer-lab class rooms already have this option installed and will turn off after a period
of inactivity. Adding this feature to the 24-hour labs would be an easy change that could
help reduce electrical consumption.
Long-Term Recommendations
The school can also consider investing in solar panels for rooftops of some campus
buildings. The school can buy these through wholesale
manufacturers. Depending on the price per wattage a
solar panel can range from $2.50 to $6.00 per watt. A
single pallet of 20 solar panels can go for around $10,000.
This would be a very large initial investment, but the
money the school would save over the following years
38
could pay back this price over time9,66. The average solar panel system pays for itself
within the first 10 years, depending upon system cost and utilities pricing. The college can
look into making a single building solar powered to further explore this possibility. The
Center for Innovation and Growth would be a good example. The CIG’s size, sunlight
exposure, and flat roof make it an ideal subject for a solar panel test. The college is already
moving forward with a Power Purchase Agreement for the CIG, wherein the college buys
the energy from a third party investor and thus has no capital costs. An additional
incentive that the government is offering is a 30% federal investment tax credit with a 5
year accelerated depreciation to help reduce the financial impact of installing solar power.
These changes, while initially costly, will eventually pay for themselves and will then
continue to help the college save money for years to come.
If the school does not already have variable frequency drives (VFDs) installed on
most appliances requiring motors, these items can help reduce energy consumption of
these appliances. Variable frequency drives are additional parts to the motor that can
control motor speed by controlling frequency of the electrical power supplied by the motor.
VFDs initially apply a low frequency and voltage to the motor, avoiding the high current
that usually occurs when motors are first turned on. An additional benefit is that the drives
will increase the life of the motor as a result of the decreased stress upon it. These VFDs
can be installed on motors ranging from fans, elevators, various pumps, and heating,
ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) utilities. The average industrial VFD cost around
$600-$1,500 and helps control electrical consumption by making the motor more efficient.
One problem for VFDs is that the cable leading to the drive can become worn out from
resending of electricity back up the cable; this eventually will wear out the insulation. To
39
combat this, the owner can replace the cable or
even increase the size of the cable to offset the
degradation of insulation. This problem aside, a
variable frequency drive can reduce electrical
consumption while increasing motor life63,64.
Conclusion
In order to achieve the goal of reducing the college’s carbon footprint by 20% by
2020, the college should begin implementing these changes. The college can immediately
implement the short-term recommendations of eliminating all incandescent light bulbs and
of keeping better electricity records. The other short-term recommendations are also
easily attainable. The college should seriously consider the long-term recommendations
presented in this report. Although they are initially more costly, installing solar panels and
variable frequency drives will save the college money in the long run. The energy savings
will not only reduce the college’s environmental impact but will also save the college
money.
40
VIII. Commuters
Commuter Group Recommendation Overview
The commuter group focuses our recommendations on ways to reduce carbon
emissions from travel associated with students, faculty and staff that travel to campus each
day. We evaluate each recommendation with three factors. The first and most important
factor is financial cost. The second is the efficiency for maximizing reductions in carbon
emissions. The final factor is the ease or difficulty level of making the change, independent
of financial costs.
Our first recommendation is to discount carpool and high efficiency vehicle parking
permits. Our second is to establish designated parking areas for students who either
carpool or drive a high efficiency vehicle to college. The third recommendation is to
develop and communicate information to students and other commuters on how to
generate higher fuel efficiencies for vehicles and statistics relative to gas consumption. The
fourth is to have a ride board for students who wish to either carpool or travel to out of
town locations. The fifth proposes that the Union accept credit/debit cards. Sixth is that
the college creates storage units for student bikes as an alternative to motorized vehicle
transportation. Our seventh recommendation involves the college expanding the
commuter lounge to provide appropriate space and technology for all commuters, which
would thereby encourage commuters to remain on campus throughout the day.
Carpool and High Efficiency Vehicle Parking Permit Discounts
Although we don’t have evidence to support this claim, we believe that discounted
student carpool and high efficiency vehicle permits might generate higher use of these
41
types of transportation. The annual cost of a parking pass at B-W is $120 for residents and
$60 for commuter students16. The California Energy Commission’s Consumer Energy
Center reports that the average fuel economy of U.S. passenger vehicles is 21 mpg and that
of Accord, Civic, Escape and Prius hybrids is between 46 -55 mpg40. We recommend that
students who either carpool or have a vehicle that exceeds a fuel efficiency standard of at
least 40 MPG should receive a free parking permit. We recommend that the college include
a survey with every parking permit application to determine the level of student interest in
this proposal. As college students we are all aware of how expensive it is to attend college,
particularly given that most students receive financial assistance. That being said, few
students would pass up the opportunity to receive a free parking permit. However, this is
the only cost for implementing this recommendation. Also, there will be an additional
benefit in that as more students participate in carpool rides, fewer parking spots will be
required for students and staff, which will then free up additional parking spaces for
visitors and prospective admission applicants. The idea to include high efficiency vehicles
may not generate much change in vehicle ownership since few people drive these vehicles
due to higher purchase price or other vehicle preferences. But it would send a message to
our students and to the larger public that B-W supports use of high efficiency vehicles.
Free permits to those who carpool could result in a modest reduction in the number of
vehicles on campus. The central part of the idea is that automobiles are one of the largest
producers of carbon emissions and that by reducing the number of vehicles on the campus;
we will therefore lower our carbon emissions. We could also differentiate the carpool /
high efficiency vehicle discount permits from other parking permits by putting a green
mark on the discount permits and parking spots. Currently, students must complete the
42
student parking application for every semester/ year and identify if they are a resident or
commuter, their make/model of car and license number. We would suggest that the
application be modified to include carpool and high efficiency vehicle permit designations.
If the student applies for one of these designations, they would be required to identify the
names of their passengers and who is the primary driver thereby eliminating the issuance
of multiple passes. The college would police the carpooling situation in the same manner in
which they police permits for handicap permits of student/faculty/staff.
Designated Parking Areas
Building upon that idea, we would ask the college to provide designated sections of
the parking lots for carpool drivers and high efficiency vehicles. The only people allowed in
these spots would be those individuals who have the free parking permits. It would not
require the college to obtain any additional parking lots/spaces but rather redefine existing
space which has become available as a result of students who are now carpooling. The
financial cost to implement such an idea would be the cost to paint the designated spots.
By designating specific spots for carpooling and high efficiency cars and other vehicles, the
college would make the statement that they are committed to finding solutions to reducing
our large institutional carbon footprint. If the college is concerned about spots being
empty, we suggest that the spots be distributed throughout the campus. We could use the
design of a handicapped parking spot as a launching pad for the design of the carpool/ high
efficiency vehicle spots. For example, the college could outline the carpool permits in green
and include an image of a plant in the center of the permit and paint parking places green:
“Green on the Green.” Since we would use many available parking spots that many single
drivers currently use on a daily basis, there may be fewer places for them to park. We view
43
this as a positive benefit, because it would encourage those drivers to carpool as a way to
get more preferable parking spaces. The college could also encourage students to
carpool/drive high efficiency vehicles by designating these spots at the nearest parking
spaces to the buildings. This would give students an even greater incentive to carpool with
fellow classmates and provoke community education.
Student Information Campaign
A fourth recommendation that would be low-cost, effective and easy would be to
distribute information, ideally electronic and paperless, on how to generate higher fuel
efficiencies for vehicles. The information could be passed out when students receive their
parking pass and made available on-line. The document could include information about
car idling, avoiding intra-campus driving, promoting bicycle use at school and carpooling.
Miami University has also shown an interest in providing information to students on
vehicle fuel efficiency.
Student Ride Board
A fifth recommendation is for student government to organize a “ride board” such as
a paper ride board in the student union and/or an electronic ride board on the B-W
intranet. Having a ride board will allow commuters to post when they are going
somewhere and how many people they can take. Say a student, John, lives in Cincinnati
and wants to go home for the weekend. Another student, Sue lives in Columbus and wants
to go home the same weekend. Sue goes to the Union and sees the ride board sheet. She
sees that John is going the same weekend. She signs her name and calls John to confirm a
time and place. All Sue needs to do is pay John a small fee for him taking her home. Ohio
44
University5 uses a ride board as does Ohio State University4. They are successful and used
by many students weekly.
Student Payment Changes at the Union
Another idea that could be inexpensive and effective would be to change payment
systems on vending machines and, more importantly, the union to use credit or debit cards.
Commuters do not always carry cash on their Jacket Express; most college students do not
carry cash. Therefore, commuters tend to leave campus and go to someplace like Panera,
Chipotle or another fast food restaurant for food and travel back to campus for class. That
is wasteful and may be difficult to change. If the college allowed credit and debit cards to
be used, it could reduce travel emissions. Students would not have to travel off campus for
food and it would bring in more cash flow for Baldwin-Wallace. It’s not as easy for
commuters to have money readily available on their Jacket Express as it is for residents
because as local residents they are less likely to use a Jacket card. Putting money on Jacket
Express requires cash, check or an alternative that parents do not favor, adding money to
their payment for B-W. If commuters had enough money to add it to their Jacket Express,
they would just use it at the vending machine or in the Union.
Commuter Lounge
The current commuter lounge does not have sufficient space to accommodate the
number of commuters who are willing to use the facility. This reason causes some students
to go elsewhere between classes because of overcrowding. The expansion of the commuter
lounge would give students who have the highest carbon footprint an incentive to stay on
campus between classes and other breaks throughout the day. More area is needed for
commuters, they make up a substantial portion of the college population and they usually
45
live close to campus making it appealing to go home during the day. A large space
somewhere on campus would cut back on the amount of trips to and from the college
everyday for a number of students. Another thing that would be helpful in an updated
commuter lounge would be more computers. Commuters can congregate in the Cyber-café
but it only has 12 or so computers and no printer, which is a downside. Consequently,
more computers would be another reason for commuters to stay on campus instead of
going elsewhere.
Campus Bike Barns
We recommend that the college take actions to promote higher bike use on campus.
This would include increased availability of bike racks. In addition, Bike Barns are fully
covered and secure bike rack locations for not just commuter students but all students for
that matter to place their bikes when they are not in use. Having perhaps three to four
covered locations around campus would allow students to not worry about their bikes
being stolen and would keep them out of the weather. Students can pick where they want
to keep their bikes. The bike barns would not just be for commuters but also for residents
which makes this a great project for the college to take up3.
Conclusion
As one can see, our group has come up with many possible recommendations for the
college to reduce commuter and faculty vehicle emissions. Many are inexpensive and easy
to achieve and can be implemented immediately. Some are more expensive and can be
achieved in the future, but all could be great ideas for the college to implement.
46
IX. Faculty Travel and Study Abroad
Our group focuses on study abroad travel and school-funded faculty travel to
calculate what effect these trips have on the college’s carbon footprint. Travel related to
the Conservatory and the Division of Business Administration has the highest emissions,
but the political science department has the highest emissions per capita faculty. In terms
of study abroad data, we calculated that trips to India involved the largest carbon
emissions. In light of these discoveries we offer several recommendations for
improvements that Baldwin-Wallace could adopt to reduce its overall carbon footprint and
help to reach the goal of at least a 20% carbon dioxide equivalent reduction by the year
2020.
Assumptions
Over the course our project we found that many departments do not keep good
records, which required that we make some assumptions regarding our calculations. We
assumed that each line listed on the excel document the Explorations Office gave us was a
separate person. We also regarded each person as taking a separate flight and that the
cheapest flight was used. If the location did not have its own airport, our group selected
the closest airport to the location. The websites we used to find the cheapest flights was
Tripadvisor.com and to calculate the miles between these airports we used
distancecalculator.globefeed.com. Once we calculated miles, we converted miles to tons of
carbon dioxide using the formula: CO2 emissions= 1 mile* 1 ton CO2/2062 miles/person =
0.000485 tons of CO2. We then multiplied this number by the number of faculty and
students on each trip. For some destinations, the data were too vague to convert. For
example, one professor flew to the Midwest; however we had no idea where in the Midwest
47
he flew, so we ignored that trip. We also ignored two study abroad trips to Muskingum
China, because such a destination does not appear to exist. Other trips required
assumptions. We assumed that a flight to New Mexico went to the largest airport and from
there; travelers drove to the event they were attending. For the CEA trip we assumed
travelers went to Paris, France since that was the most likely trip the school went on
according to options for destinations and the years of each trip. When locations for multicountry trips were in doubt we used the latest itinerary for all trips. We assumed that all
group trips were led by two faculty members, which we accounted for in the measuring the
carbon emissions. For faculty travel we assumed the shortest driving route and that any
trip that was farther than 300 miles was flown. If the state was not given, we picked the
most common location for that trip. We did not include the Gund Reconciliation trip,
because we had no data on what state that was in. We also believed that if two of the same
destination were listed consecutively, that they were the same professor on consecutive
trips.
Current Effects:
For the year 2006-2007, faculty
travel equated to a total of 255975.3 miles;
3151.2 miles were driven and 252824.1
miles were flown. For the year 2007-2008
faculty travel was 282155.9 miles with
9456.4 miles driven and 272699.5 miles
Driving Flying
Total
2006/2007
3151.2 252824.1 255975.3
2007/2008
9456.4 272699.5 282155.9
2008/2009
7571.4 285052.5 292623.9
Total
20179 810576.1 830755.1
Tons CO2: 402.89
flown. In the year 2008-2009, the total
mileage was 292623.9, having driven 7571.4 and having flown 285052.5 miles. This leads
48
to a total for all three years of 20179 miles driven and 810576.1 miles flown for a total of
810576.1 miles. When converted in carbon dioxide, this equals 402.89 tons of CO2.
Of the various departments, the Division of Business Administration was the highest
emitter with 58.3 tons of CO2 released and the conservatory emitted 51.27 tons of CO2,
making it the second highest emitter. Emissions in the political science department were
the highest per person with 5.87 tons of CO2 released per person. (See graph below)
49
In terms of study abroad data, we found that travel to India releases the largest
amount of CO2 with 219.45 tons of CO2 emitted for a trip there and back, most likely due to
the high number of students and faculty who went on the trip. The second highest was
China, emitting 188.276 tons of CO2 per round trip. (See graph below)
50
In terms of miles per semester, the Fall/Spring semester of 2008-2009 has the most
miles at 1165300.885 miles flown. The total miles flown from Spring of 2006 to Fall of
2009 was 2440230.945 miles.
Recommendations:
After reviewing this data our group offers several recommendations to move
toward our goal of 20% reduction in carbon dioxide by the year 2020. Initially BaldwinWallace needs to gather accurate information to better understand what changes can best
reduce our emissions. A method of ongoing record-keeping must be initiated to document
the effects of changes implemented. If the Study Abroad office and Bonds kept a record of
every student/faculty member’s name, where they went, when they traveled, with flights
51
and airlines, our carbon footprint would be considerably more accurate. More accurate
data collection would help B-W to better identify any trends or patterns and better
understand where the majority of emissions are being released.
A possible solution to reducing carbon emissions is to substitute some faculty travel
with video conferencing. The Boston Consulting Group and the Climate Group estimated
that IT-optimized businesses in the U.S. (which includes "smart buildings," substituting
virtual meetings for business travel, and allowing employees to work remotely) could get
rid of almost 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year and save up to
$170 billion42. By 2030 the World Wildlife Fund predicts that telecommuting and virtual
meetings could decrease nearly 1 billion tons of emissions annually42. Three types of video
conferencing may be feasible for the college. The first is Skype, which is free and available
for Smartphones and videophones62. Unfortunately, small screen size and limited
conferencing capacity—only four users can use it at one time—are among drawbacks. It
has a subscription fee for international calls of $12.95 per month, but only if used to call
landlines or cell phones62.
Cisco Telepresence at Berkeley (“ABC’s of Videoconferencing”)
52
The next alternative is Cisco Telepresence which carries an expensive initial startup cost of $600 to $3000 for hardware based desktop system8. Small-group systems cost
between $3,000 and $12,000 with an appliance of $6,000 to $14,000 for a PC-based
system8. Large group or boardroom systems provide the highest quality video and come
with a high start-up cost of $10,000 to $300,0008. These are ISDN or IP-based, do not have
a subscription fee and can accommodate multiple users at one time. Images appear at life
size and the system can be fitted to a desk or office. Generally, base Cisco Telepresence
systems have a 65-inch plasma screen with an embedded camera24. The final video
conferencing alternative is Nefsis, an IP-based system which costs $350 a month46.
Another option is to participate in carbon offset programs to make up for carbon
emissions from study abroad trips and for when teleconferencing is not feasible. We have
identified types of carbon offsetting programs: airline carbon offsetting (included in the
ticket purchase), students and faculty initiating their own carbon offsetting programs
(Some common alternatives are planting trees or renewable energy projects), or other
companies that provide offsetting programs for a charge. All of these alternatives would
theoretically make up for the carbon emitted through travel. In the longer term, the school
could require students/faculty to calculate their total emissions and then ensure that they
counteract that the entire amount by participating in one of these three offsetting
programs.
Faculty could also take responsibility for educating students traveling abroad.
Middlebury College claims success with their Green Passport Program, a low-maintenance
social networking site designed to heighten students’ ecological conscience. Participating
students agree to reduce their environmental impact, respect the culture they are visiting,
53
and give back to the community17. The site also partners with other colleges, Abroad View
magazine, and sustainable travel agencies to offer sustainable study abroad programs. For
instance, through the Living Routes-Green Passport partnership, students from several
majors including teaching, English, French, communications, business, anthropology,
sustainability, and the arts may live in ecovillages and learn about sustainable community
development, agriculture, indigenous cultures, and more. Students participate in carbon
offsetting programs through the village and develop skills that will help them reduce the
college’s footprint in the future (Living Routes teaches every student to measure and
reduce emissions resulting from office activities as well as travel, commuting, electricity
and paper use). Green Passport currently sends students to locales near B-W study abroad
programs, such as Findhorn, Scotland and Crystal Waters, Australia; other programs are
based in Senegal, Brazil, India, Mexico, and the U.S.1.
The Middlebury College Study Abroad office thinks that in providing
students with a linked list of resources, they are helping them to be
environmentally conscious and reduce their own individual footprints53. Middlebury
College has reduced the collective carbon footprint of the college as well, including a 40%
reduction of net emissions of carbon due to biomass last year and the goal of becoming a
carbon neutral campus19. Tips on the listed sites include warnings against harming local
wildlife or attempts to take natural resources home. A number of colleges seek to reduce
their footprint by providing grants for pursuing sustainability related projects or research
abroad for up to $500. If students were rewarded with grants for sustainable travel, more
students would be environmentally conscious while abroad and do sustainable projects
54
and research in an effort to receive these grants. The website www.350.org is an
international campaign that connects students and holds events worldwide such as
candlelight vigils and marches59. The number 350 comes from the upper limit of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere in parts per million. 350. org promotes reducing the carbon
dioxide levels back to these limits. Its focus is a clean energy economy and is attempting to
get as many members to join as possible to act as a voice for reducing carbon emissions
Baldwin-Wallace’s membership would help to support carbon reduction and show that the
college cares about the environment. The organization makes suggestions about planting
trees, protecting rainforest, reducing waste, and investing in alternative energy solutions
all of which could be taken up by faculty and students either directly or by making a
donation to help these areas60. The school could also place resources for sustainable travel
on its study abroad page, such as the following additional links:
http://www.sustainabletravelinternational.org/documents/gi_travelchecklist.html (which
provides a sustainable checklist before embarking on a trip),
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/index.php (where students/faculty can determine what
their carbon footprint is before traveling to determine how much of an effect they are
having on the environment) , and
http://www.transitionsabroad.com/listings/travel/responsible/responsible_travel_handb
ook.pdf (which is an entire handbook of helpful tips that will make travel more sustainable
and reduce fewer emissions).
Faculty and staff could also establish a better campus carpool system for out of state
road trips, where employees could arrange to travel together. A form which faculty
55
planning an upcoming trip can complete, available for all faculty to access, could help to
better coordinate carpools and ensure that carbon dioxide are reduced.
Avoiding certain airlines that have higher carbon emissions would also help
students and faculty meet their carbon reduction goals. On a scale from 0 to 100, with 100
being the best, Continental received a 37, Southwest Airlines and Delta/Northwest both got
a 40, and United and US Airways both got a 43; American Airlines received a score of 4810.
All of these airlines fly out of Cleveland. The airlines received their scores based on if they
measured their carbon footprint, have made efforts to reduce their carbon footprint,
supported improvements on climate legislation, and disclosed their carbon reduction
information to the public10. Virgin America’s Airbus A320 fleet releases 25% less CO2 than
competitors and is the only airline that reports its GHG emissions on the Climate Registry55.
(Airlines Sector-Brand
Scores)
56
Finally, B-W could require faculty and staff members to rent hybrid cars for their
trips until they have the funds to replace their own vehicles with hybrids or electric cars.
This way faculty would most likely improve their gas mileage and be taking smaller cars
than the B-W vans, where appropriate.*
Recommendations by Cost:
Better Record Keeping: In terms of prioritizing our ideas by financial cost (from
cheapest to most expensive) better records would be ranked number one. It merely costs
the school time and energy to save itineraries and records. Although record keeping will
not reduce carbon emissions by itself, B-W will not be able to determine how much CO2
reductions or how much we are saving or spending without proper documentation.
Use of Sustainable Travel Guide: Next would be the Sustainable Travel Guide.
Students, staff, and professors should read it online and then make choices for their travels.
Airline Preference: Students, staff, and faculty should avoid airlines that are not
good in terms of CO2 offsets. This may require a higher price for better airlines, but could
be considered when not substantially more expensive.
Carpooling: Carpools would be after that in terms of expense, since the school will
still have to pay the price of gas and tolls. However, carpools should not be very expensive
to coordinate.
When abroad, Saab, Lotus bioethanol are cars available for rent in Europe63. Volvo and some
others provide Flexi fuel which is ethanol and petrol63. In Stockholm, Sweden biofuel is readily
available at over 85 pumps. This fuel is made of non-food feedstocks and algae and releases far
less carbon emissions than standard fuels, requires less servicing since the car does not get
clogged with waste particles, and is cheaper. Biofuel is used by buses in Stockholm and is
available throughout the UK at all Morrison’s filling stations63. There are also numerous car
sharing programs throughout France. The Lille Metropole, in Lille, France, has 120 clean cars in
its fleet. There is also an environmentally-friendly taxi company in Europe called Grazer63.
*
57
Carbon Offset Programs: Organizing student/staff/faculty carbon offsetting
programs on campus might not be very expensive. Students could plant trees in the
Metroparks or could compost. Earth Day Coalition runs a collaborative Naturehood
program that aims to restore native landscapes to approximately 3,000 acres of vacant land
in the Cleveland area28. Baldwin-Wallace could provide student volunteers to make seed
balls and plant trees—a cost-effective way of carbon offsetting, as EDC already has the
materials and the funding; they simply need labor. The college could set up a regular
program where travelers could “pay back” their CO2 emissions through scheduled
environmental projects. This is a new concept and could potentially be very labor
intensive. However, several colleges have already proven that it is possible to implement.
The University of Florida worked with the Florida Forestry Association and the
Environmental Defense Fund to put aside 18 acres to plant pine trees, which it will
continue to protect for 10 years to offset the carbon emissions of a single football game25.
The carbon emissions released from the game include all of the fan’s and team’s travel,
lodging, and those associated with stadium operation. It’s continuing its carbon neutral
football games by giving energy saving light bulbs, low-flow showerheads, and other
carbon reducing home improvements to low income families in the area25. Further,
Middlebury College gives students the option of purchasing a $36 offset from Native Energy
of Vermont—offsets come from either Native American owned wind power or family farm
methane digesters projects that create electricity from cow manure. By purchasing
renewable energy, students increase its production, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
fossil fuel burning, and, claims Middlebury, help the college meet its CO2 reduction goals.
When students return, they receive a certificate and a coupon for a pint of Ben & Jerry’s ice
58
cream22. Ohio’s family farms and local markets (such as Fresh Fork Market or Green Corps
Farm) could be supported if B-W implemented a similar program with methane digesters.
The airline offsets would incur some expense since the school would pay a
surcharge on tickets to offset carbon emissions. For example, American Airlines allows
customers to calculate their carbon footprint due to their travels and then make a donation
based on their footprint to one of four offset areas, such as wind energy, forest
preservation, preventing forest burning, or preserving ecosystems14. The cost for
American Airlines to offset a trip from Tampa Bay to Chicago has the minimum carbon
offset donation at $2.0514. Delta offers passengers the choice with their ticket purchase to
donate $5.50 for domestic roundtrips and $11 for roundtrip international flights, which is
used to plant trees15. Virgin Blue lets customers decide if they want to add carbon
offsetting onto their ticket for a little more than a dollar58.
Other company offset programs would be more expensive since students/faculty
would have to donate to an organization to offset carbon emissions for their trips. One
such organization is Carbonfund.org. Its prices are $5.50/metric ton of carbon39. Another
organization, TerraPass, prices are $10/metric ton of carbon39. Native Energy’s prices are
$13/metric ton of carbon39. Overall, Ecobusinesslinks.com states that the average carbon
offset company charges about $19.50 a year to remove 3.55 tons of CO2. This cost is
equivalent to $1.63 a month to offset that amount.
59
Rent Hybrids or Electric Cars: The college could tell faculty that they would only be
reimbursed for rental fees if the car was a hybrid or electric vehicle. It’s cheaper than
buying but requires Baldwin-Wallace to pay for a vehicle for every trip. Price depends on
make, model, and year, and electric cars generally take up to 6 to 7 hours to refuel.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car even allows renters to make a carbon offset donation anywhere
from $1.25 to $1 million and they will match your payment29. These carbon offset
payments could add up if the entire B-W faculty purchased one with each rental and
Enterprise matched their donations Baldwin-Wallace could play a significant role in
reducing its carbon footprint.
Videoconferences: The college would purchase additional materials to set up
conferencing including web cams. However, this will lead to a breakeven point financially
after the trip’s transportation, lodging, and food costs are eliminated.
(“Nefsis”)
60
Buy Hybrids: Finally, the most expensive option would be to purchase hybrids cars,
but could recover costs through lifetime operating expense reductions. The cost of a
typical hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius or the Honda Civic hybrid, is anywhere from
$22,000 to $30,00048,6. This would probably be around the same cost, if not cheaper, than
what the college would pay for passenger vehicle replacements anyway.
Prius
2010 Honda Civic
Recommendations by Effectiveness:
We also ranked choices by most effective in reducing carbon emissions to least
effective. Our first answer again was to keep better records. This helps the college
understand fully what the current carbon footprint is and which areas the college will need
to focus on in the future that are the main carbon emitters. The next most effective would
61
be videoconferencing. It removes the transportation that causes the carbon emissions both
to and from the destination. Although the manufacturing of the videoconferencing
equipment and the electricity used during the videoconference will still release some
carbon emissions, the reduction will be tremendous. Third would be to ensure that faculty
and staff rent hybrids or other high fuel-efficient vehicles, which the school could use when
needed. 2010 Hybrid car costs generally range from mid-thirties to high forties65. For
example, the 2010 Toyota Prius ranges from $22,800-$28,070 and the Ford Fusion Hybrid
ranges from $25,666-$27,950 depending on the dealership and the car features7. Van’s
prices start as low as mid-twenties to mid-thirties, which includes Fords and Chevy and
Toyota65. Airline carbon offsets would be the next most effective, where the airlines will
work to offset the emissions caused by the trips. Companies carbon offsets would also be
very effective, but by using these instead of the airlines carbon offsets the school cannot
guarantee that full trips emission will be offset depending on the donation and how the
company uses the money. Regardless, it will still reduce the amount of CO2.
The next most effective would be our carbon offset efforts. A group or program that
everyone has to take before or after their travels to learn about carbon emissions and work
towards offsetting the emissions they caused, would increase awareness and decrease
carbon. It takes time for the offset to occur, since we emit faster than the trees/energy
projects will work to offset the carbon. The school will also need to take into account that
different types of trees also absorb different amounts of CO2. For our local trees, a single
mature tree absorbs 48 lbs of carbon dioxide per year12. One acre of tree coverage can
compensate for driving a car between 7,200 and 8,700 miles12. A midsized 30 mpg car that
62
drives 12,000 per year will create about 3.55 tons of CO2 per year38. A potential problem
for effectiveness depends on if the tree survives and grows to maturity61.
Next would be airline preferences. It may not be “good”, but it is “less bad” than
traveling on airplanes that are not fuel-efficient. Carpooling would be after that, since it
still releases carbon emissions for the trip, but depending on how many people travel
together, can have a substantial impact. If two people travel together total carbon
emissions would be around half of what they would have been if each traveled separately.
The least effective would be to have the students and faculty only use the Sustainable
Travel Guide, because it’s up to the reader if they chose to enact the advice from the guide.
Yet, it can be very effective if all of the recommendations are taken.
Recommendations by Difficulty
Disregarding financial cost, the recommendations ranked from easiest to hardest to
achieve would still have the list start with record keeping. It would be helpful if B-W kept
itineraries. If they wanted to be more accurate, they could fill out the spreadsheet that our
group is making to help with the records for study abroad and faculty travel (See
Attachment). The Sustainable Travel Guide would be relatively easy as well, since students
and faculty just have to read the suggestions and make small changes in their lives. Airline
preferences would be next. B-W travelers simply need to avoid companies that have planes
that release a lot of carbon. Our carbon offsets should not be too difficult to implement,
because the school would just have to add an additional program to B-W in which B-W
students and faculty could plant trees, create a garden, or walk more instead of driving to
counter their emissions. Airline carbon offsets would be slightly more difficult but still
relatively easy, because students and faculty need to specify that they want carbon offsets
63
added onto their ticket and pay a slightly higher price. Other companies carbon offsetting
would mean that students/faculty would have to contact an organization that would
counteract their carbon emissions from their travels and write a check. Luckily, there are
several organizations that students/faculty can use to offset emissions. Renting hybrids
would be about as easy, but students/faculty would need to contact a car rental and specify
that they need a hybrid and provide the dates of the trip.
Carpooling would be more difficult because faculty would need to be in touch with
other professors who are traveling around the same time to similar areas. Finding
someone to travel with could be made easier by having an online calendar of all faculty
trips so when a faculty member is planning a trip they could look to see if anyone else is
going to the same place around the same time. B-W could also arrange a campus website to
help coordinate these trips. Following this in terms of difficulty would be video
conferencing. Organizing the meetings by video could be hard to arrange because it would
be hard to coordinate people’s schedules and find a spot to hold the video conferencing
from. It would require the people that the meeting is with to have videoconferencing
abilities on their end also. It may be difficult to find an appropriate place for web cam
meetings and set up the system at B-W. The most difficult solution for Baldwin-Wallace to
implement is to purchase hybrids. It would take some time and effort for B-W to raise
funds and shop around for the most fuel-efficient vehicles.
Implementation Schedule
Overall, several changes need to be made now to start working to reduce carbon
emissions by 20% by 2020. This year the school could start keeping better records and
saving itinerates. It could work on a carbon offset program to get started for fall semester
64
or use one of the other offset programs in the meantime until ours could is up and running.
Until the school acquires the funds to purchase hybrid or other higher fuel-efficiency
vehicles, faculty and members could be required to rent only hybrids or carpool if not
already doing so for all of their travel nearby. For travel over 300 miles or for study abroad
trips, only more sustainable airlines should have trips booked on them. Students and
faculty who are traveling should have to read the sustainable travel tips off the websites
before embarking on their trips. Finally, the school should start looking into web cam
possibilities for the future. The current savings in the other areas will hopefully help to
fund the web cam purchases. Baldwin-Wallace can definitely reach this reduction goal, but
we will need to start acting now.
65
X.
Conclusion
With this carbon footprint analysis, Baldwin-Wallace College stands in the position
to further its leadership in sustainability It now has the opportunity to make a firm
institutional commitment to join the ranks of leading academic, corporate, municipal, and
nonprofit institutions in our country and abroad to set and achieve carbon emission
reduction goals that are essential for the future of humanity and the planet. In order to
attain 20% carbon emission reductions by 2020, we must realize that, throughout this
report, our groups reiterate the important need for comprehensive, on-going, thorough
record keeping of all college activities that result in CO2 emissions. Secondly, we
recommend that individuals be designated to continuously update this analysis on an
annual basis and that this analysis become a public document available internally and
externally.
We highlight a variety of recommendations, all of which are easy and low to no cost.
Among Scope One groups, the Vehicle Pool recommends a no idling policy; the Buildings &
Grounds group recommends mowing grass to a lower height and allowing it to grow taller.
Refrigerants recommends turning off lights, opening doors and windows, and increasing
thermostat control set points 1-2 degrees during warmer seasons. Our Scope Two group,
electricity, recommends shutting down computers after lower inactivity times and keeping
fewer lights on. Within Scope Three, the Commuter group recommends a ride board, and
Study Abroad and Faculty Travel group recommends the Sustainable Travel Guide,
preferences in airlines, an online calendar of faculty trips, and setting up a Skype account
for conferences.
66
Other recommendations can be separated into two categories: the Replacement
category and the Forward Action category. Much of what was recommended were
potential replacements to what currently exists. For instance, the current refrigerant being
used will be phased out, so we recommend replacing it with the most sustainable (and
cheapest) alternative. Eventually, B-W will have to replace what is currently being used
and this report gives sustainable options—from cars to insulation to windows to paint to
light bulbs. The second category is the Forward Action category, where B-W would take
the initiative to install new technologies, such as green roofs or a combined heating and
power system. The recommendations in these categories, understandably, can be
implemented in steps: compact fluorescent and LED bulbs now, hybrids later. Eliminating
20% of our carbon emissions by 2020 is an easily achievable goal by the college. Shutting
down computers or turning off lights quickly creates huge cost savings and emissions
reductions. B-W has made good incremental, non-systemic improvements to be more
sustainable. This Carbon Footprint Analysis is a tribute to our ongoing efforts, and the
project shows that this institution cares about sustainability. Knowledge, as always, is
power. Now B-W has the power to take our increment al efforts to a much higher and more
effective level, benefitting the college, its students, faculty, staff, future generations of
alumni, and not least, the future of humanity and our planet.
67
XI. WORKS CITED
1. [homepage on the Internet]. Green Passport Program; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available
from: http://greenpassport.ning.com/.
2. [homepage on the Internet]. Miles Electric Vehicles; n.d. [cited 2010 May 3]. Available
from: http://www.milesev.com.
3. [homepage on the Internet]. NexTag; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr. 21]. Available from:
http://www.nexttag.com/bike-shed/stores/html.
4. [homepage on the Internet]. Ohio State University; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr. 20]. Available
from: http://www.osu.edu.
5. [homepage on the Internet]. Ohio University; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr. 20]. Available from:
http://www.ohio.edu.
6. 2010 Honda Civic [homepage on the Internet]. Honda; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr.].
Available from: http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-hybrid/.
7. 2010 Hybrid Vehivles [homepage on the Internet]. Fuel Economy; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr.].
Available from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs.shtml.
8. ABC’s of Videoconferencing [homepage on the Internet]. Networkworld; n.d. [cited
2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.networkworld.com/research/2001/1029feat2.html.
9. About Solar Panels [homepage on the Internet]. Solar Panel Info; 2009. [cited 2010 Apr.
12]. Available from: http://www.solarpanelinfo.com/solar-panels/.
10. Airlines Sector-Brand Scores [homepage on the Internet]. Climate Counts/Angus Reid
Public Opinion; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.maddockdouglas.com/mapchange-2010-full-report.
11. Alexander K, Nowak D J. Colorado Trees - Tree Benefits Page [Internet]. Urban forests
improve our air. [cited 2010 Apr 16]. Available from:
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm
12. Alexander K. Benefits of Trees in Urban Areas [homepage on the Internet]. Colorado
Tree Coalition; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm#carbon.
13. Alternative and Advanced Fuels [homepage on the Internet]. Department of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 2010 Apr. 8. [cited 2010 Apr. 30]. Available from:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/biodiesel_benefits.html
68
14. American Airlines Launches Carbon Offset Program [homepage on the Internet]. ASIA
Travel Tips; 2009 Apr. 27. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news09/274-CarbonOffset.shtml.
15. Baker K A. Offset and Minimize Your Carbon Emissions [homepage on the Internet].
SouthAfrica To; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/Carbon- neutral-flight.php5
16. Baldwin-Wallace Student Parking Permit [homepage on the Internet]. Berea (OH):
Baldwin-Wallace College; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr. 30]. Available from:
http://www.be.edu/resources/parking.html.
17. Better Travel for a Better World [homepage on the Internet]. The Abroad View
Foundation; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.abroadview.org/green/.
18. BioBased Spray Foam Insulation [homepage on the Internet]. 2007. [cited 2010 Apr.
22]. Available from: http://www.biobased.net/index.php.
19. Biomass at Middlebury [homepage on the Internet]. Middlebury College; n.d. [cited
2010 Apr.]. Available from: http://blogs.middlebury.edu/biomass/carbon-neutrality/
timeline/.
20. Blythe A, Menagh L. From rooftop to restaurant - a university cafe fed by a rooftop
garden [Internet]. City Farmer, Canada’s Office of Urban Agriculture. [2006 Nov.; cited
Apr 23 2010] Available from: http://www.cityfarmer.org/TrentRoof.html Photo
Available from: http://homepage.mac.com/cityfarmer/Trent/otonabeeWeb.jpg
21. California Energy Commission. Consumer Energy Center [Internet]. Summertime
energy-saving tips. [cited 2010 Apr 16]. Available from:
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/tips/summer.html
22. Carbon Offset Program [homepage on the Internet]. Middlebury College; n.d. [cited
2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.middlebury.edu/international/sa/sustainable/carbon_offsets
23. Choose Recycled Roofing Materials | GreenYour.com [homepage on the Internet]. Home
| GreenYour.com; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr. 22]. Available from:
http://www.greenyour.com/home/home-improvement/roof/tips/choose-recycledroofing-materials
24. Cisco Telepresence [homepage on the Internet]. IVCi; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available
from: http://www.ivci.com/videoconferencing-cisco.html.
69
25. Colleges Go Carbon Neutral [Television]. Yosim A, author. ABC News; 2009 Dec. 12
published.
26. Compact Fluorescent Bulb Facts [homepage on the Internet]. (IA): Iowa Waste
Reduction Center; 2006 Sept.. [cited 2010 Apr. 6]. Available from:
http://www.iwrc.org/downloads/pdf/CompactFluorescentFacts.pdf.
27. Coupal J. Ashley Ford Sales Blog [homepage on the Internet]. (MA): Ashley Ford; 2010
Mar. 13. [cited 2010 Apr. 22]. Available from:
http://ashleyfordsales.com/BlogRetrieve.aspx?BlogID=4649&PostID=128148.
28. Earth Day Coalition [homepage on the Internet]. Naturehood; 2004. [cited 2010 Apr.].
Available from: http://www.earthdaycoalition.org/naturehood_main.php.
29. Empowering Our Customers: Optional Carbon Offset Program [homepage on the
Internet]. Enterprise Holdings, LLC; 2009. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.keystogreen.com/carbon_offset.html.
30. Energy Efficient Roof - Reflective Roofs: Better for the Environment, Inside & Out
[homepage on the Internet]. Duro-Last Roofing, Inc; 2010. [cited n.d.]. Available from:
http://www.duro-last.com/coolzone/energy-efficient-roof.asp.
31. EnergyStar Building Upgrade Manual, Environmental Protection Agency 2004;
(Publication no. 6202J): Available from:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/BUM.pdf. Accessed 2010 May 4.
32. Engineering Toolbox, The. Refrigerants – physical and environmental properties
[Internet]. c,2005. [cited 2010 Apr 26]. Available from:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/refrigerants-properties-d_145.html
33. Environmental Protection Agency. Ozone Layer Depletion – Alternatives/SNAP
[Internet]. Acceptable substitutes in household and light commercial air conditioning.
[modified 2009 Sept 30; cited 2010 Apr 12] Available from:
http://www/epa/gov/oxone/snap/refrigerants/lists/homeac.html
34. Environmental Protection Agency. Ozone Layer Depletion – Regulatory Programs
[Internet]. Background: ban on production and imports of ozone-depleting
refrigerants.[modified 2010 Feb 12; cited 2010 Mar 5]. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/title6/phaseout/22phaseout.html
35. Environmental Protection Agency. Ozone Layer Depletion – Regulatory Programs
[Internet]. Technicians and contractors frequently asked questions. [modified 2009 Dec
23; cited 2010 Mar 5]. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/title6/phaseout/technicians_contractors_faq.html.
70
36. Green Facts, Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association 2010; Available from:
http://www.cellulose.org/CIMA/GreenFacts.php. Accessed 2010 Apr. 22.
37. Green Roofs - GreenGrid® Modular Roof, Rooftop Garden, LEED [homepage on the
Internet]. 2009. [cited 2010 Apr. 22]. Available from:
http://www.greengridroofs.com/greenroofs.htm.
38. How Much Does Carbon Offsetting Cost? Price Survey [homepage on the Internet].
Ecobusiness Links; 2010 Mar. 29. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.http.
39. How to Go Green: Carbon Offsets [homepage on the Internet]. Discovery
Communications LLC; 2010 Mar. 29. [cited 2010]. Available from:
http://www.treehugger.com.
40. Hybrid Vehicles [homepage on the Internet]. (CA): Consumer Energy Center; n.d. [cited
2010 Apr. 18]. Available from:
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/hybrids.html.
41. Kansas State University. Google images [Internet]. Rooftop garden. [cited 2010 Apr 20].
Available from:
http://kstatenews.org/wpcontent/uploads/kstatenews.org/2009/09/IMG_3694.JPG
42. LeCompte C. Can Videoconferencing Save the Earth? In Short, No.. Business Week 2009
May 5; Available from:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2009/tc2009055_186987.ht
m?campaign_id=rss_topStories. Accessed 2010 Apr. 28.
43. Light Bulbs [homepage on the Internet]. Energy Star: Buy Products that Make a
Difference; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr. 8]. Available from:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?
fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=LB.
44. McDonough W, Braungart M. Cradle-to-cradle: remaking the way we make things. New
York (NY): North Point Press; 2002. pp. 83.
45. Merchant B. TreeHugger. White roofs to sweep the world, fight climate change
[Internet]. Brooklyn (NY): 2009 May 26 [cited 2010 Apr 5]. Available from:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/white-roofs-figh-climate-change-chui.php
46. Nefsis [homepage on the Internet]. Nefsis; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.nefsis.com/.
47. Pachauri R. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report [homepage on the Internet]. IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007; 2007. [cited 2010 Mar. 3]. Available
from: http://www.ipcc.ch/.
71
48. Prius [homepage on the Internet]. Drive Classica Toyota; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr.].
Available from: http://www.driveclassictoyota.com/index.php/2010-toyotaprius.html?gclid=CNzem5OO9qACFQ8NDQodPCVwuQ.
49. Radiant Heat Barriers Make Your Building More Energy Efficient [homepage on the
Internet]. Green Building Supply, Non Toxic Supplies, Environmentally Friendly
Materials; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr. 22]. Available from:
http://www.greenbuildingsupply.com/utility/showProduct/?objectID=623
50. Refrigerant Store, The. Coolgas, Inc. [Internet]. R-22 [cited 2010 Apr 12]. Available
from: http://www.koolit.net/prod_list.php?sci=3
51. Refrigerant Store, The. Coolgas, Inc [Internet].R-134a [cited 2010 Apr 12]. Available
from: http://www.koolit.net/prod_list.php?sci=9
52. Refrigerant Store, The. Coolgas, Inc [Internet]. R-410a [cited 2010 Apr 12]. Available
from: http://www.koolit.net/prod_list.php?sci=18
53. Resources for Sustainable Study Abroad [homepage on the Internet]. Middlebury
International; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
http://www.middlebury.edu/international/sa/sustainable/resources.
54. Segway of Dayton. http://www.segwayofdayton.com/models/index.php?page=xt.
55. Stoiber M. Airlines Sector Still Lags in Sustainability. Maddock Douglas, Inc [serial on
the Internet]. 2010 Mar. 25 [cited 2010 Apr.]; Available from:
http://community.maddockdouglas.com/blog/entry/15677/Airlines-Sector-Still-Lagsin-Sustainability/;jsessionid=2D527D35371A5AD736BBDE05F6DCF709.
56. Storm Water Center. Pollution Prevention Fact Sheet – Green Rooftops [Internet]. [cited
2010 Apr 5]; [about 5 paragraphs]. Available from:
http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Pollution_Prevention_Factsheets/greenrooftops.htm
57. T3 Motion Deploys T3 Series Electric Vehicles in Airports [homepage on the Internet].
Law Officer; 2010 Mar. 3. [cited 2010 May 3]. Available from:
http://www.lawofficer.com/news-andarticles/announcements/2010/03/t3_motion_electric_vehicles.html
58. The Sydney Morning Herald. 2007 Mar. 21; Available from:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/more-airlines-to-carbon-offsetturnbull/2007/03/21/1174153123585.html. Accessed 2010 Apr..
59. Thebodo S. Going Green Guide for Schools Abroad Directors [homepage on the
Internet]. Middlebury; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr.]. Available from:
72
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/104821/original/Going_Green_Guide_for_Di
rectors_Abroad.doc
60. Understanding 350 [homepage on the Internet]. Biocreative; n.d. [cited 2010 Apr.].
Available from: http://www.350.org/understanding-350#2.
61. Union of Concerned Scientists. How geothermal energy works [Internet]. Clean Energy.
[modified 2009 Dec 16; cited 2010 Apr 9.] Available from:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/h
ow-geothermal-energy-works.html.
62. Use Skype [homepage on the Internet]. Skype Limited; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr. 28].
Available from:
http://www.skype.com/allfeatures/subscriptions/#mexicanSubscriptionTab.
63. Vehicles [homepage on the Internet]. Civitas-Trendsetter; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr.].
Available from: http://www.trendsetter-europe.org/index.php?ID=457.
64. VFD Fundamentals [homepage on the Internet]. Kilowatt Classroom; 2003. [cited 2010
Apr. 14]. Available from: http://www.kilowattclassroom.com/Archive/VFDarticle.pdf.
65. What is a variable Frequency (VFD) How does it work? [homepage on the Internet].
Joliet Technologies; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr. 14]. Available from: http://What is a
variable Frequency (VFD) How does it work?.
http://www.joliettech.com/what_is_a_variable_frequency_drive.htm.
66. Wholesale Solar [homepage on the Internet]. Wholesale Solar; 2010. [cited 2010 Apr.
12]. Available from: http://www.wholesalesolar.com/.
67. Yardley W. New York Times. In Portland, growing vertical [Internet]. [2010 Jan 30; cited
2010 Apr 27] Available from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/us/31portland.html
73
APPENDIX A
Baldwin Wallace Building Square Footage - updated 10/7/09
Useage Building
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Administration
Alumni House (Victoria House)
Archwood
Black Culture Center
Buildings & Grounds
Center for Innovation & Growth
Chapel
Dietsch
Health Center
Historian House
Information Technology
Kamm Hall
Kleist Art & Drama
Kulas
Life-Earth-Science
Loomis/Math Computer Science
Malicky/Carnegie/Baldwin Art Library
Management Center East
Marting
McKelvey
Merner-Pheiffer
Observatory
Recreation Center
Ritter Library
Seminar & Training
Stadium (Finnie)
Student Activity Center
Tudor House/Security
Yr.
Built
1970
1968
2009
1872/1991
1872/1991
1967
1976
1972
1912/1986
1967
1950
1905
1896/1989
2009
1940
1940
1949/1986
1959
1971
1911/1992
1929
Address
Sq. Ft
275 Eastland Rd.
279 Front St.
2709 Archwood
118 Beech St.
400 N. Rocky River Dr.
350 Front
56 Seminary St.
65240
5922
6360
2580
25000
17205
10155
66 Seminary St.
207 Beech St.
345 Beech
20 Beech
191 E. Center St.
95 E. Bagley Rd.
96 Front St.
336 Front St.
139 Tressel St.
33 Bagley
Landmark Centre
50 Seminary St.
328 Front St.
49 Seminary St.
42 E. Fifth St.
136 E. Bagley Rd.
55 E. Bagley Rd.
325 Front
141 E. Bagley Rd.
96 Beech st.
296 Beech St.
74
9160
7246
3145
3740
43378
78841
38562
36932
20670
41432
6248
28320
9500
19532
5502
144196
42930
5212
11820
12025
3692
NOTES
Refrigerant
Has two maintenance records
R-22
*geothermal
410a
R-22
Has one maintenance record. Per Larry
Seitz has new units and no leakage?
But there is a maintenance record.
R-22
Have four maintenance records
Has two maintenance records
*will be geothermal
Has one maintenance record???
Malicky only?
R-22
R-22
R-22
410a
R-22
R-22
*will be geothermal
Has two maintenance record
R-22
410a
R-22
Has three maintenance records
Has three maintenance records
R-22
R-22
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Rental
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Union
Ward
Wheeler
Wilker
Day Care Wing (Loomis)
UCC
Wallace House
112 Beech
28 E. Fifth
352 Eastland
48 E. Grand
58-60 E. Grand
70 E. Grand
362 Front St. - Rental
372 Front St. - Student Housing
384 Front
101 Jacob
109 Jacob
131 Jacob
137 Jacob
157 Jacob
98 Seminary
104 Seminary
56-88 Beech
63 Beech (Freshman)
163 Beech
188 Beech
351/351 1/2 Beech
378 Front
390 Front
Bagley Hall
Berea Townhouse E.
Berea Townhouse W.
Bridge St. Apt.
Carmel
Constitution Hall
1965
1951
1892/1994
1960
120 E. Grand St.
96 E. Fifth St.
300 Front St.
320 Front St.
2011
****33 Seminary St.****See below
33 Beech
112 Beech
28 E. Fifth
352 Eastland
48. E. Grand
58-60 E. Grand
70 E. Grand
362 Front
372 Front
384 Front
101 Jacob
109 Jacob
131 Jacob
137 Jacob
157 Jacob
98 Seminary
104 Seminary
56-88 Beech
63 Beech St.
163 Beech
188 Beech
351/351 1/2 Beech
378 Front
390 Front
123 E. Bagley Rd.
66, 70, 74, & 78 Bridge
82, 86, 90, & 94 Bridge
102, 104, & 106 Bridge
125 E. Grand
144 Tressel St.
1956
1972
2000
1966
75
89537
10856
20370
32554
15460
57958
2798
2598
1952
1884
2711
2736
2442
2816
4012
1148
2352
2188
2024
3372
2820
2200
1512
2658
10108
Has one maintenance record
Has one maintenance record
Has three maintenance records
*will be geothermal
R-22
R-22
R-22
410a
Has one maintenance record
R-22
3288
2411
16596
19896
19896
4175
46000
38339
R-22
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Ernsthausen Hall
Findley Hall
Floreski
Hamilton House (2 Buildings)
Hamilton House Townhouses (4)
Hanson Hall
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Heritage Hall
Klein Hall
Kohler Hall
Lang Hall
North Hall
President's House-329 Beech
Saylor Hall
Zeve Hall
1961
1957
171 E. Center St.
275 Beech St.
219 Seminary
375 Front
1988
77 W. Bagley Rd.
38300
31856
6978
20384
3600
4392
1963
1950
1867/1940
1928
1959
114 Tressel St.
77 Beech St.
65 Seminary St.
253 Beech St.
309 Beech St.
329 Beech
55 Beech St.
21 Beech St.
64308
13858
22432
31585
24220
6975
13858
7854
1950
1988
has A/C units
has or will have geothermal units - currently being renovated
**** This will be the finished square footage when completed in 12/15/11****
76
1,426,812
*geothermal
Has one maintenance record
R-22
R-22
*Print shop and Resident Life only for
A/C
R-22
Has one maintenance record
R-22
R-22
APPENDIX B—PART ONE
Buildings - other estimated R-22
Bonds Administration Building
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
65,240
ft2
Estimated sf per ton cooling
500
ft2/ton
Total tons of cooling
130
ton
Assumed Refrigerant
R-22
GWP
1,700
Charge per cooling-ton
1
Total charge (kg)
130
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
13
kg
Refrigerant emissions
22
tCO2e
Buildings - other estimated R-22
10,155
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
ft2
500
ft2/ton
20
ton
Lbs
R-22
GWP
1,700
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
EPA operating loss factor
1
kg/ton
20
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
2
kg
Refrigerant emissions
3
tCO2e
43,378
500
87
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
44.7758322
lbs. loss
4.47758322
Kamm Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
87
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
287.6588176
lbs. loss
28.76588176
Chapel
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Buildings - other estimated R-22
Lbs
9
15
kg
tCO2e
78,841
500
ft2
ft2/ton
191.2640127
lbs.loss
19.12640127
Kleist Art & Drama
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
77
Lbs
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
158
R-22
1,700
1
Total charge (kg)
158
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
16
27
kg
tCO2e
38,562
500
77
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
77
EPA operating loss factor
347.6288908
lbs.loss
34.76288908
8
13
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
kg
tCO2e
170.0291129
lbs.loss
17.00291129
Malicky/Carnegie/Baldwin-Art
Library
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
41,432
500
83
R-22
1,700
1
Total charge (kg)
83
EPA operating loss factor
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
kg
Kulas Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-22
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
ton
8
14
kg
tCO2e
28,320
500
57
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
182.6836317
lbs.loss
18.26836317
Marting
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
57
EPA operating loss factor
10%
78
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
124.8696768
lbs.loss
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
6
10
kg
tCO2e
19,532
500
39
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
Merner-Pheiffer
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
39
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
4
7
kg
tCO2e
144,916
500
290
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
290
EPA operating loss factor
86.12127568
lbs.loss
8.612127568
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
29
49
kg
tCO2e
42,930
500
86
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
638.9694238
lbs.loss
63.89694238
Ritter Library
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
86
EPA operating loss factor
9
15
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
kg
Recreation Center
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-22
Lbs
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
12.48696768
kg
tCO2e
189.2886732
lbs.loss
18.92886732
Student Union
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
89,537
79
ft2
Lbs
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
500
179
R-22
1,700
1
Total charge (kg)
179
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
18
30
kg
tCO2e
10,856
500
22
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
22
EPA operating loss factor
394.7901219
lbs.loss
39.47901219
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
2
4
kg
tCO2e
20,370
500
41
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
47.86670944
lbs.loss
4.786670944
Wheeler Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
41
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
kg
Ward Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-22
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
ft2/ton
ton
4
7
kg
tCO2e
16,596
500
33
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
89.8162188
lbs.loss
8.98162188
Bagley Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
33
80
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
73.17574704
EPA operating loss factor
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
Total charge (kg)
46,000
500
92
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
92
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
202.82504
kg
lbs.loss
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
9
16
kg
tCO2e
20.282504
31,856
500
64
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
Lbs
Findley Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
64
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
kg
tCO2e
Carmel Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-22
3
6
lbs.loss
7.317574704
6
11
kg
tCO2e
64,308
500
129
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
140.4607494
lbs.loss
14.04607494
Heritage Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
129
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
13
22
81
Lbs
kg
tCO2e
283.5494059
lbs.loss
28.35494059
Buildings - other estimated R-22
Lang Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
31,585
500
63
R-22
1,700
1
Total charge (kg)
63
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
6
11
kg
tCO2e
7,854
500
16
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
16
EPA operating loss factor
139.2658454
lbs.loss
13.92658454
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
2
3
kg
tCO2e
20,670
500
41
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
34.63017096
lbs.loss
3.463017096
Loomis/MCS
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
41
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
kg
Zeve Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-22
Lbs
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
4
7
kg
tCO2e
9,160
500
18
R-22
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
91.1389908
lbs.loss
9.11389908
Dietsch
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
82
Lbs
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
1,700
1
Total charge (kg)
18
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
kg
tCO2e
36,932
500
74
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
74
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
*Currently being renovated for
geothermal
7
13
kg
tCO2e
36,932
500
74
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
162.8420517
lbs.loss
16.28420517
McKelvey Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
74
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
*Currently being renovated for
geothermal
Buildings - other estimated R-22
2
3
40.3886384
lbs.loss
4.03886384
Life and Science
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-22
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-22
kg/ton
7
13
kg
tCO2e
32,554
500
65
R-22
1,700
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
162.8420517
lbs.loss
16.28420517
Wilker Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
65
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
7
83
Lbs
kg
143.538399
lbs.loss
14.3538399
Refrigerant emissions
*Currently being renovated for
geothermal
TOTALS:
Total refrigerant loss per year (lbs)
Total refrigerant loss per year (kg)
Total CO2e loss per year (tons)
11
1 Fiscal Year:
427.0
193.7
329.3
84
tCO2e
3 Fiscal Years:
1281.1
581.1
987.9
APPENDIX B—PART TWO
Buildings - other estimated 410 a
Bonds Administration Building
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
65,240
ft2
Estimated sf per ton cooling
500
ft2/ton
Total tons of cooling
130
ton
Assumed Refrigerant
410 a
GWP
1,725
Charge per cooling-ton
1
Total charge (kg)
130
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
13
kg
Refrigerant emissions
23
tCO2e
Buildings - other estimated R-410 a
10,155
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
ft2/ton
20
ton
410 a
GWP
1,725
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
EPA operating loss factor
ft2
500
Assumed Refrigerant
1
kg/ton
20
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
2
kg
Refrigerant emissions
4
tCO2e
43,378
500
87
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
Lbs
44.7758322
lbs. loss
4.47758322
Kamm Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
87
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410 a
287.6588176
lbs. loss
28.76588176
Chapel
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Buildings - other estimated 410a
Lbs
9
15
kg
tCO2e
78,841
500
ft2
ft2/ton
191.2640127
lbs.loss
19.12640127
Kleist Art & Drama
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
85
Lbs
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
158
410a
1,725
1
Total charge (kg)
16
27
kg
tCO2e
38,562
500
77
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
347.6288908
lbs.loss
34.76288908
Kulas Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
8
13
Lbs
kg/ton
77
EPA operating loss factor
kg
tCO2e
170.0291129
lbs.loss
17.00291129
Malicky/Carnegie/Baldwin-Art
Library
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
41,432
500
83
410a
1,725
1
Total charge (kg)
83
EPA operating loss factor
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
kg/ton
158
EPA operating loss factor
Buildings - other estimated 410a
ton
8
14
kg
tCO2e
28,320
500
57
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
182.6836317
lbs.loss
18.26836317
Marting
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
57
EPA operating loss factor
10%
86
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
124.8696768
lbs.loss
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
6
10
kg
tCO2e
19,532
500
39
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
Merner-Pheiffer
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
39
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
4
7
kg
tCO2e
144,916
500
290
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
290
EPA operating loss factor
86.12127568
lbs.loss
8.612127568
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
29
50
kg
tCO2e
42,930
500
86
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
638.9694238
lbs.loss
63.89694238
Ritter Library
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
86
EPA operating loss factor
9
15
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
kg
Recreation Center
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated 410a
Lbs
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
12.48696768
kg
tCO2e
189.2886732
lbs.loss
18.92886732
Student Union
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
89,537
87
ft2
Lbs
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
500
179
410a
1,725
1
Total charge (kg)
179
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
18
31
kg
tCO2e
10,856
500
22
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
22
EPA operating loss factor
394.7901219
lbs.loss
39.47901219
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
2
4
kg
tCO2e
20,370
500
41
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
47.86670944
lbs.loss
4.786670944
Wheeler Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
41
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
kg
Ward Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated 410a
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
ft2/ton
ton
4
7
kg
tCO2e
16,596
500
33
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
89.8162188
lbs.loss
8.98162188
Bagley Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
33
88
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
73.17574704
EPA operating loss factor
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
Total charge (kg)
46,000
500
92
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
92
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
9
16
kg
tCO2e
31,856
500
64
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
202.82504
lbs.loss
20.282504
Findley Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
64
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
kg
tCO2e
Carmel Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated 410a
3
6
lbs.loss
7.317574704
6
11
kg
tCO2e
64,308
500
129
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
140.4607494
lbs.loss
14.04607494
Heritage Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
129
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
13
22
89
Lbs
kg
tCO2e
283.5494059
lbs.loss
28.35494059
Buildings - other estimated 410a
Lang Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
31,585
500
63
410a
1,725
1
Total charge (kg)
63
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
6
11
kg
tCO2e
7,854
500
16
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
16
EPA operating loss factor
139.2658454
lbs.loss
13.92658454
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
2
3
kg
tCO2e
20,670
500
41
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
34.63017096
lbs.loss
3.463017096
Loomis/MCS
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
41
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
kg
Zeve Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated 410a
Lbs
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
4
7
kg
tCO2e
9,160
500
18
410a
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
91.1389908
lbs.loss
9.11389908
Dietsch
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
90
Lbs
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
1,725
1
Total charge (kg)
18
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
kg
tCO2e
36,932
500
74
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
74
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
*Currenlty being renovated for
geothermal
7
13
kg
tCO2e
36,932
500
74
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
162.8420517
lbs.loss
16.28420517
McKelvey Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
74
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
*Currently being renovated for
geothermal
Buildings - other estimated 410a
2
3
40.3886384
lbs.loss
4.03886384
Life and Science
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated 410a
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated 410a
kg/ton
7
13
kg
tCO2e
32,554
500
65
410a
1,725
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
162.8420517
lbs.loss
16.28420517
Wilker Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
65
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
7
91
Lbs
kg
143.538399
lbs.loss
14.3538399
Refrigerant emissions
*Currently being renovated for
geothermal -
TOTALS:
Total refrigerant loss per year (lbs)
Total refrigerant loss per year (kg)
Total CO2e loss per year (TONS)
11
1 Fiscal Year:
427.0
193.7
334.1
92
tCO2e
3 Fiscal
Years:
1281.1
581.1
1002.4
APPENDIX B—PART THREE
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
Bonds Administration Building
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
65,240
ft2
Estimated sf per ton cooling
500
ft2/ton
Total tons of cooling
130
ton
Assumed Refrigerant
R-134a
GWP
1,300
Charge per cooling-ton
1
Total charge (kg)
130
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
13
kg
Refrigerant emissions
17
tCO2e
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
10,155
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
ft2
500
ft2/ton
20
ton
Lbs
R-134a
GWP
1,300
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
EPA operating loss factor
1
kg/ton
20
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
2
kg
Refrigerant emissions
3
tCO2e
43,378
500
87
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
44.7758322
lbs.loss
4.47758322
Kamm Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
87
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
287.6588176
lbs.loss
28.76588176
Chapel
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
Lbs
9
11
kg
tCO2e
78,841
500
ft2
ft2/ton
191.2640127
lbs.loss
19.12640127
Kleist Art & Drama
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
93
Lbs
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
158
R-134a
1,300
1
Total charge (kg)
158
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
16
20
kg
tCO2e
38,562
500
77
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
77
EPA operating loss factor
347.6288908
lbs.loss
34.76288908
8
10
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
kg
tCO2e
170.0291129
lbs.loss
17.00291129
Malicky/Carnegie/Baldwin-Art
Library
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
41,432
500
83
R-134a
1,300
1
Total charge (kg)
83
EPA operating loss factor
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg
Kulas Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
ton
8
11
kg
tCO2e
28,320
500
57
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
182.6836317
lbs.loss
18.26836317
Marting
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
57
EPA operating loss factor
10%
94
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
124.8696768
lbs.loss
6
7
kg
tCO2e
12.48696768
19,532
500
39
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
Lbs
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
Merner-Pheiffer
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
39
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
kg
tCO2e
144,916
500
290
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
290
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
29
38
kg
tCO2e
42,930
500
86
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
638.9694238
lbs.loss
63.89694238
Ritter Library
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
86
EPA operating loss factor
9
11
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
4
5
86.12127568
lbs.loss
8.612127568
Recreation Center
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg/ton
kg
tCO2e
189.2886732
lbs.loss
18.92886732
Student Union
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
89,537
95
ft2
Lbs
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
500
179
R-134a
1,300
1
Total charge (kg)
179
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
18
23
kg
tCO2e
10,856
500
22
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
22
EPA operating loss factor
394.7901219
lbs.loss
39.47901219
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
2
3
kg
tCO2e
20,370
500
41
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
47.86670944
lbs.loss
4.786670944
Wheeler Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
41
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg
Ward Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
ft2/ton
ton
4
5
kg
tCO2e
16,596
500
33
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
89.8162188
lbs.loss
8.98162188
Bagley Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
33
96
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
73.17574704
EPA operating loss factor
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
Total charge (kg)
46,000
500
92
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
92
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
9
12
kg
tCO2e
31,856
500
64
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
202.82504
lbs.loss
20.282504
Findley Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
64
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg
tCO2e
Carmel Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
3
4
lbs.loss
7.317574704
6
8
kg
tCO2e
64,308
500
129
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
140.4607494
lbs.loss
14.04607494
Heritage Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
129
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
13
17
97
Lbs
kg
tCO2e
283.5494059
lbs.loss
28.35494059
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
Lang Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
31,585
500
63
R-134a
1,300
1
Total charge (kg)
63
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
6
8
kg
tCO2e
7,854
500
16
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
16
EPA operating loss factor
139.2658454
lbs.loss
13.92658454
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
2
2
kg
tCO2e
20,670
500
41
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
34.63017096
lbs.loss
3.463017096
Loomis/MCS
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
41
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg
Zeve Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
Lbs
kg/ton
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
4
5
kg
tCO2e
9,160
500
18
R-134a
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
91.1389908
lbs.loss
9.11389908
Dietsch
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
98
Lbs
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
1,300
1
Total charge (kg)
18
EPA operating loss factor
Total charge (kg)
kg
tCO2e
36,932
500
74
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
74
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
*Currenlty being renovated for
geothermal
7
10
kg
tCO2e
36,932
500
74
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
162.8420517
lbs.loss
16.28420517
McKelvey Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
74
EPA operating loss factor
Lbs
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
*Currently being renovated for
geothermal
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
2
2
40.3886384
lbs.loss
4.03886384
Life and Science
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
Refrigerant emissions
Buildings - other estimated R-134a
kg/ton
7
10
kg
tCO2e
32,554
500
65
R-134a
1,300
1
ft2
ft2/ton
ton
162.8420517
lbs.loss
16.28420517
Wilker Hall
Gross Conditioned Floor Area
Estimated sf per ton cooling
Total tons of cooling
Assumed Refrigerant
GWP
Charge per cooling-ton
Total charge (kg)
65
EPA operating loss factor
kg/ton
kg
10%
Average annual refrigerant loss
7
99
Lbs
kg
143.538399
lbs.loss
14.3538399
Refrigerant emissions
*Currently being renovated for
geothermal
TOTALS:
Total refrigerant loss per year (lbs)
Total refrigerant loss per year (kg)
Total CO2e loss per year (TONS)
8
1 Fiscal Year:
427.0
193.7
251.8
100
tCO2e
3 Fiscal
Years:
1281.1
581.1
755.4
APPENDIX C
DATE
1/28/10
1/29/10
1/29/10
1/29/10
1/31/10
2/2/10
2/2/10
TIME
3:37 PM
8:46 AM
CONTACT
NAME
E-MAIL
Dr. Sabina
Thomas
sfthomas@bw.edu
Kristi
Reklinski
9:00 AM
Nate Hauff
9:02 AM
Dr. Sabina
Thomas
4:56 PM
2:42 PM
5:19 PM
Dr. Sabina
Thomas
Nate Hauff
R. Scott
Thomas
kreklins@bw.edu
nhauff@mail.bw.edu
sfthomas@bw.edu
sfthomas@bw.edu
nhauff@mail.bw.edu
rsthomas@sherwin.com
PH #
440.826.2267
440.826.2102
740.277.9777
440.826.2267
440.826.2267
740.277.9777
216.
566.2182
101
TYPE
COMMENTS
INITIALS
E-mail
Dr. Thomas sent e-mail to team requesting additional
information regarding Refrigerant data sheets
KR
E-mail
Responded to Dr. Thomas that inventory sheets
provide:campus location of unit, date unit was
serviced, amount of R-22 used in lbs., amount
recovered
KR
E-mail
Responded that in addition to KR's notes of what was
listed on the inventory sheets, there is also a leak
identification report which includes: leak locationrefrigerant type, if it was repaired (Y or N) and why
not?
NH
E-mail
Dr. Thomas responded that the units may only be
serviced every few months or so that Karen Hart in
B&G may be able to assist us further.
KR
E-mail
Dr. Thomas forwarded a response from R. Scott
Thomas, (title), for Sherwin-Williams describing the
process of adding R-22 to a cooling unit, the recovery
process and determining escaped emissions. He
noted that if we do not have good maintenance
records - we need to estimate the amount of
emissions loss by the square footage of the building.
*Dr. Thomas to find out of B&G services all units.
KR
E-mail
Nate contacted R.Scott Thomas, Director of
Environmental Affairs for Sherwin-Williams to inquire
about: how is refrigerant removed, how does the
square footage of a building affect our calculations.
NH
E-mail
R. Scott Thomas responded with information about
determining emission factors if you have good
maintenance records (add up amount of refrigerant
use-recovery X emission factor - e.g. 10% loss a
year). No good maintenance records (that is us) need
to estimate the amount of refrigerant loss per square
footage of building. He also attached to the e-mail
EPA document "Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from
Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Equipment". (See attached)
NH
2/3/10
12:59 PM
2/4/10
1:02 PM
2/5/10
2/10/10
2/12/10
2/12/10
2/15/10
3:02 PM
12:51 PM
9:04 AM
10:28 AM
9:40 AM
Kristi
Reklinski
kreklins@bw.edu
440.826.2101
E-mail
Kristi contacted Karen Hart, Data/Analyst for B&G, to
inquire about refrigerant maintenance records. Was
told by Karen Hart that she only keeps gasoline
records. Informed that we should contact Larry Seitz
lseitz@bw.edu - he is HVAC technician. She
suggested e-mailing him because he is in and out
alot.
Nate Hauff
nhauff@mail.bw.edu
740.277.9777
E-mail
Received e-mail from Nate Hauff, Team C co-worker,
that he was effectively dropping the course.
KR
E-mail
Per Karen Hart's information, I e-mailed Larry Seitz to
introduce myself and to ask where I can get a list of
all the buildings on campus that have air conditioning
units.
KR
Phone
Left Larry a message following up on my e-mail that I
sent to him 2/5/10 because to date, I haven't heard
back yet. Told him that I will need to provide some
information to Dr. Krueger and Dr. Thomas by next
Tuesday.
KR
E-mail
Left message for Karen Hart that I have not gotten a
response from Larry Seitz and if there are any other
points of contact that I could use to obtain information
on the air conditioning units on campus, that would
be helpful. Also informed her that I need to get
something to Dr. Krueger and Dr. Thomas by
Tuesday 2/16/10.
KR
Phone
Spoke to Larry - he provided info as far as A/C units
on campus, geothermal, information about Smith &
Oby - only come out on breaks and when there are
problems.
KR
E-mail
Send e-mail to R Scott Thomas to introduce myself,
inform him that Nate was no longer continuing in the
course and that I would be the point of contact for
future correspondence. Thanked him for refrigerant
guidance report.
KR
Kristi
Reklinski
Larry Seitz
Karen Hart
Larry Seitz
R Scott
Thomas
kreklins@bw.edu
lseitz@bw.edu
kahart@bw.edu
lseitz@bw.edu
rsthomas@sherwin.com
440.826.2102
440.826.6981
440.826.2234
440.826.6981
216.
566.2182
102
KR
2/15/10
2/16/10
2/16/10
2/17/10
2/18/10
2/18/10
2/19/10
2/19/10
2/22/10
10:13 AM
1:45 PM
R Scott
Thomas
Sabina
Thomas
rsthomas@sherwin.com
sfthomas@bw.edu
2:01 PM
Sabina
Thomas
12:50 PM
Sabina
Thomas
sfthomas@bw.edu
12:43 PM
EPA Region 5
General request form
completed on website
3:13 PM
Paul Novak
10:30 AM
Paul Novak
11:55 AM
R Scott
Thomas
9:42 AM
Paul Novak
sfthomas@bw.edu
Novak.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
Novak.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
rsthomas@sherwin.com
Novak.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
216.
566.2182
440.826.2267
440.826.2267
440.826.2267
440.250.1700
440.250.1714
440.250.1714
216.566.2182
440.250.1714
103
E-mail
Received e-mail from R Scott Thomas with another
spreadsheet to determine calculations for emissions.
Also, some additional information about types of
propellant and their GWP (global warming potentials).
(See attached)
KR
Person
In class, I discussed with Dr. Thomas the records that
I was able to collect from Larry Seitz. She asked me
to e-mail the spreadsheet information that I compiled
regarding the A/C buildings on campus. She was
meeting with Larry Seitz 2/17/10 @ 9:00 and she
would ask him for additional information.
KR
E-mail
E-mailed Sabina list of questions for Larry Seitz with
A/C records. The questions include: which Beech
Street address has A/C (there are two), I have
maintenance records for Loomis & MCS, and Dietch
but he didn't mention those units has having A/C, is
R-22 used in all units, what are the charges of the
units, and what is the lbs. of propellant being used?
Also forwarded to her R Scott Thomas's e-mail
received on 2/15/10 per her request.
KR
Person
Per Sabina, she was unable to meet with Larry Seitz
this morning. Meeting was cancelled - no new
updates.
KR
E-mail
Sent an e-mail to Region 5 (Cleveland) EPA to ask if
there is a staff member that would be able to answer
questions about R-22.
KR
E-mail
Received e-mail correspondence back from EPA of
contact name Paul Novak to direct question to about
R-22.
KR
E-mail
Sent correspondence to Paul to verify if R-22 in fact
has not GWP and if it is being phased out in the
future
KR
E-mail
Sent reply thanking R Scott Thomas for example
spreadsheet for refrigerant calculations and notified
him of updates to this point.
KR
E-mail
Received correspondence from Paul Novak with a
website address and timeline of phasing out
emissions for R-22
KR
2/24/10
2/24/10
10:35 AM
Sabina
Thomas
11:49 AM
Sabina
Thomas
2/24/10
5:45 PM
2/26/10
10:05 AM
2/26/10
3:56 PM
sfthomas@bw.edu
sfthomas@bw.edu
440.826.2267
440.826.2267
E-mail
Received correspondence from Dr. Thomas that she
met with Larry Seitz - we do not have records from a
second 3rd party A/C maintenance corporation that
fixes A/C's on campus called Price & James. Also, R22 is used in the majority of campus units but not all.
410 A is used in some units - mainly newer units. The
units vary from 2.5-50 ton units that could use
anywhere from 3 lbs-100 lbs of coolant. Overall, we
still don't have specifics.
KR
E-mail
Sent response to Dr. Thomas thanking her for
information and provided her an update on the EPA's
response about R-22. Need to research 410 A next.
KR
KR
Sabina
Thomas
sfthomas@bw.edu
440.826.2267
E-mail
Received e-mail from Dr. Thomas that R-22 is being
phased out due to the ozone depleting capabilities.
She also sent link that R Scott Thomas originally sent
from the EPA regarding Refrigeration units.
Paul Novak
Novak.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
440.250.1714
E-mail
Sent e-mail to Paul to ask about 410a
KR
E-mail
Dr. Thomas met with R Scott Thomas from Sherwin
Williams, Barry Cupp and Sarah Jones on Wednesay
2/24/10 and compiled a document of information that
was attached to the e-mail. The document included a
spreadsheet conversion example of approximate loss
of propellant for when you don't have specific enough
information. This spreadsheet is divided into:
Refrigerant type, Building name, Square footage of
2
building, propellant/1,000 ft and the amount of
propellant needed. Also, there are notes to assume
the worst case scenario (round UP the amt. of
propellant with higher GWP). The second
spreadsheet was an example of recommendations to
give B&G to collect information going forward and
contained the following criteria: Building name,
square footage, A/C Unit (type or #), Type of
refrigerant used, replacement/leakage values, date of
2
service (and company name), propellant/1,000ft
and amount of propellant needed. (See attached). (In
addition to that, I think records should be kept of all
refrigerator units - pop machines, refrigerators in
admin. buildings, etc).
KR
Sabina
Thomas
sfthomas@bw.edu
440.826.2267
104
3/1/10
8:25 AM
Kristi
Reklinski
3/3/10
3/4/10
3/10/10
3/10/10
3/15/10
3/17/10
3/17/10
Paul Novak
4:58 PM
10:08 AM
Sabina
Thomas
Kristi
Reklinski
5:38 PM
Sabina
Thomas
11:25 AM
Kristi
Reklinski
3:25 AM
Kristi
Reklinski
3:28 PM
Kristi
Reklinski
Novak.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
kreklins@bw.edu
sfthomas@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
sfthomas@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
440.250.1714
440.826.2102
440.826.2267
440.826.2102
440.826.2102
440.826.2102
440.826.2102
440.826.2102
105
E-mail
Received e-mail correspondence back from Paul with
website and information about 410a.
KR
E-mail
Sent e-mail to Dr. Thomas confirming that I received
e-mail from her on 2/26 and that I would spend the
following week (spring break) reviewing material that
I had thus far.
KR
E-mail
Received e-mail from Dr. Thomas to submit
calculation results to her for carbon footprint project
as soon as possible. Reminder that the class will be
working on project again week of 3/22/10.
KR
E-mail
Sent e-mail to Dr. Thomas stating that I reviewed all
material and there are still gaps in data to calculate
accurate emissions. I have square footage of
buildings and a good list of buildings with A/C. I do
not have: type of A/C unit in each building, amount of
propellant used in those units or the type of
propellant used R-22 or 410a. I asked her if I should
use worst case scenario and use the largest possible
A/C unit (70 tons) and largest amount of propellant
(100 lbs.) and the largest GWP propellant 410a or
make an attempt to go back to Larry Seitz to get
more info.?
KR
E-mail
Dr. Thomas' response said to go back to Larry Seitz
to try to find out at least what percentage of buildings
with A/C use R-22 vs. R-410a. Then, use lbs of
propellant X square feet and assume 10% leakage.
KR
E-mail
Sent e-mail to Dr. Thomas that I would attempt to
contact Larry Seitz for more info on units and use of
propellant R-410a and R-22
KR
E-mail
Sent Paul Novak an e-mail to find out if A/C
propellant emissions are required to be reported to
the EPA. If so, what industries, how often?
KR
Phone
Left message with Bill Hawley to give to Larry Seitz to
contact me about R-22 and R-410a. Larry was
unavailable at the moment.
KR
3/19/20
3/22/10
3/22/10
3/22/10
12:25 PM
9:30 AM
12:29 AM
4:03 PM
Paul Novak
Larry Seitz
Kristi
Reklinski
Barry Cupp
Novak.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
lseitz@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
barry.l.culp@sherwin.com
440.250.1714
440.826.8144
440.286.2102
216.555.8894
E-mail
Paul responded to my e-mail stating that some
substances need to be reported under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know
Act (EPCRA). Per Paul, I should review the website
www.epa.gov, and type in EPCRA for more
information.
KR
Phone
Per Larry Seitz, only a handful of new buildings will
be 410a. Currently, only the CIG is using 410a and
the rest of campus is R-22. But, in the future,
McKelvey, Wilker, Life & Science will be using 410a
when they are finished. Ernhausten is R-22 also.Also
confirmed that 21 Beech or Zeve's Hall has A/C and
that he is unsure of any residential housing that may
have A/C unless they call him to inform him of a
problem.
KR
E-mail
Sent e-mail to R. Scott Thomas regarding final
questions for estimate calculations. Asked him if I
should assume worst case scenario for unit size and
propellant used (70 ton unit with 100lb propellant).
And asked him if R-22 is same as HCFC-22 on the
the GWP website and how he got the GWP for 410a
of 3800 - is it the same as H-134a?
KR
E-mail
Barry Cupp, Corporate Environmental Affairs Project
Manager, responded with correct data for 410a and
R-22 GWP and suggested that we use the middle
range if we don't know the unit size and propellant.
Also suggested that we use 134a for the propellant
because eventually, after R-22 is phased out, 134a
will replace everything in 10 years.
KR
3/23/10
2:20 PM
Sabina
Thomas
sfthomas@bw.edu
440.826.2268
In
person
Resolved with Dr. Thomas which propellant to use
per Sherwin Williams suggestion H134. Also,
determined how to calculate lbs. of propellant used
per spreadsheet. Square footage X
propellant/ft2X10% loss for year. Cannot determine
how to get CO2 equivalent. She will get back to me
on that part.
3/24/10
3:13 PM
Sabina
Thomas
sfthomas@bw.edu
440.826.2268
E-mail
Dr. Thomas sent correspondence clarifying where
emission factor is on climate calculator spreadsheet.
106
KR
3/26/10
3/26/10
3/26/10
3/26/10
3/31/10
4/5/10
4/5/10
4/6/10
3:00 AM
Bill
Kerbusch
3:26 PM
Kristi
Reklinski
4:13 PM
Kristi
Reklinski
8:03:00;
8:23 PM
Sabina
Thomas
4:19 PM
Kristi
Reklinski
4:59 PM
Kristi
Reklinski
10:45 PM
Sabina
Thomas
12:33 PM
Kristi
Reklinski
bkerbusc@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
sfthomas@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
sfthomas@bw.edu
kreklins@bw.edu
440.826.2233
440.826.2102
440.826.2102
440.826.2268
440.826.2102
440.826.2102
440.826.2102
440.826.2102
107
In
person
Asked Bill Kerbusch, Director of B&G, about
geothermal and refrigerant use. Less refrigerant used
on geothermal because it's only used in the
compressor not whole system. Compressor kicks on
to meet in the middle to reach thermostat
temperature (difference between heat pump water
and thermostat temperature)
KR
E-mail
Sent Dr. Thomas information that I found that the
conversion for tons of coolant per square footage is 1
ton per 600 square feet.
KR
E-mail
Sent Dr. Thomas an example calculation for Bonds of
amount of propellant use and percentage loss for her
to review to make sure that I am on right track.
KR
E-mail
Dr. Thomas responded to use 1 ton per 500 feet per
Sherwin-Williams recommendations. Also sent
website with information:
http://www.inspectapedia.com/aircond/aircond03.htm.
She also confirmed that the sample calculation looks
accurate.
KR
E-mail
Sent e-mail to Dr. Thomas that after further review the calculations do not look correct. Sherwin-Williams
got 2,200 lbs loss with 500,000 square foot area and
my example calculation had 20,000 lbs loss with
65,000 feet. Decided to utilize R Scott Thomas
calculation with conversion factors and CO2
equivalent that will correctly calculation emissions.
KR
E-mail
Sent to Dr. Thomas calcualtions for R-22, if
supplemented with 410a, and H-134a for a year and
three years worth.
KR
E-mail
Email received from Dr. Thomas questioning my
notes about calculating 2 years worth of emissions
for Life & Science, Wilker and ?.
KR
E-mail
Sent response to Dr. Thomas that I need to remove
that note - keeping all three years worth of calcs in for
those buildings to accommodate lack of calcs for CIG
and Ernhausen that are geothermal and use less
refrigerant. Can't calculate according to square
footage because geothermal works differently.
KR
4/16/10
10:15 PM
Bill
Kerbusch
bkerbusc@bw.edu
440.826.2233
108
In
person
Met briefly with Bill Kerbusch, Director of Buildings &
Grounds, to review some of my recommendations
with him. College is already using durlamp roofing
which is white on several buildings. Planting trees
next to buildings to shade is a no go because of roots
getting into water systems and cracking foundations
and sidewalks. Geothermal cost and savings
compared to A/C conventional units is $500,000.
Test for thermostat controls was Bonds and Marting.
President has signed off on this for all administrative
and academic buildlings (68 in winter, 76 in summer).
Residential halls cannot be included because
children live there. Controls are through B&G
maintenance.
KR
Appendix D--Commuter Group Survey One
Carbon Footprint Calculation-Faculty/Staff
The students of Green Business (BUS-250/REL-262) respectfully request that you fill out the
following survey to the best of your ability. We will use the data we collect to calculate BW's Carbon Footprint. Any personal information that you provide will remain confidential.
1. What form of transportation do you use to get to B-W campus?
Drive
Walk
Bike
Public Transportation
Carpool (passenger)
Carpool (car owner or primary driver)
Other
2. FOR DRIVERS ONLY
Please estimate the average number of miles that you drive per week in your
commute to B-W. In your calculation, please consider the distance between your
home and B-W, and include any trips that you may make across campus (i.e.
between campus buildings). DO NOT account for activities/errands that are not
associated with B-W (e.g. traveling to local restaurants).
Sample Calculation:
MON/WED/FRI:
Home to B-W (10 mi)
+ Kleist to Bonds (0.5 mi)
+ B-W to Home--Dinner (10 mi)
+ Home to B-W and back--Evening Class (20 mi)
= Daily Total: 40.5 mi
____________________________________________________________
TUES/THURS:
Home to B-W (10 mi)
+ CIG to Kamm (1 mi)
+ B-W to Home (10 mi)
= Daily Total: 21.0 mi
____________________________________________________________
SAT:
109
Home to B-W and back—Monthly Meeting (20 mi)
= Average Daily Total: 5 mi
____________________________________________________________
SUN:
Average Daily Total: 0 mi
____________________________________________________________
3(40.5) + 2(20.5) + 5 = 168.5 mi << AVERAGE WEEKLY TOTAL
Average Weekly Total:
3. FOR DRIVERS ONLY
On average, how many miles per gallon does your vehicle get during your daily
commute to school/work?
less than 10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41 or more
110
Appendix E--Commuter Group Survey Two
Carbon Footprint CalculationStudent
The students of Green Business (BUS-250/REL-262) respectfully request that you fill out the
following survey to the best of your ability. We will use the data we collect to calculate BW's Carbon Footprint. Any personal information that you provide will remain confidential.
1. What form of transportation do you use to get to B-W campus?
Drive
Walk
Bike
Public Transportation
Carpool (passenger)
Carpool (car owner or primary driver)
Other
2. FOR DRIVERS ONLY
Please estimate the average number of miles that you drive per week in your
commute to B-W. In your calculation, please consider the distance between your
home and B-W, and include any trips that you may make across campus (i.e.
between classes). DO NOT account for activities/errands that are not associated
with B-W (e.g. traveling to local restaurants).
Sample Calculation:
MON/WED/FRI:
Home to B-W (10 mi)
+ Kleist to Bonds (0.5 mi)
+ B-W to Home--Dinner (10 mi)
+ Home to B-W and back--Soccer Practice (20 mi)
= Daily Total: 40.5 mi
____________________________________________________________
TUES/THURS:
Home to B-W (10 mi)
+ CIG to Kamm (1 mi)
+ B-W to Home (10 mi)
= Daily Total: 21.0 mi
____________________________________________________________
SAT:
111
Home to B-W and back—Monthly Meeting (20 mi)
= Average Daily Total: 5 mi
____________________________________________________________
SUN:
Average Daily Total: 0 mi
____________________________________________________________
3(40.5) + 2(20.5) + 5 = 168.5 mi << AVERAGE WEEKLY TOTAL
Average Weekly Total:
3. FOR DRIVERS ONLY
On average, how many miles per gallon does your vehicle get during your daily
commute to school/work?
less than 10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41 or more
112