Energy
Benchmark Study and
Un
Carbon Footprint Evaluation
for
Transylvania University
April 15, 2009
Energy Benchmark Study
and
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark
Study and Carbon
Footprint Evaluation
Carbon
Footprint
Evaluation
for
Transylvania University
300 North Broadway
Lexington, Kentucky 40508
April 15, 2009
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
_______________________________
J. Frederick Rial, P.E., REM, CPE
Sr. Project Manager, Tetra Tech, Inc.
________________________________
Jennifer Carey, P.E.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
_______________________________
Jeremy Smith, P.E., LEED AP, CGD
Energy Program Coordinator, CMTA
_______________________________
Kevin Carey, PG
Tetra Tech, Inc
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
FORWARD
This energy benchmark and carbon footprint study reflects a significant commitment by
resources of Transylvania University’s facility operations staff.
Their contributions,
commitment, and technical guidance made this study possible. The project team wants
to thank the following staff for the help, guidance, and direction during the course of this
study.
Mr. Darrell Banks, Director of Physical Plant
Mr. Norman Mudd, Operations Manager
Mr. Larry Pence, HVAC Technician
The project study team included the following personnel:
J. Frederick Rial, PE, REM, CPE, Project Manager, Tetra Tech
Jeremy Smith, PE, LEED AP, CGD – Energy Program Coordinator, CMTA
Consulting Engineers
Kevin Carey, PG, Project Geologist, Tetra Tech
Jennifer Carey, PE, Project QC / Review, Tetra Tech
Shann Easterling, Project Technician, Tetra Tech
Linda Lindsay, Staff Engineer, Tetra Tech
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0
1.1
1.2
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.1
3.2
SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY – BENCHMARK STUDY ................................................... 3
SUMMARY – CARBON FOOTPRINT STUDY ..................................... 4
ENERGY BENCHMARKING ................................................................... 8
ENERGY STAR DISCUSSION ............................................................ 8
ASHRAE DISCUSSION ....................................................................... 9
DISCUSSION REGARDING SHARED METERS AND HVAC
PLANTS ............................................................................................. 11
TRANSYLVANIA
UNIVERSITY
BUILDING
ENERGY
PERFORMANCE................................................................................ 12
BUILDINGS LESS THAN 5,000 SF – ENERGY USAGE AND
POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS ............................................................ 18
DAY VS. NIGHT ENERGY USAGE.................................................... 19
CARBON FOOTPRINT .......................................................................... 22
CARBON FOOTPRINT FACTORS .................................................... 23
BASELINE and CHANGES TO CARBON FOOTPRINT ................... 24
3.2.1
CAMPUS BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY .............. 25
3.2.2 CO2 RELATED TO PEOPLE ON CAMPUS .............................. 28
3.2.3 CO2 RELATED TO STUDENT/STAFF TRANSPORTATION.... 29
3.2.4 CO2 RELATED TO CAMPUS VEHICLE USE ........................... 31
3.2.5 CO2 RELATED TO COMPUTER USE AND POLICIES ............ 31
3.2.6 CO2 RELATED TO CAMPUS GREEN SPACE and TREES ..... 34
3.2.7 CO2 RELATED TO WASTE AND RECYCLING ACTIVITIES ... 36
3.2.8 CO2 RELATED TO PURCHASING PRACTICES ..................... 38
3.2.9 CO2 RELATED TO LARGE HP MOTORS ................................ 39
3.2.10 CO2 RELATED TO LIGHTING PRACTICES .......................... 39
3.2.11 SOLAR PANEL CO2 OFFSET ................................................ 41
3.2.12 CO2 REDUCTION or OFFSET ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ..... 42
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 – TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS BUILDING LOCATION ....... 2
FIGURE 2 – ENERGY PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BENCHMARKS (>5,000 SF)
(COMPARISON – BASELINE, ENERGY STAR, ASHRAE) .................................... 13
FIGURE 3 – ENERGY PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BENCHMARKS (>5,000 SF)
(RANK BEST TO WORST) ...................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 4 – POTENTIAL ANNUAL SAVINGS (BUILDINGS MEET 50TH PERCENTILE
ASHRAE) ................................................................................................................. 17
mwt\Document1
i
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
FIGURE 5 – ENERGY PERFORMANCE (<5,000 SF) ............................................ 19
FIGURE 6 – DAY VERSUS NIGHT ENERGY CONSUMPTION (SELECTED
BUILDINGS) ............................................................................................................ 20
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1 – MANUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO SHARED METER UTILITY DATA
APPENDIX 2 – NOAA CLIMATE TREND KENTUCKY
APPENDIX 3 – CALCULATIONS OF ENERGY STAR AND ASHRAE BY BUILDING
WITH NOTES
APPENDIX 4 – CARBON FOOTPRINT REFERENCE TABLE
APPENDIX 5 – CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONS TABLES 1 TO 14
APPENDIX 6 – CARBON FOOTPRINT REFERENCE FACTORS
TABLE OF ACRYNOMS
CO2
CDE
TPY
EPA
ENERGY STAR
E*
ASHRAE
HVAC
kBTU/sf
BTU
kW
kWH or KWH
HP
US EPA AP42
KU
TU
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide Equivalents include the following compounds –
methane, nitrous oxide, fluorocarbons
Tons per Year
US Environmental Protection Agency
is a joint program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy
Short notation for ENERGY STAR
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers
Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
thousands of BTUs per square foot
British Thermal Unit (measure of energy)
kilowatt
kilowatt of electrical energy delivered for 1 hour
Horsepower
US EPA air emissions tables defining emissions of pollutants relative
to processes (in this studies case, combustion)
Kentucky Utilities a division of EON, Inc. US (Transylvania’s electric
utility)
Transylvania University
mwt\Document1
ii
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
1.0
SUMMARY
This study was commissioned by Transylvania University to determine individual
campus building energy benchmarks relative to industry normative standards and
develop a snapshot of the university’s carbon footprint based on 2008 activities, actions,
and policies. The intent of this study is to develop a baseline of campus energy impact
relative to building benchmarks and annual carbon dioxide (campus carbon footprint).
This study was not commissioned to develop detailed action plans or cost estimates
related to addressing the study’s findings regarding building energy benchmarks and
carbon footprint.
This study is presented in two sections.
The first section discusses the energy
benchmark findings based on 2008 utility data and building information and ranks the
campus building energy profiles against the ENERGY STAR and the ASHRAE values
for energy efficient buildings.
The second section discusses the university’s 2008
carbon footprint. For purposes of this study, the carbon footprint is the annual amount
of carbon dioxide in tons emitted or reduced by activities, practices, and physical
operations at the university. For reference, the Transylvania University campus building
location map is shown in the attached Figure 1.
mwt\Document1
1
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
FIGURE 1 – TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS BUILDING LOCATION
mwt\Document1
2
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
The study identified that some of Transylvania University’s buildings meet the Energy
Star level but that most do not. The potential savings in energy costs to the university if
all buildings met the Energy Star level is over one million dollars (annually). Further
evaluation of individual building energy use and building / systems design is needed to
prioritize the potential for savings by buildings identified in this study that do not
currently meet the industry normative standards.
The study identified Transylvania’s 2008 carbon footprint at over 19,000 tons of carbon
dioxide per year. The university can reduce the carbon footprint through administrative
actions and physical changes to energy use. As building energy initiatives bring the
university buildings closer to energy star levels, the university’s carbon footprint for
those affected buildings will immediately show carbon footprint reductions. Use of solar
power as an alternate renewable energy option can potentially reduce the carbon
footprint.
However, it most likely will increase the cost of energy to Transylvania
University in the short run because solar power is not currently cost competitive with
electric rates in central Kentucky (as of the writing of this report).
1.1
SUMMARY – BENCHMARK STUDY
Transylvania University could save approximately $642,000 per year by improving the
following seven university buildings to perform in the 50th percentile: Clay Hall, Davis
Hall, Forrer Hall, Campus Center, Clive Beck Athletic Center, Mitchell Fine Arts
Building, and Cowgill Business Center. For the entire campus, an improvement to the
50th percentile for all buildings would result in an annual savings to the University of
approximately $874,000, while an improvement to the ENERGY STAR level for the
entire campus would yield an approximate annual savings of $1,292,000.
The energy performance of the facilities is determined by several factors including: the
building thermal envelope, the building systems, building operation, and maintenance.
In the opinion of the study team, the University is doing fine job with operating and
maintaining the buildings and systems currently in place. The majority of the buildings
on campus are more than fifteen years old with aging systems and building envelopes
mwt\Document1
3
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
that were not designed to today’s energy efficiency standards. Transylvania actively
manages and proactively maintains the buildings on campus, and the energy
performance levels found in this study are indicative of that effort. Opportunities for
energy savings exist on Transylvania University’s campus, as they exist on all university
campuses. Details of the energy evaluation are identified in the Energy Benchmarking
discussion in Section 2 of this report.
1.2
SUMMARY – CARBON FOOTPRINT STUDY
The carbon footprint study identified that the 2008 baseline of carbon dioxide emissions
was approximately 19,700 tons (annual value). The carbon footprint is based on the
amount of carbon dioxide emissions generated by campus activities and physical
operations in calendar year 2008. There may be some duplication between energy
consumption identified in the building electrical utility data and the analysis of computer
energy use. The computer use carbon footprint was calculated to be 396 tons of carbon
dioxide. If we include that in the utility use calculation for the whole campus of 14,885,
then the total 2008 carbon footprint would be 19,361 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
The basis for the carbon footprint study was the emissions of carbon dioxide based on
use of electricity, use of natural gas, and activities that either generate or remove
carbon dioxide from the environment. The largest component of the carbon footprint is
the building utility portion that accounts for almost 75% of the university’s 2008
emissions.
It is important to understand that there will be carbon dioxide emissions associated with
the very best buildings that meet or exceed the benchmark findings in Section 2 of this
report. The buildings that meet either the benchmark values of kBTUs/square foot for
ENERGY STAR or the 50th percentile benchmark values for ASHRAE buildings will still
have carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore a carbon footprint.
The following chart summarizes the 2008 carbon footprint and the areas where carbon
dioxide is either reduced (trees on campus and recycling) or has a theoretical potential
mwt\Document1
4
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
for reduction (reduction of campus utility usage, use of solar power on 50% of roof area
to offset purchased fossil fuel generated electricity, and replacement of large HP motors
with energy efficient units as replacement is needed). The data in the following chart is
a summary of individual carbon footprint values calculated in tables 1 through 13 in
Appendix 5.
Total Annual Tons CO2
Emissions
Utility Use
14,855
Transportation
2,465
Student / Faculty
1,853
Computer Use
396
Vehicle Use
172
Fertilizer Use
9
Landfill Waste
8
Total CO2 Emissions
19,757
Carbon Footprint Source
Recycle Actions
Trees/Greenspace
Total CO2 Reductions
NET Carbon Footprint
Percent to
Total
75.2%
12.5%
9.4%
2.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-52
-7
-58
-0.3%
0.0%
-2,971
-30
-20150
-15.1%
-0.2%
-102.3%
19,699
Potential Reductions
20% Utility Use Reduction
Large HP Motors
Solar Potential (assume 50% roof area)
The “solar potential” listed in this chart is based on theoretical installation of solar panels
on 50% of Transylvania’s roof surfaces with the panels directed toward the most
favorable sun orientation for maximum annual sun energy collection (see Appendix 5
Table 13 for details). The study team is not recommending the use of solar energy to
offset carbon footprint at Transylvania University; rather as a discussion topic that
shows the carbon footprint value of on-site solar energy versus electrical energy
provided by off-site fossil fuel power plants.
mwt\Document1
5
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
The actual predicted carbon footprint for all utility use in buildings in 2008 was 14,375
tons of carbon dioxide from large buildings (5,000 square feet and larger), 480 tons for
smaller buildings (less than 5,000 sq. ft.), and a total of 14,855 for all buildings.
If all large buildings meet the ASHRAE 50th percentile energy value, then the baseline
building utility use carbon footprint was predicted to be 13,978 tons of carbon dioxide.
If all large buildings meet the ENERGY STAR building benchmark, the university’s
carbon footprint for building utility was predicted to be 10,888 tons of carbon dioxide per
year. Note that these two values do not include the very small buildings that account for
less than 3% of the total campus energy use.
The study team identified several opportunities for carbon footprint reduction including
the following actions:

Replace older campus buildings as resources are available with structures that
are closer to the ENERGY STAR or ASHRAE standards

Renovate the energy using components of older campus buildings (domestic
water systems, HVAC systems, and lighting systems). Also give consideration to
envelope upgrades on older buildings

Consider a campus computer policy that requires all units to be Energy Star
laptops versus energy consuming desktop units

Consider a campus policy that requires all computers to be shut off when not it
use (note – it is a myth that computers take more power to startup)

Consider a campus policy that requires all lighting to be turned off in rooms or
buildings that are not occupied (automatic sensors as an option)

Consider developing a reward system for students, faculty, and staff that
provides campus bookstore / tuition / or other rewards for tracking and reducing
the following:
waste, excess travel miles (either personal or on university
business), paper use, copying, increased (and tracked) recycling, car pooling,
sending email reports versus shipped or mailed reports
mwt\Document1
6
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation

Consider purchasing practices to evaluate the total carbon footprint cost of
purchasing goods and services for campus use
It is likely that many opportunities for low cost or no cost savings exist in the older
campus buildings. It is recommended that a study be conducted on individual buildings
that are not performing well in order to identify specific corrective measures that can be
taken that offer fast payback periods for the capital spent for the corrections.
The study team further recommends that the university confirm assumptions made in
this report by conducting surveys of students, faculty, and staff.
Many of the
assumptions made in the carbon footprint study section were based on other studies
and college/university practices and policies. The suggested surveys include evaluation
of student, faculty, and staff activities related to vehicle use, computer use, and building
energy policies.
The study team identified solar energy as a means to potentially reduce the university’s
annual carbon footprint related to off-site electric utility power plant emissions. Solar
power is not currently cost effective given the low electric utility rates in central
Kentucky.
The study team does recommend that future buildings and major
renovations of existing buildings consider the cost benefit of solar systems relative to
Transylvania’s desire to address and reduce the carbon footprint related to the use of
fossil fuel (to generate off-site power used by Transylvania University).
mwt\Document1
7
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
2.0
ENERGY BENCHMARKING
As with many things, the question of “How am I doing?...” is often best answered not in
absolute terms but rather in relative terms. This holds true for the issue of commercial
building energy consumption.
Without the tool of benchmarking, it is difficult for a
building owner to get a handle on how good (or bad) the buildings they own, operate,
buy energy for, and maintain are performing.
There currently are two resources
available to professionals who wish to compare the normalized energy consumption of a
given building to that of a national database. These resources are the ENERGY STAR
program and ASHRAE, both of which are described below.
2.1
ENERGY STAR DISCUSSION
ENERGY STAR is a joint program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. The ENERGY STAR program applies
ratings to three categories of items:
products, residential homes, and commercial
buildings and plants. The commercial buildings and plants program allows building
owners to compare their buildings against statistically representative similar buildings
from a national survey conducted by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information
Administration.
This national survey, known as the Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS), is conducted every four years and gathers data on
building characteristics and energy use from thousands of buildings across the United
States. One year of actual building energy data is required for a building to be rated via
the ENERGY STAR program.
Each building is “normalized” for climate, hours of
operation, and other details so that it may be compared appropriately to the statistical
database. Each building is then assigned a percentile rating from 1-100. A rating of 50
indicates that the building, from an energy consumption standpoint, performs better than
50% of all similar buildings nationwide, while a rating of 75 indicates that the building
performs better than 75% of all similar buildings nationwide. Buildings that score 75 or
better are eligible for the ENERGY STAR label.
mwt\Document1
8
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
ENERGY STAR is a convenient tool for building operators to know how their buildings
are performing with regard to energy. In essence, all the building’s features, energy
bills, characteristics, etc., are reduced to one convenient number that correlates directly
to energy usage relative to other similar buildings with similar characteristics.
The
ENERGY STAR program currently encompasses the following building categories:

Bank/Financial Institution

Courthouse

Hospital

Hotel

K-12 School

Medical Office

Office

Residence Hall / Dormitory

Retail Store

Supermarket / Grocery Store

Warehouse

Wastewater Treatment Plant
Currently, there are 6,533 labeled buildings in the United States. In Kentucky, there are
currently 16 educational buildings that have achieved the ENERGY STAR label.
Additionally, there are currently no ENERGY STAR residence halls in Kentucky, though
Thomson Hall is a good candidate as discussed later in this report.
2.2
ASHRAE DISCUSSION
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers)
is the industry-recognized authority on HVAC and energy performance related issues.
ASHRAE is an international organization consisting of over 50,000 professionals.
Furthermore, many ASHRAE standards are adopted into building codes around the
world. Currently, in Kentucky, ASHRAE standards are adopted for indoor air quality,
mwt\Document1
9
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
overall building energy consumption, and safety requirements for refrigerating
machinery.
ASHRAE publishes handbooks on a four year rotating cycle for use by professionals in
the industry. The latest handbook available with published building energy data is the
2007 HVAC Applications Handbook. The data contained in the handbook comes from
the same Department of Energy Information Administration survey that provides the
basis for the ENERGY STAR database. For each type of building, energy data is
presented on a kBtu/sf-yr (thousands of British Thermal Units per gross square foot per
year) basis, for each percentile from 10 to 90. Gross square feet for a building is
calculated by taking the actual square feet of building footprint by floor and multiplying
that value by the number of floors including basements and sub-basements.
Additionally, a mean value is given for each building type.
The published ASHRAE data is useful because it allows building owners to benchmark
buildings which do not have categories under the ENERGY STAR program.
Specifically, the following building types can be benchmarked using ASHRAE published
data but cannot be benchmarked using ENERGY STAR:

Entertainment/culture building

General college/university building

General classroom education building

Laboratory building

Library

Public assembly building

Recreation building

Restaurant/cafeteria
For purposes of this report, the 50th percentile was chosen as a reference point. This
relatively mediocre performance level was chosen because the ENERGY STAR label
may not be possible (or may be cost prohibitive) for existing buildings due to
deficiencies in the existing building envelope or existing mechanical / electrical systems.
mwt\Document1
10
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
While the ENERGY STAR may be possible for some existing buildings and therefore
should be pursued, the ASHRAE 50th percentile is useful in that it simply provides a
different benchmark to measure relative energy performance and rank buildings against
that benchmark.
2.3
DISCUSSION REGARDING SHARED METERS AND HVAC PLANTS
In order to benchmark a given building, it is a requirement that the amount of energy
used by all systems of the building be quantified. For this purpose, additional meters
are necessary in campus situations to allow energy usage to be quantified by building.
Simply stated, in order to reduce energy, you have to know where it is going. Extra
meters for campus buildings do add some extra first cost to a project, however the
energy penalty that can be paid by not knowing how to reduce energy far exceeds the
cost of the meter in most situations, as is illustrated by the potential cost savings
discussion. The payback on such an investment is nearly immediate.
Most of the buildings on campus have individual meters or plants. However, there are 3
shared meters or plants on campus that do not have individual metering capability. For
the purposes of this study, these shared meters and HVAC plants had to be broken
down and assigned to the buildings they serve. Specifically, the following buildings
were adjusted:
1. Brown Science Center, Old Morrison Hall, and Haupt Humanities Building:
These buildings shared boiler systems until July of 2008.
Currently Brown
Science Center and Old Morrison still share cooling (chilled water) systems.
2. Mitchell Fine Arts Building and Clive Beck Athletic Center: These buildings share
boiler systems and chilled water systems.
3. Clay Hall, Davis Hall, Forrer Hall, Campus Center: These buildings all share the
same gas meter. Additionally Clay Hall and Davis Hall share the same heating
and cooling plant.
mwt\Document1
11
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
The rationale behind the assigning of energy to these buildings in these 3 situations was
based on ASHRAE average building performance data in the 2003 Applications
Handbook which further breaks down building energy usage by each system (domestic
hot water heating, cooking, lighting, ventilation, heating, cooling, food refrigeration,
office equipment, etc.). For example, the total estimated boiler energy for the Brown
Science Center boiler plant was divided between Brown Science Center, Old Morrison
Hall, and Haupt Humanities for the months that the boiler plant was shared, based on a
weighted average for each building considering building type and square footage. It is
emphasized that these adjustments are made based on estimates using the best
available data, and the only way to know the exact energy usage is to have meters
installed. However it is also emphasized that the total usage given for each set of
buildings is an exact number.
The specific adjustments made to each building above are summarized in Appendix 1.
2.4
TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE
For purposes of this study, buildings on campus were broken down into two categories:
those buildings that are 5,000 (gross) square feet (SF) or larger, and those less than
5,000 sf. The 5,000 sf threshold was chosen because it is the same threshold used by
the ENERGY STAR program (buildings less than 5,000 sf are not eligible for an
ENERGY STAR label). Furthermore, one year of energy data was analyzed for each
building.
The time period of energy usage provided to the report authors was
December 1, 2007 to November 30, 2008. Based on data provided by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center branch, this
period of time is not significantly different, in statistical terms, from the average weather
year for Kentucky since 1990.
The comparison of baseline, Energy Star, and ASHRAE benchmarks in the following
figure is from data in Appendix 1 and 3.
mwt\Document1
12
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
2.4.1
FIGURE 2 – ENERGY PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BENCHMARKS (>5,000 SF)
(COMPARISON – BASELINE, ENERGY STAR, ASHRAE)
Figure 2: Energy Performance Relative to Benchmarks Buildings > 5,000 sf
120
NOTE Brown Science Center* not
included in chart due to
following metrics that would
skew chart for all other
buildings
Actual - 142
ASHRAE 50th percentile - 270
Energy Star - 165
100
102
95
98
91
78
72
75
Kbtu/sf-yr
91
87
80
Legend
Actua l (Va l ue Gi ven)
66
65
63
59
60
96
64
ASHRAE 50th percentil e
Energy Star
54
40
40
20
rH
.*
*
Ga
yL
Po
ibr
ole
a ry
Re
sid
en
ce
Ha
Ha
up
ll
tH
um
an
itie
s*
Ol
dM
orr
iso
n*
Gr
ah
am
Co
tt a
ge
Be
ck
Ce
nte
Mi
t ch
r* *
ell
*
Fin
eA
rt s
**
Gle
*
nn
Bo
ok
sto
re
Cla
yD
av
is*
Co
*
wg
ill
Bu
s. C
Lu
cil
t r.
le
L it
tle
Th
ea
ter
gla
s
ou
J. D
g
ha
l
rre
tr/
Fo
Ro
sen
t
Ca
mp
.C
Ha
ze
lrig
ffic
e
ea
rer
Ar
ts
Bld
g
Sh
PP
DO
Th
o
ms
on
Ha
ll
0
Asterisks indicate shared meters
or HVAC plants:
* Brown / Haupt / Morrison
** Clay / Davis / Forrer / Camp. Ctr
*** Beck / Mitchell Fine Arts
Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of all buildings on campus greater than
5,000 sf, compared to each of the two selected benchmarks (ENERGY STAR and
ASHRAE 50th percentile). The buildings in Figure 2 are presented from left to right in
the order of best performing (Thomson Hall) to worst performing (Lucille Little Theater).
The red bar indicates actual energy usage, the green bar indicates ASHRAE 50 th
percentile usage, and the blue bar indicates the usage of an equivalent ENERGY STAR
facility.
Brown Science Center’s Energy Star level is 165 kBTU/sf and the actual calculated
value from 2008 data was 142. Note that Figure 2 excludes Brown Science Center in
graphical form in order to shrink the vertical scale to provide a clearer graph for all other
buildings.
Brown Science Center energy information is provided in a text box.
In
addition to Brown Science Center, the only other facility that is at or below the ENERGY
mwt\Document1
13
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
STAR level is Thomson Hall. This should be exciting news for Transylvania University
as Thomson Hall could become the first residence hall in the state of Kentucky to
achieve the ENERGY STAR label, and one of only 26 residence halls nationwide. At
this time Thomson Hall is not eligible for the ENERGY STAR label, however, as one full
year of operation is required. The data depicted in Figure 2 is an estimate for one full
year of operation for Thomson Hall, based on the 7 months of data available since the
building opened.
Additionally, note that Appendix 3 provides all source data for all figures in the energy
benchmarking portion of this report. Appendix 3 also notes all assumptions made in
deriving the benchmarking figures.
mwt\Document1
14
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
2.4.2
FIGURE 3 – ENERGY PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BENCHMARKS (>5,000 SF)
(RANK BEST TO WORST)
Figure 3: Total Energy (gas + elec) Performance Relative to
Average of Benchmarks - Buildings > 5,000 sf
120%
Note- Brown Sci ence i s a pproxi ma tel y 30% better tha n the a vera ge E* a nd ASHRAE benchma rk energy l evel for tha t type of
bui l di ng vers us Luci l l e Li ttl e Thea ter tha t i s over 100% (or over 2 times ) hi gher tha n the a vera ge E* a nd ASHRAE benchma rk
100%
80%
As teri s ks i ndi ca te s ha red meters or
HVAC pl a nts :
* Brown / Ha upt / Morri s on
** Cl a y / Da vi s / Forrer / Ca mp. Ctr
*** Beck / Mi tchel l Fi ne Arts
60%
40%
20%
ay
Lib
ra r
P oo
y
le R
esid
e nc
eH
a ll
Hau
pt H
um
ani
tie s
*
Old
Mo
r ris
on*
Gr a
ham
Co t
t ag
e
Be c
kC
ent
e r*
Mit
**
che
ll F
ine
A rt
s**
*
Gle
nn
Boo
kst
or e
Cla
yD
avi
s* *
Co w
gill
Bus
. Ct
Luc
r.
ille
L itt
le T
hea
ter
rH
. **
r re
ugl
as G
J. D
o
Haz
elri
gg
Hal
l
Ros
ent
ha l
p. C
tr/F
o
Cam
-40%
PPD
Off
ice
She
a re
rA
r ts
Bld
g
Br o
w
-20%
Tho
ms
on
nS
cien
c e*
0%
Figure 3 provides a clearer graphical representation for the same buildings at a glance
as a percentage for each building versus the average of the benchmarks for that type of
building. The percentage indicates the energy performance of the building compared to
an average of the two benchmarks (ENERGY STAR and ASHRAE 50th percentile
performance). The zero percentage line is the benchmark, meaning that a building
performing equal to the benchmark level would be zero percent and not have a vertical
bar. A negative percentage, such as that given for Brown Science Center and Thomson
Hall, indicates a building that is performing very well. Brown Science Center is using
30% less than the average benchmark (more data is needed however since Brown
Science Center just underwent a major renovation that was completed in December of
mwt\Document1
15
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
2008) while Thomson Hall is projected to use 14% less. Similarly, buildings with large
positive percentages are not performing well. The Lucille Little Theater and Cowgill
Business Center have percentages near 100%, meaning these buildings are using
approximately double the amount of energy compared to the average benchmark level.
Given this information, one might think that the Lucille Little Theater and Cowgill
Business Center are the most deserving buildings on campus for time, attention, effort,
and perhaps capital improvements. This is not true, however, as Figure 3 is based on a
per square foot basis and therefore is a relative value and is not absolute with regard to
potential monetary savings in energy bills. Figure 4 provides this information.
When considering improvements to any campus for energy purposes, the first question
that needs to be answered is “What is the return on the investment?…” Often the return
on investment is maximized by attacking buildings that are using far above the average
amount of energy. The time, energy, and money spent to bring a building from “bad” to
“average” is usually far less than the time, energy, and money spent to bring a building
from “average” to ENERGY STAR. This is because the possibilities in poor performing
buildings for low-cost or no-cost energy saving measures are plentiful. These buildings
usually also have opportunities for very attractive payback periods on items such as
equipment retrofit or replacement, lighting upgrades or replacements, etc.
mwt\Document1
16
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
2.4.3
FIGURE 4 – POTENTIAL ANNUAL SAVINGS (BUILDINGS MEET 50TH
PERCENTILE ASHRAE)
Figure 4: Best Targets for Maximizing ROI - Potential Annual Savings
by Reducing Buildings to 50th Percentile Performance
$180,000
$160,435
Total Potential Annual
Campus Savings,
Reduction to 50th
Percentile: $874,600
$160,000
$140,000
$146,995
$131,392
$120,000
$107,026
Total Potential Annual
Campus Savings,
Reduction to Energy Star
Level: $1,292,300
$100,000
$96,260
$83,241
$80,000
$60,000
$50,946
$43,530
$40,000
$22,307
$20,000
$22,946
$9,620
. **
Ga
yL
ibr
Po
ary
ole
Re
sid
en
ce
Ha
Ha
ll
up
tH
um
an
itie
s*
Old
Mo
rri
son
*
Gr
ah
am
Co
t ta
ge
Be
ck
Ce
nte
Mi
r* *
t ch
*
ell
Fin
eA
rt s
**
*
Gle
nn
Bo
ok
sto
re
Cla
yD
avi
s* *
Co
wg
ill B
us.
Luc
Ct r
.
ille
L it
tle
Th
ea
ter
orr
er
H
tr/
F
gla
s
ou
J. D
Ca
mp
.C
rig
g
Ro
sen
t ha
l
Ha
z el
ldg
rts
B
rA
ffic
e
ea
re
Sh
PP
DO
Ha
ll
ms
on
Th
o
Bro
wn
S
cie
nc e
*
$0
Figure 4 quantifies the potential savings information for Transylvania University in a
graphical form. It lists each building on campus with the amount of money that could be
saved per year by bringing the energy usage down to the ASHRAE 50 th percentile level.
For purposes of this figure, an average utility rate was calculated at 7.5 cents per KWH
and gas fired equipment efficiencies were figured at 80%. Electrical demand charges
were considered in calculating the average utility rate, in order to simplify the results to
the extent possible.
As shown in Figure 4, there are significant opportunities on campus for saving energy.
The biggest opportunities exist in the Clive Beck Athletic Center, Mitchell Fine Arts
Building, Clay Hall, Davis Hall, Campus Center, Forrer Hall, and the Cowgill Business
Center.
Transylvania University could save approximately $642,000 per year by
mwt\Document1
17
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
improving these seven facilities to perform in the 50th percentile. For the entire campus,
an improvement to the 50th percentile for all buildings would result in an annual savings
to the University of approximately $874,000, while an improvement to the ENERGY
STAR level for the entire campus would yield approximate annual savings of
$1,292,000.
As far as “Where do we go from here?...” it is the opinion of the project study team that
the following buildings represent the largest potential return on investment for the
potential time, energy, and capital spent (buildings are not in any particular order):
1. Clay Hall
2. Davis Hall
3. Forrer Hall
4. Campus Center
5. Clive Beck Athletic Center
6. Mitchell Fine Arts Building
7. Cowgill Business Center
BUILDINGS LESS THAN 5,000 SF – ENERGY USAGE AND POTENTIAL
2.5
COST SAVINGS
Transylvania University has a total of 13 structures on campus that are less than 5,000
sf in size. The total square footage of all 13 structures accounts for 3.3% of all campus
square footage and the total energy usage of all 13 structures accounts for 3.6% of all
energy consumed on campus. There is not a large potential for savings by reducing the
energy usage of these buildings. However, as time and resources permit, the study
team recommends that Transylvania University investigate the two structures
consuming more than 100 kbtu/sf-yr.

Marqourd Field

Apartment House at 439 West 4th
mwt\Document1
18
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
2.5.1
FIGURE 5 – ENERGY PERFORMANCE (<5,000 SF)
Figure 5: Energy Performance - Buildings < 5000 sf
140
127
118
120
99
Kbtu/sf-yr
100
94
80
60
79
79
75
74
69
53
40
20
iel
d
-4
39
W.
4th
Ap
t. H
ou
se
ou
rd
F
-3
38
N
Do
rm
Int
Ha
ll F
Ma
rq
pp
pe
r
.U
Ho
us
e
na
tio
na
l
eB
Be
ll
i el
d/
er
ree
zin
g
ou
s in
g
S ta
ff H
Ti f
f an
yH
ou
se
Sh
op
en
ter
Ca
rp
.U
-3
60
N
Do
rm
Gr
ou
nd
s/P
ain
t
Sh
op
pp
er
0
Figure 5 illustrates the energy usage of 10 of the 13 structures on a per square foot
basis. Square foot data was not available for the other three structures (two structures
at 230 Chinoe Road and a warehouse at 509 4th Street).
2.6
DAY VS. NIGHT ENERGY USAGE
As part of the scope of work for this project, the study team took meter readings for nine
buildings on campus at 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. for two five-day periods (ten days total).
The purpose of this exercise was to establish a baseline of energy usage during the day
vs. the night for each building; in order to ultimately help Transylvania University
determine if the buildings were “setting back” properly at night (lights turning off, HVAC
systems turning to “unoccupied mode”, etc.). The results of this exercise are presented
in graphical form in Figure 6.
mwt\Document1
19
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
FIGURE 6 – DAY VERSUS NIGHT ENERGY CONSUMPTION (SELECTED
BUILDINGS)
Figure 6: Day vs. Night Energy Consumption
160000
* - gas shared with Forrer Hall and
Campus Center is contained in the
Clay-Davis numbers in this chart
Energy Usage (kBtu)
140000
120000
** - buildings share boiler and
chiller plant.
100000
Night
*** - buildings share chiller plant
but chiller plant was not energized
during the time period analyzed.
Day
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
The energy usage of the residence halls (Thomson Hall, Clay Hall, Davis Hall, Poole
Hall) do not vary greatly from day to night. This is to be expected since these buildings
are continuously occupied 24 hours per day.
The Gay Library used more energy at night than during the day. This should not be the
case for a library (assuming that the library closes after midnight and starts operations
again in the morning) and would definitely warrant further investigation if the Gay Library
were not among the better performing buildings on campus as seen in Figure 3. Since
the Gay Library is a good performer, this issue should still be investigated, but
prioritized appropriately.
The Brown Science Center used slightly less energy during the night versus the day.
The study team would have expected lower energy at night because this building is not
mwt\Document1
20
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
occupied 24 hours per day. A review of the night energy demand and evaluation of
building occupancy is suggested to determine if additional energy can be saved at night.
This building likely had a high usage during the night because the chemistry and biology
floors utilize 100% outside air (no recirculation). The study’s data for day versus night
energy use was collected in December and January (both cold periods). The cold
weather could account for the energy use at night.
Haupt Humanities, Mitchell Fine Arts, Beck Athletic Center, and Old Morrison all had
significantly less energy usage during the night, and therefore seem to be setting back
at night appropriately.
mwt\Document1
21
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
3.0
CARBON FOOTPRINT
Carbon footprint is defined as the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released annually as
a result of activities within a defined boundary. The boundary for this study is the
Transylvania campus.
Since this is the initial carbon footprint study conducted for
Transylvania University, the operations and campus data for 2008 will be considered
the “baseline study year”. The measure for carbon footprint is tons of CO2 per year or
CO2 equivalent (CDE). CDEs include the following compounds: CO2, methane, nitrous
oxide, and other greenhouse gasses like fluorocarbons. Note that carbon dioxide is the
primary anthropogenic greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) of 1.
Carbon footprint reductions can be cost effective and easy to accomplish. Examples
include turning off lights (manually or automatically) in unoccupied rooms and buildings,
increased recycling of waste, changes in campus computer use policy (i.e. all
computers to be shut off when not in use), car pools, and purchase of goods and
services locally to reduce the transportation carbon footprint cost.
Some carbon footprint reduction alternatives may not be cost effective due to the
required investment in infrastructure, cost of design, cost of installation, and cost of
operation.
Most on-site renewable energy alternatives fall into that category.
For
example, use of solar panels to provide power to Transylvania University as a
replacement of off-site electric energy purchased from KU may in the short run
significantly increase the cost of electrical power to Transylvania University in terms of
$/kWH.
The decision that Transylvania University needs to consider with regard to energy cost
and carbon footprint is the following:

purchased power cost from KU at $.04 to $.06 per kWH with a carbon footprint
impact of 2.087 pounds of CO2 per KWH versus

renewable energy power (example assumes solar) at 0.0 pounds of CO2 per
KWH with an installation cost potential of $9,000 per KW (based on $45K for a
mwt\Document1
22
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
5KW system) or a 20 year total energy cost of around $0.40 per KWH. (see
discussion example in Appendix 6)
As a result of this study, Transylvania’s carbon footprint in 2008 was determined to be
19,757 tons per year (TPY) of CO2 with a breakdown by source of CO2 summarized in
the following table.
Transylvania University 2008 Estimates of Carbon Dioxide Emissions
(Values in tons of Carbon Dioxide / Year)
ELEMENT
Campus
Energy
Consumption
Student / Faculty
Student
/Staff
Transportation
Campus
Vehicle
Use
Computer Use
Fertilizer Use
Landfill Waste
Airplane Travel
Total Annual
Tons CO2
Emissions
14,855
1,853
2,465
172
396
8.6
7.7
Unknown
19,757
Potential CO2
Reduction to E*
target
3,487
Potential CO2
Reduction to
ASHREA target
398
Energy Star
(E*)
Target CO2
3,487
2.3 tons per year per person baseline times % time on
campus
Reduction possible if mpg increases above 19.4 or
commuting and student mileage is reduced
50 tpy if fleet goes from 19.4 mpg to 30 mpg
74.6 TPY – shutoff computers when not in use
29.6 TPY – replace desktops with new laptops
No recommendation
Food waste management practices / education
~1 pound CO2 per passenger mile
Carbon Footprint (Tons CO2 Baseline 2008)
Activities that can reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions
51.6
Current Actual CO2 removed due to 76,120 pounds/yr
recycle
Trees/Greenspace
6.8
Current Actual with a potential of 223.5 TPY theoretical
– see discussion
Solar Potential –
20,150
Theoretical and assumes 50% roof coverage with
50% roof area
panels
Solar Potential
335,892
Theoretical if all of campus surface area was converted
to solar cell (assumes 48 acres)
Reduce
Utilities
2,971
Focused effort on reduction in campus energy
Use 20%
consumption
Large HP Motors
30
30 TPY – assumes 3% energy reduction by replacing
older motors (current ~1000 TPY CO2)
Recycle Actions
3.1
CARBON FOOTPRINT FACTORS
Carbon footprint is the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted to the atmosphere or
potentially removed from the atmosphere due to activities, practices, and policies.
mwt\Document1
23
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
By striving to become a more “Carbon Neutral”, the university can improve the overall
carbon footprint score. Carbon neutral is a principle that can be achieved by taking
specific actions that will either increase or decrease the potential for carbon dioxide
emissions. For example, some facilities use purchase of electric energy derived from
utilities selling recycled, solar, wind, and hydro energy as carbon neutral based on the
non-fossil fuel portion of their utility’s grid.
Typically, carbon neutral is assumed to be the state where all CO2 produced by campus
activities is off-set by university activities that eliminate that same amount of CO2 either
on or off campus. Typically, the carbon neutral period would be defined to be within one
calendar year so that the CO2 produced per year on campus equals the CO2 eliminated
per year on or off campus. Tetra Tech has prepared a table of CO2 or CDE emission
factors from review of current standard metrics. These factors have been included in
the Appendix 4 for reference. The following is a summary of the CO2 emissions factors
used in this study based on the use, consumption, or purchase of the following:
Activity
Electricity Use
Natural Gas Use
Fuel Oil
Propane
Gasoline
Diesel fuel
Air mileage
Transportation
Fertilizer
Landfill waste
Forests / Trees
Solar Panels
Recycling
3.2
Carbon
Dioxide
Equivalent Factor
2.087 lbs CO2/KWH
120 lbs CO2/thousand
cubic foot Nat Gas
22.4 lbs CO2/gal
12.81 lbs CO2/gal
20 lbs CO2/gal
22 lbs CO2/gal
1.0 lbs CO2/pass. Mile
19.4 miles/gallon
9.55 lbs CO2/lb N
565 lbs CO2/ton waste
48 lbs CO2/tree
~0.13 kW / sq meter
Misc .5 to 4 lbs CO2/ton
material
Reference
KU energy factor (Bergin Plant)
US EPA AP42 Factors Combustion
www.eia.doe.gov
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Yosemite.epa.gov
www.epa.gov/climatechange/
www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm
Sharp Solar Panel Nd-216U1F
See reference table
BASELINE and CHANGES TO CARBON FOOTPRINT
There are several factors that create the baseline carbon footprint for Transylvania
University and numerous actions that can be implemented by practice, policy, or new
technology to change the baseline either positively or negatively. Depending on how
mwt\Document1
24
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
that particular category is dealt with, determines the magnitude of carbon footprint
change.
Examples of the most obvious categories or elements for carbon footprint evaluation in
these studies include the following:
3.2.1
The age and energy efficiency of the campus buildings versus building
standards and industry norms
3.2.2
The number of people on campus
3.2.3
The overall driving and commuting habits of the students, staff, and faculty
3.2.4
The types of vehicles and equipment the university operates
3.2.5
Computer use and practices on campus
3.2.6
Carbon sink sources – i.e., “green space” including trees and other carbon
sinks versus campus areas do not absorb CO2 - “paved” parking space,
buildings, driveways, walkways, tennis courts, etc.
3.2.7
The amount of solid waste produced and the amount of material recycled
versus past normative denominators (i.e. number of people served in the
cafeteria, number of staff)
3.2.8
Purchasing practices for university goods and services
3.2.9
Type and age of medium to large scale motors for campus equipment;
3.2.10
Lighting practices
3.2.11
Carbon reduction by replacing electrical demand with solar energy
3.2.12
Carbon reduction or offset actions including alternative energy, purchase
of carbon dioxide credits, offset options, Transylvania University initiatives
and programs, and policy change.
The following discussion will address the topics in the order that they are listed above.
3.2.1 CAMPUS BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY
This study has calculated carbon dioxide emissions for each campus building based on
the baseline 2008 electrical consumption and natural gas used. The utility data was
provided by the Transylvania University facility’s staff using utility records for 2008. The
mwt\Document1
25
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
study team used the factor 0f 2.087 pounds of CO2 per KWH for determining CO2
emissions from electrical use (Note 1). This factor was obtained from 2008 operating
data of KU’s electrical generating plant that supplies power to Fayette County. The
study team used the factor of 117.6 pounds of CO2 per mmBTU of natural gas
consumed by campus buildings.
The alternate factor is 120 pounds of CO2 per
thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
These factors for CO2 emissions from the
combustion of natural gas were obtained from the US EPA AP42 factors for emissions
of CO2 from the combustion of natural gas. The only natural gas use on campus is for
boilers, hot water heaters, and various kitchen appliances. No natural gas is used for
fleet vehicle fuel.
Note 1 – all electrical energy is produced by KU using coal or other fossil fuels. The KU
generating plant is required to summarize the CO2 emissions and total kW produced
and report that factor to the US EPA. The value for the KU plant that provides energy to
Transylvania University was 2.087 lbs CO2 per kWH. Although Transylvania University
does not emit CO2 on campus, the use of one kWH of electricity on campus will result
in the release of 2.087 pounds of CO2 at the power plant. Therefore, when the study
team calculates the CO2 emissions by building for electrical use, this calculation was
used to develop the potential CO2 emissions in order to determine Transylvania
University’s carbon footprint.
The campus utility data collected for the year 2008 along with building total square feet
(used in Section 1) is summarized in Table 1 – Appendix 5. T his information was
developed for the ENERGY STAR and ASHRAE 50th percentile benchmarks of kBTU
per square foot. Using this benchmark data, the study team calculated the ideal or
baseline ENERGY STAR CO2 carbon footprint for each building and calculated the
ideal of baseline ASHRAE 50th carbon footprint baseline emissions at the right hand
side of Table 1. This information for ENERGY STAR and ASHRAE by building (Note –
only buildings with a floor area greater than 5,000 square feet were considered) is
summarized and presented in the following two tables from APPEDNIX 5.
mwt\Document1
26
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
App 5 - Table 2 - CO2 Emissions By Building VS ASHRAE 50 Percentile
Target
Building
Brown Science
Thomson Hall
J. Douglas Gay Library
Rosenthal
Graham Cottage
PPD Office
Shearer Arts Bldg
Hazelrigg
Poole Residence Hall
Glenn Bookstore
Haupt Humanities
Lucille Little Theater
Old Morrison
Cowgill Business Center
Campus Ctr / Forrer Hall
Clay Davis
Mitchell Fine Arts
Beck Center
Total
ACTUAL
2008
ASHRAE
50% Target
ACTUAL VS
ASRAE Target
CO2 TPY
1,898
413
791
425
83
136
228
293
416
238
418
292
988
568
3,110
1,408
1,057
1,613
14,375
CO2 TPY
CO2 TPY
3,608
(1,711)
650
(237)
1,010
(220)
477
(52)
95
(12)
143
(7)
228
266
27
338
78
137
101
265
152
131
161
704
284
250
318
2,783
327
1,021
386
661
397
1,209
403
13,978
398
Tons CO2 per year
Inspection of Table 2 reveals that Transylvania University’s buildings if they met the
ASHRAE benchmark would be at 13,978 tons of CO2 per year and are only 398 tons
above the ASHRAE benchmark. On the other hand, the ENERGY STAR benchmark
baseline, if all building met the E* rating, would be at 10,888 tons of CO2 per year
versus the actual 2008 emissions calculated at 14,375 tons of CO2.
This discussion shows that normative standards can have significantly different impacts
on how Transylvania University and other institutions plan to present the data to the
stakeholders. Care must be used to insure that past, present, and future discussions
use the same standards for measurement of energy policy management.
mwt\Document1
27
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
App 5 - Table 3 - CO2 Emissions By Building VS Energy Star
ACTUAL
2008
Brown Science
Thomson Hall
PPD Office
Hazelrigg
Shearer Arts Bldg
Graham Cottage
Rosenthal
Glenn Bookstore
Poole Residence Hall
Haupt Humanities
Lucille Little Theater
Campus Ctr / Forrer Hall
Cowgill Business Center
J. Douglas Gay Library
Old Morrison
Mitchell Fine Arts
Beck Center
Clay Davis
Total
Theoretical
Energy Star
ACTUAL VS
Energy Star
CO2 TPY
CO2 TPY
CO2 TPY
1,898
2,205
307
413
413
136
127
(9)
293
277
(16)
228
200
(29)
83
37
(46)
425
329
(97)
238
131
(107)
416
288
(128)
418
285
(133)
292
155
(137)
3,110
2,914
(196)
568
337
(231)
791
516
(275)
988
602
(386)
1,057
611
(446)
1,613
840
(773)
1,408
621
(787)
14,375
10,888
(3,487)
Carbon Dioxide Tons Per Year (2008)
3.2.2 CO2 RELATED TO PEOPLE ON CAMPUS
The base load of CO2 in tons per year for 2008 was based on the simple calculation of
2.3 tons of CO2 per person per year.
The study team assumed that students on
campus would contribute CO2 emissions due to their presence on campus for 50% of
the year and commuters would contribute CO2 only 25% of the year (since they did not
live on campus). The 25% and 50% factors take into account that these students will
most likely not be on campus during the summer months and therefore will not
contribute CO2 emissions during that period. Faculty were assumed to be on campus
25% (similar to commuters) and the staff were assumed to contribute 33% since they
tend to work full year jobs with vacation time accounting for the periods when they
would not contribute to CO2 campus emissions. These calculations are shown in Table
6 and presented below:
mwt\Document1
28
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
Appendix 5 - Table 6 - CO2 Per Year by Students, Faculty, Staff 2008
TYPE
Student in Dorms
Commuting Students
Persons by
Type
862
296
Total Students
1158
Faculty
Staff
Total Personnel
(2008)
85
193
Tons Annual
CO2
Emissions per
person
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
1436
Annual
On-site %
75%
25%
25%
33%
Tons CO2 Per
Year
Percent
to Total
1,486
170
80%
9%
1,657
89%
49
146
3%
8%
1,852
100%
3.2.3 CO2 RELATED TO STUDENT/STAFF TRANSPORTATION
According to the information provided to us concerning the fleet of vehicles and
equipment in which the university maintains, all are fueled by petroleum products.
Vehicle fuel consumption and emissions are one of the largest negative impacts on a
carbon footprint score because the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels is the main
contributor to greenhouse gases (CO2).
Although the fleet of vehicles and equipment is not large, replacing the fuel consuming
vehicles with hybrid, electric, or battery operated models would be extremely beneficial.
For a small, downtown campus such as Transylvania University, using electric or
battery operated golf-carts to get around the campus would be ideal and would enhance
the overall carbon footprint score tremendously.
The population of students, commuters, faculty, and staff is summarized in Appendix 5
– Table 6 and CO2 emissions by population type along with the assumptions for each
group are listed in Appendix 5 – Table 7.
The assumptions were based on general knowledge of campus activities and reflect a
first round estimate of the practices and habits of the staff, faculty, and students in terms
of overall vehicle use. Currently, there are 1,158 students enrolled at Transylvania
mwt\Document1
29
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
University according to the most current data from university staff.
There are 852
students in dorm rooms which leaves 296 commuters. This is a positive because such
a large percentage of the students do not have to commute via fuel burning vehicles. It
is also assumed that a certain percentage that does commute lives close enough to
either ride a bike or walk. Therefore, the overall carbon dioxide amount produced as a
result of students commuting to campus is relatively low.
The study team assumed that the faculty and staff commute an average of 25 miles
each way and that both faculty/staff and students/commuters average 19.97 miles per
gallon (based on US department of transportation data). The emissions of CO2 is 19.4
pounds per gallon as referenced in current literature included in the reference table.
A survey of students, commuters, faculty, and staff could be used to refine the
assumptions included in Table 7. This is a first round place holder for CO2 emissions
by campus population type.
Appendix 5 - Table 7 - CO2 Emissions by Vehicle Use
Quantity
Dorm Students
Commuting Students
Faculty
Staff
852
296
85
193
STUDENT and FACULTY VEHICLE USE and CARBON EMISSIONS
Days Wks
Miles
Miles per Gallons Lbs CO2 LBS CO2 per Tons CO2 Percent of
Fuel
per
per
per day
gallon
per year per gallon
year
per year
total CO2
week year
gasoline
10
5
35
19.97
74,662
19.4
1,448,443
724
29%
gasoline
25
4.5
35
19.97
58,363
19.4
1,132,233
566
23%
gasoline
25
4.5
35
19.97
16,760
19.4
325,135
163
7%
gasoline
40
6
45
19.97
104,377
19.4
2,024,905
1,012
41%
2,465
100%
It should be noted that there was no data related to air travel by staff, faculty, or
students (participating in athletics or academic pursuits). Air travel has been estimated
at 1 pound of CO2 per passenger mile.
Also, no data was available related to bus or van travel by staff, students, or faculty.
This data if available can be included in Table 7 as a second round improvement of the
initial CO2 calculations and assumptions.
mwt\Document1
30
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
3.2.4 CO2 RELATED TO CAMPUS VEHICLE USE
Campus equipment, vehicles, and quantity/fuel type were provided by Transylvania
University staff. We do not know the miles per year for the fleet or equipment and have
made a first round estimate of same and included those assumptions in table 7A. More
exact data using historic and current fleet metrics can be used to refine this first round
estimate of CO2 emissions due to campus vehicle and equipment use. This information
is summarized in the following table.
Appendix 5 - Table 7A - CO2 Emissions by TU Vehicle & Equipment
CAMPUS VEHICLE DATA and CARBON EMISSIONS
Quantity
Fuel
Bus
Van
SUV
Pickup Trucks
Cars
Tractor
1
4
1
4
20
1
gasoline
gasoline
gasoline
gasoline
gasoline
gasoline
Miles
per
week
400
500
250
200
200
25
Tractor
Pickup Trucks
1
1
diesel
diesel
25
200
Riding Mowers
Push Mower
Weedeaters
2
1
3
gasoline
gasoline
gasoline
na
na
na
Weeks Miles
per
per
year gallon
35
8
35
15
35
15
52
18
35
20
50
10
50
50
10
18
Gallons
per year
Lbs CO2 LBS CO2 Tons CO2 per Percent of
per gallon per year year
total CO2
1,750
4,667
583
2,311
7,000
125
19.4
19.4
19.4
19.4
19.4
19.4
33,950
90,533
11,317
44,836
135,800
2,425
318,861
16.98
45.27
5.66
22.42
67.90
1.21
159.43
10%
26%
3%
13%
39%
1%
93%
125
556
22.2
22.2
2,775
12,333
15,108
1.39
6.17
7.55
1%
4%
4%
19.4
19.4
19.4
7,760
1,940
970
10,670
3.88
0.97
0.49
5.34
2%
1%
0%
3%
172.3
172.32
100%
400
100
50
Tons CO2 Emitted due to vehicle and motorized equipment use of gasoline and diesel fuel
3.2.5 CO2 RELATED TO COMPUTER USE AND POLICIES
Computer use, printer use (both personnel and printer center units), and monitors
represent a significant energy consumption source and also a source of large amounts
of heat that need to be controlled by HVAC systems in the respective buildings and
offices that house these devices. Through inspection of typical offices at Transylvania
University; it was found that some offices used desktops and some had laptops with
docking stations. We have created a series of assumptions for purposes of identifying
the first round energy consumption and CO2 emissions related to computer use.
Further study and a more detailed inventory of computers by campus population and
mwt\Document1
31
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
computer use habits would be needed to refine this first rough estimate of energy use
related to computer activities.
The general assumptions used in developing this source of CO2 emissions are as
follows:

Each student has a laptop computer

Assume each dorm student has a printer

On campus students leave computers on in dorm at night in sleep mode

Commuter students sleep mode for computers does not impact Transylvania
University campus

Each faculty member has a laptop computer

25% of faculty have desktop computers in their offices

25% of staff have a laptop PCs in administrative offices
Computers by building:
Laptop
Desktop

Campus center
5
15

Forrer Hall
1
36

Beck Gym
16
31

Physical Plant Office
1
18

Hazelrigg Hall Admin
14
39

Haupt Humanities
35
26

Gay Library
6
55

Mitchel Fine Arts
15
4

Old Morrison Admin
39
73

Shearer Art Bldg
0
1

Brown Science Center
49
106
TOTAL
o Total
585
o Assume PCs (33% laptop 67% desktop with monitor)
mwt\Document1
32
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation

Assume 1 printer for every 5 PCs (total 141 with printers at 150 watts per printer)

Assume 1 print processing center for every 15 PCs (total 47 large print
processers @ 16 amps @110V = 1760 watts per print center printer processers

Admin computers are in sleep mode when not in use
These assumptions result in the calculations summarized in Appendix 5 – Table 8.
Appendix 5 - Table 8 - Computer and Computer Resources CO2 IMPACT
TYPE
No.
Student in Dorms
Student Dorm
Commuting Students
862
862
296
Faculty
Faculty
Staff
Admin/Other Campus
Admin/Other Campus
Admin/Other Campus
Admin/Other Campus
85
85
193
585
585
30
141
Computer
Normal
Computer
Type
No of
Hours of
Type
Assumption Devices operation
Factor
per day
Laptop
printers
Laptop
laptop
desktop
laptop
laptop
desktop
Print Centers
printers
Sleep
Watts Watts
Tons
Wks/
Normal use Sleep
Mode Days/
per per hour
CO2
School
kW per Mode kW
Hours
Wk
hour
sleep
Normal
Year
year
per year
per day
use
mode
Use
100%
100%
100%
862
862
296
6
1
6
12
0
0
7
7
5
35
35
35
100
100
100
5
5
5
100%
25%
25%
67%
33%
100%
100%
85
21
48
392
193
30
141
4
2
6
8
2
3
5
0
22
18
16
22
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
35
35
45
45
35
45
45
100
300
100
100
300
1760
150
5
10
5
5
10
200
10
126,714
21,119
31,080
12,671
-
132.2
22.0
32.4
6.2
2.3
6.8
73.6
21.2
37.2
24.8
358.8
5,950
2,231
818
6,514
977
70,551
7,055
20,270
7,432
35,640
6,750
23,794
343,863
35,704
Annual kW from computer use 379,567
Annual Tons CO2 from Computer use
Tons
CO2
Sleep
Mode
13.2
0.9
1.0
7.4
7.8
7.0
37.3
396.1
Total potential tons of CO2 with the above set of assumptions is 396 tons per year.
This includes 29.6 tons of CO2 emissions for desktop units. If the desktop units and
monitors were replaced with laptops, Transylvania University could reduce the computer
energy load by 18.1 tons of CO2 per year. The assumptions, habit estimates, and
energy calculations in table 8 are summarized in the following table 8A.
mwt\Document1
33
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
Appendix 5 - Table 8A
Computer and Printing CO2 Impact
TYPE
Student in Dorms
Student Dorm
Commuting Students
Faculty
Faculty
Staff
Admin/Other Campus
Admin/Other Campus
Admin/Other Campus
Admin/Other Campus
Device Type
Tons
CO2
Normal
Use
Tons
CO2
Sleep
Mode
laptop
printers
laptop
laptop
desktop
laptop
laptop
desktop
print centers
printers
total tons
132
22
32
6
2
7
74
21
37
25
359
13
1
1
7
8
7
37
Total
tons
CO2
per
Year
145
22
32
6
3
8
81
29
44
25
396
Percent
of Total
37%
6%
8%
2%
1%
2%
20%
7%
11%
6%
100%
The study team assumes that all computers are left on at night per instructions from the
IT personnel in order to take advantage of system updates.
With this assumption
comes a burden because on-campus computers have a CO2 potential sleep mode
energy use of 37 tons of CO2 per year. Therefore, if university policy stated that all
computers and support devices (i.e. laptops, printers, scanners, plotters, etc.) were
turned off when not in use, the savings in electricity would potentially result in a
reduction of CO2 of at least 37 tons per year.
Specific surveys of computer use by students, staff, and faculty would be valuable in
determining the specific habits and practices in order to develop a better baseline of
CO2 emissions related to computer use.
3.2.6 CO2 RELATED TO CAMPUS GREEN SPACE and TREES
Green space is basically defined as open, undeveloped land with vegetation, including
playing fields and playgrounds. The amount of space on campus impacts the overall
carbon footprint in a positive way if the campus has more green space than paved
parking areas. The amount of green space measured around the campus totaled
approximately 787,900 square feet, as opposed to the total amount of paved parking
mwt\Document1
34
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
lots, which totaled approximately 342,730 square feet. The campus area is calculated in
Appendix 5 – Table 4. Note – the study did not attempt to accurately identify other
surfaces like paved roads, sidewalks, etc. Therefore the values of campus area are
approximate with respect to the method used to identify green space (use of Google
earth ® campus rendering). The study team used the estimate of 48 acres as the total
campus property to determine the relative space allocated to green, parking, and
campus roof area. This is summarized in the following table.
Appendix 5 - Table 4 - Campus Area Designation
Total Campus Area
Campus Building Area (Roof)
Green Space
Parking Lots
Other - roads, sidewalks, etc
Total
Units
Acres
Percent
of Total
48
Acres
48.0
100%
Sq Ft
Sq Ft
Sq Ft
5.8
18.1
7.9
16.3
12%
38%
16%
34%
Total
100%
250,865
787,904
342,734
Approximate
It would be beneficial for the university personnel to determine if smaller
houses/buildings on the periphery of the campus are being utilized well and, if not,
consider razing those buildings to create additional green space.
Based on data from the Colorado Tree Coalition data, trees absorb about 48 pounds of
CO2 per mature tree (deciduous) and about half that amount annually for evergreens.
Based on this data, the Transylvania University campus has approximately 85
evergreens and 240 deciduous trees which result in a carbon dioxide uptake (removal
from the environment) of 6.8 tons of CO2 per year. By using the University of Georgia
school of forestry guide for forests, with a 15 foot trunk spacing of deciduous trees,
Transylvania University could potentially plant 194 trees per acre and with 48 potential
acres of campus, Transylvania University’s maximum carbon dioxide uptake by trees
per year could be as high as 223.5 tons of CO2. This recommendation is obviously not
practical because this condition would require all campus areas to be converted into a
mwt\Document1
35
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
forest.
By example, if all of the green space was converted to a dense forest,
Transylvania University’s CO2 uptake potential could be 84.2 tons per year of CO2.
This data is summarized in Table 11 and presented below:
Appendix 5 - Table 11 - Carbon Footprint - Trees and Vegetation
Acres X
Trees /
Acre
X
CO2
Emission
Factor
Lbs/CO2/
tree/year
=
Lbs CO2
Absorption
per year
Current Actual CO2 Absorbed by Trees
Potential
Percent to
Tons CO2
Total
Absorbed
Potential
per year
6.8
3%
Potential CO2 Absorbed by Trees based on stated scenario
Total Campus Area in trees
48.0
194
48
Campus Building Area
Building Area CO2 lost
potential due to no trees on
roof area
Green Space CO2 potential
if all green space was
planted at 194 trees per
acre
5.8
0
48
0
0.0
5.8
194
48
53,629
26.8
12%
18.1
194
48
168,433
84.2
38%
Parking Lots - CO2
potential if all parking areas
were planted with trees
7.9
194
48
73,268
36.6
16%
Parking Lots - CO2 lost
potential due to paved
areas
7.9
0
48
0
0.0
446,976
223.5
100%
The carbon footprint related to fertilizer application was calculated in Table 10. These
emissions were estimated to be 8.6 tons per year based on 9,000 pounds of fertilizer
applied in 2008. There does not appear to be much that can be done by Transylvania
University to reduce or change this emission other than to ensure that the facilities
operations do not over fertilize the green areas.
3.2.7 CO2 RELATED TO WASTE AND RECYCLING ACTIVITIES
Another component to improving the overall carbon footprint score pertains to the solid
waste practices the university maintains. For example, according to the information
supplied by the university, approximately 54,600 pounds of solid waste is generated
from Forrer Hall annually. Most likely, the solid waste generated from the dining hall is
mwt\Document1
36
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
included in this amount. However, approximately 62,400 pounds of material is recycled
annually from Forrer Hall. The increase in the amount recycled most likely takes into
account the additional newspapers, paper products, bottles, and cans produced by the
student population living at Forrer Hall.
The additional 76,120 pounds of material
recycled annually comes from 17 other campus buildings. We were not provided the
amounts of solid waste generated annually for these buildings, so it can not be
determined if the positively or negatively affects the overall carbon footprint. However,
please note that if the amount of material recycled is greater than the amount of
material generated, the overall score will be benefited.
The generation of waste that is placed in the landfill from cafeteria operations is typically
considered a carbon footprint transfer action. This means that the waste from cafeteria
and food preparation activities, when placed in a landfill, will biodegrade and generate
over time, methane and CO2 (and other minor air pollutants). The generation of CO2 is
approximately 565 pounds of CO2 per ton of waste. This is not generated all at once
but is created over a 10 to 15 year waste decomposition period during which all of the
organics in the waste are liberated as CO2, methane, heat, and water. For purposes of
this study, the team assumed that all 565 pounds of CO2 was released in the same
year the waste was generated. This results in a potential CO2 emission footprint for
2008 at Transylvania University of 7.7 tons and is presented in Table 12.
Offsetting the cafeteria waste is the beneficial reduction of CO2 and CO2 equivalent
emissions through recycling. The exact type and characteristic of recycled material was
not available, so the study team made a percent allocation assumption of recycled
material in order to calculate the potential CDE reduction for Transylvania University
recycle activities in 2008 resulting in 51.6 tons of CO2 removed from the environment.
The following Table 12R shows this calculation along with the CDE Emission factor in
pounds per ton of specific recycled material.
mwt\Document1
37
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
Appendix 5 - Table 12R
Recycle CO2 Tons of Total Carbon Dioxide Equivalents (Tons CDE)
Percent
Gross
2008
lbs
recycled
Weighted
Average
by Type
aluminum
cans
15%
76120
11418
4.08
23.3
Plastic
20%
76120
15224
0.45
3.4
cardboard
20%
76120
15224
0.93
7.1
Paper
40%
76120
30448
1.06
16.1
5%
76120
3806
0.85
Tons of CO2 (TCDE) due to
Recycle
Recycle
Type
newspaper
Tons
CO2
reduced
factor ton CDE/ton recycle
1.6
51.6
Incentives to students, staff, and faculty to increase recycle actions will certainly result
in reduction of CO2.
3.2.8 CO2 RELATED TO PURCHASING PRACTICES
The university’s practice of purchasing goods and services for the school can and will
have an impact on the total CO2 emissions annually related primarily to the
transportation component of bringing goods, services, and commodities to the campus
for use in operations, academics, and every day life. For example, these practices will
increase CO2 emissions if food and goods for the campus dining facilities are
purchased from sources many miles away, as opposed to purchasing products locally.
Reduction of delivery distance will reduce the mileage and emissions used by the
suppliers to supply such products to the campus. Naturally, this is just one example, as
this would relate to any type of product or material the university purchased. The project
team was not provided the information relating to purchasing products, but it would be
beneficial for the university to determine where products are purchased to see if there
are local firms or companies that could be utilized instead of distant suppliers.
There was no information obtained to evaluate this area but it certainly is one that can
be easily tracked and calculated.
mwt\Document1
38
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
3.2.9 CO2 RELATED TO LARGE HP MOTORS
Five main campus buildings have a total of 645 horsepower (HP) in electric motors 20
HP and larger. These motors consume power and based on their duty cycles and
efficiency rating could potentially consume significant energy per year. The team does
not believe that these large motors (used in chillers, water pumps, air handlers, A/C
systems, and chilled water pumps) operate at full capacity 24 hours per day, 365 days
per year. A potential savings of 3% of the motors electrical load can be obtained when
one of the older more inefficient units is replaced in service. The 3% is a good rule of
thumb for motor efficiency upgrades.
There are several newer chillers, air handlers,
and A/C systems that have energy efficient motor units these cannot be used to
determine potential energy or carbon footprint since they are already included in the
baseline energy consumption (annual electrical demand calculations by building – see
Appendix 5 Table 14).
New compressors, A/C units, air handlers, chillers, and pumps should be specified with
energy efficient motors and operating systems that optimize the most energy efficient
operation and design for the application. In addition, upgrading any systems with large
HP motors should include specification of variable frequency drives. A conservative
rule of thumb for HAVC indicates that variable speed motors in pump or fan systems
save 50% of the pump or fan power per year. A detailed building-by-building analysis is
needed as follow-up to this study to determine the operating characteristics (hours of
operation, duty cycle, percent of full load, etc.) of the motors in current use. Based on
that study, recommendations for target energy reductions and possible carbon footprint
reductions can be developed.
3.2.10 CO2 RELATED TO LIGHTING PRACTICES
Lighting accounts for a significant amount of electricity used in campus buildings. The
annual base year CO2 emissions from electrical use in the main campus buildings is
88% of the total energy load (see Table 1). There are three lighting practices that can
mwt\Document1
39
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
reduce the electrical load and still maintain the lighting needed for student, faculty, and
staff activities. The first is simply to implement a general campus policy to shut off lights
when not in the area or the room.
This can be accomplished administratively by
training, signage, and reminders to students, staff, and faculty. Technology can also be
utilized by installing occupancy sensors incorporating passive infrared and/or ultrasonic
sensing protocols that automatically shut off lights when the area is unoccupied.
The second area, which is more costly, is to replace all incandescent lights with
fluorescent or, as LED lighting becomes more cost effective and available, with LED
lights. LED (Light Emitting Diode) technology provides the approximately the same
lumens of light at less than 25% of the power consumption of incandescent lights and
less than 50% of the power consumption of fluorescent lights.
Campus policies
regarding lighting at night for safety and building security need to be factored into the
analysis of lighting practices, but in order to reduce the building energy load, lighting
must be considered and turned off when at all possible. It should also be noted that an
additional benefit of LED technology is that LED lamp products tend to last much longer
than standard and current lighting products, thereby creating a long term maintenance
savings that should also be considered.
The third area for evaluation of lighting practices would be to utilize a building-wide
lighting control system which could be programmed such that area specific occupancy
schedules could be established. The control system could work in conjunction with
space sensors and manual overrides that would assist in the effort to de-energize
lighting in the “unoccupied” mode.
Furthermore, daylight harvesting photosensor
controls could be integrated that would sense the space for quantity of natural lighting
and de-energize artificial lighting when adequate light levels exists. This concept of deenergizing lighting was discussed in Section 2.6 of this report. The buildings on campus
that operate 24/7 certainly will have a different energy footprint versus classrooms, the
library, cafeterias, administration offices, and the gymnasium. In section 2.6, it was
noted that the library had similar energy demand during the day and night. This was
identified as unusual and as stated in 2.6, Transylvania University should investigate the
mwt\Document1
40
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
energy demands by major buildings over time (seasonal impact of heating and A/C), the
availability of natural lighting within the existing architecture, and occupancy patterns
over the day and night periods in order to determine if there are one or more buildings
that are out-of-sync with the expectation of lower light and energy at night versus day
operations.
3.2.11 SOLAR PANEL CO2 OFFSET
The study team also looked at the use of solar panels on selected buildings and
campus areas. This study area is summarized in Table 13 and assumes that some of
the building roof area can be used for solar panels. If half of the campus buildings roofs
were equipped with solar panels, the CO2 reduction would be approximately 4,600 tons
of CO2 per year.
The study team evaluated the energy generation of current high
efficient panels and found that the Sunpower solar panel can generate 0.185 kW peak
per square meter. The following table shows the theoretical potential of solar panels at
TU. Note – if the whole 48 acres of campus area was used to generate electricity, the
theoretical CO2 annual savings would be 335,890 tons per year. If only the roof area
was covered in solar panels, the theoretical CO2 annual savings would be 40,301 tons
per year. This is not possible or practical but it illustrates the scope and breadth of new
thinking that must be brought to the CO2 carbon footprint issue.
The following table summarizes the solar energy potential by source.
Appendix 5 - Table 13 Solar power to Carbon Footprint comparison
Solar Power Available
Potential for
Factor
Factor from
Solar
Annual kW
Reduction of
Conversion
Lbs
acres
Days/yr
Sumpower
Energy
available
Tons of CO2
M2 per acre
CO2/k
panel kW/M2 Lexington theoretically
Emissions
W
Specific
per year
Total Campus
Area
Building Roof
Area
Parking Lot
Area
48.00
4,046.85
365.00
0.185
4.54 321,889,686
2.09
335,892
5.76
4,046.85
365.00
0.185
4.54
38,620,573
2.09
40,301
7.87
4,046.85
365.00
0.185
4.54
52,763,688
2.09
55,059
mwt\Document1
41
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
3.2.12 CO2 REDUCTION or OFFSET ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The current operations and activities at Transylvania University result in around 19,700
tons of CO2 emissions per year. There are a number of strategies that Transylvania
University can use to reduce or offset CO2 emissions. These include the following (with
the assumption that cost is not an issue):

Purchase of CO2 credits to offset the current use of electricity on campus,

Increase of CO2 credits by purchasing and converting non-CO2 sink land areas
to CO2 removal or sinks (i.e. replace houses with trees),

Obtain recycled energy as a credit for total electricity purchased,

Develop incentives for students, faculty, and staff to consider convert their
vehicles to higher efficiency autos or insist on a phase in of electric / hybrid over
a 5 to 10 year period

Carpool and use efficient transportation for student, faculty, and staff meetings
and activities off campus

Eliminate use of paper

Eliminate high energy consuming computers

Change lighting policies to shut off power when not in buildings or occupied
space

Reduce the winter heat by 2 to 4 degrees F

Increase the summer A/C temp start point by 2 to 4 degrees F

Increase recycle activities

Create a campus forum to address CO2 or CDE generation awareness

Provide student, staff, and faculty incentives to measure actual energy use
(dorms, class rooms, etc.) and pledge to reduce over time the total energy used.

Replace all appliances on campus with energy star or high efficiency units

Develop targets and reward staff, students, and faculty for meeting goals for
reduction in activities that create CO2 emissions

Consider purchasing goods and services locally

Reduce campus utility usage by 20% through further study of individual buildings
mwt\Document1
42
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
APPENDICES
mwt\Document1
43
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
APPENDIX 1 – MANUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO SHARED METER UTILITY DATA
mwt\Document1
44
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
APPENDIX 2 – NOAA CLIMATE TREND KENTUCKY
mwt\Document1
45
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
APPENDIX 3 – CALCULATIONS OF ENERGY STAR AND ASHRAE BY BUILDING
WITH NOTES
mwt\Document1
46
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
APPENDIX 4 – CARBON FOOTPRINT REFERENCE TABLE
mwt\Document1
47
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
APPENDIX 5 – CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONS TABLES 1 TO 14
mwt\Document1
48
April 15, 2009
Transylvania University
Energy Benchmark Study and Carbon Footprint Evaluation
APPENDIX 6 – CARBON FOOTPRINT REFERENCE FACTORS
mwt\Document1
49
April 15, 2009
TETRA TECH
TETRA TECH
TETRA TECH
Tetra Tech, Inc.
800 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
Lexington, Kentucky 40503
859.223.8000 phone
859.224.1025 fax
www.tetratech.com
TETRA TECH