University of South Florida Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory FY

Transcription

1 University of South Florida Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory FY

2 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background III. Institutional Data 1. Budget 2. Physical size 3. Population IV. Emissions 1. Scope 1 Emission a. On-Campus Stationary sources b. Direct Transportation Sources c. Refrigerants and Chemicals d. Agricultural Sources Fertilizer Applications 2. Scope 2 Emissions a. Purchased Electricity b. Purchased Chilled Water c. Purchased Steamed Water 3. Scope 3 Emissions a. Faculty, Staff, and Student Commuting b. Directly Financed Outsourced Air Travel c. Directly Financed Auto Travel d. Study Abroad Travel e. Solid Waste f. Waste water g. Paper V. Offsets VI. Limitations to the Model VII. Summary 2

3 I. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to gauge the annual greenhouse gas emissions for the Tampa Campus of the University of South Florida. There is a considerable effort by numerous individuals in different departments throughout the University to make this report come together. This is the third year the report has been published and reflects the emissions for FY Overall, USF has had success in reducing the amount of emissions produced from greenhouse gas (GHG) sources on and off campus. Commuting to and from the University, along with directly financed auto travel and study abroad travel are the only sources that have seemed to increase. This was the first year that purchased steamed water and paper were included in the report. As a result there is a net increase in the amount of GHG emissions estimated, specifically due to the inclusion of steamed water. This inclusion provides increased accuracy and insight into what USF can do to help reduce these emissions further. Scope 1 emissions, those that are most directly connected to USF, have reduced by 3%. Scope 2 emissions, including purchased electricity and chilled water but not steamed water, has been reduced by 13%. Scope 3 emissions, which are not directly owned or operated by USF, but inside its sphere of influence, has increased by 70% if you exclude the paper measurement. This suggest that programs aimed towards providing alternative forms of transportation to and from the University will have the largest impact on GHG emissions outside the current trends. 3

4 II. Background This report present the results of the third annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory conducted at the University of South Florida for FY This report was directed by the USF Office of Sustainability, created by Provost Wilcox in 2009 to assess USF s impact on the environment, and made possible through assistance from USF Physical Plant, Parking and Transportation Services, Travel Office, Education Abroad Office and the Center for Urban Transportation Research. The purpose of this report is to get a general estimate on the impact USF operations has on GHG emissions. The amount of emissions is calculated using the Cool Air Clean Planet Campus Carbon Calculator Version 6.7. The report breaks up emission sources in to three scopes, a similar classification system that is used by the EPA and other carbon accounting practices. Scope 1 includes sources that are directly owned or operated by USF. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emission from the purchase of offsite electricity, steam, and chilled water. Scope 3 emissions are indirectly related to USF operations, but are encouraged or influenced by the University. This years report includes new emission sources, which are purchased steamed water and paper. The collection of data was greatly simplified this year as the information provided by the Physical Plant included all the auxiliary units on campus. As a result there was no need to collect data from various units on campus. It should be noted that this report is simply an estimate. It is a difficult task to account for all the GHG emissions that are the result of USF Tampa campus operations. As the reality of climate change is becoming more prevalent, this report can help assess what USF can do to help combat global GHG emissions. There are already some initiatives being pursed by the University that could help with regard to this. These programs, such as Borrow Our Bikes, Zimride, and the Student Green Energy Fee will help reduce GHG emissions in future reports. III. Institutional Data 1. Budget The University of South Florida has been facing state budget cuts during the past several years. This has had some negative consequences on the activities pursed by the University, however there has been a substantial effort on the University s behalf to overcome this deficit through alternative funding. This negative economic impact could have positive consequences for the amount of GHG emissions. As the amount of energy consumed and general economic productivity would decrease. Overall there is little evidence for this claim, as enrollment and other indicators of activity on campus have not changed drastically. 2. Physical Size 4

5 From fiscal year to there has been no increase in the physical size of research or total building space. This should suggest that there has been a constant physical impact on the environment during this time frame. During this time there has been some development s in both athletic, educational, and research building space. This indicates that this observation will be different in the future. 3. Population Information on the population of the University was obtained through USF s InfoCenter online database. Individuals were classified as faculty, staff, or student. The number of faculty reported includes full time and part time faculty for the Tampa campus during the beginning of Fall The number of staff reported includes OPS Other, OPS Graduate assistant, OPS Fellowship, OPS Student assistant, A&P, and USPS for the Tampa campus at the beginning of Fall Full time, part time, and summer school student numbers include graduate, undergraduate, and part time individuals at the Tampa campus during the beginning of the Fall 2010 semester. The total population (including students, faculty and staff) during FY has increased by a small margin. IV. Emissions by Scope 1. Scope 1 Emissions These are the emissions that are the most directly tied to the University s actions. They are either owned or controlled by USF and include natural gas consumption for heating and cooling, the fuel used by the University s fleet of vehicles, in addition to the refrigerants, and fertilizers used during FY a. Natural Gas Consumption During FY there was a notable reduction in the amount of natural gas consumed by the University. This number includes consumption of the main campus in addition to all the auxiliary unites including the Marshall Student Center, Housing, and the USF Credit Union. The amount of natural gas used from 2003 to 2011 can be seen in Table 1 and Graph 1. Table 1 - Natural Gas Consumption, Fiscal year Natural Gas Use (Therms) ,507, ,770, ,638, ,683, ,827, ,947, ,691,469 5

6 4,000,000 3,900,000 3,800,000 3,700,000 3,600,000 3,500,000 3,400,000 3,300,000 3,200,000 Graph 1 -Natural Gas Use (Therms) b. University Fleet Vehicles The University provides fuel for its bus line the Bull Runner in addition to various campus departments. Information for the type and quantity of fuel used was obtained from USF Parking and Transportation Services. Table 2 shows that during FY , there was a complete elimination of gasoline, a reduction in Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel, and an increase in B100 Biodiesel consumption. This is a notable accomplishment, although Biofuels might not be the optimal vehicle fuel, it is the better than the fuels used in the past. Table 2 - Fuel Consumption by University Fleet, Fiscal Year Gasoline (gal) Diesel (gal) B100 (gal) ,819 15,262 27, ,601 44,126 49, ,959 94,633 c. Refrigerants and Chemicals The USF Physical Plant continues it success at improving the efficiency of refrigerants used through out the campus. In FY , the plant reported using only 1,000 lbs of HCFC-22 (also known as R-22). Although the quantity of refrigerants used has substantially decreased, there is still a concern about the chemical that is being used. HCFC-22 has been known to help with the ozone depletion and is in itself a GHG. However, when it comes to refrigeration there is little alternatives, especially considering the chemical that are compatible with the exiting technology on campus. 6

7 Fiscal Year Table 3 Refrigerants used at USF Tampa Campus, HFC-134a HFC-404a HCFC-22 R12 CC12F2 R-11 R , , , , , , , , , , d. Fertilizers A notable accomplishment is the significant reduction in the quantity of nitrogen fertilizer applied during FY as seen in Table 4. This information from the USF Physical Plant indicates a decrease in the number of pounds applied of over 900%. In addition, the strongest concentration of fertilizer was not applied at all like it was done in the past. Nitrogen fertilizer not only creates GHG emissions in its production, but can also lead to other environmental problems such as the eutrophication of water bodies. Therefore this pattern shows positive results outside the realm of global climate change. Table 4 - Fertilizer used at USF Tampa campus, Fiscal Year 6% N 9% N 13% N 16% N 18% N Total , ,500 75, ,000 2, , , ,000-38, , , Scope 2 Emissions These emissions are less directly related to USF than the Scope 1 emissions. They sources are characterized as being neither owned nor operated by USF, but whose emissions are directly related to energy orientated activities at the USF Tampa Campus. The extent of Scope 2 emissions includes purchased electricity from TECO, purchased chilled water, and purchased steamed water. a. Purchased Electricity Table 5 shows the amount of purchased electricity reported by the USF Physical Plant from 2003 to This data includes consumption by the main Tampa and the auxiliary units. There has been an overall trend in increasing consumption except for the FY , where there is a conspicuous decrease in the quantity of electricity consumed. Considering that the burning of fossils fuels is a large contributor to GHG emissions, this is an exceptional accomplishment. USF 7

8 obtains its electricity from TECO that has a general fuel mix of 55% coal 45% natural gas less than 1% other. Table 5 - Electricity consumptions, Fiscal Year Electrical Use (kwh) ,433, ,293, ,293, ,800, ,334, ,578, ,089,260 b. Purchased Steamed Water This component of USF s GHG emissions has been omitted in previous reports. For FY , the Physical Plant reported a total of 5,148,800 MMBTUs being purchased. Including this measurement in the report greatly increases the amount of GHG emissions, but it is a more accurate accounting practice that gives a better portrayal of USF s total GHG emissions. c. Purchased Chilled Water This is the second year that purchased chilled water has been reported. A total of 662,000 MMBTUs were purchased in FY This is an improvement over last years reported number of 670,771 MMBTUs. Once again a great success 3. Scope 3 Emissions These emission sources are more indirectly connected to USF activities than either Scope 1 or Scope 2. They include activities that are in USF s sphere of influence including University related transportation, solid waste, and wastewater. Although some inventories consider this Scope to be optional, it is important to consider these factors when attempting to reduce the GHG emissions related to USF. a. Commuting to and from University Commuting to and from the University for the faculty, staff, and students of USF is the largest Scope 3 source of greenhouse gases. Data on the mode of transportation and average distance traveled were obtained from a survey done by USF Parking and Transportation Services and the Center for Urban Transportation Research at USF. Students, on average, commuted by the least carbon intensive mode of transportation, followed by staff, and the faculty traveling to work in their personal vehicle at a rate of 85%. Encouraging ride-sharing options such as Zimride can help reduce this trend. In addition, alternative forms of transportation such as bicycling and taking the bus can help accomplish the same goal. 8

9 b. Directly Financed Outsourced Air Travel The USF Travel Department provided information on approximately 8000 flights financed by USF, including the destination and origin of the flight. The two cities were entered into a website called that calculated the bird fly distance between them. This distance is similar to that a plane would take, however does not include any connecting flights that might have increased the total distance traveled. In addition, the origin was typically the location of the flyers residence, contributing to some slight inaccuracies. The total number of distance traveled was 12,136,130 miles, a 26% reduction from last year s number of 16,498,536 miles. c. Directly Financed Auto Travel This source of emissions includes the reimbursement of mileage by USF for University related student, faculty, and staff travel. This information was obtained from USF Travel Department that keeps a record of miles traveled. The number for directly financed auto travel for fiscal year is 2,279,601 miles. This is an increase of last year s number of 2,133,601 miles. d. Study abroad travel Information of the destinations of study abroad trips was obtained from the USF Education Abroad Office. Assuming that the starting location of the flight was Tampa, the round trip distance traveled to the destination was calculated using The total distance traveled for FY was 8,793,088 miles, an increase over last year s distance of 7,345,296 miles. This was expected to increase as USF has put a strong influence on study abroad programs in recent years. e. Solid Waste In FY , USF produced 1,190 short tons of solid waste. This includes all auxiliary units and is a considerable decrease from FY and FY , which produced 3,135 and 3,207 short tons respectively. This can be attributed in some part to the increase in recycling programs through out the University. It should be noted that some of USF s solid waste is sent to an off-site waste-to-energy facility, leading to a slight reduction in net GHG emissions. f. Wastewater Another accomplishment is with regard to wastewater produced at USF during FY During that year USF produced 266,083,796 gallons of wastewater that was sent offsite for treatment. This is a decrease from FY , in which USF produced 312,537,032 gallons of wastewater. g. Paper Paper use and type is an important factor to consider when reducing GHG emissions. Not only is the production of paper a source of GHG emissions, but also the production non-recycled paper decreases the amount of carbon captured by trees. This is the first year that paper is included in the report; therefor there is no reference to indicate what magnitude this consumption is. The 9

10 data on paper consumption came from an Office Deport Green Business Review Report for fiscal year The report estimated the amount of money spent on paper in different shades of green including Unknown, SFI Certified, FSC Certified, 10-29% Recycled, 30-89% Recycled, and % Recycled. The pounds of paper purchased were estimated by determining the pound per price for each grade of paper. This information indicated that around 90% of paper purchased is SFI Certified Virgin Paper, while only around 5% of paper is 30-90% recycled. The other 5% is largely Unknown, with less than 1% in any other recycled grade of paper. It should be noted that paper contributes only slightly to USF s carbon footprint in comparison to other emission sources. In addition, the number reported might not fully reflect the total amount of a paper purchased and used by USF. V. Offsets Although there are no direct offsets that can be represented in the Clean Air Cool Planet model, there are numerous activities pursued by USF to reduce its carbon footprint. An increase in paper, glass, plastic, and aluminum recycling has reduced the amount of solid waste and the amount of raw material that needs to be produced offsite. In addition, alternative forms of transportation are encouraged through a new Borrow Our Bike program. At the current time USF has not pursued any carbon offset permits or programs, however there is a large reserve of natural trees and shrubs found on campus. Furthermore, during this year a new Student Green Energy Fee was established with the goal to help reduce the amount of GHG emissions on campus. The effects of this new fee should be prevalent in future reports. VI. Limitations to the Model The Clean Air Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator is a good estimator for greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are some limitations to the model that does not allow it to accurately portray the total GHG emissions associated with the University. For such an abstract idea such as measuring carbon for such a large institutional body can definitely led to some inaccuracies. Ensuring consistency from year to year can help overcome any inaccuracies by having a constant barometer for carbon related activities. VII. Summary In most aspects, USF has been successful in reducing the GHG emissions compared to FY The only emission sources that have increased during this time period include commuting to and from the University and directly financed auto travel. The good news is that the Scope 1 and 2 emissions, those that are most directly related to USF activities, are decreasing. The addition of steamed water to the inventory greatly increased the total amount of GHG produced by USF. As a result of including purchased steamed water, there is a net increase in GHG emissions from 268,003 metric tons of greenhouse gases in FY to 669,217 metric tons of greenhouse gases in FY as shown in Table 6. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the emissions along the three scopes, showing scope 2 contributing the most to total GHG emissions. 10

11 Table 6 Summary of greenhouse gas emissions at USF, FY Energy 2010 CO Consumption 2 CH 4 N 2 O eco 2 MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes Scope 1 Co-gen Electricity Co-gen Steam Other On-Campus Stationary 369, ,474, , ,534.9 Direct Transportation 12, , Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 1,404, ,327, , ,825.7 Purchased Steam / Chilled Water 6,990, ,146, , , ,280.8 Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Commuting 535, ,532, , , ,488.6 Student Commuting 481, ,779, , , ,614.5 Directly Financed Air Travel 47, ,388, ,422.1 Other Directly Financed Travel 12, , Study Abroad Air Travel 34, ,802, ,826.7 Solid Waste - (43,627.5) - - (43.6) Wastewater , ,364.4 Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses 506, ,976, , ,138.1 Offsets Additional - Non-Additional - Totals Scope 1 381, ,494, , ,335.1 Scope 2 8,394, ,473, , , ,106.4 Scope 3 1,618, ,333, , , ,888.2 All Scopes 10,394, ,301, , , ,329.7 All Offsets - Net Emissions: 686,329.7 Figure 1 - Distribution of greenhouse has emissions among scopes FY Scope 3 Scope 1 Scope 2 11