EPP-SDS Project Courses ● Students work in an interdisciplinary group to solve real-world, unstructured Pittsburgh to Paris: problems involving science, technology, and public policy Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Carnegie Mellon University Students gain leadership experience through managing teams while developing ● 19-451: EPP Projects written and oral communication skills to a broad audience 88-452: Policy Analysis Senior Project December 5, 2017 Students produce a final report assisted by their course managers and an ● expert Review Panel 1 2 Students Review Panel Members ● Ana Cedillo - MechE/EPP ● Velisa Li - ChemE/EPP ● Martin Altschul - University Engineer, Carnegie Mellon University Sandy Chen - Psychology/SDS Nicole Matamala - BS/EPP ● ● ● Angela Blanton - Vice President for Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Carnegie Mellon University Rhiannon Farney - MechE/EPP Thomas Nakrosis - SDS ● ● ● Keval Gala - CEE/EPP ● Anthony Paone - CEE/EPP ● Donald Coffelt - Director of FMS, Carnegie Mellon University ● Michael Gormley - IPS/SDS ● Jazmin Rocha - ChemE/EPP Jared L. Cohon - University Professor, President Emeritus, Carnegie Mellon University ● Kristen Hofmann - SDS Rodrigo Royo - MechE/EPP ● ● Emma Hoskins - CEE/EPP Cheyenne Shankle - ChemE/EPP ● ● Grant Ervin - Chief Resilience Officer at City of Pittsburgh ● ● Allan Khariton - CEE/EPP ● Pierce Sinclair - CEE/EPP Mark Kamlet - University Professor, Provost Emeritus, Carnegie Mellon University ● ● Symone Lessington - ECE/EPP ● Nathan Wu - ChemE/EPP ● Stephen R. Lee - Department Head, School of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon University Project Managers ● Rodney McClendon - Vice President for Operations, Carnegie Mellon University ● Bob Reppe - Director of Design, Campus Design and Facility Development, Carnegie Mellon University ● Kenneth Sears - PhD Candidate, Engineering and Public Policy/Civil and Environmental Engineering ● Anna Siefken - Associate Director for Innovation & Strategic Partnerships, Carnegie Mellon University ● Ed Rubin - Professor, Engineering and Public Policy/Mechanical Engineering Sarah Yaeger - Resilience Analyst at City of Pittsburgh ● John Miller - Professor, Social and Decision Sciences ● 3 4 1
June 1, 2017: December 12, 2015: Trump Withdraws U.S. from Paris Accord The Paris Climate Accord “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” Keep global temperature "well below" 2.0 o C (3.6 o F) rise above pre-industrial times and "endeavor to limit" ● the rise to 1.5 o C ● Establish binding commitments for “nationally determined contributions” to emission reductions, and to pursue measures to achieve them, with regular reporting ● Every five years submit new plans that “represent a progression” in cutting emissions beyond previous levels 5 6 Project Objectives At our Mid-Semester Presentation We ... Imagine that Carnegie Mellon is a nation state that plans to comply with the Paris Accord. Recommend a greenhouse gas mitigation commitment ● Defined the Carnegie Mellon campus scope for this study for the University for the first 5-year time horizon period. ● Showed historical trends in campus energy use and related GHG emissions To do this: ● Understand CMU historic trends and current level of GHG emissions (“carbon ● Showed current projections of future campus growth and GHG implications footprint”). Understand and quantify likely future GHG emissions based on current ● ● Discussed a number of potential measures to mitigate GHG emissions university plans and practices. Define and analyze mitigation options for reducing emissions (including technical ● and behavioral approaches). ● Based on this analysis recommend a level of University commitment and strategies for future GHG commitments and planning 7 8 2
Campus Activities Affecting GHG Emissions Campus Size Off-Campus Emission Sources Associated Emissions Sources Average growth rate of 1.4% per year Inflows Supply Side Demand Side Solutions Solutions Air Travel Commuting Travel Grid Electricity Steam Campus Emissions Sources Natural Gas Water Treatment Technologie s Outflows Historical Projected 9 Fuel Use for Vehicles Electricity Use Behavior Landfill of Non-energy Activities Wastewater Treatment Campus Heating Solid Waste 9 10 Campus GHG Emissions Campus Historical Projected Average growth rate of 2.8% per year Population Average decrease Average increase of 0.7% per year of 3.2% per year 11 12 3
Campus GHG Emissions Mitigation Framework In Thousand Metric Tons of CO 2 e In order to recommend a greenhouse gas mitigation commitment for the Source Actual 2017 Emissions % Projected 2022 Emissions % University, we analyzed a number of opportunities that we will summarize here today. Further details are in the draft report: Heating 29 29 36 30 48 56 Electricity 48 48 ● Mitigation Strategy Transportation 19 19 21 18 ● Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Non-Energy 4.4 4 5 4 ● Implementation Strategy Total 101 100 116 100 ● Policy Options for CMU 13 14 Today’s Presentation will Summarize Our Results for: Campus Survey Campus Heating Use Campus Survey Campus Electricity Use Campus Transportation Use Campus Non-Energy Sources of GHGs Mitigation Analysis and Policy Recommendations 15 16 4
Objectives Survey Design ● Respondents saw 50 - 60 questions across 6 categories Support analysis of mitigation and policy options by filling in data gaps Comparable questions for faculty, staff and students ● about the CMU community’s: ○ Some unique questions based on differences in living and transportation habits ● Presented as multiple choice, Likert scales, and short answer questions ● Behavior impacting energy consumption Sample Question: ● Willingness to reduce energy usage How many hours a day does your laptop computer (or the laptop computer you use most often if more ● Attitudes and beliefs about climate change than one) spend completely powered off ? 0-2 hours 3-5 hours 6-8 hours 9-11 hours 12-14 hours 15 or more hours NOTE: The full survey is included in the final report 17 18 Survey Respondents Survey Distribution Total Responses - 193 faculty, staff, and students Students ● ○ Distributed to a random samples of 500 undergraduates and graduates provided by the CMU Registrar Response rate of 18% ○ ● Faculty and Staff Distributed to all department heads/office heads requesting they forward it to their department ○ members Approximate response rate of 7% of responding departments ○ 19 20 5
At Least 23 Academic Departments Represented Campus Concern Regarding Climate Change ● “How concerned are you, if at all, about global climate change?” On campus: 92 % are “Very” or “Somewhat” concerned ● 21 22 Question: "Is Carnegie Mellon a leader among universities at being a green campus?" Question: "Is Carnegie Mellon a leader among universities at being a green campus?" Other Campus Attitudes Question: "Should Carnegie Mellon be a leader among universities at being a green campus?" 2 5 response choices on scale of 1 ( “Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”) ● ○ Middle point is “Neither agree nor disagree” Risk Perception of Climate Change ● ○ Sample Response: “I have already noticed some signs of climate change” Mean: 4.32 ○ ● Personal Experience with Climate Change Sample Response: “Climate change will bring about some serious negative consequences.” ○ Mean: 4.20 ○ 3 n = 163 n = 163 n=184 23 24 6
Conclusions ● The CMU community: ○ Is concerned about climate change its negative effects ○ Believes CMU is not currently a green campus leader Campus Heating Use ○ Believes CMU should be a green campus leader ● Additional results will be presented by following speakers in the context of the issues they analyzed 25 26 CMU’s Steam Demand Objectives ● Determine major sources of heating on campus ● Analyze historical trends in heating use ● Quantify GHG emissions associated with heating Project future use and GHG emissions ● Identify potential mitigation measures ● 27 28 7
CO 2 Emissions from Campus Heating CO 2 Mitigation Strategies Some possibilities: Combined Heat and Power ● ● Thermostatic Radiator Valves Lowering Thermostat Set Points ● Thermostatic Radiator Enclosures ● ● Replacing historic windows Improving room insulation ● Education on heating practices ● 29 30 Cost Effectiveness of CHP: Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Total installed capital cost: $20 million ● Annualized cost (12% ROR, 30 yr life) = ($20M)(0.124) = $2.48M/yr ○ CHP is a process for ● ● Steam Generated: Current steam demand as of 2017 generating electricity and steam for heating at a higher ● Electricity Generated: 48 million kWh/yr (~35% of total CMU usage) overall thermal efficiency Cost of Electricity Generated: $.025/kWh ○ To be installed at Bellefield to ● ● Net electricity savings: 48 GWh/yr * ($0.08/kWh - $0.025/kWh)= $2.64M/yr supplement existing plant ● Total annualized cost of CHP project = $2.48M - $2.64M = - $0.16M/yr ● Net reduction of CO 2 : 12,000 metric tons/yr (including increased gas use) Cost effectiveness: - $13/metric ton CO 2 reduced 31 32 8
Recommend
More recommend
