Potential Solutions for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Ohio University

Group members

• Nicole Gullekson (ng248604@ohio.edu)
• Donny Murray (dm195705@ohio.edu)
• Chong Wu (cw258707@ohio.edu)

Overview

As part of the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory seminar, the solution group was focused on identifying strategies and solutions for Ohio University (OU) to reduce it GHG emissions. As the Campus Carbon Caluclator has not yet been completed, potential solutions and strategies were identified for this task. Our overall objectives were to understand what other universities are doing to reduce their GHG emissions, calculate the cost of implementing specific carbon-reducing strategies as well as determining how much each strategy would reduce the carbon emitted at OU (which subsequently would affect the Campus Carbon Calculator).

To do so, each member of the group examined a set of possible solutions for OU, including (for some) the estimated GHG saved by implementing the solution and the cost of implementation and payback period. These solutions are divided into three categories (1) The role of students in reducing GHG emissions, (2) Computer Use and Education, and (3) Flourescent Lighting and Solar Energy Solutions. In addition, other solutions being implemented by similar universities are provided, yet with less detail, as examples of other methods for reducing GHG emissions that OU can look to in the future.

Thus, the information in this webpage includes the objectives, methods, and results for the potential solutions tackled by each of the team members. Following that information, how such solutions can be used in conjunction with the Campus Carbon Calculator is discussed, as well as the future steps for developing solutions for reducing GHG at OU will be examined. If you have any questions regarding the information provided here, please feel free to email us.

Survey of OU Students: What is the role of students in reducing GHG emissions at OU?

Objectives

Students are an integral part of Ohio University. As such, the solution group thought it was important to incorporate students into the solution process. More specifically, we decided to poll a sample of OU students to determine their perception and knowledge of climate change, their opinion of OU's current actions against climate change, and the steps they are willing to take to reduce OU's carbon footprint.

The specific objectives for this part of the project were

(1) to develop or find a survey assessing general environmental concern, as well as one which examines attitudes and actions more specific to OU's role in climate change. 

(2) to gain authorization through the Institutional Review Board to survey OU students

(3) give the survey to a subset of students at OU 

(4) analyze the results to determine what steps students are willing to take to reduce GHG emissions at OU

Methods

 The solution group reviewed technical reports from universities that have already completed the Campus Carbon Calculator and identified stratiegies to reduce GHG emissions on their own campuses (see the clean air cool planet website for such reports). Based on these reports, and brainstorming by the group members, a survey was developed for completion by OU students. After getting approval to collect data from the Institutional Review Board at OU, data was collected using the Psychology Department Experiment Website (psychpool). Participants enrolled primarily in psychology 101 courses signed up for the online study in partial fulfillment of course requirements. In addition, data was also collected from one business cluster class and a business fraternity.

Results

 The data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) using primarily descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, range) and frequencies of responses. 

Student Sample:

Data was collected from 284 students. The survey respondents were between the ages of 17 and 44, with the majority of respondents being 18 or 19 (72%) and 20 (16%). 59% were female and 37% were male and they came from a variety of majors. The large majority of the sample believes that human activity is contributing to climate change (84%). The majority of respondents grew up in households that recycled (67%), but were varied as to their personal recycling habits. When asked how often they recycle, 30% of the sample said never or rarely, 30% said sometimes, 29% reported most of the time, and 11% said always. Additionally, when asked how often they turn their computers off when they are not being used, 56% said rarely or never, 21% said sometimes, 15% reported turning it off most of the time, and 8% said always.

 Issues pertaining to OU and potential solutions:

Based on the open-ended response to what positive steps OU has taken towards climate change, the participants recognize and appreciate that OU has taken some initiative toward being environmentally and socially responsible. In particular, many of the respondents mentioned that OU has a good recycling program and noted the composting system in Baker Center as well as the energy conservation training program in the dorms. The respondents reported mixed feelings about whether or not OU was "doing its part to fight global warming", with 60% somewhat agreeing or agreeing and 40% disagreeing or somewhat disagreeing. However, the large majority of repsondents (75%) were not familiar with the President's Climate Commitment. Thus, the fact that OU has made a committment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions could be better communicated. Increased student support and pro-sustainability behaviors are likely to follow as the participants had many great suggestions for steps the university could take. (The open-ended responses are provided in the attachment).

Additionally, the majority of participants reported that they would carpool if such passes were available at a reduced rate (75% in favor of this initiative).  Considering the average number of days per week students drove to campus was 3.2 and miles driven were around 40 miles per week, carpooling would be a great option.  In fact, other universities have implemented similar transportation policies including limited student vehicles, rideboard initiatives, commuting incentives and fees, and reducing campus fleet use (Middlebury College, 2003). While the annual tonnes of carbon saved is smaller than other strategies (i.e., it is estimated to save 150 tonnes), this solution has little start-up costs and allows university members to help the university reduce its GHG emissions. For example, there are approximately 3,000 student commuters and 2,000 staff/faculty commuters at OU. If two-thirds of student commuters bought normal parking passes at $125 and carpool passes were cheaper ($60) or even free, the remaining finances could be covered by requiring faculty to buy parking passes at $40 (this is the price if carpool passes were free). This strategy brings the efforts of the university into the public eye without financial detriment.

Appoximately 54% of participants reported that they would support an additional student fee for the university to purchase green energy. Fourteen percent somewhat disagreed with this fee and 30% fully disagreed. However, this estimate should be taken with caution as no indicator of what the student fee would be was provided. Thus, they may have imaged a large fee much like the $500 per quarter that student fees are presently at. When asked how much they are willing to pay for this fee, the respondents reported a range of 0-1500 dollars. Not including the 30% who would not pay a fee, the average fee students were willing to pay was around $50 (some students specified per quarter while others per year). If a student fee of $10 per quarter ($30 per year) was implemented or students were given the option of paying a green fee, the green fund would be approximately $480,000 per year for 16,000 students.A follow-up study should give a better estimate of what students feel is appropriate. We do not advocate increasing student fees in order for the university to reduce its GHG emissions. Rather we wanted to demonstrate that students are in support of school iniatives to be more sustainable and want to be part of the solution, not just contribute to the problem.

Other solutions: The university can only buy 1% of its total electricity from green power ($8300) so other ways to reduce GHG emission using electricity could be considered. For example, changing the ratio of coal to natural gas. Coal emits twice as much CO2 as natural gas, yet natural gas is FAR more expensive. Currently the university heats primarily with steam produced by coal and natural gas in a 88% coal and 12% natural gas ratio (Ron Chapman, personal communication). This equals approximately 68 million pounds of CO2! Changing the ratio would greatly impact the GHG emissions OU is emitting. However, financially, this is not the best option. Other universities (e.g., Middlebury College) invested biomass energy. At Middlebury, switching to biomass boilers were expected to result in a 60% reduction in GHG emissions. While the system is expensive, the payback period was only around 5 years and over a 50 year lifespan, the biomass system was expected to save the university 35 million dollars. Additional sources of energy OU can investigate include methane capture systems, wind turbines, and solar energy. Lastly, if the thermostats are adjusted 2 degrees it was approximated at other schools that this would result in a 2-2.5% reduction of GHG emissions from the heating and cooling emissions.

Future Steps

 This data was collected as a pilot study on students attitudes on climate change and OU's role in reducing GHG emissions. Based on this study, a more detailed survey should be given to all students as well as faculty and staff. It is my intention to do this next quarter with the help/input of the Office of Sustainability and members of this GHG seminar.

Student Computer Use

Ø        One of our potential solutions to greenhouse gas reduction is to direct people to adoption of a low-carbon life style, which is a more sustainable way but also a more difficult job. A member of the solution group, I am trying to work out an integral educational program, though probably a preliminary one, to encourage OU students, faculties and staff to consider more seriously about energy efficiency in their life.

Ø        The starting point of my work is efficient use of computers.

²       More than 30 billion kilowatt-hours of energy is wasted because many of us simply forget to shut down our computers when we are not using them. The CO2 emissions from just 15 computers are equivalent in energy terms to the gas consumption used by one car. (www.localcooling.com)

Methods:

The whole idea for educational program is based on three sets of data:

1.      A small survey about OU student’s awareness to green energy. Nicole developed the survey and we helped disseminate it to about 300 students. The questions include how often they turn off the computer when they are not using it, and how often they recycle.

2.      A small experiment on students’ habit of using computers in the four lab sessions I am supervising since the beginning of this quarter. There are 58 students in my labs and they come to the lab once a week. I have been taking down notes about how many of them shut down computers before they leave the lab and compare it with the number after I made an announcement about shutting down computers. And I ran a kill-a-watts in my lab to check how much electricity the whole lab costs, including 17 computers, a printer, a projector and lights.

3.      The OU Office of Sustainability is planning to expand an efficient computer use program with IT companies.

Results:

1.     Survey:

 Q: How often do you turn their computers off when they are not being used?

 A: 56% said rarely or never, 21% said sometimes, 15% reported turning it off most of the time, and 8% said always.

2.      My lab experiment collects the following data:

  1)      Hard facts:

Time: Sept 17 – Oct 22, 2007

Place: Graphics Lab 001, Scripps

Students: 58

Facilities and energy consumption:

Item

Amount

Kwh/each

Total kwh/week (lab)

Apple Mac Desktop

18

0.07

10.08

HP printer

1

0.03

0.24

Epson projector

1

0.16

1.28

 2)      Results:

Ø        Before September 24, no student turned off his/her computer when he/she left the lab in all four lab sessions, each of which last two hours. 

Ø        On the week of Sept 24, I made an announcement in class that each student must turn off computers when they leave. Only one third of the students did it voluntarily in the week and after. I had to remind the rest to turn it off during the two weeks.

Ø        On the week of Oct 22, three weeks after I made the announcement.

Shut down computer on leaving

Ask whether to shut down computer

Leave without shutting down computer

Number of students

8

10

40

Ø        Conclusion: the experiment showed that students do not have a good habit of turning off computers when they are not using it. And education can help to some extent. However, if they are not required to develop such energy efficient habit elsewhere, it is hard for them to keep a good habit in this particular place. So, a consistent and overall educational program is necessary.

Ø        Limitation: The lab is used for teaching and not open to public use. So usually the instructors will turn off all electricity before they leave. 

 4.      OU Green Computing Initiative.

1)      Interviewee: Sonia Marcus, sustainability coordinator

2)      Date: October 29, 2007

3)      The office of sustainability is considering implementing the initiative from the following perspective:

Ø        Offer students a option to purchase a carbon offset when they purchase computers from school (about 4-5 dollars more)

Ø        Ask computer manufacturers who have the purchase program with the university to install energy-efficient devices in the computers they provide to the university

Ø        Purchase energy start equipment

Ø        Purchase software that allows school servers running in an energy-efficient way  

Ø        Reduce paper use of printers, and encourage use of recycled paper

Ø        E-waste recycling

4)      Suggestions: 

a)        Computer use reminder: put labels on each computer/mouse pad to remind students of efficient use of computers

b)        Data from the OU Office of Information Technology (Nov 2,2007)

²       OIT Office: 150 employees, each with at least one computer, if not two (Gateway computers)

²       OIT supplies: 

l        About 200 computers for classrooms (Gateway PC)

l        About 100 computers in computer labs across campus (Gateway, Mac)

l        About 100 laptops (Gateway, Lenovo)

c)        Establish a long-term system to collect and track data of computer purchases in each department across campus

Campus Carbon Calculator:

There is no specific item for computer use or consumption behavior in the Campus Carbon Calculator. And since electricity use can be calculated as a whole, it is not necessary to count computer use as an independent item. However, consumption behavior affects a lot the school’s use of power. In return, the change of consumption behavior can help significantly save electricity and reduce carbon footprints.

 Future steps:

1.      Conduct surveys each year to track the consumption habit of students, faculties and staff.

2.      Help the Office of Sustainability to outline the recycling programs of big manufacturers of computer/printer/projector that have deals with OU to see the possibilities of future cooperation. 

Ø        Gateway 

Ø        Apple

Ø        Lenovo

Ø        HP

Ø        Epson

3.      Encourage students, faculties and staff to install energy conservancy programs in their computers.

4.      Where to find: http://www.localcooling.com/

5.      Make GHG Inventory a seminar that is offered every quarter to include more students and provide them with different levels of hands-on experience in GHG reduction

Compact Fluorescent Lighting and Solar Energy Options

Objectives: 

• The goal of this portion of the solutions was to try and find ways for Ohio University to save money while also decreasing the amount of Green House Gases that are being admitted.
• To analyze the different solutions and figure out the amount of money it would take to implement them and the payback period of such programs

Methods:

1. A number of different tools were used for making calulations on the payback periods for the ideas

2. The calulating tools were also used to estimate the amount of Green House Gases that were reduced

Results:

1. Using Compact Fluorescent Bulbs in the dorm rooms for the occupents personal desk lamp
2. Installing and using solar panels

This chart shows the amount of monetary savings and also the reduction of Green House Gas emissions. These results assume that they Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (CFL's) are used for two hours a day. Also on the fact that electricty would cost $.04406 per kWh and that a CFL costs $3.50 a piece. These vaibles if changed would result in different results in the forms of savings and emisions.

Solar Panels

This would be a step in the right direction for decreasing the Universities realiance on power from AEP and also for decreasing emmisions of Green House Gases.

Other GHG-reducing options

There are many more steps that can be taken to decrease the amount of Green House Gases that the universities produces. Some of these include methane capture, bio-diesel, and also thermostat adjustment and regulation. All of these options are ones that are investments in the future and that would require a long term commitment from the University.

Campus Carbon Calculator

Unlike much of the information from other GHG seminar teams, the information provided her does not directly get imputed into the carbon calculator. Rather, the the data/information from the carbon calculator can be used to show direct evidence for carbon-reducing strategies. That is, one can use the information to calculate how much carbon would be saved at OU by implementing a specific strategy, how much it would cost to implement and what the payoff would be in terms of GHG emissions and dollars saved in the long term.

Sources

1. Middlebury College GHG Inventory Report
2. www.cleanair-coolplanet.org
3. Ron Chapman
4. Ed Newman
5. Sonia Marcus
6. Psychology 101 students
7. Third Sun Solar Energy
8. The Office of Information Technology
9. Graphics Lab 221, E.W.Scripps School of Journalism
10. Graduate students of E.W.Scripps School of Journalism
11. www.localcooling.com
12. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls
13. Members of the Alpha Omicrom Chapter of Delta Sigma Pi
14. Members of the AM 107 Business Cluster at Ohio University