AES Carbon Audit Report

8/9/2019 AES Carbon Audit Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aes-carbon-audit-report 1/15

AES Carbon Survey 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Climate change resulting from human activity is now recognized as one of the most urgentenvironmental issues facing the global community. In an attempt to manage the situation,governments and industry are adopting targets such as those set at the Kyoto conference in1997, which aim to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Carbon auditing, the focus ofthis study, plays a critical role in establishing the baseline Carbon Dioxide (CO

2) emissions

of an organization in order to develop the most effective strategies to save energy and

reduce its carbon footprint.

The purpose of this carbon audit exercise is to establish an accurate estimate the quantity ofCO2

emissions for the AES and a framework for the school to analyze and manage its

energy and carbon demand. The carbon methodology incorporates the principles of lifecycle analysis conforms to ISO and other internationally recognized standards for assessingand quantifying emissions.

This carbon audit includes an estimate of carbon emissions from both direct and indirectactivities associated with the running of a school, such as those resulting from the embodiedenergy in the production and transportation of food and paper supplies. In addition, with theassistance of the AES student environmental club, we have conducted a survey of randomlyselected students in at the high school, middle and elementary levels. This survey ofstudent activities, behavior and attitudes is designed to expand and enrich the qualitativeaspects of the data as well as to a cross-check and verify the quantitative results.

We find…..

We recommend….

AES CARBON AUDIT REPORT



AES Carbon Survey 2

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A CARBON AUDIT?

A carbon audit measures the environmental impact – or carbon footprint – that a business,institution or community has on the climate in terms of the total amount of greenhouse gases(measured in units of carbon dioxide) generated by the sum of its energy consuming and

waste producing activities. Many activities generate carbon emissions, which contribute toaccelerating global warming and climate change. By estimating the school’s carbon footprintwe can get a better sense of what our impact is, and identify ways we can reduce our impacton the environment.

This survey covers five main activities which generate carbon emissions:

1. Energy2. Water3. Waste4. Resources5. Food

6. Transportation

Several of these activities overlap in terms of their impact. For example, the carbonemissions from operating a swimming pool involve both the consumption of water and theenergy used to pump, filter and heat it. The survey will help us identify the activity-basedsources of carbon emissions at the school which contribute to its overall carbon footprint.

PROCESS: HOW WE DID IT?

Step 1: Establish commitmentA senior member of the administration on board will make the Carbon Audit much easier.

Step 2: Determine roles and responsibilities.Forming a student group or a leadership group to conduct the Carbon Audit brings a lot ofenthusiasm, and this can be excellent educational opportunity.

Step 3: Define scopeThis often is the most difficult step. The Survey covers a set of main activities and theseneeds to be defined at the beginning of the survey.

Step 4: Choose a method.The most widely recognized standard for conducting a GHG emissions inventory is the

Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

Step 5: Gather data, and crunch the numbers.This step can be challenging, particularly if the necessary records are difficult to gather orinterpret. It helps to have a clear picture of the recordkeeping procedures in place, but it'sstill easy to get lost in the data.

Step 6: ContextualizeNow that the results are in, what do they mean? What are the next steps? Is this part of alarger base-lining effort or a comprehensive campus-sustainability initiative? Taking a criticallook at the carbon footprint results enables a campus to prioritize projects.



AES Carbon Survey 3

METHODOLOGY: HOW DO WE CALCULATE A TON OF CO2?

Estimating carbon emissions from human activities, especially in a complex and interactivecommunity like a school, is an inexact science at best. Much depends upon the accuracy ofthe data we get and the assumptions we have to make about the emissions generated by

those activities. In general, where there are alternative methods of estimating emissions, wehave opted for the approach that produces the lowest estimate. We focused on theoperation of the AES School, its classes, offices, buildings and commuting of staff andstudents. We have generated our estimates from information of the Facility Managers andthe students.

The exception to this decision is on the global warming impact of car travel. We havemultiplied the figure for the carbon dioxide output of car by various factors, according to thesize and type to account properly for the effect of the other pollutants emitted into the highatmosphere. This multiplier is not universally agreed upon, but reflects the prevailingscientific consensus.

OBJECTIVES: CHANGING THE WORLD, ONE FOOTPRINT AT A

TIME

The overall project objective is to develop a carbon audit that can be used by AES tocompile a carbon footprint as a starting point to reduce its emissions in order to contributetowards preserving the environment not in present but in future also.

In order to achieve this project will aim to:

1. To identify and understand the magnitude of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissionsassociated with AES.

2. Develop a carbon audit for school, which improves on existing auditing facilities andincorporates wider aspects associated with carbon emissions such as transport andproduction of resources used in the school.

3. Carry out the carbon audit on AES to determine its effectiveness and to compare theresults with those from other schools from US.

4. To explore the changes required to reduce the carbon footprint by developing energyconservation strategies for the school

5. To suggest the level of ambition to which the schools sector could aspire6. To recommend actions and policy interventions for the AES and others to implement

or influence in order to deliver each of the scenarios

BENCHMARKING: HOW ARE WE DOING?

Case Studies of other US Educational Institutes

University of Pennsylvania

Benchmarking results.

The total carbon footprint for the University of Pennsylvania is 300,000 tons /annum.The total population of the University of Pennsylvania is around 40,000.



AES Carbon Survey 4

As expected, the major contributions to greenhouse gas emissions are the purchased utilityenergies used for the heating, cooling, and electrical supply of campus buildings.In 2006 the University produced 7.1 tons of eCO2 per community member and 27.1 kg eCO2 per square foot of building space. This accords with the rough data so far reported bythe other institutions.

Activities

1. Energy consumption through the use of steam, chilled water, electricity, and naturalgas.

2. Transportation through University fleets of cars, vans, buses, and trucks.3. Solid Waste disposal4. Refrigerant replacement.5. Food preparation.

Smith College (Northampton, Massachusetts)

The total carbon footprint for the Smith College is 33,025 tons /annumThe total population of the Smith College is around 3,925 In 2004 the college produced 8.4 tons of eCO2 per community member.A plethora of information was needed to calculate Smith College’s greenhouse gasemissions. To obtain this information, many people within the Smith community and from theCity of Northampton were contacted. Institutional numbers (e.g., number of students peryear, operating budget, etc.) were provided by people in several different departmentsthroughout campus.

Activities

1. Sources for greenhouse gas emissions (along with the gas emitted) included:2. Electricity in kWh purchased per year (CO2, CH4, N2O),3. Natural gas in MMBtu combusted to produce steam and hot water(CO2, CH4, N2O)4. Diesel and gasoline in gallons used by the university fleet per year (CO2, CH4,

N2O),5. Solid waste in tons disposed of in the Northampton landfill per year (CH4),6. Refrigerants gases in pounds replaced in refrigerator units on campus each year

(CFC and other gases) and7. Food Production

The explicit goals of these Educational Institutes initiative are to:

1. Reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.2. Educate students and other members of their community about the relationship

between human activities and climate change.3. Strengthen research on impacts, mitigation, and adaptation related to climate change

and variability.4. Develop as a model sustainable community in the state and region.



AES Carbon Survey 5

FINDINGS: THE RESULTS ARE IN…

HVAC

31%

Clothes

0%

Cars

26%

Food

12% Activities

25%

School Bus

1%

Staff Commuting

3%

Paper

2%

HVAC

Activities

Food

Cars

Clothes

School Bus

Paper

Staff Commuting

WORLD2 tons pc AMERICAN SCHOOLS

7.5 tons pc BRITISHSCHOOLS3.8 tons pc

AES3.7 tons pc INDIAN

SCHOOLS.5 tons pc



AES Carbon Survey 6

School Bus

1%

Energy

56%

Staff Commuting

3%Paper

2%

Cars

26%

Food12%

Energy

Cars

School Bus

Food

Paper

Staff Commuting

AES TOTAL ANNUAL CARBON FOOTPRINT = 5045 TONS

WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO…

- DRIVING 25,000,000 Kms

- ADDING 1675 CARS TO INDIAN ROADS

- CUTTING AND BURNING 261,250 TREES

- DESTROYING 105 HECTARES (260 ACRES) OF FOREST



AES Carbon Survey 7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Car Food Activities Clothes

High

Middle

Primary

All electricity generation systems have a ‘carbon footprint’, that is, at some points duringtheir construction and operation carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted. Emissions can be both

direct – arising during operation of the power plant, and indirect – arising during other non-operational phases of the life cycle. Fossil fuelled technologies (coal, oil, gas) have thelargest carbon footprints, because they burn these fuels during operation

Energy consumption is a direct cause of CO2 emissions from a school. It is for this reason

that energy use is considered a significant aspect of schools activities and has been scopedin to the carbon audit. Following a review of the energy records and bills for the last year, theamount of electricity, gas and gas oil was determined. These figures have been used toestimate the total energy consumption for the case studies and the resultant CO

2emissions

using conversion factors .The assumptions underlying conversion factors are vitallyimportant for broad acceptance of this method. Therefore extensive research has been

undertaken to source conversion factors that are reasonable and fair. This approach hasbeen used throughout the method whenever conversion factors have been used. Themethod to estimate the emissions from energy use was similar to that in figure 2.2. Inaddition to providing an overall consumption figure, it is beneficial for the schools to have abreakdown of where the energy is being used. Where appropriate, inventories were madefor all the equipment in the design and technology, textile and home technology classrooms.The use of computers at school for school related work will contribute directly to the schoolsCO

2emissions from computer use. This component was incorporated in the carbon audit by

collecting information on duration of computer use by staff and students from thequestionnaires. A lighting survey at each school was conducted to determine the number,type and usage of light fittings. This enabled estimates for energy consumption from lighting

under different scenarios to be carried out.

ENERGY



AES Carbon Survey 8

The total amount of Co2 emitted by the school by energy consumption is approx 2847tonnes per annum.

Building HVAC

56%

Landscaping

0%

Equipment

17%

Landscape

Lighting

0%Street Lights

2%

Building Lighting

6%

Water Heating

2%Water Pumps

17%

Building HVAC

Equipment

Landscaping

Building Lighting

Street Lights

Landscape Lighting

Water Heating

Water Pumps

Schools are large consumers of resources – from paper and books to food and sportsequipment. A more deliberately eco-conscious approach to purchasing in schools can playa key role in reducing the negative environmental impacts of consumption by focusing onreducing the frequency and amounts of purchases and selecting greener alternatives.

At present the school generally follows a policy of “Best Quality” with respect to purchasingwhereby goods are purchased despite the supplier or the location of the source,environmental considerations are not usually a priority. Due to norms and specificrequirements of the school, it is difficult for schools to restrict the companies from which it

purchases goods, to those in their region or country.

The school is often unaware of the source of many products used in the school since theirpurchasing is usually done through a vendor such as the one who buy in goods from all overthe world to supply to schools. Pressure from school on suppliers and distributors to supplygoods that have been produced locally whenever possible will reduce the emissions fromtransporting the products . The school may also be able to influence the modes of transportused to deliver the goods.

Schools are major users of paper – what they buy and how they use it has a direct impact onthe environment. The main types and amounts of paper used within the school were

identified using the structured interview questions for the staff members. This method wasalso used to determine the source and supplier of paper goods (photocopying paper and

RESOURCES



AES Carbon Survey 9

exercise books). These details were used to calculate the CO2emissions from the delivery of

paper goods to the school (see flow diagrams). Along with emissions from transportation ofthe paper, an estimate of the emissions from paper production was made. This wasachieved using details of energy consumption for the paper and pulp industry and theindustry’s annual revenue. This simplified method is based on the energy analysis concept

and involves estimating the energy used and therefore the CO2 emissions from producingone item based on the total number of items produced and the total amount of energy used(See Figure).

The amount of paper purchased by staff and students to use for school purposes was alsoincluded in the total paper consumption for the school. These amounts were estimated usingquestion in the student and staff questionnaires (see appendix 1 and 2). This element wasincluded in the carbon audit as the impact associated with its production and transportationcan be indirectly linked to the school because the paper bought by individuals is used forschool activities. This argument is based on the approach of impact identification within theenvironmental impact assessment process which stipulates that all impacts (for example,long term, short term, indirect, direct and cumulative) should be considered in anyassessment

The total amount of CO2

emitted by procurement and manufacturing of the paper

consumed2 at AES is approx 115 tones /annum.

Office Paper(kgs)

76%

Face

Tissue

4%paper

Cardboard

0%

Tissues (Toilet

paper)

Corrugated

boxes

Office Paper(kgs)

Tissues (Toilet paper)

Cardboard

Corrugated boxes

Decoration paper

Crafts paper

Face Tissue



AES Carbon Survey 10

0

10

20

30

40

5060

70

80

90

100

Office

Paper(kgs)

Tissues

(Toilet

paper)

CardboardCorrugated

boxes

Decoration

paper

Crafts

paper

Face

Tissue

Series1

Indirect CO2

emissions associated with water supply and sewage treatment have been

included in the audit because water is one of the main inputs to the schools. Details of theCO

2emissions from pumping and treating water used by the school were taken from an

impact assessment tool.

The CO2emitted by the supply and distribution of the water is 475 tonnes per annum

Waste produced has been included in the carbon audit since it represents “the grave” for the

life cycle of the majority of products used within the schools. Indirect CO2 emissions from its

WATER

WASTE




transportation to disposal facilities and the emissions from the breakdown or combustion ofthe waste have been incorporated..

Chilled or frozen food require much more energy for storage (and hence a higher carbonfootprint). Frozen foods also tend to be stored for longer and so will have accumulated a

higher carbon footprint by the time they are consumed. If you are concerned aboutfreshness, try buying local food from farmers markets.

Dairy Products

12%

Processed Food

9%

Beverages

10%

Chicken

3%Fish

.5%

Bake

ryRed Meat

45%

Cleaning

1%Energ

y

Packaging

3%

Red Meat

Chicken

Fish

Dairy Products

Processed Food

BeveragesBakery

Energy

Packaging

Cleaning

The CO2emitted by processing and procuring of food is 644 tonnes per annum

FOOD




When you travel in a car, each gallon of gasoline you burn produces carbon in the form ofcarbon dioxide. The amount of CO2 produced depends on the fuel efficiency of your vehicleand the distance you travel.

The significance of transport to and from the school in terms of carbon dioxide emissionshas been highlighted in Section with findings .In order to collect information about transporttrends, several questions were compiled as part of the school and staff questionnaire(Appendix 1 and 2).The questions aimed to determine:

The mode of transport used to get to and from the school. The distances traveled. Number of passengers per vehicle. Make and model of the vehicle. Fuel type. Area of residence.

In addition to this information, details of the CO2

emissions for each vehicle were required.

This was collected from the Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL) Governments’ VehicleCertification Agency’s web site which has a database of CO

2emissions for all buses. CO

2

emissions were calculated for each car individually, even though this was a time consumingprocess, because it would result in a more accurate indication of transport emissions

compared to using average vehicle emissions. Figure highlights the steps used to calculateemissions arising from transportation via bus.Within the Excel spreadsheet, a macro was used to calculate the emissions arising from cartravel to and from the school. Some of the journeys to school were made as part of other journeys, for example traveling to work. As a consequence the emissions for car travel wereestimated separately for those journeys which were carried out for the school run and thosewhich formed part of another journey

Unfortunately, the final CO2

emissions from transport to and from the school will be slightly

underestimated because the database provided information on relatively new car modelsonly, which will inevitably be more efficient than their older counterparts. Ideally emissionsfrom older vehicles should have been used in the calculations. However, this was not aviable option since there are no databases available with this information.

Transport is an essential component to include in a carbon audit. This is highlighted by thefact that overall traffic levels have risen by 1.3% between 2000 and 2001 and over the last10 years the proportion of journeys to school by car has nearly doubled from 16% to 30%).The school runs accounts for morning rush hour traffic and only about 26% of children of allages travel to school by bus. Many parents feel that there is no reasonable alternative todriving their children to school. School related transport has a significant effect on the levelof CO

2in the atmosphere because 0.25 Kg – 0.5 Kg of CO

2is emitted for every km that a

passenger car travels (this will vary depending on the make of the vehicle). During 2008 thetotal number of km traveled by 25 vehicles owned by the school was approx .2 million km,

and this figure is set to rise. These vehicles emitted approx 50 tones/annum. It was noted

TRANSPORTATION




that the total number of km traveled by the parents or wards is approx 5 million km byapprox 600 cars per annum.The total amount of CO

2emitted by the vehicles is approx 1331 tones /annum.

The school should set achievable targets to reduce these CO2levels by expanding its

bussing system.

Carbon footprint per student for those who use cars to commute to school is 0.65 tonnesper annnum.Carbon footprint per student for those who use buses to commute to school is .16 tonnesper annnum

School Car

3%

School Bus

5%

Private Car

92%

School Car

School Bus

Private Car

RECOMMENDATIONS: STRATEGIES TO REDUCE AES’ CO2 FOOTPRINT

1. School leaders, staff, pupils and managers should be aware of their carbonemissions and should monitor them year by year.

2. School should take direct action to reduce their carbon emissions and achieve a 10per cent reduction from 2008 levels.

3. School buildings are energy efficient with visual displays of energy consumption.AES has low carbon energy generation technologies, at the scale of the individualbuilding, a cluster of buildings, or the community scale. School staff, pupils and thewider community has an understanding of the school’s energy performance and howit is being improved.

4. Pupils and staff should choose to walk, cycle or use public transport to travel to andfrom school. Car use should be minimal.




5. School leaders, staff, pupils and managers should be aware of their carbonemissions and should monitor them year by year.

6. School recycles or composts a wide range of its waste, and will act as hubs forcommunity recycling schemes. Smarter procurement will significantly reduce theamount of waste generated, so that only a fraction of today’s amount is sent tolandfill.

7. School supports its wider community to reduce carbon emissions throughshowcasing best practice and developing awareness, skills and knowledge.

G. Tree planting

Until now, all the elements of the school carbon audit have focused on areas where CO2

is

emitted. A section on tree planting has been incorporated into the audit to take into accountthe emissions that can be removed from the atmosphere via sequestration by vegetation, in

these case trees. Even though the amount of CO2

sequestered will not be significant, this

element has been incorporated since sequestration completes the carbon life cycle and istherefore in keeping with the LCA approach taken in designing the audit. The amounts ofCO

2sequestered by trees have been estimated for Carbon Management (ECCM, 2000) and

the number of trees planted at school determined from the staff interviews.

Benefits of the tool ~ CO2Reduction

A tool that explicitly offers benefits to a school, for example in the form of cost savings andincreased efficiency, will be seen as more desirable and the likelihood of it beingimplemented will significantly increase. Demands on a school’s time and resources aresignificant. Therefore, anything that is going to impose further on the valuable time of its staff

and resources will have to provide clear and desired benefits. One such benefit is theaccounting of CO

2and energy use. This will allow reduction and monitoring efforts to be

focused on problem areas.

- Student Involvement

Another potential benefit is the involvement of the students in the execution of the audit,which could provide a valuable learning resource and teaching tool. However, the surveyindicates the need to emphasize the results and benefits that will be gained fromundertaking the audit or assessment.

- Development of an EMS

Number of treesplanted per year 20.3 Kg CO2 per yearfor the next 50 years

CO2 (Kg)sequestered per

annum

X =




The majority of tools do make some contribution towards the development of anenvironmental management system or environmental policy .The tools provide a method forcarrying out a review similar to an initial environmental review, which is considered anessential foundation in the development of an environmental management system (EMS).The use of the tools in developing an EMS that can be certified to ISO 14001 or EMASshould be maximized. This could be achieved by including a component that requires targetsand objectives to be set and reviewed periodically. This is essential for the making of asuccessful EMS

- CO2offsetting

All but two of the resources have a slightly negative approach to impact assessment orauditing since they do not provide the option of carbon or impact offsetting. This could beachieved by carbon sequestration by plants. The idea of offsets is closely linked withtwo of the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, the Clean Development Mechanism and JointImplementation. Although it is often difficult to verify that the emission reductions associatedwith carbon offsets are real and measurable, they should be included in a carbon auditbecause the user will be able to see a positive outcome of their actions in addition to the

overwhelming negative outcomes. By encouraging the planting of trees as a potential carbonoffsetting mechanism, the level of CO

2produced by a school may be reduced.

Procurement Recommendations

1. Increase the uptake of “low-carbon food” by school.2. Reduce and reuse paper as well as procurement of recycled paper3. Reuse and repair of furniture, and procurement of more durable furniture4. Water efficiency measures introduced in school buildings.5. Reduce emissions from construction procurement through increased recycled

materials, and energy efficiency site measures.

6. Increase recycled content in procured products.7. Sustainable procurement has become the norm; the price of sustainable sourced

goods s equal to – or less than – that of non-sustainable alternatives. Schools find iteasy to take procurement decisions as they can access useful information aboutsustainability and costing takes into account all the impacts of a product.

Recommendations for Specific Activities for the 10% Challenge

1. Reduce red meat consumption by 25% which will lead to reduction in 1% of AES’scarbon footprint.

2. Water efficiency measures to be introduced into school buildings. Low flow fixtures tobe installed to reduce energy consumption by 10% this will result in the reduction ofAES carbon footprint by 1%.

3. Expand the bussing system and increase the number of the students using theschool bus from 360 to 600 which will reduce the CO2 footprint by 6.5%.

4. Reduce the transportation of the students to schools through private cars by 25%.5. Install occupancy sensors or co2 sensors in the old building to reduce the HVAC

footprint by 5% of which will result in the reduction of total carbon footprint by 1.5%. 6. Reduction in the consumption of office paper by 10%

AES Carbon Audit Report

Documents

Transcript of AES Carbon Audit Report