CIVE 6900/8900 Sustainability Engineering and Science · Web viewThe east plant uses an aerated...

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory ofLucas County Facilities and Operations

Prepared by

Katherine ChulskiGregory Denman

Jeff GrabarkiewiczPraneeth Nimmatoori

Hannah West

Prepared for

Lucas County Commissioners

and

CIVE 6900/8900 Sustainability Engineering and ScienceUniversity of Toledo

Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringFall 2010

December 13, 2010Final Report

Carbon Footprint of Lucas County Facilities and OperationsFinal Report

Abstract

This report quantifies the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of Lucas County facilities

and operations. Scope 1 emissions and Scope 2 emissions were calculated for the years 2005 to

2009. Scope 1 emissions included wastewater treatment, vehicle fleet, and natural gas

combustion. Scope 2 emissions included purchased electricity by facilities, pump stations, and

traffic signals. It was found that the total greenhouse gas emissions which include both scope

1emissions and scope 2 emissions, showed an increasing trend from 2005 to 2009 and were

projected to increase in future years. The total greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2009 were

30,556 MTCO2e. Results showed that the primary contributor to these emissions was energy

usage within facilities which accounted for 73% followed by energy usage within wastewater

treatment plant – 21%, vehicle fuel – 6% and traffic lights – less than 1%. The methodology used

to calculate these emissions was explained. The measures to reduce these emissions were also

discussed.

2


Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the collaboration and assistance of Defne

Apul, Jim Shaw, Veronica Jackson, Mike Cravens, Lynn DiPierro, Earl Reid, Chris Pizza, Keith

Earley, Ron Myers, Kara Moore, Kim Kettman, Bridgette Kabat, Tina Wozniak, Meg Adams,

and Ray Evans.

3


Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................8

2.0 Project Objectives.................................................................................................................9

3.0 Methods...................................................................................................................................10

3.1 Project Site Description.......................................................................................................10

3.2 Raw Data.............................................................................................................................11

3.2.1 Scope 1 Emissions.........................................................................................................12

3.2.2 Scope 2 Emissions.........................................................................................................21

3.2.3 Scope 3 Emissions.........................................................................................................25

3.2.4 Biogenic Emissions.......................................................................................................26

4.0 Results and Discussion............................................................................................................26

4.1 Scope 1 Emissions...............................................................................................................27

4.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility.....................................................................................28

4.1.2 Vehicle Fleet.................................................................................................................30

4.1.3 Natural Gas..................................................................................................................31

4.2 Scope 2 Emissions...............................................................................................................32

4.2.1 Facilities.......................................................................................................................33

4


4.2.2 Traffic Signals...............................................................................................................34

4.3 Projections...........................................................................................................................35

4.4 Putting Emissions into Perspective......................................................................................36

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................38

References......................................................................................................................................40

5


List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of Lucas County.......................................................................................................9

Figure 2: Lucas County Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Facility......................................12

Figure 3: Annual emissions by sector type....................................................................................25

Figure 4: Scope 1 Emissions for 2009...........................................................................................26

Figure 5: Annual CO2e emissions for 2009 at the MRWWTP.....................................................27

Figure 6: Scope 2 Emissions for 2009...........................................................................................31

Figure 7: Energy usage from the US Department of Energy “Buildings Energy Data Book.......32

Figure 8: Annual emissions broken out into Scope 1 and 2 contributions....................................33

Figure 9: Projections for Scope 2 emissions over the years 2010 to 2014....................................34

Figure 10: Greenhouse Gas Equivalence Calculator (Source: EPA).............................................35

Figure A.1: eGRID Sub Regions (2006 and 2007)........................................................................41

Figure D.1: Vehicle Fleet Data......................................................................................................45

Figure D.2: Natural Gas Usage Data – Columbia Gas..................................................................46

Figure D.3: Natural Gas Usage Data –CCAO (Bulk Gas)............................................................46

Figure D.4: Facility Energy Usage Data – Toledo Edison............................................................47

Figure D.5: Facility Energy Usage Data – Department of Public Utilities (Water)......................47

Figure D.6: Traffic Signal Data.....................................................................................................48

Figure D.7: Pump Station Data......................................................................................................49

Figure D.8: General Fund County Vehicles with City and Highway MPG..................................50

Figure F.1: Scope 1 Emissions from 2005 to 2009.......................................................................52

Figure F.2: Scope 2 Emissions from 2005 to 2009.......................................................................52

6


List of Tables

Table 1: Raw data received from Lucas County...........................................................................10

Table 2: Organizations utilizing fleet vehicles, fueled by Vehicle Maintenance..........................16

Table 3: List of Buildings..............................................................................................................21

Table 4: Facilities Activity Data....................................................................................................21

Table 5: Pump Station Activity Data.............................................................................................22

Table 6: Traffic Signal Activity Data............................................................................................22

Table 7: Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Plant Activity Data............................................23

Table 8: Emission Factors from Toledo Edison vs. eGrid.............................................................23

Table A.1: Emission Factors for CO2...........................................................................................40

Table A.2: Emission Factors for CH4 and N2O............................................................................41

Table A.3:eGRID 2007 Electricity Emission Factors by Sub Region...........................................42

Table C.1: Project Schedule..........................................................................................................44

7


List of Appendix

Appendix A: Emission Factors......................................................................................................41

Appendix B: Team Member Responsibilities................................................................................44

Appendix C: Project Schedule.......................................................................................................45

Appendix D: Raw Data..................................................................................................................46

Appendix E: Facility Data Limitations..........................................................................................52

Appendix F: Annual Emissions Graphs........................................................................................53

8


1.0 Introduction

A carbon footprint represents the total amount of greenhouse gases produced by an individual,

entity, product, or event (measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalence). Therefore, it

measures the impact we make individually as well collectively through our lifestyle choices.

Environmental issues such as global warming are also linked to CO2 emissions. The carbon

footprint of an individual, organization, or nation can be measured by undertaking a greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions assessment. Through this assessment, an organization can understand the

impact of its facilities and operations on global warming. Once the emissions are known, a

reduction strategy may be formulated. This strategy often achieves reductions through

technological developments, better process and product management, and consumption

strategies.

2.0 Project Objectives

The goal of this study was to determine was to:

Determine the greenhouse gas emissions of the facilities and operations of Lucas County,

Ohio.

Investigate methods to reduce the emissions of Lucas County.

Project annual emissions for future year(s) taking reduction methods into account.

To assist in the analysis, the “Local Government Operations Protocol for the quantification and

reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories” will be used. This method was developed by

the California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI – Local

Governments for Sustainability, and The Climate Registry.

9


Facilities under examination within this project include buildings, ports, airports, solid waste

facilities, water treatment and delivery facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and power

generation facilities. Emissions associated with these facilities, in addition to the operational

products of Lucas County that fall under Scope 1 emissions, Scope 2 emissions, Scope 3

emissions, and biogenic emissions will be examined. The annual emissions will then be

calculated for the years 2005 to 2009. This method will allow yearly comparisons. The scope of

this project does not include emissions related to forestry and land management. Emissions data

for similar county facilities across the United States will be obtained and indicators will be

examined.

3.0 Methods

Methods used to quantify emissions required activity data and emissions factors. Activity data

obtained from Lucas County included fuel consumption by fuel type, metered monthly energy

consumption by unit, and annual vehicle mileage by vehicle type. Activity data along with

emissions factors for each activity type were multiplied to determine the relative emissions.

Emissions factors used in this report were adapted from the Local Governments Operations

Protocol, 2010 and were determined by means of direct measurement, laboratory analysis or

calculations based on representative heat or carbon content.

3.1 Project Site Description

Lucas County is located in Northwest Ohio, on the shores of Western Lake Erie just south of

State of Michigan. It is part of the Toledo Metropolitan Area. The outline of Lucas County is

shown in Figure 1. This figure is borrowed from the Wikipedia page for Lucas County

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Ohio_highlighting_Lucas_County.svg) and paired

10


with an image from Google Earth. According to the Ohio Department of Development, Lucas

County spans 596 square miles, with 340 square miles of land area. In 2009, the population of

the county was estimated to be 463,493 (ODOD 2010).

Figure 1: Map of Lucas County

3.2 Raw Data

The local government sectors considered for this project are listed in Table 1. The status of data

acquisition and the individual who provided the data are also included. The county does not own

or operate any water treatment facilities, ports, airports, transit fleet, power generation facilities,

or solid waste facilities. While the county does not manage or own a landfill, they do

consistently spend approximately $11,000/month on fuel for trucks to collect recyclables from

area schools and facilities.

11


Table 1: Raw data received from Lucas County

Sector Data Acquired Provided byBuildings Yes Earl ReidTraffic Signals Yes Keith EarleyWater Delivery Facilities N/A N/APort facilities N/A N/AAirport facilities N/A N/AVehicle Fleet Yes Bridgette Kabat, Lynn

DiPierro, Keith Early, Kim Kettman, Veronica Jackson, and Jim Shaw

Transit Fleet N/A N/APower Generation Facilities N/A N/ASolid Waste Facilities N/A N/AWastewater Facilities Yes Mike Cravens and Jim Shaw

3.2.1 Scope 1 Emissions

Scope 1 emissions involve those emissions which are directly produced, including emissions

from stationary combustion, mobile combustion, process emissions, and fugitive emissions. For

Lucas County, this includes emissions produced during treatment processes at the wastewater

treatment plant, emissions produced from the fleet vehicles, and natural gas usage within the

County’s facilities.

3.2.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility

Wastewater treatment facilities include stationary, fugitive and process emissions relative to

Scope 1 emissions. They also include scope 2 Emissions related to any facilities used for the

conveyance, collection or treatment of the wastewater/sewage. This typically includes treatment

facilities, booster stations, in-line pumps and lift stations.

12


Plant Overview

Lucas County owns and operates the Lucas County Maumee River wastewater treatment plant

(MRWWTP) which is located on the Maumee River (Figure 2). The treatment facility was

constructed in 1971. Several expansions and improvements have occurred since the facilities

inception. The plant can now treat 22.5 MGD and serves a population of 80,500 people.

Wastewater enters the plant by means of a 90-inch sewer. Liquid ferrous chloride is injected into

the raw influent to remove phosphorus and control odor. The influent is then diverted to either

the East or West treatment plant. Both plants use filter screens to remove material greater than

¼” diameter. Both plants also filter the influent through grit removal. The east plant uses an

aerated grit chamber while the west plant has a vortex grit removal unit. Screenings and grit

removed from the influent are stored on sand filter drying beds and eventually transported to a

local landfill.

Influent flows are measured prior to preliminary treatment. The influent wastewater is pumped

to primary settling tanks. Sludge is then pumped to the anaerobic digesters using cavity pumps.

Primary effluents then flow by gravity to the aeration basins. Ferrous chloride is added once

again in the aeration basin to remove phosphorus. Secondary treatment then begins via the

activated sludge process. The water is then sent to the final clarifiers where solids separation

occurs. The clarified effluent flow is measured in each plant via a Parshall flume before

ultraviolet disinfection. East and west plant effluents are combined and then discharged to the

Maumee River. The methane gas produced in the digesters is used to run generators that

produce electric power and hot water for the digester/cogeneration complex. Digested sludge

from the secondary digester is dewatered and then placed on a storage pad to dry. Hauling

contractors remove the class B biosolids and land apply them.

13


Figure 2: Lucas County Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Facility

CH4 Emissions

CH4 emissions are associated with several factors of wastewater treatment. They can arise from

septic systems, aerobic systems that are poorly managed, anaerobic treatment, facultative

treatment lagoons and from captured biogas from anaerobic digesters that is not completely

combusted. The MRWWTP operates anaerobic digesters to treat excess biosolids produced by

the wastewater treatment process. The anaerobic digestion creates CH4 which is then combusted.

Stationary CH4 production from the incomplete combustion of digester gas was calculated using

Equation 1.

AnnualC H4 emissions ( MTC O2e )=(P × Digester Gas× F C H 4 × ρ (C H 4 ) × (1−DE ) ×0.0283 m3

ft3 ×365.25 daysyear

×10−6 MTg )×GWP(1)

Where : P=population served by MRWWTP (80,500 people)

14

Northeast


Digester Gas=volume of digester gas produced ( 1 ft3

personday )

F C H 4=Fraction of C H 4∈biogas(0.65)

ρ (C H 4 )=Density of methane(662 gm3 )

DE=C H 4 Destruction efficiency (0.99)

GWP=Global warming potential of C H 4(21)

N2O Emissions

N2O is generated at wastewater treatment facilities during the processes of nitrification and de-

nitrification. Nitrogen is usually present in the form of urea, ammonia and proteins. These

compounds are converted to nitrate (NO3) by nitrification. De-nitrification then converts the

NO3 to dinitrogen gas (N2). Process emissions for N2O can be calculated using two different

equations which relate to whether or not the WWTP used nitrification/de-nitrification. At the

MRWWTP this process is not employed. Equation 2 was used to determine the N2O emissions

at the MRWWTP. N2O emissions are also associated with effluent discharge to receiving

aquatic environments. Equation 3 was used to calculate the emissions from this source.

N2 Oemissions=(( Ptotal ) × EF wo

nitdenit

×10−6 MTg )× GWP(2)

Where : Ptotal=Polpulation served by MRWWTP(80,500 people)

EF wo

nitdenit

=Emission factor for WWTPwit hout nitdenit (3.2

g N2Opersonyear )

GWP=Global warming potential of N2 O (310 )

15


N 2 Oemissions=(Ptotal× (Total N Load−N uptake× BOD5 load ) × EF effluent × 4428

×(1−F plant nitdenit )×365.25 days

year×10−3 MT

kg )×GWP(3)

Where : Ptotal= polpulation served by MRWWTP ( Number of people )

Total N Load=T otal nitrogenload(0.026 Kg N

personday )

N uptake=N uptake for cell growth∈aerobic system(0.05 Kg KKg BOD5 )

BOD5 load=A mount of BOD5 produced (0.09 KgBOD5

personday )

EF effluent=emisions factor (0.005Kg N2O−N

Kg sewage−N produced )4428

=Molecular weight ration of N2 O¿ N

F plant nitdenit

=Fraction of nitrogenremoved (0 for plant wo

nitdenit )

GWP=Glob alwarming potential of N2O (310 )

3.2.1.2 Vehicle fleet

Three departments are primarily responsible for the maintenance and fueling of Lucas county

fleet vehicles: Vehicle Maintenance (general fund), County Engineer’s Office, and the Sanitary

Engineer’s Office. Vehicle make and models were provided by the respective County offices

and the Board of Lucas County Commissioners. The County Engineers provided a record of

gasoline and diesel purchased for road maintenance vehicles in 2009. The Sanitary Engineer’s

Office provided records of gasoline and diesel purchased for 2008 and 2009. Vehicle

Maintenance provided a record of gasoline purchased during a five year period. Many different

16


county departments rely on Vehicle Maintenance for their fueling needs. Those departments are

shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Organizations utilizing fleet vehicles, fueled by Vehicle Maintenance

911 Common Pleas Court Facilities

Auditor Coroner's Office Job and Family Services

Board of Elections County Engineer Juvenile Court

Child Services Board Court Deputies Probate Court

Child Support Dog Warden Real EstateChild Treatment Facilities Domestic Relations Sheriff

Clerks of Courts EMA Veteran Services

Commissioners EMS Youth Treatment Center

The Local Government Operations Protocol provides detailed recommendations for calculating

vehicle emissions. Three greenhouse gasses are discussed; CO2, CH4, and N2O. Calculation of

CO2 emissions are relatively straightforward because CO2 represents the vast majority of total

vehicle emissions. Due to data limitations, calculation of CH4, and N2O was omitted in this

study. Accurate inventory of those gasses requires detailed information about the vehicle fleet,

including vehicle make, model year, total mileage, EPA rated fuel economy, and the overall

mechanical condition of the vehicle. This data was available for less than half of the vehicles

under examination. CH4, and N2O emissions are highly dependent on a particular vehicle’s

emission control system, mainly the catalytic converter. This system operates at peak efficiency

when exhaust gas temperatures are at their highest. As a result, ambient air temperature plays a

role in emissions. In winter months, a vehicles engine requires much longer to reach normal

17


operating temperature than in the summer. When a cold vehicle engine is first started, the

mixture ratio of fuel to air burned is much more than when warm. This high fuel content is

known as a “rich mixture,” and results in lower engine efficiency and a greater release of

unburned hydrocarbons (such asCH4) and N2O into the atmosphere. Normally such emissions are

oxidized or reduced at high temperature in the catalytic converter, but the rich mixture

accompanied by low exhaust gas temperature renders the system essentially ineffective. Once the

engine warms, the rich fuel mixture becomes “lean” (more air and less fuel), resulting in lower

emissions, high exhaust temperature, and maximum efficiency of the converter.

To complicate matters further, gasoline in the Toledo area contains up to 10% Ethanol by

volume. Ohio fuel retailers are not required by law to inform consumers exactly how much

Ethanol is in the gasoline, so the actual chemical composition is unknown. Ethanol in gasoline

would theoretically increase the amount of CO2 in the exhaust gasses relative to CH4, and N2O

because complete combustion of ethanol yields only water and CO2 . The combustion reaction is

shown below:

C2H5OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 + 3 H2O

Also, the emission of CH4, and N2O are extremely low once an engine is warm because they are

converted to water, oxygen, nitrogen, and CO2 during catalytic conversion. Common oxidation

and reduction reactions occurring in a converter are shown below:

2CO + O2 → 2CO2

CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2] O2 → xCO2 + (x+1) H2O

2NOx → xO2 + N2

Accounting for CH4, and N2O in exhaust gasses would be virtually impossible considering the

lack of data and number of variables. Calculation was therefore limited to accommodate these

18


limited data and to avoid letting imaginations run wild while indiscriminately filling in unknown

variables.

To calculate CO2 emissions for vehicle usage, equations were adopted from the EPA Office of

Transportation and Air Quality, publication EPA420-F-05-001, February, 2005. The parameters

are as follows:

Gasoline carbon content: 2,421 grams/gallon

Diesel carbon content: 2,778 grams/gallon

Oxidation factor for all petroleum products: 0.99

Molecular weight of Carbon: 12

Molecular Weight of Carbon Dioxide: 44

The CO2e was calculated from gasoline using Equation 4.

CO2 ( MTCO2 e )=Gasoline (gal ) ×2,421( g Cgal )× 0.99× 44

12 (CO2

C )×10−6(MTg ) (4)

Similarly, the CO2e was calculated from diesel fuel using Equation 5.

CO2 ( MTCO2 e )=Diesel (gal ) ×2,778( g Cgal )× 0.99 × 44

12 (CO2

C )× 10−6( MTg ) (5)

It is important to note that these equations are essentially the same as provided by the Local

Protocol, but are more explanatory. For example the Protocol defines the following “CO2

Emission Factors”:

Gasoline: 8.78 kilograms CO2 / gallon

Diesel: 10.21 kilograms CO2 / gallon

19


Note that the “CO2 Emission Factors” can be found by multiplying the molecular weight ratios

and the carbon content of the fuel and are included within equations 4 and 5:

Gasoline:

CO2 Emission Factor=8.88( kgCO2

gal )=2,421( g Cgal )× 44

12 (CO2

C )×0.001( kgg )

Diesel:

CO2 Emission Factor=10.19( kgCO2

gal )=2,778( gCgal )× 44

12 ( CO2

C )×0.001( kgg )

The results are essentially the same; however the Protocol makes no mention of molecular

weight ratios.

3.2.1.3 Natural Gas Usage

Buildings and other facilities include stationary and fugitive emissions as well as Scope 2

emissions. The CO2e associated with CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from stationary combustion

of natural gas were calculated using Equations 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Facilities analyzed in this

study are listed in Table 3 and activity data for natural gas consumption is totaled for facilities

(combining values from CCAO bulk gas and Columbia Gas suppliers) in Table 4, for pump

stations in Table 5, and for the Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Plant in Table 7.

Additionally, the activity data is provided in detail in Appendix D, Figures D.2, D.3, and D.7.

MT C O2 ( MT C O2 e )=Natural gasusage ×Em ission factor ( KgC O2

CCF )1000 Kg

MT

×GWP (6 )

Where :Natural gas usage=Annual natural gas usage(total for all buildings)(CCF )

Emissio n factor=0.0545KgC O2

CCF¿Table A .1∈ Appendix A

20


GWP=global warming potential factor (1)

MT C H4 ( MT C O2e )=Natural ga susage ×Emissionfactor ( Kg C H4

CCF )1000 Kg

MT

×GWP(7)

Where : Natural gas usage=Annual natural gas usage(total for all buildings)(CCF )

Emission factor=0.001Kg C H 4

CCF¿Table A .2∈ Appendix A


MT N 2O ( MT C O2 e )=Natural gasusage×Emission factor ( Kg N2 O

CCF )1000 Kg

MT

×GWP (8)

Where :Natural gas usage=Annual natural gas usage(total for all buildings )(CCF)

Emission factor=0.0001Kg N2 O

CCF¿Table A .2∈ Appendix



Scope 2 emissions involve those emissions which are indirectly produced, including purchased

electricity, steam, heating, and cooling. For Lucas County, this included electricity for facilities,

traffic signals, pump stations, and wastewater treatment facilities.

21


3.2.2.1 Facilities

Lucas County owns several buildings that are associated with Scope 2 emissions. Buildings

owned and maintained by Lucas County included office space, courts, prisons, administrative

spaces, etc. Raw data for buildings was obtained from 2005 to 2009. This data included

monthly electrical consumption, water consumption, and natural gas consumption. A detailed

list of buildings included in our analysis is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: List of Buildings

Adult Probation Dog Warden Maumee River Waste Water Treatment

Alcohol & Drug et al Educational Services Center

One Government Center

Appeals Court, 6th District Emergency Services Public LibraryArea Office on Aging EMS Annex Rec Center / Public

Service DeptBoard of Mental Health Facilities/Board of

ElectionsRoad Maintenance

Community Development Center

Family Court Center Sanitary Engineer

Coolie Canal Health Department Solid WasteCoroner Humane Society THE SOURCECorrections Center Job and Family Services Vehicle MaintenanceCourt House Juvenile Justice Center Work Release/ Centralized

Drug TestingCourt of Appeals (old Sheriff Residence)

Margaret Hunt Senior Center

Youth Treatment Center

Methods used to quantify emissions required activity data and emissions factors. Activity data

obtained by Lucas County included metered monthly energy consumption by unit and annual

vehicle mileage by vehicle type. Activity data along with emissions factors for each activity type

were multiplied to determine the relative emissions. Emissions factors used in this report were

adapted from the Local Governments Operations Protocol, 2010 and were determined by means

22


of direct measurement, laboratory analysis or calculations based on representative heat or carbon

content. The activity data is summarized below in Table 3. Additionally, the activity data is

provided in detail in Appendix D, and the limitations of the data is detailed in Appendix E.

Table 4: Facilities Activity Data

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Natural Gas Usage (ccf) 1,123,934 454,221 825,748 682,819 1,461,986

Electrical Usage (kwh)26,954,14

8 28,255,43928,088,01

6 26,827,599 28,157,006Methods used to quantify emissions required activity data and emissions factors. Activity data

obtained by Lucas County included metered monthly energy consumption by unit and annual

vehicle mileage by vehicle type. Activity data along with emissions factors for each activity type

were multiplied to determine the relative emissions. Emissions factors used in this report were

adapted from the Local Governments Operations Protocol, 2010 and were determined by means

of direct measurement, laboratory analysis or calculations based on representative heat or carbon

content. The activity data is summarized below in Table 3. Additionally, the activity data is

provided in detail in Appendix D, and the limitations of the data is detailed in Appendix E.

Table 5: Pump Station Activity Data

Year 2005

200

6 2007 2008 2009

Natural Gas Usage N/A N/A N/A 5,857 6,678

Electrical Usage N/A N/A N/A 4,622,927 4,505,524

3.2.2.2 Traffic Signals

Activity data for the traffic signals owned by Lucas County was obtained for 54 locations. This

data is presented below in Table 5. The noticeable difference in total annual energy consumed

23


may result from an incomplete data set which was transferred by our team from copies of

invoices to our excel spreadsheet, and the complete annual energy activity data for traffic signals

for the 54 sites can be found in Appendix D, Figure D.6.

Table 6: Traffic Signal Activity Data

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Energy (kWh) 63,804 230,170 236,355 158,641 268,862

3.2.2.3 Wastewater Facilities

As outlined in the Scope 1 Wastewater Treatment section above, the Maumee River Wastewater

Treatment Plant can now treat 22.5 MGD and serves a population of 80,500 people.

Additionally, the activity data for the MRWWTP is summarized below in Table 6.

Table 7: Maumee River Wastewater Treatment Plant Activity Data

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Energy Consumption (kwh) 8,681,140 7,505,985 6,489,343 6,244,273 6,194,061 6,253,248Gas Consumption (Mcf of NG) 7,802 14,237 5,747 5,064 5,506 5,278

3.2.2.4 Scope 2 Emissions Calculations

Local governments have indirect emissions associated with the purchase and use of electricity.

The generation of electricity through the combustion of fossil fuels typically yields CO2, and

small amounts of N2O and CH4. Emissions based on electricity consumption were determined by

multiplying activity data by an emissions factor and a global warming potential factor. For our

analysis, the emission factor value from Toledo Edison were used to calculate CO2 emissions and

values from eGRID were used to calculate N2O and CH4 emissions. To determine the eGRID

24


emission factors, we first determined the. sub region including Lucas County fromFigureFigure

A.1 in the appendix and subsequently selected the corresponding emissions factors from Table

A.3 in Appendix Aappendix. Equations 9 to 11 were used to determine the CO2e for electricity

consumption associated with the County’s buildings. At the time this report was completed only

the emission factor value for CO2 was available from Toledo Edison; these emission factors are

summarized for comparison in Table 8.

Table 8: Emission Factors from Toledo Edison vs. eGrid

Emission Factor for CO2 (lbs/mwh)

Emission Factor for N2O (lbs/mwh)

Emission Factor for CH4 (lbs/mwh)

Toledo Edison 1265 N/A N/AeGRID 1537.82 0.0182 0.0257

MT C O2 ( MT C O2 e)=Electrical usage ( MWh )× emissionsfactor × 1 MT2205lbs

× GWP(9)

Where : Electrical usage=Annualelectricity consumption(MWh )

Emissions factor=1265lbsC O 2

MWh

GWP=gl obal warming potential factor (1)

MT C H4 ( MT C O2e )=Electricalusage ( MWh) × emissionsfactor × 1 MT2205 lbs

×GWP(10)

Where : Electrical usage=Annuale lectricity consumption(MWh)

Emissions factor=0.0182lbsC H4

MWh


MT N 2O ( MT C O2 e )=Electrical usage (MWh ) ×emissionsfactor × 1 MT2205 lbs

×GWP(11)

25


Where : Electrical usage=Annualelectricity consumption(MWh)

Emissions factor=0.0257 lbsN2OMWh



Scope 3 emissions involve those emissions which are generated by government operations,

employee commuting, and employee business travel. For Lucas County, this primarily involves

employee commuting and business travel. Due to the blending of many jobs between state and

county officials, the number of employees working for the County, the lack of data on employee

commuting times and vehicles - these emissions are indeterminable. Therefore for the purposes

of this report Scope 3 emissions will not be calculated.

3.2.4 Biogenic Emissions

Biogenic emissions from combustion involves the use combustion of biogenic carbon fuels

(CO2) other than fossil fuels such as waste products. Because Lucas County does not own and

operate any landfills, biogenic emissions are not being considered in our analysis. Additionally,

the waste products produced in the wastewater treatment process are CH4 and N2O and therefore

are considered Scope 1 emissions in nature.

4.0 Results and Discussion

Based on our calculations, we determined the total MT CO2e for each sector type. It can be seen

in Figure 3 that facilities contribute more emissions than all other sector types. Annual

emissions for each Scope can be found in Appendix F. Figure F.1 applies to Scope 1 emissions

26


and Figure F.2 applies to Scope 2 emissions. Additionally, emissions are broken down by Scope

and type for the year 2009 in this discussion.

Figure 3: Annual emissions by sector type

4.1 Scope 1 Emissions

Scope 1 emissions involved process emissions from the Maumee River Waste Water Treatment

Plant, emissions from fleet vehicles, and emissions from natural gas used within county

buildings. Scope 1 emissions for 2009 totaled 11,539 MT CO2e. Figure 4 shows the breakdown

by contributor percentage, with facility natural gas consumption contributing the most emissions

to Scope 1.

27


Figure 4: Scope 1 Emissions for 2009

4.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility

CO2e was calculated for the Lucas County Maumee River Wastewater Treatment plant for the

year 2009. The total annual MT CO2e includes CH4 emissions from the incomplete combustion

of digester gas, N2O emissions from wastewater treatment not including nitrification and de-

nitrification, and N2O emissions from the effluent discharge to receiving aquatic environments.

Emissions and relative contributions from each gas are shown in Figure 5. The total emissions

from wastewater treatment at the MRWWTP in 2009 were 1,695 MT CO2e. Emissions from

effluent discharge account for 91% of the entire emissions from wastewater treatment. The

discharge contains nitrogen which poses environmental concerns to receiving waters. The

nitrogen within the effluent can contribute to eutrophic lakes and dead zones through algal

bloom-induced hypoxia.

28


Figure 5: Annual CO2e emissions for 2009 at the MRWWTP

Lucas County has started making its wastewater treatment facility more environmentally

friendly. The primary sludge from the East and West plants are pumped to one of three primary

anaerobic digesters for stabilization. The sludge is then transferred to a secondary digester. The

methane gas which is produced during the anaerobic digestion process is recovered and used to

run generators at the plant which produce electricity to power hot water for the digester and

cogeneration complex. Reductions in emissions due to the capture of methane were not

considered in this report because the Local Government Operations Protocol does not provide

methods to analyze such data.

Additional steps can be taken to reduce the emissions from wastewater treatment. If the county

were to implement nitrification/denitrification processes, the process emissions would be

reduced. Another method to reduce emissions would be to generate energy from direct recovery

of waste by incineration. Beyond the wastewater treatment facility, the county as a whole can

help to reduce emissions from wastewater treatment at the MRWWTP by reducing loading.

High efficiency toilets, composting toilets, and low-flow showerheads and faucets would help to

29


reduce loading at the facility. Use of gray water for purposes throughout a residence or building

can also significantly reduce the amount of wastewater sent to the treatment facility.

4.1.2 Vehicle Fleet

Vehicle emissions were calculated for the 181 gasoline and diesel powered vehicles maintained

by Lucas County. The majority of these vehicles are used by 12 County offices – with the

primary users being the Lucas County Sheriff, Engineer’s Office, Sanitary Engineer’s Office,

and Facilities. During our inventory of general fund County vehicles, we calculated a mean

miles per gallon (mpg) rating of 15 city and 21 highway (Appendix D, Figure D.8). In addition,

approximately 26% of general fund vehicles were found to be 10 years or older and may require

replacement in the near future.

Our most comprehensive fuel and diesel consumption dataset was for the year 2009, where

97,688 gallons of gasoline and 93,774 gallons of diesel were consumed. These totals resulted in

1868 MT CO2e emitted for 2009.

The following measures should be considered to reduce vehicle emissions:

1. Vehicle fuel economy and emission ratings should be included in specifications for

procurement of vehicles. EPA is finalizing the first-ever national greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average

Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The new

standards apply to new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger

vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The EPA GHG standards require these

vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon

dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg).

30


2. Retrofit engines with pollution control devices. “Retrofit device” means any component that

is designed to be installed in or on an automobile (as an addition to, as a replacement for, or

through alteration or modification of, any original component, equipment, or other device);

and that any manufacturer, dealer, or distributor of the device represents will provide higher

fuel economy than would have resulted with the automobile as originally equipped, as

determined by EPA regulations.

3. Over the past several years, EPA has evaluated anti idle technologies/devices as part of

grants, cooperative agreements, emissions testing, engineering analyses, modeling,

demonstration projects and external peer reviewed reports to study the effects of idling on air

quality, fuel consumption and driver health. Based on this evaluation and research, EPA has

determined that a variety of idle reduction technologies save fuel and reduce emissions when

compared to idling the main engine. Anti-idle technology allows engine operators to refrain

from long-duration idling of the main propulsion engine by using an alternative technology.

An idle reduction technology is generally defined as the installation of a technology or device

that:

is installed on a vehicle (e.g., bus, truck, locomotive, automobile, marine vessel,

equipment, etc.) or at a location, and

reduces unnecessary main engine idling of the vehicle or equipment, and/or

is designed to provide services (e.g., heat, air conditioning, and/or electricity) to the

vehicle or equipment that would otherwise require the operation of the main drive engine

while the vehicle or equipment is temporarily parked or remains stationary.

4.1.3 Natural Gas

31


In 2009, the total emissions from natural gas usage in county facilities was 7,976 MT CO2e.

Natural gas was the largest contributor of Scope 1 emissions at 69% (Figure 4). Among County

managed facilities, the Corrections Center, Juvenile Justice Center, Lucas County Work Release

Center, and Rec Center had the highest emissions in 2009. These four locations accounted for

47% of the total natural gas emissions of all County facilities.

Natural gas emissions were found to be approximately one-third of electricity related emissions

(Section 4.2.1). This is likely due to both building infrastructure as well as cleaner emissions

associated with natural gas combustion.

The following measures should be considered to reduce natural gas consumption:

1. For individual facilities, energy audits should be performed to determine the most

effective natural gas reduction measures.

2. Programmable thermostats can be installed to reduce consumption when buildings are not

occupied.

4.2 Scope 2 Emissions

Scope 2 emissions involving facilities and traffic signals total 18,862 MT CO2e for the year

2009. Figure 6 shows the breakdown by percentage of the contributors, with facility purchased

electricity contributing the most emissions for Scope 2 in 2009.

32


Figure 6: Scope 2 Emissions for 2009

4.2.1 Facilities

In 2009, energy consumption for facilities due to electricity use resulted in approximately 18,862

MT CO2e.

Initiatives currently underway to reduce emissions for facilities include:

A facility wide real-time facility control system that is projected to reduce energy use by

15 to 20 percent.

Boiler improvements at 701 Adams to increase energy efficiency.

Figure 7 displays the energy usage from the US Department of Energy “Buildings Energy Data

Book.” Disregarding the emissions which fall under Scope 1 (e.g. natural gas), the primary

sources of energy usage within buildings are lighting, space cooling, electronics, ventilation,

refrigeration, and computers.

33


Figure 7: Energy usage from the US Department of Energy “Buildings Energy Data Book

Several steps can be taken to reduce emissions from lighting, space cooling, electronics,

ventilation, refrigeration, and computers used within facilities. The following measures should

be considered to reduce electrical consumption:

1. For individual facilities, energy audits should be performed to determine the most

effective electricity reduction measures.

2. Occupancy sensors and/or daylight sensors should be installed to reduce lighting time.

3. Retrofit lighting with more efficient technology when applicable and feasible.

4. A purchasing policy should be instituted to ensure new appliances and office equipment is

Energy Star rated, including copiers and fax machines, printers, monitors, and refrigerators.

5. Institute a network wide program (such as Nightwatchman) that automatically puts

computers to sleep when not in use.

4.2.2 Traffic Signals

In 2009, energy consumption for traffic signals resulted in approximately 190 MT CO2e.

34


To reduce energy consumption and costs, in 2003 Lucas County replaced all traffic signals with

LED bulbs. This retrofit reduced energy use by 80% per signal. Lucas County has also

constructed two roundabouts and has several more in the planning stages.

At this time, Lucas County appears to be utilizing the most modern, energy efficient technology

for its traffic signals.

4.3 Projections

The total carbon footprint for Lucas County is shown from 2005 to 2009 in Figure 3.

Contributions from each sector (vehicle fleet, buildings, wastewater treatment etc.) have been

shown in order to determine which sectors contributed the greatest to the overall carbon

footprint. Alternatively, the carbon footprint resulting from Scope 1 and Scope 2 are shown in

Figure 8.

Figure 8: Annual emissions broken out into Scope 1 and 2 contributions

35


It can be seen from Figure 8 that the primary contributor to the carbon footprint for Lucas

County results from Scope 2 emissions. Additionally, Scope 2 emissions appear to have an

upward trend from 2005 to 2009 whereas Scope 1 emissions appear to be relatively steady over

the same time period. This is due to the increase in purchased electricity within facilities and

from traffic signals. The increase is also due to voids in data. For example, pump station data

was provided for 2007-2009 and does not include 2005 and 2006. From this observation over

the past, we can assume a projection of five years by creating a trend line of the data assuming

continued practices within facilities and for traffic signals without taking measures to reduce the

carbon footprint. This trend can be observed in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Projections for Scope 2 emissions over the years 2010 to 2014

4.4 Putting Emissions into Perspective

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website provides greenhouse gas equivalencies

calculator (Figure 10). This calculator basically provides the quantity of equivalent CO2

emissions from various products. It’s a simpler way to understand greenhouse gas emissions

36


which helps us to focus on reduction targets and other initiatives aimed at greenhouse gas

emissions.

There are two options for entering reduction data into this calculator:

Option 1: Data in units of "gallons of gasoline consumed," or "kilowatt-hours of

electricity” etc.

Option 2: Estimated quantity of emissions (e.g., metric tons of carbon dioxide

equivalent).

Figure 10: Greenhouse Gas Equivalence Calculator (Source: EPA)

This report estimates quantity of emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The

annual emissions from Lucas County operations in 2009 were 30,556 MT CO2e. In order to

understand the significance of this value, the EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalence Calculator was

37


used to compare this number to easily comprehendible items. The comparison of 30,556 MT

CO2e to other items is as follows:

Annual greenhouse gas emissions from 5,813 passenger vehicles

CO2 emissions from 3,419,573 gallons of gasoline consumed

CO2 emissions from 70,698 barrels of oil consumed

CO2 emissions from 406 tanker trucks of gasoline

CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 2,587 homes for one year

Carbon sequestered by 779,487 tree seedings grown for ten years

Carbon sequestered annually by 6,842 acres of pine or fir forest

Carbon sequestered annually by 288 acres of forest preserved from deforestation

CO2 emissions from 1,266,667 propane cylinders used for home barbeques

CO2 emissions from burning 159 railcars worth of coal

Greenhouse gas emissions avoided by recycling 10,236 tons of waste instead of sending it to the land fill.

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Annual greenhouse gas emissions for Lucas County show a slight increasing trend from the years

2005 to 2009. The annual energy usage for Lucas County operations for the year 2009 was 290

TJ. The annual greenhouse gas emissions for 2009 summed to 30,556 MT CO2e. The majority

(72%) of the emissions resulted from energy usage within facilities. The second largest

contributor is the wastewater treatment facility which accounts for 21% of Lucas County’s 2009

emissions. The majority of emissions from the MRWWTP are attributed to energy usage within

the facility. Vehicle fuel results in 6% of emissions and Traffic signals comprise 1% of the total

emissions.

38


Without reduction initiatives, the current trend will remain and emissions will continue to

increase for years to come. Now that the baseline inventory and climate impact assessment has

been completed, the county should take every effort to complete the process of reducing

emissions. By setting targets, a climate and energy reduction plan can be compiled. Once

implemented, the plan should be monitored continuously to assure that reduction goals are being

met. It is important that Lucas County keeps an accurate and up to date inventory of all aspects

pertaining to greenhouse gas inventory analysis. By appointing an energy coordinator to compile

and organize all data, maintaining greenhouse gas inventories would be easily attainable.

Reduction initiatives should focus on areas which emit the most greenhouse gases. The majority

of the emissions from Lucas County operations are attributed to energy consumption within

facilities. Several methods could be taken to reduce energy consumption within buildings. A

simple and affordable step would be to replace all existing lighting with energy efficient lighting

which has been shown to reduce electricity consumption by up to 75%. Heat gain results would

also be reduced with more efficient lighting which reduces cooling requirements and thus

reduces energy from cooling. Other methods to reduce energy consumption in buildings include

installing occupancy sensors, using programmable thermostats and replacing standard office

equipment with energy star rated equipment. An energy audit should be performed in county

facilities to determine which items should be upgraded. Further reduction methods are listed in

section 4 of this report. They have been compiled for Lucas County to use as starting point to

compile an emissions reduction plan.

39


References

1. “Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel.” Accessed

10/18/2010. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm.

2. “Early Action Plan for Charleston County List of Emission Reduction Strategies.” Accessed

11/28/2010. http://www.bcdcog.com/files/charleston_strategies.pdf.

3. Energy Star. “Energy Star: Home.” Accessed 11/14/2010.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home.index.

4. Environmental Protection Agency. “Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide

EmissionsResulting from Gasoline and DieselFuel.” Accessed 11/28/2010.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.pdf.

5. Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic sNational Program

to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks.” Accessed

11/28/2010. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10014.pdf.

6. Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device

Evaluation Program.” Accessed 11/28/2010. http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/b00003.pdf

7. EPA Greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator. Accessed 12/3/2010.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html

8. “File:Map of Ohio highlighting Lucas County.svg.” Accessed 11/28/2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Ohio_highlighting_Lucas_County.svg.

9. Local Government Operations Protocol For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse

gas emissions inventories, Version 1.1, May 2010.

10. “Lucas County, Ohio Adopted Plan and Budget.” Accessed 10/18/2010.

http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/documents/Management%20and%20Budget/Budget/Budget

%20Document%202010.PDF .

11. Midwest Weekly Retail Gasoline Prices. Accessed 10/18/2010.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/pswrgvwrmw.xls.

12. Ohio Deparment of Development (ODOD). (2010). Ohio County Profiles [Fact sheet].

Accessed 9/21/2010. http://development.ohio.gov/research/files/s0/Lucas.pdf.

13. The United States Conference Of Mayors. “Energy And Environment Best Practices Guide.”

Accessed 11/15/2010. http://usmayors.org/uscm/best_practices/EandEBP07.pdf.

40

http://usmayors.org/uscm/best_practices/EandEBP07.pdf

http://development.ohio.gov/research/files/s0/Lucas.pdf

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/pswrgvwrmw.xls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Ohio_highlighting_Lucas_County.svg

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html

http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/b00003.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10014.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.pdf

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home.index

http://www.bcdcog.com/files/charleston_strategies.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm


14. US Department of Energy. “Buildings Energy Data Book.” Accessed 11/30/2010.

http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/docs%5CDataBooks%5C2009_BEDB_Updated.pdf

41

http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/docs%5CDataBooks%5C2009_BEDB_Updated.pdf


Appendix A: Emission Factors

Table A.1: Emission Factors for CO2

Source: Local Government Operations Protocol (Page 202)

42


Table A.2: Emission Factors for CH4 and N2O


Figure A.1: eGRID Sub Regions (2006 and 2007)


43


Table A.3:eGRID 2007 Electricity Emission Factors by Sub Region


Subregion Subregion Name (lbs CO2/MWh)

(lbs CH4/MWh)

(lbs N2O/MWh)

AKGD ASCC Alaska Grid 1,232.36 0.0256 0.0065

AKMS ASCC Miscellaneous 498.86 0.0208 0.0041

AZNM WECC Southwest 1,311.05 0.0175 0.0179

CAMX WECC California See Table G.7

ERCT ERCOT All 1,324.35 0.0187 0.0151

FRCC FRCC All 1,318.57 0.0459 0.0169

HIMS HICC Miscellaneous 1,514.92 0.3147 0.0469

HIOA HICC Oahu 1,811.98 0.1095 0.0236

MROE MRO East 1,834.72 0.0276 0.0304

MROW MRO West 1,821.84 0.028 0.0307

NEWE NPCC New England 927.68 0.0865 0.017

NWPP WECC Northwest 902.24 0.0191 0.0149

NYCW NPCC NYC/Westchester 815.45 0.036 0.0055

NYLI NPCC Long Island 1,536.80 0.1154 0.0181

NYUP NPCC Upstate NY 720.8 0.0248 0.0112

RFCE RFC East 1,139.07 0.0303 0.0187

RFCM RFC Michigan 1,563.28 0.0339 0.0272

RFCW RFC West 1,537.82 0.0182 0.0257

RMPA WECC Rockies 1,883.08 0.0229 0.0288

SPNO SPP North 1,960.94 0.0238 0.0321

SPSO SPP South 1,658.14 0.025 0.0226

SRMV SERC Mississippi Valley 1,019.74 0.0243 0.0117

SRMW SERC Midwest 1,830.51 0.0212 0.0305

SRSO SERC South 1,489.54 0.0263 0.0255

SRTV SERC Tennessee Valley 1,510.44 0.0201 0.0256

SRVC SERC Virginia/Carolina 1,134.88 0.0238 0.0198

Source: U.S. EPA eGRID2007 Version 1.1 (2005 data: eGRID subregion annual CO2 output emission rate). Except * from Department of Energy guidance on Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Factors do not include emissions from transmission and distribution losses.

44


Appendix B: Team Member Responsibilities

Katherine Chulski: She acted as Project Manager and primary technical communicator. Kate

was well organized and is capable of keeping team efforts on task during team meetings and

discussions. She was also proficient with technical writing.

Gregory Denman: He obtained information regarding county operated fleet vehicles and

associated fuel purchasing records. Greg then used this information to determine approximate

annual diesel and gasoline consumption.

Jeff Grabarkiewicz: He acted as our primary point of contact and liaison between our team and

city and county representatives. Jeff also served in other capacities as needed, as he has worked

as a contract technical writer and editor.

Praneeth Nimmatoori: He performed the data analyses. Additionally Praneeth acted as our

technology guru by coordinating the table of contents in our final report.

Hannah West: She also be performed the data analyses. Hannah was also adept at creating

informational figures and tables relaying the data for our final report and presentation.

All team members were responsible for their own duties defined here, as well as updating and

maintaining our Wikispaces website (http://lucascountycarbonfootprint.wikispaces.com/) as

appropriate.

45


Appendix C: Project Schedule

As outlined in the Phase 0 PowerPoint presentation by Dr. Apul, our project schedule met the

following deadlines shown in Table C.1 below.

Table C.1: Project Schedule.

Phase 0 September 14 Project launchedPhase 1 September 21 Project Progress Report (Initial Draft)

Phase 2 October 17 Preliminary version of final reportOctober 18 Preliminary version of final presentation

Phase 3November 30 Mock grading of final reportDecember 6 Final presentationDecember 13 Final report

Ongoing Project journal posted online at Wikispaces

46


Appendix D: Raw Data

Figure D.1: Vehicle Fleet Data

47


Figure D.2: Natural Gas Usage Data – Columbia Gas

Figure D.3: Natural Gas Usage Data –CCAO (Bulk Gas)

48


Figure D.4: Facility Energy Usage Data – Toledo Edison

Figure D.5: Facility Energy Usage Data – Department of Public Utilities (Water)

49


Figure D.6: Traffic Signal Data

50


Figure D.7: Pump Station Data

51


Figure D.8: General Fund County Vehicles with City and Highway MPG

52


Appendix E: Facility Data Limitations

Building Data included within other buildings:

711 Adams, Annex/Garage; and 705 Adams, CSB included in 701 Adams building

564 Southard, Board of Elections (BOE)/Facilities included in 1819 Canton building

1115 S McCord, Building Regulations included in 1111 McCord building

905 Jackson, Law Library included in 429 Family Court building

Leased with utilities included:

4456 Heatherdowns, Auto Title - 1600 Madison Ave.

1600 Madison, Auto Title - 3034 Navarre Ave.

3034 Navarre, Auto Title - 4900 North Mccord Rd.

Outliers:

Agriculture Society/Fair Board only briefly under operational control of County

5403 Elmer, Botanical Gardens not under control of County

130 W Dudley, Soil and Water Conservation not under control of County

No Data for:

2001 Collingwood – Board of Mental Health

2595/3000 Arlington – Coroner

2275 Collingwood – Educational Services Center

635 N Erie – Health Department

1920 Indian Wood Circle – Humane Society

425 Michigan – Public Library

53


Appendix F: Annual Emissions Graphs

Figure F.1: Scope 1 Emissions from 2005 to 2009

Figure F.2: Scope 2 Emissions from 2005 to 2009

54


55

CIVE 6900/8900 Sustainability Engineering and Science · Web viewThe east plant uses an aerated...

Documents

Transcript of CIVE 6900/8900 Sustainability Engineering and Science · Web viewThe east plant uses an aerated...