Transcript RPI Sustainability Charrette April 17-18, 2009 Team Pollution Mike Allard, Ahu Aydogan, Kandall Baldwin, Anna Dyson, Kevin Luczak, Lisa Muscanell, Nat Springer, Jason Vollen.

RPI Sustainability Charrette
April 17-18, 2009
Team Pollution
Mike Allard, Ahu Aydogan, Kandall Baldwin, Anna Dyson,
Kevin Luczak, Lisa Muscanell, Nat Springer, Jason Vollen
Overview
1. Visual Indicators of Residence Hall Water Consumption
2. Utilization of Cogeneration
3. Local DC Grid Powered by Renewable Energy Sources
4. Greening ResLife
5. Sustainability Programming
6. RPI Center for Human Physiology and Energy Capture
7. Green Bank
1. Indicators for Water Usage in Showers







Colored Visual / Verbal indicators / cues that measures and
expresses amount of water being used in gallons, energy being
used for hot water, time in the shower
Immediate return from direct behavioral changes
Could potentially increase awareness of impact of everyday
behavior amongst student population
Cost of innovation and implementation could be high
May need to be driven by outside entrepreneur
Possible system could be developed to put quota on amount
of water per student per use; charges would go to
sustainability fund via ID card
Goal: Each student living in RPI residences is limited to a 20
minute shower to reduce water consumption without paying
2. Cogeneration with Boilers



Plans for utilizing cogeneration on campus were made in
1990, but were turned down to cost-effectiveness
Cogeneration can still be used in many locations on
campus
The heat released from the inefficiency of systems, such
as the boiler system, introduces opportunity to directly
apply it or to convert it to energy, electricity or direct
application
3. RPI shift to energy self-sufficiency: pros










Economic Benefit to RPI as local power generator
Tax and Stimulus Incentives and reduce initial cost to provide fast ROI
Takes Troy off National Grid lowers residents costs
Less transmission losses through
Test bed case gives RPI International Recognition
We already research wind, solar, and grid
Offsets high carbon footprint further leveraging local / regional carbon
credits
Its free to form a university / local gov’t committee to explore feasibility
and provide cost feedback analysis
Low-tech compared to other grid technologies
Promotes large scale significant change
3. RPI shift to energy self-sufficiency: cons




Long term planning required
Local gov’t buy-in required
Original investment ROI is difficult to predict due to
changes in energy costs
Requires new infrastructure which may be disruptive to
RPI/Troy
4. Greening Residence Life







Working off of current ResLife Program
RA / RD in dormitories provide sustainability programs
RA / RD / LA receive sustainability training in August /
January as part of their other training in safety, peer
mentoring, CPR training etc.
Positions offer students certification in LEED or
equivalent – highly recommended for position
Serve as direct advisers for Eco-Hall Challenge
“Green Rules” implemented in dorms (i.e. water
reduction and heat conservation)
Goal: Incorporate education, awareness, and lifestyle
changes into residence life experience
5. Sustainability Programming - ResLife
In junction with ResLife LA / Social programming already implemented
 Organized group field trips to local sustainable companies (ie Ecovative),
cogeneration plants at landfills, farmers markets
 Panel session incorporating guests from ESW, Ecologic, SSTF, Sustainability
and Design course students, Professors researching sustainably,
environmental educator (analagous to health educator on campus)
 LEED certification (incorporate into PD1-PD3 classes)
 Eco-Hall sessions to brainstorm implementation ideas for competitive
learning and making informed lifestyle decisions
 Promoting awareness of on campus resources, clubs, initiatives, centers,
websites through social networking
 Utilize resources from environmental educator in the Sustainability Office
 Goal: to increase and improve sustainability as part of a lifestyle living at RPI
4. & 5. Greening Residence Life: Impacts
Environmental
Ease of energy cutbacks in dormitories has been shown through
EcoHall Challenge to make a difference
Economical
Less energy consumption directly relates to lesser costs
Cultural
Behavioral Changes
RPI would be first in country to have LEED certification offered
for all first year students in residence halls and a unique RA /
RD / LA program
Greening ResLife
Sustainability at Rensselaer, SSTF
Project 6: Capturing Human Energy
Research Initiative



Focus on technologies that capture energy from human
motion, movement, exercise, and athletics
Partner with Mueller Center to test and showcase
ideas and innovations
Also potential carbon footprint reduction of campus
exercise facilities
Stakeholders

Potential departmental research



Mechanical, electrical, PDI group, cognitive science,
physics
Athletics/Mueller Center
Private investors/product development
Potential Energy Gains

Mueller Center Energy Use


Between 900 and 1500 KWH/day
Human energy use per machine
–
150 watts/hour average person (100 – 500
wH/range)
Impact and Implementation
•
•
•
Short-term: purchase existing technology for energy
reduction
Long-term: New green technological research focus at
RPI
Implimentation
–
–
Survey departments for current research tied to this
area of focus
Use sustainabilty center
•
•
To generate student/faculty interest
Work with Mueller center for implimentation
Project 7: Green Bank

Inflow





Student Sustainabilty Fee
Alumni Donations
Energy efficiency 'credits' for on-campus
improvements
Capital re-investment program
Outflow


Sustainability Projects
Sustainability Center/Professional
Flow diagram
Stakeholders





Students
Alumni and Alumni Outreach
Financial Operations
Sustanability Center/Coordinator
Green capital project leaders
Student Sustainability Fee



$5/semester = $60,000 year
$50/semester = $600,000 year
Stakeholders



Students
Campus community
Impact



Short-term way to raise funds for green projects
Cost-benefit analysis of different size fees
Positive environmental and social impact
Implementation



Require as part of enrollment
Invest specifically in visible capital projects for student
body
Costs


Student backlash for tuition hike/mantitory fee
Payback


Community visibility/self-involvment in green
projects and culture
Consistent flow of funds for green projects
Green Endowment


Alumni can 'tag' funds for sustainable projects
Stakeholders





Endowment administrators
Alumni Relations
Alumni
Impact: All positives on triple-bottom-line
Implementation:



Market in alumni communications
Cost: minimal
Payback: large
Energy Efficiency/Green Capital
Investment “Credits”


Savings (rents) from energy-efficiency improvements
and capital projects flow back into fund
Impact:


Create incentive for sustainable practices if 'doubledividend' is promised for reinvestment of savings
Accounting for economic sustainablity of green
campus projects
Implementation



Develop framework for separate accounting of
sustainable projects
Develop plan for expected payback
Costs:


Cannot spend savings to reduce tuition, increase
salaries, general endowment, etc.
Payback


Multiplier effect on sustainability projects
Institutionalize framework of assessing triple-bottom
line in campus projects
Outflow: Sustainable Projects

Bank can 'lend' money for sustainablity projects



Accept proposals from campus clubs, individual
departments, operations, etc.
Spent in large capital projects with intention of
expanding long-term bank endowment
Work in concert with sustainability center to make
sure funds are really going toward sustainable
projects
Implementation




Create link between financial operations and
sustainability center/coordinator
Develop framework for proposal submission, metrics,
and acceptance
Costs: Administrative costs for set-up, maintenance
Payback



Short-term: small fund from sustainabilty fee
Medium-term: energy efficiency improvements
Long-term: large capital projects