“Do it in the dark, turn off the lights.”
I got a coaster with that slogan on it in college. Someone was a) clearly worried about the accumulation of condensation rings on the dorm furniture, b) making a statement about safe-sex or c) wanted students to turn the off the lights when not in use.
Being an engineer, I’ll skip the multiple choice and just get to the real question: Have we gotten more hip to energy use since I got that clever coaster? The answer points to no. And yes.
For a little background, I turned to the Annual Energy Review 2008: Energy Consumption, a report published by the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy. According to the report, total energy consumption in the U.S. has been on the rise since 1949. Growth has been relatively consistent across the transportation, residential and commercial sectors, with the industrial sector seeing greater fluctuation and declines in recent years.
According to the same report, Americans per capita now use 52 percent more energy than they did in 1949, despite a 9 percent drop in per capita consumption since the peak in 1978 and 1979 and a leveling of per capita consumption over the past two decades.
Based on historical trends from the U.S. Census Bureau, we can attribute these findings in part to a growth in population coupled with increased efficiency. As a nation we’re both more hip (i.e. energy efficient) and less hip (i.e. total energy consumption is still increasing).
Duke has not been immune to these national trends.
Energy consumption on campus has been on the rise since 1990, the earliest emissions data recorded in Duke’s Climate Action Plan. Energy use currently makes up 76 percent of the University’s carbon emissions, therefore making it the biggest piece of the pie, and the logical place to start in any reduction strategy.
First, according to the CAP, “The primary driver for energy use on campus is the total building footprint.” That means the more buildings on campus, the more energy used on campus. Buildings consume energy.
I asked John Noonan, associate vice president of facilities and chair of the Energy Subcommittee of the University Campus Sustainability Committee’s Energy Subcommittee, if his committee had considered a recommendation to limit growth. He said it hadn’t. Executive Vice President Tallman Trask likewise indicated the economic recession had effectively instituted that recommendation for us.
Appropriately, then, during the development of the CAP Noonan told me the energy subcommittee took into consideration the lower historical growth rates, the rate of growth during the development spurt and the effect of the economic downturn when deciding on the assumed rate of future growth. The assumed future growth rate is lower than the growth rate experienced during the recent period of extensive expansion.
So if energy consumption is driven by square-footage, it would logically behoove the University to make buildings and the services they consume as efficient as possible.
The CAP has employed a wedge approach to classify these opportunities.
For those that like to see the tangible improvements (the hip side, if you will), I point you to the Green Building wedge. To augment Duke’s current goal to achieve a LEED silver rating on new buildings, Noonan told me the recently approved K4 dorm will serve as a test bed for a proposed LEED Plus policy that places increased emphasis on the energy efficiency points under the LEED rating system.
Not surprisingly, existing buildings are also on the block for increased efficiency. Suggested conservation measures range from instillation of fancy fume hoods in labs, to modifying housekeeping hours and updating demand management systems for indoor air circulation. Undergrads take heart, to my knowledge, no one has yet suggested that the lights be turned off in Perkins—your study hours are safe. You may continue to study with the lights on, if, you know, that’s what you’re into.
But wait, there’s more.
Renewable energy is also on the table. Despite high interest levels in campus projects by student groups, it’s unfortunately projected to be a small fraction of realized future gains, and be expensive to boot.
The most notable wedge to date then is the fuel mix. Misunderstood by many, the University operates both steam and chilled water plants on campus for the sole purpose of heating and cooling buildings. The recent $25 million conversion of the East Campus steam plant to natural gas will take over much of the load carried by the coal-fired West Campus plant when it comes fully into service, later this month.
This is huge. Coal notoriously produces more carbon dioxide equivalent emissions than any other fuel source. Although a significant capital investment, based on numbers provided by the CAP, the switch has the potential to realize a 13 percent reduction in emissions per year compared to the 2007 baseline emissions levels.
Finally, there is a stark reality hidden in the largest wedge, one that’s out of the University’s control. Currently, no electricity is generated on campus. One hundred percent comes from Duke Energy, which is projected to be 60 percent at the end of the CAP’s time horizon in 2050. That’s a significant piece of the pie.
So, after all that, we’ve become impressively hip, but we’re still on the hook, and that’s where we might ultimately be left fumbling for the lights.
Liz Bloomhardt is a third-year graduate student in mechanical engineering. Read part II of this column online Friday, available exclusively at www.dukechronicle.com
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.