Mike,

     Thanks a lot for a careful reading of the draft and for the many suggestions.   I have incorporated as many of your suggestions as I could, and left out as many things you crossed out as I could.    I usually found your rewording of sentences preferable to the originals.  Below is a list of reasons for why I did not make some of your suggested changes:

1.        Opening paragraph: It is our generation of steam and electricity on campus, and our purchase of grid electricity, that releases carbon dioxide, and we should say that.   These secondary energies are used to heat and cool buildings and to provide electricity to campus, but buildings can be heated and cooled, and electricity generated, in other ways that involve much less,  little, or no carbon dioxide emissions.   So carbon dioxide emissions are not integral to heating, cooling, or electricity generation, while they are integral to burning natural gas and coal.  

2.       It is problematic to say what percentage of carbon dioxide emissions is associated with coal, natural gas, and purchased electricity.    The first problem is that we purchased RECs, and so we should subtract from the purchased electricity  the carbon emissions avoided by this purchase (even though the actual amount avoided is “zero”).   The second problem is that we sold carbon credits to Chevrolet, so we should add this back to our carbon emissions.     I don’t even want to think about how to do that.  

3.       The discussion of combined heat and power is also problematic.   I decided to give the efficiency of electricity production and steam production separately.   Combining them into a total efficiency is a common thing to do, but by doing that you are combining two very different things.    Comparing with a conventional coal-fired electric generating plant is also problematic.    Why not compare with a combined-cycle gas turbine that is 60% efficient for electricity production?

4.       To say it is a daunting task “in both scope and budget” implies that we have looked at budget figures, which is not true (yet). 

5.       I would rather not get into the details of handling energy fluctuations and storage.   These are serious issues, and they will have to be addressed eventually.   I simply put in a disclaimer sentence rather than try to deal with the issues (in part because how to deal with the issues is uncertain).

6.       I included nuclear on campus, as you suggested, although this may be out of the question.  I don't really know.     I had initially put it in, then taken it out, so what the heck.   I actually emailed the Secretary of Energy, but he never replied (surprise).

7.       iCAP has a clear (enough) definition of goals, objectives, and strategies.   I realize these words can be interpreted in different ways, but here is the iCAP definition (in my own words):

Goals: XX% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030, etc.

Objectives: Increase solar photovoltaics on campus

Strategies: Identify buildings, land, and parking lots that can support solar photovoltaics.

                 The way you have rewritten things mixes up goals and objectives.  

8.       More importantly, you are proposing that we advocate for rethinking the way the goals are defined, in terms of CO2 per enrolled student or CO2 per research dollar.  This would impact not just our group, but potentially all of the iCAP groups.   I don’t think we should be advocating for this in this document.   We were asked to set goals compared to 2008 emissions.   If you want to advocate for a different way to set goals, you will need to talk to Ben about that. 

9.       I decided not to fight the REC issue.   I don’t know why you disagree with my stance on them, but we are not going to settle this today. 

10.   I don’t want to say that geothermal and air-source heat pumps use “large” amounts of electricity.    Large compared to what?   A geothermal system with a COP for heating of 3.8 (like Ball State) powered by a 50% efficient gas turbine would have an efficiency of 190%.   Combustion of anything (coal, biomass,…) for heating can never have an efficiency greater than 100%.   In this sense the amount of electricity used is “small”.

11.   I wrote a conclusion section.

There are many other small things that I am not mentioning here.  If you or anyone else disagrees with anything in this email or the revised draft, please tell me why so we can discuss.

   Finally, let me confess that I rushed to get this out to you all today, so please forgive typos, word crimes, etc. (but do point them out to me)

                Scott

iCAP Working Group Thursday, October 30, 2014 358 NSRC, 1:30 - 3:00 pm

1. Discussion with Kent Reifsteck, Director of Utilities & Energy Services Division, regarding campus energy and the Wind PPA
2. Unmet targets from 2010 iCAP
3. Overview of iCAP Forum and SWAT Team Recommendations
4. Discussion of timeline for completing 2015 iCAP
5. Other business

Dear SWATeam Members,

What a fantastic forum we had on Wednesday...great turnout and great discussion!  Thanks so much for all your hard work and for the nice presentations!

As a reminder, the iCAP Working Group has asked that each SWATeam provide a draft chapter for the iCAP by the end of this month (which is coming up fast on Friday).

The iWG is meeting this Thursday to begin discussing the drafts.  We will likely begin with Water and Purchasing, Waste, and Recycling, since we've already received those two.  [If other teams have sent me draft chapters, I must have misplaced them, so please remind me.]

The iWG is under a tight timeline to synthesize all of these drafts into a complete document by year's end (and we are hoping to include some public comment opportunities during that period), so I hope you will all be able to meet the October 31 deadline.  [If you need a little extra time, please let me know as soon as possible.]

Thanks again!

Ben

--

Professor Benjamin J. McCall

Associate Director for Campus Sustainability Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

The Daily Illini notes the ECIP in this article about the iCAP Forum.

http://www.dailyillini.com/news/article_e5e80564-5a55-11e4-b9f4-001a4bcf...

From: Bartels, Bart A
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:43 AM
To: Busboom, Bobbi R; Stalcup, Holly M; Conlon, Terence F; Willis, Leonard; Ensign, Jason W; Marley, Elizabeth K; Brown, Kent William; Swanson, Bradley K; Houser, Barry L; Knox, Timothy A; Aubrey, Dawn
Cc: Pai, Shantanu Santosh
Subject: Game Day Recycling Challenge Update

Hi All,

Much is happening this week to prepare for this weekend’s game so I thought I would send out an update to keep everyone on the same page.  If you have any thoughts or concerns regarding the following activities, please let me know.

1.        Yesterday Shantanu and I worked with volunteers to prepare the stadium for this weekend’s Game Day Recycling Challenge.  The following was accomplished:

a.       Single trash bins were moved into 3-bin stations that include landfill, compost, and recycling.  Each station was set up with new signage and appropriate liners.  The stations were set up on the ground and fifth floors on the east and west sides of the stadium.  Stations were also set up in the Horseshoe. 

b.      Coca Cola dropped off 15 recycling bins yesterday.  Nine white coke bins with black tops were disbursed to areas of need on the ground floor and in the horseshoe.  Six black Coke recycling bottles will be used in the preferred seating areas. 

c.       Slim Jim recycling and waste bins have been dropped off in the pantry areas on the preferred seating floors but not yet set up.

2.       Terry Conlon has been helpful in changing out some of the food service products for the game to compostable materials.  His group will be serving coffee in compostable cups with compostable lids.  They will also be serving most hotdogs “made to order” so there won’t be a need to place them in foil/paper wrappers but instead serving the items in compostable boats.  Paper plates are being used instead of plastic and compostable forks have been purchased.  He was not able to find an acceptable product to replace the nacho or pretzel trays so those will still go to landfill but thanks for all the effort you put into this.    

3.       Brad Swanson has agreed to include a mention about the event in the pregame script.  Thanks Brad.

4.       Block I will be doing a “card trick” to raise awareness about the recycling competition.

5.       Jason and Beth have been working with us to provide “back of the house” sorting in the premium seating areas.  This will enable catchment of recyclable and compostable materials in the club areas that have limited space.  It will also enable composting all the food waste from the Friday night reception dinner.  That is reason for the slim Jim bins in the pantries.  Great ideas.  Thanks for that.

6.       Barry is working with band to march into a recycling logo at half-time.  How cool is that!  Thanks Barry.

Still to do:

1.        We will stop over on Friday at 10am to finish setting up and make any needed adjustments.  This includes:

a.       Set up stations in the student section and adjoining area.

b.      Set up stations in the pantry areas including proper liners.

c.       The composting roll-off will be delivered.  We will add signage.

d.      Restrooms in the preferred seating areas will be supplied with compost capabilities.  Each stainless steel bin will be supplied with a small sign the reads “Paper Towels for compost”.  The bins will also be supplied with compostable bags. 

e.      The third floor will be set up with signage on the bins and recycling bins. 

2.       On game day about 150 volunteers will arrive at the Varsity entrance.  We will have staff on hand to check them in, provide wrist bands, lanyards, (vests if available) and give directions to their stations.  That day we will also have volunteers on hand to provide breaks and address any issues that might arise.  We have 4 hand held radios for us to communicate.  We will avoid using and channels already being used. 

3.       During the game, the volunteers will attend each station, offering assistance to any fans that look like they need it.  I have directed all involved to avoid confrontation and that some people may not want to recycle.  Accept that and move on to those that want help.

4.       After the game the volunteers will scan the stadium and pick out all recyclable and compostable materials.  Landfill materials will be left for the facilities staff collect as usual. 

5.       All materials from the roll-offs will be collected on Sunday and weighed.  Those results will be posted on the Game Day Recycling Challenge website and compared to the other Big Ten teams. 

A huge thank you goes out to all of you for enabling this to happen.  Please forward this email to anyone that should be informed about the event.  What an awesome opportunity to do great things.  As always, please contact me with any concerns or corrections.

Cheers,

Bart

CHAMPAIGN, IL (October 22, 2014) – Eight facilities on the Urbana campus will win funding for facility improvements as recipients of the 2014 Energy Conservation Incentive Program (ECIP) awards on Wednesday, October 22 at 3:00 p.m. in Illini Union 314B as a part of the Illinois Climate Action Plan (iCAP) Forum.

Last year, the ECIP awarded more than $250K in pre-approved energy conservation projects.

The list of FY14 winning facilities is attached.

Hi team,

Below are notes I took doing today’s forum on feedback about our section. Sorry if I missed anything. 

• Addressing electrical vehicle ars
  • Should we put these at shuttle lots? Where are the best locations for these? 
  • We should be careful in making sure the electric charging stations aren’t emitting more carbon and hurting us in advancing our goals 
• Biodiesel might be a difficult sell 
• Carbon Tax on projects 
• Tax could be used on these action steps
• Relative vs. absolute emissions
• Air travel emissions 

Thanks for those attending. Sounds like we have a lot ahead of us for our section!

Grace

Transportation SWAT Team Feedback
The first bit of feedback given by a member of the audience was about electric vehicles. These are not specifically talked about in the summary of the report. An infrastructure would be needed in order for these to work well. It is something that could be looked into in future meetings. Along with this, it was noted that the University is currently developing five stations for type two charging with plans for type one charging to be active within the next week. It cannot be ignored how the energy is generated as well. Emissions are still produced by generating electricity to power the vehicles. Another audience member gave an idea about having a parking incentive to people who are driving from a distance and parking at a station. There are people currently on campus who park at a charging station and take a shuttle the rest of the way. It was suggested that the parking rate could be reduced for these people who are commuting with electric cars and taking a shuttle further to promote this practice.

It was inquired about the fact that all types of fuel has hydrocarbons in them and all will affect the environment. The answer to this is that there are different amounts of environmental impacts based on what molecule is the byproduct of the fuel source. The topic of offsets was discussed and what ways were being considered for keeping them local. Currently, the team has not come up with a lot of ideas of how to do this but in the coming months a more comprehensive strategy will be developed to start this process. Traditional offsets would apply to this like having more plant matter and renovating buildings to be more efficient.

Air travel was the final topic of discussion during the forum. It was commented on about how air travel is a function of the global reach as a campus and the more air travel that there is, the more global reach the campus has. A suggestion along with this was to have a carbon tax on air travel that could be used for offset funding. The estimations for projects can include this carbon tax and allow for the campus to improve, get more funding, and travel more while still offsetting the carbon emissions. Wotjek mentioned to the forum that the team would like air travel to broken down from absolute air travel into departmental. This would allow departments to see their own progress and account for fluctuating numbers in a department. Also, this can be used to provide incentives for efficiency of air travel on a departmental basis.

Good Morning, Bruce:

Please see the attached 2014 iCAP emission chapter with notes from University Dining.

In addition, we are confirming our purchasing volume for within 100 miles of campus.  Last year we were at 17%.

Thank you,

Dawn

Dawn Aubrey, Ph.D., MBA, FMP, CEC, CCA
Associate Director of Housing for Dining Services                                               

Drew O'Bryan replaced Nishant Makhijani on the iCAP Working Group, as the new head of the Student Sustainability Leadership Council.

see file

This looks great

My only comment would be to replace the cooling towers in the first slide with cooling towers from the UIUC Campus.

I can send a picture tomorrow morning from my office.

All the other pics on that slide appear to be from the UIUC campus which is good and adds credibility to the presentation.

As I have said before I will be out Monday through Wednesday at a required meeting with the Illinois Commerce Commission.

Please accept me best wishes for good luck and success on Wednesday

Please email if you have any questions or issues

Thanks

Keith

Hello All,

I've attached the presentation for this Wednesday's event. Please let me know if there needs to be any changes.

I've also included the most recent version of our iCAP recommendations. This draft includes revisions from Kishore and Keith. All are still welcome to make suggestions, but please do so soon (feel free to make them on the Google Doc. or a Word Doc. sent over email).

Best regards,

Amy Liu

Dear Egen gang,

    Here’s a first draft of our chapter.    You can email comments or transmit them verbally at our meeting on Monday at noon, Loomis 430A as usual. 

                Scott

Hi Scott,

I am not an expert on this, by any means, but I have heard from previous biomass investigations that the on campus facility would need a lot more acreage for biomass storage than currently feasible at the existing Abbott Power Plant site.

Thanks,

Morgan

From: Willenbrock, Scott S
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:30 AM
To: Johnston, Morgan B
Subject: syngas

Morgan,

     Thanks for sending the biomass document.   I haven’t had time to even look at it!    But let me ask you a question that has been running through my head:

Here are two alternative ways to burn biomass:

1.       Truck it to campus and burn it directly in a biomass facility.   The biomass is essentially replacing coal in this scheme.

2.       Truck it to a location off campus, gasify it, pipe it through a new pipeline to campus, and burn it on campus.   In this scheme the biomass is essentially replacing natural gas.

My question is this: what are the advantages of 2. compared to 1.?

                Scott