4.7 Article

Assessing the carbon footprint of a university campus using a life cycle assessment approach

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 273, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122600

关键词

Life cycle assessment approach; Carbon footprint; Higher education institution; University

资金

  1. Clemson University's Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To respond to anthropogenic effects on the global climate system, higher education institutions are assessing and aiming to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the carbon footprint of Clemson University's campus using a streamlined life cycle assessment approach. The carbon footprint sets a baseline for source specific evaluation and future mitigation efforts at Clemson University. Greenhouse gas emission sources presented in this carbon footprint include steam generation, refrigerants, electricity generation, electricity life cycle, various forms of transportation, wastewater treatment, and paper usage. This case study describes the approach used to quantify each greenhouse gas emission source, and discusses data assumptions and life cycles phases included to improve carbon footprint comparison with other higher education institutions. Results show that Clemson University's carbon footprint for 2014 is approximately 95,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent, and 4.4 metric tons CO2-equivalent per student. Scope 1 emissions accounted for about 19% of the carbon footprint, while Scope 2 and 3 emissions each contributed nearly 41%. The largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions were electricity generation (41%), automotive commuting (18%), and steam generation (16%). Electricity generation from coal was 29% of the electricity generation resource mix and accounted for three-quarters of Clemson University's GHG emissions associated with electricity. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据