Search tips:
Attached is a recommendation submitted by the EGEN SWATeam for consideration. We believe this recommendation will advance sustainability goals set forth by the 2015 iCAP.
The EGEN SWATeam appreciates any feedback resulting from consideration of this recommendation.
The eGen SWATeam submitted a recommendation to the iWG stating, "Start a project to expand the existing Solar farm, or install a new large scale solar installation in a new location."
See attached the SWATeam recommendation EGen007 Solar Farm 2.0 complete with comments from all the eGen SWATeam members.
Water & Stormwater SWATeam and the Agriculture, Land Use, Food & Sequestration (ALUFS) SWATeam had a joint meeting to discuss shared objectives and project ideas.
Meeting Minutes 4/21/17
In attendance:
Ximing Cai
Pete Varney
Brian Farber
Yanfeng Ouyang
Summary:
This meeting serve to continue discussion on campus fleet, bike parking, and campus parking. Also, Ximing Cai was introduced to the team.
Topics:
Discussion on Campus Fleet
Pete led a discussion on campus fleet efforts. He stated that converting campus fleet to EVs and CNG vehicles would have a large effect on campus emissions, and that campus utility is interested in learning about electric vehicles, but there are certain obstacles to converting campus fleet. First it would cost about half a million dollars or more. These costs are largely attribute to building infrastructure for CNG refueling systems. In addition, campus fleet vehicles for Facilities and Services as well as housing do not drive very far, so the fuel savings would be small. However, converting campus fleet would be practical as the vehicles do not travel off campus, meaning there will be no inconvenience in refueling the vehicles.
Bike Parking
We continued our discussion on bike parking from the last meeting. One of our concerns, given the cost of the permits, is security. Anyone who is paying for a permit must be certain that there bike is secure. We might want to have security cameras.
Parking
We discussed efforts to encourage less driving through parking incentives. Pete suggested having a passenger-car-free campus zone by placing parking outside of certain zones of campus. This idea was well received by the group and generally liked. However, we discussed challenges to any parking changes. We discussed specific proposals to adjust parking prices, shown here:
- Try to price people out of parking and mitigate this by reducing the price at other locations
- Allow flexible payment in percentage of salary
- Have and “auction” in which whoever pays the largest percent of their salary gets the closest location.
- Remove or lift parking cap so that wealthier parkers pay more and thus provide more revenue
- Have a private company raise rates on parking
Then, we discussed challenges to these proposals:
- Parking is important to unions – any changes may result in strikes or political conflict
- The sentiment of Parking and Campus master plan does not necessarily agree with people parking farther away – an objective that would be achieved through a passenger-car-free zone
- Hiring private company likely not a good idea – their primary motivation is profit
- City of Champaign changed parking ordinances so that spaces at churches, fraternities, etc, decrease
Our next meeting is TBD.
The EGEN SWATeam held another bi-weekly meeting. Topics covered include:
Meeting Minutes 3/29
During this meeting, the PWR SWAT Team coordinated with Marya Ryan, the new Zero Waste Coordinator. We discussed previous campus efforts for multiple different projects like composting and recycling as well as introduced ourselves to one another.
The SWAT Team also was updated on progress with reviewing the Paper Policy Draft comments and will finish this review by next meeting.
Furthermore, a discussion of composting efforts on campus was discussed and an effort to create a comprehensive map of waste pickup routes will be created.
Next meeting is TBD.
The EGEN SWATeam held another bi-weekly meeting. Topics covered include:
Updates and discussion of greywater meter, greywater design standards, cooling tower cycles of concentration, water use dashboard, and student outreach.
The "invitation for bid" for our campus's purchase of offsets (both to replace those we sold to BPTN, and also to open our "offsets storeroom") has now been released, and bids will be opened in mid-April.
see file
see file
Below is information provided by Jeremy Overmann, B.S. Ch. E., Water Treatment Specialist, on the water use and cycles of concentration (COC) in a cooling tower, as requested after a Land and Water SWAT meeting.
"
Water SWAT members,
Here is some more information regarding the cooling tower discussion at today’s meeting.
This first graph shows how much water a typical 100 ton Cooling Tower uses per hour, and how this changes when the tower is operated at various Cycles of Concentration (COC)
NOTE: a 1 ton cooling tower can remove 15,000 BTU/hr of heat.
Most standard chemically treated Cooling Towers use unsoftened water and operate between 4 – 6 COC, depending on the source water quality (also called Make-Up water) and the efficacy of the chemical treatment program.
As COC increases, the potential for formation of calcium scale (and possibly other types of scale) increases. Scale deposits reduce the energy efficiency of the chiller and the cooling tower, and result in the need for labor intensive cleaning to remove the scale.
The following table shows the relationship between volume of Cooling Tower blowdown (bleed), blowdown rate (% bleed), COC, and total water usage.
Cycles of Concentration is controlled by choosing the rate of blowdown. This is done by controlling the blowdown (bleed) valve at the bottom of the tower.
|
COC |
BLOWDOWN |
TOTAL USAGE (Makeup) |
||
|
Gallons |
Percent |
Gallons |
Percent |
|
|
1.5 |
10,000 |
100% |
15,000 |
100% |
|
2 |
5000 |
50% |
10,000 |
66% |
|
3 |
2500 |
25% |
7500 |
50% |
|
4 |
1667 |
17% |
6667 |
44% |
|
5 |
1250 |
13% |
6250 |
42% |
|
6 |
1000 |
10% |
6000 |
40% |
|
7 |
833 |
8% |
5833 |
39% |
|
8 |
714 |
7% |
5714 |
38% |
|
Note: Evaporation = 5000 Gallons |
||||
In a “Zero” blowdown cooling tower, softened water is used, and cycles of concentration ranges from 20 – 100 or higher. To achieve proper water chemistry to provide corrosion protection, usually need to operate at > 20 COC.
During the Champaign Regional Office Building study, the highest COC achieved was 51. The blowdown valve is turned off, however some water is lost from leaks in the tower, and from droplets of water that escape with the air that is drawn through the tower.
|
COC |
BLOWDOWN |
TOTAL USAGE (Makeup) |
||
|
Gallons |
Percent |
Gallons |
Percent |
|
|
1.5 |
10,000 |
100% |
15,000 |
100% |
|
5 |
1250 |
13% |
6250 |
42% |
|
10 |
555 |
6% |
5550 |
37% |
|
25 |
208 |
2% |
5208 |
35% |
|
50 |
102 |
1% |
5102 |
34% |
|
75 |
66 |
0.7% |
5066 |
34% |
|
100 |
51 |
0.5% |
5051 |
34% |
|
200 |
25 |
0.3% |
5025 |
34% |
|
Note: Evaporation = 5000 Gallons |
||||
"
The University pays a stormwater utility fee to both the City of Urbana and the City of Champaign. The fee is based on total impervious area that drains into city-owned storm sewers. If stormwater drains into university-owned sewers then directly discharges to a receiving stream, there is no fee assessed.
There are credits and incentives that the university can apply toward the stormwater utility fee. By maintaining compliance with the university’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES), the university receives a 5% credit from each city. Additionally, each city has their own Credit and Incentive Manual (attached) which provides an opportunity for the university to reduce their stormwater utility fee by reducing the impact of the runoff from their properties by methods such as installing sustainable storm water practices that allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. The manuals have specific guidelines on how to calculate the credits based on the particular stormwater practices that are employed.
Updates on BIF Greywater Meter application. Discussion on Cooling Tower COC and "Zero" blowdown systems.
At the PWR SWAT Team meeting on March 15th, the team debated over the message in the new Ethics Compliance Message concerning recycling standards and rules. The team decided that two videos should be created, one with base instructions for recycling, the other for explaining the commonly misunderstood paper policy. The team will look more into the paper policy draft and suggest a new paper policy for the campus.
CEE students Chenxi Jiang and Shuang Chen are working with Morgan Johnston to edit the iCAP Portal project pages for each iCAP objective. Chapters 8-12 do not have SWATeams, and the background research on these chapters has been completed. The edited project pages are scheduled to be online by the end of March. The next step is editing the iCAP objectives for each SWATeam chapter in the iCAP. Chenxi and Shaung will be meeting with SWATeam representatives over the next few weeks to gather information, and then the project pages will be edited to reflect the latest info. We expect to be able to complete this before Earth Day on April 22, 2017.
Diliya Murtazina and Morgan Johnston reviewed the work tasks completed this year, and identified files to finalize for the end of this project. Diliya will formalize the behavior change strategies document, collect all the example images, and provide documentation on the creation of the building level energy charts with examples.
The iCAP Working Group (iWG) met on Feb 16, 2017. They supported the South Campus Afforestation recommendation. Their official comments for this recommendation was:
"The iCAP includes an objective to add 50 acres of trees on campus, and this SWATeam recommendation suggests one potential location. The iWG suggests the College of ACES work with the Campus Master Planning committee to identify appropriate locations for additional trees. Another option to consider is parallel to the Embarras River."
See attached the iWG assessment complete with comments from all the iWG members.
The Office of the Provost approved $75,000 in one-time funding for the next step in the LED Exit Sign retrofit project. The funding of $75,000 is for LED Exit Sign lighting replacement, additions, and new building surveys. Material and labor of $70,000 would be used to replace 343 fixtures in 20 buildings at an average rate of $204/fixture. An additional $5,000 is proposed to survey 50 campus buildings for exit light counts. That will provide the input necessary for the next phase, once this phase is completed.
The EGEN SWATeam held another bi-weekly meeting. Topics covered include:
