Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (3)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (3)
Schlagworte
- greenhouse gas emissions (3) (entfernen)
Institut
This research conducted a probabilistic life-cycle assessment (pLCA) into the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance of nine combinations of truck size and powertrain technology for a recent past and a future (largely decarbonised) situation in Australia. This study finds that the relative and absolute life-cycle GHG emissions performance strongly depends on the vehicle class, powertrain and year of assessment. Life-cycle emission factor distributions vary substantially in their magnitude, range and shape. Diesel trucks had lower life-cycle GHG emissions in 2019 than electric trucks (battery, hydrogen fuel cell), mainly due to the high carbon-emission intensity of the Australian electricity grid (mainly coal) and hydrogen production (mainly through steam–methane reforming). The picture is, however, very different for a more decarbonised situation, where battery electric trucks, in particular, provide deep reductions (about 75–85%) in life-cycle GHG emissions. Fuel-cell electric (hydrogen) trucks also provide substantial reductions (about 50–70%), but not as deep as those for battery electric trucks. Moreover, hydrogen trucks exhibit the largest uncertainty in emissions performance, which reflects the uncertainty and general lack of information for this technology. They therefore carry an elevated risk of not achieving the expected emission reductions. Battery electric trucks show the smallest (absolute) uncertainty, which suggests that these trucks are expected to deliver the deepest and most robust emission reductions. Operational emissions (on-road driving and vehicle maintenance combined) dominate life-cycle emissions for all vehicle classes. Vehicle manufacturing and upstream emissions make a relatively small contribution to life-cycle emissions from diesel trucks (<5% each), but these are important aspects for electric trucks (5% to 30%).
Universities, as innovation drivers in science and technology worldwide, should attempt to become carbon-neutral institutions and should lead this transformation. Many universities have picked up the challenge and quantified their carbon footprints; however, up-to-date quantification is limited to use-phase emissions. So far, data on embodied impacts of university campus infrastructure are missing, which prevents us from evaluating their life cycle costs. In this paper, we quantify the embodied impacts of two university campuses of very different sizes and climate zones: the Umwelt-Campus Birkenfeld (UCB), Germany, and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. We also quantify the effects of switching to full renewable energy supply on the carbon footprint of a university campus based on the example of UCB. The embodied impacts amount to 13.7 (UCB) and 26.2 (NTU) kg CO2e/m2•y, respectively, equivalent to 59.2% (UCB), and 29.8% (NTU), respectively, of the building lifecycle impacts. As a consequence, embodied impacts can be dominating; thus, they should be quantified and reported. When adding additional use-phase impacts caused by the universities on top of the building lifecycle impacts (e.g., mobility impacts), both institutions happen to exhibit very similar emissions with 124.5–126.3 kg CO2e/m2•y despite their different sizes, structures, and locations. Embodied impacts comprise 11.0–20.8% of the total impacts at the two universities. In conclusion, efficient reduction in university carbon footprints requires a holistic approach, considering all impacts caused on and by a campus including upstream effects.
Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part I — objective comparison by standardized metrics
(2021)
Background: Universities, as innovation drivers in science and technology worldwide, should be leading the Great Transformation towards a carbon–neutral society and many have indeed picked up the challenge. However, only a small number of universities worldwide are collecting and publishing their carbon footprints, and some of them have defined zero emission targets. Unfortunately, there is limited consistency between the reported carbon footprints (CFs) because of different analysis methods, different impact measures, and different target definitions by the respective universities.
Results: Comprehensive CF data of 20 universities from around the globe were collected and analysed. Essential factors contributing to the university CF were identified. For the first time, CF data from universities were not only compared. The CF data were also evaluated, partly corrected, and augmented by missing contributions, to improve the consistency and comparability. The CF performance of each university in the respective year is thus homogenized, and measured by means of two metrics: CO2e emissions per capita and per m2 of constructed area. Both metrics vary by one order of magnitude across the different universities in this study. However, we identified ten universities reaching a per capita carbon footprint of lower than or close to 1.0 Mt (metric tons) CO2e/person and year (normalized by the number of people associated with the university), independent from the university’s size. In addition to the aforementioned two metrics, we suggested a new metric expressing the economic efficiency in terms of the CF per $ expenditures and year. We next aggregated the results for all three impact measures, arriving at an overall carbon performance for the respective universities, which we found to be independent of geographical latitude. Instead the per capita measure correlates with the national per capita CFs, and it reaches on average 23% of the national impacts per capita. The three top performing universities are located in Switzerland, Chile, and Germany.
Conclusion: The usual reporting of CO2 emissions is categorized into Scopes 1–3 following the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting Standard which makes comparison across universities challenging. In this study, we attempted to standardize the CF metrics, allowing us to objectively compare the CF at several universities. From this study, we observed that, almost 30 years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992), the results are still limited. Only one zero emission university was identified, and hence, the transformation should speed up globally.