421SustainableEnergy06 07

Sustainable Energy for a
Sustainable Future
A Tri-Campus Assessment of Selected Energy Practices at the
University of Toronto and Recommendations for a Sustainable
Energy Future
Names: Maryam Akrami, Alan Kwan, Lac Nguyen,

Jeff Petersen, Yun Ye
Course: ENV421H1Y – Environmental Research
Date: 10 April, 2007
i
Acknowledgement
We would like to sincerely thank the University of Toronto’s Sustainability Office and all
the personnel in various university divisions who provided us with valuable information for this
research project. We are also grateful for the guidance, criticisms, and support of Professor
Macdonald and Professor Ing during the research for this project.
i
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1: Subject
1.2: Purpose
1.3: Scope
1.4: Format
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1: Vehicles
2.2: Lighting Controls
2.3: Computers
3. CURRENT ENERGY PRACTICES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
3.1: Vehicles
3.1.1: Methodology
3.1.2: Profile of Current Vehicle Fleet
3.1.3: Total GHG Emissions by University-Owned Vehicle Fleet
3.2.1: Methodology
3.2.2: Occupancy Sensors Lighting Control Usage Rates
3.2.3: Total GHG Emissions by Lighting
3.3: Computers
3.3.1: Methodology
3.3.2: Computer Use Patterns at Libraries and Computer Labs
3.3.3: Total GHG Emissions by University-Owned Computers at Libraries and Computer Labs
4. COMPARISON TO OTHER CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES
4.1: Methodology
4.1.1: Non-CSAF Universities
4.1.2: CSAF Universities
4.2: Best Practices
4.2.1: Vehicles (E6)
4.2.2: Lighting Controls (E12)
4.2.3: Computers
4.3: How the University of Toronto can learn from Leading Universities
4.3.1: Vehicles
4.3.2: Lighting Controls
4.3.3: Computers
ii
5. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE UNVIERSITY OF TORONTO
5.1: Vehicles
5.1.1: Hybrid Vehicles
5.1.1.1: Energy Savings
5.1.1.2: Costs and Benefits Analysis
5.1.1.3: Implementation Strategy
5.1.2: Additional Recommendations
5.1.2.1: Ethanol Family
5.1.2.2: Biodiesel
5.1.2.3: Natural Gas
5.1.2.4: Electric
5.1.2.5: Hydrogen Fuel Cell
5.1.3: Attitudes Towards Driving
5.2.1: Total Occupancy Control
5.2.2.1: Timer
5.2.2.2: Dimmer
5.2.2.3: Day-lighting
5.2.2.4: A Combined System
5.2.3: Attitudes Towards Lighting
5.3: Computers
5.3.1: CRT to LCD Monitors
5.3.2.1: Whole Computer System Change
5.3.2.2: Energy from Solar Panels
5.3.3: Attitudes Towards Computers
6. EVALUATION OF INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKS
6.1: CSAF Indicators

6.1.1: Vehicles (E-6)
6.1.2: Lighting Controls (E-12)
6.2: Non-CSAF Indicators
6.2.1: Computers
7. CONCLUSION
iii
Appendix
Appendix A. Evaluation of Research Challenges and Efforts
Appendix B. Economic Assessment Methodology
Appendix C. Tables
List of Works Cited
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Ground Level Ozone Reaction Equations

Table 2. University of Toronto Vehicle Fleet Profile
Table 3. University of Toronto Vehicle Fleet Summary GHG Emissions
Table 4. University of Toronto St. George Total Electricity Consumption Summary and
Resulting GHG Emissions
Table 5. University of Toronto St. George Occupancy Sensors Usage Summary and Estimated
Electricity Consumed By Lighting
Table 6. University of Toronto Mississauga Campus Occupancy Sensors Usage Summary and
Estimated Electricity Consumed By Lighting
Table 7. University of Toronto Mississauga Campus CSAF Indicator E-12 Results
Table 8. University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Total Electricity Consumption Summary
and Resulting GHG Emissions
Table 9. University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Occupancy Sensors Usage Summary and
Table 10. University of Toronto Scarborough Campus CSAF Indicator E-12 Results
Table 11. Estimated GHG Emissions Due to Electricity Used By Lighting at the University of
Toronto
Table 12. Summary Table for University of Toronto St. George Campus Libraries Computers
Electricity Consumption Patterns and Subsequent GHG Emissions
Table 13. Summary Table for University of Toronto St. George Campus Computer Labs
Computers Electricity Consumption Patterns and Subsequent GHG Emissions
Table 14. Summary Table for University of Toronto Mississauga Campus Library Computers
Electricity Consumption Patterns and Subsequent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 15. Summary Table for University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Library and
Computer Labs Computers Electricity Consumption Patterns and Subsequent GHG
Emissions
Table 16. Total GHG Emissions for the Computers of Libraries and Computer Labs of all Three
University of Toronto Campuses
Table 17. Best Practices in Energy Consumption for Vehicles
Table 18. Best Practices in Energy Consumption for Occupancy Senor Lighting Control
v
Table 19. Summary Comparison Table of Dodge Caravan and Toyota Highlander
Table 20. WSD Motion Detector Switch
Table 21. Estimated Electricity Savings at St. George Campus Under Total Occupancy Sensors
Control
Table 22. Estimated Electricity Savings at UTSC Under Total Occupancy Sensors Control
Table 23. Summary Table (UTSC)
Table 24. 100% Sensors Installed with Lighting Uses 20% of Total Electricity
Table 26. Monitor Specifications
Table 27. Comparison Table for Monitors
Table 28. Dodge Caravan Fuel Consumption and Costs
Table 29. Toyota Highlander Fuel Consumption and Costs
Table 30. Case Lighting Uses 20% of Total Electricity in UTSC
Table 32. Comparison Table When Monitor Operation Hour is 4 Hours
Table 34. Wyse S90 Thin Client Specification
Table 35. University of Toronto St. George Campus Libraries Computer Electricity
Consumption Patterns and Subsequent GHG Emission
Table 36. University of Toronto St. George Campus Computer Labs Computer Electricity
Consumption Patterns and Subsequent GHG Emissions
Table 37. University of Toronto Mississauga Campus Library Computer Electricity
Table 38. University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Library and Computer Lab Computers
Electricity Consumption Patterns and Subsequent GHG Emissions
Table 39. Floor Areas of St. George Campus
Table 40. Floor Areas of Scarborough Campus
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of St. George Campus

Figure 2. Map of Mississauga Campus
Figure 3. Map of Scarborough Campus
Figure 4. U.S Annual Average Gasoline Consumption and Real Gasoline Price
Figure 5. Past Research Results on Occupancy Sensors Effectiveness
vii
List of Acronyms and Terms
BUS Bus
CCM Campus Community Members
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CPU Central Processing Unit
CRT Cathode Ray Tube
CSAF Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework
GHG Greenhouse Gases
HC Heavy Commercial
LC Light Commercial
LCD Liquid Crystal Display
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
PC Personal Computer
PM Particulate matter
PP Private Passenger
PV Photovoltaic
SCP Sustainable Campuses Project
SUV Sport utility vehicle
SYC Sierra Youth Coalition
THC Total Hydrocarbons
UTM University of Toronto Mississauga campus
UTSC University of Toronto Scarborough campus
VOC Volatile organic compound
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1: Subject
Energy consumption is undeniably an important and central issue in the environmental
debate today. Our daily lives depend on a constant and steady supply of seemingly infinite
energy. Not only does it provide for the comfort of our modern living, energy is also the integral
driver of our society and economy. Much of the energy we consume is generated by the burning
of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
(Natural Resources Canada, 2000). As we continue to consume more energy than ever before,
greenhouse gas emissions continue to exacerbate an ever-looming climate change crisis, further
degenerating every aspects of our fragile environment. While the debate over the severity of
climate change continues, there is little doubt that the human population needs to reduce the
amount of energy it consumes to relieve an already overburdened planet.
As Canada’s biggest university, the University of Toronto utilizes a substantial amount of
energy to meet its daily needs. This report presents the findings of a research project undertaken
to assess three aspects of energy consumption at the St. George, Mississauga, and Scarborough
campuses of the University of Toronto. The aim of the project is to determine the current state
of these energy practices at the university. Based on these findings, recommendations are made
to the university to adopt energy practices that are more conscious of and responsible to our
environment. The energy practices studied are as follows:
• The energy consumption by the university-owned vehicle fleet,
• The use of occupancy sensor lighting controls as energy management measures, and
• The energy consumption by university-owned computers at libraries and computer labs.
1
This project is part of the Sustainable Campuses Project (SCP), a nationwide undertaking
initiated by the Sierra Youth Coalition (SYC) to aid universities in refining their ecological and
social impacts. Participating universities evaluate various aspects of their campuses according to
the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF), a tool designed specifically for the
SCP in gauging the sustainability of an institution. The collected data contributes to a database
maintained by the SYC where the sustainability levels of various institutions can be compared
and measured against one another.
The Sustainability Office of the University of Toronto St. George has decided to
undertake the CSAF assessment to determine the current sustainability of the university. Since
this is the first time the St. George campus is undergoing CSAF assessment, the collected data
will establish the basis from which the university can make future improvements. The
Sustainability Office will also compare the collected data to those of other institutions that have
undergone the assessment process to see where the University of Toronto currently stands among
its peers in terms of sustainability.
Of the above three energy practices studied in this project, only the energy consumption
by the university-owned vehicle fleet and the use of occupancy sensor lighting controls as energy
management measures were assessed according to the CSAF. These two practices are denoted
as E-6 and E-12 indicators respectively by the CSAF.
In addition to the two CSAF indicators, the energy consumption by university-owned
computers at libraries and computer labs across the three campuses was also assessed
independent of the CSAF. Since a considerable number of computers are used at big institutions
like the University of Toronto – as can be seen later in this report (Section 3.3.2) – these
machines represent a significant proportion of the energy consumed by the university. The
2
research group, therefore, saw it necessary to investigate this area as well in hopes of
determining the potential energy and monetary savings possible (Akrami, ENV410H1F, 2006).
The amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted as a result of each of the three energy
practices studied has also been calculated. Since most vehicles run on the burning of gasoline,
they directly release GHG into the atmosphere. Due to the nature of this direct relationship, it is
relatively straightforward to compute the amount of GHG produced by the university-owned
vehicle fleet. Artificial lighting and computers require electricity to operate. In Ontario, a
significant portion of electricity is generated by coal-burning plants. Therefore, when electricity
is used to power lighting and computers, the University of Toronto indirectly causes the
production and emission of GHG. By reducing the overall energy consumption of the university,
lower GHG emissions can be achieved, thereby lessening its contribution to the global climate
change crisis.
Furthermore, the current states of the three energy practices have been compared to those
of leading Canadian universities in order to determine where the University of Toronto currently
stands among its peers in terms of sustainability. Based on the results of this project,
recommendations are made for future improvements to campus sustainability in energy
consumption. A cost-benefit analysis of current and alternative technologies has also been
performed to provide the basis for adopting more environmental and cost effective solutions.
1.2: Purpose
The Brundtland Commission, in 1987, defined sustainable development as development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Embedded
in this ideology is our moral and ethical responsibility for the Earth and its future inhabitants. As
3
current energy consumption continues to degenerate global environmental systems, the present
generation has an obligation to take into consideration the consequences of its own actions.
With both the resources and knowledge, universities can facilitate the societal and
structural changes necessary to confront the looming environmental crisis. It is the aim of this
research project to improve the sustainability of the use of energy at the University of Toronto.
The implementation of more sustainable solutions at the university, as a result of this project,
will hopefully serve as a premier example for society at large, as a case study that can benefit the
citizens of Toronto and beyond.
The data inventoried here will contribute to the SCP database maintained by the SYC
where other institutions that wish to improve their sustainability can refer. The energy data
collected will also be used by the Sustainability Office at the University of Toronto in pursuing
the university’s environmental agenda. The current state of the studied energy practices will be
compared to those of other Canadian universities to see where the University of Toronto stands
in terms of campus sustainability. The recommendations made to the areas studied in this report
will hopefully be implemented to reduce overall energy consumption and the greenhouse gases
emitted in energy production. In addition, the experiences of this research project will help
guide the Sustainability Office and future researchers to develop more effective and efficient
research methods in future sustainability assessments.
1.3: Scope
Since the Sustainability Office has already begun or has completed research on most of
the CSAF energy indicators, the research group has decided to focus on three energy practices
that have not yet been investigated. The scope of this project is also defined by the limited time
and resources available.
4
The University of Toronto is the largest university in Canada, consisting of three
campuses that operate as separate entities: St. George in downtown Toronto, UTM in
Mississauga, and UTSC in Scarborough. As they are not tied to the boundaries of each campus,
all vehicles operated and funded by the University of Toronto and its departments across the
three campuses are included in the assessment of university-owned vehicle fleet. Unlike
vehicles, however, lighting controls and computers are fixed and located at specific buildings.
Although the University of Toronto at St. George owns and maintains several buildings and
properties throughout the city of Toronto, the majority of academic and administrative functions
of this campus occur within the area bounded by Bloor and College streets to the north and south
respectively, and Bay Street and Spadina Avenue to the east and west respectively. For the
purpose of this study, St. George campus is defined as the area within Bloor-College-Bay-
Spadina (Figure 1) and the investigation of automatic lighting controls and computers is only
confined to the buildings operated and maintained by the university within this boundary. On the
other hand, due to the relatively smaller sizes of UTM and UTSC, the research for lighting
controls and computers includes the entire Mississauga and Scarborough campuses (Figure 2
and Figure 3).
The Sustainability Office has already started projects on computer electricity
consumption in various areas on campus. By concentrating only on the university-owned
computers at libraries and computer labs, this project aids the Sustainability Office by collecting
data in the areas the Office has not yet studied.
5
Figure 1 – Map of St. George Campus
Source: http://www.utoronto.ca/Campus_Maps.htm#St.%20George%20maps%20anchor%20link
6
Figure 2 – Map of Mississauga Campus
Source: http://www.greatspaces.utoronto.ca/missmap.htm
7
Figure 3 – Map of Scarborough Campus
Source: http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~advancement/find/images/map_june19_2006.pdf
8
1.4: Format
This project has been conducted in a quantitative manner with some aspects of qualitative
research techniques. Since it is the aim of this project to establish benchmarks in the three
aspects of energy practices from which the university can make future improvements, numerical
data can provide easy comparison with past and future practices. Additionally, this method
conforms to the CSAF standards, allowing the inventoried data to be compared to those of other
universities.
The discussions of vehicles, lighting, and computers are kept separate for most sections
throughout the report to ensure that the information of each energy practice is conveyed clearly
and that the reader will be able to locate the data concerning each practice quickly. Due to the
diversity of the energy practices studied and the specific characteristics of each, the research
group has opted not to unify the research method for the energy practices, comparison to other
universities, and costs and benefit analysis under a singular methodology section. This report
instead explains the individual research methodology under each investigated topic.
Following this introduction, Section 2 reviews the existing literature related to the three
energy practices studied. This is to familiarize the research group with the research and
technologies that is currently available. Section 3 provides the current state of the three energy
practices at the University of Toronto. The method used to research each area is also explained.
This section concludes with the GHG emissions current produced by the three indicators. The
data from the University of Toronto is then compared to those of other Canadian universities in
Section 4. The method used for the comparison is also discussed in this section. In addition,
this section details some of the schemes implemented at the universities studied that the
University of Toronto can learn from. Based on the findings of the three indicators and the
9
comparisons to other universities, recommendations to improve sustainability are then presented
along with their respective economic implications in Section 5. Implementation strategies are
also found in this section delineating the proper implementation procedure of the solutions the
research group recommends. The costs and benefits analysis conducted for the
recommendations are presented to show the economic implications. Next, an evaluation of
indicators and benchmarks, in Section 6, comments on the relevance of the areas investigated in
this project. Critiques are made on the indicators and benchmarks to determine their
effectiveness in gauging the sustainability levels of universities. The final section, Section 7,
brings together the key points of the report by way of a conclusion. The current GHG emissions
produced by the three energy practices are summed up. The total possible GHG reduction
achievable is also given.
Following the main sections of the report, three additional sections in the Appendix
provides supplementary information pertaining to this project. Appendix A offers an evaluation
of the research challenges and effort. The opportunities and difficulties encountered during the
research process are recounted in this section to offer guidance for future research. The
economic assessment methodology can be found in Appendix B, which explains the economics
and calculations behind the costs and benefits analysis undertaken in the project. Finally, data
tables are given in Appendix C.
10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature regarding the energy practices associated with vehicles, the use of
occupancy sensor lighting controls, and computers, was reviewed to familiarize the research
group with the research and technologies currently available in the field.
2.1: Vehicles
Climate change has become a major topic that is rapidly gaining attention from every
industry, country, and individual. In the last couple decades, there has been much talk and
planning about sustainable development, decreasing GHG emissions, and lessening other waste
output. GHG emissions have been particularly focused, on all scales, for their contributions not
only to climate change, but also to general degradation of air quality.
Transportation is a major contributor to global GHG emissions level. According to the
United States Department of Energy 1994 report on transportation fuels, the predominant
emissions are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrogen dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon
monoxide and non-methane hydrocarbons (Mayes, 2002).
In order to understand the effects of GHG, it is important to first explore the
characteristics. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most commonly known GHG. CO2 is a by-product
of the combustion which takes place within the engine of a vehicle. CO2 is the standard in which
other GHG are compared to regarding their contribution to global warming. This chemical
makes up nearly half of the total exhaust emissions from vehicles, and as the standard has been
given the contribution rating of ‘1’ for the effects on global warming (Mayes, 2002). With a
product half life of 120 or more years, the potential damage given the current exponential and
unrecognized growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is of major concern.
11
Water is the other main product of engine combustion, making up nearly half of the
emissions produced (CO2 and water account for 97% of the products from combustion). While a
contributing factor to global warming, the effects of water are not reflected in the United States
Department of Energy report. This is because water only has a lifetime on the scale of a few
days to weeks and currently does not pose a threat of accumulation.
The third recognized GHG is methane. Accounting for 0.07 percent of emissions,
methane has 25 times more global warming potential per mole and a half life on the scale of a
decade. While there are other major contributors to total atmospheric methane concentration, it
is clear from the impact and lifetime that any reduction can make large changes.
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) make up another small percentage
(0.16%) emission that makes a heavy contribution to the environment. Nitrous oxide has a
relative warming effect of 210 with a lifetime on par of CO2. This group of chemicals also has a
direct influence on ground level ozone concentrations, which is another major concern from
vehicle emissions. Therefore, the staggering contribution of NOx to global warming is
something the university might be able to have a noticeable local impact on while looking into
the possibilities for the fleet.
Another GHG is carbon monoxide, which is a result of incomplete combustion. This
chemicals results in 2.5% of vehicle emissions, but is not represented in the Department of
Energy report for global warming contribution. Incomplete combustion is a problem that is
virtually inevitable in any engine, therefore increasing engine efficiency is a key to overcoming
such an issue.
Lastly, non-methane hydrocarbons, another minor product of running an engine, make up
0.09% of emissions. While this class of chemical’s global warming contribution is also not
12
represented in the Department of Energy report, it is commonly seen as particulate matter in
emissions and degrade air quality at ground level.
Ozone is an indirect product of combustion resulting from nitrogen dioxide and nitrous
oxide emissions. Table 1 depicts the reaction that occurs.

Table 1. Ground level ozone
Ozone is a prominent component in photochemical smog,
reaction equations
a persistent problem in the Toronto area. Ozone is also NO2 + hv -> NO + O
O + O2 -> O3
poisonous to inhale, but beneficial high in the atmosphere O3 + hv -> O2 + O
O + H2O -> 2HOradical
HOradical + RH -> RO2 + H2O
to protect the planet from ultra-violet radiation that can RO2 + H2O -> RO + NO2
RO + O2 -> RCHO + HO2
destroy life and cause a host of heath problems in humans. HO2 + NO -> NO2 + HOradical
By decreasing the amount of NOx resulting from running engines, the amount of ground level
ozone can be decreased as well.
The Department of Energy report provides a thorough basis as to why the current
University of Toronto vehicle fleet emissions play an important role in the school’s
environmental impact
While there are many sources of diesel available, three that have stood out relate to the
differences between gas and diesel, as well as diesel fuel blends in the transportation (i.e.: buses)
and light heavy-duty (i.e.: pick-up trucks) vehicle industry. Sullivan’s work suggests that diesel
provides better mileage as well as lower emissions (Sullivan, 2004). Converting the entire
University of Toronto’s fleet to diesel alone could save over 25% on CO2 emissions. This study
relates current empirical data from passenger vehicles to the market trend and suggests potential
reductions if said trend were to continue. Sullivan’s study also compares North American
emission rates to European emission rates, indicating where improvement have already been
made much like Schifter’s analysis in Mexico (Schifter, 2000).
13
Further improvements from diesel use are raised in Durbin’s research in California which
studied four different types of diesel fuels and their respective effects upon emissions (Durbin,
2000). Along with standard diesel fuel, synthetic, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends were reviewed.
This provides not only alternative energy sources, but further impact analysis to consider when
changing the University of Toronto’s current approach. This study was also conducted using
light-heavy duty trucks available in the market. These vehicles, from simple observation while
walking around the campuses, are being used extensively here.
Another large scale alternative fuel source analysis was conducted by Wen G. Wang
throughout various locations in North America (Wang, 1997). This study collected data on
diesel, natural gas, methanol, and ethanol as alternative fuels. GHG emissions and effectiveness
of each fuel were presented from multiple sources with many repetitions. However, these
findings were for large transportation vehicles like buses and so extrapolating these values to
smaller vehicles, or vehicles of different usage might translate poorly.
There are other changes that can be made to decrease GHG emissions beyond simple fuel
choice. Vehicle usage and loads change the amount of work demanded from an engine. Durbin,
in another paper, raised the issue of vehicle payload and its impact upon emissions (Durbin,
2000). It is intuitive that the more material that is being moved, the more energy it will take.
Durbin analyzed this procedure much like the different fuel methods and presented various
relationships between the two. The University of Toronto could surely benefit from optimizing
the loads moved around the campus. The other option would be to shift the locations of where
the vehicles are used most to improve emissions without monitoring loads.
Vehicle emissions not only depend upon what they are carrying, but also how they are
being driven too. While the preliminary secondary research conducted here has not revealed any
14
distinct numerical data regarding the effect of driving habits (distance vs. stop and go) yet, it is a
gap that was generated by reviewing the compiled works that needs to be filled.
Lastly, the end result of this research is to present a small economic and health analysis
of the improvements to make the project reach a broader audience. Additional research needs to
be conducted, but by using various government budgets regarding their incentives for alternative
fuels, one could arrive as ways to decrease spending on making such a switch. The USA’s
environmental budget is promising as many of the light-heavy duty truck manufacturers are
based in the states (Erickson, 2003).
Cohen presents both a cost and health analysis regarding fuels used in urban transit
environments (Cohen, 2003). His work indicates methods to interpret data to visualize the
benefits and drawbacks of different fuel sources. Cohen presents equations that others can use
for their own work. As this is a published work pertinent to the research being conducted for the
project at University of Toronto, its application can add significant weight when presenting the
results.
Artificial lighting is essential in our lives. Daily activities require lighting anywhere
sunlight is not available. Such a basic need comes at the cost of about one third of our electricity
bill. Lighting systems account for around 20%-40% of the electricity used in commercial
buildings (Di Stefano, 2000; Li et al., 2006). Taking into considerations global environmental
concerns, there is great potential and need to reduce energy consumption. On any university
campus, lighting is needed for anything from lecture halls, offices and student areas to janitor
closets and bathrooms. A causal walkthrough of buildings will show that it is not uncommon to
find lights left on in empty classrooms for various reasons. Most spaces on campus are lit for the
15
majority of the day even if they are rarely occupied. Energy is unnecessarily wasted; CO2 is
emitted for no reason; money is spent on a service not being used. These cases and others
represent opportunities for occupancy sensor controls to intervene. Lighting is switched off if
user presence is not detected. Energy is not wasted; CO2 is not produced; and money is saved.
Therefore, it is possible to save energy through the use of automatic lighting controls.
The following sources include field studies and experiments on the performance of
different automatic lighting control systems. The unique focus of each study provides relevant
insights applicable to the adoption of lighting energy management schemes to the multifaceted
university setting.
Di Stefano (2000) realized the potential to be captured in using energy efficient lightings
at Melbourne University. Performance and cost effectiveness of four energy efficient lighting
alternatives are recorded and compared to that of the existing lighting. Energy savings of up to
65% could be achieved. If the lighting alternative that saved the most energy was installed, CO2
emissions associated with the university’s electricity use would be reduced by 10%. (Di Stefano,
2000). However, none of the alternatives were found to be cost effective. The author attributed
this to three barriers: low operating hours, the low cost of electricity, and the high initial cost of
energy efficient components (Di Stefano, 2000).
An article by Lek and Min (2006), describes the energy efficient features utilized at the
National Institute of Education (NIE) of the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. A
number of measures are exploited to save energy while maintaining a comfortable campus
environment. Innovative building design combined with the selection of modern, efficient
lighting and air-conditioning technology exploit natural lighting and ventilation as well as
attribute to low energy demands. Extensive daylighting is coupled with occupancy sensors and
16
scheduling to light spaces efficiently. The management at the NIE is committed to the energy
conservation initiative on campus. Good maintenance practices and constant improvements
based on feedback from systems continuously optimize the campus to its potential (Lek and Min,
2006). Care in the design of lighting system is but one of several strategies to reduce energy
usage.
Advanced Lighting Controls, edited by DiLouie (2006), sheds light on available control
technologies. The types, trends, and applications of automatic lighting controls are examined in
great detail. As a compilation of essays, it collects the insight and experience of several
practitioners to synthesize a broader scope. A selected chapter illustrates that occupancy sensors
will reduce lighting energy use and demand throughout the day. 158 rooms categorized into
restrooms, private offices, classrooms, conference rooms, and break rooms were monitored for
occupancy and lighting status over two weeks. Occupancy sensors are shown to have the most
impact on classrooms: up to about 40% of daytime average energy demand savings could be
achieved when sensors monitor the rooms (DiLouie, 2006).
Despite increased interest in energy efficient lighting control systems, Rubinstein et al
(1993) recognized the lack of reliable information written on the savings achievable with the use
of such systems. At an office in the San Francisco Bay Area, they tested a lighting control
system, designed to exploit all major control strategies, including scheduling, daylighting, and
lumen maintenance (i.e. the ability to maintain a given illuminance level), to demonstrate its
energy savings and demand-reduction capabilities. Novel, two-part photocells that permit both
daylight-linked (dimming) control and compensation for lumen-depreciation (i.e. brightness
reduced by lamp life) were also tested (Rubinstein et al., 1993). The results show that a
dimmable lighting control system can give promising and significant energy savings. Roughly
17
half of the lighting energy load can be shed. The two-part photocells worked successfully in
maintaining a constant total light level by simultaneously compensating for both changes in
daylight and lumen depreciation in artificial lighting (Rubinstein et al., 1993).
Similar findings in energy reduction have been made in more recent years, as highlighted
by two studies from Hong Kong. Li and Lam (2003) and Li et al. (2006) saw the absence of
local field data as a hindrance to the widespread popularity of incorporating daylighting schemes
into building designs. Their case studies illustrate the effectiveness of daylight-linked lighting
controls on a circulation corridor and an open plan office space, respectively. Lighting systems,
calibrated to give a constant illumination level by regulating the output of each lamp in response
to available daylight, were installed and tested. Both studies support that proper photoelectric
controls combined with daylighting schemes have great energy saving potential. Li and Lam
found an estimated 65% reduction in annual energy usage for the day lit corridor. In much the
same way, Li et al. (2006) found that 33% of energy would be saved using high frequency
dimming controls (which dim the lamp output smoothly and uniformly) in the open plan office.
Furthermore, high frequency dimming controls are found to be more effective than on-off
controls when indoor illuminance is required at a higher level (Li et al., 2006). In both studies,
the authors ended with the observation that daylighting schemes would further reduce energy
consumption needed for cooling as heat dissipation from artificial lighting would be lowered.
A source, by Onaygil and Güler (2003), from Turkey proves that energy saving, owing to
automatic lighting controls, is strongly related to the climate conditions of the countries and
available daylight level inside the building. This study is particularly successful in underlining
the differences in energy savings according to months and seasons. Similarly, they set out to
find how much energy can be saved by using daylight responsive controls. Results clearly show
18
that more energy is saved during summer months, at 45%, than during winter, at only 21% in
savings. In addition, daily weather condition has also been taken into account. Days are
classified as clear, mixed, and overcast. It is interesting to note that energy saving on mixed days
is approximately same as on clear days (Onaygil and Güler, 2003). This study is useful in
showing that energy savings obtained from daylight controlled systems will be more significant
in areas with more clear skies.
Tetri (2002) observed that the constant changes in light level due to automatic adjustment
of a control system make great demands on lamps and ballasts (i.e. device that maintains the
current through a fluorescent or mercury lamp). Tetri (2002) studied the effect of dimming on
lamp life and the lumen maintenance of fluorescent lamps. Eight test groups, each with 15
lamps, were put through different dimming cycles. Static dimming dims light output to a set
level, while dynamic dimming, in emulation of real scenarios, dims and brightens a lamp
according to a preset pattern. Results show that with electronic ballasts, lamps will reach the
nominal lamp life even if the lamps are dimmed statically or dynamically. When lamps burn
continuously at low dimming levels, the lumen maintenance factor is larger than when lamps
burn undimmed. This study confirms that the effect of dimming is not an obstacle for wider use
of daylight responsive lighting controls (Tetri, 2002).
It is evident from the previous technical reports that most field studies of lighting controls
are concerned with energy savings. Few deal with the actual needs of end-users. Escuyer and
Fontoynont (2001) presented a qualitative study of the acceptability of lighting control systems
by office workers. It seeks to answer if existing systems really match users’ needs. Results
confirm that most people value having plenty of daylight in their office. In addition, people
tended to choose a lower level of artificial light when more daylight entered the office in order to
19
benefit from daylight (Escuyer and Fontoynont, 2001). Due to unexpected glitches, including
the sudden change in light level for no apparent reasons and the failure of occupancy sensors to
detect movement, the respondents explained that manual control was preferred, but were,
nonetheless, appreciative of the automatic systems (Escuyer and Fontoynont, 2001). Based on
the results, Escuyer and Fontoynont suggested that the ideal lighting control system, from the
office occupants comfort point of view, should allow easy selection of artificial lighting and
lighting levels. This system might comprise automatic dimming, preferably with no automatic
switch off, since this could annoy some people (Escuyer and Fontoynont, 2001).
All sources found automatic lighting control to be a viable solution to save energy.
Daylight responsive control, occupancy sensor, and scheduling are commonly used control
schemes. One study found that lighting control-linked dimming does not diminish the
performance of lamps (Tetri, 2002). Lamps will reach their nominal life regardless of the
dimming involved. However, barriers to wider applications of these components, especially the
high initial costs and the overall lack of knowledge concerning concrete benefits, still exist (Di
Stefano, 2000; Li et al., 2006; Onaygil and Güler, 2003). All but two are quantitative approaches
aimed at finding empirical justification for the use of automatic lighting controls. These reports
are intended for practitioners. It may even be useful to building and company owners, for whom
cost reduction is crucial. The prevalent message urges for lighting control measures to be taken
to reap energy savings. The public is unaware of this information, attributing to the low
popularity in use of such systems. In all studies, the lighting systems researched are fluorescent
lamps. Almost all sources focused their investigation on the performance of daylight responsive
systems. Since fluorescent lighting is generally representative of systems used in buildings
within the commercial sector (Di Stefano, 2000), little has been said about energy efficient
20
lighting alternatives other than fluorescent lamps. Similarly, occupancy sensors are little
commented on. While occupancy sensors prevent lights to being left on in unused spaces,
daylight-linked controls have wider implications in settings like an office space where artificial
lighting is needed for a long period of time each day. With daylight automatic control, light
level can be continuously changed to adjust for amount of available sunlight without interrupting
the work of the occupants. In essence, daylight-linked controls should be used in tandem with
occupancy sensors and scheduling to reap the combined advantages.
2.3: Computers
Computers have become a necessity in the modern world, and as such are present in large
number at workplaces and educational institutions. As can be seen later in this literature review
and research report (Section 3.2.2), reducing the electricity expenditure of computers, especially
in places where they are present in large number (such as universities), can result in considerable
energy conservation. This section looks at the research completed on the energy consumption of
different computers, possible methods of reducing this energy consumption, and the
effectiveness of these methods.
In order to implement useful energy conservation techniques, Lorch and Smith (1998)
found it necessary to first quantify the amount of energy used by each part of a computer. Their
research involves quantifying the amount of energy used by various parts of portable Apple
Macintosh computers. The authors identified the main energy consumption problem as the short
energy duration of the computer battery, which requires recharging after only a few hours. They
have provided three possible solutions to overcome the need for energy to recharge the battery
after a short period of time and have also proposed use of different hardware and software
21
techniques. The authors have also discussed the effectiveness of current power saving features of
portable Apple Macintosh computers.
An innovative way of reducing the energy consumption of hand-held computers is
proposed by Bai and Chen (2005) of Fu Jen Catholic University in Taiwan. These authors also
cite the short energy duration of hand-held computer batteries as the main problem. They
proposed the use of automatically-charging solar cells to recharge exhausted batteries. Bai and
Chen (2005) have employed a quantitative research method and have actually designed and
implemented a low-power hand-held computer system.
Weiser et al. (1994) of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre looked to the interior of a
computer to find ways of reducing energy consumption. Although recognizing that monitors and
discs consume more electricity, the authors have presented a study focused on the energy
consumption by the central processing unit (CPU) of a computer and the energy saving possible.
The solution given by the authors is to adjust the speed clock of a CPU to schedule for reduced
energy use.
While the above studies show the importance of designing energy efficient hardware, the
potentiality of energy efficient software should also be explored. In a quantitative study, Lorch
and Smith (1998) investigated the use of software as an energy management measure for
portable computers. The authors proposed high-performance and software controlled low-power
modes as possible solutions. Hardware features that can complement the software in energy
conservation are also discussed in the report.
After reviewing the various hardware and software methods of reducing computer energy
consumption, it would be interesting to know how much energy and money can actually be saved
by the use of energy-efficient computers. According to Linda Latham (1994), the manager of the
22
US Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Computers Program, energy-efficient
computers could trim 25% from building energy use and lead to cost-savings of as much as 50%.
She conducted a mixed methods research in which she explains how different devices can make
a computer energy-efficient. The amount of energy and monetary savings achievable is also
discussed.
Kozyrakis and Patterson (1998) of the University of California at Berkeley also
conducted a mixed methods research to explore the new direction for computer architecture. The
authors argued that most existing computer architecture research is focused on desktop
computers and server applications, neglecting the role of personal mobile computers. Since
personal mobile computers will be important in driving technology forward, research should
instead be focused on them (Kozyrakis and Patterson, 1998). Throughout their study, they
recommended various software and hardware technologies for the small portable computers.
However, despite Kozyrakis and Patterson’s assumption that current research in
computer architecture is biased towards desktop computers, most of the literature encountered
regarded the energy practices of computers are centered on the technologies of small portable
computers. The assessment of energy consumption by university-owned computers in this
research project, on the other hand, is focused on desktop computers. Besides designing new
hardware and software to save energy, behavioural changes, like turning off computers when not
in use, are also important tools in energy conservation.
23
3. CURRENT ENERGY PRACTICES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
The current profile of the three energy practices studied is outlined in this section. Due to
the diverse nature of this project, where three unique aspects of energy consumption were
investigated, alongside comparisons to other institutions and a cost-and-benefit analysis, the
research group has decided not to unify all the research methods used in this study under a
general methods section. Following a brief introduction to each energy practice studied, the
methodology used to research each indictor is explained. The current state of the respective
indicator can then be found. Each section concludes with the calculated GHG emissions caused
by the individual energy practice.
3.1: Vehicles
The aim of the research for the university-owned vehicle fleet is to find the energy
consumed by the fleet to determine the amount of total GHG emissions produced.
The following section describes the research methods used in the collection and analysis
of this data. In addition, this section outlines the make-up of the vehicle fleet and describes other
categorizations and trends within the fleet, such as, key vehicle classes, fuel types, and other
classifications.
3.1.1: Methodology
Data collection and analysis were focused on vehicle odometer readings as they are
related to the GHG emissions produced by the fleet. Data collection was conducted primarily
through telephone calls. A contact and reference list was provided by the central insurance
policy department of the University of Toronto. This list was used as it covers all university-
24
owned vehicles within the scope of this project. After initial contact with various individual
departments, correspondence was maintained through telephone and e-mail.
The predominant vehicles used by the University of Toronto are those in the class
deemed light commercial (LC) vehicles. These range from pick-up trucks and compact cars to
vans used for transporting people and materials. Pick-up trucks make up the majority of this
class, represented heavily by Dodge and Ford models.
The other significant vehicle classes on campus are heavy commercial, private passenger,
and buses. Heavy commercial (HC) vehicles consist mainly of large trucks, while private
passenger (PP) vehicles are vans and vehicles used specifically for people transportation, while
buses (BUS) are simply large scale private passenger vehicles.
Gasoline is the main type of fuel consumed by the university-owned vehicles. Of the
vehicles assessed in this research, 79.7% use gas, while the remaining fleet uses diesel (10.8%)
and natural gas (9.4%).
Data analysis was conducted using a variety of tools including fuel efficiency databases
and GHG emission calculators. Fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov), an online
vehicle fuel efficiency database, amongst other features, was first used to provide the average
fuel efficiency for all vehicles. The city average miles per gallon data was used, as the
University of Toronto is set in an urban environment. Additionally, average mileage per gallon
was rounded to the closest value given in the calculator to simplify classification. The reason
this rounding was necessary was because the calculator has a set number of fixed models
pertaining to different fuel efficiency and vehicle types.
25
After determining the appropriate calculator settings based on fuel efficiency, the
collected odometer readings were entered to compute the total GHG emissions for the given
vehicle.
It should be noted that the calculator itself made assumptions when finding the amount of
GHG emission:
“This guidance is based on the assumption that all carbon burned as fuel is emitted as
CO2, CO, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (including CH4) except for the unoxidized
fraction which remains as ash or soot. CO and VOCs are eventually oxidized to CO2 in the
atmosphere.” (GHG Protocol, 2005)
In addition, the calculator does not expand beyond CO2 calculation, neglecting other
important GHG, such as methane and nitrogen dioxide (important in ground level ozone
concentration) that are heavily dependent upon vehicle components and emission control
systems in place. The amount of CO2 produced, according to the calculator, can be calculated
based on fuel type and distance traveled.
After these GHG emissions were calculated for each vehicle, they were converted to an
average annual emission rate by dividing the total metric tonnage of CO2 emitted in the vehicles
lifetime.
The calculator selected has built in weaknesses, such as general pre-calculated fuel
consumption data which has been classified for vehicle types. While there is a wealth of
information available to support these generalization (noted within the calculator), it lacks the
accuracy of direct monitoring of each vehicle.
At the time of this writing, 74 of out 94 vehicles have been analyzed. Of these vehicles,
the annual green house gas emissions are 213.37 Metric Tonnes.
26
3.1.2: Profile of Current University of Toronto Vehicle Fleet
Table 2. University of Toronto Vehicle Fleet Profile
(Please see the following pages)
27
Average Annual
Odomet Date Emissions
Department Year Make Model Fuel Type Class Emssion (Metric
er (KM) Taken (Metric tonnes)
Tonne/Year)
Aerospace Studies 1993 Chevy Van 129868 2/9/2007 Gasoline LC 28.9 2.064285714
Faculty of Medicine 1999 GMC Van 36492 2/12/2007 Gasoline LC 8.1 1.0125
Astronomy & Astrophysics 1993 Chevy Van 79633 2/13/2007 Gasoline LC 17.7 1.264285714
Physical Education 1999 GMC Safari Van 66000 2/12/2007 Gasoline LC 14.7 1.8375
Environmental Health & Safety 1997 GMC Van CB 53706 2/19/2007 Gasoline LC 11.9 1.19
Environmental Health & Safety 2000 Chevy Blazer 49141 2/19/2007 Gasoline LC 10.9 1.557142857
Environmental Health & Safety 1995 Chevy Van 9860 2/19/2007 Gasoline LC 2.2 0.183333333
UTM - Facility Resources 1994 Chevy Truck HC 0
Intn'l Dump
UTM - Facility Resources 1981 HC 0
Truck
UTM - Facility Resources 1994 Dodge Van LC 0
UTM - Facility Resources 2002 Chevy HD 4x4 Pickup LC 0
UTM - Facility Resources 2003 Chevy Pickup LC 0
UTM - Facility Resources 1997 Chevy Van LC 0
UTM - Facility Resources 2003 Chevy Express LC 0
UTM - Facility Resources 2001 Chevy Impala PP 0
UTM - Facility Resources 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid LC 0
UTM - Facility Resources 1995 Ford Pick-up F150 LC 0
UTM - Facility Resources GMC Safari SLX LC 0
St. George Facilities &
1999 Chevy Astrovan 33752 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 13.5 1.6875
Services Dept.
2000 Dodge Van 37942 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 15.2 2.171428571
Services Dept.
St. George Facilities & Natural
2000 Ford CTV 71015 Mar-07 LC 12.6 1.8
Services Dept. Gas
2002 Ford CTV 44053 Mar-07 LC 7.8 1.56
Services Dept. Gas
2006 Dodge Caravan SE 2727 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 0.8 0.8
Services Dept.
Services Dept.
Services Dept.
Services Dept.
28
Services Dept.
2002 Ford Windstar LX 44040 Mar-07 Gasoline PP 13 2.6
Services Dept.
2000 Ford Ranger XL 37740 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 11.1 1.585714286
Services Dept.
2001 Ford F450 DRW XL 18503 Mar-07 Diesel HC 17.1 2.85
Services Dept.
2001 Ford CTV 45381 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 42.4 7.066666667
Services Dept.
1996 Dodge Dakota 90890 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 36.4 3.309090909
Services Dept.
Services Dept.
1997 W/T Jeep 82993 Mar-07 Gasoline PP 33.2 3.32
Services Dept.
Services Dept.
2004 Ford Ranger 21775 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 6.4 2.133333333
Services Dept.
Services Dept.
2007 Chevy EXP 500 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 0.2 0.2
Services Dept.
2000 Chevy PK 74301 Mar-07 LC 21.9 3.128571429
Services Dept. Gas/Gas
2004 Ford F250 Pickup 27453 Mar-07 LC 11 3.666666667
1999 GMC Sierra 99202 Mar-07 LC 39.7 4.9625
1998 Ford Van E250 41960 Mar-07 LC 7.5 0.833333333
Services Dept. Gas
St. George Facilities & Diesel Truck
1996 Hino 78442 Mar-07 Diesel HC 72.4 6.581818182
Services Dept. FV FD2
St. George Facilities & International
2006 12988 Mar-07 Diesel HC 12 12
Services Dept. KLO
2003 Ford CTV E450 20204 Mar-07 LC 3.6 0.9
Services Dept. Gas
1998 GMC Pick Up Sierra 75284 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 30.1 3.344444444
Services Dept.
1994 Ford COF 345784 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 138.4 10.64615385
Services Dept.
29
1999 Ford CTV 55101 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 22.1 2.7625
Services Dept.
Services Dept.
2003 Ford Van 16384 Mar-07 LC 2.9 0.725
Services Dept. Gas
2006 Ford Escape Hybrid 38137 Mar-07 Gasoline PP 7.4 7.4
Services Dept.
St. George Facilities & CVP (Crown
2001 Ford 193730 Mar-07 Gasoline PP 57.1 9.516666667
Services Dept. Victoria)
2003 Dodge Caravan 17058 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 5 1.25
Services Dept.
2003 Dodge CVR 62082 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 24.8 6.2
Services Dept.
Services Dept.
2006 GMC Savana 5560 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 2.2 2.2
Services Dept.
2006 GMC Savana 3421 Mar-07 Gasoline LC 1.4 1.4
Services Dept.
1992 Ford CTV 345470 Mar-07 Diesel HC 148.7 9.913333333
Services Dept.
Parking Office 2000 Dodge Caravan 73164 2/12/2007 Gasoline LC 12 1.714285714
Parking Office 2001 Dodge Caravan 67116 2/12/2007 Gasoline LC 11 1.833333333
Parking Office 1999 Ford Pick Up 90447 2/12/2007 Gasoline LC 20.1 2.5125
Club Wagon
Faculty of Forestry 1996 Ford XLT 15 Pass. 206066 2/14/2007 Gasoline PP 45.8 4.163636364
Van
F350 S/D
Faculty of Forestry 2003 Ford Diesel LC 0
SRWW
F-Series 4X4
Hart House 2002 Ford 56000 2/12/2007 Gasoline LC 12.5 2.5
Truck
Jokers Hill 1999 Dodge Ram 71940 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 16 2
Jokers Hill 2002 Ford F250 Pickup 103098 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 22.9 4.58
Space Management 1998 GM Safari Van 83695 2/27/2007 Gasoline LC 18.6 2.066666667
Space Management 2003 GMC Savhana Van 43674 2/27/2007 Gasoline LC 9.7 2.425
Robarts Library 1992 Chevy Van 110967 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 18.2 1.213333333
Robarts Library 2003 Chevy Astro Van 18129 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 4 1
Robarts Library 2004 GMC Safari 9825 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 2.2 0.733333333
Accessibility Services Grand
1997 Plym 62945 3/1/2007 Gasoline PP 10.3 1.03
(Robarts) Voyager SE
30
UTSC Services 1999 Ford F-350 73680 2/28/2007 Gasoline HC 16.4 2.05
UTSC Services 2006 Ford F-350 7346 2/28/2007 Diesel HC 1.8 1.8
UTSC Services 1994 Ford Pickup 87869 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 19.5 1.5
UTSC Services 2003 Mitsu Fuso 11133 2/28/2007 Diesel HC 5.7 1.425
UTSC Services 2004 Ford F-250 Pick-up 27631 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 6.1 2.033333333
UTSC Services 2003 Ford Bus 10217 2/28/2007 Diesel BUS 1.9 0.475
UTSC Services 2005 Chevy Cavalier 18641 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 2.5 1.25
UTSC Services 2001 Ford Mini-bus 34454 2/28/2007 Gasoline PP 13.8 2.3
UTSC Services 1983 GMC Stationwagon 78835 2/28/2007 Gasoline PP 31.5 1.3125
UTSC Services 2002 Chevy Van 31463 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 7 1.4
UTSC Services 2002 Honda Van 22868 3/14/2007 Gasoline LC 6.7 1.34
UTSC Services 2006 Dodge Caravan 44492 2/28/2007 Gasoline LC 13.1 13.1
UTSC Services 2006 Dodge Charger (CLT) 20438 2/28/2007 Gasoline PP 3.3 3.3
UTSC Services 2002 Ford Crown Victoria 186131 2/28/2007 Gasoline PP 41.4 8.28
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 1995 Chevy Pick-up LC 0
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 1997 GMC LC 0
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 1992 Chevy Van LC 0
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 1993 Honda Civic PP 0
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 1998 GMC Savana Van LC 0
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 2001 Nissan Xterra XE PP 0
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 2001 Chevy Silverado LC 0
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 2004 Ford E-250 Van LC 0
Source: Institute for Aerospace Studies, personal communication, Feb 9, 2007.
Faculty of Medicine – Division of Comparative Medicine, personal communication, Feb 12, 2007.
Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, personal communication, Feb 13, 2007.
Faculty of Physical Education & Health, personal communication, Feb 12, 2007.
Environmental Health & Safety, personal communication, Feb 19, 2007.
Parking Office, personal communication, Feb 12, 2007.
Faculty of Forestry, personal communication, Feb 14, 2007.
Hart House, personal communication, Feb 12, 2007.
Koffler Scientific Reserve – Jokers Hill, personal communication, Feb 28, 2007.
Office of Space Management, personal communication, Feb 27, 2007.
Robarts Library, personal communication, Feb 28, 2007.
Accessibility Service, personal communications, Mar 1, 2007.
UTSC (Police & Parking Services) , personal communication, Feb 28, 2007.
University of Toronto Press, personal communication, Feb 9, 2007.
31
The above table details the vehicle fleet both assumed and received by contacts
throughout the University of Toronto. The initial list was created from the document provided
by the central insurance handler at the University of Toronto for all three campuses. Within the
table, the make, model, year, and class of the car were used to identify the expected fuel
economy from FuelEconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov). The odometer reading and
fuel type was used in conjunction with the vehicle emission calculator to give the total emissions
for the vehicles lifetime in Metric Tonnes. Lastly, the annual average emissions for each vehicle
was found by dividing the total emissions by the lifetime of the car. While there are no direct
conclusions for this table, it is the basis for all further analysis pertaining to the University of
Toronto’s vehicle fleet.
32
3.1.3: Total GHG Emissions by University-Owned Vehicle Fleet
Table 3. University of Toronto Vehicle Fleet Summary GHG Emissions
Number of Vehicles 94
Number of Vehicles Received 74
Total Lifetime Emissions (Metric Tonnes) 1368.1
Average Vehicle Lifetime (Years) 6.25675676
Average Lifetime Total Emissions (Metric Tonnes) 18.4878378
Average Annual Distance Traveled (Kilometers) 7314.606
Average Total Annual Emissions
213.368102
(Metric Tonnes/Year)
The above table details the anticipated number of vehicles to analyze (Number of
Vehicles) and the total amount of vehicles which data was received for (Number of Vehicles
Received). Total Lifetime Emissions is the summation of each individual vehicle GHG
emissions based on the odometer reading and GHG calculator. Average vehicle lifetime is the
average age of the vehicle fleet based on the current date and the year of the vehicle model. The
average annual distance traveled is also calculated using the vehicle age divided into the total
distance traveled. The total annual emission number is based on finding the average annual
GHG emission total (total emissions for each vehicle divided by lifetime) and summing them for
all vehicles.
This table reveals many key points. Firstly, the average age of the vehicle fleet is
relatively old and these vehicles might not be operating on the best available technology to
reduce emissions. Also with age, it is safe to say vehicles begin encountering more problems
which would reduce their efficiency. However, the average annual distance is indicative of their
usage in an urban environment which may maintain their life time slightly longer.
Secondly, there are significant annual emissions given the quantity of vehicles analyzed.
With this information, a benchmark has been established for annual emissions for University of
Toronto regarding GHGs.
33
The research on this indicator seeks to calculate the percentage of total lit floor area of
the three campuses of the University of Toronto that is currently covered by occupancy sensor
lighting controls. By identifying the current use of lighting controls as energy management
measures, a basis is established from which future improvements to lighting practices can be
made.
It should be noted that the research group has decided not to measure and quantify the
amount of electricity currently consumed by lighting at the university and the amount of energy
and GHG reduction achieved by occupancy sensors that are already in place. Since even a single
building often has several different models and types of lighting installed and that each type
consumes varying amount of energy, researching the energy expenditure by lighting across all
three campuses would be a lengthy undertaking beyond the available timeframe and resources.
Instead, third party reports and product specifications have been referred to in order to estimate
the proportion of energy spent due to lighting, the amount of energy saved due to sensors, and
the subsequent GHG emitted by the University of Toronto.
In the following, the method of data collection and analysis undertaken for this energy
practice is first explained. The current usage rates of occupancy sensors are then presented. The
electricity consumption by the St. George and Scarborough campuses can also be found. Finally,
the GHG emissions associated with the electricity used for lighting are listed.
3.2.1: Methodology
In order to compute the percentage of total lit floor area controlled by occupancy sensors,
it is necessary to find:
• The total floor area controlled by occupancy sensors (m2), and
34
• The total lit floor area of buildings (m2).
According to the CSAF, only classrooms, office spaces, laboratories, washrooms, and other non-
emergency and non-critical (i.e. hallways and walkways) areas are to be assessed (Sierra Youth
Coalition, 2003), because it is in these spaces that people tend to stay and activities occur (e.g.
have classes, prepare lectures, do experiments, etc.).
The percentage of spaces controlled by occupancy sensors can be obtained by dividing
the total floor area controlled by lighting sensors by the total lit floor area. The CSAF suggests
that universities should aim for at least 25% coverage as the short-term benchmark and 100%
coverage as the long-term goal (Sierra Youth Coalition, 2003). The three campuses in this study
are considered independent of each other. The data is kept separate to find the percentage of
occupancy sensors on each campus.
Interviews, via email and telephone calls, were carried out with facilities maintenance
staff and other related personnel to obtain the necessary information. As noted above in the
section introduction, Section 3.2, since the amount of electricity consumed by lighting at the
university and the amount of energy and GHG reduction associated with the use of occupancy
sensors were not measured, third party reports and product specifications have been referred to in
order to provide the necessary information.
It has been shown that lighting accounts for around 20%-40% of the electricity used in
commercial buildings (Di Stefano, 2000; Li et al., 2006), and according to Maniccia et al.
(2000), occupancy sensors can save between 17% to 60% of electricity depending on the
function of the space they are installed in. For the purpose of this project, lighting is assumed to
account for 30% of total electricity expenditure (i.e. the average of 20% and 40%). The
percentage ranges given here are used to estimate the proportion of energy spent due to lighting,
35
the amount of energy saved due to sensors, and the subsequent GHG emitted by the University
of Toronto.
3.2.2: Occupancy Sensors Lighting Control Usage Rates
This section will present current use of occupancy sensor lighting controls at the
University of Toronto. As noted above in Section 3.2.1 Methodology, data of the three
campuses are kept separate of one another. The data regarding the electricity consumption by
the St. George and Scarborough campuses can also be found.
St. George
Table 4. University of Toronto St. George Total Electricity Consumption Summary and Resulting
GHG Emissions
Source of Electricity Supply to St. George
• Approximately 75% of the electricity is generated off-site and purchased from Toronto
Hydro and Ontario Power Generation.
• The other 25% is generated on-site through co-generation.
How the Electricity is Produced
• The 75% from Toronto Hydro and the Ontario Power Generation is produced by a time-
dependent mix of nuclear power, hydro, gas & oil, imports, and a small amount of
renewable sources.
• The 25% is produced through the process of co-generation: burning natural gas to
produce electricity and heat using a co-generation turbine.
Amount of Electricity Supplied to St. George (KWH/Year)
193,426,485 KWH/Year for the period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006.
GHG Emissions as a Result of St. George Electricity Consumption (Kg CO2
Equivalent/Year & Metric Tonnes/Year)
193,426,485 KWH/Year x 0.272 Kg CO2 Equivalent/KWH = 52,612,003.92 Kg CO2
Equivalent/Year = 52612.004 Metric Tonnes/Year for the period of 1 April 2005 to 31 March
2006.
Note: The unit of 0.272 Kg CO2 Equivalent/KWH for St. George campus is calculated and provided by the
Sustainability Office.
Sources: Sustainability Office, personal communication, Jan 18, 2007.
Sustainability Office, personal communication, Mar 1, 2007.
Table 4, above, provides a summary of information about the electricity used at the
University of Toronto St. George. Between the April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, 193,426,485
KWH/Year of electricity was supplied to the University of Toronto. Approximately 75% of that
36
electricity was generated off-site and purchased from Toronto Hydro and Ontario Power
Generation. This proportion was produced by a time-dependent mix of nuclear power, hydro,
gas and oil, imports and a small number of renewable sources. The remaining 25% of electricity
consumed was generated on-site through co-generation, which entails the burning of natural gas
to produce both electricity and heat. The GHG emissions associated with the generation this
amount of electricity is 52612.004 Metric Tonnes/Year.
Table 5. University of Toronto St. George Occupancy Sensors Usage Summary and Estimated
Electricity Consumed By Lighting
Total Number of Buildings on Campus 136

Number of Buildings Assessed 32
Number of Buildings With Occupancy Sensors 2
Total Lit Floor Area of St. George Campus (m2) 937,159
Floor Area With Occupancy Sensors (m2) --
Percentage of Floor Area With Sensors --
Estimated Electricity Consumed By Lighting (KWH/Year) 58,027,946
Source: Sustainability Office, personal communication, Jan 18, 2007
Office of Space Management, personal communication, Mar 29, 2007.
The information pertaining to the current usage of occupancy sensor lighting controls at
the St. George campus is summed up in Table 5. There are136 buildings on the St. George
campus within the boundary defined for this project. Of the 32 buildings assessed for this
indicator, only two are equipped with occupancy sensor lighting controls. These buildings are:
• Sidney Smith Hall, and
• Joseph L. Rotman School of Management.
At Sidney Smith Hall, the sensors are located in the east and west entrance vestibules and on the
2nd floor east corridor within the History Department of the building. Although the Rotman
School of Management is equipped with occupancy sensors, the scheme is not in active use due
to technical problems (Property Management Group, personal communication, Feb 8, 2007).
37
The total lit floor area of the St. George campus, as defined in Section 3.2.1, is at a total
of 937,159 m2. However, since the floor area of the spaces that are covered by occupancy
sensors could not be obtained, the percentage of total lit floor area at St. George currently
controlled by occupancy sensors has not be computed.
As noted in the Section 3.2.1 Methodology, the energy needed for lighting is taken to be
30% of electricity consumption (Di Stefano, 2000; Li et al., 2006). Based on this percentage and
the amount of electricity supplied to the St. George campus, at 193,426,485 KWH/Year as
discussed in Table 4, the estimated electricity consumed by lighting at St. George is calculated
to be 58,027,946 KWH/Year.
Mississauga (UTM)
Table 6. University of Toronto Mississauga Campus Occupancy Sensors Usage Summary and

Number of Buildings With Occupancy Sensors --
Total Lit Floor Area of UTM Campus (m2) --
Floor Area With Occupancy Sensors (m2) --
Percentage of Floor Area With Sensors 0.18%
Estimated Electricity Consumed By Lighting (KWH/Year) --
Source: Environmental Affairs Office, personal communication, Feb 17, 2007.
The University of Toronto Mississauga has actually been regularly assessing its campus
according to the CSAF since 2004. The latest research for Indicator E-12 Automatic Lighting
Sensors was completed in August 2006. The percentage of lit floor area at the Mississauga
campus that is controlled by occupancy sensors is found to be 0.18%, as shown in Table 6. Of
the 23 buildings located on the UTM campus, 22 were included in the assessment. The building
not accounted for is the new library, which was still being constructed when the data was
collected.
38
The Environmental Affairs Office at the Mississauga campus is responsible for carrying
out the CSAF research there. Despite the attempts made to obtain the missing data, the
information regarding the spaces of the new library and the floor areas of buildings at UTM were
not available. Further, the amount of electricity used for lighting has not been determined since
the electricity consumption by the Mississauga campus is not known.
Table 7. University of Toronto Mississauga Campus CSAF Indicator E-12 Results
No. Indicator Measurement Units Results Short-term Long-term

Benchmark Benchmark
E-12 Automatic Total floor area (in square 0.18% At least 100%
Lighting metres) of classrooms, office 25%
Sensors spaces, laboratories,
washrooms, and other non-
emergency and non-critical
(i.e. hallways and walkways)
spaces controlled by automatic
lighting occupancy sensors,
divided by total lit floor area (in
square metres and excluding
emergency and critical areas);
multiply by 100.
Source: Environmental Affairs Office, personal communication, Feb 17, 2007.
The CSAF suggests that universities should aim for at least 25% coverage as the short-
term benchmark. Since only 0.18% of lit floor area is covered by occupancy sensors at UTM,
much remains to be done to improve the lighting practices at this campus.
39
Scarborough (UTSC)
Table 8. University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Total Electricity Consumption Summary

and Resulting GHG Emissions
Source of Electricity Supply to UTSC:

• Toronto Hydro and Ontario Power Generation.
How the Electricity is Produced
• A time-dependent mix of nuclear power, hydro, coal, gas & oil, imports, and a small amount
of renewable sources.
Amount of Electricity Supplied to UTSC (KWH/Year)
23,820,000 KWH/Year for the period of May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006.
GHG Emissions as a Result of UTSC Electricity Consumption (Kg CO2 Equivalent/Year &
Metric Tonnes/Year)
23,820,000 KWH/Year x 0.3 Kg CO2 Equivalent / KWH = 7,146,000 Kg CO2 Equivalent/Year
= 7146 Metric Tonnes/Year for the period of 1 May 2005 to 30 April 2006.
Note: The unit of 0.3 Kg CO2 Equivalent/KWH for Scarborough campus is calculated and provided by the
Sustainability Office.
Source: Sustainability Office, personal communication, Jan 18, 2007.
Sustainability Office, personal communication, Mar 1, 2007.
Scarborough campus Special Advisor to the Principal on Campus Development, personal communication,
Feb 1, 2007.
Table 8 details information related to the electricity consumption of the University of
Toronto Scarborough campus. Between the period May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006, 23,820,000
KWH/Year of electricity was supplied to the UTSC. This electricity was purchased from
Toronto Hydro and Ontario Power Generation, and is defined as a time-dependent mix of nuclear
power, hydro, gas and oil, imports, with a small number of renewable sources. The GHG
emissions associated with the generation this amount of electricity is 7146 Metric Tonnes/Year.
Table 9. University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Occupancy Sensors Usage Summary and
Number of Buildings With Occupancy Sensors 2
Total Lit Floor Area of UTSC Campus (m2) 90,367.10
Floor Area With Occupancy Sensors (m2) 2,315.85
Percentage of Floor Area With Sensors 2.56%
Estimated Electricity Consumed By Lighting (KWH/Year) 7,146,000
40
Table 9 describes the current usage of occupancy sensor lighting controls at the
University of Toronto Scarborough campus. There are 25 buildings on the UTSC campus, and
all have been assessed for this indicator. However, only two buildings are equipped with
occupancy sensor lighting controls. These buildings are:
• Arts and Administration Building, and
• Student Centre.
Both of these buildings are relatively new: the Arts and Administration Building was completed
in 2005 and the Student Centre was completed in 2004. Both buildings have also been awarded
LEED Silver certification. Occupancy sensors are installed in the classrooms and offices of the
two buildings. It has also been noted to the research group that some occupants have found the
sensors a nuance as they turned lights off even if a space was occupied. (Facilities Management,
personal communication, Mar 1, 2007).
The total lit floor area of the Scarborough campus is 90367.10 m2, and 2315.85 m2 of
space are controlled by occupancy sensors. The percentage of total lit floor area at UTSC
currently controlled by occupancy sensor lighting controls is 2.56%.
According to Table 8, the Scarborough campus consumed 23,820,000 KWH/Year of
electricity. Assuming that lighting accounts for 30% of electricity expenditure, as explained in
Section 3.2.1, the estimated amount of electricity consumed by lighting at the Scarborough
campus is 7,146,000 KWH/Year.
41
Table 10. University of Toronto Scarborough Campus CSAF Indicator E-12 Results
No. Indicator Measurement Units Results Short-term Long-term

Benchmark Benchmark
E-12 Automatic Total floor area (in square 2.56% At least 100%
Lighting metres) of classrooms, office 25%
Sensors spaces, laboratories,
washrooms, and other non-
emergency and non-critical
(i.e. hallways and walkways)
spaces controlled by automatic
lighting occupancy sensors,
divided by total lit floor area (in
square metres and excluding
emergency and critical areas);
multiply by 100.
Source: Facilities Management, personal communication, Mar 1, 2007.
2.56% of spaces at UTSC are controlled by occupancy sensor lighting controls.
Although the Scarborough campus has shown to be the most promising among the three
campuses in terms of the use of occupancy sensors, much remains to be done to reach the short-
term benchmark suggested by the CSAF.
3.2.3: Total GHG Emissions by Lighting
Table 11. Estimated GHG Emissions Due to Electricity Used By Lighting at the University of
Toronto
Estimated GHG Emissions Due to Electricity Used

15,783
By Lighting at St. George (Metric Tonnes/Year)
Estimated GHG Emissions Due to Electricity Used
2,143
By Lighting at UTSC (Metric Tonnes/Year)
Total Estimated GHG Emissions Due to Electricity
Used By Lighting at the University of Toronto 17,926
Table 11 presents the GHG emissions associated with the electricity used by lighting. St.
George campus is found to emit 15,783 Metric Tonnes/Year and 2,143 Metric Tonnes/Year is
emitted by the Scarborough campus. It should be noted that the GHG emissions calculated here
is based on the estimated electricity used by lighting as presented in Section 3.2.2. The GHG
42
emissions has not been computed for UTM since the information on the electricity consumed by
that campus can not be obtained.
3.3: Computers
The research on university-owned computers at libraries and computer labs attempts to
quantify the amount of electricity consumed by these machines across the three campuses of the
University of Toronto. The GHG emissions associated with the electricity utilized has also been
computed.
3.3.1: Methodology
Interviews through emails, telephone calls, and face-to-face meetings were used to collect
the data for this section. Additionally, secondary and primary documents were also reviewed to
obtain the relevant data.
Information pertaining to total campus electricity consumption patterns, names of
buildings, name of libraries and computer labs, number and type of computers at each location,
Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) or Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) monitors, age of computers, number
of hours on and off, purpose of use of computers, and GHG per KWH for each campus was
collected for the research of this indicator.
The European Energy Star Program’s energy calculator for personal computer (PC) is
used to calculate computer electricity consumption by the three campuses of the University of
Toronto. GHG emissions per KWH for each campus, a conversion unit provided by the
Sustainability Office, was used to calculate GHG emissions from the collected data. Most of the
calculations regarding electricity consumption in this section refer to Table 4 and Table 8
located in Section 3.2.2.
43
The total electricity consumption by all computers in libraries and computer labs at the
St. George, Mississauga, and Scarborough campuses were calculated as follows:
1. For the St. George and Mississauga campuses, the electricity consumption for each
computer type (i.e. desktop and laptop) was calculated using the European Energy
Star Program’s energy calculator for PC equipment. This calculator calculates the
electricity consumption per year for a computer that is on for 24 hours by
automatically accounting for the average number of hours a computer goes into
inactive sleep mode during the day when not used. The number of hours a computer
is assumed to be on active mode in the calculator was set as 14, based on the general
operating hours of the university (i.e. between 8 am to 10 pm). Conversely, the
number of hours a computer assumes sleep mode during the night was set at 10 in the
calculator, again based on the general operating hours of the university (i.e. from 10
pm to 8 am). For the computers that were specified to be either on or off during 24
hours, the calculator has calculated the total electricity consumption per year based on
these hours. The calculator does not account for the number of holidays in a year.
Therefore, the number of holidays when the university is closed and a computer is in
sleep mode for all of the 24 hours was used as 61 days (52 Sundays and 9 statutory
holidays in a year). Libraries and computer labs researched are generally closed on
Sundays. The active mode energy consumption for the 61 holidays was calculated
based on active mode energy consumption figures provided by the calculator and the
result was subtracted from the total electricity consumption figure per year provided
by the calculator to get an accurate final figure for the electricity consumption of a
computer. This final figure was then multiplied by the total number of computers of a
44
particular type in each location to get the total electricity consumption by computers
at that location. The electricity consumptions of all locations were then added to
obtain the grand total for libraries and computer labs for each campus.
2. Since the computers in Scarborough campus libraries and computer labs are of
specific types (Dell Optiplex, SunRay150, SunRay170, Shuttle, and iMac), the KW of
electricity consumption by a computer of each type was provided by the person from
whom the data was collected. Therefore, the European Energy Star Program’s energy
calculator for PC equipment was not used to calculate electricity consumption of
Scarborough campus computers and, therefore, the results for this campus do not
account for the sleep mode computer electricity consumption for holidays as well as
other days of the year. The KWH/Year electricity consumption for one computer of
each type at Scarborough campus was calculated by multiplying the KW of electricity
consumption by the total number of hours the computer is on per day and then this
amount was multiplied by the total number of days in one year to get KWH/Year
electricity consumption. Similar to St. George and Mississauga campuses, the final
figure of KWH/Year electricity consumption for a computer of a specific type was
then multiplied by the total number of computers of that type to get total KWH/Year
of computer electricity consumption by all computers of each type. The KWH/Year
electricity consumptions of all computers were then added to get the grand total
KWH/Year for libraries and computer labs of Scarborough campus.
3. GHG emissions per year as a result of total computer electricity consumption per year
at all three campuses was calculated by multiplying total KWH/Year for computers
by the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per KWH (in Kg CO2 Equivalent/KWH)
45
by each campus (already calculated and provided by the Sustainability Office) to get
Kg CO2 Equivalent/Year, which was then converted into Metric Tonnes/Year.
4. The percentage of both St. George and Scarborough campuses computer electricity
consumption per year was calculated by dividing the total KWH/Year for computers
by total KWH/Year for the campus electricity use and then multiplied by hundred.
5. Percentage of computer GHG emissions per year at both St. George and Scarborough
campuses was calculated by dividing Metric Tonnes/Year for computers by Metric
Tonnes/Year for the campus total electricity use and then multiplied by hundred.
The St. George and Scarborough campuses GHG emissions as a result of total electricity
consumption per year was calculated by multiplying the total amount of electricity consumption
in KWH/Year by the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per KWH (in Kg CO2
Equivalent/KWH) by each campus (already calculated and provided by the Sustainability Office)
to get Kg CO2 Equivalent/Year, which was then converted to Metric Tonnes/Year. The unit Kg
CO2 Equivalent/Year was used in the calculation of GHG emissions for two reasons: first, it is
the unit of provided GHG emissions per KWH at each campus and, second, because it is an
easily understandable unit and it accounts for the total amount of all different greenhouse gases,
including CO2, in Kg CO2 Equivalent/Year. However, this amount was converted into Metric
Tonnes/Year to keep the units of the results consistent with the result units of vehicles and
lighting sensors. Due to lack of response by personnel who have the information for total
electricity consumption per year, the data for the Mississauga campus could not be obtained for
analysis.
46
3.3.2: Computer Use Patterns at Libraries and Computer Labs
Table 12. Summary Table for University of Toronto St. George Campus Libraries Computers Electricity Consumption Patterns and
Subsequent GHG Emissions
Electricity
LCD or Amount of Time Amount of Time
Number of Type of Consumption
Building Library CRT On Off
Computers Computers by Computers
Monitors (Hours) (Hours)
(KWH/Year)
Faculty of Architecture
15 Desktop LCD 24 0 6237.12
Architecture Library
Earth
Noranda
Sciences 17 Desktop CRT 24 0 9167.556
Library
Centre
St. Michael's J. M. Kelly 51 CRT &
87 Desktop 24 0 42471.756
College Library 36 LCD
Pontifical
St. Michael's Institute of 12 CRT & 4 Computers: 10 4 Computers: 14
13 Desktop 6887.024
College Mediaeval 1 LCD 9 Computers: 24 9 Computers: 0
Studies Library
52 LCD & 64763.456
Total 4 4 132 132 N/A N/A
80 CRT KWH/Year
Total
Greenhouse
17615.660 Kg
Gas
CO2
Emissions by
Equivalent/Year
Computers N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
=
(Kg CO2
17.616 Metric
Equivalent/Ye
Tonnes/Year
ar & Metric
Tonnes/Year)
Percentage of
Computer
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0335 %
Electricity
Consumption
Percentage of
Computer
Greenhouse N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0335 %
Gas
Emissions
47
Table 13. Summary Table for University of Toronto St. George Campus Computer Labs Computers Electricity Consumption Patterns
and Subsequent GHG Emissions (table c is continued onto next page)
Electricity
LCD or Amount of Amount of
Building Computer Lab CRT Time On Time Off
(KWH/Year)
Ramsay
Wright CQUEST Lab
27 Desktop CRT 24 0 14560.236
Zoological 1
Laboratories
Ramsay
Wright CQUEST Lab
46 Desktop LCD 24 0 19127.168
Zoological 2
Laboratories
Earth
CQUEST Lab
Sciences 24 Desktop CRT 24 0 12942.432
3
Centre
Physical Geography
11 Desktop CRT 24 0 5931.948
Geography Lab
Architecture
Faculty of
Computer 35 Desktop LCD 24 0 14553.28
Architecture
Lab
Engineering
Various
Computing
Engineering 360 Desktop CRT 24 0 194136.48
Facility Lab
Buildings
(ECF)
Mechanical &
115 CRT
Industrial
MIE Lab 136 Desktop & 24 0 70747.788
Engineering
21 LCD
(MIE)
Material
Science
MSE Lab 20 Desktop CRT 24 0 10785.36
Engineering
(MSE)
Engineering
20 CRT &
Science EngSci Lab 48 Desktop 24 0 22427.984
28 LCD
(EngSci)
48
Electrical
17
Electrical Undergraduat
Notebooks
Engineering e 18 LCD 4 20 976.434
&
(ECE) Commerce
1 Desktop
Lab
Civil
Engineering CIV Lab 41 Desktop CRT 24 0 22109.988
(CIV)
Chemical
Engineering CHE Lab 47 Desktop CRT 24 0 25345.596
(CHE)
796
148 LCD
Desktops & 413644.694
Total 12 12 813 & 665 N/A N/A
17 KWH/Year
CRT
Notebooks
Total Greenhouse 112511.3568 Kg CO2

Gas Emissions by Equivalent/Year
Computers (Kg CO2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A =
Equivalent/Year & 112.511 Metric
Metric Tonnes/Year) Tonnes/Year
Percentage of
Computer Electricity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.214 %
Consumption
Percentage of
Computer
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.214 %
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Note: The calculations were done using standard Physics and Mathematics equations.
Sources for Table 12 and Table 13: Sustainability Office, personal communication, 18 January 2007.
Sustainability Office, personal communication, 1 March 2007.
Faculty of Architecture, personal communication, 23 February 2007.
Noranda Library, personal communication, 7 March 2007.
St. Michael’s College, personal communication, 20 March 2007.
CQUEST Labs, personal communication, January and February 2007.
Physical Geography Department, personal communication, 19 February 2007.
Engineering Computing Facility, personal communication, 20 February 2007.
49
Table 14. Summary Table for University of Toronto Mississauga Campus Library Computers Electricity Consumption Patterns and
Subsequent GHG Emissions
Electricity
LCD or Amount of Time Amount of Time
Building Library CRT On Off
(KWH/Year)
Hazel
McCallion 178
UTM 206 LCD 178 Computers: 24 178 Computers: 0
Academic 208 Desktops & 75954.034
Library & 2 CRT 30 Computers: 18 30 Computers: 6
Learning 30 Laptops
Centre
75954.034
Total 1 1 208 208 208 N/A N/A
KWH/Year

Gas Emissions by Equivalent/Year
Computers (Kg CO2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A =
Equivalent/Year & 22.786 Metric
Metric Tonnes/Year) Tonnes/Year
Cannot be calculated
Percentage of
due to missing data
Computer
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (KWH/Year of
Electricity
electricity supplied to
Consumption
UTM).
Cannot be calculated
Percentage of
due to missing data
Computer
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (KWH/Year of
Greenhouse Gas
electricity supplied to
Emissions
UTM).
Sources: Sustainability Office, personal communication, 1 March 2007.
Mississauga campus Library Systems Technologist in the Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre, personal communication, 28 March 2007.
50
Table 15. Summary Table for University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Library and Computer Labs Computers Electricity
Electricity
Library/ LCD or Amount of Amount of
Building Computer CRT Time On Time Off
Lab Monitors (Hours) (Hours)
(KWH/Year)
Baldwin PC Dell Optiplex

Wing, GX620: 241
Academic UTSC Library SunRay 150: 179
441858.78
Resource & Computer 492 SunRay 170: 20 LCD 24 0
Centre, Labs Shuttle SK43G:
& Science 19
Wing iMacs: 33
1 Library & 3
441858.78 KWH/Year
Total 3 Computer 492 492 492 N/A N/A
Labs
Gas Emissions (Kg Equivalent/Year
CO2 Equivalent/Year N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A =
& Metric 132.558 Metric
Tonnes/Year) Tonnes/Year
Percentage of
Computer Electricity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.855 %
Consumption
Percentage of
Computer
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.855 %
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Sources: Sustainability Office, personal communication, 18 January 2007.
Sustainability Office, personal communication, 1 March 2007.
Scarborough campus Special Advisor to the Principal on Campus Development, personal communication, 1 February 2007.
Scarborough campus Special Advisor to the Principal on Campus Development, personal communication, 1 March 2007.
51
It should be noted that for the St. George campus, the data for all libraries and computer
labs could not be collected due to the lack of time and response by personnel with the required
information. The data for Mississauga campus computer labs could not be collected mainly due
to lack of response by personnel who have the required information.
In reference to Table 4 and Table 8 in Section 3.2.2, the amount of total electricity
supplied to St. George and Scarborough campuses per year was found in order to compute the
percentage of computer electricity consumption per year. Similarly, the amount of greenhouse
gas emissions as a result of each campus’ total electricity consumption per year was calculated in
order to find out the percentage of computer greenhouse gas emissions per year.
The data on the type of computers, LCD or CRT monitors, purpose of use, amount of
time on/off (in hours), and age of computers (in years) was collected to get an overview of the
current computer use patterns at the libraries and computer labs of all three campuses.
The data on the names of buildings, libraries, and computer labs was collected to find out
computers at which locations consume more electricity compared to other locations. Other data,
like number of computers in particular locations, type of computers, LCD or CRT monitors, age
of computers, purpose of use, and time on/off of computers, indicate why some locations have
more electricity consumption than others and are also the basis for recommendations on how to
reduce electricity utilization. As can be seen from the data tables, the locations where computers
are on less and where LCD monitors are present consume less electricity than other locations.
Data on the number of computers and on the amount of time on/off is also used in calculations of
total electricity consumption by computers in computer labs and libraries.
52
3.3.3: Total GHG Emissions by University-Owned Computers at Libraries and Computer
Labs
Table 16. Total GHG Emissions for the Computers of Libraries and Computer Labs of all Three
University of Toronto Campuses
St. George Campus Libraries Computer GHG

17.616
Emissions (Metric Tonnes/Year)
St. George Campus Computer Labs Computer GHG
112.511
Emissions (Metric Tonnes/Year)
Mississauga Campus Libraries GHG Emissions
22.786
Scarborough Campus Libraries & Computer Labs
132.558
GHG Emissions (Metric Tonnes/Year)
Total GHG Emissions for Libraries and Computer
Labs of all Three University of Toronto Campuses 285.471
Table 16 presents the total GHG emissions by university-owned computers in libraries
and computer labs at the University of Toronto. The total GHG emissions associated with
computer use across the three campuses is 285.471 Metric Tonnes/Year. However, it should be
noted that the data set is only complete for the Scarborough campus. The information regarding
a number of libraries and computer labs at the St. George campus and those of the computer labs
at the Mississauga campus could not be collected due a lack of response during the research
process.
53
4. COMPARISON TO OTHER CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES
This section describes how the University of Toronto compares to other Canadian
universities in the three energy practices studied in this project. The methodology on how the
comparisons were made is first explained. Information on the leading universities in energy
consumption for university-owned vehicles, the use of occupancy sensor lighting controls, and
university-owned computers is shown in the following. Additionally, the recommendations on
how the University of Toronto can benefit from other Canadian universities are also given.
4.1: Methodology
The main instruments used are primary documents and interviews through emails, phone
calls, and face-to-face meetings. The assessments of university-owned vehicle fleet and
occupancy sensor lighting control have been carried out by other universities under the CSAF
guidelines. Some of the universities have not provided exact numbers in their results for these
two indicators. However, they have stated specific explanations within the assessment contents
for the absence of numbers.
Although some universities have mentioned the energy consumption of computers, the
research on the energy consumption of university-owned computers is undertaken independent
and in addition to the CSAF – therefore a non-CSAF indicator. Hence, no other university has
provided a complete assessment on this aspect in their reports. The absence of numerical data
for computers is mainly due to the lack of research resources in the universities assessed. Thus,
the University of Toronto was the first university to conduct a comprehensive energy assessment
on energy consumption of university-owned computers.
After all the data was collected, they were categorized into three groups: energy
consumption of university-owned vehicle fleet (E-6 as listed in CSAF), energy consumption by
54
occupancy sensor lighting controls (E-12), and energy consumption of university-owned
computers (non-CSAF indicator). The numerical data gathered for this research project was
organized according to these three categories. The data is categorized in this manner to make the
comparison between different universities more comprehensible.
The following is a detailed analysis on the methods used in assessment of CSAF and non-
CSAF indicators by other universities.
4.1.1 Non-CSAF Universities
This section is designed to compare the University of Toronto’s sustainability of energy
consumption in the aforementioned three aspects with those of other Canadian universities. Data
collection started by looking at all major Canadian universities. Primary documents on campus
environmental practices were collected from university homepages and the SYC’s website.
Thereafter, 19 universities were selected from the large pool of universities. The selection was
based on which universities had completed an assessment of the sustainability of energy related
practices. The 19 universities selected were then further narrowed down and three universities
were chosen. The criterion for this selection was: universities that have done environmental
practices particularly in at least one of the three aspects this project focuses on and the benefits
the University of Toronto can gain from the assessment and recommendations of these
universities. The three Canadian universities studied are:
• Mount Allison University – The Environmental Audit Document (1998) for this
university provides recommendations on possible methods to decrease the energy
consumption of the university, especially in computer and lighting categories. Also, the
report gives detailed information on alternative, more sustainable energy sources.
• York University – The Report of the President’s Task Force on Sustainability (2000)
55
offers recommendations on energy management, especially for vehicle.
• University of Calgary – The University of Calgary Environmental Report (2000-2001)
gives information on occupancy sensor lighting control category as it relates to increasing
the energy efficiency for new buildings.
4.1.2 CSAF Universities
All eight assessments done by other Canadian universities, as part of the Sierra Youth
Coalition’s Sustainable Campuses Program, were reviewed. However, only four of them were
selected to be studied in detail for the purpose of campus comparison. The reasons for not
choosing the other four assessments are:
• UTM – Our project is assessing the sustainability of three campuses of the University of
Toronto, which includes UTM. Therefore, the previous assessment done by UTM was
not included.
• University of Guelph – The assessment done by the University of Guelph only gives
information on energy consumption in one building. However, our research scope is all
the three campuses of the University of Toronto. Therefore, it is not appropriate to
compare only one building with three campuses.
• Royal Roads University – The assessment done by Royal Roads University does not
provide any data on energy consumption.
• Pearson College – Our project compares energy consumption from Canadian
Universities. Therefore, colleges are excluded.
As a result, only four assessments were selected. The selected universities and their
assessments are:
56
• University of Concordia
Concordia University Campus Sustainability Assessment (2003).
• University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI)
UPEI’s First Campus Sustainability Assessment (2005).
• University of New Brunswick
University of New Brunswick CSAF-Ecological Sections (2004).
• University of McGill
McGill CSAF Ecosystem Assessment (2005).
4.2: Best Practices
This section shows the leading universities in energy consumption for campus-owned
ground vehicle fleet, occupancy sensor lighting controls, and university-owned computers by
comparing each set of data in the tables.
Table 17. Best Practices in Energy Consumption for Vehicles
University GHG (in Tonnes/CCM)

University of Toronto 0.0035
Concordia 0.0066
New Brunswick 0.0094
McGill N/A
UPEI N/A
Note: The term CCM is defined as Campus Community Members.
The data collected above is from different years for each university. The project still uses them for comparison
to draw a general picture of energy consumption for other universities.
Sources: These data were collected from assessments done by other universities posted on the Sierra Youth
Coalition website <http://www.syc-cjs.org>
University of Concordia: Concordia University Campus sustainability 2003 Assessment, 2003
University of New Brunswick: University of New Brunswick CSAF-Ecological Sections 2004
University of McGill: McGill CSAF Ecosystem Assessment 2005
UPEI: UPEI’s First Campus sustainability assessment 2005
This indicator is labeled as E-6 in the CSAF. By looking at the assessments done by the
57
above universities, the above numerical data was gathered. This indicator is calculated by
dividing the total energy(of all types) consumed in Giga Joules for all university-owned ground
vehicle fleet, converted into GHG equivalent emissions (in Tonnes), and divided by the total
number of CCM (campus community members) in that year (Cole, 2003). As can be seen from
Table 17, above, the University of Toronto is the best Canadian university in energy
consumption for university-owned ground vehicle fleet, with 0.0035 Tonnes/CCM GHG
emissions. On the other hand, Concordia University and New Brunswick University are also
leading universities and have 0.0066 and 0.0094 Tonnes/CCM GHG emissions respectively.
Concordia University has a long term vehicle emissions reduction plan. McGill University and
the University of Prince Edward Island were not able to give exact data on this indicator due to
the lack of a tracking system to collect the data needed.
Table 18. Best Practices in Energy Consumption for Lighting
Percentage of Floor Area Covered By

University
Occupancy Sensors
University of Toronto 2.14%
UPEI 2%
New Brunswick <1%
McGill N/A
Concordia N/A
Notes: The above data for the University of Toronto is only for Mississauga and Scarborough campuses. The data
for St.George campus is still incomplete. It can be filled by future researchers. However, the current data
for Mississauga and Scarborough campuses can give readers a general picture of how the University of
Toronto is performing.
The data for the University of Toronto is calculated using formula: (total floor area covered by automatic
lighting sensors in UTM & UTSC divided by total area in UTM & UTSC)*100
The above data collected above range in different years. The project still uses them for comparison to draw
a general picture of energy consumption for other universities
Sources: These data were collected from assessments done by other universities posted on Sierra Youth Coalition
website. <http://www.syc-cjs.org>
UPEI: UPEI’s First Campus sustainability assessment 2005
University of New Brunswick: University of New Brunswick CSAF-Ecological Sections 2004
University of McGill: McGill CSAF Ecosystem Assessment 2005
University of Concordia: Concordia University Campus sustainability 2003 Assessment, 2003
58
This indicator is labeled as E-12 in the CSAF. By looking at the assessments done by
the above universities, the numerical data for the automatic lighting sensors energy consumption
were gathered. This indicator is calculated by dividing the total floor area (in m2) of university
owned and maintained spaces controlled by automatic lighting sensors by the total lit floor area,
this value is then multiplied by 100 (Cole, 2003). The data was categorized in a table for easy
comparison. As shown in Table 18, the University of Toronto is the leading institution for this
indicator with 2.14% of total floor area occupied by automatic lighting sensors. However, this
data is only calculated for the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses as the data set is
incomplete for the St. George campus, as explained in Section 3.2.2. On the other hand, as
shown in the table, total floor area covered by automatic lighting sensors in UPEI is 2%. This is
mainly because new buildings are built with energy efficiency functions in terms of automatic
lighting sensors (UPEI Assessment, 2005).
4.2.3: Computers
As can be seen from Section 3.3, the GHG emission of 285.471 Metric Tonnes/Year for
the period between 2005 and 2006 is caused by the electricity consumption of university-owned
computers in libraries and computer labs. Since energy consumption of university-owned
computers is not listed on the CSAF, as discussed in the methodology section, none of the
Canadian universities studied above provide numerical data for the energy consumption of
university-owned computers in their assessments. The research group attempted to fill this data
gaps by contacting the environmental departments, facilities, and sustainability offices of these
universities. However, no accurate data could be gathered. As mentioned in the methodology,
the research group is confident to state that the University of Toronto is the first Canadian
university to make an assessment on energy consumption for university-owned computers.
59
However, the universities contacted did provide general information on energy consumption of
computers in their assessments. Concordia University, in its assessment, has mentioned that it is
hard to estimated energy consumption of computers mainly because of lack of effective tools to
track turn-on and turn-off times overnight (Concordia Assessment, 2003). Mount Allison
University mentioned that 90% of the energy of computers in the university is being wasted
because computers remain on overnight (Environmental Reports, 2000). New Brunswick
University was unsure of the exact numbers due to the number of students and faculty who have
their own personnel computers. However, they have calculated the cost of continual running of
these machines over a 24 hour period to be up to $200,000 (Sustainability Audit, 2004).
4.3: How the University of Toronto Can Learn from Leading Canadian Universities
The following sub-section shows information on where the University of Toronto stands
in comparison with other leading Canadian Universities. Furthermore, recommendations on how
the University of Toronto can learn from the practices of other leading universities are also
given.
4.3.1: Vehicles
Based on the comparison data, the University of Toronto is a leader for this indicator as
compared to the above four leading universities. The following are energy saving methods of the
four leading Canadian Universities that the University of Toronto can learn from:
• Setting up a utilities and energy conservation department specifically for university-
owned vehicle fleet in the University of Toronto can help the full implementation of
energy efficiency measures for these vehicles. In fact, Concordia University is an
example for this. Concordia University consumes the smallest unit of energy among all
60
the six universities in Quebec (Campus Sustainability, 2003). The main reason for this is
implementing energy saving methods organized by the Utilities and Energy Conservation
Department. Therefore, the University of Toronto should also have a department or an
office in the Sustainability Office that focuses on promoting and planning the sustainable
energy practices in campus-owned vehicle fleet.
• Having a vehicle tracking system that can give information about mileage and gas
consumption of vehicle fleet is also essential for the University of Toronto. With such a
system, the university can also track the drivers' behaviours. In fact, the University of
New Brunswick is building this system for measuring energy consumption of vehicles
(New Brunswick Assessment, 2004). However, since the University of Toronto is the
biggest university in Canada, building such a tracking system is expected to take a long
time. Therefore, setting up a long term plan for building this tracking system is
necessary.
• Considering the use of alternative fuel technologies, such as bio-diesel and hybrid electric
vehicles. Due to a large amount of vehicles for a large university as the University of
Toronto, the university may begin using alternative fuels for a portion of the campus
owned vehicles. Upgrading current vehicles with one or more hybrid vehicles, battery-
powered maintenance vehicles, and bio-diesel power equipment are other alternatives.
Concordia University has already used some alternative fuels for a small number of their
vehicles (Concordia Assessment, 2003). Current fuels can be replaced with alternative
fuels every school year according to a long term plan.
61
4.3.2: Lighting Controls
Based on the collected data, the University of Toronto is the top Canadian University
with the most total floor area covered by automatic lighting sensors. Although the University of
Toronto is the best in this aspect, 2.14% is still far from the short term CSAF benchmark of 25%,
and the long term benchmark of 100% floor area coverage. Therefore, the research group
suggests the following energy saving methods by other leading Canadian Universities that the
University of Toronto can learn from:
• Ensuring that new buildings are built with floor areas covered by automatic lighting
sensors. Although the University of Toronto uses its own sustainable design standards
instead of specific LEED guidelines, the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses are
beginning to incorporate LEED certification into their construction projects. The
University of Toronto should utilize this green building feature for all three campuses.
The University of Calgary can be an example in building energy efficient buildings by
use of automatic lighting sensors (Environmental Report, 2001-2002).
• The University of Toronto can also learn from the recommendations made in the
assessments done by the Concordia University for the automatic lighting sensors. For
instance, installing new reflectors to improve the efficiency of light fixtures and use of
natural light as much as possible (Concordia Assessment, 2003).
4.3.3: Computers
The University of Toronto is the leading Canadian University in research on energy
consumption of university-owned computers. No other Canadian Universities contacted by the
research group were able to provide numerical data for energy consumption of computers. As
discussed in the methodology part, the research group is confident that the University of Toronto
62
is the first Canadian university to conduct an assessment on energy consumption of university-
owned computers. According to the assessment done for this project, the University of Toronto
consumes 996,220.964 KWH/Year of energy for the university-owned library and computer lab
computers. The following energy saving methods is recommended by the research group to
reduce energy consumption of computers:
• Shutting down computers in most libraries and labs overnight and programming them so
that they enter into sleep mode during the day when not in use.
• Change CRT monitors into LCD monitors.
63
5. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
The recommendations made to the University of Toronto based are based on both
environmental and economic factors. Environmental benefits will be expressed in terms of
reduction of annual greenhouse gas emission and through the reduction in energy usage.
Monetary costs and benefits will be expressed in Canadian dollars. Throughout this section, the
discount value will be used for the monetary costs and benefits analysis. More detailed
explanations about the discount value will be discussed in Appendix B.
5.1: Vehicles
Transportation has always been a primary consumer of global energy. A major part of the
transportation system depends heavily on fossil fuel. Vehicles emission from fossil fuel burning
is considered as one of the largest contribution to global greenhouse gas. A decline in the global
fossil fuel reserve, effects of air pollution caused by fossil fuel and the growing public concern
regarding sustainability lead to the development of and need for more energy efficient and lower
emission vehicles.
5.1.1: Hybrid Vehicles
Hybrid vehicles are currently the hot topic within the alternative fuel vehicle industry.
While not changing the standard, hybrid vehicles use a system of batteries to power vehicles at
low speeds while the gasoline engine charges the battery – fitting for the urban environment.
These vehicles also use various technologies to generate power for the vehicle beyond gasoline
and batteries. One such system is regenerative braking which converts energy otherwise lost to
heat back into power for the batteries. Other technologies include solar panels to power small
electronics on board the vehicle. Because of these qualities, fuel availability, and the market
64
availability compared to other vehicle classes, the hybrid car would be the optimum choice for
the University of Toronto at this point.
Make & Model
The Toyota Highlander Hybrid 2007 was selected for the purposes of this analysis
because of its excellent fuel economy compared to other hybrids on FuelEconomy.gov. Also,
this class of vehicle is one of the most prevalent in the vehicle fleet, making it strong for
comparison. Other hybrid vehicles of additional vehicle classes are available on the market and
should be considered when selecting replacement vehicles based on practicality.
The Highlander could be used to replace 54 vehicles in the analysed fleet. Given the
average annual totals for distance, emissions, and fuel economy (Table 3), replacing these
vehicles could result in a decrease of GHG emissions by 45.1 metric tonnes per year. This
would reduce the annual analysed fleet emissions by 21%. Vehicles which did not use gasoline
or fit into the light commercial category were excluded from these numbers and should be
considered for comparable benefits in their respective categories.
The comparison used for the costs and benefits analysis is between the above Toyota
Highlander and the Dodge Caravan. It should be noted that the Toyota Hybrid is an SUV while
the Dodge Caravan is a van. We could not find a comparable hybrid van for comparison because
the only currently known hybrid van is the Toyota Sienna which is expected to be available on
the market in 2008 (www.HybridCars.com, 2007).
65
Specifications for vehicle fleet come from the U.S. Department of Energy on fuel
economy (www.fueleconomy.gov, 2007). Manufacturers of the respective vehicles provided
price for brand-new vehicles for the year 2007. A tax rebate of $2,000 has been applied to the
price of the Toyota Highlander in according to the tax rebate for hybrid vehicles in Ontario. Fuel
price used in calculation is the average fuel price in Ontario during the past years and was
collected from Ontario Ministry of Energy (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2006). Annual mileage
is selected to be 20,000 KM based on the manufacturer’s maintenance coverage for the vehicles
which is 60,000KM or 3 years.
Table 19. Summary Comparison Table of Dodge Caravan and Toyota Highlander
Annual Fuel Annual Cost Total Benefits or

Vehicle and Mileage Discount
Year Consumption of Fuel Accumulated Costs From
Price (KM) factor
(L) (Discounted) Costs Switching
Dodge 1 20000 2476 $2171.45 1 $31,476.45 $0
Caravan
($29,305) 25 20000 2476 $846.87 0.39 $64,547.66 $0
Toyota 1 20000 1518 $1331.29 1 $44,181.29 -$12,704.84
Highlander
($42,850.00) 25 20000 1518 519.2 0.39 $64,456.77 $90.89
The Toyota Highlander saves on average 958 liters of fuel, an equivalent of 0.03 metric
tonnes of CO2, per year compare to the Dodge Caravan. The University of Toronto is expected to
pay $12,704.84 more on the first year if it decides to purchase the low emission, hybrid vehicle.
On the other hand, the Dodge Caravan would an additional cost of $860.16 annually to fuel for
the university. The money saving on fuel decreases over the year due to the discount factor. If
nothing changes over the years, it would take approximately 25 years for the savings from fuel of
the Toyota Highlander to offset its high price in comparison to the Dodge Caravan. In other
words, if the Toyota Highlander is purchased this year (2007), then by the year 2032, the benefits
from fuel savings will be high enough to make the purchase economically beneficial. It should be
66
noted that during the span of 25 years, the Toyota Highlander will use 23,950 liters of fuel less
than the Dodge Caravan. This is equivalent to a lower amount of 57.1 metric tonnes of CO2
emission over the years per vehicle.
There are other factors that may influence both results of the costs and benefits analysis.
They are: demand and supply of vehicles, price of fuel, government tax incentives for hybrid
electric vehicles and technological innovations.
The price of the Toyota Highlander might be higher than what it should be because of
higher mark-up price given by Toyota. Future prices of hybrid vehicles will be lower. High
demand for hybrid vehicles caused high price for the vehicles. Based on news archives from
HybridCars.com (HybridCars.com, 2007), there is a very high demand for hybrid vehicles within
the United States. Particularly, demand for hybrid vehicles increased rapidly after the oil price
shock of 2004-2006 (Wikipedia, 2007). Some economists pointed out that it is possible that the
hybrid vehicle demand has been exaggerate by high gasoline price and the effect should slow
down as the price becomes lower (Haan et al., 2007). Segmentation within the hybrid vehicle
market caused the price to become higher than normal. Some consumers are fairly inelastic (i.e.
non-responsive to changes in price) in their demand for hybrid vehicles. The change in gasoline
price does not seem to affect the purchase power of these consumers. On the other hand,
consumers who are more interested in fuel economy have refrained from buying hybrid vehicles
as the gasoline price decline. This has been shown in the declining sales of fuel efficient vehicles
but not vehicles aimed to reduce green house gas emissions (HybridCars.com, 2007). This
implies, price changes overall might not affect the demand for hybrid vehicles as much as other
types vehicles. Since the demand is inelastic, the consumers are not responsive to the changes in
price. Even when the price is increased, the demand for the vehicles does not drop. Hence,
67
producers are more likely going to take advantage of rigidity of the demand and raise their price;
thus the result from such demand is higher mark-up price for hybrid vehicles.
Aside from vehicle price, gasoline price is what ultimately determines the decision in
purchasing a hybrid electric vehicle or normal one. If the price of fuel becomes 30% higher then
it would only take 18 years for the Toyota Highlander to pay off. Fluctuation in gasoline price is
wide and difficult to evaluate for future price reference. This analysis assumed the price of
gasoline remains constant over time with only the discounting factor affects it. Fuel price should
be rising over time given the current conditions. Global consumption of oil has risen steadily
over the last few years and the demand for oil had become higher than predicted (Federal Trade
Commission, 2005). The direction of oil price should steadily increase over time due to high
demand. This means the university may want to consider using a low fuel consumption vehicle
to save the costs on gasoline. The following table shows the history of fuel price in the U.S.A.
Gasoline consumption steadily rose from 1980 to 2004. Even though the price of fuel does not
change with the consumption over the years but from the year 2000 to 2004, the price begins to
show signs of moving into the direction with the increase in gasoline consumption.
68
Figure 4. U.S Annual Average Gasoline Consumption and Real Gasoline Price
Source: Federal Trade Commission, 2005.
High initial cost of purchasing the Toyota Highlander Hybrid combine with the span of
twenty five years, an excessively long time for a vehicle, reduce the appeal of hybrid vehicles
due to low usage of the vehicles overall. The longest vehicle used by the University of Toronto is
from 1983-2007 (24 years) according to the data in Section 3.1. Average age of vehicles on the
University of Toronto is only 6.3 years and the average mileage is 7,314.6 KM a year which is
less than half of the mileage used in the calculation. However, this does not mean that the option
of purchasing the Toyota Highlander Hybrid should be rejected. The above costs and benefits
analysis only take monetary values into account. The environmental benefits of CO2 reduction
do not have a dollar value but are vital to many other aspects of a sustainable operation.
69
The transition to hybrid vehicles is a reasonable decision given the data provided. It is
recommended that the University of Toronto take a graduated approach to reap the
environmental benefits while accounting for the economic drawbacks.
The analyzed fleet consists of 54 vehicles which are similar to the recommended hybrid
and could be replaced. Given the average age of the fleet is over six years old, it is advised that
the oldest vehicles be replaced first. The oldest vehicles do not have the environmental
advantages of new technology and degrade over time. Additionally, frequently used vehicles
should be considered for replacement as well considering that greater usage gives greater
emissions. Lastly, new additions which expand the fleet should be hybrid vehicles for the same
reasons mentioned above. Therefore, given the economic hindrances (Section 5.1.1.1) and the
environmental benefits (Section 5.1.1.1), the greatest reward can be had through this strategy.
5.1.2: Additional Recommendations:
A set of additional recommendations has also been put together. Given the multitude of
possibilities available today, additional short and long term options might be more feasible for
the University of Toronto and are presented below.
5.1.2.1: Ethanol Family
Ethanol fueled vehicles are currently garnering much attention amongst developing
technologies. This fuel type is often used in tandem with gasoline. Low percentage mixtures
(between 0 and 20%) are currently available on the market and can be used in all engines without
modification. Recent Ontario legislature has mandated all gasoline be sold with 5% ethanol
70
content (Johnstone, 2006). Further recommendations at this level would be to identify low
percentage ethanol stations which can provide fuel to the vehicle fleet.
At the other end of the spectrum are ethanol based fuels which current consumer engines
could not directly use. These fuels contain above 20% ethanol, with a focus between 85% (E85)
and 100% pure ethanol. Given the current popularity of ethanol based fuels, long term planning
and development for vehicle upgrades should keep this option into account based on both fuel
and vehicle availability.
High alcohol blends (M100 (methanol), E95, E93) have significantly less particulate
matter emissions compared to diesel fuels, though it falls behind natural gas (Wang – 1997) Due
to its relative purity, alcohol fuels have the least nitrogen dioxide emissions as well which play a
role in smog production. Considering the declining air quality in Toronto, reducing emissions
around the campuses would be a step in the right direction for the student’s health and the city.
5.1.2.2: Biodiesel
One might consider biodiesel to diesel fuel like what ethanol is to gasoline. Currently,
many forms of biodiesel fuel can readily be used in standard diesel engines. Varieties range
from synthetically prepared mixtures to naturally occurring bioorganic sources. One of the
benefits of biodiesel is that it can consume waste from other industries instead of producing
more. Many forms of vegetable oil can be used with little treatment in biodiesel engines.
According to Durbin et. al., biodiesel and fractional blends contain ‘significantly lower’
amounts of CO and total hydrocarbons (THC), though particulate emissions were higher (Durbin
– 2000). Additionally, biodiesel is credited for 30-40 percent higher gas mileage and 25-40
percent improved fuel economy, making it a viable option for overall travel as less fuel is used at
the same time (Christen – 2005). Sullivan also asserts that diesel can reduce overall greenhouse
71
gas (CO2) emissions by 24-33 percent, with slightly less benefit as time goes on and technology
improves (Sullivan – 2004). By shifting the university fleet towards diesel (much like the
European market has), there is an opportunity to cut emissions by the above mentioned
percentages as well as save money by using cheaper fuel. Additionally, biodiesel can be
provided by sources within the campus and make use of what otherwise might be waste.
5.1.2.3: Natural Gas
Natural gas vehicles are also available on the market and in use at the university. Liquid
natural gas and its close equivalent liquefied petroleum gas display rather remarkable benefits
(Collingwood - 2003). Due to these fuels heavy propane base (roughly 90%) and reasonable
butane contingent (2.5%), the combustion process is significantly more efficient (Easy – 2002).
The remainder consists of heavier hydrocarbons, propylene, and butylenes. Carbon dioxide
emissions are reduced by nearly 40%. Also due to the improved burning efficiency, vehicles
running on this fuel type run smoother and more have effective engines. These fuels are often
cleaner as well, reducing the poisonous emissions standard gasoline contains, such as sulfur
dioxide and various trace atmospheric toxins.
Natural gas has the least amount of particulate matter emissions (0.03 g/ml) than all other
fuel types compared in Wang’s study, with the closest being 8 times greater (Wang – 1997).
Additionally, this fuel class had lower CO emissions than diesel. Natural gas would be an
excellent option for University of Toronto. Much similar to ethanol, natural gas should be
considered in the future based on fuel and vehicle availability.
72
5.1.2.4: Electric
Electric vehicles are the current popular counterpart in most hybrid class vehicles, relying
on a system of rechargeable batteries to power the car either solo or in tandem with another
energy source. Many innovations are breaching the market, including regenerative breaking
models, solar, and the plug-in hybrid. Often several of these technologies are combined. The
largest benefit is that these vehicles have 0 direct emissions. However, one must consider the
source of electricity powering the vehicle as the energy demand has simply been displaced. This
might not be a bad thing however. Since many of these plug-in models regenerate and increase
their charge during the day time, it would be feasible to use these vehicles to in turn fuel the
power grid during off peak hours which would reduce the energy bill for the University of
Toronto and total emission for the power plant.
5.1.2.5: Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Hydrogen fuel cells are a technology that may arrive in the future. This fuel type only
outputs water and heat. Additionally, hydrogen is extremely plentiful and has a significantly
higher energy capacity compared to gasoline. Success has been had within the high speed
industry as well as in space ships, fighter craft, and submarines. Hedstrom et al. (2006) examined
the possibility of using fuel-cell powered vehicles for rural areas, suggesting that hydrogen fuel
cell vehicle would be feasible for longer travel distances with relatively short breaks. Beyond the
vast environmental benefits with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles lay incredible academic and
economic potential. Since this developing technology is still emerging, the University could
significantly benefit from developing this technology within its research ambitions.
The major hurdles are currently capturing hydrogen and providing it to a marketplace in a
safe and cost effective manor. ‘The four most fundamental technological and economic
73
challenges are these: To develop and introduce cost-effective, durable, safe, and environmentally
desirable fuel cell systems and hydrogen storage systems. Current fuel cell lifetimes are much
too short and fuel cell costs are at least an order of magnitude too high…” (NAE, 2004). The
production of hydrogen is sometimes overlooked but is nonetheless plays an important role in the
development of hydrogen fuel cell. A study done by Stavy (2005) addresses the release of
greenhouse gas from producing hydrogen fuel showed that, even if the use of hydrogen vehicle is
feasible, the production process will create more greenhouse gas than the current gasoline
powered vehicles.
5.1.3: Attitude Towards Driving
There have been significant publications regarding vehicle usage and driving behavior
related to fuel consumption. Factors such as payload (both person and materials), acceleration,
vehicle components, and overall weight affect exhaust in varying quantities. However, given the
scope of this project they were not accounted for in the study. Challenges to overcome would be
an analysis of vehicle usage at the University of Toronto as well as observation of driving habits.
From this material, it would be advised to teach drivers techniques to optimize vehicle
performance both in vehicle load and operation. (McAuley, 2003; Sajal, 2003; Durbin, 2000;
Schifter, 2000)
Lighting control plays an important role in energy savings because a large amount of
electricity is used by lighting. In some cases, lighting can cause up to 40% of the total electricity
consumed annually for offices (Di Stefano, 2000). The methods of savings can be as simple as
74
turning the lights off when not used, to light bulb replacement or even more complicate methods
such as installing occupancy sensor systems.
5.2.1: Total Occupancy Control
The CSAF targets 100% usage of occupancy sensor lighting control as the long-term
benchmark for universities (Sierra Youth Coalition, 187). Despite the data set being incomplete
at the moment, much improvement has to be made at the University of Toronto before it reaches
this goal. In reference to our daily visits to the university, the research group noticed that lights
are often left on in classrooms, study rooms and other spaces even if they are not in use. These
instances are opportunities for occupancy sensors to intervene. By adjusting lighting to the
occupancy of a space, occupancy sensors can prevent having unused lights left on, therefore
reducing the amount of electricity wasted and the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. It is
recommended that the University of Toronto increase coverage of occupancy sensors to improve
its sustainability in lighting practices.
Make and Model:
For lighting, only the operation hour of the occupancy sensors is accounted. It is assumed
the sensors will be active for 24 hours a day. Occupancy sensor systems act similar to a normal
lighting switch and allow the lights to be turned on and off manually. However, the sensors
themselves are always active unless the power leading into the system is cut.
The cost of electricity for lighting is estimated from the total electricity consumed by
University of Toronto. The consumption of electricity by lighting range from 20 percent to 40
percent which is the most common range for offices and business firms (Di Stefano, 2000)
75
The number of sensors required is calculated based on the specification of the sensor
selected (WSD Motion Sensor Switch) and the area required to cover. The maximum range for
small motion detection such as limb movements of the sensor is 6.096 meter (20 feet). The area
covered by one sensor is estimated to be 116.75 meter2. The number of sensors required per
room equals the area of the room divided by 116.75 and rounded up to the nearest integer
number. Below table refers to the specification of the occupancy sensor used:
Table 20. WSD Motion Detector Switch
Price: $74.93
Manufacturer: WSD
Specifications: Small Motion Detection up to 20 Feet
Patented Bi-Polar Wiring - 2 Blk Wires
Intrinsically Grounded
No Minimum Load
Green LED Activity Indicator
1/2-inch Fresnel Lens
Three-Way and Multi-Level Switching
Compatibility
4.2”H x 1.8”W x 1.4”D
120 VAC @ 800 W
220/230/240/277 VAC @ 1200 W
347 VAC @ 1500W
Adjust Time Delay: 0.5 to 20 minutes
Mounting Height: 30 to 48 inches
Source: Residential Landscape Lighting and Design, 2007.
The efficiency of the sensors is based on the research done by Dorene Maniccia et. al.
(2006). The report showed a range for efficiency of occupancy sensors depending on the usage
and the placement of the sensors. Hallways or areas that are occupied for long periods of time
(up to 24 hours a day) may not receive as much savings as wash rooms which is only occupied
for a brief time (Maniccia, 2007). Also, behaviors such as manually turning off lights after
leaving a room, like in offices, reduce the need for the sensors (BC Hydro, 2007). Therefore, a
76
range of effectiveness of 17 percent to 60 percent selected based on the estimated savings across
all spaces (Maniccia, 2007).
The following tables show the estimated amount of electricity savings achievable if the
University of Toronto were to install occupancy sensors in all lit spaces across all three
campuses:
Table 21. Estimated Electricity Savings at St. George Campus Under Total Occupancy Sensors
Control
17% Of Electricity
Saved By Occupancy 6,576,501
20% Of Electricity Sensors (KWH/Year)
Consumed By 38,685,297
Lighting (KWH/Year) 60% Of Electricity
Sensors (KWH/Year)
17% Of Electricity
Sensors (KWH/Year)
Average Electricity Average Electricity
Consumed By 58,027,946 Saved By Occupancy 22,090,759
Lighting (KWH/Year) Sensors (KWH/Year)
Table 22. Estimated Electricity Savings at UTSC Under Total Occupancy Sensors Control
17% Of Electricity
Saved By Occupancy 809,880
20% Of Electricity
Sensors (KWH/Year)
Sensors (KWH/Year)
17% Of Electricity
Sensors (KWH/Year)
Average Electricity Average Electricity
Consumed By 7,146,000 Saved By Occupancy 2,751,210
Lighting (KWH/Year) Sensors (KWH/Year)
77
5.2.1.2 Costs and Benefits Analysis
Table 23. Summary Table (UTSC)
Total Area (square meters) 91,390.54

Total Area Covered with Sensors (square meters) 2,315.85
Estimated Occupancy Sensors Used 113
Estimated Area Cover by 1 Sensor (square meters) 116.75
Current Percentage Covered 2.53
Estimated Number of Sensors Required for 100% Coverage 5,937
Additional Sensors Required 5,824
Annual Electricity Used Per Sensor (KW/H) 15.24
Accumulated Total Costs in Electricity for 5,824 Sensors Installed and
$438,095.52
Running
With 100% occupancy sensors installed to all areas in UTSC currently without
occupancy sensors, it would cost $432,945.54 for installation and an additional $5,149.98 per
year (24 hours a day for 365 days) to power the sensors.
Year 1 3 13
Annual Electricity Saved
KW/H (13% sensors 809,880 809,880 809,880
efficiency)
Equivalent CO2 Emission
220.28 220.28 220.28
Reduction (metric tonnes)
Accumulated Savings (17%
$46,973.04 $135,282.36 $487,110.42
sensors efficiency)
Benefits = Savings – Costs
-$391,122.48 -$312,495.12 $759.63
(17% sensors efficiency)
Annual Electricity Save
KW/H (60% sensors 2,858,400 2,858,400 2,858,400
efficiency)
777.48 777.48 777.48
$165,787.20 $477,467.14 $1,719,213.26
sensors efficiency)
Benefits = Savings - Costs
-$272,308.32 $29,689.66 $1,232,862.47
78
Year 1 2 6
Annual Electricity Saved
KW/H (13% sensors 1,619,760 1,619,760 1,619,760
efficiency)
440.57 440.57 440.57
$93,946.08 $184,134.32 $511,066.68
sensors efficiency)
Benefits = Savings -
Costs(17% sensors -$391,122.48 -$258,905.18 $50,105.26
efficiency)
Annual Electricity Save
KW/H (60% sensors 5,716,800 5,716,800 5,716,800
efficiency)
1554.97 1554.97 1554.97
$331,574.40 $649,885.82 $1,803,764.74
sensors efficiency)
Benefits = Savings - Costs
-$272,308.32 $206,846.32 $1,342,803.32
Table 24 illustrates the case in which electricity used by lighting on UTSC is at the lower
extreme with only 20% of total electricity consumption. In this case, annual savings for the
sensors when they are least effective (13% savings) is $46,973.04 (Without sensor electricity
costs) and it would take 13 years for the sensors to payback the accumulated costs. However, if
the sensors are used at highest efficiency (60% savings) it would take only three years to pay
back the costs with an annual savings of 165,787.20CND. Using the formula provided in section
3.2 we can convert the annual electricity saved into CO2 emission of 220.28 to 777.48 tonnes
depending on the effectiveness of the installed occupancy sensors.
Table 25 illustrates the case in which UTSC spends 40% of its total electricity supply on
lighting. In this case, if the sensors are installed with the least amount of savings, it would take
six years for them to payback with annual savings of 93,946.08CND with an annual CO2
reduction of 440.57 tonnes. With 60% efficiency, it will only take two years for the savings from
79
the occupancy sensors to payback the initial costs with an enormous annual savings of
$331,574.40 and 1554.97 tonnes of CO2 reduced.
It should be noted, however, that several parts of the data (number of sensors used,
annual electricity consumption by lighting and the efficiency of the sensors) that were used in the
tables are estimated from the given data in section 3.2.2 instead of actual observations. This can
distort the accuracy of the result.
The number of sensors used was estimated based solely on the effective range of the
sensor. There are several types of occupancy sensors in the market; each has a different effective
range depending on the use of the sensors. Some sensors such as the D200 from Watt Stopper
claimed to have up to 800m2 coverage for activities such as movements made while operating a
desktop computer (Novitas Tech, 2007). The accuracy of such claims is questionable as there
had been reports from UTSC that sometimes occupancy sensors turn off even when there are still
occupants in the room. This could be due to the incorrect installation and use of the sensors. The
range of the sensors indicated or advertised by the manufacture is for cases when there is large
movement such as limb movements or body movements, similar to activities in a classroom.
Activities with minimal movement such as reading require the sensors to be closer (28 feet or
less). In the calculation of the number of sensors required, the least effective range of the chosen
sensor was used to eliminate such error. However, factors such as object blocking the sensors or
the occupant’s position may affect the sensor’s effectiveness. Also, the sensor used for analysis
have a coverage area of less than 116.75meter2 because it is a wall-mounting switch sensor so
the actual number of sensors required may go up to two times the number shown.
80
5.2.1.3 Implementation Strategy
It is recommended that University of Toronto increase the usage of occupancy sensors to
100% as soon as possible. The above analysis shows that benefit generated by installing
occupancy sensors efficiently is enormous. Combine with a significant reduction in greenhouse
gas emission; installing occupancy sensors to all rooms for the University of Toronto is both
environmentally and economically beneficial.
Annual electricity consumption by lighting is based on research which estimated the
percentage of electricity used in general offices (Di Stefano, 2000). University of Toronto
lighting pattern is different than general offices as there are several areas that have lights turned
on for 24 hours a day and some areas even operates for seven days a week. On the other hand,
there are areas with less activity but have their lights turned on when unoccupied. As shown in
Figure 5, occupancy sensors effectiveness in energy savings is widely ranged.
Figure 5. Past Research Results on Occupancy Sensors Effectiveness
Source: Maniccia et. al., 2006.
81
Therefore, if the University of Toronto wishes to install occupancy sensors in every
room, it should start out with the areas in which occupancy sensors can operates at the highest
efficiency such as washrooms and storage houses towards areas in which occupants’ behaviours
reduces the need for the sensors.
In addition to occupancy sensors, many additional measures can also be employed to
reduce energy consumption. This section discusses the additional steps the University of
Toronto should take to reduce amount of energy spent by lighting. Many of the
recommendations provided here are the results of researching the available literature.
5.2.2.1: Timer
Timers can set when lighting in a space will be turned on and off. Lighting can therefore
be set in accordance to the working day. By automatically switching off after work hours, timers
can prevent lights being left on overnight. According to one property manager, some buildings
at the St. George campus are already equipped with timers (Property Management Group,
personal communication, February 8, 2007).
An extra benefit of timers is that they can be connected to the buildings’ Heating,
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning system as well, forming a centralized control, which can turn
lighting, heating, and ventilation on according to the needs of the work-hour period.
5.2.2.2: Dimmer
As opposed to occupancy sensors and timers, which determine when lights should be
turned on or off, dimmers adjust and limit the amount of light output. Dimmers can be fully
controlled by users or be linked to daylight or be a combination of both. Daylight-linked
82
dimming adjusts the light level according to the amount of sunlight available. In other words, it
compensates for lighting in a space if natural light alone is not bright enough to achieve the
desired illuminance level. Research has shown that up to 65% of energy due to lighting can be
reduced if daylight-linked dimming is used (Li et al., 2006; Rubinstein et al., 1993; Onaygil and
Güler, 2003).
Furthermore, this technology makes use of the benefit of the natural lighting: it allows
natural sunlight to be enjoyed. According to a 2001 study by Escuyer and Fontoynont, office
workers in their study preferred low artificial lighting level in order to enjoy the natural light
available.
5.2.2.3: Day-lighting
An obvious method to reduce energy expenditure by lighting is to utilize natural light as
much as possible, although this solution is only viable for spaces with large windows or skylight
openings. In the future then, if new renovation or construction is to be undertaken, it is
important to take into account the function of spaces and to maximize window and skylight
openings according to need. If a built space is well-lit by the sun, little or no energy is needed
throughout the day for lighting. This recommendation is however the most expensive and
unlikely to be implemented.
5.2.2.4: A Combined System
Each of the abovementioned recommendations has its own advantage. By using these
technologies in tandem, a lighting system can be optimized to obtain the combined benefits.
According to the function of a space, these technologies can be combined to fine-tune the
lighting system to reduce energy consumption where it is needed. An example of a combined
83
system could be a daylight-linked dimming system that is turned on and off throughout the
working day by occupancy sensors. Lighting and air conditioning is then switched off by timers
after working hours.
The common disadvantage of lighting energy saving technologies is their costs. The high
cost of a combined system, not to mention the time and labour needed to assess a space before its
installation, may render this choice an unappealing one.
5.2.3: Attitudes Towards Lighting
Perhaps the easiest way to reduce waste is to simply reduce consumption. Electricity has
long been a fact of life and artificial lighting is something that we take for granted in this modern
age. The fact that light comes at the flick-of-a-switch masks the environmental implications
behind it. On the university campus, it is not uncommon to see lights left on in empty
classrooms for various reasons. Most spaces are lit for the majority of the day even if they are
rarely used (Kwan ENV410H1F 2006). According to one property manager interviewed for this
project, many buildings on campus are over lit (Property Manager Group, personal
communication, February 8, 2007). If people are made more responsible and aware of the
environmental implications due to lighting, significant savings could be achieved.
5.3: Computers
The effect of energy usage on desktop computers is not well researched. Primarily this is
due to the fact that the link between electricity consumption of computers, electricity production
and greenhouse gases generated from electricity production has not yet been a primary concern.
The majority of research on energy related to computers is for conserving energy consumption
on notebook or laptop computers. This is because of the demand for longer battery life for
84
mobile computing. On the other hand there is not a need for conserving energy with desktop
computers as they only consume about 175 Watts per hour (Grisebach, 2003). There are several
ways to reduce energy consumption for desktop computers but they have to be done on a large
scale level.
5.3.1: CRT to LCD Monitors
LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) monitors have several advantages over CRT (Cathode Ray
Tube) monitors of the same size. Generally, LCD monitors consume less electricity, weight less
and occupy a smaller space than CRT monitors. Such advantages led LCD monitors to become
the dominant choice of monitor for desktop computers over the last few years (NE Asia Online,
2007). However, due to the cost of production, the price of LCD monitors is still higher than
most CRT monitors. This has caused some businesses and institutions to purchase CRT monitors
instead of LCD.
Nonetheless, according to the European Energy Star Program’s energy calculator for
personal computer (PC) equipments (web site link provided by the Sustainability Office, please
refer to works cited list), a LCD monitor consumes about three times less electricity than a CRT
monitor. On average, an LCD can save the consumer $5 worth of energy a year on electricity
(Chan, 2006).
Changing CRT monitors into LCD monitors is an easy and economically practical way of
reducing energy consumption of computers. Therefore, we recommend that the university
change CRT monitors into LCD monitors for the computers in libraries and computer labs. This
will result in a reduction in energy utilization, in greenhouses gas emissions, and in electricity
cost. Detailed energy savings and economic assessment of changing CRT monitors into LCD
monitors are presented below.
85
Make & Model
Energy consumption measurements of LCD and CRT monitors are provided by Energy
Star program (Energy Star, 2007). Their prices are provided by the respective manufactures
(Viewsonic, 2007; Dell Inc., 2007). In the case of Viewsonic LCD VA903B, the price provided
buy Best Buy Co. is lower than the price provided by the manufacturer. However, the
manufacturer’s price is selected instead for consistency. Electricity price is based on year 2005
weighted average price provided by The Independent Electricity System Operator (2005). Total
Electricity used by University of Toronto is shown in section 3.3.
These are the three monitors being compared for the economic assessment. Data for the
energy consumption of the Dell CRT monitor of the PC Dell Optiplex series currently in use by
the University of Toronto could not be obtained at the time of writing this report due to time
constraint. A comparison with a different brand of monitor manufacturer was selected instead.
Overall, LCD monitors are slightly more expensive than CRT monitors, given the same screen
size.
Table 26. Monitor Specifications
Monitor Manufacture Viewsonic

Model VA903B
Type 19' LCD
Price $259.99
Energy Consumption while active (W/h) 21.6
Monitor Manufacture Dell Inc.
Model E197FPb
Type 19' LCD
Price $269.00
Monitor Manufacture Viewsonic
Model E90FB
Type 19' Flat screen CRT
Price $211.00
Source: www.viewsonic.com
www.dell.com
86
Energy savings from using LCD monitors instead of CRT monitors come primarily from
the reduction in electricity consumption of LCD monitors versus CRT monitors. This means the
annual savings from using LCD monitors is dependent on the hour of usage for the monitors and
the price of electricity. If the monitors are used frequently then it would generate a substantial
amount of savings to switch from CRT monitors to LCD monitors. If the price of electricity is
high then the reduction in electricity consumption in monitors would make LCD monitors an
appealing option.
Based on the data provided in section 3.3, some computers are turned on for fourteen
hours a day for the whole year minus holidays while some others only have four hours of
operation a day. Data from section 3.3 only shows one desktop computer with the operation hour
of four hours a day. For consistency with the data provided, the hours of operation for computers
used for calculation will be for computers that have operation hours of fourteen hours a day for
304 days, totaling 4256 hours annually. Sleep mode energy consumption between monitors are
similar and are ignored. Thus, the result will be an extreme case of usage. Overall operation
hours of computers and especially monitors should be less than 4256 hours. For this reason, an
additional set of data tables of the assessment will provide for the case of four hours and twelve
hours of operation per day.
87
Table 27. Comparison Table for Monitors
Annual
Energy
Energy Discount Energy
Monitor Year Consumption Total Cost
Consumption factor Cost
(W/h)
(W/h)
Viewsonic
1 63.7 271107.2 1 $14.91 $221.14
E90FB
$211.00 7 63.7 271107.2 0.79 $14.91 $299.12
8 63.7 271107.2 0.76 $14.91 $310.45
9 63.7 271107.2 0.73 $14.91 $321.33
Annual
Energy
Monitor Year Consumption Total Cost Benefits
(W/h)
(W/h)
Viewsonic
1 21.6 91929.6 1 $5.06 265.05 -$43.91
VA903B
$259.99 7 21.6 91929.6 0.79 $5.06 291.52 $7.60
8 21.6 91929.6 0.76 $5.06 295.37 $15.08
9 21.6 91929.6 0.73 $5.06 299.06 $22.27
Annual
Energy
Monitor Year Consumption Total Cost Benefits
(W/h)
(W/h)
Dell
1 27.4 116614.4 1 $6.41 $276.40 -$55.26
E197FPb
$ 269.99 7 27.4 116614.4 0.79 $6.41 $309.92 -$10.80
8 27.4 116614.4 0.76 $6.41 $314.79 -$4.34
9 27.4 116614.4 0.73 $6.41 $319.47 $1.86
The LCD provided by Viewsonic consumes only 33% of the electricity consumed by the
CRT monitor of the same brand. The annual savings is $9.85 for the Viewsonic model and $8.50
with the Dell model. The Dell model E197FPb takes nine years to start receiving benefits from
the savings minus the initial cost and reduce CO2 emission by 0.049 metric tonnes annually per
monitor. The price of the Dell LCD monitor is higher than the Viewsonic model combined with
a higher consumption of energy per hour of operation.
The comparison is an extreme case of usage in computers. In practices, even when the
whole computer is always turned-on and ready for use, the monitor is not. By default, the
monitor is automatically turned off after several minutes of inactivity. Thus, some monitors may
only become active during hours when there is a user using the computer. If the usage time of the
88
monitors is only four hours a day, it would take over thirty years for The Viewsonic LCD model
to start having economic benefits as the savings is per year is only $2.82 per monitor.
Also, it is worth noting is that the price of LCD monitors in the analysis may not reflect
the overall price of the LCD monitors available in the market. Whole sale prices, dealer prices,
delivery services and difference between Canadian and U.S. markets could make the prices
offered directly from manufacturers higher than prices from a third party dealer (BestBuy.ca,
2007). Also, the average price of LCD monitors changes rapidly over time compared to vehicles
due to the nature of the product. Overall, the price of LCD monitors fall quickly over time.
Competitions caused by high concentration of manufacturers help push the price down
(DisplaySearch, 2007). This means even with only a small reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from switching from CRT monitors to LCD monitors, the economic benefits is still
appealing for future purchases.
Based on the available data from St. George Campus, the maximum age of computers for
usage in the University of Toronto is 5 years. This means after 5 years or less, the computer will
be replaced with a newer model. A typical LCD can last up to 60,000 hours, which is about 6 to
7 years (Burden, 2004). This means the life span of a LCD monitor would expire before its
payback period. Still, the University of Toronto is advised to change all of the current CRT
monitors to LCD monitors on computers that operate for more than twelve hours per day. On
computers that operate less than four hours a day, it would be best to leave them as is until they
can be replaced with LCD monitors if the budget assigned for computers replacement permits.
89
While CRT monitor replacement was selected as the main recommendation for
University of Toronto, there are other options. These options can be more or less expensive to
install and operate than monitor replacement, but their environmental benefits have the potential
to surpass the key recommendation above.
5.3.2.1: Whole Computer System Change
Whole computer system can be replaced with Thin Client system, which is a concept that
allows a weak computer capable of connecting to a server to transfer data to as well as have the
server perform all the tasks that require a lot of computer resources. Because of such functioning,
it is possible to turn any computer into a thin client as long as there are software and servers
available to connect to. Also, since the user computer is not performing any processing, the
energy it consumes will be less than a normal PC (Wikipedia, 2006). In addition, thin clients are
generally smaller and require less space than conventional computers. Some models can be small
enough to attach to the back of an LCD monitor. The Wyse S90 thin client is one of such
computer (refer to Table 34 in the appendix for full specifications of the computer).
5.3.2.2: Energy from Solar Panels
Solar panels can be fixed on the roofs of buildings with libraries and computer labs and
the solar energy collected by the photovoltaic (PV) cells of the panels can be used to power
computers in these buildings. This will reduce electricity consumption of computers and will
result in a reduction of greenhouse gases emitted. However, according to Environment Canada,
the cost of large scale electricity production by solar photovoltaic cells is twenty to thirty
cents/KWH, compared to four to seven cents/KWH for electrical energy from the grid and is
90
even higher for small-scale installations (2003). Use of solar panels can, however, offset this
increase in cost by avoiding future economic losses, caused greenhouse gas emissions, and their
effects on the population at large. The future of solar energy can be promising as “research and
development has been making great strides over the years in reducing the cost and increasing the
collection efficiency of solar photovoltaic cells” (Environment Canada web site, 2003). There are
two kinds of solar PV panels: thin film panels and crystalline panels. Thin film panels contain “a
layer of amorphous silicon or other substances only a few microns thick” and crystalline panels
contain a layer of crystal silicon on the order of a few hundred microns” (Harvey, Global
Warming Notes, 2007). Currently, thin film panels have a sunlight-to-electricity conversion
efficiency of 5 % to 7 %, but are projected to be 10 % to 12 % efficient in the future. Similarly,
crystalline panels have a sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency of 15 % to 22 % for small
cells, but are projected to be 15 % to 20 % efficient for large panels (Harvey, Global Warming
Notes, 2007).
5.3.3: Attitude Towards Computers
Behavioural changes can result in significant computer energy consumption reduction.
The Rewire Program at the University of Toronto’s Sustainability Office aims to reduce energy
consumption at the university by “empowering students, staff and faculty to reduce their own
energy consumption through simple changes in their habits and behaviours” (Rewire web site,
2007). According to pilot projects of this program, electricity consumption was reduced by five
to ten percent at the St. George Whitney Hall residence building just through behavioural
changes. This illustrates that behavioural changes are important tools in reduction of our energy
consumption and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, according to the European
Energy Star Program’s energy calculator for personal computer (PC) equipment (web site link
91
provided by the Sustainability Office, please refer to works cited list), a desktop computer with
either a CRT or LCD monitor consumes 12 KWH/Year less electricity if it is turned off for 10
hours at night as opposed to going into sleep mode. While 12 KWH/Year energy savings for a
single computer might not appear as much, it can result in considerable energy savings and
greenhouse gas emissions reduction when multiplied by the large number of computers at
libraries and computer labs. Therefore, simple changes in usage habits, such as turning the
computer and its monitor off while not using it, in conjunction with other recommended changes
discussed above, can significantly trim energy consumption by computers at libraries and
computer labs of the university.
92
6. EVALUATION OF INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKS
6.1: CSAF Indicators
Data collection for the 2 indicators E-6 and E-12 were conducted in according the CSAF
guidelines.
The expected end result for the E6 indicator, GHG emission caused by vehicles, in the
CSAF was calculated in metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per CCM (or capita). This
was a fitting measurement for comparison between different universities. Odometer readings
were relatively easy to access and posed a very low risk to the university departments in
revealing their confidential information.
However, the scope of odometer readings was too narrow to show the whole picture of
how sustainable University of Toronto is. The whole CSAF evaluation was only applied to
elements controlled and/or funded by the university. Given the location and size of the
University of Toronto (being a very large area centered in the heart of downtown Toronto’s
metropolitan environment), a unique circumstance arises. Many products and services are
contracted out to third parties who use their own vehicles for University of Toronto. These
vehicles are not considered in the evaluation but would undoubtedly play a major role in
greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, the benchmark provided by the CSAF of SYC referenced a 60% reduction in
GHG emission for vehicles owned by universities. Given this was the first attempt at assessing
the University of Toronto’s campus sustainability, the benchmark has essentially been
established this year, leaving future annual research to decide whether or not the institution is
achieving its future benchmarks. It would be advisable for SYC to present the benchmark with
93
numbers on a scale ranging from poor to best performance over the years for the sake of
comparison and gauging room for improvement.
There are also recommendations to be made for the Sustainability Office when
considering further the research done here. Firstly, it is recommended that additional studies
concerning vehicle payload and operation habits be looked into. This would help to optimize
transport around the campuses until vehicles such as battery and hybrid which are less dependent
on behavior are in place. Secondly, and probably strongest of all, would be to collect data on
gasoline and diesel fuel consumption already taking place on campus. Considering all utility
information is cataloged by the Sustainability Office, tracking the amount of fuel consumed
through fueling receipts seems like a reasonable and tangible task which will provide for better
greenhouse gas emission assessments in the future.
The benefits of occupancy sensors are fairly obvious. They turn lights on and off
depending on users’ presence, which also rids the problem of lights being left on in unused
spaces. They are far more flexible than dimmers and timers by totally adjusting to the
occupancy, and thus the usage, of a space. However, the focus on an assessment of the use of
occupancy sensors lighting controls, defined as indicator E-12 in the CSAF, is too narrow to
properly determine campus sustainability in terms of lighting and produce the desired
improvements.
By focusing on only the percentage of total lit space controlled by occupancy sensors on
a campus, the CSAF indicator fails to register other factors such as the actual effectiveness of the
system and users’ reactions. In the reference to the Secondary Literature Review document of
this research project, it has been reported that some end-users find occupancy sensors
94
unsatisfactory because they are not properly adjusted and would switch on and off unexpectedly
(Kwan, ENV410H1F, 2006). The CSAF also do not recognize the relative high cost of the
sensors, which are sold at about $30 to $50 each.
There are many other effective schemes for reducing energy and cost of lighting. The
most common measures include dimming schemes, timers, and ambient lighting. One property
manager interviewed for this research even admitted that some places are over lit when the
available daylight is taken into account. Behavioral changes, where users are educated to
remember to switch off lighting when not in use, may be the simplest solution of all. It is
important to note that energy saving lighting schemes should be used in combination with one
another (e.g. an automatic lighting system which dims according to the daylight available and is
also on a timer to turn off after working hours) for best results. It is a matter of fine tuning to
achieve optimal lighting setting, desirable levels, and maximum savings
While the assessment of occupancy sensors may be a quick and simple method to
determine campus sustainability in terms of lighting and allow for easy comparison among
universities, it ignores the possibility and benefits of other energy shedding lighting systems
(Kwan, ENV421H1Y, 2007).
6.2: Non-CSAF Indicators
Computer inventory of computer labs and libraries and their energy consumption within
University of Toronto is the only non-CSAF framework on this project.
6.2.1: Computers
Inventory of all public and private desktop computers on three campuses for University
of Toronto requires a significant amount of time and work to complete. Due to the time
95
constrains and limited resources, the indicator was narrowed down to include only library and
computer lab computers. Large universities like University of Toronto and other big academic
institutions usually have an enormous number of desktop computers. These computers can
consume a significant amount of electricity compare to other devices. With energy consumption
becoming the centre of the debate on Global Warming, it is important to take into account energy
consumption of desktop computers in big institutions to develop environmental sustainability
guidelines or frameworks. Therefore, it is recommended that the Sierra Youth Coalition include
computers as an indicator in the energy section of its Campus Sustainability Assessment
Framework (CSAF) with a long term benchmark of 100% for LCD monitors on all desktop
computers.
96
7. CONCLUSION
The Sierra Youth Coalition’s Sustainable Campuses Project (SCP) now has a strong
home here at the University of Toronto. CSAF, in tandem with additional indicators and
adjustments provided, would form an accurate profile of the university’s selected energy
consumption practices and greenhouse gas emissions to establish benchmarks for future
reference. The wealth of current literatures provided a broad base to address the University of
Toronto’s sustainability potential. Additionally, the academic field offers an array of solutions
with great potentials but have not reached mainstream practice.
Through the data collection and analysis on energy consumption of vehicles, lighting
control, and computers, it became clear greenhouse gas emissions pose a significant impact on
the surrounding environment. With 18,424.83 metric tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted
annually, there is much room for improvement. If these energy and environment saving
recommendations are put into place, there is potential to reduce emissions by an approximated
10,930.69 metric tonnes of greenhouse gases.
Following a comparison with other universities, the University of Toronto stands first
amongst other academic institutions that have performed similar analysis. Given the current
state of environmental activity, we here at University of Toronto can pioneer green policy and
application. By careful planning and execution within the many divisions, the University of
Toronto can set an example amongst other academic and large institutions across North America
in sustainable development and practices.
97
APPENDIX A. EVALUATION OF RESEARCH CHALLENGES AND EFFORTS
Difficulties in data collection included finding out the exact numbers related to quantity
of vehicles, lit floor space and occupancy sensor coverage, and computer labs at all three
university campuses. Furthermore, some of the data for university comparison and cost-benefit
assessments is either very difficult to collect or simply not available due to the fact that some
aspects do not belong to the CSAF indicators or some of the data were not updated.
The sheer scale of data collection consumed large part of the time available for the
project. Significant amount of time was utilized to gather all the required data and analyze it
before a specific deadline. This caused significant delays for comparison with other universities
and cost-benefit assessment, because these steps require the complete data for the indicators.
Overall, the workload is enormous compared to other courses of the same level and time frame.
Communications between different departments, faculties and responsible personnel were
also a challenge. This included finding out contact information, explaining the rationale of the
project to the contacts, and the delay in responses. Sometimes, we were redirected from one
contact to another for several times before obtaining the required information. While each
interviewee holds information pertaining to the use of each energy practice at the University of
Toronto, it was difficult to obtain all the data required to paint a complete picture.
During one telephone interview, the interviewee was skeptical of the researcher’s status
as a student, and therefore requested the supervising professor to issue a confirmation email.
Since that instance, it was decided that emails, instead of telephone calls, will be used as the first
tier of contact.
The main reason for these challenges is the lack of a centralized source of information.
These challenges can be overcome if the university creates a centralized source of information
98
about university controlled assets and personnel contacts. Beyond simply improving further
CSAF research, developments such as this can enhance the university’s internal functioning
efficiency. While these challenges were overcome within the project, it is not worthy for
potential future research endeavors within the University of Toronto and other academic
institutions.
The recommendations for the university Sustainability Office is to setup networks and
communicate with environmental organizations in other Canadian Universities to know what
other universities are doing and how the University of Toronto can learn from their
environmental practices. Furthermore, setting up a specific office in the Sustainability Office for
gathering data on university-owned vehicle fleet, automatic lighting sensors, and university-
owned computers is also helpful for researchers. This office can be served as a central
information place to collect data related to energy consumption and also monitor behavioral
changes.
The recommendation for the Sierra Youth Coalition is to widen the scope of existing
indicators, include new and important indicators in the CSAF, and give high priority to indicators
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as yield high degree of economic savings.
The recommendations for future researchers are to plan ahead and start gathering data
early. Dividing the research project into different steps and setting up deadlines for each of the
procedures can be helpful.
99
APPENDIX B. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Discount Rate (Discount Factor):
Solutions for vehicles, computers and lighting management are considered as future
projects for the University of Toronto. Their benefits or costs are being paid annually from this
time period into the future. Future benefits have smaller current values than they will be with a
positive interest rate. With a 10% interest rate, a $1,000,000 benefit of 10 years into the future is
only worth $385,543 now because we can turn $385,543 into $1,000,000 within 10 years from
now. For this reason, the benefits or costs must be discounted to provide a better estimation of
the benefits or costs of the solution.
The discounting rate is presented as a discounting factor which is the present value of a
value (either costs or benefits) that is in the future. Only the future costs or benefits will be
discounted. Payments made on year 1 will not be discounted even when the costs accumulate
over time. The formula is simply derived from the formula of finding the future sum of money
from a present sum of money. The below formula represents how a value in the future can be
calculated given the number of years and the rate of which the value is growing over the years.
FV = PV*(1 + r)n
FV: Future Value
PV: Present value
r: Interest Rates
n: Number of years
This means the present value of future costs or benefits will be:
PV = FV/(1 + r)n
100
The discount rate is selected to be the real interest rate of Canada in the past years. Real
interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the inflation and is selected to be 4% (Canada
Economy Online, 2007, Christopher et al, 2000). This usage of real interest rate is because the
costs of the solutions can be viewed as an investment to other environmental solutions for
University of Toronto. The university can either spend money on these recommendations or
simply use the money on something else that could provide better environmental and economic
values. For business firms, sometimes the discount factor will be higher than the real interest
rates because of the risks.
The discount factor used in for calculation is the Present Value with Future Value as 1
with an annual interest rate at 4%.
101
APENDIX C. TABLES
Table 28. Dodge Caravan Fuel Consumption and Costs
Annual Fuel
Mileage Cost of Discount
Vehicle Years Consumption Total Cost
(Kilometers) Fuel factor
(Liters)
Dodge 1 20000 2476 2171.45 1 $31,476.45
Caravan 2 20000 2476 2084.59 0.96 $33,561.04
($29,305) 3 20000 2476 1997.74 0.92 $35,558.78
4 20000 2476 1932.59 0.89 $37,491.37
5 20000 2476 1845.73 0.85 $39,337.10
6 20000 2476 1780.59 0.82 $41,117.69
7 20000 2476 1715.45 0.79 $42,833.14
8 20000 2476 1650.3 0.76 $44,483.44
9 20000 2476 1585.16 0.73 $46,068.60
10 20000 2476 1520.02 0.7 $47,588.62
11 20000 2476 1476.59 0.68 $49,065.21
12 20000 2476 1411.44 0.65 $50,476.65
13 20000 2476 1346.3 0.62 $51,822.95
14 20000 2476 1302.87 0.6 $53,125.82
15 20000 2476 1259.44 0.58 $54,385.26
16 20000 2476 1216.01 0.56 $55,601.27
17 20000 2476 1150.87 0.53 $56,752.14
18 20000 2476 1107.44 0.51 $57,859.58
19 20000 2476 1064.01 0.49 $58,923.59
20 20000 2476 1020.58 0.47 $59,944.17
21 20000 2476 998.87 0.46 $60,943.04
22 20000 2476 955.44 0.44 $61,898.48
23 20000 2476 912.01 0.42 $62,810.49
24 20000 2476 890.3 0.41 $63,700.79
25 20000 2476 846.87 0.39 $64,547.66
102
Table 29. Toyota Highlander Fuel Consumption and Costs
Annual Fuel
Mileage Cost of Discount
Vehicle Years Consumption Total Cost Benefits
(Kilometers) Fuel factor
(Liters)
Toyota 1 20000 1518 1331.29 1 $44,181.29 -$12,704.84
Highlander 2 20000 1518 1278.03 0.96 $45,459.32 -$11,898.28
($42,850.00) 3 20000 1518 1224.78 0.92 $46,684.10 -$11,125.32
4 20000 1518 1184.84 0.89 $47,868.94 -$10,377.57
5 20000 1518 1131.59 0.85 $49,000.53 -$9,663.43
6 20000 1518 1091.65 0.82 $50,092.18 -$8,974.49
7 20000 1518 1051.72 0.79 $51,143.90 -$8,310.76
8 20000 1518 1011.78 0.76 $52,155.68 -$7,672.24
9 20000 1518 971.84 0.73 $53,127.52 -$7,058.92
10 20000 1518 931.9 0.7 $54,059.42 -$6,470.80
11 20000 1518 905.27 0.68 $54,964.69 -$5,899.48
12 20000 1518 865.34 0.65 $55,830.03 -$5,353.38
13 20000 1518 825.4 0.62 $56,655.43 -$4,832.48
14 20000 1518 798.77 0.6 $57,454.20 -$4,328.38
15 20000 1518 772.15 0.58 $58,226.35 -$3,841.09
16 20000 1518 745.52 0.56 $58,971.87 -$3,370.60
17 20000 1518 705.58 0.53 $59,677.45 -$2,925.31
18 20000 1518 678.96 0.51 $60,356.41 -$2,496.83
19 20000 1518 652.33 0.49 $61,008.74 -$2,085.15
20 20000 1518 625.7 0.47 $61,634.44 -$1,690.27
21 20000 1518 612.39 0.46 $62,246.83 -$1,303.79
22 20000 1518 585.77 0.44 $62,832.60 -$934.12
23 20000 1518 559.14 0.42 $63,391.74 -$581.25
24 20000 1518 545.83 0.41 $63,937.57 -$236.78
25 20000 1518 519.2 0.39 $64,456.77 $90.89
103
Electricity
Electricity Electricity
Used Per
Saved Saved Discount Accumulated Accumulated Accumulated
Year Sensor Benefits 13% Benefits 65%
17% 60% factor Total Cost Savings 13% Savings 65%
Annually
KW/H KW/H
KW/H
1 15.246 809880 2858400 1 $438,095.52 $46,973.04 $165,787.20 -$391,122.48 -$272,308.32
2 15.246 809880 2858400 0.96 $443,039.50 $92,067.16 $324,942.91 -$350,972.34 -$118,096.59
3 15.246 809880 2858400 0.92 $447,777.48 $135,282.36 $477,467.14 -$312,495.12 $29,689.66
4 15.246 809880 2858400 0.89 $452,360.96 $177,088.36 $625,017.74 -$275,272.60 $172,656.78
5 15.246 809880 2858400 0.85 $456,738.44 $217,015.44 $765,936.86 -$239,723.00 $309,198.42
6 15.246 809880 2858400 0.82 $460,961.42 $255,533.34 $901,882.37 -$205,428.08 $440,920.95
7 15.246 809880 2858400 0.79 $465,029.90 $292,642.04 $1,032,854.26 -$172,387.86 $567,824.36
8 15.246 809880 2858400 0.76 $468,943.88 $328,341.55 $1,158,852.53 -$140,602.33 $689,908.65
9 15.246 809880 2858400 0.73 $472,703.36 $362,631.87 $1,279,877.18 -$110,071.49 $807,173.82
10 15.246 809880 2858400 0.7 $476,308.34 $395,513.00 $1,395,928.22 -$80,795.34 $919,619.88
11 15.246 809880 2858400 0.68 $479,810.32 $427,454.66 $1,508,663.52 -$52,355.66 $1,028,853.20
12 15.246 809880 2858400 0.65 $483,157.80 $457,987.14 $1,616,425.20 -$25,170.66 $1,133,267.40
13 15.246 809880 2858400 0.62 $486,350.79 $487,110.42 $1,719,213.26 $759.63 $1,232,862.47
Electricity
Used Per Electricity Electricity
Discount Accumulated Accumulated Accumulated
Year Sensor Saved Saved Benefits 13% Benefits 65%
factor Total Cost Savings 13% Savings 65%
Annually 17%KW/H 60% KW/H
KW/H
1 15.246 1619760 5716800 1 $438,095.52 $93,946.08 $331,574.40 -$344,149.44 -$106,521.12
2 15.246 1619760 5716800 0.96 $443,039.50 $184,134.32 $649,885.82 -$258,905.18 $206,846.32
3 15.246 1619760 5716800 0.92 $447,777.48 $270,564.71 $954,934.27 -$177,212.77 $507,156.79
4 15.246 1619760 5716800 0.89 $452,360.96 $354,176.72 $1,250,035.49 -$98,184.24 $797,674.53
5 15.246 1619760 5716800 0.85 $456,738.44 $434,030.89 $1,531,873.73 -$22,707.55 $1,075,135.29
6 15.246 1619760 5716800 0.82 $460,961.42 $511,066.68 $1,803,764.74 $50,105.26 $1,342,803.32
104
Annual
Energy Discount Energy Total
Monitor Year Energy
Consumption factor Cost Cost
Consumption
Viewsonic
1 63.7 93002 1 5.39 $216.39
E90FB
CRT 2 63.7 93002 0.96 5.18 $221.57
$211.00 3 63.7 93002 0.92 4.96 $226.53
4 63.7 93002 0.89 4.8 $231.33
5 63.7 93002 0.85 4.58 $235.91
6 63.7 93002 0.82 4.42 $240.33
7 63.7 93002 0.79 4.26 $244.59
8 63.7 93002 0.76 4.1 $248.69
9 63.7 93002 0.73 3.94 $252.63
10 63.7 93002 0.7 3.78 $256.41
11 63.7 93002 0.68 3.67 $260.08
12 63.7 93002 0.65 3.32 $263.40
13 63.7 93002 0.62 3.17 $266.57
14 63.7 93002 0.6 3.07 $269.64
15 63.7 93002 0.58 2.97 $272.61
16 63.7 93002 0.56 2.86 $275.47
17 63.7 93002 0.53 2.71 $278.18
18 63.7 93002 0.51 2.61 $280.79
19 63.7 93002 0.49 2.51 $283.30
20 63.7 93002 0.47 2.4 $285.70
21 63.7 93002 0.46 2.35 $288.05
22 63.7 93002 0.44 2.25 $290.30
23 63.7 93002 0.42 2.15 $292.45
24 63.7 93002 0.41 2.1 $294.55
25 63.7 93002 0.39 1.99 $296.54
26 63.7 93002 0.38 1.94 $298.48
27 63.7 93002 0.36 1.84 $300.32
28 63.7 93002 0.35 1.79 $302.11
29 63.7 93002 0.33 1.69 $303.80
30 63.7 93002 0.32 1.64 $305.44
31 63.7 93002 0.31 1.59 $307.03
Annual
Monitor Year Energy Benefits
Consumption
Viewsonic
1 21.6 31536 1 1.83 $261.82 -$45.43
VA903B
LCD 2 21.6 31536 0.96 1.76 $263.58 -$42.01
$259.99 3 21.6 31536 0.92 1.68 $265.26 -$38.73
4 21.6 31536 0.89 1.63 $266.89 -$35.56
5 21.6 31536 0.85 1.55 $268.44 -$32.53
6 21.6 31536 0.82 1.5 $269.94 -$29.61
7 21.6 31536 0.79 1.44 $271.38 -$26.79
8 21.6 31536 0.76 1.39 $272.77 -$24.08
105
9 21.6 31536 0.73 1.34 $274.11 -$21.48
10 21.6 31536 0.7 1.28 $275.39 -$18.98
11 21.6 31536 0.68 1.24 $276.63 -$16.55
12 21.6 31536 0.65 1.19 $277.82 -$14.42
13 21.6 31536 0.62 1.13 $278.95 -$12.38
14 21.6 31536 0.6 1.1 $280.05 -$10.41
15 21.6 31536 0.58 1.06 $281.11 -$8.50
16 21.6 31536 0.56 1.02 $282.13 -$6.66
17 21.6 31536 0.53 0.97 $283.10 -$4.92
18 21.6 31536 0.51 0.93 $284.03 -$3.24
19 21.6 31536 0.49 0.9 $284.93 -$1.63
20 21.6 31536 0.47 0.86 $285.79 -$0.09
21 21.6 31536 0.46 0.84 $286.63 $1.42
22 21.6 31536 0.44 0.8 $287.43 $2.87
23 21.6 31536 0.42 0.77 $288.20 $4.25
24 21.6 31536 0.41 0.75 $288.95 $5.60
25 21.6 31536 0.39 0.71 $289.66 $6.88
26 21.6 31536 0.38 0.7 $290.36 $8.12
27 21.6 31536 0.36 0.66 $291.02 $9.30
28 21.6 31536 0.35 0.64 $291.66 $10.45
29 21.6 31536 0.33 0.6 $292.26 $11.54
30 21.6 31536 0.32 0.59 $292.85 $12.59
31 21.6 31536 0.31 0.57 $293.42 $13.61
Annual
Energy
Monitor Year Consumption Benefits
(per hours)
(assumed
Dell
1 27.4 40004 1 2.32 $272.31 -$55.92
E197FPb
LCD 2 27.4 40004 0.96 2.23 $274.54 -$52.97
$269.99 3 27.4 40004 0.92 2.13 $276.67 -$50.14
4 27.4 40004 0.89 2.07 $278.74 -$47.41
5 27.4 40004 0.85 1.97 $280.71 -$44.80
6 27.4 40004 0.82 1.9 $282.61 -$42.28
7 27.4 40004 0.79 1.83 $284.44 -$39.85
8 27.4 40004 0.76 1.76 $286.20 -$37.51
9 27.4 40004 0.73 1.69 $287.89 -$35.26
10 27.4 40004 0.7 1.62 $289.51 -$33.10
11 27.4 40004 0.68 1.58 $291.09 -$31.01
12 27.4 40004 0.65 1.43 $292.52 -$29.12
13 27.4 40004 0.62 1.36 $293.88 -$27.31
14 27.4 40004 0.6 1.32 $295.20 -$25.56
15 27.4 40004 0.58 1.28 $296.48 -$23.87
16 27.4 40004 0.56 1.23 $297.71 -$22.24
17 27.4 40004 0.53 1.17 $298.88 -$20.70
18 27.4 40004 0.51 1.12 $300.00 -$19.21
19 27.4 40004 0.49 1.08 $301.08 -$17.78
20 27.4 40004 0.47 1.03 $302.11 -$16.41
21 27.4 40004 0.46 1.01 $303.12 -$15.07
106
22 27.4 40004 0.44 0.97 $304.09 -$13.79
23 27.4 40004 0.42 0.92 $305.01 -$12.56
24 27.4 40004 0.41 0.9 $305.91 -$11.36
25 27.4 40004 0.39 0.86 $306.77 -$10.23
26 27.4 40004 0.38 0.84 $307.61 -$9.13
27 27.4 40004 0.36 0.79 $308.40 -$8.08
28 27.4 40004 0.35 0.77 $309.17 -$7.06
29 27.4 40004 0.33 0.73 $309.90 -$6.10
30 27.4 40004 0.32 0.7 $310.60 -$5.16
31 27.4 40004 0.31 0.68 $311.28 -$4.25
Annual
Monitor Year Energy
Consumption
Viewsonic
1 63.7 279006 1 16.18 $227.18
E90FB
CRT 2 63.7 279006 0.96 15.54 $242.72
$211.00 3 63.7 279006 0.92 14.89 $257.61
4 63.7 279006 0.89 14.4 $272.01
5 63.7 279006 0.85 13.75 $285.76
6 63.7 279006 0.82 13.27 $299.03
7 63.7 279006 0.79 12.78 $311.81
8 63.7 279006 0.76 12.3 $324.11
Annual
Consumption
Viewsonic
1 21.6 94608 1 5.49 $265.48 -$38.30
VA903B
LCD 2 21.6 94608 0.96 5.27 $270.75 -$28.03
$259.99 3 21.6 94608 0.92 5.05 $275.80 -$18.19
4 21.6 94608 0.89 4.88 $280.68 -$8.67
5 21.6 94608 0.85 4.66 $285.34 $0.42
6 21.6 94608 0.82 4.5 $289.84 $9.19
7 21.6 94608 0.79 4.33 $294.17 $17.64
8 21.6 94608 0.76 4.17 $298.34 $25.77
Annual
Consumption
Dell
1 27.4 120012 1 6.96 $276.95 -$49.77
E197FPb
LCD 2 27.4 120012 0.96 6.68 $283.63 -$40.91
$269.99 3 27.4 120012 0.92 6.4 $290.03 -$32.42
4 27.4 120012 0.89 6.2 $296.23 -$24.22
5 27.4 120012 0.85 5.92 $302.15 -$16.39
6 27.4 120012 0.82 5.71 $307.86 -$8.83
7 27.4 120012 0.79 5.5 $313.36 -$1.55
8 27.4 120012 0.76 5.29 $318.65 $5.46
107
Table 34. Wyse S90 Thin Client Specification
Processor AMD Geode GX

Memory 512MB Flash/256MB DDR RAM
I/O Peripheral Support Other configurations (up to 1GB/1GB) available
VGA-type video output (DB-15)
Enhanced USB keyboard with PS/2 mouse
port
and Windows keys
PS/2 mouse included
One serial port
Four USB 2.0 ports (2 on front, 2 on back)
10/100 Base-T Fast Ethernet twisted pair (RJ-
Networking 45)
Optional external USB Wi-Fi adapter
Display Support VESA monitor support with Display Data
Control (DDC) for automatic setting of resolution
and refresh rate
16-bit/64K colors:
up to 1280x1024@100Hz
up to 1600x1200@90Hz
24-bit/16.7M colors:
up to 1280x1024@85Hz
Audio Output: 1/8-inch mini, full 16-bit stereo,
48KHz sample rate
Input: 1/8-inch, 8-bit mini microphone
Physical Characteristics: Height 1.38 inches (34mm)
Width 6.94 inches (177mm)
Depth 4.75 inches (121mm)
Shipping Weight 6 lbs. (2.7kg)
Mountings Horizontal feet (optional vertical stand)
Optional VESA mounting bracket
Built-in Kensington security slot (cable sold
separately)
Worldwide auto-sensing 100-240v VAC, 50/60
Power Hz
5.6 Watts/hour average power usage with
device connected to 1 keyboard, 1 PS/2
mouse, and 1 monitor
Price $469.00
(Source: Wyse Tech. 2007)
108
Table 35: University of Toronto St. George Campus Libraries Computer Electricity Consumption Patterns and Subsequent GHG Emissions
Electricity
LCD or Age of Amount of Amount of Purpose
Building Library CRT Computers Time On Time Off of
Monitors (Years) (Hours) (Hours) Use
(KWH/Year)
(486 KWH/Year -
Faculty of Architecture Student 70.192 KWH/Year) x
15 Desktop LCD 1--2 24 0
Architecture Library Use 15 Computers =
6237.12 KWH/Year
(636.4 KWH/Year -
Earth Sciences Noranda Student 97.132 KWH/Year) x
17 Desktop CRT 2 24 0
Centre Library Use 17 Computers =
9167.556 KWH/Year
(636.4 KWH/Year -
97.132 KWH/Year) x
51 Computers =
27502.668
51 CRT
St. Michael's J. M. Kelly Student KWH/Year
87 Desktop & 2--6 24 0
College Library Use (486 KWH/Year -
36 LCD
70.192 KWH/Year) x
36 Computers =
14969.088
KWH/Year
(636.4 KWH/Year -
97.132 KWH/Year) x
Pontifical
4 Computers: 4 Computers: 12 Computers =
Institute of 12 CRT
St. Michael's 10 14 Student 6471.216 KWH/Year
Mediaeval 13 Desktop & 2--5
College 9 Computers: 9 Computers: Use (486 KWH/Year -
Studies 1 LCD
24 0 70.192 KWH/Year) x
Library
1 Computer =
415.808 KWH/Year
52 LCD
64763.456
Total 4 132 132 & N/A N/A N/A N/A
KWH/Year
80 CRT
109
Total 64763.456
Greenhouse Gas KWH/Year x 0.272
Emissions by Kg CO2
Computers (Kg Equivalent/KWH =
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CO2 17615.660 Kg CO2
Equivalent/Year Equivalent/Year =
& Metric 17.616 Metric
Tonnes/Year) Tonnes/Year
(64763.456
Percentage of KWH/Year) /
Computer (193,426,485
Electricity KWH/Year)
Consumption = 0.000335 x 100 =
0.0335 %
(17.616 Metric
Percentage of Tonnes/Year) /
Computer (52612.004 Metric
Greenhouse Gas Tonnes/Year) =
Emissions 0.000335 x 100 =
0.0335 %
110
Table 36. University of Toronto St. George campus computer labs computers electricity consumption patterns and subsequent
greenhouse gas emissions (Table x is continued on the following page)
Amount Amount
LCD or Age of Purpose Electricity Consumption
Computer Number of Type of of Time of Time
Building CRT Computers of by Computers
Lab Computers Computers On Off
Monitors (Years) Use (In KWH/Year)
(Hours) (Hours)
Ramsay
(636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
Wright CQUEST Lab Student
27 Desktop CRT 1--5 24 0 KWH/Year) x 27 Computers =
Zoological 1 Use
14560.236 KWH/Year
Laboratories
Ramsay
(486 KWH/Year - 70.192
Wright CQUEST Lab Student
46 Desktop LCD 1 24 0 KWH/Year) x 46 Computers =
Zoological 2 Use
19127.168 KWH/Year
Laboratories
Earth (636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
CQUEST Lab Student
Sciences 24 Desktop CRT 1--5 24 0 KWH/Year) x 24 Computers =
3 Use
Centre 12942.432 KWH/Year
(636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
Physical Geography Student
11 Desktop CRT 1--5 24 0 KWH/Year) x 11 Computers =
Geography Lab Use
5931.948 KWH/Year
Architecture (486 KWH/Year - 70.192
Faculty of Student
Computer 35 Desktop LCD 1--2 24 0 KWH/Year) x 35 Computers =
Architecture Use
Lab 14553.28 KWH/Year
Engineering
Various (636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
Computing Student
Engineering 360 Desktop CRT 4 24 0 KWH/Year) x 360 Computers
Facility Lab Use
Buildings = 194136.48 KWH/Year
(ECF)
(636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
Mechanical & KWH/Year) x 115 Computers
Industrial 115 CRT & Student = 62015.82 KWH/Year
MIE Lab 136 Desktop 4 24 0
Engineering 21 LCD Use (486 KWH/Year - 70.192
(MIE) KWH/Year) x 21 Computers =
8731.968 KWH/Year
Material
(636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
Science Student
MSE Lab 20 Desktop CRT 4 24 0 KWH/Year) x 20 Computers =
Engineering Use
10785.36 KWH/Year
(MSE)
111
(636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
KWH/Year) x 20 Computers =
Engineering
20 CRT & Student 10785.36 KWH/Year
Science EngSci Lab 48 Desktop 4 24 0
28 LCD Use (486 KWH/Year - 70.192
(EngSci)
11642.624 KWH/Year
(34.9 KWH/Year - 1.922
Electrical
Electrical Undergraduat 17
Student 560.626 KWH/Year
Engineering e 18 Notebooks & LCD 4 4 20
Use (486 KWH/Year - 70.192
(ECE) Commerce 1 Desktop
KWH/Year) x 1 Computer =
Lab
415.808 KWH/Year
Table 36 continued
Amount
LCD or Age of Amount of Purpose Electricity Consumption
Computer Number of Type of of Time
Building CRT Computers Time On of by Computers
Lab Computers Computers Off
Monitors (In Years) (In Hours) Use (In KWH/Year)
(In Hours)
Civil (636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
Student
Engineering CIV Lab 41 Desktop CRT 4 24 0 KWH/Year) x 41 Computers =
Use
(CIV) 22109.988 KWH/Year
Chemical (636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
Student
Engineering CHE Lab 47 Desktop CRT 4 24 0 KWH/Year) x 47 Computers =
Use
(CHE) 25345.596 KWH/Year
796
Desktops 148 LCD
Total 12 813 N/A N/A N/A N/A 413644.694 KWH/Year
& 17 & 665 CRT
Notebooks
Total
Greenhouse
413644.694 KWH/Year x
Gas
0.272 Kg CO2
Emissions by
Equivalent/KWH =
Computers (In N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
112511.3568 Kg CO2
Kg CO2
Equivalent/Year = 112.511
Equivalent/Ye
Metric Tonnes/Year
ar & Metric
Tonnes/Year)
112
Percentage of
(413644.694 KWH/Year) /
Computer
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (193,426,485 KWH/Year)
Electricity
= 0.00214 x 100 = 0.214 %
Consumption
Percentage of
(112.511 Metric Tonnes/Year)
Computer
/ (52612.004 Metric
Greenhouse N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tonnes/Year) = 0.00214 x
Gas
100 = 0.214 %
Emissions
Source:
113
Table 37. University of Toronto Mississauga campus library computers electricity consumption patterns and subsequent greenhouse
gas emissions
LCD or Age of Amount of Amount of

Number of Type of Purpose Electricity Consumption
Building Library CRT Computers Time On Time Off
Computers Computers of Use by Computers (KWH/Year)
Monitors (Years) (Hours) (Hours)
(486 KWH/Year - 70.192
KWH/Year) x 176 Computers
178 = 73182.208 KWH/Year
Computers: 178 (636.4 KWH/Year - 97.132
Hazel McCallion 178
UTM 206 LCD & 24 Computers: 0 Student KWH/Year) x 2
Academic 208 Desktops & 1--4
Library 2 CRT 30 30 Use Computers = 1078.536
Learning Centre 30 Laptops
Computers: Computers: 6 KWH/Year
18 (65.1 KWH/Year - 8.657
1693.29 KWH/Year
Total 1 208 208 208 N/A N/A N/A N/A 75954.034 KWH/Year
Total
Greenhouse
75954.034 KWH/Year x 0.3
Gas Emissions
Kg CO2 Equivalent/KWH =
by Computers
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 22786.2102 Kg CO2
(Kg CO2
Equivalent/Year = 22.786
Equivalent/Year
Metric Tonnes/Year
& Metric
Tonnes/Year)
Percentage of
Could not be calculated
Computer
due to missing data
Electricity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
(KWH/Year of electricity
Consumption
supplied to UTM).
Percentage of Could not be calculated
Computer due to missing data
Greenhouse (KWH/Year of electricity
Gas Emissions supplied to UTM).
Source:
114
Table 38. University of Toronto Scarborough campus library and computer labs computers electricity consumption patterns and
subsequent greenhouse gas emissions
Age of Amount Amount

Library/ LCD or Purpose Electricity Consumption
Number of Type of Computer of Time of Time
Building Computer CRT of by Computers
Computers Computers s On Off
Lab Monitors Use (KWH/Year)
(Years) (Hours) (Hours)
PC Dell Optiplex GX620 =
1099.38 KWH/Year x 241
Computers = 264950.58
KWH/Year
SunRay 150 = 394.2
PC Dell
KWH/Year x179
Optiplex
Computers = 70561.8
PC Dell Optiplex GX620: 1.6
KWH/Year
Baldwin Wing, UTSC GX620: 241 SunRay
SunRay 170 = 1051.2
Academic Library SunRay 150: 179 150: 3.6 Student
KWH/Year x 20
Resource & 492 SunRay 170: 20 LCD SunRay 24 0 Use &
Computers = 21024
Centre, Computer Shuttle SK43G: 170: 1.6 Teaching
KWH/Year
& Science Wing Labs 19 Shuttle
Shuttle SK43G = 1752
iMacs: 33 SK43G: 2.6
KWH/Year x 19
iMacs: 0.17
Computers = 33288
(2 Months)
KWH/Year
iMacs = 1576.8 KWH/Year
x 33
Computers = 52034.4
KWH/Year
1 Library
&3
Total 492 492 492 N/A N/A N/A N/A 441858.78 KWH/Year
Computer
Labs
Total
Greenhouse 441858.78 KWH/Year x 0.3
Gas Emissions Kg CO2 Equivalent/KWH =
(Kg CO2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 132557.634 Kg CO2
Equivalent/Year Equivalent/Year = 132.558
& Metric Metric Tonnes/Year
Tonnes/Year)
Percentage of (441858.78 KWH/Year) /
Computer N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (23,820,000KWH/Year) =
Electricity 0.01855 x 100 = 1.855 %
115
Consumption
Percentage of (132.558 Metric

Computer Tonnes/Year) / (7146
Greenhouse Metric Tonnes/Year) =
Gas Emissions 0.01855 x 100 = 1.855 %
Source:
116
Table 39. Floor Areas of St. George Campus
Net
Building Name Area
(Sqr M)
University College 13,366
Hart House 14,585
Gerstein Science Information Centre 17,752
McMurrich Building 4,338
Medical Sciences Building 62,943
John P. Robarts Library Building 69,481
Claude T. Bissell Building 7,596
Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library Building 5,335
Mining Building 9,078
Wallberg Building 15,292
D.L. Pratt Building 5,950
Sandford Fleming Building 16,691
Simcoe Hall 4,858
Convocation Hall 3,832
Tanz Neuroscience Building 3,621
Munk Centre for Intl Studies North 1,816
Munk Centre for Intl Studies South 1,671
Munk Centre for Intl Studies East 2,180
Whitney Hall 7,631
Bloor Street West-371 14,365
Banting Institute 8,098
Central Steam Plant 3,037
J. Robert S. Prichard Alumni House 2,024
Rosebrugh Building 4,610
Engineering Annex 1,697
Mechanical Engineering Building 8,391
University College Union 1,857
Haultain Building 2,963
FitzGerald Building 7,909
Cumberland House 1,169
Physical Geography Building 1,577
Architecture Building 5,480
Sir Daniel Wilson Residence 6,445
Varsity Arena 6,058
Wetmore Hall-New College 11,264
Wilson Hall-New College 14,930
Sidney Smith Hall 26,638
Massey College 6,196
St. George St.-50 2,666
Woodsworth College 4,224
St. George Street-49 628
Flavelle House 9,468
School of Graduate Studies 875
117
Canadiana Gallery 2,444
Falconer Hall 2,056
Edward Johnson Building 12,103
Best Institute 5,892
Spadina Crescent-1 7,324
Graduate Students' Union 776
Bancroft Building 3,112
Borden Building South 2,075
Borden Building North 3,017
Earth Sciences Centre 28,240
Graduate House 20,009
Huron Street-215 10,253
Clara Benson Building 8,615
Warren Stevens Building 17,323
Galbraith Building 16,743
College Street-92 525
Ramsay Wright Laboratories 19,154
Lash Miller Chemical Laboratories 24,446
Faculty Club 1,325
Sussex Court 2,638
McLennan Physical Laboratories 28,134
F. Norman Hughes Pharmacy Building 5,560
Bahen Centre for Information Technology 42,822
CIUT Radio 528
St. George Street123 620
Admissions Office 1,628
Outbuilding B 46
College Street-88 1,464
Studio Theatre 354
Centre for Medieval Studies 635
Soldiers' Tower 113
School of Continuing Studies 1,311
Economics Department 1,973
Fields Inst for Research in Math Science 2,711
Louis B. Stewart Observatory (SAC) 404
Spadina Avenue-703 473
Early Learning Centre 1,049
Woodsworth College Residence 14,493
New College Residence 9,228
Innis College 2,970
Innis College Student Residence 9,946
Joseph L. Rotman School of Management 9,408
St. George Parking Garage 19,191
Huron Street-370 322
Margaret Fletcher Day Care Centre 252
Spadina Ave-713 234
118
Koffler Student Services Centre 9,661
Koffler Institute 1,701
Sussex Avenue-40 319
Spadina Avenue-655 803
Leslie L. Dan Pharmacy Building 14,092
Spadina Ave-455 872
Macdonald-Mowat House 1,217
Loretto College 6,604
Elmsley Hall 4,989
Alumni Hall 3,232
Boiler Plant(St. Michael's College) 94
Brennan Hall 4,613
St. Basil's Church 1,547
Odette (Louis) Hall 1,927
Windle House 508
Phelan House 434
Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies 1,079
More House 600
Fisher House 550
Teefy Hall 1,101
Gilson House 318
Maritain House 338
Sullivan House 465
Carr Hall 2,423
McCorkell House 520
Bellisle House 487
J. M. Kelly Library 8,813
Cardinal Flahiff Building 1,580
Cardinal Flahiff Gymnasium 194
Old St. Joseph's College 515
New St. Joseph's College 3,248
Mary Hall 2,056
Queen's Park Crescent East-43 709
Toronto School of Theology 1,031
Sam Sorbara Hall Student Residence 4,558
St. Joseph Street-121 (Rear) 270
Victoria College 4,162
Emmanuel College 2,961
Birge-Carnegie Library 1,815
Burwash Hall 1,522
Burwash Residence (Lower Houses) 2,557
Burwash Residence (Upper Houses) 3,899
Annesley Hall 3,050
Wymilwood 1,623
Margaret Addison Hall 5,490
Isabel Bader Theatre 2,298
Stephenson House 243
E.J. Pratt Library 4,412
119
Northrop Frye Hall 3,622
Rowell Jackman Hall 12,297
St.Thomas St.-4 (Vacant) 269
Knox College 7,563
Trinity College 12,511
Gerald Larkin Building 3,912
George Ignatieff Theatre 662
St. Hilda's College 6,882
Wycliffe College 5,584
TOTAL 937,159
Table 40. Floor Areas of Scarborough Campus
Floor
Building Area
(sqr M)
Humanities Wing (H-Wing) 7689.6
Bladen Wing (B-Wing) 7379.61
Management Building 3955.47
Recreation Wing (R-Wing) 6016.4
Science Wing (S-Wing) 26616.47
Academic Resource Centre 7287.16
UTSC Student Centre 5244.16
Arts & Admin Building 5073.72
Block A (Student Townhouse Res-Phase I) 1973.63
Block B (Student Townhouse Res-Phase I) 760.08
Block C (Student Townhouse Res-Phase I) 894.4
Block E (Student Townhouse Res-Phase I) 1056.4
Block F (Student Townhouse Res-Phase II) 1296.5
Block G (Student Townhouse Res-Phase II) 726.72
Block H (Student Townhouse Res-Phase II) 985.94
Block I (Student Townhouse Res-Phase II) 1088.58
Block J (Student Townhouse Res-Phase III) 786.88
Block K (Student Townhouse Res-Phase III) 962.96
Block L (Student Townhouse Res-Phase III) 762.12
Block M (Student Townhouse Res-Phase III) 851.26
Joan Foley Hall (Student Res-Phase IV) 6407.67
Student Village Centre 279.96
Scarborough Daycare Centre 704.61
Coach House - Old Kingston Rd 191.29
Principal's Residence - Old Kingston Rd 819.91
TOTAL 90367.1
120
List of Works Cited
1000 Lightbulbs.com. 25 Jan 2007 http://www.1000bulbs.com.
Akrami, M. Alan Kwan, Lac Nguyen, Jeff Petersen and Yun Ye. ENV410H1F
Environmental Research Skills. Research Plan. December 2006.
Akrami, Maryam. ENV410H1F Environmental Research Skills. Secondary Literature

Review. November 2006.
Beringer.Almut and ENV202 2004/05 students. University of Prince Edward Island Campus
sustainability Audit: Chapter 10 Energy 2005
http://www.upei.ca/environment/html/chapters.html.
Bai, Y. W. and Chen, C. H. Using Solar Cells to Extend Standby Time of Handheld
Computers: International Journal of Power & Energy Systems. 2005; 25 (3): 223-
229.
BC Hydro - Power Smart for Business. Occupancy Sensor. 26 February 2007

http://www.bchydro.com/business/investigate/investigate765.html.
BIOL 4861, Environmental Biology University of New Brunswick Campus Sustainability

Audit: Energy section March, 2004: 68-99
http://www.unbf.ca/clubs/ENVS/unbcampussust_04.pdf.
Brain, Marshall; How Electric Cars Work, December 6th, 2004.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/electric-car4.htm.
Brain, Marshall; How Gasoline Works, December 2004.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/gasoline1.htm.
California Energy Commission; A Student’s Guide to Alternative Fuels April 2nd, 2002.
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/transportation/alcohols.html.
Canadian Automotive Network. 2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid. 25 February 2007

http://www.auto123.com/en/new/carinfo/specs.spy?make=Toyota&model=Highlande
r%20Hybrid&year=2007&specpath=1.
Canadian Economy Online. 25 February 2007.

http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/.
Canadian Renewable Fuels Association; Bio-diesel December 6th, 2004.

http://www.greenfuels.org/biodieselworld.html.
California Energy Commission; Ethanol/Methanol Vehicles December 6th, 2004.
121
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afv/ethanol.html.
Carpages.ca 2005 Mercury Mariner Road Test. 27 October 2004. 25 February 2007.
http://www.carpages.ca/go/roadtest/2005_mercury_mariner_road_test.aspx.
Chang, H.J., G.L. Cho, and Y.D. Kim. The economic impact of strengthening fuel quality
regulation - reducing sulfur content in diesel fuel. Energy Policy 34(2006): 2572-
2585.
Clark, Woodrow W.; Jeremy Rifkin. A green hydrogen economy. Energy Policy 34(2006):
2630-2639.
Cohen, J. T.; Hammitt, J. K.; Levy, J. I.: Fuels for Urban Transit Buses: A Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2003; 37(8); 1477-1484.
Collingwood School; Alternative Fuel Cars. 2003.

http://www.collingwood.sutton.sch.uk/Energy%20Saving/ESNoCars3.htm.
Christopher, Bruce, Derek Aldridge, Scott Beesley, and Kelly Rathje. Selecting the Discount
Rate. ECONOMICA LTD. 2000 12 January 2007.
Dell Canada. 5 February 2007 http://www1.ca.dell.com.
Delucchi, Mark, and Timothy E. Lipman. An analysis of retail and lifecycle cost of battery-
powered electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment 6(2001): 371-404.
Delucchi, Mark, and Timothy E. Lipman. A retail and lifecycle cost analysis of hybrid
electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
11(2006): 115-132.
DisplaySearch. Price Wise 5 March 2007.

http://www.displaysearch.com/free/pricewise.html.
Di Stefano, Julian. Energy efficiency and the environment: the potential for energy efficient
lighting to save energy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions at Melbourne
University, Australia. Energy 25.9 (2000):823-839.
DiLouie, Craig, ed. Advanced Lighting Controls: Energy Savings, Productivity,

Technology and Applications. Lilburn: Fairmont, 2006.
Di Stefano, Julian. Energy efficiency and the environment: the potential for energy
efficient lighting to save energy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions at
Melbourne University, Australia. Energy 25.9 (2000):823-839.
Dodge.ca. Dodge Caravan 2007. 25 February 2007
122
http://www.dodge.ca/en/caravan/index.html.
Durbin, T. D.; Collins, J. R.; Norbeck, J. M.; Smith, M. R.: Effects of Biodiesel, Biodiesel
Blends, and a Synthetic Diesel on Emissions from Light Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles.
Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2000; 34(3); 349-355.
Durbin, T. D.; Norbeck, J. M.; Wilson, R. D.; Galdamez, H. A.: Effect of Payload on Exhaust
Emissions from Light Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Trucks. Environ. Sci.
Technol.; 2000; 34(22); 4708-4713.
Easy Breathers; Liquefied Petroleum Gas. 2002.

http://www.easybreathers.org/explore/transportationtech/lpg.html.
Eaves, Stephen, and James Eaves. A cost comparison of fuel cell and battery electric
vehicles. Journal of Power Sources 130(2004): 208-212.
Ellis.Derek, Eliza Hurry, Laura Mackay and Michael Willcock. University of Prince Edward
Island Campus sustainability Audit: Chapter 10 Energy 2005
http://www.upei.ca/environment/html/chapters.html.
Environmental Media Northwest; About Hydrogen Energy, 2003.

http://4hydrogen.com/about.html.
EnviroZine: Environment Canada’s Online Newsmagazine: Environment Canada. 2003: 37.

Accessed: 7 March 2007.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/envirozine/english/issues/37/any_questions_e.cfm.
Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR Program. Purchasing and

Procurement 25 January 2007
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=bulk_purchasing.bus_purchasing.
Erickson, Britt E.; The President’s 2004 Budget. Environmental Science and Technology
March 13, 2003.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2003/mar/policy/budget.html.
.
Escuyer, S., and M. Fontoynont. Lighting controls: a field study of office workers’
reactions. International Journal of Lighting Research & Technology 33.2 (2001): 77-
96.
EU Energy Star. Database, Monitor 25 February 2007

http://www.eu- energystar.org/en/en_database.htm.
Federal Trade Commission. GASOLINE PRICE CHANGES: Dynamic of Supply, Demand and
Competition. 05 July 2005. 25 Feb 2007.
123
Fuel Economy. Find a Car. 3 March 2006. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm.
Greenburg Steve Desktop Energy Consumption. 20 Jan 2007.

http://www.extrasys.com/whitepapers/pdfs/energy_study.pdf.
Grisebach Manfred Hardware Power Consumption: How much does your PC consumes?14
Aug 2003. 25 Feb 2007.
Haan, de Peter, Michel Mueller , Anja Peters. How eco-efficient are hybrid vehicles? Survey
result on occurrence of rebound effect. 29 June 2006. 25 February 2007.
http://www.eco-efficiency-conf.org/download/29-6-room537/5-dehaan_rebound.pdf.
Harvey, D. Global Warming: GGR314H1S Lecture Notes. 2007.
Hawaiian Government Clean Air Commission; Bio-diesel Fuel Fact Sheet. December 6th,
2004. http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/activitybook/fs-biodiesel.html.
Hedstrom, Lars, Maria Saxe, Anders Folkesson, Kristina Haraldsson, Marten Bryngelsson,
Per Alvfors and Cecilia Wallmark. Key Factors in Planning a Sustainable Energy
Future Including Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society. 26(2006): 264-277.
Higgins, Cortney J., H. Scott Matthews, Chris T. Hendrickson, Mitchell J. Small. Lead
demand of future vehicle technologie. Transportation Research Part D. vol. 12. (2006)
103-114.
HybridCars.com. Market Dash-Board. 5 March 2007.

http://www.hybridcars.com/market-dashboard.html.
Independent Electricity System Operator. IESO 2005 – A Year in Review. 25 February 2007.
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/corp/IESO_2005AnnualReview.pdf.
Johnstone, Bruce. Ottawa's 5% Biofuel Program Backed. Leader-Post, May 24, 2006.
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/business_agriculture/story.html?id=59
763456-3744-46e4-a4c7-2c766bcfbb33&p=2.
Kozyrakis, C. E. and Patterson, D. A. A New Direction for Computer Architecture

Research: Computer. November 1998; 31 (11): 24-32.
Kwan, Alan. ENV421H1Y Environmental Research. Individual Progress Report.

February 2006.
Kwan, Alan. ENV410H1F Environmental Research Skills. Secondary Literature Review.

November 2006.
124
Lamarca. Melissa and Geneva Guerin. Sustainability Assessment: energy section2003.
http://sustainability.concordia.ca/assessment/2003.php.
Lamb.Jeff, Yuill Herbert and Perry Elderidge. Mount Allison University Environmental
Audit: Energy consumption 1998
http://www.mta.ca/clubs/audit/audit13.pdf.
Latham, Linda. Energy Efficient Computers could Trim 25% from Building Energy
Use (Technology Report: Energy Efficient Computers): Energy User News. May
1994; 19 (5): 28(3).
Lek, Siang Hwa, and Zaw Min. Energy efficiency for tropical campus. ASHRAE
Journal 48.5 (2006): 48-50, 52-53.
Li, Danny H.W., and Joseph C. Lam. An investigation of daylighting performance and
energy saving in a daylit corridor. Energy and Buildings 35.4 (2003): 365-373.
Li, Danny H.W., Tony N.T. Lam, and S.L. Wong. Lighting and energy performance for an
office using high frequency dimming controls. Energy Conversion and
Management 47.9-10 (2006): 1133-1145.
Lorch, Jacob R. and Smith, Alan J. Energy Consumption of Apple Macintosh Computers:
IEEE Micro. November 1998; 18 (6): 54-63.
Lorch, Jacob R. and Smith, Alan J. Software Strategies for Portable Computer Energy
Management: IEEE Personal Communications. June 1998; 5 (3): 60-73.
Maniccia, Dorene, Von Neida, Bill, and Tweed, Alan. An analysis of the energy and
cost savings potential of occupancy sensors for commercial lighting systems. IESNA
Annual Conference Technical Papers (2000): 433-459.
Mayes, Fred: Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 Volume 2, Greenhouse

Gas Emissions.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/chap3.html.
Last Updated: July 17, 2002.
Maniccia, Dorene, Bill VonNeida, Allan Tweed. An analysis of the energy and cost savings
potential of occupancy sensors for commercial lighting system. 5 March 2007.
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/pdf/dorene1.pdf.
Mayeres, Inge, and Stef Proost. Should diesel cars in Europe be dsicouraged?. Regional
Science and Urban Economics 31(2001): 453-470.
McAuley, J. W.: Global Sustainability and Key Needs in Future Automotive Design.
Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2003; 37(23); 5414-5416.
125
Natural Resources Canada. Energy in Canada 2000. Ottawa, 2000.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE), The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs,

Barriers, and R&D Needs. National Academies Press, 2004.
NE Asia Online. DisplaySearch: LCD Desktop Monitors Rise 26%, to $8.2B in Revenues 5
March 2007. http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/neasiaarchives.
Nice, Karim; How Fuel Cells Work, December 6th, 2004.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell5.htm.
Novitas Tech. Product Index 01-400. 7 March 2007.

http://www.novitas.com/Products/ProductInformation/products.htm#products_by_nu
mber.
Onaygil, Sermin, and Önder Güler. Determination of the energy saving by daylight
responsive lighting control systems with an example from Istanbul. Building and
Environment 38 (2003): 973-977.
Ontario Ministry of Energy. Oil Price and Gas. 5 March 2007.

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=oilandgas.fuelpricedata_h.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. Vehicles Powered by Alternative Fuel. August 2006. 5 March
2007. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/tax/guides/rst/702.html.
Ontario Power Generation. Annual Report 2005. Ontario Power Generation. 25 January
2007. http://www.opg.com/.
PC Equipment Energy Calculator: European Energy Star Program. Accessed 7 March 2007.
http://www.eu-energystar.org/en/en_008.htm.
Pokharel, S. S.; Bishop, G. A.; Stedman, D. H.; Slott, R.: Emissions Reductions as a Result of
Automobile Improvement. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2003; 37(22); 5097-5101.
Residental Landscape Lighting and Design. WSD - Motion Detector Switch. 25 February
2007.
http://www.residential-landscape-lighting
design.com/store/PPF/parameters/1866_528/more_info.asp.
Rewire Program: A Project of the University of Toronto Sustainability Office. Accessed 7

March 2007.
http://rewire.utoronto.ca:81/about-rewire.
Romm, Joseph. The car and fuel of the future. Energy Policy 34(2006): 2609-2614.
126
Rubinstein, Francis, Michael Siminovitch, and Rudolph Verderber. Fifty percent energy
savings with automatic lighting controls. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
29.4 (1993): 768-733.
Samsung. 6 Februay 2007 http://www.samsung.com/ca/.
Schifter, I.; Diaz, L.; Vera, M.; Castillo, M.; Ramos, F.; Avalos, S.; Lopez-Salinas, E.:
Impact of Engine Technology on the Vehicular Emissions in Mexico City. Environ.
Sci. Technol.; 2000; 34(13); 2663-2667.
Sharma, Rahul, and Hongwei Gao. Low Cost High Efficiency DC-DC Converter for Fuel-
Cell Powered Auxiliary Power Unit of a Heavy Vehicle. IEEE transactions on power
electronics. 21(2006): 587-591.
Sierra Youth Coalition. GITP Backgrounder. Academia to Action. Electronic

Document.
Stavy, Michael. The Carbon Content of Hydrogen Vehicle Produced by Hydrogen

Electrolysis. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 127(2005): 161-163.
State Energy Office. Occupancy Sensor – Utility fact sheet 25 February 2007.
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/32/31316.pdf.
Sullivan, J. L.; Baker, R. E.; Boyer, B. A.; Hammerle, R. H.; Kenney, T. E.; Muniz, L.;
Wallington, T. J.: CO2 Emission Benefit of Diesel (versus Gasoline) Powered
Vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2004; 38(12); 3217-3223.
Tetri, Eino. Daylight linked dimming: effect on fluorescent lamp performance.

International Journal of Lighting Research & Technology 34.1 (2002): 3-10.
Thompson. Dixon. University of Calgary Environmental report: Energy and water

management 2000-2001
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/department/UEMC/rprt_2001/page26.html.
Toyota CANADA. Vehicles > 2007 Highlander. 25 February 2007.

http://www.toyota.ca/cgi-
bin/WebObjects/WWW.woa/8/wo/Home.Vehicles.Highlander4-
X8N0o4n1UZ16bgd72bn8AM/3.7?fmg%2fhighlander%2fintro%2ehtml.
Turner. Phelps, Liz McDowell, Kealan Gell, Rosa Kouri and Sahar M-Rouhani. Ecosystem
Sustainability assessment of McGill university: Energy Chapter 2006
http://sustainable.mcgill.ca/pdf/energy.update.may25.pdf.
University of Toronto Picture. 20 March 2007.

http://www.kaphoto.ca/pic/slide/UniversityOfToronto_TorontoOntarioCanada_Sep20
05/4/.
127
U.S. Department of Energy. The Clean Vehicle Guide. 22 September 2006. 16 January 2007
http://www.eere.energy.gov/fleetguide/.
United States Department of Energy; “Energy Savers: Hydrogen Fuel”, April 2nd, 2004.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/a109.html.
ViewSonic Corporation. 6 February 2007 http://www.ViewSonic.com.
Victor. Peter. Report of the president’s Task force on Sustainability June 30, 2001
http://www.yorku.ca/president/initiatives/Sustainability_final_report.pdf.
Wang, W. G.; Clark, N. N.; Lyons, D. W.; Yang, R. M.; Gautam, M.; Bata, R. M.; Loth, J.
L.: Emissions Comparisons from Alternative Fuel Buses and Diesel Buses with a
Chassis Dynamometer Testing Facility. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 1997; 31(11); 3132-
3137.
Weiser, Mark et al. Scheduling for Reduced CPU Energy: Proceedings of the First
USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. November
1994: 13-23.
Williamson, Sheldon S., Srdjan M. Lukic and Ali Emadi Comprehensive Drive Train
Efficiency Analysis of Hybrid Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicle Based on Motor-
Controller Efficiency Modeling. IEEE transactions on power electronics. 21(2006):
730-740.
Wikipedia; Alcohol Fuel, November 19th, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_as_a_fuel.
Wikipedia; Biodiesel, November 29th, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-diesel.
Wikipedia; Carbon Dioxide, December 6th, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide.
Wikipedia; Diesel Engine, December 4th, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine.
Wikipedia; Gasoline, December 3rd, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline.
Wikipedia; Hydrogen Car, November 30th, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car.
Wikipedia; Internal Combustion Engine, December 2nd, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine.
128
Wikipedia. Liquid Crystal Display. 25 February 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD.
Wikipedia; Liquefied Natural Gas, November 25th, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquified_natural_gas.
Wikipedia; Liquefied Petroleum Gas, November 25th, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquified_petroleum_gas.
Wikipedia Oil Price Increase of 2004-2006. 25 Februart 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004-2006.
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1987.
Wyse Technology. 29 January 2007 http://www.wyse.com/.
129
NOTES
130

421SustainableEnergy06 07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

421SustainableEnergy06 07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

421SustainableEnergy06 07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable Energy for a

Names: Maryam Akrami, Alan Kwan, Lac Nguyen,

3. CURRENT ENERGY PRACTICES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

4. COMPARISON TO OTHER CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES

6. EVALUATION OF INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKS

6.1: CSAF Indicators

Appendix A. Evaluation of Research Challenges and Efforts

Appendix B. Economic Assessment Methodology

List of Works Cited

Table 1. Ground Level Ozone Reaction Equations

Figure 1. Map of St. George Campus

CCM Campus Community Members

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CPU Central Processing Unit

CRT Cathode Ray Tube

CSAF Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework

GHG Greenhouse Gases

LCD Liquid Crystal Display

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

N2O Nitrous Oxide

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

SCP Sustainable Campuses Project

SUV Sport utility vehicle

SYC Sierra Youth Coalition

THC Total Hydrocarbons

UTM University of Toronto Mississauga campus

UTSC University of Toronto Scarborough campus

VOC Volatile organic compound

Energy consumption is undeniably an important and central issue in the environmental

amount of energy it consumes to relieve an already overburdened planet.

As Canada’s biggest university, the University of Toronto utilizes a substantial amount of

environment. The energy practices studied are as follows:

• The energy consumption by the university-owned vehicle fleet,

• The energy consumption by university-owned computers at libraries and computer labs.

and measured against one another.

its peers in terms of sustainability.

as E-6 and E-12 indicators respectively by the CSAF.

In addition to the two CSAF indicators, the energy consumption by university-owned

relatively straightforward to compute the amount of GHG produced by the university-owned

significant portion of electricity is generated by coal-burning plants. Therefore, when electricity

recommendations are made for future improvements to campus sustainability in energy

The Brundtland Commission, in 1987, defined sustainable development as development

citizens of Toronto and beyond.

research methods in future sustainability assessments.

and resources available.

and Figure 3).

The Sustainability Office has already started projects on computer electricity

consumption in various areas on campus. By concentrating only on the university-owned

data in the areas the Office has not yet studied.

recommendations are presented to show the economic implications. Next, an evaluation of

achievable is also given.

provides supplementary information pertaining to this project. Appendix A offers an evaluation

tables are given in Appendix C.

only to climate change, but also to general degradation of air quality.

Transportation is a major contributor to global GHG emissions level. According to the

monoxide and non-methane hydrocarbons (Mayes, 2002).

In order to understand the effects of GHG, it is important to first explore the