Most universities across the country have established green initiatives. Many of them are implementing combined heat and power systems, a technology the federal government actively encourages, to help them achieve those goals.

In recent years, universities have been responding to the interest of students, professors, donors and community members in their environmental sustainability programs. As an article published in 91��Ƶ last year pointed out, financial pressures are a real issue and sustainability initiatives can help universities reduce operating costs. This is especially important in the new normal after the Great Recession, as state funding for higher education has not fully recovered in many parts of the country.

Combined Heat & Power

Combined heat and power (CHP), also known as cogeneration, is one way universities address sustainability and financial goals. In a nutshell, combined heat and power is an efficient way to generate electricity and thermal energy using a unit of fuel. Some systems do this by recovering the waste heat that results from the generation of electricity by a combustion turbine and using it to generate thermal energy in the form of steam or hot water. Other systems pass high-pressure steam through a steam turbine to generate electricity and then use the steam for other purposes like heating buildings.

The result is the production of substantially more energy from a unit of fuel. The resulting efficiency is almost double that of independent generation of electricity and thermal energy. Combined heat and power systems increase overall energy efficiency from 45 to 55 percent up to 65 to 85 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

CHP facilities can work with a variety of fuels, including natural gas, biogas and biomass. Combined heat and power is currently used in a number of applications in addition to universities, including manufacturing facilities and large resorts.

Examples of CHP on Campus

North Carolina State University (NC State) in Raleigh installed a CHP system in 2012 in its Cates Utility Plant, replacing an older boiler system that generated thermal energy for building heating and other uses. According to the university’s website, “The renovation of Cates Utility Plant on campus increases the 11-megawatt facility’s efficiency by roughly 35 percent. It is also expected to reduce the university’s greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent, building on a 7 percent reduction from 2008 to 2010 and moving NC State closer toward its goal of climate neutrality by 2050.”

In 2016, Emory University embraced CHP by installing a new steam turbine at its existing steam plant on campus. As an article by Emory’s Sustainability Initiatives team stated at the time, “Emory is thrilled to include cogeneration in its energy-use portfolio and efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. Although it does not entirely cancel Emory’s utilization of fossil fuels, it’s one important step because now we’re making more efficient use of those resources.”

Federal Support for CHP

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) touts the benefits of combined heat and power. The agency emphasizes the efficiency gains that result in burning less fuel. “CHP reduces emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants,” according to an EPA fact sheet.

The EPA has a CHP Partnership program through which it works to facilitate the development of new CHP projects. The program has more than 400 partners, including universities in New York, Iowa, Utah and California.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently announced the commitment of $25 million to continue its support of regional CHP Technical Assistance Partnerships (CHP TAPs) at eight locations around the country, six of which are at universities in North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maine and Washington. According to the Department of Energy, this approach “can support U.S. economic competitive advantage, promote economic development, instill resiliency in businesses and communities, create and maintain local energy-related jobs, and provide solutions for modernizing energy generation and delivery.”

To read the entire article, check out the March/April issue of .

Steve Hunting is an attorney with Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP. He focuses on energy and technology projects and transactions, and advises universities, among other clients, on combined heat and power, energy storage and microgrid projects from the firm’s Charlotte, N.C., office.

The post Universities Power Green Initiatives appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post Universities Power Green Initiatives appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

If you can imagine the “perfect” setting for learning, it might include a room full of energetic, enthusiastic students focused intently on a dynamic teacher who sets high standards and understands the importance of creative interaction. The classroom itself would have natural light coming through big windows, and the overall atmosphere would be one of cleanliness and functionality. It would be a great place for students, teachers and school staff to spend many hours a day.

In the United States alone, schools directly touch the lives of 82.2 million people, and a healthy learning environment is a critical component of a student’s ability to learn and a teacher’s ability to teach. Unfortunately, according to the U.S. Department of Education, our schools (especially K-12) are failing in this regard — challenged to serve growing populations and rising community expectations with aging buildings, constrained budgets and ever-increasing energy bills. Each year, taxpayers spend about $6 billion on energy alone for schools — about 25 percent more than needed. That $1.5 billion could be redirected to hire 30,000 new teachers or purchase 40 million new textbooks annually.

In light of these facts, it’s important for schools to adopt industry best practices when it comes to green cleaning, maintenance and facilities management. By doing so, they can save valuable budget dollars in the long run and increase productivity across the board. For academic professionals, however, operating large physical structures can be extremely challenging. These responsibilities, therefore, should be outsourced to facilities managers who are trained to implement the appropriate practices and continuing education programs that will ultimately benefit the school.

The Benefits of Green Cleaning

Recent research suggests that one out of three cleaning products contains ingredients known to cause human health and environmental problems. A study conducted by the Janitorial Products Pollution Prevention Project found that the average janitor uses 48 pounds of hazardous chemical per year. Some of the ingredients in conventional cleaning products can cause cancer, mutate genetic material, sensitize the skin and cause chemical burns. According to the European Respiratory Journal, even short-term exposure to cleaning agents can trigger asthma attacks. The floors may sparkle, countertops may shine, and the air may smell fresh, but there’s a cost to the lungs and overall health of our children, teachers and custodial staff.

“Green cleaning” uses safer, less toxic products while achieving a cleaner and healthier school and releasing fewer harmful particulates and toxic substances into the environment. It combines these products with dirt-reduction strategies and advanced technology, such as microfiber mops and cloths, high-filtration vacuum cleaners and vacuum attachments for other floor-care equipment, two-chamber mop buckets and multilevel walk-off mats. Important components of environmentally preferred cleaning, these high-performance tools are designed to prevent dirt and soil from contaminating surfaces, thus reducing the amount of chemicals required for cleaning.

According to a study conducted by the Ashkin Group, implementing green cleaning practices and janitorial training programs led to increased productivity in office buildings, schools and other facilities. For occupants of office buildings, total illness declined 24 percent, the number of doctor visits declined 34 percent, and the amount of antibiotics used declined 24 percent. School children also benefited, as attendance increased 4.5 percent, and passing math scores on standardized tests increased 49 percent.

Despite these benefits, many school districts are encumbered by tight operational budgets and maintenance staff who, although well-intentioned, don’t have the training required to implement eco-friendly and energy-efficient management systems. They also have a limited understanding of what goes into operating a large structure (such as a school). As a result, administrators typically don’t allocate budget dollars to outsourcing these services, which equates to neglecting their largest assets — the physical buildings themselves. It’s the responsibility of facilities managers, who possess expertise in these areas, to convey the cost and health benefits associated with green cleaning.

A Cost-Effective Solution

Only when school districts and government officials recognize the size, scope and complexity of their buildings do they realize that the maintenance and management should be placed in the hands of high-level experts. Cost-effectiveness becomes a high priority when a school’s asset value and depreciation costs are considered. By outsourcing these services to a company whose core business is asset management and operations, administrators can tap into industry best practices and training. And it doesn’t necessarily cost more to go that route.

Jason Luke, associate director of Custodial Support Services at Harvard University Medical Center, recently suggested that although green cleaning products have historically been more expensive, that isn’t the case anymore. At minimum, he said, the decision to use green cleaning products will be cost-neutral, and a strong case can be made for cost savings. According to the Connecticut Foundation on Environmentally Safe Schools, many schools and universities that have adopted green cleaning products and practices have experienced no increased costs — and in some cases have even experienced significant cost savings. For example:

• Harvard University Medical School reported saving $11,700 a year when it realized the number of conventional cleaning products being used was excessive and switched to a smaller, core group of green cleaning products.

• After the Palm Beach County School District saved more than $500 in one school during a three-month pilot project, it began phasing in green cleaning programs in all of its 180 schools and realized annual district-wide savings of $360,000.

• For one of our clients, we recommended — and the school district approved and purchased — the use of a robotic floor cleaning machine. Paying the one-time cost of the robot ($30,000) instead of a salary ($34,000 annually) turned out to be a fiscally prudent decision.

The current shift towards green cleaning in schools will continue to grow, in large part, because of its direct environmental and health benefits, which include reduced absenteeism, lower health care costs and improved productivity. Collectively, that positively impacts school budgets. Measured in terms of lower operating costs — both in the short-term and during the entire life of the building, its equipment and other key features — these advantages make green cleaning a wise investment.

The post Breathing Easier With Green Cleaning appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post Breathing Easier With Green Cleaning appeared first on 91��Ƶ.