Environmental Impact of Computer Information Technology in an Institutional Setting: A Case Study at the University of Guelph

Melanie Adamson, Robert Hamilton, Kathryn Hutchison, Kaitlin Kazmierowski, Joming Lau, Deigh Madejski, and Nicole MacDonald University of Guelph April 2005

Abstract
Computer use at the University of Guelph is an important aspect of campus life, however, its environmental impacts are often not realized or considered. These impacts are expressed throughout the manufacturing, use and disposal of on-campus computers, and thus require monitoring and an understanding of each stage of a computers lifecycle. The computers located in the various laboratories, libraries and faculty/graduate student offices at the University of Guelph consume various quantities of energy, but as a whole are not operating at optimal efficiency. In addition, the disposal of on-campus computers does not occur in the most environmentally sound manner possible, thus resulting in various departments either diverting unwanted units to landfills or storing them for extended periods of time. Both the inefficient use of energy and the manufacturing and disposal of computer systems leads to the generation and release of toxic compounds into the environment. This report identifies the need for the implementation of campus-wide green procurement strategies with respect to computer acquisition, use and disposal, and offers recommendations regarding improvements of the University of Guelphs current systems. The implementation of these recommendations will aid the University in serving as an example for other institutions, saving money in the long run, and decreasing its overall environmental impacts.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following people for their support and aid during the completion of this project: Dr. Joseph Ackerman, Avin Duggal, Gillian Maurice, David Fallow, Leon Loo, Shelley Dano and the IT managers that responded to our survey. We would also like to thank the Faculty of Environmental Science at the University of Guelph for their financial support.

Table of Contents
Abstract Acknowledgements 2 3

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Background 2.1 Computers and Associated Environmental Problems 2.1.1 Energy Consumption 2.1.2 Physical Components and Toxins 2.1.3 Computer Manufacturing 2.1.4 Social and Political Implications 2.2 Green Procurement 2.2.1 The Acquisition of Green Computers 2.2.2 Power saving Techniques and Ecolabeling 2.2.3 End of Life Management 2.3 Case Study: Green Procurement Guidelines for the University of Manitoba 3.0 Materials and Methods 3.1 Survey Design 3.1.1 Quantifying Computer Energy Use in Libraries and Laboratories 3.1.2 Quantifying Computer Energy Use by Faculty and Graduate Students 3.2 Statistical Analysis 3.2.1 z-Test Analysis 3.2.2 S-Plus Analysis 3.3 Environmental Impacts and Green Procurement Strategies 4.0 Results 4.1 Statistical Results 4.1.1 z-Test Statistical Results 4.1.2 S-Plus Statistical Results 4.2 Energy Consumption 4.2.1 Faculty and Graduate Students 4.2.2 Computer Laboratories 4.2.3 Libraries 5.0 Discussion 5.1 Statistical Analysis 5.1.1 Discussion for z-Test

7 13 13 14 14 17 20 21 23 24 26 31

33 33 33 34 37 37 37 38 39 39 39 41 43 44 44 45 48 48 49

5.1.2 Discussion for S-Plus 5.2 Energy Consumption 5.2.1 Faculty and Graduate Students 5.2.2 Computer Laboratories 5.2.3 Libraries 5.3 Computer Equipment Purchasing Guidelines 5.4 Computer Equipment Disposal Guidelines 6.0 Recommendations 6.1 Purchasing Computer Equipment 6.2 Energy Saving Strategies 6.2.1 Computer Laboratories and Libraries 6.2.2 Faculty and Graduate Students 6.3 Computer Equipment Disposal Methods

50 50 50 50 51 51 53 56 56 57 58 59 60

7.0 Conclusion References Appendix 1: Composition of a Personal Desktop Computer Appendix 2: Ecolabeling Comparison Appendix 3: Electronics Recyclers Pledge of True Stewardship Appendix 4: Computer and Electronics Recycling Appendix 5: Sampling Sites Appendix 6: S-Plus Statistical Summaries for all Monitoring Times in Richards Building Appendix 7: Energy Consumption Raw Data

64 67 71 73 76 78 80 81

82

List of Figures
Figure 1: ENERGY STAR Symbol Figure 2: Popular ecolabels under the Global Ecolabeling Network Figure 3: Current Energy Consumption Figure 4: Current Energy Consumption per Computer Figure 5: Energy Savings for Conservation plans and New Computer Equipment 24 25 46 47 47

List of Tables
Table 1: Components of CRT panel and funnel glass Table 2: Basic steps in computer chip fabrication Table 3: Resource Use in production of various computer components Table 4: University of Guelph's Current Energy Consumption in Comparison with the Worst-Case and Best-Case Scenarios Table 5: Energy Consumption in University of Guelph Buildings Table 6: Energy Consumption per Computer in University of Guelph Buildings 15 19 20 45

45 46

1.0 Introduction
Recently, topics such as global warming and climate change have drawn a lot of attention in the media and general public. The production and use of various forms of energy is a large contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change (BSD Global, 2002). Institutions and organizations worldwide have begun to take measures to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency in an attempt to lessen their environmental impact.

Computers and office equipment play an increasingly large role in energy consumption. Desktop computers, scanners and other electronic technology account for the fastest growing source of energy consumption in Canada (NRCan, 2002). Although energy consumption is rising, there are various methods that can be employed to increase energy efficiency. Many organizations and institutions have implemented green procurement policies that promote the purchasing of energy efficient products and the adoption of energy saving practices. These energy saving practices do not reduce the performance of the computers, they simply reduce their power consumption when not in use (Nordman et al., 1997). Most energy savings are derived from low power or 'sleep' modes that occur when the computer is idle. Green procurement policies also require an assessment of the environmental impacts of the products through all stages of its lifecycle (cradle-to-cradle). An important element of this assessment is determining the end-of-life disposal techniques available for various forms of office equipment, especially computer monitors containing lead bearing cathode ray tubes (CRTs).

As the student population and computer usage increases at the University of Guelph, an information technology (IT) strategy needs to be developed to address issues of energy

consumption by computers and the procurement and disposal of IT equipment. The University of Guelph is facing a significant budget deficit (University of Guelph, 2005), and energy saving techniques for computer technology could be applied to help reduce costs attributed to inefficient energy practices. This project is especially significant due to the lack of similar studies at educational institutions across Canada. As Canadian universities are becoming more dependent on computer resources, they have the potential to save a significant amount of financial and environmental wealth by using efficient and environmentally sound equipment.

Although general computer usage of computers at the University of Guelph is increasing, actual values for energy consumption are unknown, as there currently is an unidentified number of computers on campus that are left active for indeterminate lengths of time. The University of Guelph has no large-scale energy conservation or cradle-to-cradle environmental efficiency strategies. An appropriate strategy would include guidelines that integrate the acquisition of energy efficient and environmentally responsible products, as well as environmentally sound disposal methods for older computers and CRT monitors. While there is a abundance of information regarding the recycling of older computer systems and CRT monitors, only a few examples have been found regarding such strategies in the context of post secondary institutions. This project aims to incorporate knowledge from previous case studies and implement strategies with an on-campus perspective that consider the various demands associated with post secondary institutions. Also, this project aims to provide the University of Guelph with recommendations to reduce the energy consumption of on-campus computers, to purchase energy efficient computer products, and to properly dispose of old computer equipment in an ecologically sound manner.

In order to achieve this goal, the objectives that we will address are as follows: 1. Quantify, to the best of our ability, the approximate energy use in University of Guelph computer laboratories having greater than 20 computers, the libraries, and personal computers used by faculty and graduate students 2. Compare current energy use to better-case scenarios according to the null hypotheses 3. Investigate potential end-of-life disposal and recycling techniques as well as, options to dispose of toxic materials 4. Research the purchasing potential of energy efficient and environmentally responsible computer equipment 5. Explore energy conservation measures that reduce power consumption in computer laboratories and personal computers across campus

To achieve these objectives, this project was undertaken using several important assumptions. Firstly, laptop computers available for student usage in the library were not taken into consideration for our study. It was beyond the scope of this study to obtain an accurate estimate of energy consumption, as much of the power requirements for laptops are met through battery power. Personal computers in residence were also not included in our study as their energy consumption varies year to year, and energy saving techniques would be difficult to implement. Secondly, computer use varies at different times during any given semester, and throughout the academic year. Student workloads and computer usage are subject to variability. This is an important point to consider, as the results found in this study correspond with weeks nine and ten of the winter semester and may not be representative of computer use at other times throughout the academic year. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all computers surveyed in this study

are assumed to follow the same ratio of new liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors to old CRT monitors as identified in the MacLaughlin Library. Due to the constraints of this project, the MacLaughlin Library was used as a sample to quantify the usage of energy efficient LCD monitors throughout the University of Guelph campus. Other computer laboratories, faculty and graduate students are also assumed to follow this pattern.

This study seeks to rank the University of Guelphs current computer efficiency on a scale between a worst-case scenario and a best-case scenario. For the purpose of our study, we have defined the worst-case scenario as all computer systems at the University of Guelph using old CRT monitors, old central processing units (CPUs), not making use of power saving strategies such as sleep and standby mode, and are active 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. This worst-case scenario also lacks of provisions for acquiring energy efficient products and for environmentally sound disposal methods of computer equipment. We have defined the best-case scenario as all computers on campus having LCD energy saving monitors, new CPUs being ENERGY STAR certified, using energy saving techniques, and being active 8 hours per day, 5 days per week. ENERGY STAR certified technology allows computers to automatically switch to standby mode when inactive for a certain amount of time, and thus allowing for energy savings. The best-case scenario also includes provisions for acquiring energy efficient products and disposing of computer equipment in an environmentally sound manner. By stating these scenarios, this study is able to make comparisons between the University of Guelphs current computer energy consumption with the potential energy consumed within the best and worst-case scenarios. The fundamental premise behind these comparisons is that the University of Guelph is not running at optimal energy efficiency, and that through increased power management

10

techniques, the purchasing of energy efficient products and the usage of proper disposal techniques, the University of Guelph can improve its current practices. Explicitly stated, our null hypothesis is the following:

The University of Guelph's current practices will be the same as the best-case scenario for energy consumption and cradle-to-cradle environmental efficiency.

This null hypothesis is the basis for this report; however, several other comparisons will be made, with two sub-null hypotheses being identified:

1. Conservation plans alone cannot reduce the energy required to power computer usage at the University of Guelph.

This sub-null hypothesis compares the worst-case scenario with a scenario using CRT monitors and old CPUs, but utilizing energy saving techniques such as shutting the computers down at night.

2. New computer equipment alone cannot reduce the energy required to power computers at the University of Guelph.

This sub-null hypothesis compares the worst-case scenario with a scenario where all computers on campus use LCD monitors and Energy Star certified CPUs, but are left active for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

11

The re-evaluation of the University of Guelphs energy conservation strategies and computer disposal methods is significant. Not only can it save the University money, but it will also perpetuate its excellent reputation as an environmentally and ecologically conscientious institution. Such measures will allow the University of Guelph to act as an example of an institution demonstrating cost-effective green procurement strategies.

12

2.0 Background
While the environmental issues involved in computer manufacturing, use, and disposal employ large quantities of fossil fuels and hazardous wastes, a new push towards the greening of the various components of the computer industry provides hope and practical strategies for the future.

2.1 Computers and Associated Environmental Problems

The environmental problems associated with computers are two-fold. High energy consumption and highly toxic component materials are currently inherent characteristics of computers, thus making their production, use and disposal ecologically unsound (Lee et al., 2004). Unfortunately, due to their sheer global quantities and current product life of roughly two years, the problems associated with such characteristics become greatly enhanced at an alarming rate (Brennan et al., 2002). Zhang and Forssberg (1999) projected that by 2005, roughly 150 million personal computers (PCs) and workstations will be disposed in landfills in the US alone. By this same year, Gungor and Gupta (1999) predicted that every family in the US will own a computer, and given the aforementioned product life of these systems, it appears that computers are being disposed of as quickly as they are being produced.

Unfortunately, disposal in landfills is only the first step in a dangerous sequence of events involving the breakdown and leaching of computer material components. Examples include lead, barium, chromium and other endocrine and central nervous system disruptors (Baul, 2002). Aside from hazardous wastes, the production and use of computers consumes vast amounts of

13

energy, thus further depleting fossil fuel reserves and playing an increasingly significant role in climate change and global warming (Gungor and Gupta, 1999). 2.1.1 Energy Consumption Globally speaking, the issue of energy consumption is one that involves all sectors and industries. According to Norfold (1990) and Kawamoto (2002), electronic office equipment such as desktop computers use significant amounts of electric power. A typical CPU uses 120 Watts (W = 1 joule/second) of electricity, while a CRT monitor consumes an added 150 W (United States Department of Energy, 2005). This implies that a standard office computer which is left on 8 hours per day, for 5 days a week can consume up to 561.6 kW of fossil fuel derived energy. However, this figure more than triples if such a computer is left on throughout the night or during the entire week. 2.1.2 Physical Components and Toxins Desktop computers generally consist of three major units: the main processing machine (CPU consisting of power supplier, fan, IC boards, DVD drive, CD drive, hard disk, soft disk and shell casing), the monitor and the keyboard (Lee et al., 2004). However, as demonstrated in Appendix 1, these major units are composed of various materials, which, in turn consist of a wide range of chemicals, elements and heavy metals. Some of these materials, such as platinum, have a high recovery and recycling efficiency (95%), while others cannot be recycled at all (e.g. mercury, arsenic and barium). There are, however, two desktop components that represent the largest environmental hazards with respect to bioavailability, monitors containing CRTs and flame retardant plastics (Lee et al., 2004).

14

Cathode Ray Tubes Since the 1950s, CRTs have been used in television and computer screens. Historically, their production has grown in step with computer demand (Williams, 2003). In 2001, the global CRT monitor industry was valued at US $19.5 billion, producing 108 million units. This figure is expected to fall due to the increasing popularity of LCD monitors (Williams, 2003).

The CRT of a typical monitor accounts for approximately 50% of the monitors weight, and contains a veritable cocktail of elements (Table 1) of which lead is considered the most important due to its high content (up to 20%) in the funnel glass component of a CRT (Lee et al., 2004).

Table 1: Components of CRT panel and funnel glass (reconstructed from Lee et al., 2004)

Type of Glass Panel

Major Elements (>5% wt) Silicon, oxygen, potassium, barium, and aluminium

Minor Elements (<5% wt) Titanium, sodium, cesium, lead, zinc, yttrium, and sulphur

Funnel

Silicon, oxygen, iron, and lead

Potassium, sodium, barium, caesium, and carbon

In most basic terms, a CRT creates the visual image displayed by the monitor, by employing the interaction between an electron tube and a phosphor coated screen (Anonymous, 2003). In order to avoid radiation exposure to the viewer, the funnel glass of the CRT contains high concentrations of lead-oxide (Lee et al., 2004). According to the US Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP), the lead found in funnel glass is considered a hazardous waste because it far exceeds the TCLP threshold of 5 mg/L leached, with values ranging from 10-20 mg/L leached per monitor (Lee et al., 2004). Williams (2003)

15

also found that CRT monitors exceeded TCLP limits for zinc leachate, thus classifying it as a hazardous waste. The hazard truly occurs when monitors are permitted to weather in landfills, releasing these toxic chemicals into soil, and subsequent water systems.

Lead is especially an issue in waste disposal because it becomes bioavailable in soils with increasing pH, and becomes available to animals and humans through the food chain and soil dust inhalation (Martinez-Villegas et al., 2004). Once in the body, it can attack proteins and DNA (Bechara, 2004) as well as interfere with the functions of the central and peripheral nervous systems (Needleman, 2004). At high enough doses, it can result in brain edema and haemorrhage (Needleman, 2004).

Liquid Crystal Display The global shipment of LCDs, also known as Flat Screen monitors, is projected to surpass that of CRT monitors by 2007. In 2001, the global market for LCDs was valued at US $9 billion and totalled 12 million units (Williams, 2003). While LCDs are preferred for their efficient use of space, thus allowing more to be shipped at once, they also contain significant amounts of mercury (4-12 mg/unit), which can be leached from improperly discarded systems. Mercury is already a problematic substance in US landfills since in 2000, it was estimated that 172 tonnes were accumulating in locations across the country (Williams, 2003). Additionally, the production of an LCD monitor requires 266 kg of fossil fuels, a figure that surpasses that required for the production of CRT monitors (Williams, 2003).

16

The liquid crystals within an LCD monitor are a mixture of polycyclic or halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons, and contain 588 various compounds. However, of these, only 26 possess the potential for acute toxicity in humans (Williams, 2003). While no tests for the carcinogenicity of these compounds have been conducted on animals, tests using bacteria showed no trace of mutagenic effects (Williams, 2003).

Plastics and Casings Most electronic equipment contains plastic casings that serve as the protective shell and structure for various products including computers (Brennan et al., 2002). These casings often contain plastics such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); part of a wider group of materials known as brominated flame retardants (BFRs) (Domingo, 2004). While BFRs are considered a safety precaution, they are difficult to recycle and separate from other plastics, and due to their high bromine content, will be banned from the European Union as of July 1, 2006 (Osako et al., 2004). Very little is known about the effect that BFRs exert on human health, however, due to their long half-lives (2-10 years) and structural similarities with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), they are considered environmentally persistent and are known to biomagnify (Domingo, 2004). BFRs have caused neurodevelopmental toxicity in lab rats, and have been found in increasing quantities in human blood, adipose and liver tissues, and in breast milk (Domingo, 2004). 2.1.3 Computer Manufacturing In order to obtain an accurate measure of the environmental impact of computer technology, the production process of computer technology must be examined. From the extraction of raw

17

materials, to the production of computer parts and constituent materials, and the final assembly of whole computer units, a myriad of environmental problems arise (Fava et al., 1993).

The impact of computer technology largely depends on the scope used in analysis, and can involve an assessment of a systems entire life cycle, including the environmental impacts of preliminary manufacturing activities. These include the mining and smelting of raw materials, and the refining of petroleum to provide the vast amounts of energy required to produce and use computers (Curran, 1996). However, it is the unique manufacturing processes from which computers themselves are derived, that exerts further impacts and thus requires an in-depth understanding.

While the environmental impacts associated with the production and disposal of CRTs, LCDs and plastics are highly significant; the production of other computer components must also be explained in order to fully grasp the extent of the environmental impacts imposed by their fabrication.

Microchip Fabrication CPU function is based on microchips, and it is the fabrication of these components that cause the largest environmental impacts related to manufacturing (Geiser, 2001). Over 400 individual processing steps exist in the production of semiconductor microchips, but the basic process involves a sequence of layering, oxidation and patterning processes and is explained in Table 2.

18

Table 2: Basic steps in computer chip fabrication (reconstructed from Williams, 2003)

Process Layering Oxidation Patterning Etching

Description Application of a thin layer of desired material, usually silicon or aluminum Changes a semi-conducting silicon layer into a insulating silicon dioxide layer Carving of a dense, maze-like set of furrows into a layer Use of solvents or particle bombardment to alter the layer patterns

Between each step, microchips are processed with large amounts of ultra-pure water. Microchips are then bathed in a wide range of chemical solvents in order to ensure their purity, as any small defect on its surface can hinder its function (Geiser, 2001). Chemical solvents used include: hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, arsenic, benzene and hexavalent chromium; many of which are known to cause deleterious environmental and human health effects (Williams, 2003).

Circuit Board Fabrication Printed circuit boards are responsible for connecting microchips and other components of the computer. The physical base of the circuit board is made of an insulating material sandwiched between thin copper layers (Williams, 2003). The fabrication process of printed circuit boards is quite similar to that of microchips. Metals such as copper, lead, silver, tin and chromium, as well as PBDEs, act as flame retardants incorporated into the manufacturing process, as well as, in the unit itself. These various materials are bioaccumulative and along with neurodevelopmental problems, can cause thyroid disruption (Darnerud et al., 2001).

19

Resource Use in Manufacturing In many manufacturing processes, environmental impacts will arise through the intensive use of chemicals, energy, or water resources at each step of production. Table 3 shows the general amounts of resources used in the manufacturing of various computer components (Williams, 2003). In many cases, this intensive resource use is necessary to ensure that high-grade chemicals and components are employed in the manufacturing process. Chemicals used in computer fabrication are of purity typically in the range of 99.995-99.9999%, compared with industrial grade purities of 90-99% (Williams, 2003).
Table 3: Resource Use in production of various computer components (Reconstructed from: Williams, 2003)

Component Computer Chips Printed Circuit Boards CRT monitors LCD monitors

Fossil Fuels (kg) 94 14 31.5 226

Chemicals (kg) 7.1 14 0.49 3.7

Water (kg) 310 780 450 1290

2.1.4 Social and Political Implications The 1980s proved to be an era of tightening environmental regulations with respect to the transboundary disposal of hazardous wastes (Secretariat of the Basel Convention, 2005). Unfortunately, as prices for hazardous waste disposal rose, so did the occurrence of toxic traders; the practice of shipping electronic wastes to developing countries where they are cheaply and manually sorted (Secretariat of the Basel Convention, 2005). On May 5, 1992, the Basel Convention, under the United Nations Environment Program, came into force in order to control the movement of hazardous wastes across international borders (Secretariat of the Basel Convention, 2005). In 1995, the Basal Action Network (BAN) Amendment was drafted in order 20

to prohibit the export of hazardous waste from the European Union, Liechtenstein and what are known as Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries (The OECD countries include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and the US) to all other parties of the convention (Secretariat of the Basel Convention, 2005). Adherence to the convention is voluntary, and of the 164 parties, only Afghanistan, Haiti and the US have not yet ratified it (Secretariat to the Basel Convention, 2005).

Unfortunately, many of the stipulations of the Convention can be interpreted in various ways, thus paving the way for toxic trading to continue (Secretariat of the Basel Convention, 2005). Baul (2002) estimates that even with the Basel Convention in place, roughly 200 tonnes of obsolete computer waste are shipped to South East Asia each year, of which Canada is a contributor. The reported recycling practices in such countries include manually smashing monitors and the melting of circuit boards over open flames; practices detrimental to human and environmental health (Baul, 2002).

2.2 Green Procurement

In order to effectively manage the vast quantities of computer waste being generated annually, at a global scale, the implementation of proactive and design-based measures has begun in several countries. The creation of environmentally friendly products and waste recovery techniques has become increasingly important aspects of computer production, use, and disposal. This is due to a decrease in the number of available landfill sites, society becoming more environmentally

21

aware, and increasing scarcity of non-renewable energy sources (Gungor and Gupta, 1999). One term which incorporates all these factors is green procurement. Green procurement is the environmentally responsible selection of products and services with consideration of the consequences of such a product throughout the various stages of its life cycle (BSD Global, 2002). This implies that the various ecological costs of securing raw materials, manufacturing, transporting, storing, handling, using and disposing of a product, must not only be considered, but become inherent parts of that products design. Examples include: designing computers which can easily be broken down for recycling and are less hazardous to recycle due to lower levels of toxic components (Lee et al., 2004), or designing efficient systems which effectively separate and recover recyclable components from obsolete systems (Zhang and Forssberg, 1999). Equipping computer systems with internal energy regulation devices (SVTC, 2005) and ensuring that human and environmental health are not compromised during recovery and end-of-life management, through policy and public education, (Nagel and Meyer, 1999), are all significant components of green procurement.

Green procurement strategies have already been demonstrated in countries such as Germany and Taiwan, where producers are responsible for the recycling of obsolete computers, thus creating an incentive to produce products which can be easily recycled (Lee et al., 2004). The various ecolabels, such as ENERGY STAR, ensure that computers are running under energy conservation measures (SVTC, 2005), and even Canadian post secondary institutions such as the University of Manitoba have recently employed green procurement strategies in an on-campus setting (Searcy, 2001). Due to its broad definition, green procurement can be applied to all facets

22

of the computer industry, thus making it a model strategy not only for the management, but the elimination of computer wastes. 2.2.1 The Acquisition of 'Green Computers' The acquisition of computers using green procurement strategies can potentially reduce their environmental burden. By supporting manufacturers who utilize green production processes, these environmentally sound means of production can be further propagated and perhaps eventually become the industry standard (Saied and Velasquez, 2003).

Many organizations today are beginning to develop and adopt green procurement policies, as they can result in significant cost savings from more energy efficient technology. Also, growing public environmental awareness requires environmental and social accountability, thus requiring producers to take responsibility for their products (Gungor and Gupta, 1999).

There are several manufacturing options currently available which employ fewer toxic chemicals in their various processes. Methods of manufacturing and purifying computer chips have been developed to fit this strategy, and the rise in PBDE-free plastic casings reflects the move towards alternative processing as well (Shigekazu, 2004). Computer components that contain lead-free soldering are also being produced as a means of reducing this toxic and harmful substance (Griese et al, 2000).

Manufacturing is only one component in the successful acquisition of ecologically sound computer equipment. Another important factor is the need for extended producer responsibility. This concept recognizes that manufacturers and brand-owners are responsible for their equipment

23

throughout all stages of its lifecycle, and should therefore strive to produce computers in an environmentally conscientious manner in order to avoid future negative environmental impacts for which they will be responsible (Gungor and Gupta, 1999). This involves producer understanding of the products environmental impacts throughout all stages of its lifecycle, as well as the implementation of environmental product design in order to minimize these impacts at the beginning of the lifecycle (Gungor and Gupta, 1999). The acquisition of environmentally sound computer products should be based upon these various practices, thus creating a demand for such products in the market and eventually leading to the implementation of these practices into all computer production processes (Saied and Velasquez, 2003). 2.2.2 Power Saving Techniques and Ecolabeling The ENERGY STAR symbol (Figure 1) is an increasingly common sight on the outer surfaces of various computer systems. The ENERGY STAR program was established in 1992 by the U.S. EPA in order to reduce the amount of energy used by computer systems (USEPA, 2005). ENERGY STAR power management features are now standard in Windows and Macintosh operating systems and all the buyer must do is ensure that they are enabled. These power management features place inactive computers and monitors into a sleep mode. While in sleep mode, the computer consumes 15% less power than when in regular mode (USEPA, 2005). The computer or monitor can be woken up simply by touching the keyboard or moving the mouse.
Figure 1: ENERGY STAR Symbol

Some advantages of using ENERGY STAR qualified computers include a 70% reduction in electricity, and equipment runs at cooler temperatures and therefore, lasts longer because the

24

systems are not continually running at full power (USEPA, 2005). However, some misconceptions and concerns have arisen from the use of ENERGY STAR management practices. While users may believe that repeatedly shutting down and starting up a computer will shorten its lifespan, this is not the case. Modern computers are designed to be able to withstand 40,000 on-off cycles without technical problems (USEPA, 2005). Another common misconception is that screen savers save energy. Screen savers are designed to maintain computer screens, not conserve energy (USEPA, 2005). With current technological developments, screen savers are more a form of entertainment than a necessity. Another common concern is that computers and monitors that are ENERGY STAR qualified will cost more money upon purchasing. This is also untrue, as there is no increased cost for having these systems integrated into a personal computer.

Ecolabels, however, can represent more than simply power saving techniques, and can be applied to many products including household paints and paper products (SVTC, 2005). Many countries employ various ecolabels for desktops and laptops alike. Figure 2 shows examples of some of the most popular ecolabels found under the Global Ecolabling Network: German Blue Angel, European Union, Nordic Swan and Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO).

Figure 2: Popular ecolabels under the Global Ecolabeling Network (From SVTC, 2005).

25

Appendix 2 contains full descriptions of these ecolabels and the environmental guarantees they entail. 2.2.3 End of Life Management The disposal of computers is a unique issue due to the fact that most computers are often disposed of before they truly become useless. In fact, the main reason for purchasing a new computer is not to replace a non-functioning system, but to keep up with rapidly changing technologies (Williams and Sasaki, 2003). One key term which is important for industry, the government, and the public, with respect to computer disposal, is upstream management; the various methods employed to reduce the amount of in-coming computer wastes before they are disposed of for good (Williams and Sasaki, 2003). These methods embody the concept of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and have proven to yield many benefits, both environmental and socioeconomic.

Reduction and Reuse Reducing the amount of computer waste relies heavily upon the reuse of systems that may be out of date, but fully functional. Reusing old computers can manifest itself in two main ways; by the selling or donation of old systems, or by up-grading existing systems (Williams and Sasaki, 2003). The key concept with respect to reuse is to meet the users needs with existing machines, while extending that machines lifespan.

There are a number of organizations around the world, which focus on the redistribution of old computers. In the 1990s, Williams and Sasaki (2003) found that schools and small businesses were generating the greatest demand for used computers. The Canadian federal government

26

initiative, Computers for Schools, was founded in 1993, and since then has collected, repaired, refurbished and redistributed over 500 000 computers across Canada (CFS, 2005). Currently, Computers for Schools delivers 80 000 additional computers each year to schools, public libraries and non-profit organizations, for a cost of CDN $85 per computer (CFS, 2005). The National Cristina Foundation (NCF) in partnership with Dell computers, carries out both computer redistribution and recycling, and also donates systems, as well as provides, IT training to disabled and disadvantaged members of the community (Dell, 2005).

Reselling old computers is another way to extend a working PCs lifespan, however, many re-sell agents only accept the newest generation of equipment (Williams and Sasaki, 2003). Computer Renaissance is the largest chain of re-sell shops in North America (110 stores), and even original equipment manufacturers such as IBM, Dell and Hewlett Packard/Compaq sell their own refurbished systems on-line (Williams and Sasaki, 2003). In 2002, eBay, the largest on-line auctioneer sold US $2 billion worth of computer equipment, of which 40% was new, 14% was refurbished and 46% was used (Keafe, 2002).

Upgrading a computer in order to suit current technology is a choice often made only by computer specialists or hobbyists, due to the fact that user knowledge is required and full upgrades can be costly. While upgrading individual components of a computer, such as the hard drive or processor, may cost less than a new PC; upgrades which involve the addition of a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port result in the complete upgrade and often cost more than a new system (Williams and Sasaki, 2003).

27

Recycling and Reduction As rates of computer disposal appear to keep in-step with the rate at which technology changes, the disposal of computers in landfills is no longer an option for end of life management (Lee et al., 2004). With the introduction of increased producer take-back legislation, or extended producer responsibility in such countries as Germany and Taiwan, making use of efficient and effective recycling strategies is now more economically and ecologically important than ever (Zhang and Forssberg, 1999). Recycling is always more economically beneficial if it gives priority to whole-product recycling (i.e. re-use), however, this cannot always be the case; therefore efficient material recycling techniques are needed (Williams and Sasaki, 2003).

One of the main problems encountered during the computer recycling process is the effective physical separation of components. The concept of Intelligent Liberation is presented by Zhang and Forssberg (1999) as a means of accurate mechanical separation of computer scrap components, such as printed circuit boards, for further recycling. Materials used in computer equipment are held together via weak interfacial bonds such as welding, fastening and wrapping, and therefore intelligent liberation of these materials can occur via low energy methods. One method utilizes a ring shredder which is capable of producing particles of desired shapes and sizes which can be further separated and recycled (Zhang and Forssberg, 1999). Once these liberated materials are obtained, they can be further separated through eddy current separation; a method in which an eddy current is created through the spinning of magnets at over 3000 rpm. This current reacts differently with different metals, thus allowing for separation to take place at a 95% recovery rate for particles as small as 2 mm in diameter (Anonymous, 2003). Other

28

mechanisms of separation include sink-float density-based separation and screen-aspirator systems (Zhang and Forssberg, 1999).

CRT monitors are another component that require careful recycling measures due to their high lead content (Lee et al., 2004). Since panel and funnel glass contain different amounts of lead, they should be separated by either the electric-wire heating method or the gravitational fall method (Lee et al., 2004). Both methods may be effectively employed, however, using a super heated wire to separate the glass, often achieves cleaner separation (Lee et al., 2004).

Once all separation and grinding has occurred, individual metals are separated by electrolysis and recycled accordingly (e.g. ferrous materials are reprocessed in traditional steel-waste processing plants or smelters), while cleaned CRT glass is sent to ceramic plants where it is re-used as raw material for future production (Lee et al., 2004). While these processes are effective, some tend to generate waste waters and residuals which are difficult to treat and dispose of (Klatt, 2003).

Effective Recycling and Reduction Options Many countries have ratified the Basel Convention and have even initiated legislation forcing producers to take back old systems, however, the problem of toxic traders is still very real (Kuehr, 2003). For this reason, in 2003, the Electronic Recyclers Pledge of True Stewardship was first launched by the Basel Convention (BAN, 2005). Those who take the pledge must agree to meet rigorous criteria in order to recycle electronic waste in the most sustainable and socially just manner possible. The pledge itself can be found in Appendix 3. Maxus Tech Inc. and Retro

29

Systems in Alberta, and Logic Box Distribution Inc. in Mississauga, Ontario, are the only three Canadian recycling companies have taken the pledge thus far (BAN, 2005).

Logic Box accepts any type of computer and peripheral devices free of charge (Chezzi, 2004). The goal at Logic Box is to dismantle, refurbish and repair computers for re-sale, or individual parts within the tenets of the pledge (Chezzi, 2004). When electronic devices reach the stage where recycling is the only option for end of life management, they are shipped to the Mississauga based Electronic Product Recovery Services (EPRS). Here, a specially designed shredder sorts metals within electronic devices as well as associated packaging products, such as cardboard and shrink wrap (Chezzi, 2004). Even the dust produced from this system is captured, compressed and re-processed as to achieve a no-waste standard. Not only are these companies developing their own environmentally sound technologies, but they are also local, thus providing potentially viable options for the future.

No matter how many environmentally sound re-use and recycling schemes are implemented, computer wastes will continue to be a serious environmental and social problem, unless the public becomes educated and informed regarding these processes and the reasons behind them. In turn, the choices of environmentally informed consumers will play a huge role in the greening of the computer industry (Kuehr, 2003). As previously mentioned, ecolabels provide environmental symbols which can be easily recognized by consumers. In fact, many labels, including Norways Nordic Swan and Swedens TCO, provide user instructions regarding available take-back procedures, upgrading options and energy saving techniques (SVTC, 2005).

30

One original idea regarding public education is called the Green Port Identification Unit (Nagel and Meyer, 1999). This theoretical system would allow consumers to plug and recycle; meaning that when an electronic product has reached its end of life, it could be hooked up to software that would enable the customer to read all information about its structural and chemical components, as well as its life time (hours of operation, physical or temperature shocks). The consumer would then be provided with information regarding the appropriate recycling stream for the product; thus making an environmentally informed decision (Nagel and Meyer, 1999).

Public education is a key component of green procurement because it can exert a strong influence on industry and therefore bring about ecological change (Kuehr, 2003). Unfortunately, the general public has yet to realize the ecological effects of this influence; however, increasing education and awareness will aid in the realization of this.

2.3 Case Study: Green Procurement Guidelines for the University of Manitoba
The University of Manitoba recently completed a draft report entitled The University of Manitoba Campus Plan Network Services (Searcy, 2001). As part of the plan, the University acknowledged the need for stewardship of the physical environment and the development of green procurement guidelines. As one of the fundamental concepts of green procurement, each guideline was created based on sound environmental principles that take into account the entire life cycle of a product. Therefore, impacts related to the extraction and processing of raw materials, design, manufacturing, packaging, transport, distribution, installation, use, maintenance, recycling, reuse, and final disposal of the product were all considered in the development of guidelines (Searcy, 2001). In addition to criteria associated with environmental

31

impacts, it is important to note that traditional performance requirements, such as cost and availability, were also considered.

Two broad categories of criteria for procurement were identified: procurement of products and procurement of services. Several green procurement guidelines for office equipment were included in the plan: Preference must be given to office products which bear ecolabels, are upgradeable, and contain recycled materials Suppliers which offer a take-back or trade-in program must be sought out and given preference Products which use minimal packaging and are energy efficient must be given preference Supplies should be bought in bulk in order to minimize wastes from packaging as well as fossil fuel emissions from transportation Office equipment that is easily dismantled must be selected in order to encourage efficient reuse, refurbishment or recycling

By following these green procurement practices the University of Manitoba should reduce the overall impact that it has on the environment (Searcy, 2001). However, for this to effectively occur, environmental considerations must be integrated with existing purchasing practices and be consistent with such traditional factors as product safety, price, performance, and availability (Searcy, 2001). Through the implementation of these guidelines, potential benefits such as reduced environmental impacts and improved energy efficiency may be realized.

32

3.0 Materials and Methods

The materials and methods of this study were designed to test the following null hypothesis:

The University of Guelph's current practices will be the same as the best-case scenario for energy consumption and cradle-to-cradle environmental efficiency.

3.1 Survey Design

3.1.1 Quantifying Computer Energy Use in Libraries and Laboratories Upon our request, the departmental manager at Computing and Communication Services (CCS) sent out an e-mail survey to all the information technology (IT) managers at the University of Guelph regarding computer energy use in the libraries and laboratories. Laboratories with less than 20 computers were not considered because the number of these that exist on campus is too difficult to determine. Questions in the survey included: Which computer lab(s) are you responsible for? How many hours a day are the computers in this lab powered on for? How many days a week is the computer lab open for? Do the computer systems have a stand-by/energy saving mode that is used if the computers become inactive? And if so, how many hours a day do you suspect that it is on stand-by/energy saving mode? E-mail responses were received from the following IT managers: Crop Science, Graham Hall, McLaughlin Library, Ontario Veterinary College (OVC) library, and OVC microcomputer

33

laboratory. Responses from IT managers were not received from the following buildings: Hutt, Mackinnon, MacNaughton, and Powell. A physical count was necessary to estimate the quantity of computers in Hutt, Mackinnon, MacNaughton, and Powell (Appendix 5). It was assumed that the length of the computer activity was the same as the posted hours in each lab. Due to the difficulty of accurately determining the amount of time the computers were on stand-by/energy saving mode, it was assumed that they were left active for the entire time the laboratory was open.

There was a slight discrepancy in the number of computers reported by the McLaughlin librarys IT manager to the number reported on the librarys website. To verify the quantity of computers in the library a physical count of the librarys student used computers was performed.

From speaking to various IT managers and doing physical quantification of computers on campus it was discovered that there are a variety of computer systems on campus. There are some very old CPUs and old CRT monitors, as well as some new CPUs and LCD monitors. To quantify energy consumption, IT managers were asked about the proportion of CPUs that are new along with LCD monitors. In the MacLaughlin library computers were counted and LCD and CRT monitors were noted. 3.1.2 Quantifying Computer Energy Use by Faculty and Graduate Students An approximation of the current number of faculty and graduate students on campus was obtained on the University of Guelphs Resource Planning and Analysis website (University of Guelph: Office of the President, 2004). Fall 2004 statistics were presented for on-campus full time and part time graduate students, as well as faculty members.

34

Since a campus wide survey for faculty and graduate students was not temporally feasible for this study, one building on campus was selected as a model for energy use in all buildings. The Richards Building was selected as this model for faculty and graduate students on campus because it is assumed that this building represents standard computer energy consumption for all buildings. This assumption was based on the hours of operation of the Richards Building (8:30 am - 4:30 pm), which is typical for most buildings on campus. The faculty and graduate staff of the Richards Building represent 4.23% (120 computers) of the University of Guelph's total faculty and graduate student population. The results for the Richards Building can be used as a representation of the amount of time that all faculty and graduate student computers are active. The Richards Building was also selected because it is the easiest place to obtain data for the researchers.

Computer energy use was measured using Netscan version 2.4, a program that scans for internet protocol (IP) addresses that are in use at the time the scan is performed (Netscan, 2005). This program, therefore, has the ability to track computers that are active in a given IP range. During this study, a lab technician in the Richards Building provided the IP range of the computers in that buildings network. This allowed for the location of all active computers on the network in the Richards Building at the times the scan was performed. Further assistance was given by the same lab technician to determine which of the IP addresses were indeed computers and not networked printers or departmental servers, which are also assigned IP addresses. The precision and accuracy of this program was first tested on a personal network to ensure that it was effectively picking up all active computers. From this control it was discovered that the program

35

is not capable of distinguishing between offline computers and those in energy saving mode. Therefore, if a computer is not showing up on Netscan it was assumed to be off, as most energy saving modes use negligible quantities of energy. This program was run three times a day at approximately 10:00 am, 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm, for one week (Tuesday March 15, 2005 to Monday March 21, 2005) to obtain a representative sample of computer usage at different times of the day.

Assumptions used: The proportion of new CPUs and LCD monitors for the faculty and graduate students are the same as those found in the MacLaughlin library The Richards Building uses only static IP addresses All computers in the Richards Building are used by faculty and graduate students and there is one computer per person

The results of the IP scanning period are a realistic representation of the faculty and graduate student population of the University because: 1. It is assumed that all faculty and graduate students have similar schedules and responsibilities. Faculty and graduate students from every building on campus will have to attend conferences, perform lab work and, fieldwork, and will have sick days. 2. It is assumed that the only differences between all faculty and graduate students are the subject matters with which each individual works.

36

3.2 Statistical Analysis

3.2.1 zTest Analysis: Data obtained from the e-mail surveys distributed to departmental managers by CCS were used to conduct 3 separate one-tailed ztests. These tests were used to determine if there was a significant difference between current computer usage by libraries, computer laboratories, faculty and graduate students and the best and worst-case scenarios. The tests were performed at a 95% significance level and the zcritical value was 1.96. For the best-case scenario, the null hypothesis (for statistical purposes only) is:

Ho: current energy consumption by computers on campus (libraries, computer labs and faculty and graduate students) is equivalent to the best-case scenario of computer energy use.

For the worst-case scenario, the null hypothesis is Ho: current energy consumption by computers on campus (libraries, computer labs and faculty and graduate students) is equivalent to the worst-case scenario of computer energy use.

3.2.2 S-Plus Analysis S-Plus, a statistical software program was used to produce 3 statistical summaries for the raw data from the monitoring sessions (S-Plus, 2002). Each summary produced values for the mean computer usage for each of the monitoring times as well as, the standard deviation, the minimum and maximum percentage of computers on, the first, second and third quartiles and the median value of the raw data. The first summary included computer usage for Monday through Sunday. The second summary included computer usage for Monday through Friday and was considered to

37

be a 5 day work week. Finally, a summary of weekend use, Saturday and Sunday, was produced. All three summaries were compared to examine different use patterns of computer systems in the Richards Building.

3.3 Environmental Impacts and Green Procurement Strategies

Throughout the course of this study, literature reviews were conducted in order to gain insight into computer life cycles and various related topics associated with their environmental impacts and potential green procurement. In order to apply this information to the University of Guelph, the on-campus Sustainability Coordinator was contacted, and, upon request provided information regarding the University of Guelphs current disposal strategies. As the University currently donates old systems to a local outreach program, the coordinator of that initiative was also contacted.

Once current disposal techniques were established, alternative techniques were researched, compiled and ranked based on environmental effectiveness and economic feasibility. The current and possible computer acquisition techniques were also researched via literature reviews and communication with various IT personnel. In order to understand the potential implications of the implementation of green procurement at the University of Guelph, other Canadian institutions that had recently undergone such changes were studied on a case-by-case basis. All information was analyzed and compiled for the provision of future recommendations.

38

4.0 Results
4.1 Statistical Results
4.1.1 z-Test Statistical Results Best-case scenario The following are results for testing if computer energy consumption is equivalent to the bestcase scenario for laboratories, libraries and by faculty and graduate students. The null hypotheses presented in this section are used for statistical purposes only and do not effect the overall null hypothesis. For each of the tests below, the null hypothesis is rejected if z > 1.96.

For Laboratories: Ho: = 442.00 kWhr/yr H: > 442.00 kWhr/yr xavg. = 1137.65 kWhr/yr 2 = 1.28 x 10-8 z = (xavg. 442.00 kWhr/yr / (2 / n)1/2 = (1137.65 442.00) / (1.28 x 10-8 / 689) 1/2 = 1.61 x 108 kWhr/yr z > 1.96, therefore we can reject the null hypothesis. For Libraries: Ho: = 493.00 kWhr/yr H: > 493.00 kWhr/yr xavg. = 1741.34 kWhr/yr 2 = 3.68 x 10-8 z = (xavg. 493.00 kWhr/yr / (2 / n)1/2 = (1741.34 493.00) / (3.68 x 10-8 / 289) 1/2 = 1.11x 108 kWhr/yr z > 1.96, therefore we can reject the null hypothesis.

39

For Faculty and Graduate Students: Ho: = 239.00 kWhr/yr H: > 239.00 kWhr/yr xavg. = 933.66 kWhr/yr 2 = 1.35 x 10-8 z = (xavg. 239.00 kWhr/yr) / (2 / n)1/2 = (933.66 239.00) / (1.35 x 10-8 / 289) 1/2 = 1.73 x 109 kWhr/yr z > 1.96, therefore we can reject the null hypothesis.

Worst-case scenario The following are results for testing if computer energy consumption is equivalent to the worstcase scenario for laboratories, libraries and by faculty and graduate students. The null hypotheses presented in this section are used for statistical purposes only and do not effect the overall null hypothesis. For each of the tests below, the null hypothesis is rejected if z > 1.96.

For Laboratories: Ho: = 2359.00 kWhr/yr H: > 2359.00 kWhr/yr xavg. = 1137.65 kWhr/yr 2 = 1.28 x 10-8 z = (xavg. 2359.00 kWhr/yr) / (2 / n)1/2 = (1137.65 2359.00) / (1.28 x 10-8 / 689) 1/2 = - 2.83 x 109 kWhr/yr z < 1.96, therefore we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

For Libraries: Ho: = 2359.00 kWhr/yr H: > 2359.00 kWhr/yr 40

xavg. = 1137.65 kWhr/yr 2 = 3.68 x 10-8 z = (xavg. 2359.00 kWhr/yr) / (2 / n)1/2 = (1741.34 2359.00) / (3.68 x 10-8 / 289) 1/2 = -5.47 x 107 kWhr/yr z < 1.96, therefore we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

For Faculty and Graduate Students: Ho: = 2359.00 kWhr/yr H: > 2359.00 kWhr/yr xavg. = 933.66 kWhr/yr 2 = 1.35 x 10-8 z = (xavg. 2359.00 kWhr/yr) / (2 / n)1/2 = (933.66 2359.00) / (1.35 x 10-8 / 289) 1/2 = -6.54 x 108 kWhr/yr z < 1.96, therefore we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

4.1.2 S-Plus Statistical Results Three moments, 10:00 am, 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm, were monitored to determine the number of computers that were on in the Richards Building. 10:00 am is considered to be the morning. 2:00 pm is considered to be the afternoon. 7:00 pm is considered to be the evening and both 10:00 am and 2:00 pm combined are considered to be the afternoon. The number of computers turned on at a given time were computed as a percent value and then compared by using statistical software.

41

From the use of the S-Plus statistical software program the following information was determined (Appendix 6). The average percentage of computers turned on at 10:00 am, 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm over a 7 day week period are 48.6%, 52.3% and 33.5% respectively. Assuming that these moments in time are the only time that a computer is on for, the results show that more computers are turned on throughout the day than in the evening. Also, a higher percentage of computers are turned on in the afternoon compared with the percent of computers turned on in the morning.

The difference between the maximum number of computers turned on at one time and the minimum number of computers turned on at one time result in a value called the range. The range for the percentage of computers turned on for the 10:00 am, 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm for the 7 day week is 31.8%, 33.3% and 31.7% respectively. The 2:00 pm monitoring period showed the greatest deviation from the mean (14.5%) while the 7:00 pm monitoring time had the least deviation from the mean (11.1%). The average percentage of computers turned on at 10:00 am, 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm over a 5 day work week are 55.9%, 60.7% and 35.3% respectively. These results are similar to the 7 day week results above, in that more computers are turned on throughout the day than at night. Also, a higher percentage of computers are turned on in the afternoon compared with the percent of computers turned on in the morning.

The range for the percentage of computers turned on at 10:00 am, 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm for the 5 day work week is 8.5%, 5.0% and 31.6% respectively. The 7:00 pm monitoring period showed the greatest deviation from the mean (13.0%) while the 2:00 pm monitoring time had the least deviation from the mean (2.2%).

42

The average percentage of computers turned on at 10:00 am, 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm over a 2 day weekend are 30.4%, 31.3% and 28.8% respectively. These results are similar again to both the 7 day week and the 5 day work week in that more computers are turned on throughout the day than at night. Again, it was also found that a higher percentage of computers are turned on in the afternoon compared with the percent of computers turned on in the morning.

The range for the percentage of computers turned on for 10:00 am, 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm for the 2 day weekend is 2.5%, 2.5% and 0.8% respectively. The 7:00 pm monitoring time had the least deviation from the mean (0.6%) while both the 10:00 am and 2:00 pm monitoring times showed the same deviation value from their means.

The percentage of computers that were observed to be on during all three monitoring times over the entire week long monitoring period was determined manually, without the use of statistical software. It was found that 19.2 % of all computers were on throughout the entire monitoring period. Excluding the 19.2% of computers that were on for each of the monitoring times, 47.5%, 57.5%, 46.7%, 48.3%, 45.8%, 13.3% and 20.0% of computers were turned on at least once for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, respectively.

4. 2 Energy Consumption
As shown in Table 4, the University of Guelphs current energy consumption lies between worst and best-case scenarios, being closer to the best case. It was also found that conservation plans to reduce energy consumption contributed the most to energy savings as compared to purchasing

43

new computer equipment thus rejecting the first sub null-hypothesis and accepting second sub null-hypothesis (Figure 5). 4.2.1 Faculty and Graduate Students From Netscan, it was determined that the average hourly usage for faculty and graduate students was 9.5 hours per day, for a 5 day work week, without stand-by/energy saving mechanisms (Appendix 7). It was assumed that 50% of all monitors were LCD as this was the general on campus trend (Appendix 7). Faculty and graduate students were found to consume the highest amount of energy on campus (Figure 3, Table 4). However, on a per computer basis, faculty and graduate students were found to use the least amount of energy (Figure 4, Table 6). 4.2.2 Computer Laboratories Computer laboratories with more than 20 computers were located in: Crop Science, Graham Hall, Hutt, Mackinnon, MacNaughton, OVC microcomputer laboratory and Powell (Table 5). The laboratories hours ranged from 24 hours, 7 days a week, to 9 hours per day, 5 days a week (Appendix 7). Each laboratory differed in the number of LCD monitors versus CRT monitors. Some laboratories contained 100% CRTs while other laboratories only contained 10% CRTs. However overall, approximately 50% of monitors on campus were found to be CRT monitors (Appendix 7). Energy consumed by computer laboratories as a whole was only exceeded by the energy consumed faculty and graduate students (Figure 3, Table 4). This trend was noticed on a per computer basis as well (Figure 4, Table 6). 4.2.3 Libraries The MacLaughlin and OVC computers were found to be on for 24 and 12 hours per day, respectively (Appendix 7). MacLaughlin library was found to contain 45% CRTs and 55% LCD

44

monitors, while the OVC library contained 100% CRTs (Appendix 7). The libraries were found to consume the least energy of the three groups (Figure 3, Table 4). However, on a per computer basis the libraries were found to consume the most energy (Figure 4, Table 6).

Table 4: University of Guelph's Current Energy Consumption in Comparison with the Worst-Case and BestCase Scenarios Current Best-Case Worst-Case Total Total Total energy energy energy Cost ($) Cost ($) Cost ($) use/year use/year use/year (kWhr/yr) (kWhr/yr) (kWhr/yr) Laboratories Faculty and Graduate Students Libraries 783,844 2,645,992 503,246 62,708 211,679 40,260 304,290 677,893 142,598 24,343 54,231 11,408 1,625,158 6,684,612 681,670 130,013 534,769 54,534

Table 5: Energy Consumption in University of Guelph Buildings Current Location Crop Science Graham Hall Hutt MacNaughton McKinnon OVC Microcomputer lab Powell Thornbrough and Renyolds MacLaughlin Library OVC Library Faculty and Graduate Students Total Total energy use/year (kWhr/yr) 50,450 36,036 160,393 87,567 68,234 65,520 22,113 293,530 470,486 32,760 2,645,992 3,933,082 Cost ($) 4,036 2,883 12,831 7,005 5,459 5,242 1,769 23,482 37,639 2,621 211,679 314,647 Best-Case Total energy use/year (kWhr/yr) 8,907 6,362 17,304 16,795 18,322 20,452 5,938 210,210 132,372 10,226 677,893 1,124,782 Cost ($) 713 509 1,384 1,344 1,466 1,636 475 16,817 10,590 818 54,231 89,983 Worst-Case Total energy use/year (kWhr/yr) 82,555 58,968 160,393 155,676 141,523 117,936 82,555 825,552 622,702 58,968 6,684,612 8,991,441 Cost ($) 6,604 4,717 12,831 12,454 11,322 9,435 6,604 66,044 49,816 4,717 534,769 719,315

45

Figure 3: Current Energy Consumption

300

265 Power Usage (kW hr/yr/computer x 103)

250

Power Usage
$212

Cost

250

200

150
150

100
100

78

$63 50 $40
50

50

Faculty and Graduate Students

Labs with 20 computers or more

MacLaughlin Library

Table 6: Energy Consumption per Computer in University of Guelph Buildings Current Total energy Cost ($) use/year (kW/yr) 1,441 1,441 2,359 1,327 1,137 1,310 632 839 1,782 1,310 934 14,513 115 115 189 106 91 105 51 67 143 105 75 1,161 Best-Case Total energy Cost ($) use/year (kWhr/yr) 254 254 254 254 305 409 170 601 501 409 239 3,652 20 20 20 20 24 33 14 48 40 33 19 292 Worst-Case Total energy Cost ($) use/year (kWhr/yr) 2,359 2,359 2,359 2,359 2,359 2,359 2,359 2,359 2,359 2,359 2,359 25,946 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 2,076

Location Crop Science Graham Hall Hutt MacNaughton McKinnon OVC Microlab Powell Thornbrough and Renyolds MacLaughlin Library OVC Library Faculty and Graduate Students Total

# of Computers 35 25 68 66 60 50 35 350 264 25 2834 3812

Cost (Cost/yr/Computer x 102)

200

46

Figure 4: Current Energy Consumption per Computer

2000 1800

1741

$139

Power Usage

Cost

160

140

Power Usage (kW hr/yr/computer)

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600

1138

$91 934 $75

100

80

60

40
400 200 0

20

MacLaughlin and OVC Libraries

Labs with 20 computers or more

Faculty and Graduate Students

Figure 5: Energy Savings for Conservation plans and New Computer Equipment
$1,400 $1,321 $1,150

$1,200

24hrs/7days

8hrs/5days

$1,000

$800

$734 $563

$600

$400 $225 $200 $196 $125 $96

$0

Old CPU and CRT

New CPU and CRT

Old CPU and Flat screen

New CPU and Flat screen

Cost (Cost/yr/Computer)

120

47

5.0 Discussion
5.1 Statistical Analysis
5.1.1 Discussion for z -Test No situation can ever be better than the best-case scenario and no data can ever be worse than the worst-case scenario. The z-tests preformed in this paper were used to determine if computer energy use on campus is actually running at a best or worst-case scenario.

Each of the best-case scenario z-tests resulted in z-values larger than their critical value. This results in the rejection of the null hypothesis for all of the best-case scenario tests. Since the statistical null hypothesis is rejected there is sufficient evidence to conclude that computer energy use by computers in the laboratories, libraries and by all faculty and graduate students does not run at a best-case scenario.

The z-tests performed to determine if computers on campus are following a worst-case scenario resulted in a failure to reject the statistical null hypotheses. This resulted in sufficient evidence to conclude that computers on campus do not run at the worst-case scenario.

These results show that the University of Guelphs current energy use by computers does not follow a best-case scenario. However, the results do show that energy consumption by computes on campus does not represent a worst-case scenario.

48

5.1.2 Discussion for S-Plus Using the statistical summaries of the S-Plus output for the analysis of Monday through Sunday (7 day week), Monday through Friday (5 day work week) and Saturday and Sunday (weekend), it was found that the percentage of computers on during the day exceeded the percentage of computers on at night. For example, during the 7 day week, 16% more computers were turned on in the morning and 19% more computers were turned on in the afternoon than in the evening. However, the percentage of computers on in the morning was always less than the percentage of computers on in the afternoon. The average number of computers on for each time period is lower during the weekend period and higher during the work week period. The lower percentages of computers on in the evenings and over the entire weekend is most likely attributed to the fact that the Richards Buildings hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.

Only three different times over a 24 hr period were monitored in this experiment to determine when a computer was on. In the raw data, it was found that 19.2% of computers were turned on at each of the three monitoring times for all seven days. This is a possible indicator that these computers were turned on for 24 hours through each of the days of the week. However, this cannot be tested with confidence unless the computers were monitored every second of the day for the 1 week monitoring period.

Without the use of statistical software it was determined that computers are used at least once everyday of the week in the Richards Building. This shows that computers are important in an academic setting. If an experiment were conducted to monitor computer use over a 24 hour

49

period for a number of consecutive years, it would be possible to determine if a significant dependence for computer use increased with time. From the above analysis, results show that all computers in the Richards Building do not run for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, therefore computers are not running at a worst-case scenario.

5.2 Energy Consumption

The University of Guelph is currently operating between the best and worst-case scenarios, with an overall tendency towards the best-case scenario. The University has approximately 50% LCD monitors already in use, and is gradually increasing this percentage to keep pace with technological demands. Furthermore, there are already some conservation plans in use, since most computers are not on for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 5.2.1 Faculty and Graduate Students Faculty and graduate students were found to use the most computers on campus, and therefore consumed the most energy. However, the energy consumed per computer by faculty and graduate students was lower than energy consumed by computers in the laboratories and libraries. This is could be attributed to the fact that laboratories and libraries leave their computers active for longer established hours than faculty and graduate student. Also, the libraries and laboratories facilitate the frequent use of computers by many users; therefore these computers may not enter a low power mode as often. 5.2.2 Computer Laboratories Laboratories were found to be mid-range in terms of overall and per computer energy consumption, when compared with libraries and faculty/graduate students (Figure 4). This is

50

most likely due to the fact that each laboratory has different hours of operation. Another reason that laboratories fell in the mid-range of energy consumption is because these computers are less active than the library computers but more active than those of faculty and graduate students. 5.2.3 Libraries The libraries consume less energy compared to the laboratories and faculty and graduate students. However, they consume the most energy per computer because, although the libraries have a large majority of LCD monitors (50% LCD, 50% CRT), they are on for one of the longest time intervals. Although the OVC library currently applies conservation strategies, it only comprises of 9% of total library computers, and does not compensate for the MacLaughlin library computers being on 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Although the cost savings for the best-case scenario were large there was no consideration for initial cost of procuring new LCD monitors and CPUs. This lack of consideration will likely lower the cost savings.

5.3 Computer Equipment Purchasing Guidelines

In addition to investigating computer usage at the University of Guelph, the procurement and disposal practices were also examined. This was carried out in order to assess the Universitys environmental impact, and to determine if green procurement and environmentally sound end-oflife management practices have been put into place.

51

In terms of computer acquisition strategies, there are currently no green procurement procedures being used by the University in guiding computer purchasing decisions. Current policies are based upon pricing structure, and are derived from contracts with the set of preferred vendors listed below (Loo, 2005):

Apple Canada Audcomp Computer Systems Computer Hardware Services Inc. Dell Canada First Avenue Information Systems Inc. Kerr Norton Onward Computer Systems

This list is comprised of both manufacturers and re-sellers. Manufacturers can often be evaluated in terms of their environmental performance, as certain companies document their dedication to environmental stewardship (Dell 2005, Apple 2005). Resellers often sell products from a wide variety of manufacturers, therefore, it is often difficult to determine if products meet certain environmental criteria.

One main problem that affected this study was the lack of centralized data concerning computer procurement at the University. A budget for computer information technology is allotted in the form of a lump sum, which is to be managed over a period of several years. This money is allocated by Purchasing Services to specific departments as funding is required. There are currently no records kept by Purchasing Services about computers purchased, their manufacturers, and quantities of computers acquired. Without such records, and the potentially

52

varying environmental policies between vendors, the task of comparing current computer procurement strategies with desired green procurement, could become problematic.

As purchasing decisions are made by individual departments, it is important to investigate how departments acquire their computers, as there are currently no green procurement guidelines in place to direct departments in their purchasing. Most purchasing decisions were based primarily upon pricing structure, with any green procurement strategies taken only as a secondary consideration (Loo, 2005).

5.4 Computer Equipment Disposal Guidelines

In Canada, only 50% of high-tech electronic equipment is reused or recycled (Globe and Mail, 2001). The remainder is either disposed of in landfills or incinerated, thus releasing toxic substances into the environment. Currently in Canada, there is no legislation that requires producers to take-back and properly recycle used, un-wanted equipment (Globe and Mail, 2001). Unfortunately, this trend is strongly reflected by the University of Guelphs computer recycling system.

While there is no official computer reuse strategy being implemented on campus, computers that are no longer wanted by one department can be received by another department. It is only when computers are unable to run the necessary software required by any of the departments, that they are slated for end of life management.

53

The University of Guelphs current end of life management strategy for used computer systems was initiated in 2002; however, it is still small and practically unknown. The procedure is facilitated by the Recycling and Waste Co-ordinator who requires small pick-ups (less than 12 units) to be brought to MacKinnon loading docks (MacKinnon 009), while larger pick-ups (greater than 12 units) can be gathered directly from their source (Maurice, 2005). CRT monitors are not accepted for pick-up, and for larger pick-ups, exact quantities of the various materials available must be expressed prior to their removal. A complete out-line of the current system at the University of Guelph is available in Appendix 4.

The University currently donates all used PCs to a company in Fergus Ontario named Production Works Co-op, which operates out of the community living centre of Guelph-Wellington (Maurice, 2005). At this site, approximately 30 developmentally challenged community members are employed to dismantle component parts, which are then sold to two local recycling companies: Hi Tech Recycling (Canada) Ltd and Joseph & Company (Dano, 2005). The dismantling of computers and other electronics (no CRT monitors are accepted) is carried out in a manner that is safe for the workers as well as the environment. Through Production Works Coop, people with intellectual disabilities are also provided with valuable training and experiences in the workplace and business community. Production Works Co-op also ensures that both companies which purchase its materials carry out recycling processes using the most environmentally sound methods possible (Dano, 2005). The members of Production Works Coop are also the workers, owners and decision makers of the company. The Co-op charges the University no fees except for the cost of transportation at a rate of CDN $ 0.38 per kilometre (Dano, 2005). Unfortunately, while most materials are sent elsewhere for further recycling,

54

Production Works Co-op must deal with wastes in the form of plastics; which are subsequently disposed of in landfills (Dano, 2005).

Both Hi tech Recycling and Joseph & Company are local; based in Toronto and Kitchener, respectively. At Hi Tech Recycling, 300 to 500 computers are recycled everyday, and their metals, such as aluminum, copper and silver are recovered and valued between CDN $ 1.59- 2.50 per machine (Globe and Mail, 2001).

The main problems associated with the disposal of used computer systems at the University of Guelph, stem from insufficient knowledge and communication. An overall campus-wide lack of knowledge regarding proper disposal methods and their locations, directly relate to a lack of communication within and between departments regarding these topics. There are a few areas in which the University of Guelphs current computer disposal system can be improved. Firstly, because there is no streamlined computer disposal policy, there is no organizational structure to facilitate proper disposal through this program. Secondly, there is no way to evaluate the success of this program, as there are no records regarding quantity of donations to Production Works Coop. The only estimate obtained regarding current volumes equate to one van load every two months (Dano, 2005). The increasing environmental problems associated with the disposal of electronic equipment, indicates that there is a growing need to maximize waste diversion to recovery services such as Production Works Co-op.

55

6.0 Recommendations
6.1 Purchasing Computer Equipment
The findings of this report have provided important insight into current computer procurement practices at the University of Guelph as well as, strategies that have been developed at other institutions such as the University of Manitoba. From this, a number of recommendations were formulated that could be implemented by the University of Guelph. These recommendations would work towards achieving benefits in terms of cost savings in the form of improved energy efficiency, as well as the minimization of environmental impacts.

Green Procurement Guidelines The development of a set of green procurement guidelines for computers at the University of Guelph is needed. Examples of these guidelines are readily available from a variety of organizations and can be adapted to fit within the context of the Universitys purchasing policy. The University of Guelph should set purchasing guidelines that include: Giving preference to products with ecolabels that are: energy efficient, upgradeable, and contain recycled materials Buying products from suppliers which offer a take-back or trade-in program Purchasing products in bulk in order to minimize wastes from packaging which use minimal packaging Encourage efficient reuse, refurbishment or recycling by the purchasing equipment that is easily dismantled

56

Implementation of these guidelines through the Purchasing Services department would allow for a uniform adoption in all areas of the University, whether it is administration, computer laboratories, faculty, graduate students or staff. Implementation at a departmental level would also be valuable, as it would raise the overall awareness of procurement guidelines in the University community.

The evaluation of the current set of preferred vendors for conformity to the green procurement guidelines is needed. In the case of nonconformity, the economic feasibility of phasing out these vendors in favour of vendors agreeing to operate within green procurement guidelines must be determined.

Lastly, the University should establish records of computer purchases, including the number and types of purchased computers, such that there can be documentation of the use of green procurement strategies, and an evaluation of its success can be made.

As the University of Guelph faces current budget challenges, the need to conserve and reduce expenditures is apparent. The implementation of the suggested green procurement strategies may act as significant aids in reducing these challenges, while further contributing to the Universitys excellent reputation as an environmentally conscientious institution.

6.2 Energy Saving Strategies

The results of this study have indicated that conservation plans were found to contribute the most to energy savings compared to replacing current computer equipment with new computer

57

equipment. The following recommendations will outline how the University of Guelph could increase their energy savings in computer laboratories, libraries and by faculty and graduate students. 6.2.1 Computer Laboratories and Libraries Monitors Computer systems consist of two main components that draw power, the monitor and the actual computer system itself. To reduce the amount of power consumed by monitors, we recommend that power management options, which are available for the majority of monitors, be activated. The power management setting of the monitor should be set so that if the system is inactive for ten minutes or longer, the monitor will go into the low powered sleep mode. Activating monitor power management can reduce power consumption by 60 to 90 W, a savings of up to $55 per computer each year (US EPA, 2005). The activation of power management for a computer monitor causes practically no problems for the system or network (US EPA, 2005). The screen saver options for computer monitors should not be activated for two reasons. Firstly, screen savers do not reduce the amount of power consumed by the computer system (Hewlett-Packard, 2005). Secondly, if the computer has a low power setting option which has been activated, complex screen saver graphics may require enough processing power to bring the computer out of sleep mode (Nordman, 1997).

For extended periods of non-use, such as over night or weekends, computer monitors which will be not be in use for these periods should be turned off completely. The reason for this is that even in a sleep mode the monitor continues to draw power, and when aggregated over an entire year this could constitute a significant amount of energy use and costs (Lebot, 2000).

58

CPUs As of 1996, approximately 70% of all computer sold have power management capabilities (Nordman, 1997). However, presently this figure is most likely higher. The implementation of power management for CPUs can reduce overall power consumption by an additional 40 to 90 W, a savings of about $45 per CPU each year (US EPA, 2005). It is recommended that these power management options be activated, since they are feasible. However, unlike computer monitors, the CPU can have some difficulties with low power settings. According to Norman (1997) CPUs on a network will receive routine messages from the server, which requires the client CPU to respond. If the CPU is in a low power setting and is unable to respond to the server, it could cause network difficulties. Newer CPUs can handle these operations by having a smart network card, which can send a message back to the server without bringing the whole system out of the low powered state. Another characteristic of newer CPUs is that they can partly awaken, handle the operation, and then resume a low power setting (Nordman, 1997). These CPU power management options work best if the CPU is a Pentium IV running Windows 2000 or XP and the administrative updates are retrieved from the network by client machines (US EPA, 2005). 6.2.2 Faculty and Graduate Students Many of the recommendations made for computers in the laboratories and libraries can be applied to faculty and graduate students, as well as, other staff at the University of Guelph. Additionally we feel that the computers used by faculty and graduate students can be subjected to more detailed power management strategies since these computers have fewer users. We recommend that the CPUs and monitors be turned off during extended periods of non-use over an hour (as long as the computer is not needed to perform a task). This will increase energy savings

59

because, as has been previously stated, even in low power settings CPU and monitors will continue to draw power (Kawamoto, 2002).

6.3 Computer Equipment Disposal Methods

One basic recommendation for the remedy of the problem of poor interdepartmental communication is the streamlining of all departments, laboratories and offices with respect to proper computer disposal methods. If all faculty and staff are organized to dispose of their computers in the same fashion, all used on-campus computers could be effectively dealt with in the same environmentally conscientious manner. This could easily occur through increased promotion of the Universitys current system via e-mail, written word and awareness campaigns. Keeping detailed records of working computers, as well as those which have been removed for disposal, and their current locations, would allow IT and office managers to further track their machines and divert them into the on-campus disposal system, rather than allow them to simply disappear in storage.

When the Recycling and Waste Management Coordinator first began the current computer disposal system, it quickly became apparent the large quantity of on-campus computers that were simply being stored rather than properly disposed of. Computer systems from the 1980s were being and, continue to be, brought in for disposal, thus implying the need for an efficient streamlined system (Maurice, 2005). The coordinator of Production Works Co-op has also experienced the inconsistencies of the donation quantities from the University. The company has suggested the need for a standard on-campus system as well, thus allowing for regular, rather than sporadic pick-ups to be made (Dano, 2005).

60

The streamlining and expansion of the University of Guelphs current on-campus computer disposal system would not only result in the increase of profit and productivity for the workers at Production Works Co-op, but ensure that all of the Universitys discarded computers would be dealt with in the same ecological manner. Unfortunately, this scenario still does not provide an adequate means of monitor disposal. There are, however, certain new options that can be explored in order to divert these toxic components from the landfill.

It is recommended that on-campus computers, which are still fully functional (both CPU and monitor) be donated to such programs as Computers for Schools, so that they may continue to provide service for libraries, school and non-profit organizations. Direct contact could even be established between the University and local schools/organizations so that direct donations could be made. Perhaps a website or community notice board could even be implemented to allow faculty and staff to post the availability of functional computer systems for donation.

For computer systems, which are no longer functional, Logic Box Distribution Inc. appears to be the best choice for recycling and refurbishment. The company accepts unlimited quantities of electronic waste from any source, free of charge. In addition to monitors, Logic Box accepts desktops, laptops, printers, keyboards, mice and other computer peripherals, as well as other electronic equipment (BAN, 2005). Logic Box is also one of the three Canadian recycling companies which adheres to the Electronic Recyclers Pledge of True Stewardship, thus ensuring it employs environmental and socially just practices (BAN, 2005). Currently, the company stocks from 15 000 to 20 000 different products, and the goal is to increase this number

61

to 100 000 in order to satisfy consumer demand (Chezzi, 2002). Logic Box recently launched a project in cooperation with several southern Ontario municipalities in order to efficiently and effectively collect residential electronic waste (Chezzi, 2002). Unlike Production Works Co-op, Logic Box does not provide any pick up services; however, used equipment can be delivered in person or by train (BAN, 2005).

There are many aspects of computer recycling that are still elusive and currently somewhat unattainable. The complete recycling of CRTs and plastic casings pose various environmental problems due to high toxicities and difficulty in the separation of their chemical components (Brennan et al., 2002). While some firms are researching the possibilities of using computer plastics to produce fuel or sulphuric acid, these are simply preliminary theories, which require extensive research.

The best option for effective computer disposal at the University of Guelph would make use of various firms to ensure that all computer components are diverted from landfills in the greatest amounts possible for the longest periods of time. Streamlining the disposal of unwanted, oncampus computers so that all are gathered in a central, well-known location requires promotion, education, communication and record keeping by those who are involved. Computers, which are still functional, should be donated to local schools and organizations as to prolong their lifespan. Systems which are no longer functional should be donated (without CRT monitors) to the local initiative Production Works Co-op in Fergus Ontario to support the workers, ensure that materials are being handled in an environmentally conscientious manner, and cut down on fossil fuel emissions during transportation. Monitors, and any other peripherals not accepted by Production

62

Works Co-op should be sent to Logic Box Distribution Inc. in Mississauga Ontario for either refurbishment and re-selling, or recycling.

The catalyst for occurrence of this chain of events must manifest itself in the form of widespread on-campus education and awareness programs regarding the various hazards associated with landfill disposal, as well as the environmentally friendly methods available for disposal. The proposed system can only be a success if a campus-wide effort is made to coordinate the disposal of computers across all departments and offices. This requires communication, and above all, the realization that positive actions will induce positive change, both on campus and within the computer industry (Kuehr and Williams, 2003).

63

7.0 Conclusion
This study examined the University of Guelphs current performance with regards to computer acquisition, energy consumption, and disposal. In order to achieve this, the null hypothesis, which states that the University of Guelphs current practices will be the same as the best-case scenario for energy consumption and cradle-to-cradle environmental efficiency, was tested.

With regards to the computer energy consumption at the University of Guelph, statistical evidence was found to reject the null hypothesis. The results from our study were proved to be statistically significant by our z-test, indicating that the University is not operating at the bestcase scenario, and in fact falls mid range between best and worst-case.

Testing the null hypothesis with regards to the green procurement and disposal of computers proved to be more challenging because it was qualitative in nature. However, from the information collected, there was sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Currently, there are no green procurement strategies or cradle-to-cradle considerations in place at the University of Guelph. Departmental computer acquisition is primarily based on price, with little consideration for environmental standards. An initiative is in place to donate unwanted systems, however, there is no streamlining of this effort within, or between, departments. The lack of a sufficient means of currently disposing of CRT monitors is further grounds to reject the null hypothesis.

While the University of Guelph is currently not operating within a best-case scenario, there is room for optimism. This study placed the University's computer energy consumption at mid64

range between best and worst case; an encouraging result which indicates that the University is on the path to improvement. By adhering to the listed recommendations, direct savings in the form of reduced energy costs can be achieved. Suggested green procurement policies would give incentives to industry to improve their environmental standards, as well as extend the lifespan of functional, yet unwanted systems. Streamlined management of the Universitys computer wastes, especially with regards to CRT monitors, would help to alleviate the flow of hazardous materials entering landfills, and reduce the risk of contamination by lead and other heavy metals.

65

References
Apple and the Global Environment. 2005. [Online] http://www.apple.com/environment/ Accessed 31 Mar 2005. Anonymous. 2003. PC Computer Notes and hardware Tutorials. [Online] http://www.pccomputernotes.com/pcterms/glossaryc.html. Accessed March 18, 2005. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2005. Electronic Recyclers Pledge of True Stewardship. [Online] www.ban.org/E-wastes/Pledge/Locations.html#logic-mat. Accessed March 15, 2005. Baul, H. 2002. Error: dumping does not compute. Alternatives Journal. 28:2. Bechara, E. J. H. 2004. Lead poisoning and oxidative stress. Free radical Biology and Medicine. 36: S22 Suppl. 1. Brennan, L.B., Isaac, D.H., and Arnold, J.C. 2002. Recycling of Acrylonitrite-Butadene-Styrene (ABS) and High-Impact Polystyrene (HIPS) from waste computer equipment. Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 86: 572-578. BSD Global. 2002. Business and Sustainable Development: A Global Guide - Green Procurement. Developed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. [Online] <www.bsdglobal.com/tools/bt_green_pro.asp> . Accessed January 10, 2005. Chezzi, D. 2002. A need for e-cycling-Where do old computers go when they die? [Online] http://www.rebootcanada.ca/sections/macleans.html. Accessed March 17, 2005. Computers for Schools (CFS). 2005. Computers for schools. [Online] http://www.schoolnet.ca/cfs-ope. Accessed March 29, 2005. Curran, M. 1996. Environmental life-cycle assessment. New York: McGraw Hill. pp.432 Dano, S. Personal communication via e-mail. March 16, 2005. Darnerud, P., Eriksen, G.; Johannesson, T.; Larsen, P. and M. Viluksela. 2001. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers: Occurrence, dietary exposure, and toxicology. Environmental Health Perspectives. 109 (supplement 1): 49-68 Dell. 2005. Dell Recycling: national Cristina Foundation. [Online] http://www.cristina.org/dsf/dell.nfc. Accessed January 13, 2005. Dell and the Environment. 2005. [Online] http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/environment/en/index?c=ca&cs= CADHS1&l=en&s=dhs. Accessed 31 Mar 2005.

66

Domingo, J.L. 2004. Human exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers through the diet. Journal of Chromatography. 1054: 321- 326 Fava, J.; Consoli F.; Denison R.; Dickson K.; Mohin T.; Vigon B. (Editors). 1993. A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. Pensacola FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Geiser, K. 2001. Materials Profile of the Computer and Semiconductor Industries. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. Lowell: University of Massachusetts. Globe and Mail. 2001. Discarded computers hazardous in landfill. [Online] http://www.hightechrecycling.com. Accessed March 28, 2005. Gungor, A. and Gupta, S.M. 1999. Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery: a survey. Computers and Industrial Engineering. 36: 811-853. Handy and Harman Electronic Materials Corporation. 1999. Composition of a Personal Desktop Computer. [Online] http://www.svtc.org/hightech_prod/desktop.htm. Accessed March, 28, 2005. Osako, M., Kim, Y-J., and Sakai, S. 2004. Leaching of brominated flame retardants in leachate from landfills in Japan. Chemosphere. 57: 1571-1579. Kawamoto, K.; Koomey, J.G.; Nordman, B.; Brown, R.E.; Piette, M.A. 2002. Electricity used by office equipment and network equipment in the US. Energy. 27(3): 255269. Keafe, C. 2002. Where haves meet wants [Online] http://www.dealerscope.com Accessed March 28, 2005. Klatt, S. 2003. Recycling Personal Computers. In Kuehr, R. and Williams, E (Eds.). Computers and the Environment: Understanding and Managing Their Impacts. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kuehr, R. 2003. Managing PCs through Policy: Review and Ways to Extend Lifespan. In Kuehr, R. and Williams, E (Eds.). Computers and the Environment: Understanding and Managing Their Impacts. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lee, C-H.; Chang, C-T.; Fan, K-S.; and Chang, T-C. 2004. An overview of recycling and treatment of scrap computers. Journal of Hazardous Materials. B114: 93-100. Lebot, B.; Meier, A.; and Anglade, A. 2000. Global Implications of Standby Power Use In The Proceedings of ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBNL-46019: June, 2000. Loo, L. Personal communication. March 15, 2005.

67

Maurice, G. Personal communication via e-mail. March 16, 2005. Martinez-Villegas, N.; Florez-Velez, L.M.; and Domingo, O. 2004. Sorption of lead in soil as a function of pH: a study case in Mexico. Chemosphere. 57: 1537- 1542. Nagel, C. and Meyer, P. 1999. Caught between ecology and economy: end-of-life aspects of environmentally conscious manufacturing. Computer and Industrial Engineering. 36: 781792. Needleman, H. 2004. Lead poisoning. Annual Review of Medicine 55: 209-222. Netscan. 2005. SoftPerfect Network Scanner. [Online] http://www.softperfect.com/. Accessed March 9, 2005. Nordman, B.; Piette, M.A.; Kinney, K.; and Webber, C. 1997. User Guide to Power Management for PCs and Monitors. [Online] http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/Reports/39466/39466.PDF . Accessed March 25, 2005. Norfold, L. and Hatcher A. 1990. Electricity use in Information Technologies. Annual Rev. Energy. 15:423-453. NRCan (Natural Resources Canada). 2002. Office Equipment Fact Sheet. [Online] http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/participants/library/pdf/F180_NRCAN_FS_Offi ceEquip.pdf Accessed January 23, 2005. Searcy, C. 2001. Green procurement Guidelines for the University of Manitoba. [Online] http://www.i-clps.com/gp/greenprocurementpdf. Accessed January 31, 2005. Secretariat of the Basel Convention. 2005. The Basel Convention Introductory Text. [Online] www.basel.int/pub/basics.html. Accessed March 17, 2005. Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC). 2005. Clean Computer Campaign. [Online] http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/greendesign/ecolabel.htm. Accessed March 17, 2005. S-PLUS. 2002. S-PLUS Software: Version 6.1. Lucent Technologies Inc. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2005. Energy Star Computers. [Online] http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw _code=CO. Accessed March 15, 2005. United States Department of Energy. 2005. Energy Use of Some Typical Home Appliances. [Online] http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/ec7.html. Accessed on March 14, 2005.

68

University of Guelph. 2004. Office of the President. 2004 Facts and Figures. [Online] http://www.uoguelph.ca/info/facts/. Accessed March 11, 2005. University of Guelph. 2005. From the president more Budget Challenges lie ahead for U of G. [Online] http://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/05-01-26/newsalastair.shtml. Accessed March 28, 2005. Williams, E. 2003. Environmental Impacts in the Production of Personal Computers. In Kuehr, R. and Williams, E (Eds.). Computers and the Environment: Understanding and Managing Their Impacts. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Williams, E and Sasaki, Y. 2003. Strategizing the End-of-life Handling of Personal Computers: Resell, Upgrade, Recycle. In Kuehr, R. and Williams, E (Eds.). Computers and the Environment: Understanding and Managing Their Impacts. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zhang, S. and Forssberg. E. 1999. Intelligent Liberation and classification of electronic scrap. Powder technology 105: 295-301.

69

Appendix 1: Composition of a personal desktop computer

Based on a typical desktop computer, weighting ~70lbs (Handy and Harman Electronic Materials Corp., 1999) Content Recycling (% of total Efficiency Use/Location Name weight) plastics lead aluminum germanium gallium iron tin copper barium nickel zinc tantalum indium vanadium terbium beryllium gold europium titanium ruthenium cobalt palladium manganese silver antinomy 22.9907 6.2988 14.1723 0.0016 0.0013 20.4712 1.0078 6.9287 0.0315 0.8503 2.2046 0.0157 0.0016 0.0002 0 0.0157 0.0016 0.0002 0.0157 0.0016 0.0157 0.0003 0.0315 0.0189 0.0094 20% includes organics, oxides other than silica 5% metal joining, radiation shield/CRT, PWB structural, conductivity/housing, CRT, PWB, 80% connectors 0% semiconductor/PWB 0% semiconductor/PWB structural, magnetivity/(steel) housing,CRT, 80% PWB 70% metal joining/PWB, CRT 90% conductivity/CRT, PWB, connectors 0% getter in vacuum tube/CRT structural, magnetivity/(steel) housing,CRT, 80% PWB 60% battery, phosphor emitter/PWB, CRT 0% capacitors/PWB, power supply 60% transistor, rectifiers/PWB 0% red phosphor emitter/CRT 0% green phosphor activator, dopant/CRT,PWB 0% thermal conductivity/PWB, connectors 99% connectivity, conductivity/PWB, connectors 0% phosphor activator/PWB 0% pigment, alloying agent/(aluminum) housing 80% resistive circuit/PWB structural, magnetivity/(steel) housing,CRT, 85% PWB 95% connectivity, conductivity/PWB, connectors structural, magnetivity/(steel) housing,CRT, 0% PWB 98% conductivity/PWB, connectors 0% diodes/housing, PWB, CRT

70

bismuth chromium cadmium selenium niobium yttrium rhodium platinum mercury arsenic silica

0.0063 0.0063 0.0094 0.0016 0.0002 0.0002 0 0 0.0022 0.0013 24.8803

0% wetting agent in thick film/PWB 0% decorative, hardener/(steel) housing battery, blu_green phosphor emitter/housing, 0% PWB, CRT 70% rectifiers/PWB 0% welding allow/housing 0% red phosphor emitter/CRT 50% thick film conductor/PWB 95% thick film conductor/PWB 0% batteries, switches/housing, PWB 0% doping agents in transistors/PWB 0% glass, solid state devices/CRT,PWB

71

Appendix 2: Eco-labelling Comparison

Desktop Computers
European Union (Austria, Belgium, Nordic Swan Demark, Finland, France, (Norway, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Iceland) Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK) X X X X X X X X

Blue Angel Germany*

TCO Sweden

Recycling Product take back Most plastic and metal parts bust be recyclable No glued or welded connections No metal inlays No metallic varnish, paint, or lacquer Must use at least 2% recycled glass in monitors Design Modular design Up-gradable Needs no special tools to disassemble Has one or more empty slots Packaging No chlorinated solvents No chlorine based plastics No lead or cadmium based stabilizers Energy (all 4 labels have slightly different criteria with regards to wattage and allowable time before modes change) Has sleep mode Has deep sleep mode Must meet energy Star requirements

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

Guarantees

72

Unit guaranteed for 3 years Spare parts availability - 5 years Monitor - 1 year User Instructions Must explain take back procedures Must include hazmat explanations Must explain energy saving features Must explain up-gradability options Must explain availability of spare parts Plastics No cadmium No lead No chlorine based plastics No brominated flame retardants (on parts >25g) No chlorinated flame retardants (on parts >25g) Parts must include CAS# of flame retardant used No halogenated polymers or halogenated organic compounds Displays No cadmium No mercury Must declare amount of mercury used in background lighting Manufacturing Process No chlorinated solvents Must adhere to Montreal Protocol No CFC, HFC, HCFC No carbon tetrachloride or 1, 1, 1 trichlorethylene Printed Circuit Boards No polybrominated biphenyls, polybrominated diphenyl ethers or chlorinated paraffins

X X

X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X

X X X X

73

Capacitors No PCBs X * Blue Angel specifies no substances may be added to the plastics, which in TRGS 905, 900 or in the MAK-valueList1 as amended, are classified as a. Carcinogenic according to EC Category Carc.Cat.1, Carc.2, or Carc.Cat3 or according to the MAK classification III1, III2 or III3; b. Mutagenic according to EC Category Mut.Cat.1, Mut.Cat.2 or Mut.Cat.3 or M1, M2 or M3; c. Teratogenic according to EC Category Repr.Cat1, Repr.Cat.2 or RE/F1, RE/F2 or RE/F3

(SVTC, 2005)

74

Appendix 3: Electronics Recyclers Pledge of True Stewardship

We, the signing and registered recycling company, agree to uphold the following:
I. We will not allow any hazardous E-waste* we handle to be sent to solid waste (non-hazardous waste) landfills or incinerators for disposal or energy recovery, either directly or through intermediaries. II. Consistent with decisions of the international Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, we will not allow the export of hazardous E-waste we handle to be exported from developed to developing countries** either directly or through intermediaries. III. We will not allow any E-waste we handle to be sent to prisons for recycling either directly or through intermediaries. IV. We assure that we have a certified, or otherwise comprehensive and comparable environmental management system in place and our operation meets best practices. V. We commit to ensuring that the entire recycling chain, including downstream intermediaries and recovery operations such as smelters, are meeting all applicable environmental and health regulations. Every effort will be made to only make use of those facilities (e.g. smelters), which provide the most efficient and least polluting recovery services available globally. VI. We agree to provide visible tracking of hazardous E-Waste throughout the product recycling chain. The tracking information should show the final disposition of all hazardous waste materials. If there is a concern about trade secrets, an independent auditor acceptable to parties concerned can be used to verify compliance with this pledge. VII. We agree to provide adequate assurance (e.g. bonds) to cover environmental and other costs of the closure of our facility, and additionally to provide liability insurance for accidents and incidents involving wastes under our control and ownership. Additionally we will ensure due diligence throughout the product chain. VIII. We agree to support Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs and/or legislation in order to develop viable financing mechanisms for end-of-life that provides that all legitimate electronic recycling companies have a stake in the process. IX. We further agree to support design for environment and toxics use reduction programs and/or legislation for electronic products.

* Following best interpretation of the definitions of the Basel Convention, hazardous electronic waste will for the purposes of this pledge include circuit boards, CRTs as well as computers, monitors, peripherals, and other electronics containing circuit boards and/or CRTs. It will also include mercury and PCB containing components, lamps and devices. The definition of hazardous electronic waste will not include

75

nonhazardous wastes such as copper unless it is contaminated with a Basel hazardous waste such as lead, cadmium, PCBs, mercury etc. The definition of hazardous electronic waste includes non-working materials exported for repair unless assurances exist that hazardous components (such as CRTs or circuit boards) will not be disposed of in the importing country as a result. The definition of hazardous electronic waste does not include working equipment and parts that are certified as working, that are not intended for disposal or recycling, but for re-use and resale. The term 'hazardous e-waste' as used in this Pledge does not pertain to, nor is synonymous with any current legal US definitions of 'hazardous waste', but is meant for the purposes of this Pledge only.

** Following the definitions of the Basel Convention and its Basel Ban Amendment, developing countries are any country not
belonging to either the European Union, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) or Liechtenstein. For a complete list of OECD and EU countries see http://www.ban.org/country_status/country_status.html and find countries shaded in gray.

(BAN, 2005)

76

Appendix 4: Computer and Electronics Recycling

The disposal of obsolete computer equipment presents a growing problem to the IT industry. The rate of production far outstrips the rate of recovery of waste materials in this sector. It is possible to recycle outdated or non-functional computer equipment, but it must be done through a special program. Electronic waste cannot go in the regular blue recycling bins around campus. The University of Guelph runs a depot program for on-campus departments and users of computer/electronic equipment. Items are sent via the Material Handlers to Production Works in Fergus, a division of the Guelph-Wellington Association for Community Living, who disassemble the equipment for recovery. Please note: due to employee safety concerns, monitors/televisions/CRTs are not accepted for recycling by Production Works. Working monitors in good condition may be acceptable for reuse if clearly labelled as such.

Disposal Procedures
1) Take advantage of our unstaffed drop-off times Tuesday and Thursday between 2:30pm and 4:30pm at the MacKinnon loading dock (located on Trent Lane). Recommended for smaller loads, and as a quick way to get the equipment out of your area. Please notify the Sustainability Coordinator (ext. 58129 or recycle@pr.uoguelph.ca) if you have made a drop-off during these times. 2) For larger loads that can wait around longer, you can arrange for pick up by calling or emailing the Sustainability Coordinator at ext. 58129 or recycle@pr.uoguelph.ca, with the following information: a) type(s) of equipment b) exact quantity of equipment c) precise location of equipment Example: 4 inkjet printers, 5 keyboards, 5 towers/hard drives and 1 box of miscellaneous parts in room 054 FACS Building For secure destruction of sensitive data, Valu-Shred, a company based in Mississauga, will take larger quantities of properly packaged equipment. More information is available through their website, www.valushred.com, and by our previous contact person, Mickey Dobran, 1-905-6726597 or cell phone 1-416-268-5249.

77

Computer Recycling Program - University of Guelph

Standard Procedure Information Sheet for Transportation Services
Note: We do not accept monitors and television sets (CRTs). All customers are notified of this policy, and encouraged to make their own arrangements through local reuse outlets.

1 - Unstaffed drop-off for on-campus depot. MacKinnon (068) loading dock off Trent Lane. Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2:30-4:30. Customers with small loads are encouraged to drop off materials during these times and notify the Recycling and Waste Management Coordinator (RWMC) by phone or email. RWMC ensures removal to storage depot (009 MacKinnon) 2 - Small Pick-ups (under 12 units) - delivered to 009 MacKinnon RWMC places Work Order for Material Handlers Customer must specify amount and type of waste equipment, and exact location. Equipment is removed from customer location, and brought to on-campus depot in 009 MacKinnon. Material Handlers note numbers and types of equipment picked up on Work Order When depot is full, RWMC places Work Order for equipment in depot to be delivered to Production Works Co-op. 3 - Large Pick-ups (12 units and over) - delivered directly to Production Works Co-op RWMC places Work Order for Material Handlers Customer must specify amount and type of waste equipment, and exact location. Equipment is removed from customer location, and delivered directly to Production Works Co-op. Material Handlers note numbers and types of equipment picked up on Work Order A phone call 1 day in advance to Production Works is preferred, once the scheduled date for pick up is set by Transportation Services Contacts Gillian Maurice (Recycling and Waste Management Coordinator) ext. 58129 ; recycle@pr.uoguelph.ca Brian Robinson (Custodial Services Supervisor) ext. 58178 ; cell 220-8594 ; brian@pr.uoguelph.ca Production Works Co-op (division of Community Living Guelph Wellington) contact: Shelley Dano (519) 787-1539 ext. 51; sdano@gwacl.on.ca EMJ Datasystems Ltd. (Backup location for computer recycling) contact: Mike Hall (519) 837-2444

78

Appendix 5: Sampling Sites

6 10

8 4 3 2

7
1 8

1. CropScience 2. Graham Hall 3. Hutt 4. MacNaughton 5. McKinnon 6. OVC Microlab 7. Powell 8. Thornbrough and Renyolds 9. MacLaughlin Library 10. OVC Library

79

Appendix 6: S-Plus Statistical Summaries for all Monitoring Times in Richards Building
*** Summary Statistics for data in: 10:00 29.17000 42.08500 48.59856 55.00000 55.41650 61.01690 7.00000 0.00000 12.70023 14:00 30.00000 45.41500 52.26143 59.17000 61.25000 63.33000 7.00000 0.00000 14.47911 19:00 26.67000 28.75000 33.45143 30.00000 30.83000 58.33000 7.00000 0.00000 11.06908 Monday through Sunday

Min: 1st Qu.: Mean: Median: 3rd Qu.: Max: Total N: NA's : Std Dev.:

***

Summary Statistics for data in:

Monday through Friday

10:00 14:00 19:00 Min: 52.500000 58.330000 26.6700 1st Qu.: 55.000000 59.170000 30.0000 Mean: 55.870000 60.666000 35.3320 Median: 55.000000 60.000000 30.8300 3rd Qu.: 55.830000 62.500000 30.8300 Max: 61.020000 63.330000 58.3300 Total N: 5.000000 5.000000 5.0000 NA's : 0.000000 0.000000 0.0000 Std Dev.: 3.138264 2.156323 12.9702

***

Summary Statistics for data in: 10:00 29.170000 29.795000 30.420000 30.420000 31.045000 31.670000 2.000000 0.000000 1.767767 14:00 30.000000 30.625000 31.250000 31.250000 31.875000 32.500000 2.000000 0.000000 1.767767

Saturday and Sunday

Min: 1st Qu.: Mean: Median: 3rd Qu.: Max: Total N: NA's : Std Dev.:

19:00 28.3300000 28.5400000 28.7500000 28.7500000 28.9600000 29.1700000 2.0000000 0.0000000 0.5939697

80

Appendix 7: Energy Consumption Raw Data

Table 1: Current Energy Use
# of Computers 35 25 68 66 60 50 35 350 264 25 2834 3812 Average use (hrs) 13.5 13.5 24 13.5 13.5 12 9 12 24 12 9.5 156.5 Standby (hrs) 10.5 10.5 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 57 Days open 7 7 7 7 6 7 5 7 7 7 7 74 Total energy use/year (kW/yr) 50,450 36,036 160,393 87,567 68,234 65,520 22,113 293,530 470,486 32,760 2,645,992 3,933,082

Location Crop Science Graham Hall Hutt MacNaughton McKinnon OVC Microlab Powell Thornbrough and Renyolds MacLaughlin Library OVC Library Faculty and Graduate Students Total

CRT 35 25 68 66 60 50 35 35 119 25 1417 1935

Flat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 145 0 1417 1877

Cost ($) 4,036 2,883 12,831 7,005 5,459 5,242 1,769 23,482 37,639 2,621 211,679 314,647

Table 2: Best-case Scenario for Energy Use

# of Computers Location Crop Science Graham Hall Hutt MacNaughton McKinnon OVC Microlab Powell Thornbrough and Renyolds MacLaughlin Library OVC Library Faculty and Graduate Students Total 35 25 68 66 60 50 35 350 264 25 2834 3812 Average use (hrs) 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 7.75 4.5 12 9.5 7.75 8 83 72 Standby (hrs) 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 7.75 4.5 9 9.5 7.75 Days open 5 5 5 5 6 7 5 7 7 7 5 64 Total energy use/year (kWhr/yr) 8,907 6,362 17,304 16,795 18,322 20,452 5,938 210,210 132,372 10,226 677,893 1,124,782

CRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Flat 35 25 68 66 60 50 35 350 264 25 2834 3812

Cost ($) 713 509 1,384 1,344 1,466 1,636 475 16,817 10,590 818 54,231 89,983

81

Table 3: Worst-case Scenario for Energy Use

# of Computers 35 25 68 66 60 50 35 350 264 25 2834 3812 Average use (hrs) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 264 Standby (hrs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Days open 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 77 Total energy use/year (kWhr/yr) 82,555 58,968 160,393 155,676 141,523 117,936 82,555 825,552 622,702 58,968 6,684,612 8,991,441

Location Crop Science Graham Hall Hutt MacNaughton McKinnon OVC Microlab Powell Thornbrough and Renyolds MacLaughlin Library OVC Library Faculty and Graduate Students Total

CRT 35 25 68 66 60 50 35 350 264 25 2834 3812

Flat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost ($) 6,604 4,717 12,831 12,454 11,322 9,435 6,604 66,044 49,816 4,717 534,769 719,315

82