Broaden sustainable design and optimization of decarbonized campus Energy systems with scope 3 emissions accounting and social ramification analysis

A holistic approach that considers economic, environmental, and social dimensions is crucial for informed and responsible decision-making in energy system decarbonization. Integrating techno-economic, environmental, and social perspectives, we propose a multi-objective optimization framework for the sustainable design of decarbonized campus energy systems, resonating with the tri-fold principles of Corporate Social Responsibility. This comprehensive approach reveals the techno-economic intricacies inherent in adopting renewable solutions to accommodate cooling, heat, and power demand on university campuses. Our proposed model endeavors to minimize both total annualized costs and the broader spectrum of emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3) in pursuit of environmental justice. Meanwhile, by merging life cycle assessment (LCA) with economic input-output analysis based on established social LCA databases, we can gauge the potential social impacts associated with these sustainability initiatives. The results serve as a roadmap for designing and operating truly sustainable campus energy systems, pinpointing environmental concerns, suggesting remedial strategies, and spotlighting the resultant social consequences. To showcase the tangible applicability of this holistic modeling framework, we have used real-world data from the main campus of Cornell University, Ithaca, New York State, to develop a case study. Our results show that with a plentiful biogas supply, it is possible to reduce yearly GHG emissions by more than 70%. Even when procurement emissions are left out, Scope 3 emissions still represent 69–82% of the total GHG emissions, dominated by the transportation sector. Turning to sustainable transport options, such as electric vehicles (EVs), can markedly lower these figures. On the socio-economic front, ramping up geothermal drilling could intensify negative social consequences, such as risk of forced labor, conflicts, accidents, and natural disasters, by 29%. These are primarily due to safety issues and the labor demands of earth source heat site preparation, encompassing risks such as forced labor and accidents. As the push for energy decarbonization grows stronger, it is imperative to weigh these downsides against the broader social benefits.