Let’s Go Solar

Sturgis Solar 10.23

Support Sturgis Solar Annual Appeal

The goal of the 2014-15 Sturgis Annual Appeal is to bring solar energy to East and West campuses. By going solar, Sturgis Charter Public School will:

  •  reduce our carbon footprint and electricity costs
  • support local “green collar” jobs
  • provide an opportunity for students to learn first-hand about clean and renewable energy
  • foster the International Baccalaureate (IB) goal to create awareness of local and global environmental concerns

Through academics, service and teamwork, Sturgis students develop important skills that are necessary for their future success in problem-solving, critical thinking and collaboration. Our goal is to help students realize their full potential to contribute and make a difference in the world.

We ask you to support the annual appeal by giving to the best of your ability. It is not the amount you give that matters, it’s your action that counts! Our aim is 100% donor participation to demonstrate a collective base of support and enhance our ability to gain further grant funding.

We understand there are many causes to support but this one directly impacts local children, both now and in the future. The success of Sturgis is due in part to contributors who understand how important education is to our children, families and the communities of Cape Cod.

Donations can be made by check to: William Sturgis Friends of Education Foundation, PO Box 2012, Hyannis, MA 02601

Donations can also be made by credit card through the Donate button on the Sturgis homepage: http://www.sturgischarterschool.com/

Sturgis Solar Initiative

Sturgis is moving forward with its exciting solar energy initiative and has had initial contacts with
three solar energy companies. A good number of parents, alumni, and community members have
expressed their interest in being of assistance with the project, and the Sturgis Board hopes to
form a joint Board/Community Member task force to help guide the planning and implementation
of the project. We thank all of you that have provided financial support for the project via donations
to the William Sturgis Foundation. Don’t worry as it is not too late to join in and support the
effort by making a donation! Further information regarding donations can be found in this newsletter
or on the Sturgis website.

Student Research on Going Green

One of the core requirements of the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programme is to write an Extended Essay during senior year. The EE, as it is lovingly known, is a 4,000 word essay exploring an argument in the topic of a student’s choice. The hard work in research and composition is balanced by the opportunity for students to follow their own curiosity and delve deeply into a subject of personal interest.  EE assessment focuses on the structure of the essay; the topic is the allure. Last year, Jacob Nelson wrote his EE on going green at West.  The full text of his EE is reprinted here with permission of the author.

Going Green at Sturgis West: A Comprehensive Assessment of Our Carbon Emissions and Plan to Reduce our Carbon Footprint

Research Question: What are Sturgis Charter Public School West’s carbon emissions from energy usage (i.e. heating, cooling, and electricity) now, and using what methods can it be reduced?

By Jacob Nelson, Class of 2014 – West


Jacob Nelson

Jacob Nelson

Anthropogenic climate change is one of the biggest challenges that humanity currently faces.   Many necessary human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels for electricity and heat, pollute the atmosphere with compounds called greenhouse gases (GHGs).  In balanced amounts, GHGs regulate the earth’s global temperature and climate through a process called the greenhouse effect.  Increasing the levels of GHGs amplifies this effect, reflecting more heat back to the earth.  Therefore, increases in atmospheric GHG levels due to human activities can be pinpointed as the major cause of earth’s dramatic changes in climate.

To slow and stop the recent trend of rising global temperatures and climate change, individuals and institutions must curtail the production of GHGs by reducing dependence on these activities, for example reducing dependence on fossil-fuel-produced electricity by instead generating it through the use of solar energy or wind energy technologies.  In many cases, responsible choices that reduce dependence on GHG-emitting activities will in addition yield economic gains to the party changing their practices.

In response to the obvious need to reduce GHG emissions wherever possible, this essay seeks to evaluate Sturgis Charter Public School West’s carbon emissions from energy usage (i.e. heating, cooling, and electricity) now, and to analyze methods for reducing these emissions.  Techniques from both Environmental Systems and Societies and Business and Management are used to investigate and analyze this question.  Comparative analysis of the methods suggested are included, in terms of their CO2–reducing potential and potential economic gain for the institution.

The data and analysis of the essay conclude that there are several quick, simple ways for Sturgis West to reduce its CO2 emissions using a mix of the methods mentioned above. In addition, it shows that implementation of many of the suggestions would save the institution money over time.


When fossil fuels are burned for the generation of electricity or heating and cooling, they release substances called greenhouse gases (“Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle”).  In balanced amounts, these gases are what keep us alive, regulating the temperature of the atmosphere by reflecting heat brought by the sun’s radiation, back to the earth after it “bounces” off (“Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle”).  However, the amount of atmospheric greenhouses gases has increased drastically in the recent past because of fossil fuel consumption (“Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle”).  This reflects an increasing amount of heat back towards the earth, and the increased atmospheric temperature instigates a series of changes to the earth’s systems that affect both humans and the environment (“Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle”). There is significant evidence that the atmosphere is warming.  Eleven of the years from 1995 to 2007 were at the time among the twelve hottest years in the instrumental record (IPCC, 2007).  In addition, the warming trend from 1956-2005, an increase of 0.1° C per decade, was nearly twice the warming trend from 1906-2005 (IPCC, 2007).  This means that the atmosphere was warming and likely will continue to warm at an increasing rate.

There are many changes caused by global warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if the atmosphere continues to warm by +1.5 to 2.5° C, relative to average temperatures from 1980-1999, 25-30% of assessed species are in danger of extinction (IPCC, 2007).  The seas levels rose an average of 3.1 mm per year from 1993 to 2003, because of the expansion of the water’s mass as it warms, and the added mass from melted ice sheets (IPCC, 2007).  Polar ice sheets have lost 28% of their mass since 1961 (IPCC, 2007).  If sea level rise continues at projected rates, the danger of inundating coastal communities arises.  Additionally, the oceans have absorbed 80% of the earth’s overall heat increase (IPCC, 2007), and as the oceans warm they lose their ability to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2).  This means that as the oceans continue to warm, they and the rest of the globe will warm at an increasing rate, evidence of positive feedback (“Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle”.).

Fig. 1

This graph, created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shows the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels (in parts per million) at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Mauna Loa, Hawaii, from 1959 to roughly present day. (Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory)

Figure 1

Knowing this information and its implications, humanity has an obligation to combat the sources of climate change and diminish its effects to preserve our planet and our way of life on it. To combat the sources individuals and institutions alike must diminish our dependence on CO2-producing fossil fuels for energy, therefore reducing our carbon emissions.  In this study, I will use the building of Sturgis Charter Public School West (Sturgis West), located in Barnstable Massachusetts, as an example of how to reduce CO2 emissions. I will ask the question what are Sturgis West’s carbon emissions, or its basic carbon footprint, from energy usage now (i.e. heating, cooling, and electricity), and using what methods can it be reduced?

This study will also discuss ways to improve efficiencies in a building to lower CO2 outputs and different technologies that can be used to lower dependence on fossil fuels.  These suggestions, if taken, will save the school CO2 emissions and money.

Carbon Footprint Definition

A carbon footprint is the amount of greenhouse gasses, expressed in tons, released every year from all of their activities of an individual or group.  However, there is no official scientific definition.  As stated by Hendrickson et al., “the definition of ‘carbon footprint’ is surprisingly vague given the growth in the term’s use in the past decade” (Hendrickson, Chris T).   In addition, there are so many possible activities to include in the calculations that to get a perfectly accurate figure is near impossible.  In this project the initial aim was to calculate the most accurate carbon footprint possible for my school, then research and report on ways to reduce the footprint.  Unfortunately, the scope and magnitude of the data needed to create a footprint that accurate is staggering, with most of it not available to me.  This will be discussed in following section.

Greenhouse Gases

When measuring a carbon footprint, there are many options to consider. To start with, you can measure just CO2 emissions, or you can include a whole host of other greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as Methane (CH4­­) or Nitrous Oxide (N2O).  This is where the term carbon footprint becomes misleading, since it can be used to mean the footprint of all greenhouse gas emissions, when some greenhouse gases aren’t carbon based.  CO2 is the primary gas emitted by the United States, accounting for 84% of all GHGs emitted in 2011 (“What EPA is Doing About Climate Change”), and therefore the primary greenhouse gas counted in a footprint.  However, while other lesser-produced greenhouse gases aren’t produced at the same rate, they can be much more potent than CO2 (“What EPA is Doing About Climate Change”).  Over 100 years one pound of CH4  and one pound of N2O in the atmosphere will have the same greenhouse effect as 20 and 300 pounds of CO2, respectively.  This shows that while CO2 is still the primary and most concerning greenhouse gas released through burning fossil fuels for our energy needs, other greenhouse gases emitted can be included in calculations of CO2 emissions.  For a more complete energy footprint, emissions of gases such as methane and nitrous oxide should be included.  However because of the size of this project, only CO2 emissions will be calculated and discussed.

Sources of Emissions

There are many methods of calculating carbon footprints, depending on how specific you want to be with regards to the true emissions. I decided to calculate the carbon footprint of simply the school’s electricity, heating, and cooling.  Energy usage in most cases is the predominant source of CO2 emissions, so trimming these emissions means you are treating the bulk of the problem.  In addition, it’s also the easiest source of carbon emissions to eradicate, either through using energy more efficiently or by relying on renewable energies like solar or bio-fuels. CO2 are also the easiest to track, since the energy providers include usage information on the bills they send.

One important source of CO2 emissions I have not brought up is transportation to and from school, and here is why.   Though transportation for 393 students does emit CO2, calculating this figure it is not helpful as there is little the school can do to improve transportation efficiency and emissions.  The school already advocates for carpooling and facilitates town school buses and public transportation directly from the school.  The best way to combat transportation emissions would be to increase vehicle efficiency and gas mileage, but as a school and as individuals there is little immediate control.  So this project instead focuses on the school-controllable emission sources mentioned above.  After establishing all of this information, the next step is to determine the actual footprint.

Calculating the Footprint

To recap, this study calculates the energy used to heat and cool the building, as well as electricity usage.  The data was taken from the electricity (Table 1) and natural gas (Table 2) bills from the first full year of Sturgis West’s existence, mid-August 2012 to mid-August 2013.

Table 1:

Title: The amount of electricity, in kilowatt-hours (+/- 1 kWh), used by Sturgis West monthly and in total for one year beginning in mid-August 2012.   Also shown is how many metric tons of emitted CO2 correspond to the kWh of electricity used (+/- 0.0001 lbs.) Data was taken from Sturgis West’s electricity bills.

Table 1

Formula used (#1): (Conversion of kWh of electricity used to pounds of CO2 emitted on average):  1 kWh = 7.0555 × 10-4 metric tons of CO2 emitted (“Calculations and References”).

As seen in Data Table 1, during its first full year of existence Sturgis West used 322,502 kWh of electricity, and this use caused over 227 metric ton of CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere. This sum coupled with the natural gas emissions will be the school’s carbon footprint for the purposes of the study.

Table 2:

The amount of natural gas burned to heat and cool Sturgis West, in Megajoules (+/- 0.1 Megajoules), as well as how many metric tons of CO2 emission that translates to (+/- 0.0001 metric tons). Data was taken from Sturgis West’s natural gas bills.

Table 2 Table 2 Table 2

Formula used (#2): Conversion of Megajoules of natural gas burned to metric tons of CO2 released:105.5 Megajoules = 0.005306 metric tons of CO2 emitted (“Calculations and References”)

Looking at Data Table 1 and Data Table 2, you can calculate that over its first year, Sturgis West emitted a total of around 277 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere through its heating and cooling habits and its electricity usage.  That is the equivalent of driving 881,000 miles in a car that gets 25 miles-to-the-gallon.  That means the CO2 emitted by Sturgis West is the same as driving around the earth 24.5 times.  Now that it is known just how large the carbon footprint of Sturgis West’s energy activities is, methods for reducing this sum will be discussed.

Methods for Reducing the Carbon Footprint

This study will look at three different ways to reduce a building’s carbon footprint: increasing the efficiency of a building’s systems and appliances, investing in sources of renewable energies, and buying carbon offsets.  Each is discussed below.  Sturgis and anyone interested in decreasing their footprint can use simply one of these methods, or a combination of two or all three to reduce their emissions as much as possible using available resources.

Increasing Efficiency

A smart way to get a baseline of the efficiency of any building is to have an energy audit done.  A engineer will come to a house or business, meet with you, check the efficiency of many of your systems, and discuss what changes could be made to improve efficiency.  In September 2013 I scheduled an energy audit through CapeLight Compact for the Sturgis West building, built in 2012, thinking it would yield areas to improve energy efficiency.  Instead it showed that the building was built with enough attention to detail when it came to energy efficiency that there was no room for easy improvement.  The following section is an account of why this is so.


Sturgis West’s indoor lights were exclusively high efficiency compact fluorescent bulbs, and almost all rooms were outfitted with motion-detectors, which would turn the lights on when motion was detected, off when there was no movement for a certain period of time.  Classrooms also had light sensors installed, which could adjust the lights based on the time of day, the weather, or other factors.  The outdoor and parking lot lighting used only LED bulbs and was set to go on at dusk and turn off at 10 P.M.  The engineer concluded that there were no real improvements to be made to any part of Sturgis West’s lighting system.

Heating and Cooling

Sturgis West’s heating and cooling system has ductwork completely wrapped in tight insulation.  This ensures that no matter the temperature of air in the ducts, the amount of heat differential lost as the air travels through the system is minimal.  The whole school is outfitted with setback programmable thermostats which automatically lower and raise the temperature at different times of day and on different days the week.  This reduces energy used to heat or cool rooms that no one is using, improving efficiency.

Vending Machines

The only suggested improvements to the building were the additions of a vending miser and snack miser on the drink and snack vending machines, respectively.  The snack miser is outfitted with a motion sensor and designed to power down the machine and lights when no one is near it for fifteen minutes, and power it back up as soon as it detects motion within a certain range.  The vending miser on the drink machine performs the same tasks, but it can be adjusted to raise the refrigeration temperature on the machine when no one is near it as well. According to the report (see Fig. 3 in appendix), the school would save an estimated $158 and 1,057 kWh on its electricity bills each year. Using Formula #1, this would save 0.75 metric tons of CO2 emissions.  As of February 2014, these misers had been installed.  With Sturgis West’s building efficiency being already stellar, the real savings in carbon emissions must therefore come from investing in renewable energies.

Renewable Energies

Renewable Energies are sources of energy that are easily replenishable and never run out on a human timescale, as they all initiate from the sun.   Examples are solar, wind, and geothermal energies, as well as biofuels (“What Is Renewable Energy?”).  We currently have the technologies to make use of all of these sources of energy, however for a building like Sturgis West, the two most likely to be useful are solar and wind. These technologies are more commercially available and simpler to install than a geothermal heat pump or a biofuel furnace, for example.  There are no feasibly harnessed sources of hydropower or other natural energy sources in the area, so only solar and wind are discussed in this study.


Solar energy, or energy produced when sunlight hits photovoltaic panels, is a renewable energy that is very popular for small-scale projects.   The versatile panels can be arraigned to generate the greatest energy output using a provided surface.  They are relatively unobtrusive and in most cases have no moving parts.  Unlike other renewable energy technologies, such as wind or hydropower, solar can be installed almost anywhere, though preferably facing south in a non-shaded area. There are a few different ways to invest in solar panels.

The lowest risk investment in solar panels would be to obtain a solar power purchase agreement (SPPA). This method is attractive because it requires little upfront investment and simply yields an energy savings every year as long as the agreement lasts (“Green Power Partnership.”). In an SPPA, a “host customer”, or the person who has the rights to a building or property, makes an agreement with a third party vendor, not a power company.  The agreement states that the customer will allow the vendor to install solar panels on their property and sell the produced electricity to the customer, usually at a reduced rate, for a certain time period.  This situation is a win-win for the vendor and the customer.  The customer gets a stable, green, and cheaper source of energy while the vendor gets to take advantage of any renewable energy credits from the project and collect the profits of selling the electricity to the customer (“Green Power Partnership.”). An example of an institution that turned to a SPPA to meet their energy needs is Cape Cod Community College, located in the same town as Sturgis West.  Cape Cod Community College obtained an SPPA with Turning Mill Energy, which installed 2,700 solar panels and a small wind turbine on school grounds at no cost to the school.  Turning Mill Energy will maintain the entire system, and the college estimates they will save $100,000 a year on their electricity bills (Mattei, Anthony).

Alternatively, the simplest way for any party to invest in solar is to buy the panels outright, have them installed, and use the energy they generate for their entire lifespan.  In August of 2013 I asked Jason Stoots, the owner of local solar company e2solar, to visit Sturgis West.  He measured the school’s usable roof space, suggested two different systems that would fit and provided specifications for how much energy would be generated by the biggest and most efficient one, a system of 800 SunPower SPR-327NE-WHT-D panels. The system would take up 1263.5m² of the un-shaded 1267.2m² on the roof and would generate an estimated average of 320,115 kWh per year. When compared to the Kilowatt-hours used by Sturgis West in its first year of existence (322,502 kWh), one can calculate that the system would come within 2,387 kWh of meeting all of Sturgis West’s electricity needs.  Using formula #1 and data from Data Table 1, it is calculated to save 225.86 metric tons of CO2 emission and cut the school’s carbon footprint by 81.5%.  On top of that, the system would save Sturgis West an estimated $44,816 per year off its energy bill.

Admittedly, there are many limitations and variables that would make the scenario above difficult to achieve.  For one, finding the funding for a solar system of this size would be a daunting task for Sturgis West. Any number of factors including changes in climate and weather from year to year and trees growing and shading panels could affect their true performance.  The price, installed, of 800 SunPower SPR-327NE-WHT-D solar panels is estimated to be $915,600.   However, the price for other materials needed for the project and the installation costs could change.

Solar Cost/Benefit Analysis: SPPA v. Buying System

Both of these options for utilizing solar technology would yield economic gains and CO2 emission reductions, but to decide which to use it is important to consider all aspects of each system.

Sturgis West’s biggest disadvantage in buying a system of solar panels would be the system’s upfront cost.  In comparison to the upfront cost of an SPPA, which would be theoretically no money down, this system’s cost of $915,600 is very expensive.   Then again, as seen in Table 3, owning that system would bring around a $45,000 return on energy bills while signing an SPPA would save the school only around $29,600 per year.  However when the start-up costs of the two systems are taken into account, one can determine that if Sturgis West bought the proposed system, it would take 20.5 years of energy savings to create a net profit, whereas with the SPPA’s nonexistent start-up cost, there is no payback period.  In the proposed system to buy, the panels are under warranty for 25 years, but after that it is unclear how long their usable lifespan is.  This means that there might be a relatively small window for generating profit with the SunPower system, while an SPPA agreement would allow for the school to achieve net profits much quicker.

One economic drawback of an SPPA is that the contractor receives all of the project’s renewable energy credits (RECs). If the school owned the system, it would receive these.  However, the significant economic benefits of an SPPA, seen in Table 3, in all likelihood outweigh the savings the school would receive from the RECs.  Also, the school wouldn’t be responsible for the maintenance or liability of the system with an SPPA, while they would if they owned it.  In each scenario the school would drastically reduce its carbon footprint, however the panels in the proposed system to purchase are rated to 20% efficiency, versus the 14% efficient SPPA panels, and would reduce the footprint more.

Table 3

This data table shows a side-by-side comparison of the costs and benefits of buying a system of solar panels versus agreeing to an SPPA.  It shows the economic costs and benefits as well as the emission reduction benefits.  Data was taken from the e2solar proposal, as well as calculations derived from data on CCCC’s SPPA (Mattei, Anthony)

Table 3


Estimated CO2 reduction calculations:

  • CCCC system: 660 kilowatt system /2700 panels = .244 kW per panel
  • Proposed Sturgis West system to buy: .327 kW per panel, 225.86 metric tons of CO2 saved
  • Estimated CO2 reduction if CCCC system was sized to 800 panels: 225.86 metric tons/.327 kW * .244 kW = 168.53 metric tons

The conclusion drawn from this comparison is that during a realistic 20 year timescale, an SPPA would not only save the school more money, but would leave the school with no liability or responsibility concerning the system and would be much less of an economic risk for the institution.  If Sturgis West is to invest in a solar panel system, it should be with an SPPA.  In fact, with the clear economic and emission-reduction benefits, it is definitely in Sturgis West’s best interests to invest in an SPPA.


Another option for generating renewable energy on the property would be with a wind turbine.  Almost anywhere on Cape Cod is a good place to put a turbine, when consulting a wind map (“Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit”).  However Sturgis West’s property placement presents some issues.  Most of the school’s property abuts a residential area, and a large portion of it is wetland.  According to Massachusetts’s building guidelines, any wind turbine must be built at least 1000 feet from any residence (“Wind Energy Site Screening Guidelines”), which would be impossible to abide by on Sturgis West’s property.  The property isn’t even 1000 feet long or wide in any direction, according to town zoning maps (See Fig. 3 in appendix).  In addition, the guidelines suggest that turbines not be built within three to five miles of an airport.  The school is within that distance from Barnstable Municipal Airport in Hyannis.  These obstacles force me to recommend against Sturgis West using wind power.


Carbon offsets are investments that an individual or institution can make in a CO2-emission-reducing project anywhere around the world.  If that individual or institution cannot reduce their own emissions, they can buy carbon offsets from many various companies by supporting projects that can make an impact on global emissions-reduction more easily, and then be credited those emission reductions (Dowdey, Sarah).  They are, in my opinion, the last resort for reducing CO2 emissions. Since there are many types of companies and projects that can be invested in, which produce varying amounts of real-world results, one cannot know how much emissions they are really preventing (Dowdey, Sarah). If Sturgis West has the funds to do so, I would recommend that the school invest in carbon offsets.  However, as they are investments with no monetary payback to the school, I would advise that Sturgis West first focus on projects that could reduce emissions and also saves money.


This study used Sturgis West as an example in calculating a basic carbon footprint, afterwards suggesting ways to cut this footprint through efficiency measure and investments to eliminate CO2 emissions.  It found that Sturgis West had a carbon footprint of 277 metric tons per year from its electricity, heating, and cooling needs alone.  It found, after an energy audit from CapeLight Compact, that Sturgis West’s building was in most cases as efficient as possible, and the Compact’s only suggested additions were vending and snack misers on the school’s vending machines. For various logistical reasons wind energy cannot be used at Sturgis West, meaning solar technology is the only easily commercially available renewable technology that could be used.  Thorough analysis provided clear evidence that by using an SPPA, Sturgis West can capitalize on significant economic gains while dramatically reducing CO2 emissions as shown in Table 3.  Buying a solar panel system would provide less of an economic benefit, but could reduce CO2 emissions more than an SPPA, as shown in Table 3. Carbon offsets were introduced as a method for indirectly reducing the CO2 emissions the school is responsible for, however I advise against investing in them.  They yield no economic benefit and would siphon money that could instead be spent within the institution.  However if Sturgis West were committed to becoming carbon neutral, offsets would need to be part of the solution.

There are a few limitations to this study and its suggestions.  As mentioned above, the footprint calculated was not Sturgis West’s true carbon footprint, as that would require enormous amounts of data I do not have access to.  Rather it is a simplified one.  In addition, all prices for investments in renewable energies and carbon offsets are estimates, not exact figures due to the evolving nature of the industries.

Though it might be difficult to carry out, I would highly recommend these suggested changes me made.  This study has shown that many would have a clear economic and CO2 emission reduction benefit. In addition, they would promote Sturgis West as a responsible, ecologically minded institution, as well as one that is capable of making smart business decisions.

Works Cited

“A Carbon Conundrum” Americanforests.org. American Forests, 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2013.

Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory. Digital image. Esrl.noaa.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2014.

Average Global Temperature. Digital image. Bbc.co.uk. BBC, 2014. Web. 2 Feb. 2014.

“Calculations and References”.  epa.gov.  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Apr 25, 2013. Web. Sep 14, 2013.

Dowdey, Sarah.  “How Carbon Offsets Work”. science.howstuffworks.com. HowStuffWorks,Inc. 2013. Web. Sep 14, 2013.

“Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle”. earthobservatory.nasa.gov. NASA. n.d. Web. Sep 14, 2013.

“Green Power Partnership.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 16 Oct. 2012. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

Hendrickson, Chris T. “The Importance of Carbon Footprint Estimation Boundaries”. Environmental Science and Technology Viewpoint. Vol. 42, No. 16. (2008).  pag. 5839–5842. Web. Sep 14, 2013.

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

Mattei, Anthony. “CCCC solar panel project on the edge of completion”.  Main Sheet. (Hyannis, MA) 18 Sep, 2012.

Minx, Jan and Thomas Weidmann. “A Definition of a Carbon Footprint”. http://www.isa- research.co.uk.  ISA UK Research and consulting. Jun, 2007. Web. Sep 14, 2013.

“Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit.” Mass.gov. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

“What EPA is Doing About Climate Change”.  epa.gov.  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sep 9, 2013. Web. Sep 2013.

“What Is Renewable Energy?” Extension.psu.edu. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

“Wind Energy Site Screening Guidelines.” Mass.gov. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.






%d bloggers like this: