Lafayette College’s Climate Action Plan provides the framework for the college to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035 as a goal to be at the forefront of environmental change. Many goals are laid out in the CAP that include reducing building and facilities energy use, minimizing waste, and reducing transportation fuel use. In order to achieve the desired 60% diversion rate of waste from landfills, the college needs to grow its composting program to divert the food waste generated in its dining halls from the landfill.
There are several reasons why the school would want to reduce food waste from landfills to help achieve the carbon neutrality goal. Although school standing among other colleges and universities is high on this list, the desire for the school to educate its students about the environmental benefits and how reducing food waste in the dining halls can help the environment is a major goal of the Climate Action Plan as well.
After reviewing many different ways Lafayette could increase food diversion rates from landfills, we picked three different alternatives for composting that could provide the highest diversion rate while being economically and technically feasible for the college. Purchasing more digesters, implementing a windrow composting system, and outsourcing the food waste were the three best alternatives for Lafayette.
After looking at both the technical analysis and economic analysis of the three different alternatives, we have determined that outsourcing food waste to a third party composting company would be the most efficient and economical option for Lafayette. Outsourcing was also an attractive option because it does not require large upfront costs or efforts for initial implementation. The main challenge would be finding a composting company to partner with, but it would allow the college to compost nearly all of its food waste at the lowest annual cost.
In this report, we analyzed three different alternatives to determine which would be the best for the college to implement. Although we were able to provide a general overview of the three different alternatives, there were several factors from each alternative that would have to be researched further. From alternative 1, we decided the Intermodal Earth Flow would be the best digester for the school to purchase; but, we did not consider the lifetime of the machine or the optimal location for this system on the Lafayette campus. From alternative 2, we found that windrow composting was a viable option for Lafayette in terms of composting capacity and available land. However, we were not able to find a definitive answer as to whether Forks Township and the Northampton County local government would allow windrow composting at LaFarm. From alternative 3, we found a likely partner and the cost of a pickup system, but we could not determine what the actual contract between Lafayette and American Biosoils would entail. In addition to these factors, future research into this topic could determine if just one of these alternatives is beneficial, or if it would be better to implement some combination of the three.
Moving forward, more research into the exact emissions associated with each alternative can provide a better analysis for how our recommendations meet the goals laid out by the Climate Action Plan. While we recognize that each alternative is capable of handling all of the food waste currently produced by Lafayette students, we do not know to what extent the diversion of all food waste meets the 60% overall diversion rate by 2035. Furthermore, it will be valuable in the future to consider the emissions associated with each option. For digesters, this would mean calculating the amount of energy needed to power each automated system. With windrow composting, we would need to account for the emissions associated with the equipment as well as the emissions due to transportation of food waste. For outsourcing, estimates would need to be made for the amount of emissions that result from transporting food and compost to and from the composting facility. These calculations can provide a clearer image of how expanding Lafayette’s composting program will impact the overall diversion rate and emissions produced by Lafayette.
With respect to the current composting system, another aspect to consider would be the two existing Earth Tubs at Bushkill Commons. If the composting program is expanded, Lafayette would have to consider what to do with these two remaining digesters. Although they produce a relatively small amount of compost compared to the other systems, we felt it would be beneficial to keep the two existing Earth Tubs for use as an educational tool. Another consideration for the existing composting program is the office or position responsible for the program. If Lafayette were to expand its composting program, it may be helpful for the Office of Sustainability to hire another full time employee to oversee the composting program at Lafayette College. As mentioned previously, the responsibility for the Lafayette composting program has fallen onto Lisa Miskelly by default. While she has made significant efforts to maintain the current system, Miskelly has many responsibilities and thus can only do so much in terms of the progression of the program. Creating a single position responsible for the composting program can ensure the program’s expansion and help Lafayette reach its diversion rate goals. With a new composting position and a detailed plan for outsourcing the college’s food waste, Lafayette should be able to achieve an overall diversion rate above 60% by 2035.
View the project bibliography.
Project home page.