ab0401 sem 3 grp 4 - may ee, michelle, yan lin, xiu hui, xin hui, ding rong
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprise
E-Learning Week(CO2 Australia)
Lee May Ee, Michelle Ng, Koh Xin Hui, Kong Ding Rong, Ang Yan Ling, Lin
Xiuhui
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
2
Estimation of Carbon Footprint
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
3
Estimation of Carbon Footprint
Campus carbon footprint
Source: Stefan Sprangers, “Calculating the carbon footprint of universities”
The make-up of the student and staff population is similar to that of Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), thus we would be deriving scope 1 & 2 by subjecting the figures to a multiplier of 1.7 (NTU’s population/EUR population = 1.68).
And the students commuting footprints would be modified based on local context.Source: Stefan Sprangers, “Calculating
the carbon footprint of universities”
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
5
Estimation of Carbon Footprint
• The factor that contribute most to the carbon footprint of NTU would be the students’ and staff transportation.
• Employee count: 6612 Student count: 33241 Total: 39,853 people ¾ commuting 29,889.75 ~~~ 29,890people Driving = 29890/3 = 9964 people Public transport = 19,926 people
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
6
Estimation of Carbon Footprint
• With the prevalence of halls and residences in NTU, for both staff and students, the following assumptions could be made:o ¼ population stays in schools (staff residences,
graduate residences, halls)
o These people would not contribute to the carbon footprint of the school unless they are leaving school residences for their own purpose
The rest of the population stays outside of college. Assuming that the students and staff follows the travel pattern of Singapore population, they would be travelling by MRT, LRT and Bus as frequent as above. Their average trip distance would also be as such.
Assuming that the population travels to school 4 times a week and the proportion of people travelling by bus and train is equal, we will arrive at the following results:
Total annual Co2 emission per student by national rail: 288kg
Total annual bus emission per student: 200kg
Total annual carbon emission for students who take public transport (bus and train): 0.5(200+288) x 19,926 = 4,861,944 kg/year
Assuming that ⅓ of the population drives, due to the prevalence of carparks and the full parking rates.
Total annual carbon emission for students who travel by car:
3939 x 9964 = 39,248,196 kg/year
Scope Emission Category Total CO2 emission (kg)
Comments
Scope 1 On Campus Stationary sources
23,203 X 1.7 of EUR
Direct transportation sources
2262 X 1.7 of EUR
Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 1,564,273 X 1.7 of EUR
Purchased Heat - Not applicable as there is no need for NTU to heat up the school
Scope 3 Employee Commuting 44,110,140 4,861,944 + 39,248,196 = 44,110,140
Student Commuting
Employee TravelsWater UsagePaper ConsumptionWaste
572,87985,525126,872185,000
X 1.7 of EUR
Electricity T&D losses 140,785 X 1.7 of EUR
Scope 4 Total 46,810,939
NTU’s estimated carbon footprint
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
12
Option 1: Transforming a
significant proportion of our course delivery from classroom to an
online format
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
13
Benefits of an online class
• Reduce electricity consumptionLower electricity consumption since there will
be much lesser physical classes.Translate into lower carbon emission.
• Reduce air conditioning usageThis will also save on electricityAir conditioning a typical home produces a
carbon footprint of about 6,600 pounds CO2.
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
14
Benefits of an online class
• Save on transport (public and shuttle bus)Online classes reduces students’ need to travel
to schoolFuel consumption will be reduced, lowering
carbon emission.
Cars with an average fuel efficiency produce nearly 20 pounds of CO2 for every gallon of gasoline burned.Worldwide, the fossil fuels used for transportation contribute to over 13% of greenhouse gas emissions
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
15
Benefits of an online class
• Reduces land constraintWith lesser physical class, the university does
not need to be so big.Demolishing part of the building can translate
to more land for the government to develop.Every piece of land is of great importance for a
land scarce country.
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
16
Benefits of an online class
• Reduced wastage and electricity consumption from dormitoriesElectronic-based classes reduces the need for
students to rest in hostelsDecrease in electricity and aircon consumptionDecrease in waste produced
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
17
Benefits of an online class
Study by Open University:
“On average, the production and provision of distance learning courses consumed nearly 90 percent less energy and produced 85 percent fewer CO2 emissions per student than
conventional campus-based university courses.”
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
18
Cons of an online class• Lesser interaction between students and
faculty staffsFewer networking opportunitiesPotentially poorer teaching quality
Face to face explanation vs virtual explanation
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
19
Cons of an online class• Drop in public transport usage insignificant
Public buses will still continue on as usual even if there are fewer commuters on board.
There will only be a decrease in frequency of NTU shuttle buses
• More feasible for future universitiesDemolishing the irrelevant building may take
up too much cost not feasible.Option more feasible for future universities.
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
20
Cons of an online class• Transfer of the carbon footprint to students
houseA decrease in the school carbon footprint due
to the reduce in aircon and electricity consumption may be offset by students usage at home
Chance that more electricity may be used as individual students all switch on lights and aircon as compared to a centralised system.
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
21
Online class: Stakeholders
• StudentsMore convenience, reduce the time of
transportationReduce transportation expensesMay not be as effective more easily
distracted
• ProfessorsMore flexibility and control of own scheduleMore difficult to capture students attention.
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
22
• NTU (management) Lesser expenses incurred Might be concern about the quality of NTU students. Quality of education may be poorer with online learning may affect
NTU prestige image in the long run.
• Government Able to have a greener Singapore strengthen Singapore’s position as
a ‘green’ country.
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
23
Option 2: Buying carbon credits
from the provider (CO2 Group Limited)
Carbon creditsPros Cons
Quickest solution in the short run Heavy reliance creates an artificial sense of being ‘environmentally friendly’ but in truth pollution has
not decreasedProvides an incentive to go green
→ to avoid paying for more carbon credits
Who is to bear the additional costs → would university students be
willing to pay for university’s carbon credits?
Ready marketplace for carbon credit trading → able to obtain carbon credits easily, but at the
same time, sell away the excess
Is it justifiable for a Singapore university to buy from an
Australian provider at the price set for Australians
Low fixed cost, but variable costs in the long run can be substantial
Risk of dealing with a company who has yet to establish itself in
Singapore
Carbon creditsCan act as a buffer while carbon reducing projects are underway
Accurate estimates close to ‘true’ carbon emission required to avoid
overspending or underbuying carbon credits.
Eucalyptus trees grow rapidly, takes relatively shorter time to
help purify air
The trees need to be kept for 100 years, long term benefit for NTU.
(requirements for CO2 group limited)
Space is required to plant these trees
Singapore is a land scarce country hard to find a big enough
land to plant enough trees to attain the carbon credit needed for
NTUEucalyptus trees are able to
absorb pollutants from reclamation areas
Requires large number of trees, as every 250 trees offsets carbon emissions of a car being used for
10 years
Carbon creditsSimple solution → NTU is only required to finance the initiative
NTU may not find any motivation to decrease their carbon footprint further as this can already solve their problem → there is not a
need to rack their brains to find more solutions to reduce their carbon footprint further. → not really good for the government
This is in line with the government view of Singapore being a green
city
-
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Option 3: Planting Eucalyptus
Trees
Pros Cons
1. Eucalyptus trees grow rapidly, and takes relatively shorter time to purify air . Moreover, the trees need to be kept for 100 years , therefore it is a long term benefit for NTU.
Space and Land constraint: Large amount of space is required to plant these treesMoreover, Singapore is a land scarce country and it will be difficult to find a land to plant enough trees in order to attain the carbon credit needed for NTU.
Moreover, it might require a large number of trees as every 250 trees offsets carbon emissions of a car being used for 10 years
2. Eucalyptus trees are able to absorb pollutants from reclamation areas (BIG plus for Singapore)
Other Alternatives
• Recycling initiatives in NTU Placing more recycling bins around NTU Tap into their concern for the environment
and their natural enthusiasm for change Schools should let students to be involved
in practical projects around the school
Other Alternatives • Seek professor’s help
Collaborate with companies to research on ways for promoting CO2 savings
$20 million IES fund set up by the government to help finance the development of innovative environmental technologies
• Generate our own electricity which helps to reduce CO2 emission and save money
• Gain national recognition for school and additional funding for sustainable energy projects
Stakeholder analysis on
alternatives
• Students- Increased awareness of green initiatives in school - Concerned students are now able to utilize these
initiatives platform to set up their own practical projects
• Professors - Have the power now to play a part in improving
on the school’s green initiative measures
Stakeholder analysis on
alternatives• NTU - Strengthen its school image and branding
regarding its green initiatives movement
• Government- Able to reach out to students regarding green
initiatives efforts- Strengthen Singapore’s image as a green society
Stakeholder analysis on
alternatives• Industries
o Industrial processes emits Co2 emissions through fossil fuel combustion
• General Publico Gasoline & diesel burnt for transportation purposeso Electricity consumption in residential estateso Waste generated
Decision Criteria Option 1 Option
2Option 3
Other Alternatives
Long Term Sustainability
Financial Ability
Actual reduction in CO2 emissions
Easy Implementation
Stakeholders on CO2 emissions
• NTU • Strengthen its school image and branding
regarding its green initiatives movement
• Government• Able to reach out to students regarding green
initiatives efforts• Strengthen Singapore’s image as a green
society
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
36
• Companies/ Institutionso Electricity consumption o Excessive usage of paper consumption
Stakeholders on CO2 emissions
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
37
Conclusion• Option 1 (online based learning) is our
choice for moving towards a carbon-neutral environment
• More initiatives have to be taken for a more efficient and effective step towards becoming carbon neutral
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
38
Thank You
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises E-Learning
39
Executive SummaryWe have chosen the option of changing our coursework to become more online-based as our solution towards the move of reducing carbon footprint. Studies have shown that staff and students’ commute to the school are the greatest source of carbon emissions. Changing the way classes are carried out to an online based form will greatly reduce the need for commuting, thus effectively lowering carbon emissions. The potential problem of such a change in the coursework structure is that the quality of learning and teaching may be compromised. It prevents students from spontaneously querying about the subject, and the effectiveness of teaching might thus be affected as a result. Weighing all the alternatives, our team recognizes that one option alone is insufficient to reduce carbon footprint effectively. A greener community will only be achievable if lifestyle habits are significantly changed with the thought of environmental sustainability in mind.