CO2 Australia

Jason Philip AbrahamSamantha Chan Yuen Li

Cai PeizhenNerice Aw Wei Zhi

Tang Ya Xuan Alissa

Seminar 03Team 8 – Case Crackers

2

Carbon Footprint Total carbon consumption and emissions

caused by a person, product or organization

CO2 Australia

3

Calculation method In order to derive the emissions for NTU for

purchased electricity, purchased gas, student commuting and faculty commuting, we used The Resurgence Carbon Dioxide Calculator for an average household in Singapore of 4 people.

After that, we adjusted for the NTU population of 39598, which includes 32,986 students and 6,612 faculty and staff.

CO2 Australia

4

Carbon Footprint (Household)

CO2 Australia

CO2 (kg)

%

Home 2757 26.9Transpor

t 3744 36.5

Food 2000 19.5

Leisure 0 0Industry

Share 4000 17.1Grand Total

10251 kg

10.3 tonnes

Summary of Estimated Average Personal Carbon Emissions (per household) CO2

(kg)%

Electricity 8010 19.5

Gas 3016 7.4

Oil 0 0

Coal 0 0

Wood 0 0

Home Total 11026

Personal Share 2757

Home

5

NTU’s Carbon FootprintScope Carbon source Emissions (kg

CO2)

Scope 1 NTU-generated electricity

Negligible

NTU transport fleet 1,306,310

Scope 2 Purchased electricity 79,294,995

Purchased gas 29,856,892

Air conditioning 153,300

Scope 3 Student commuting 15,091,095

Faculty commuting 6,188,832

Financed travel 7,525,240

Waste 16,829

Paper consumption 7,705,000

CO2 Australia

6

NTU Transport Fleet Shuttle Bus (Campus Loop)Carbon Footprint

Total Trips Made by Red/Blue Campus Loops (per bus)

Total Distance covered by Campus Red & Blue Loops per year = 2 X 28,300 X 5.4km = 305, 640km

  hours trips per hour total trips/day Days Operational total trips /year0800-1030 2.5 12 30 160 4,800

1030-1200 1.5 6 9 160 1,440

1200-1300 1 12 12 160 1,920

1300-2300 10 10 100 160 16,000800-2300 15 3 45 92 4,140

          28,300

Total Distance per trip estimated at 5.4km for both red and blue line

CO2 Australia

7

NTU Transport Fleet Shuttle Bus (Campus Loop)Carbon Footprint

Red & Blue Loop Shuttle Bus Carbon Footprint of NTU based on an average fuel Consumption of 0.46litre/km using calculator= 1,306,310 kg

CO2 Australia

8

Purchased electricity For purchased electricity, an average

household of 4 is estimated to use 500kWh a month, with a monthly bill of approximately $135. The carbon emissions for this is 8010kg.

(8010/4)x 39,598=79,294,995 kg CO2 per year

CO2 Australia

9

Purchased gas An average household of 4 is estimated

to use 250kWh of gas per month at a rate of $0.22 per kWh. From the calculator, there is 3016 kg CO2 emissions from the household.

(3016/4)x39598=29,856,892 kg CO2 per year

CO2 Australia

10

Air conditioning For air conditioning, we calculated the energy

consumption using a calculator on the National Environmental Agency (NEA) website. We used a multi-inverter Daikin model with 4 green ticks and estimated that NTU would use it for 12 hours a day. The resulting annual carbon emissions for part load is estimated to be at 3066kWh per year.

Using 0.2 Current CO2 kg per kWh, we get 613 kg CO2 per year per air conditioner. We estimated that there are 250 air conditioners in NTU, hence annual carbon emission= 250x613=153,300 kg CO2 per year.

CO2 Australia

11

Student Commuting For a student taking the bus to school,

the estimated distance for a trip to school is around 30km. We used the frequency of 5 times a week, and calculated 1830 kg CO2 emissions per year.

(1830/4)x32,986=15,091,095 kg CO2 per year

CO2 Australia

12

Faculty commuting For a faculty or staff member

commuting to school via car, we used the same estimated distance of 30km of a single trip from home to school. With the same frequency of 5 times a week, there would be 3744kg CO2 emissions per year.

(3,744kg/4)x6,612=6,188,832 kg CO2 per year

CO2 Australia

13

Financed Travel Overseas Exchange Air Travel Carbon

FootprintCountry Intake tonnes of CO2 emissionsCanada 28 198.26USA 92 666.4China 27 57.24

Hong Kong 45 60.46India 4 7.86Israel 4 15.04Japan 16 40.04

South Korea 70 152.94Taiwan 22 37.12Turkey 10 40.94Italy 4 23.74

Austria  2 9.16Denmark 30 141.2Finland 36 157.66France 35 177.24Germany 81 393.22Ireland 5 26.46

Netherlands 56 278Norway 9 42.66Poland 1 4.44Spain 8 43Sweden 134 611.06

Switzerland 25 121.88UK 74 380.26

Autralia 15 44.58New Zealand 8 31.76

  total for 1 sem 3762.62  total for 1 year 7525.24

7525240 kg

Carbon consumption derived based on the no. of students traveling to each country (overseas intake obtained from OGEM data) on 2-way trip

Total Carbon Footprint deriving from student air travel = 7,525,240 kg

CO2 Australia

14

Waste Data from the Ministry of Environment

and Water Resources shows that total domestic waste disposed of per capita per annum is 0.85kg. 0.85x39,598=33658kg.

Using ABC TV’s carbon emission calculator which includes a household waste element, this translates to 16,829kg of CO2 emissions per year.

CO2 Australia

15

Paper consumption We estimated the annual usage of paper per

person in Singapore to be 144kg.

144x39,598=5,702,112 kg of paper per year.

5,702,112/2.4=2,375,880 reams of paper per year.

From the Climate Friendly carbon footprint calculator, the estimated CO2 emissions per year is 7,705,000kg.

CO2 Australia

16

Carbon Footprint

Carbon consumption derived based on the no. of students traveling to each country (overseas intake obtained from OGEM data) on 2-way trip

Total Carbon Footprint deriving from student air travel = 7,525,240 kg

2

Scope Carbon source

Method for collecting/calculating activity data

Uncertainty

Scope 1 NTU-generated electricity

The amount of electricity generated on campus is considered. Insufficient information to make any reliable disclosure.

C2

NTU transport fleet

Identifying the total distance travelled by shuttle buses within the fleet (Campus Rider, Campus Loop – Red, Campus Loop – Blue and applying an average estimated carbon mass consumption (emission) per unit distance as a rate to this distance. A total of 28,300 trips for an estimated loop distance of 5.4km was made by each Campus Loop service.

C2

CO2 Australia

17

Carbon FootprintScope Carbon

sourceMethod for collecting/calculating activity data

Uncertainty

Scope 2 Purchased electricity

For purchased electricity, an average household of 4 is estimated to use 500kWh a month, with a monthly bill of approximately $135. The carbon emissions for this is 8010kg.

C1

Purchased gas An average household of 4 is estimated to use 250kWh of gas per month at a rate of $0.22 per kWh. From the calculator, there is 3016 kg CO2 emissions from the household.

C2

CO2 Australia

18

Carbon FootprintScope Carbon

sourceMethod for collecting/calculating activity data

Uncertainty

Scope 2 Air -conditioning

Air-conditioning energy consumption estimated using a calculator on the National Environmental Agency (NEA) website Based on a multi-inverter Daikin model with 4 green ticks and estimated daily usage for 12 hours. a day. A 0.2 Current CO2 kg consumption per kWh, was applied over an estimated 250 air conditioners.

C3

CO2 Australia

19

Carbon Footprint

2

Scope Carbon source

Method for collecting/calculating activity data

Uncertainty

Scope 3 Student commuting

The estimated distance for a trip to school is around 30km by bus. We used the frequency of 5 times a week.

C3

Faculty commuting

For a faculty or staff member commuting to school via car, we used the same estimated distance of 30km of a single trip from home to school, with the same frequency of 5 times a week.

C3

Financed travel

Carbon consumption derived based on the number of students traveling to each country on a 2-way trip. Data on travel intake obtained from information published by NTU’s Office of Global Education & Mobility.

C2

CO2 Australia

20

Carbon FootprintScope Carbon

sourceMethod for collecting/calculating activity data

Uncertainty

Scope 3 Waste Data obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources that total domestic waste disposed of per capita per annum is 0.85kg was used in our calculations.

C2

Paper consumption

We estimated the annual usage of paper per person in Singapore to be 144kg.

C3

CO2 Australia

21

Alternative 1 – E-learningTransforming a significant proportion of

our course delivery from classroom to an online format

CO2 Australia

22

Alternative 1 – E-learning E-learning courses consumed nearly (per

student)

90% less energy consumption

85% less CO2 emissions

Why? 1. Reduced transportation for students and

staff 2. Economies of scale reaped when using the

campus site 3. Only give consideration to additional

residential energy involved in taking a module

CO2 Australia

23

Alternative 1 – E-learning Additional advantages

Paper is saved when learning electronically

Research finds e-learning more effective than classroom based learning

CO2 Australia

24

Alternative 1 – E-learning Considerations

Thinking about the curriculum lifecycle to better structure e-learning sessions

Tools for e-learning

Perception and web tracking

CO2 Australia

25

Alternative 1 – E-learning

Design

Approaches

Activities

Resources

Assessment

Integration

Evaluation

Quality Assurance

Taken from Gráinne Conole, University of Southampton

Curriculum lifecycle

CO2 Australia

26

Alternative 1 – E-learningTools for e-learning

Adaptive- Virtual worlds- adaptive simulations

Communicative- Blackboard learn (view e-lectures, discussion boards)- Email- Text messaging

Productive- Spreadsheets, databases to manipulate data

Interactive- NTU library database, national libraries- Internet search engines

CO2 Australia

27

Alternative 1 – E-learningPerception and Web Tracking

Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) to track and assess student activities

Lecturers can track to see if their students are on track in the learning process

CO2 Australia

28

Online Tests & Assessment

Not very feasible for certain modules, especially laboratory sessions (engineering), presentations (especially business), practical sessions (medicine)

E-learning would be detrimental to face-to-face interaction – interpersonal and other soft skills strongly valued in the working world

CO2 Australia

29

Stakeholder AnalysisStakeholder

Perspective

Government

- Online learning can train up more educated and technologically savvy workforce- Online learning can improve productivity

Students (customers)

- Learning less restrictive for students and accommodating of different learning styles and learning pace, more control over learning- Reduced travelling time and costs- Potential for miscommunication and misunderstandings in online learning (lack of nonverbal messages in discussion forums)- Lack of relationship with teachers and students

Teachers (employees)

Employees would feel proud of the organization which is involved in environmental conservation and this might result in lower employee turnover rate.Faster delivery of lessons since the capacity to deliver learning is no longer restricted by the number of available classrooms or teachers.

NTU - Improve reputation of the school, attract more potential students or teachers- Reduced consumption of resources (eg paper)

CO2 Australia

30

Alternative 2 – Buy creditsBuying an equivalent amount of carbon offset credits from the provider featured

in the case

CO2 Australia

31

Alternative 2 – Buy credits Carbon Offset

CO2 Australia

32

Alternative 2 – Buy credits Carbon Credit Scheme

CO2 Australia

33

Alternative 2 – Buy credits Criticism of Carbon

Credit Scheme (1)

Carbon Credits Are Just Permits to Pollute

Does not change high carbon footprint conduct, encourages complacency

No incentive to control or curtail carbon footprint which is increasing globally

CO2 Australia

34

Alternative 2 – Buy credits Criticism of Carbon Credit

Scheme (2)

Difficult to determine the amount of CO2 each tree will actually offset

Tree growth and survival affected by various factors including weather conditions, natural disasters. Unexpected reduction in lifespan or carbon neutralization capacity would reduce effectiveness of offsetting entire carbon footprint.

CO2 Australia

35

Alternative 2 – Buy credits Criticism of Carbon Credit Scheme (3)

Continued tree-planting is unsustainable

Scarcity of arable undeveloped land to plant new trees to keep up with continuously increasing demand for credits.

CO2 Australia

36

Alternative 2 – Buy credits Criticism of Carbon Credit

Scheme (4)

Cutting down trees will re-release the CO2 back into the atmosphere if trees removed after the 100 years

20% of greenhouse gas due to deforestation and other forms of land use change

Problems with meeting carbon credit demand once the plants are removed

CO2 Australia

37

Alternative 2 – Buy credits Evaluation of purchasing credits for NTU

In the short term, will solve the problem of carbon emissions

In the long term

Not sustainable in the long run to reduce CO2 emissions – increase demand for credits faster than supply (increase price of credits substantially) – cost consideration for NTU

Does not encourage staff and students to reduce carbon footprint

Not in line with NTU’s vision promoting environmental responsibility through reducing carbon emissions

CO2 Australia

38

Stakeholders AnalysisStakeholders Perspectives

The University (NTU)

- An increase in expense to buy the carbon offset credits- Issue of sustainability of credit purchase as a long tem solution

Students - Students do not need to adapt to new learning style (eg e-learning)- May have to bear added cost of carbon credit fees but are unwilling to pay extra fees to cover this expense.

CO2 Group - Need to assess supply of carbon credits and

source for new land for the carbon sequestration programme if necessary

CO2 Australia

39

Other Carbon Footprint-Neutralisation Schemes Other schemes to offset carbon footprint

Car-sharing programme for students who live outside campus

Bike-sharing programme for students who live on campus

Annual Hall competition

CO2 Australia

40

Other Carbon Footprint-Neutralisation Schemes Car-sharing programme for students

who live outside campus

Transportation energy use contributes significantly to carbon footprint

School can coordinate car sharing system within NTU Partner with car-sharing company Sign up through online platform (Students

living near each other and with similar timetable can use platform)

CO2 Australia

41

Other Carbon Footprint-Neutralisation Schemes Bike-sharing programme for

students who live on campus

Help reduce the frequency of shuttle buses on campus

Students rely less on shuttle buses, can also be considered a healthy workout for students

CO2 Australia

42

Other Carbon Footprint-Neutralisation Schemes Annual Hall competition

Friendly competition to encourage students to reduce carbon footprint, assessed by tracking utility bill and wastage for each hall

Programme will increase awareness and knowledge of carbon footprint and eco-knowledge (energy consumption and its associated costs)

Addresses human behaviour – incentive to reduce energy consumption (reputation and prestige of hall)

CO2 Australia

43

Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Criteria

Actionability/Feasibility

Effectiveness/Utility

Sustainability

CO2 Australia

44

Evaluation Matrix

CO2 Australia

E-learning

Carbon Credit

Car-Sharing

Bike-Sharing

Hall Competition

Actionability/Feasibility

Effectiveness/Utility

Sustainability

45

Proposed Solution

CO2 Australia

Combination Approach

Primary Scheme: Adoption of E-Learning Easy implementation that promotes environmental

responsibility and directly addresses the cause carbon footprint

Not as costly as carbon credit offsets

Secondary Schemes: Adoption in tandem

May be implemented in conjunction to enhance the overall effectiveness

46

Conclusion

CO2 Australia

47

References http://www3.open.ac.uk/events/3/2005331_47403_o1.pdf http://www.kineo.com/resources/new-to-elearning/the-benefits-of-elearning http://

view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jisc.ac.uk%2Fuploaded_documents%2FReport%2520on%2520the%2520effectiveness%2520of%2520tools%2520v5_Martin_Oliver.doc

http://www.australiatravelsearch.com.au/trc/facts.html http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26107 http://www.greenworldbvi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/how-carbon-offsets-work.jpg

CO2 Australia

48

Executive SummaryThe presentation focuses on the review and comparison of a few alternatives in relation to their contribution to long-term carbon-neutral targets of Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) sustainability initiative. After an introduction, the concept of a carbon footprint is first explained, followed by a presentation of NTU’s total computed carbon footprint derived using various estimates and methods. A study of the two main alternatives , e-learning and the carbon offset credit scheme, will be presented, weighing the benefits and detriments of option which would be further discussed subsequently in an analysis of options’ impact on the various stakeholders. The presentation will next suggest and elaborate on 3 other possible alternatives. The 3 key decision-making, evaluation criteria will be identified and used to assess each alternative’s usefulness. A proposed solution drawn from a mix of alternatives will be asserted and justified. The presentation concludes with a brief overview of the points and a forecast of NTU’s path towards reaching the zero carbon footprint target with the proposed solution in place.

CO2 Australia