Ab0401 sem 3 grp 4 - May Ee, Michelle, Yan Lin, Xiu Hui, Xin Hui, Ding Rong

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


3


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”


5


• 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


6


• 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


12

Option 1: Transforming a

significant proportion of our course delivery from classroom to an

online format


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.


14


• 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


15


• 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.


16


• 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


17


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.”


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


36

• Companies/ Institutionso Electricity consumption o Excessive usage of paper consumption

Stakeholders on CO2 emissions


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


38

Thank You


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.

Education

Ab0401 sem 3 grp 4 - May Ee, Michelle, Yan Lin, Xiu Hui, Xin Hui, Ding Rong