Ab0401 elearning luke chan_kenneth chen_li mengzhu_grace xaveria


Published on

AB0401 E-Learning
Grace Xaveria, Li Mengzhu, Luke Chan, Kenneth Chen

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ab0401 elearning luke chan_kenneth chen_li mengzhu_grace xaveria

  1. 1. Changing Our World: Do we plant trees or create online courses Luke Chan Kenneth Chen Grace Xaveria Li Mengzhu
  2. 2. Overview Introduction Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Alternatives
  3. 3. Introduction Scope of calculation: • Fiscal year of 2010 32 teaching weeks • Duration of e-learning week to be discussed: • 10 teaching weeks 15 teaching weeks NTU Reference University 5 teaching weeks • NTU • 25,728 • Ranking: 41 • Erasmus • 14,000 • School Ranking: 92 ‘E-Learning reduces carbon emission.’ ‘Buying carbon credits achieves carbon neutral target.’ Other Alternatives: • New school policies
  4. 4. Scope 1 Data collected: Number of vehicles owned by school: 6 (Estimated based on NTU bus schedule) Direct transportation sources Types of vehicles owned by school: Tong Tar Bus Kilometer travelled by the all vehicles per year: 432,000km Emission factor: 90g/km Research emission/kg Scope 1 Direct transportation sources Education emission/kg Total emmsion/kg 23328 15552 38880
  5. 5. Scope 2 Data collected: Energy consumption in buildings of NTU: 50 kWh/m2/yr Purchased heat Building area of NTU: 15014.96m2 *38 = 570568.48 kWh/m2/yr Fuel mix: 80% Natural gas; 18% Petroleum product; Emission factor of natural gas: 0.185; Petroleum product: 0.245 Research emission/kg Scope 2 Purchase electricity Education emission/kg Total emmsion/kg 65763.723 43842.482 109606.205
  6. 6. Scope 3 Employee/Stu dent commuting undergraduates staying in hall post-graduates staying in hall total student population staying in hall 9200 3285.6863 12485.6863 total student population who don't stay in hall 19,381 2-way distance travelled/person(km) emission factor(kgCO2/km) CO2 CO2 emisson/day emission/person/day(kg) (kg) CO2 emisson/year (kg) average travelling time 50min average travelling time by bus 18min 9.2 0.0132 0.12144 4672.88976 747662.3616 average travelling time by train 32min 52.4 0.073 3.8252 147189.8708 23550379.33 Scope 3 Commuting by bus 2803.733856 1869.155904 4672.88976 Commuting by train 88313.92248 58875.94832 147189.8708 paper consumption 41.29308 27.52872 68.8218 water consumption 61.257672 40.838448 102.09612 food wastage 89.32356 59.54904 148.8726
  7. 7. Campus Carbon Footprint Research emission/kg Education emission/kg Total emmision/kg 23328 15552 38880 Direct transportation sources Scope 1 Scope 2 Purchase electricity 65763.723 43842.482 109606.205 Scope 3 Communting by bus 448597.417 299064.9446 747662.3616 Commuting by train 14130227.6 9420151.731 23550379.33 paper consumption 41.29308 27.52872 68.8218 water consumption 61.257672 40.838448 102.09612 food wastage 89.32356 59.54904 148.8726 14668108.61 9778739.074 24446847.69 Emission per student 460.2914806 306.860987 767.1524676 Emission per employee 2218.407231 1478.938154 3697.345385 Total
  8. 8. Allocation of CO2 emissions in the model Education 40% Research: 60% • Data of NTU is not available Reference to data from Erasmus University which has similar ranking as NTU, thus we assume that both universities conducts similar amount of research work
  9. 9. Benefit of E-Learning 160kg CO2 emission per average Singaporean per year • Individual/Personal carbon emission • (3.08kg CO2 emission per average Singaporean per week) • • • • • • 2 week of e-learning (1 e-learning per sem): 6.15kg of CO2 emission 4 week of e-learning (2 e-learning per sem): 12.31kg of CO2 emission 6 week of e-learning (3 e-learning per sem): 18.46kg of CO2 emission 8 week of e-learning (4 e-learning per sem): 24.62kg of CO2 emission 10 week of e-learning (5 e-learning per sem): 30.77kg of CO2 emission 12 week of e-learning (6 e-learning per sem): 36.92kg of CO2 emission
  10. 10. Benefit of eLearning carbon emission/person/week(kg) 3.075 School population 38,479 Total personal carbon emission/week (kg) 118323 Total carbon emission/week if no eLearning being conducted(kg) 763964 Total reduction in carbon emission due to eLearning/wk (kg) 645641 No of eLearning weeks Carbon emission reduction(kg) 5 3228205.326 10 6456410.652 15 9684615.977 Online learning can help school reduce carbon emission, thus reducing the cost of buying carbon credits and can even help school earn by selling carbon credits to external parties
  11. 11. Alternatives Proposed Alternatives • Build in solar panel to generate electricity • Design of school building to allow natural sunlight to enter classroom to reduce lights needed to be switched on to brighten up classroom • Create facilities booking system that ensures venue are allocated closely to number of participants, to prevent powering up a big venue unnecessarily • Set double-printing as the default function in school printers
  12. 12. Impact on Stakeholders Stakeholders • School: Cost saving, better reputation (opportunities to attract partnership with environmental firms/environmental engineering experts) • Students: E-learning more efficient for student staying far from campus • Staff: On the short run, might require more time to develop online lesson On the long run can re-use same material and hence do not have to be physically present for classes, more time for research work • National Environmental Agency: University reduction in emission may be significant enough to improve environment around campus
  13. 13. Executive Summary This presentation seeks to present the environmental impact of the activities that our university engages in, which can be broadly classified into providing education, research work as well as supporting activities, such as transport. The presentation aim to discover the change that we can make if we were to bring in e-learning, which cuts down on activities on campus that consume energy. We will also discussed effects of purchasing carbon credits as an alternative. Our group also suggested alternatives ideas that can help our campus become more environmentally-friendly and sustainable, in view of rising energy cost. Lastly we discussed the implication to the stakeholders of the university and explored the possible impact to various stakeholders. While being a greener university will allow us to become more cost-efficient and improve our reputation on environmental efforts. We should also note that the quality of education and support given to research work should not be compromised.
  14. 14. Reference http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_bus.htm http://www.sustainapore.sg/pdf/iconicCutting Edge.pdf http://www.ema.gov.sg/media/files/facts_and_figures/fuel_mix/Fuel_Mix%2 0extracted%20from%20Singapore%20Energy%20Statistics.pdf ENERGY MARKET AUTHORITY http://www.ema.gov.sg/media/files/publications/EMA_SES_2012_Final.pdf PERSONAL CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATOR http://www.resurgence.org/education/carbon-calculator.html
  15. 15. Appendix A