Sem3 group 1 co2 australia


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Comment
  • Thorough research effort, although calculations appear to rest partly on questionable assumptions such as excluding transport and food service. The key issue is whether the resulting experience will a) produce comparable learning and b) will be accepted by key stakeholders such as accreditation agencies and the labor markets.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • 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

Sem3 group 1 co2 australia

  1. 1. Changing our World: Do we plant trees or create online courses? Brought to you by: Benjamin Chew Benjamin Wong Gerald Teong Selwyn Lim Vanessa Chia Yu Kang Ng
  2. 2. Table of Content ● Introduction ● Carbon Footprint Calculation ● Stakeholder Interests ● Decision Criteria ● Alternatives and Evaluation ● Conclusion ● Executive Summary
  3. 3. Introduction Carbon Footprint Definition A measure of the exclusive total amount of carbon dioxide emissions that is directly and indirectly caused by an activity or is accumulated over the life-stages of a product.
  4. 4. Carbon Footprint Calculation 3 Different Methods 1. GHG Protocol ● A framework to understand, quantify and manage GHG emissions. ● Resurgence Calculator 2. PAS 2050 ● Assess life cycle GHG emissions 3. IT Systems ● ERP systems / Manual inputs in Excel Spreadsheet to track and caluculate GHG emissions
  5. 5. Carbon Footprint Calculation Method Evaluation GHG Protocol Strength • Considered the whole organization Weakness • emission • More comprehensive other CO2 equivalent gases such rather than focusing on individual components Included • as CH4(methane), etc. Not in line with the main objective, which is to evaluate only CO2
  6. 6. Carbon Footprint Calculation Method Evaluation PAS 2050 Strength • Specific and captures Weakness • Difficult to apply as product life cycle CO2 NTU is large and has emissions many functions which do not fall under either product or service. • Leads results. to distorted
  7. 7. Carbon Footprint Calculation Method Evaluation IT Systems Strength Weakness • Tools have limited capabilities. • Lack of comprehensive ERP systems to record such data. • Managers are unable to utilize data to calculate environmental impact.
  8. 8. Carbon Footprint Calculation 3 Different Methods 1. GHG Protocol (Method of Choice) ● A framework to understand, quantify and manage GHG emissions. ● Resurgence Calculator ● ●
  9. 9. Carbon Footprint Calculation Resurgence Calculator Steps to Calculate: 1. Breakdown 2. Calculation of Scopes 3. Results
  10. 10. Carbon Footprint Calculation Scopes Activity Data: Activity that produces an emission E.g. the amount of electricity used in terms of kWh Emission Factor: Amount of CO2 that is consumed for each unit of activity data E.g. an emission factor for electricity is expressed in kg of CO2/kWh Breakdown 1. Home-made electricity & transportation of vehicles by organization 2. Purchased heat & electricity 3. Other emissions that are not the result of companyowned assets Total CO2 Emissions
  11. 11. Carbon Footprint Calculation Scope 1: Home-made electricity & transportation of vehicles by organization 1. On campus stationary sources, which can use fossil fuels, incinerated waste, wood, bioheat, etc. Not Applicable 1. University fleet: emissions from the different types of fuel that can be used in the university’s fleet (including gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, etc) Since NTU is using Tong Tar Transport for their transportation, university fleet emission Not Applicable
  12. 12. Carbon Footprint Calculation Scope 1: Home-made electricity & transportation of vehicles by organization 3. Agriculture (only NO2 and CH4 emissions, CO2 is excluded for this category). Not Applicable 4. Emissions from refrigerants and chemicals • • Not significant enough Small number of users Not Applicable
  13. 13. Carbon Footprint Calculation Scope 2: Purchased heat & electricity Equation: Total Emission = Number of students* and personnel** X Energy consumption of an individual in school per year Rate of Emission per year (including break adjusted) 245 days(excluding 4 months break) / 365 days = 0.671 Explanation on the personnel: * Part-time students is assumed to contribute half of the emission of full-time students. **Personnel includes part-time and full-time staffs
  14. 14. Carbon Footprint Calculation Scope 2: Purchased heat & electricity Assumptions: • • • The amount of energy consumed by an individual is representative of all the students The energy consumption remains the same, regardless of public holidays, Canteens and other food places are not considered under NTU, either financially or operationally. Calculation: • • Used resurgence carbon calculator as follows GHG protocol, which captures the entire organization emission. Thus, this carbon calculator can be deemed appropriate to use, except for the fact the emission factor captures other gases other than CO2. We rely on the emission factors provided in the online calculator.
  15. 15. Carbon Footprint Calculation Scope 2: Purchased heat & electricity Conversion (Emission) factor The conversion or emission factor used in the calculator is most probably based on UK. However, the number is indeed credible and appropriate to use because according the Singapore energy statistics, the build margin(emission factor) is also approximately 0.43.
  16. 16. Carbon Footprint Calculation Scope 2: Purchased heat & electricity Calculation Total Average Cost Per Week (S$) 290 x S$ 0.2608(based on the tariff in Singapore) S$75.60 Convert to pound 75.6 x 0.499(conversion 37.7 pound rate) Cost per year (pound) 37.7 x 52 1960.4 pound Total unit per year (kWH) 1960.4 / 0.14 14,003 kWH Total Carbon Emission per year/kg 14,003 kWH x 0.43 6,021kg
  17. 17. Carbon Footprint Calculation Scope 2: Purchased heat & electricity Results and Discussion Energy consumption of an individual: 228 kWh Conversion factor: 0.43 CO2 produced by individual per year : + 98kg Number of personnel: Students (full time) 22,862 (part time) Staff = = 656 (all) = 6,612 = 30,130 Total Total Emission per year (holiday/break adjusted)= 30,130 x 6,021 x 0.671= 121,727,941.8kg
  18. 18. Carbon Footprint Calculation Scope 3: Other emissions that are not the result of company-owned assets Scope Scope 3 Source Emission( kg CO2) Faculty Commuting 2,586,786.30 Student Commuting 5,989,010.30 Waste 151,091.70
  19. 19. Carbon Footprint Calculation Results Scope Source Emission(kg CO2) Scope 3 121,727,941 Faculty Commuting Scope 2 Purchased electricity heat/air conditioning 2,586,786.30 Student Commuting 5,989,010.30 Waste 151,091.70 Total = 130,454,829.3kg CO2
  20. 20. Stakeholder’s Interest NTU • Be a reputable school with a commendable global ranking. • Create an environment that encourages creativity and is conducive for its students. Potential/Current Students • Learn in a conducive environment to maximize their knowledge before entering the workforce. • A degree from a reputable University in a course of their choice • Lower tuition fees Employees • Have a good working environment and to be remunerated reasonably Environmentalists • Promote green initiatives. • Promote Singapore as a key educational hub in Asia Government • Preserve the Earth’s environment • Promote green initiatives
  21. 21. Decision Criterias A list of decision criteria to aid us in evaluating the various alternatives. Criteria Measurements Feasibility Practicality of the alternative Effectiveness Extent of reduction of carbon footprint Sustainability Environmental sustainability in the long run Cost Lower of cost Benefits/Cost to Stakeholders Extent of stakeholders’ interest met
  22. 22. Evaluation Of Alternative 1. Transforming a significant proportion of our course delivery from classroom to an online format. Feasibility Effectiveness Sustainability NTU provides a robust IT infrastructure for lecturers, staff, and students. Considering the number of students in NTU, carbon emission from transportation is reduced significantly since students do not need to travel to school to attend lessons. Less carbon emission in the long run since the effectiveness of carbon emission reduction is high. Students learn, research, and acquire knowledge from online portals of readings Currently, E-learning and online lectures are widely adopted in NTU. These are successful in delivering the same content as a live lesson ✓ Less usage of paper for handouts reduces wastage and saves the environment Reduction of electricity usage such as lights and aircon in classes ✓ Continued efforts in transforming course delivery from classroom to an online format will definitely have substantial decrease in carbon emission ✓
  23. 23. Evaluation Of Alternative 1. Transforming a significant proportion of our course delivery from classroom to an online format. Cost Benefits/Costs to Stakeholders High cost incurred from purchasing, improving, upgrading, and maintaining a robust IT infrastructure. This is important due to NTU’s high dependency on IT infrastructure for purposes such as e-learning and lecture recordings. NTU: Reputation of NTU will be enhanced through green practices environmental sustainable efforts that are effective and recognized. Reduction in the number and frequency of shuttle bus services provided by NTU → reduction in costs. Students: Students can study at their own pace, their own convenience, and at their own time. They can also choose a conducive environment to study in, without having to come all the way to NTU just to attend 2 hour worth of lessons. Travelling time can be saved, and converted to do other things. Government: Less carbon emission through less usage of utilities and electricity. Transportation cost and fuel emission costs would also decrease. Employees: Lecturers can do and upload their lecture recordings online at their own time, own pace, and own comfort. - ✓
  24. 24. Evaluation Of Alternative 2. Buying an equivalent amount of carbon offset credits from the provider featured in the case Feasibility Effectiveness Sustainability This method is not only feasible but hassle-free as government need only to issue ‘rights to pollute’ to organisations and mutual exchange of rights can be done between organisations. Organisations may make an effort to go green and reduce carbon footprint so as to be able to sell their credits to others to earn passive income and gain reputation Carbon offset credits do not reduce carbon footprint, it merely transfer the rights of polluting from organisations to organisations should they not require them, as such, in the long run, carbon footprint is not reduced if there’s no limits to the carbon emission This method is currently practiced by other organizations and proven to work ✓ Also, it limits the overall amount of pollution allowed since these credits are limited. ✓ X
  25. 25. Evaluation Of Alternative 2. Buying an equivalent amount of carbon offset credits from the provider featured in the case Cost Benefits/Costs to Stakeholders Minimal cost is required to issued carbon offset credits by government. Government: able to effectively control the overall amount of carbon footprint produced However, organisations would sell credits at high price should they not require them, leading to high costs for the buyer Environmentalists: Not in line their interests since it does not reduce carbon footprint overall. NTU: Buying carbon offset credits might not be very useful and beneficial for them. As a school, NTU should focus on research and developing sustainable and environmentally friendly practices. - X
  26. 26. Energy Research Institute @ NTU ( ERI@N ) Reaserach Institute dedicated to: • enhancing the efficiency of energy systems • knowledge creation and technology transfer • creating a collaborative environment for sustainability goals Focuses on sustainable energy, energy efficiency/infrastructure and socio-economic aspects on energy research
  27. 27. Why ERI@N? • Considerable expertise and strengths in: Fuel cells o Wind & tidal energy o Smart energy systems o Materials design & synthesis o Wind/Tidal Energy Fuel Cells Smart Energy Systems
  28. 28. Why ERI@N? • Tested and proven with major collaborations IBM (Sustainable Building Technologies) o Gamesa (Wind) o Rolls-Royce (Fuel Cells) o Gamesa (Wind) Rolls-Royce (Fuel Cells)
  29. 29. Evaluation Of Alternative 3. Energy Research Institute @ NTU Feasibility Effectiveness Sustainability This method might not be feasible because it is difficult to implement since it requires a lot of subsidiaries and funding. Initiatives anchored by ERI@N would be highly effective as it can promoted and implemented instantaneously in NTU. Furthermore, NTU allocates resources to this cause. Carbon footprint would be significantly reduced because ERI@N’s initiatives are large scale and designed for long term sustainability. Projects undertaken by ERI@N are usually large-scale and time consuming, making it difficult and slow to materialize. The returns on investment is also uncertain since there is a risk that the project may fail. X ✓ ✓
  30. 30. Evaluation Of Alternative 3. Energy Research Institute @ NTU Cost Benefits/Costs to Stakeholders Costs incurred would be high due to the intensive research and development required. NTU: Improves NTU’s reputation as a good school dedicated to environmental sustainability. Environmentalists: Goal alignment with environmentalists However, these costs will be offsetted by the long term benefits brought about by successful implementations. X Government: Beneficial to government because they may be able to implement the development / practices nation-wide to benefit the masses. ✓
  31. 31. Decision Matrix Ease of Implementation Effectiveness Sustainability Cost Benefits to Stakeholders Alternative 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓ Alternative 2 ✓ ✓ X - X Alternative 3 X ✓ ✓ X ✓ FINAL CHOICE ALTERNATIVE 1
  32. 32. Executive Summary Our presentation aims to show how NTU can achieve carbon neutrality within the campus by implementing green practices that focuses on energy, research and sustainability. We put forth 3 main initiatives that NTU could adopt - Switching traditional course delivery methods into online platforms - Purchasing carbon offset credits - Generating clean sources of energy ( Energy Research Institute @ NTU (ERI@N) ). We have carefully evaluated the pros and cons of the 3 proposed suggestions on how they would be able to help NTU achieve a carbon-neutral future based on the relevant decision criteria, taking into account the different stakeholders involved in this initiatives and how other variables may affect our targeted goals. We believe that if NTU embrace and dedicate its commitment to environmental sustainability, it will not only be recognised globally for its initiatives but also save a lot of costs in the long run.