Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
AB0401
E-Learning Assignment
Presented by:
Desiree Lian
Michelle Goh
Roger Tan

Tan Tien Beng
Voon Ming Wei
Calculation of NTU’s carbon
footprint (daily basis)
Components
1. Electricity incurred by the school buildings
and facilit...
Calculation of NTU’s carbon
footprint (daily basis)
Assumptions
1. There are 2,500 teaching and research staff in
NTU
2. T...
Calculation of NTU’s carbon
footprint (daily basis)
Assumptions
5. 10% of the students travel to NTU via private
transport...
Calculation of NTU’s carbon
footprint (daily basis)
Assumptions
7. Type of car used is an average petrol car as
found in
(...
Option 1: More
Online Learning
More Online Teaching
 80%

•
•
•

of classes can be moved to e-learning
Online discussion forums can be created
for stude...
Option 1 CO2 Emission Reduction
 Estimated

total reduction in CO2 emission
by 81.5 tons


Cost-savings of S$1,039 daily...
Evaluation
PROS
 Reduce electricity
usage (lights &
aircon)
 Reduce
transportations

CONS
Limited in-class
interactions
...
Stakeholders’ Analysis
 NTU

Management: Benefit from the
reputation NTU garnered from the increase
use of online teachin...
Stakeholders’ Analysis
 Students:

Attend classes at the
convenience of their homes and save on
transportation fees
 Pub...
Critique: Option 1
 E-learning




is not that beneficial to

Environment – Students will consume more
electricity ind...
Option 2: Purchase
Carbon Credits
Purchasing Carbon Credits
 NTU

can purchase Carbon Credits to lower
carbon footprint through Carbon Offset*
Option 2 CO2 Emission Reduction
 Incurs

more costs proportionately to the
increase in carbon emission
Evaluation
PROS
CONS
 Supports initiatives
 High costs involved
in reduction of
 Lesser incentive for
carbon emission
N...
Stakeholders’ Analysis
 NTU

Management: Reputation from
contribution to carbon emission reduction
 Government: Lower ca...
Stakeholders’ Analysis
 Local

Universities: Model NTU’s initiatives as part
of promoting environmental sustainability
 ...
Critique: Option 2
 High

costs incurred not sustainable in the
long run
 False sense of Pollution
 Exploited by many i...
Option 3:
Compacting
Timetables
Compacting of Timetables
 University-wide

lesson timetable standards
to be implemented.
 Set various pre-determined set...
Option 3 CO2 Emission Reduction
 Estimated

total reduction in CO2 emission
by 39.7 tons


Cost-savings of S$506 daily!
Evaluation
PROS
 Reduce the carbon
emission coming
from transportation
as the number of
travels decrease

CONS
 May requ...
Stakeholders’ Analysis


NTU Management: Might face higher costs of hiring more teaching staff



NTU Admin Staff: might...
Critique: Option 3
 Are

there enough teaching staff/
classrooms to hold many classes
concurrently?
 Standardised timeta...
Option 4: Modifying
Campus - Greener
Modifying Campus - Greener
 Partner


with Energy Star.

reduce a school's energy bills by 30 percent

 Install

solar ...
Option 4 C02 Emission Reduction
 Estimated

total reduction in CO2 emission
by 41.0 tons


Cost-savings of S$523 daily!
Evaluation
PROS
CONS
 Promotes
 High initial expenses to
environmental
install the
sustainability initiatives
environmen...
Stakeholders’ Analysis
 NTU

Management : Long-term lower cost
of operation, global reputation as a stateof-the-art unive...
Stakeholders’ Analysis







Teaching Staff: Minimal hindrance to their
daily routines
Students: Management’s cost sa...
Critique: Option 4
 Current

building structures might be
unsuitable for quick implementation of
green features.
 Some c...
Comparing
all 4 Options
Comparing:
Pros of Options
Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Save on electrical
utilities

Encourages
reduction of
c...
Comparing:
Cons of Options
Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Limited in-class
interactions

High costs involved

May...
Overall Evaluation
of 4 Options
Overall Evaluation


Solving the root problem – reducing carbon
emissions in totality
 Option

4 [green buildings] (100%...
Overall Evaluation
 Option





4 - best option in the long run

High costs but changes are sustainable
No fear of ha...
Overall Evaluation
 Possible


combination of all 4 options.

Maximum impact on environmental
sustainability

 Depends
...
Executive Summary
This presentation provides an evaluation of several options considered to lessen NTU’s
carbon footprint....
The end.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

NBS AB0401 Sem02 Group02 E-Learning Assignment - Voon Ming Wei,Desiree Lian,Tan Tien Beng,Michelle Goh,Roger Tan

393 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Lots of interesting ideas, and good qualitative analysis. Not clear 'what I should do when I leave the room,' an important take-home for change agents. Had hoped to see a clear set of decision criteria that included the reduction of each alternative on our carbon footprint.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

NBS AB0401 Sem02 Group02 E-Learning Assignment - Voon Ming Wei,Desiree Lian,Tan Tien Beng,Michelle Goh,Roger Tan

  1. 1. AB0401 E-Learning Assignment Presented by: Desiree Lian Michelle Goh Roger Tan Tan Tien Beng Voon Ming Wei
  2. 2. Calculation of NTU’s carbon footprint (daily basis) Components 1. Electricity incurred by the school buildings and facilities Total carbon 2. In-campus shuttle bus service footprint = 3. Paper consumption 184.986 tons 4. Water Usage of CO2e! 5. Waste 6. Transportation of employees (admin staffs and professors) and vendors to school 7. Transportation of students to school
  3. 3. Calculation of NTU’s carbon footprint (daily basis) Assumptions 1. There are 2,500 teaching and research staff in NTU 2. There are 300 vendors in NTU (includes canteens’ and mini-marts’ vendors) 3. There are 27,700 students in NTU 4. 80% of the teaching and research staff and vendors travel to NTU via private transport (i.e. cars), and the rest (20%) travel to NTU via public transport
  4. 4. Calculation of NTU’s carbon footprint (daily basis) Assumptions 5. 10% of the students travel to NTU via private transport (i.e. cars), and the rest (90%) travel to NTU via public transport 6. Average distance staffs, vendors, and students travelling to school is 10km (to be from central area of Singapore). 9km will be travelling on train, while the 1km is travelling on bus.
  5. 5. Calculation of NTU’s carbon footprint (daily basis) Assumptions 7. Type of car used is an average petrol car as found in (http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator. aspx) 8. For shuttle bus service, we assume an average of 4 buses on weekdays, and 2 buses on weekends, plying each of the 4 routes, for 15 hours each day. Average distance of the route is estimated to be 8km. 9. We estimate each student use an average of 40 pieces of A4-sized paper per week. Hence, 8 pieces of A4-sized paper per day.
  6. 6. Option 1: More Online Learning
  7. 7. More Online Teaching  80% • • • of classes can be moved to e-learning Online discussion forums can be created for students and teachers to interact and discuss issues Skype/conference calls may be used for lesson discussions Convert all lectures into online recorded lectures
  8. 8. Option 1 CO2 Emission Reduction  Estimated total reduction in CO2 emission by 81.5 tons  Cost-savings of S$1,039 daily!
  9. 9. Evaluation PROS  Reduce electricity usage (lights & aircon)  Reduce transportations CONS Limited in-class interactions Unable to be applied across all modules Tutors may find difficulties in delivery of lesson • • •
  10. 10. Stakeholders’ Analysis  NTU Management: Benefit from the reputation NTU garnered from the increase use of online teaching  Government: Development of country’s learning platform, low carbon emission reading  Teaching Staff: Focus on personal research papers and benefit from the reputation
  11. 11. Stakeholders’ Analysis  Students: Attend classes at the convenience of their homes and save on transportation fees  Public: Smoother traffic with more students staying at home/in their hostels
  12. 12. Critique: Option 1  E-learning    is not that beneficial to Environment – Students will consume more electricity individually when they stay home Learning – Not appropriate for dependent learners Student Development – hinders development of students’ social skill, promotes individualism
  13. 13. Option 2: Purchase Carbon Credits
  14. 14. Purchasing Carbon Credits  NTU can purchase Carbon Credits to lower carbon footprint through Carbon Offset*
  15. 15. Option 2 CO2 Emission Reduction  Incurs more costs proportionately to the increase in carbon emission
  16. 16. Evaluation PROS CONS  Supports initiatives  High costs involved in reduction of  Lesser incentive for carbon emission NTU to lower carbon  Reputation of being footprint in long run environmentally friendly
  17. 17. Stakeholders’ Analysis  NTU Management: Reputation from contribution to carbon emission reduction  Government: Lower carbon emission reading as a nation  Public Companies: Accumulate carbon credits from individual projects, profit from sale of carbon credits  Investors: Gain through investments in carbon credits
  18. 18. Stakeholders’ Analysis  Local Universities: Model NTU’s initiatives as part of promoting environmental sustainability  Students: May incur higher school fees  NTU Vendors: Face risk of less timely payments
  19. 19. Critique: Option 2  High costs incurred not sustainable in the long run  False sense of Pollution  Exploited by many investors
  20. 20. Option 3: Compacting Timetables
  21. 21. Compacting of Timetables  University-wide lesson timetable standards to be implemented.  Set various pre-determined sets of timetables where core lessons are scheduled together  NBS can come up with BNF Y2 Group A, BNF Y2 Group B….  Students will benefit from a more compact timetable, minimizing the days of school they need to attend
  22. 22. Option 3 CO2 Emission Reduction  Estimated total reduction in CO2 emission by 39.7 tons  Cost-savings of S$506 daily!
  23. 23. Evaluation PROS  Reduce the carbon emission coming from transportation as the number of travels decrease CONS  May require more teaching staff due to the increased number of classes occurring concurrently per day  May be too rigid students cannot adjust the timetables according to their schedules
  24. 24. Stakeholders’ Analysis  NTU Management: Might face higher costs of hiring more teaching staff  NTU Admin Staff: might have a higher workload in planning timetables  Teaching Staff: They would now have more free time to focus on their personal research, as they have to attend fewer days of school  Students: Minimize the days they need to go to school. They no longer need to go through the stressful process of course registration (fastest fingers) again, since timetables are now allocated.  Transport/Road users: As students and teaching staff are making fewer transport trips to school, the public will experience less volume on the public transport system and roads.  Government: Able to achieve a lower carbon footprint as a nation
  25. 25. Critique: Option 3  Are there enough teaching staff/ classrooms to hold many classes concurrently?  Standardised timetable might spawn “peak-hour” jams in transport and other facilities (canteens etc)
  26. 26. Option 4: Modifying Campus - Greener
  27. 27. Modifying Campus - Greener  Partner  with Energy Star. reduce a school's energy bills by 30 percent  Install solar panels to supplement power grid usage.  Green building
  28. 28. Option 4 C02 Emission Reduction  Estimated total reduction in CO2 emission by 41.0 tons  Cost-savings of S$523 daily!
  29. 29. Evaluation PROS CONS  Promotes  High initial expenses to environmental install the sustainability initiatives environmentallythroughout campus friendly structures and appliances  Efficient use of water and electricity  Constant construction work is needed to  Long-term cost savings implement changes
  30. 30. Stakeholders’ Analysis  NTU Management : Long-term lower cost of operation, global reputation as a stateof-the-art university, High initial cost to implement  Government: Have a much lower carbon emission reading as a nation
  31. 31. Stakeholders’ Analysis     Teaching Staff: Minimal hindrance to their daily routines Students: Management’s cost savings can translate to more spending on improvements to student-life, or even reduced tuition fees/misc fees, Enjoy a beautifully landscaped school NTU Vendors: Benefit from lower utility bills Public: Have lesser carbon pollution to the environment
  32. 32. Critique: Option 4  Current building structures might be unsuitable for quick implementation of green features.  Some changes can still be implemented across all buildings  Can be implemented in phases
  33. 33. Comparing all 4 Options
  34. 34. Comparing: Pros of Options Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Save on electrical utilities Encourages reduction of carbon emission Reduce students’ and staff’s transportation to and from school Converts entire campus to being environmentally friendly Reduce students’ and staff’s transportation to and from school Promotes environmental sustainability initiatives throughout campus Efficient use of water and electricity Long-term cost savings
  35. 35. Comparing: Cons of Options Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Limited in-class interactions High costs involved May require more teaching staff due to the increased number of classes occurring concurrently per day High initial expenses to install the environmentallyfriendly structures and appliances Unable to be applied across all modules Lesser incentive for NTU to lower carbon footprint in long run May be too rigid students cannot adjust the timetables according to their schedules Constant construction work is needed to implement changes Tutors may find difficulties in delivery of lesson
  36. 36. Overall Evaluation of 4 Options
  37. 37. Overall Evaluation  Solving the root problem – reducing carbon emissions in totality  Option 4 [green buildings] (100% true)  Option 1 [e-learning] (unclear)  Option 3 [compact timetable] (unclear)  Not  solving the root problem Option 2 [purchasing carbon credits]
  38. 38. Overall Evaluation  Option     4 - best option in the long run High costs but changes are sustainable No fear of having to go through e learning Benefit from positive reputation Cost-savings will outweigh implementation costs in the long run
  39. 39. Overall Evaluation  Possible  combination of all 4 options. Maximum impact on environmental sustainability  Depends on NTU’s financial resources
  40. 40. Executive Summary This presentation provides an evaluation of several options considered to lessen NTU’s carbon footprint. The 1st option NTU considered is about incorporating more e-learning into the delivery of classes. This options allows NTU to save a significant amount of energy usage. However, e-learning assumes a huge responsibility on students and it could hinder student’s personal development. The 2nd option considered is to purchase carbon credits to offset against NTU’s carbon emission. Although this option may erases NTU’s carbon footprint significantly or completely, it’s effectiveness in benefitting the environment is questionable. The 3rd option seeks to improve NTU’s carbon footprint by compacting student’s timetable. This helps to reduce the frequency students have to travel to school, reducing the carbon emission from transport. However, this option is difficult to implement as many tertiary students need the flexibility of arranging their timetable. Finally, the 4th option is to revamp the campus into a green campus. With green buildings and energy efficient facilities installed in NTU, carbon emission will reduce significantly. However, this option requires a huge sum of money and constant construction works. In conclusion, we evaluated that option 4 is the best option towards environmental sustainability in the long run. However, a combination of all 4 options may be possible, together with some assumptions, to achieve the maximum environmental benefit.
  41. 41. The end.

×