NTU's Options to Reduce Carbon Footprint
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•521 views
This document evaluates several options to reduce NTU's carbon footprint on a daily basis. Option 4, modifying the campus to be greener by installing solar panels and green buildings, is identified as the best long-term solution despite its high initial costs. It is estimated to reduce carbon emissions the most at 41 tons daily and save $523 daily in costs. While other options like increasing online learning or compacting timetables also lower emissions, they have drawbacks in implementation or effectiveness. An optimal approach may be combining all the options based on NTU's financial resources to maximize environmental sustainability.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Viewers also liked
Similar to NTU's Options to Reduce Carbon Footprint
Similar to NTU's Options to Reduce Carbon Footprint (20)
More from NBS
More from NBS (13)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
NTU's Options to Reduce Carbon Footprint
- 1. AB0401 E-Learning Assignment Presented by: Desiree Lian Michelle Goh Roger Tan Tan Tien Beng Voon Ming Wei
- 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. 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. 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. 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. Option 1: More Online Learning
- 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. Option 1 CO2 Emission Reduction Estimated total reduction in CO2 emission by 81.5 tons Cost-savings of S$1,039 daily!
- 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. 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. 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. 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. Option 2: Purchase Carbon Credits
- 14. Purchasing Carbon Credits NTU can purchase Carbon Credits to lower carbon footprint through Carbon Offset*
- 15. Option 2 CO2 Emission Reduction Incurs more costs proportionately to the increase in carbon emission
- 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. 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. 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. Critique: Option 2 High costs incurred not sustainable in the long run False sense of Pollution Exploited by many investors
- 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. Option 3 CO2 Emission Reduction Estimated total reduction in CO2 emission by 39.7 tons Cost-savings of S$506 daily!
- 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. 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. 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. Option 4: Modifying Campus - Greener
- 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. Option 4 C02 Emission Reduction Estimated total reduction in CO2 emission by 41.0 tons Cost-savings of S$523 daily!
- 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. 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. 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. 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
- 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. 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. Overall Evaluation of 4 Options
- 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. 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. Overall Evaluation Possible combination of all 4 options. Maximum impact on environmental sustainability Depends on NTU’s financial resources
- 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. The end.
Editor's Notes
- Calculation of workings for each of the components, taking note of the assumptions used in the calculations1. Electricity incurred by the school buildings and facilitiesNTU is moving towards achieving a final energy consumption in buildings of 50 kWh/m2/year (http://sep.ntu.edu.sg/SEOinaction/Pages/EnergyEfficientBuildings.aspx)Estimate current electricity consumption to be 70 kWh/m2/year (based on NTU’s research that green buildings can reduce approximately 38% electricity consumption)Total land area in NTU is 200 hectares (http://www.hey.ntu.edu.sg/05_features_3.html). Estimate buildings take up 20% of the land area, thus accounting for 40 hectares.Electricity consumption per day = (70 kWh * 400,000) / 365 = 76,712 kWhTotal buildings carbon footprint = 40.59 tons of CO2e2. In-campus shuttle bus serviceWeekdays: [4*4*15*8] = 1920 kmWeekends: [2*4*15*8] = 960 kmTotal shuttle bus carbon footprint (weekdays) = 0.21 tons of CO2e Total shuttle bus carbon footprint (weekends) = 0.11 tons of CO2e 3. Paper consumption [27700*8] = 221,600 pieces of paper (A4-sized) consumed dailyAs typical office paper is 80g/m2, and a typical A4-sized paper is 1/16 m2, each piece of A-4 sized paper weights 5g.Total weight of paper consumed daily = 221,600 * 5g = 1,108,000 = 1,108kgTotal paper consumption carbon footprint = 7.036 tons of CO2e 4. Water Usage Estimate an average of 2litres consumption/usage of water per person Total usage of water = 2litres *27,700 = 55,400 litres Total water usage carbon footprint = 24 tons of CO2e (http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/aerc/sme/scope3_5.asp)5. Waste Estimate an average of 2kg solid waste consumption and 1litres liquid waste per person Total solid and liquid waste = 55,400kg and 27,700litres respectively Total waste carbon footprint = 83 tons of CO2e (solid waste) & 5 tons of CO2e (liquid waste) (http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/aerc/sme/scope3_6.asp?action=add1)6. Transportation of employees (admin staffs and professors) and vendors to schoolTotal distance travelled by car = [80%*(2,500+300) * 10] = 22,400 kmTotal distance travelled by train = [20%* (2,500 + 300) * 9] = 5,040 km Total distance travelled by bus = [20%* (2,500 + 300) * 1] = 560 km Total Private Car carbon footprint = 5.10 tons of CO2e Total Train & Bus Carbon footprint = 0.31 tons of CO2e 7. Transportation of students to schoolTotal distance travelled by car = [10%*(27,700) * 10] =27,700 km Total distance travelled by train = [90%* (27,700) * 9] = 224,370 km Total distance travelled by bus = [90%* (27,700) * 1] = 24,930 kmTotal Private Car carbon footprint = 6.31 tons of CO2eTotal Train & Bus Carbon footprint =13.79 tons of CO2eTotal carbon footprint = 184.986 tons of CO2eTotal amount of money needed to offset the carbon credit = EUR1387.34 / SGD 2358(EUR7.50 per ton), (EUR/SGD = 1.7000 as of 22nd Oct, 2pm)(http://www.carbonfootprint.com/offset.aspx?o=184.978&r=CalcHouse)Calculation of carbon footprint for each of the components are through: http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspxhttp://www6.cityu.edu.hk/aerc/sme/scope3_6.asp?action=add1
- According to http://www.ntu.edu.sg/guides/Pages/prospectivestudents.aspx, there are 2,500 teaching and research staff, and 27,700 students in NTU.
- Option 1Workings leading to the estimation of total reduction in CO2 emission1. Assuming that conducting of classes (lectures, seminars, tutorials) take up 30% of NTU buildings’ electricity consumption, if we move 80% of the classes to e-learning, total reduction in CO2 emission daily resulting from building electricity consumption = 80% * 30% * 40.59 = 9.7416 tons of CO2e2. Estimate an average reduction of 50% transportation by the students (though 80% of classes moved to e-learning due to other factors like going to school libraries for self study and CCA). Total reduction in CO2 emission daily resulting from transportation = 50%*(0.16+6.31+13.79) = 10.13 tons of CO2e3. No change in staffs’ and vendors’ frequency of transportation to school.4. Estimate an average of 80% reduction in paper consumption Total reduction in CO2 emission daily resulting from paper consumption = 80%* 7.036 = 5.6288 tons of CO2e5. Estimate an average of 50% reduction in water usage and waste Total reduction in CO2 emission daily resulting from water usage and waste = 50%* (24+88) = 56 tons of CO2eTotal reduction in CO2 emission = 81.5004 tons Cost savings of EUR 611.253 / SGD 1039 daily (EUR7.50 per ton), (EUR/SGD = 1.7000 as of 22nd Oct, 2pm)
- To environment: Electricity is also saved at school but not at home. Students at their homes will switch on their lights, aircons/fans and laptops/PCs, which all requires electricity. The total consumption of electricity may actually be higher than the amount incurred in a seminar where electricity usage is shared amongst the class. To learning:While e-learning is a highly effective alternative to traditional teaching for students with low self-discipline and motivation, it is inappropriate for dependent learners. E-learning places a lot of responsibility on students. Students have to possess a high degree of discipline and motivation to keep up with the pace of course. Since e-learning requires a level of maturity, it is not suitable for students who are dependent learns and have difficulty assuming the responsibility of self-learning. To Student Development: The lack of physical presence of the teacher and classmates can result in students alienating themselves from one another. An online instructor has to compensate this by creating a comfortable and supportive virtual environment for students to share and ask questions. However, not all online instructors are able to create such an environment. Hiding behind their screens also hinders student’s social skills due to the lack of interaction and physical communication with their tutors and peers.
- Carbon Offset: Reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases made in order to offset an emission made elsewhere.
- Option 2Incurring more costs to buy carbon credits to offset carbon emissions (even though Singapore does not limit its companies’ carbon emissions)
- Lesser incentive for NTU to lower carbon footprint in long run:if costs of buying carbon credit < costs of improving carbon footprint, NTU might as well buy carbon credits since it is cheaper. Therefore, NTU will have no incentive to lower its carbon footprint in the long run.
- High costs incurred not sustainable in the long run: High costs incurred from the purchase of carbon credits will not be sustainable because NTU cannot continuously purchase carbon credits as part of their carbon footprint. Carbon Credits are not cheap and these high costs may be passed on to the other stakeholders, for example the NTU students through collecting more school fees. Such action will not benefit NTU as a whole because students and their parents may feel unhappy at the rise of school fees only because of NTU’s initiatives to promote a greener environment. False sense of Pollution: Carbon credits give NTU the impression that as long as they pay to help offset the amount of pollution they create, they’re still being green. But all that carbon credits do is just offsetting the amount of carbon dioxide produced by them and not completely reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. Carbon credits alone is not good enough to promote a greener environment due to its limitations. Exploited by many investors: Instead of accumulating carbon credits for the benefit of selling them to organisations who need the credits, investors see the carbon credits as a potential investment for capital gain. They are not accumulating carbon credits for the benefit of the environment but to earn profits from the sale of it to organisations.
- For example, NTU can implement a rule that core modules to be conducted on Monday-Wednesday, and elective modules that involve students from various disciplines to be conducted on Thursday-Friday.In this case, a student will attend 2 days of schools (which is sufficient to cover his core modules AUs) from Monday-Wednesday, and one day of electives from Thurs-Fri. Hence, he/she will only have to attend school for 3 days. There will also be a lesser chance of a student going school just to attend a single lesson.
- Option 3Workings leading to the estimation of total reduction in CO2 emissionElectricity consumption in buildings does not change by implementation of option 3 as all classes will still be held.2. Estimate an average reduction of 30% transportation by the students (though timetable got standardized, meaning students may only need to go school on 3 days instead of 5 days due to other factors like going to school libraries for self study and CCA). Total reduction in CO2 emission daily resulting from transportation = 30%*(0.16+6.31+13.79) = 6.078 tons of CO2e3. No change in staffs’ and vendors’ frequency of transportation to school.4. There will be no reduction in paper consumption 5. Estimate an average of 30% reduction in water usage and waste Total reduction in CO2 emission daily resulting from water usage and waste = 30%* (24+88) = 33.6 tons of CO2eTotal reduction in CO2 emission = 39.678 tons Cost savings of EUR 297.585 / SGD 506 daily(EUR7.50 per ton), (EUR/SGD = 1.7000 as of 22nd Oct, 2pm)
- By having fixed standardised timetables, there is a high possibility that more than one class per module will be required to run at the same time. In that case, more teaching staff will be required to run the classes. Henceforth, NTU might face a manpower crunch. Furthermore, standardised sets of timetables may lead to the same lesson breaks, or school start/end times. This might lead to students attending school/going home at the same time. Canteens and other facilities might be flooded with students if the lesson breaks are occuring concurrently. The timetable planner must be careful and take great care to stagger the timetables.
- Green buildingCan implement verdant turfed roofs(as seen on ADM) Reduce building temperature (save 10% of air-conditioning costs)Rainwater collection system for irrigation purposes Reduce carbon dioxide impact, and potentially lengthen roof lifespan by 2-3 timesChange in landscape by adding more greenery and water featuresSave water by installing water-efficient fixtures and appliances in school bathroomsMotion and photo-sensitive high efficiency discharge lights with manual switching of lights
- Option 4Workings leading to the estimation of total reduction in CO2 emissionEstimate a 40% reduction in building electricity consumption when option 4 is fully implemented , total reduction in CO2 emission daily resulting from building electricity consumption = 40% * 40.59 = 16.236 tons of CO2e2. There will be no change in the frequency of transportation by the students, vendors, and staffs3. There will be no change in paper consumption 4. Estimate an average of 30% reduction in water usage Total reduction in CO2 emission daily resulting from water usage = 30%* 24 = 7.2 tons of CO2e5. Estimate an average of 20% reduction in waste Total reduction in CO2 emission daily resulting from waste = 20%* 88 = 17.6 tons of CO2eTotal reduction in CO2 emission = 41.036 tons Cost savings of EUR 307.77 / SGD 523 daily(EUR7.50 per ton), (EUR/SGD = 1.7000 as of 22nd Oct, 2pm)
- Constant construction work is needed to implement changes – will cause noise pollution, and may cause some paths in school being blocked off, making places more inaccessible.
- Current building structures might be unsuitable for quick implementation of green features.Verdant turfed roofchange in landscapeDespite this, changes can be added to new structuresSome changes can still be implemented across all buildingssensor-driven high efficiency discharge lightsPartnering with Energy Star to improve electronic appliances efficiency Can be implemented in phases, as renovation work needs to be done on existing buildingsCan reduce inconvenience caused High initial costs will be spread out, easing financial burdenAble to more easily gauge effectiveness of plan on a sample size of buildings
- In the efforts towards environment sustainability to lead to a carbon-neutral future, option 4 [building/converting to green buildings] will go towards solving the root problem – reducing the carbon emissions. It is unclear whether option 1 [ e-learning] will actually reduce carbon emissions in totality (incurred by all parties as a result of the implementation of option 1, not just by NTU) as the reduction in electricity consumption in NTU and in frequency of transportations students take to NTU, will be offset by the increase in electricity consumption at students’ home. Similarly, it is unclear whether option 3 [compact timetable] will actually reduce carbon emissions in totality, as students may travel via vehicular transportations on the days they are supposed to have classes on previously, but not anymore after their timetable is compacted. They may even travel more on those days, increasing the carbon emissions for Singapore. Assuming that students stay at home on the days they are supposed to have classes on previously, but not anymore after their timetable is compacted, then carbon emissions will be reduced in totality. This assumption is difficult to hold true.Option 2 [purchasing carbon credits] will not go towards reducing carbon emission, but as a measure to justify the carbon emissions of school by paying for carbon credits (knowing that someone else out there in the world will “clean the mess up for you”, absorbing the carbon emissions released by the school. This is not desirable as we want to take a proactive step towards environmental sustainability – to reduce carbon emissions (not just from NTU’s carbon footprint, but Singapore’s carbon footprint) in essence.Hence, in this view, option 4 stands out as the most desired option amongst all options.
- As mentioned in the previous slides, Option 4will provide the highest benefits for a green environment, as well as protecting the rights of each stakeholders with only 1 downside – the huge costs to facilitate the building / upgrading of the buildings and facilities in NTU. Students will have no fear of having to go through e learning lessons from their homes which may be less conducive and engaging for them (if implement option 4 as compared to option 1). In addition, NTU can also benefit from positive reputation when their campus is modified to be environmentally friendly. Moreover, the cost savings of building a greener buildings and facilities in NTU will outweigh the costs needed to implement it in the long run. This will prove to be a superior choice as compared to purchasing carbon credits which is endless as long as NTU produces the same or increasing amounts of carbon emissions. Furthermore, students will have more flexibility in planning their timetables to cater to their schedules (if implement option 4 as compared to option 3). All these problems will be solved in taking a long-term view in implementing option 4. Option 4 is the option that will bring about the most environmental benefit. Despite the steep cost, NTU may take this as a long term investment. Many energy saving facilities and infrastructure bring about cost savings in the long run. What can be done to lessen the cost burden for NTU is to modify the campus in stages.
- Assuming that option 1 [e-learning] and option 3 [compact timetable] will reduce carbon emissions in totality, all 4 options can be implemented in tandem to achieve maximum impact on environmental sustainability. Apart from having greener facilities and buildings in NTU, more e-learning can be implemented, and students’ timetables can be compacted so that they will go to school on only 1 or 2 days instead of 2 or 3 days with e-learning implemented. In the event of excess carbon emissions produced (which is quite unlikely), NTU can then offset it with the purchase of carbon credits.The possible implementation of all 4 options will depend on NTU’s financial resources, as all options will require significant financial investment, to support all 4 options at the same time.Otherwise, options to implement should be ranked, based on their effectiveness and efficiency when implemented with each other. In the event of limited financial resources, option 1, 3, and 4 can be implemented partially, in stages. Option 1 can be implemented partially, by making it mandatory for all lectures to be recorded and uploaded online. As for tutorials and seminars where face to face participation are vital, e-learning opportunities are limited.We can have a test pilot scheme of Option 3 ,by implementing it on a small group of students. (For eg, Maritime Studies that has a cohort of ~80 students) This can allow the school’s administrative to test out the option’s feasibility. If Option 3 proves successful, NTU can gradually implement the scheme to other faculties as well.Option 4 can be done in a more cost-efficient way by implementing it to the NEWbuildings that are going to be built. Less costs will be involved to build the upcoming projects with green facilities, as the costs for new buildings are going to be incurred anyway. It will be costlier to retrofit older building with green facilities.