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
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. 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. 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. 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. Carbon Footprint Calculation
3 Different Methods
1. GHG Protocol (Method of Choice)
● A framework to understand, quantify and manage
GHG emissions.
● Resurgence Calculator
●
●
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
✓
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.
