A Carbon-Neutral NTUAB0401 Sustainable EnterprisesSeminar 2 Project Group 5

Chew Wenhan, Reuben U1210277JChoo Hao Jie Aaron U1211090CLim Chun Wei U1210145HLoh Qi Hui, Joan U1210649FTan Zhong Jie (Zac)U1210996L

Agenda

NTU’s Business Canvas Model

NTU’s Carbon Footprint

Evaluation of Recommendations

Overall Evaluation of Recommendations

Conclusion

2

Executive Summary

NTU’s Business Canvas Model

Key Partners Key ActivitiesValue

Proposition Customer RelationshipsCustomer Segments

• Students• Teaching Staff• Partner Universities • Research Partners• Government• Utilities Provider• Retail Operators

• Teaching• Research

• To be a great global university founded on science and technology

• Holistic Education• Low Rental for Operators

• Undergrads• Post-grads• Retail Operators in NTU

Key Resources Channels• People• Infrastructure• Reputation

• Physical Classes• edveNTUre• Physical Research• Online Research Studies

Cost Structure Revenue Streams• Staff Salaries and Benefits• Investment/Maintenance in Campus Facilities and Infrastructure• Research, Teaching and Scholarships• Student Service, General Administration• Public Service

• Tuition Fees• Accommodation• Research Grants and Cost Recoveries• Other Sales and Services

3

NTU’s Carbon Footprint

• Estimation based on:– Transportation within NTU 8.8 metric tonnes

– Purchased Electricity 78.8 metric tonnes

– Commuting to and from NTU • Foreign Student Air Travel 10,498.2 metric

tonnes

• Student Travel (to/from home) 10,268.9 metric tonnes

• Net Emissions ≈ 22,148.2 metric tonnesCalculation is shown in Appendix A: NTU Carbon Footprint Breakdown 4

Evaluation of Recommendation 1:Physical Activities e-Learning

People (Stakeholders) Profits Planet

Benefits: University • Increase enrolment due to lesser

space constraints

• Higher Revenue

• Cost Savings from• Labour• Utilities• Printing of

Documents

Lower Carbon Emissions from:

• Reduction in use of paper

• Reduced need for transportation

Students• More time spent on learning and

less on travelling • Increase accessibility to courses

Faculty• Can teach more in less time as

students can easily pause lectures to absorb content

Government• Better crisis management

(learning can still go on in the event of another SARS-like crisis)

5

Evaluation of Recommendation 1:Physical Activities e-Learning

People (Stakeholders) Profits PlanetCosts: University

• Over-reliance on IT platform• Non-optimal use of existing

physical infrastructure• Lose attractiveness to foreign

online universities

IT Development Costs

• Maintenance of IT Infrastructure

• High quality multimedia products

Higher Carbon Emissions from:

• Increased usage of IT infrastructure resulting in higher electricity consumptionStudents

• Lack of personal interaction• Quality of instruction may be

diminished• Need to posses high-quality

broadband connection and their own personal computer

Food and Utilities Providers• Less sales

Staff• Retrenchment

6

Evaluation of Recommendation 2:Purchasing Carbon Credits

People (Stakeholders) Profits PlanetBenefits: University

• Less reliance on just one channel• Do their part for the

environment without having to change any existing processes (change entails resistance which may be costly to overcome)

General Public• Purchased carbon credits can be

used in green projects which benefit the environment

• Heavy investment in IT development for online classes not required

• Proceeds from carbon credit purchases could be spent on environmental research which may result in a greater reduction in greenhouse gases in future

Students • More interaction and ‘live’

learning compared to e-Learning

7

Evaluation of Recommendation 2:Purchasing Carbon Credits

People (Stakeholders) Profits Planet

Costs: University• Student enrolment size

continues to be physically constrained

• Reputation may be affected as it may seem to be merely taking the easy way out

• Costly to purchase carbon credits given NTU’s carbon footprint

• May resort to increasing tuition fees, reducing attractiveness

• Funds used to purchase credits would deprive funding in other important areas like research and education

• NTU still produces the same carbon emissions

• Merely an offset of carbon burden than a genuine reduction of carbon footprint

Students• Tuition fees will inevitably

increase as university needs to offset monetary cost

Energy Researchers in ERI@N• Lose credibility as it shows that

NTU has not come up with a viable solution but has resorted to purchasing credits instead

8

Recommendation 3:

Generate clean source of energy within NTU

‘Dogfooding’ by putting NTU’s energy research to use within campus

Improve NTU’s reputation in field of energy research

9

Generating Own Source of ElectricityNTUENERGYCENTRE

Evaluation of Recommendation 3:Generating Own Source of Electricity

People (Stakeholders) Profits Planet

Benefits: University• Achieve aim of being a self-

sustaining campus• Increase reputation of its energy

research institute (ERI@N)

Students • Minimal disruption to existing

system compared to e-Learning

Government• Provides an exemplary example

of Singapore’s technical prowess in energy research

• Potentially cheaper than buying carbon credits

• Higher profits in the long-run as variable costs decrease

• If highly successful, could re-sell excess energy for an additional revenue stream

Lower Carbon Emissions from:

• Use of renewable energy to generate electricity

10

Evaluation of Recommendation 3:Generating Own Source of Electricity

People (Stakeholders) Profits Planet

Costs: University• May be space intensive, resulting

in suboptimal use of limited land area

• May impact reputation if programme fails or does not meet energy targets

Utilities Provider• Loss of revenue from NTU

Government• May have to allocate precious

land area to NTU in order to house such generators

• High initial capital costs (equipment and land)

• Funding used for this programme may deprive funding from other programmes including energy research

• Switch to renewable energy may lead to complacency whereby internal stakeholders do not see the need to save electricity

11

12

Overall Evaluation on Recommendations

Direct Transportation Purchased Electricity Transportation

outside NTU

Online Classes 70% of CO2 saved70% of CO2 saved

(classroom), but increase of 30% for providing e-

classes

35% of CO2 saved from students

commuting to class and back

Carbon Credit Offset the CO2 depending on how much is bought.

Generating energy source No direct impact 60% of CO2 saved No direct impact

13

Conclusion

Any solution alone would be inadequate

All three recommendations should be used in tandem

Implement recommendation 1 and 3, and

Recommendation 2 to offset the remaining carbon footprint.

14

Conclusion

However, main issue lies in Scope 3 costs

Other ‘smaller recommendations’ that could greatly reduce carbon footprint

Utilising fuel-cell instead of diesel for our shuttle buses

Largely out of our control

Air travel by foreign students takes up half our carbon footprint

Not easily mitigated

Using energy-efficient LED lights instead of fluorescent bulbs

15

Conclusion

Reducing carbon footprint emissions is a long-drawn

process.

With commitment and effort, Carbon-neutrality is

ACHIEVABLE!

Appendix A: NTU Carbon Footprint BreakdownYear 2013 Energy

ConsumptionCO2 CH4 N2O eCO2

MMBtu kg kg kg Metric Tonnes

Scope 1 Campus Security Vehicles 119.6 8,536.8 1.8 0.6 8.8 Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 967,009.7 78,808,613.0 - - - Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Transport 72,168.7 5,307,329.5 - - - Student Travel (Campus) 31,280.5 2,313,402.1 - - - Staff Air Travel 1,345.4 262,402.4 2.6 3.0 263.4 Foreign Student Air Travel 53,633.4 10,460,122.2 103.7 119.2 10,498.2 Student Travel (to/from

Home)143,954.8 10,110,655.2 1,136.3 435.8 10,268.9

Paper - - - - 1,030.1 Scope 2 T&D Losses 95,638.3 7,794,258.4 - - -

Totals Scope 1 119.6 8,536.8 1.8 0.6 8.8 Scope 2 967,009.7 78,808,613.0 - - 78.8 Scope 3 398,021.1 36,248,169.9 1242.6 558.0 22060.6 All Scopes 1,365,150.4 115,065,319.7 1224.7 560 22148.2 All Offsets - *Using Campus Carbon Calculator

Net Emissions:22148.2

Back

17

Appendix A Assumptions

Scope 1 Costs (Campus Security Vehicle)Only noticeable university fleet is the Campus Security Vehicle

Based on 30 trips around NTU (~ 5km) per day and fuel consumption of 56.85km/gallon (Toyota VIOS)

Total Fuel Consumption: 963 gallons

Scope 2 Costs (Purchased Electricity)

Current power consumption is 71.43kWH/m2/year

Assuming this figure is based on land area and not floor area, electricity usage will be 142,860,000 kWh per year (based on a 200 hectare campus size)

18

Appendix A Assumptions

Scope 3 Costs (Faculty / Staff Transport)Assume all faculty (1682) and 30% of staff (4930) drive to work

Assume average distance travelled everyday is 16km for those who drive to workTheir mileage would be 7,195,258 miles

The remaining staff population take public transport to work

Assume 8km travelled by bus and 16km by train per pax every day

Their mileage per year would be 3,927,687 miles by bus and 7,855,373 miles by train

Assume air travel for faculty/staff is set at an arbitrary 500,000 miles per year

Appendix A Assumptions

19

Scope 3 Costs (Student Travel)Hall places amount to about 10,200

Assume all of them travel 4km by shuttle bus everyday

An additional 5,000 students (including non-hall residents) take the Pioneer shuttle bus every day for 9km

Thus, average within-school commute distance is 7,201,980 milesFor non-hall resident population of 22,891, assume 8,000 travel by car every day for 16km, remaining travel 8km by bus and 16km by train daily

Thus, 9,991,116 miles by bus, 19,982,233 miles by train and 10,735,200 miles by car is travelled every year

Back

20

Appendix A Assumptions

Scope 3 Costs (Student Travel)For the foreign student population of 4,290, assume that they each fly 4,646 miles on average every year

Thus, 19,931,450 miles travelled per year

Scope 3 Costs (Paper)Assuming the total population of 39,673 uses on average 2,500 sheets of 70gsm paper every year, the total weight of paper used is 956,637 lbs

Executive SummaryThis presentation outlines methods in which NTU could adopt in achieving carbon neutrality within our campus. With NTU’s emphasis on energy research and sustainability, ‘walking the talk’ could be the best evidence of our commitment, starting by implementing sustainable practices within our campus itself.

At present, based on our analysis and initial estimates, NTU generates a whopping 22,730 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalents every year. We believe this number can be brought down significantly by adopting the practices detailed in this presentation.

We suggest three main alternatives NTU could adopt: converting the majority of the course delivery into online platforms, purchasing equivalent carbon offset credits, and generating our own clean source of energy, with the use of relevant technology that has been researched by our very own Energy Research Institute @ NTU.

This presentation evaluates extensively the pros and cons of these three alternatives and shows how these alternatives may be implemented, either separately or in tandem, in helping NTU reach a carbon-neutral future. Of course, this is often easier said than done, as many uncontrollable variables may impact our projected targets. In addition, other issues need to be considered too, from our stakeholders’ perspective.

At the end of the day, while implementing the alternatives may not be easy initially, we believe that the benefits outweigh the cost, as if done successfully, NTU will not only be globally recognised for its commitment to environmental sustainability, but also do its part in making the world a greener place.