AB0401 Seminar 3 Team 8- CO2 Australia - Cai Peizhen, Nerice Aw, Jason Abraham, Samantha Chan,...
description
Transcript of AB0401 Seminar 3 Team 8- CO2 Australia - Cai Peizhen, Nerice Aw, Jason Abraham, Samantha Chan,...
CO2 Australia
Jason Philip AbrahamSamantha Chan Yuen Li
Cai PeizhenNerice Aw Wei Zhi
Tang Ya Xuan Alissa
Seminar 03Team 8 – Case Crackers
2
Carbon Footprint Total carbon consumption and emissions
caused by a person, product or organization
CO2 Australia
3
Calculation method In order to derive the emissions for NTU for
purchased electricity, purchased gas, student commuting and faculty commuting, we used The Resurgence Carbon Dioxide Calculator for an average household in Singapore of 4 people.
After that, we adjusted for the NTU population of 39598, which includes 32,986 students and 6,612 faculty and staff.
CO2 Australia
4
Carbon Footprint (Household)
CO2 Australia
CO2 (kg)
%
Home 2757 26.9Transpor
t 3744 36.5
Food 2000 19.5
Leisure 0 0Industry
Share 4000 17.1Grand Total
10251 kg
10.3 tonnes
Summary of Estimated Average Personal Carbon Emissions (per household) CO2
(kg)%
Electricity 8010 19.5
Gas 3016 7.4
Oil 0 0
Coal 0 0
Wood 0 0
Home Total 11026
Personal Share 2757
Home
5
NTU’s Carbon FootprintScope Carbon source Emissions (kg
CO2)
Scope 1 NTU-generated electricity
Negligible
NTU transport fleet 1,306,310
Scope 2 Purchased electricity 79,294,995
Purchased gas 29,856,892
Air conditioning 153,300
Scope 3 Student commuting 15,091,095
Faculty commuting 6,188,832
Financed travel 7,525,240
Waste 16,829
Paper consumption 7,705,000
CO2 Australia
6
NTU Transport Fleet Shuttle Bus (Campus Loop)Carbon Footprint
Total Trips Made by Red/Blue Campus Loops (per bus)
Total Distance covered by Campus Red & Blue Loops per year = 2 X 28,300 X 5.4km = 305, 640km
hours trips per hour total trips/day Days Operational total trips /year0800-1030 2.5 12 30 160 4,800
1030-1200 1.5 6 9 160 1,440
1200-1300 1 12 12 160 1,920
1300-2300 10 10 100 160 16,000800-2300 15 3 45 92 4,140
28,300
Total Distance per trip estimated at 5.4km for both red and blue line
CO2 Australia
7
NTU Transport Fleet Shuttle Bus (Campus Loop)Carbon Footprint
Red & Blue Loop Shuttle Bus Carbon Footprint of NTU based on an average fuel Consumption of 0.46litre/km using calculator= 1,306,310 kg
CO2 Australia
8
Purchased electricity For purchased electricity, an average
household of 4 is estimated to use 500kWh a month, with a monthly bill of approximately $135. The carbon emissions for this is 8010kg.
(8010/4)x 39,598=79,294,995 kg CO2 per year
CO2 Australia
9
Purchased gas An average household of 4 is estimated
to use 250kWh of gas per month at a rate of $0.22 per kWh. From the calculator, there is 3016 kg CO2 emissions from the household.
(3016/4)x39598=29,856,892 kg CO2 per year
CO2 Australia
10
Air conditioning For air conditioning, we calculated the energy
consumption using a calculator on the National Environmental Agency (NEA) website. We used a multi-inverter Daikin model with 4 green ticks and estimated that NTU would use it for 12 hours a day. The resulting annual carbon emissions for part load is estimated to be at 3066kWh per year.
Using 0.2 Current CO2 kg per kWh, we get 613 kg CO2 per year per air conditioner. We estimated that there are 250 air conditioners in NTU, hence annual carbon emission= 250x613=153,300 kg CO2 per year.
CO2 Australia
11
Student Commuting For a student taking the bus to school,
the estimated distance for a trip to school is around 30km. We used the frequency of 5 times a week, and calculated 1830 kg CO2 emissions per year.
(1830/4)x32,986=15,091,095 kg CO2 per year
CO2 Australia
12
Faculty commuting For a faculty or staff member
commuting to school via car, we used the same estimated distance of 30km of a single trip from home to school. With the same frequency of 5 times a week, there would be 3744kg CO2 emissions per year.
(3,744kg/4)x6,612=6,188,832 kg CO2 per year
CO2 Australia
13
Financed Travel Overseas Exchange Air Travel Carbon
FootprintCountry Intake tonnes of CO2 emissionsCanada 28 198.26USA 92 666.4China 27 57.24
Hong Kong 45 60.46India 4 7.86Israel 4 15.04Japan 16 40.04
South Korea 70 152.94Taiwan 22 37.12Turkey 10 40.94Italy 4 23.74
Austria 2 9.16Denmark 30 141.2Finland 36 157.66France 35 177.24Germany 81 393.22Ireland 5 26.46
Netherlands 56 278Norway 9 42.66Poland 1 4.44Spain 8 43Sweden 134 611.06
Switzerland 25 121.88UK 74 380.26
Autralia 15 44.58New Zealand 8 31.76
total for 1 sem 3762.62 total for 1 year 7525.24
7525240 kg
Carbon consumption derived based on the no. of students traveling to each country (overseas intake obtained from OGEM data) on 2-way trip
Total Carbon Footprint deriving from student air travel = 7,525,240 kg
CO2 Australia
14
Waste Data from the Ministry of Environment
and Water Resources shows that total domestic waste disposed of per capita per annum is 0.85kg. 0.85x39,598=33658kg.
Using ABC TV’s carbon emission calculator which includes a household waste element, this translates to 16,829kg of CO2 emissions per year.
CO2 Australia
15
Paper consumption We estimated the annual usage of paper per
person in Singapore to be 144kg.
144x39,598=5,702,112 kg of paper per year.
5,702,112/2.4=2,375,880 reams of paper per year.
From the Climate Friendly carbon footprint calculator, the estimated CO2 emissions per year is 7,705,000kg.
CO2 Australia
16
Carbon Footprint
Carbon consumption derived based on the no. of students traveling to each country (overseas intake obtained from OGEM data) on 2-way trip
Total Carbon Footprint deriving from student air travel = 7,525,240 kg
2
Scope Carbon source
Method for collecting/calculating activity data
Uncertainty
Scope 1 NTU-generated electricity
The amount of electricity generated on campus is considered. Insufficient information to make any reliable disclosure.
C2
NTU transport fleet
Identifying the total distance travelled by shuttle buses within the fleet (Campus Rider, Campus Loop – Red, Campus Loop – Blue and applying an average estimated carbon mass consumption (emission) per unit distance as a rate to this distance. A total of 28,300 trips for an estimated loop distance of 5.4km was made by each Campus Loop service.
C2
CO2 Australia
17
Carbon FootprintScope Carbon
sourceMethod for collecting/calculating activity data
Uncertainty
Scope 2 Purchased electricity
For purchased electricity, an average household of 4 is estimated to use 500kWh a month, with a monthly bill of approximately $135. The carbon emissions for this is 8010kg.
C1
Purchased gas An average household of 4 is estimated to use 250kWh of gas per month at a rate of $0.22 per kWh. From the calculator, there is 3016 kg CO2 emissions from the household.
C2
CO2 Australia
18
Carbon FootprintScope Carbon
sourceMethod for collecting/calculating activity data
Uncertainty
Scope 2 Air -conditioning
Air-conditioning energy consumption estimated using a calculator on the National Environmental Agency (NEA) website Based on a multi-inverter Daikin model with 4 green ticks and estimated daily usage for 12 hours. a day. A 0.2 Current CO2 kg consumption per kWh, was applied over an estimated 250 air conditioners.
C3
CO2 Australia
19
Carbon Footprint
2
Scope Carbon source
Method for collecting/calculating activity data
Uncertainty
Scope 3 Student commuting
The estimated distance for a trip to school is around 30km by bus. We used the frequency of 5 times a week.
C3
Faculty commuting
For a faculty or staff member commuting to school via car, we used the same estimated distance of 30km of a single trip from home to school, with the same frequency of 5 times a week.
C3
Financed travel
Carbon consumption derived based on the number of students traveling to each country on a 2-way trip. Data on travel intake obtained from information published by NTU’s Office of Global Education & Mobility.
C2
CO2 Australia
20
Carbon FootprintScope Carbon
sourceMethod for collecting/calculating activity data
Uncertainty
Scope 3 Waste Data obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources that total domestic waste disposed of per capita per annum is 0.85kg was used in our calculations.
C2
Paper consumption
We estimated the annual usage of paper per person in Singapore to be 144kg.
C3
CO2 Australia
21
Alternative 1 – E-learningTransforming a significant proportion of
our course delivery from classroom to an online format
CO2 Australia
22
Alternative 1 – E-learning E-learning courses consumed nearly (per
student)
90% less energy consumption
85% less CO2 emissions
Why? 1. Reduced transportation for students and
staff 2. Economies of scale reaped when using the
campus site 3. Only give consideration to additional
residential energy involved in taking a module
CO2 Australia
23
Alternative 1 – E-learning Additional advantages
Paper is saved when learning electronically
Research finds e-learning more effective than classroom based learning
CO2 Australia
24
Alternative 1 – E-learning Considerations
Thinking about the curriculum lifecycle to better structure e-learning sessions
Tools for e-learning
Perception and web tracking
CO2 Australia
25
Alternative 1 – E-learning
Design
Approaches
Activities
Resources
Assessment
Integration
Evaluation
Quality Assurance
Taken from Gráinne Conole, University of Southampton
Curriculum lifecycle
CO2 Australia
26
Alternative 1 – E-learningTools for e-learning
Adaptive- Virtual worlds- adaptive simulations
Communicative- Blackboard learn (view e-lectures, discussion boards)- Email- Text messaging
Productive- Spreadsheets, databases to manipulate data
Interactive- NTU library database, national libraries- Internet search engines
CO2 Australia
27
Alternative 1 – E-learningPerception and Web Tracking
Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) to track and assess student activities
Lecturers can track to see if their students are on track in the learning process
CO2 Australia
28
Online Tests & Assessment
Not very feasible for certain modules, especially laboratory sessions (engineering), presentations (especially business), practical sessions (medicine)
E-learning would be detrimental to face-to-face interaction – interpersonal and other soft skills strongly valued in the working world
CO2 Australia
29
Stakeholder AnalysisStakeholder
Perspective
Government
- Online learning can train up more educated and technologically savvy workforce- Online learning can improve productivity
Students (customers)
- Learning less restrictive for students and accommodating of different learning styles and learning pace, more control over learning- Reduced travelling time and costs- Potential for miscommunication and misunderstandings in online learning (lack of nonverbal messages in discussion forums)- Lack of relationship with teachers and students
Teachers (employees)
Employees would feel proud of the organization which is involved in environmental conservation and this might result in lower employee turnover rate.Faster delivery of lessons since the capacity to deliver learning is no longer restricted by the number of available classrooms or teachers.
NTU - Improve reputation of the school, attract more potential students or teachers- Reduced consumption of resources (eg paper)
CO2 Australia
30
Alternative 2 – Buy creditsBuying an equivalent amount of carbon offset credits from the provider featured
in the case
CO2 Australia
31
Alternative 2 – Buy credits Carbon Offset
CO2 Australia
32
Alternative 2 – Buy credits Carbon Credit Scheme
CO2 Australia
33
Alternative 2 – Buy credits Criticism of Carbon
Credit Scheme (1)
Carbon Credits Are Just Permits to Pollute
Does not change high carbon footprint conduct, encourages complacency
No incentive to control or curtail carbon footprint which is increasing globally
CO2 Australia
34
Alternative 2 – Buy credits Criticism of Carbon Credit
Scheme (2)
Difficult to determine the amount of CO2 each tree will actually offset
Tree growth and survival affected by various factors including weather conditions, natural disasters. Unexpected reduction in lifespan or carbon neutralization capacity would reduce effectiveness of offsetting entire carbon footprint.
CO2 Australia
35
Alternative 2 – Buy credits Criticism of Carbon Credit Scheme (3)
Continued tree-planting is unsustainable
Scarcity of arable undeveloped land to plant new trees to keep up with continuously increasing demand for credits.
CO2 Australia
36
Alternative 2 – Buy credits Criticism of Carbon Credit
Scheme (4)
Cutting down trees will re-release the CO2 back into the atmosphere if trees removed after the 100 years
20% of greenhouse gas due to deforestation and other forms of land use change
Problems with meeting carbon credit demand once the plants are removed
CO2 Australia
37
Alternative 2 – Buy credits Evaluation of purchasing credits for NTU
In the short term, will solve the problem of carbon emissions
In the long term
Not sustainable in the long run to reduce CO2 emissions – increase demand for credits faster than supply (increase price of credits substantially) – cost consideration for NTU
Does not encourage staff and students to reduce carbon footprint
Not in line with NTU’s vision promoting environmental responsibility through reducing carbon emissions
CO2 Australia
38
Stakeholders AnalysisStakeholders Perspectives
The University (NTU)
- An increase in expense to buy the carbon offset credits- Issue of sustainability of credit purchase as a long tem solution
Students - Students do not need to adapt to new learning style (eg e-learning)- May have to bear added cost of carbon credit fees but are unwilling to pay extra fees to cover this expense.
CO2 Group - Need to assess supply of carbon credits and
source for new land for the carbon sequestration programme if necessary
CO2 Australia
39
Other Carbon Footprint-Neutralisation Schemes Other schemes to offset carbon footprint
Car-sharing programme for students who live outside campus
Bike-sharing programme for students who live on campus
Annual Hall competition
CO2 Australia
40
Other Carbon Footprint-Neutralisation Schemes Car-sharing programme for students
who live outside campus
Transportation energy use contributes significantly to carbon footprint
School can coordinate car sharing system within NTU Partner with car-sharing company Sign up through online platform (Students
living near each other and with similar timetable can use platform)
CO2 Australia
41
Other Carbon Footprint-Neutralisation Schemes Bike-sharing programme for
students who live on campus
Help reduce the frequency of shuttle buses on campus
Students rely less on shuttle buses, can also be considered a healthy workout for students
CO2 Australia
42
Other Carbon Footprint-Neutralisation Schemes Annual Hall competition
Friendly competition to encourage students to reduce carbon footprint, assessed by tracking utility bill and wastage for each hall
Programme will increase awareness and knowledge of carbon footprint and eco-knowledge (energy consumption and its associated costs)
Addresses human behaviour – incentive to reduce energy consumption (reputation and prestige of hall)
CO2 Australia
43
Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Criteria
Actionability/Feasibility
Effectiveness/Utility
Sustainability
CO2 Australia
44
Evaluation Matrix
CO2 Australia
E-learning
Carbon Credit
Car-Sharing
Bike-Sharing
Hall Competition
Actionability/Feasibility
Effectiveness/Utility
Sustainability
45
Proposed Solution
CO2 Australia
Combination Approach
Primary Scheme: Adoption of E-Learning Easy implementation that promotes environmental
responsibility and directly addresses the cause carbon footprint
Not as costly as carbon credit offsets
Secondary Schemes: Adoption in tandem
May be implemented in conjunction to enhance the overall effectiveness
46
Conclusion
CO2 Australia
47
References http://www3.open.ac.uk/events/3/2005331_47403_o1.pdf http://www.kineo.com/resources/new-to-elearning/the-benefits-of-elearning http://
view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jisc.ac.uk%2Fuploaded_documents%2FReport%2520on%2520the%2520effectiveness%2520of%2520tools%2520v5_Martin_Oliver.doc
http://www.australiatravelsearch.com.au/trc/facts.html http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26107 http://www.greenworldbvi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/how-carbon-offsets-work.jpg
CO2 Australia
48
Executive SummaryThe presentation focuses on the review and comparison of a few alternatives in relation to their contribution to long-term carbon-neutral targets of Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) sustainability initiative. After an introduction, the concept of a carbon footprint is first explained, followed by a presentation of NTU’s total computed carbon footprint derived using various estimates and methods. A study of the two main alternatives , e-learning and the carbon offset credit scheme, will be presented, weighing the benefits and detriments of option which would be further discussed subsequently in an analysis of options’ impact on the various stakeholders. The presentation will next suggest and elaborate on 3 other possible alternatives. The 3 key decision-making, evaluation criteria will be identified and used to assess each alternative’s usefulness. A proposed solution drawn from a mix of alternatives will be asserted and justified. The presentation concludes with a brief overview of the points and a forecast of NTU’s path towards reaching the zero carbon footprint target with the proposed solution in place.
CO2 Australia