Elearning task

1. A Carbon-Neutral NTU
AB0401 Sustainable Enterprises
Seminar 2 Project Group 5
Chew Wenhan, Reuben
ChooHao Jie Aaron
Lim Chun Wei
Loh Qi Hui, Joan
Tan Zhong Jie (Zac)
U1210277J
U1211090C
U1210145H
U1210649F
U1210996L

2. Agenda
NTU’s Business Canvas Model
NTU’s Carbon Footprint
Evaluation of Recommendations
Overall Evaluation of Recommendations
Conclusion
Executive Summary
2

3. NTU’s Business Canvas Model
Key Partners
Key Activities
• Teaching
• Research
• Students
• Teaching Staff
Key Resources
• Partner Universities
• Research Partners
• People
• Government
• Infrastructure
• Utilities Provider
• Reputation
• Retail Operators
Value
Proposition Customer Relationships
• To be a
great global
university
founded on
science and
technology
Cost Structure
• Staff Salaries and Benefits
• Investment/Maintenance in Campus Facilities
andInfrastructure
• Research, Teaching and Scholarships
• Student Service, General Administration
• Public Service
• Holistic Education
• Low Rental for Operators
Channels
• Physical Classes
•edveNTUre
• Physical Research
• Online Research Studies
Customer
Segments
• Undergrads
• Post-grads
• Retail
Operators in
NTU
Revenue Streams
• Tuition Fees
• Accommodation
• Research Grants and Cost Recoveries
• Other Sales and Services
3

4. NTU’s Carbon Footprint
• Estimation based on:
– Transportation within NTU
– Purchased Electricity
– Commuting to and from NTU
• Foreign Student Air Travel
• Student Travel (to/from home)
 8.8 metric tonnes
 78.8 metric tonnes
 10,498.2 metric tonnes
 10,268.9 metric tonnes
• Net Emissions ≈ 22,148.2 metric tonnes
Calculation is shown in Appendix A: NTU Carbon Footprint Breakdown
4

5. Evaluation of Recommendation 1:
Physical Activities  e-Learning
People (Stakeholders)
Benefits:
University
• Increase enrolment due to lesser
space constraints
Students
• More time spent on learning and
less on travelling
• Increase accessibility to courses
Profits
•
Higher Revenue
•
Cost Savings from
• Labour
• Utilities
• Printing of
Documents
Planet
Lower Carbon
Emissions from:
•
•
Reduction in use of
paper
Reduced need for
transportation
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

6. Evaluation of Recommendation 1:
Physical Activities  e-Learning
People (Stakeholders)
Costs:
University
• Over-reliance on IT platform
• Non-optimal use of existing
physical infrastructure
• Lose attractiveness to foreign
online universities
Students
• Lack of personal interaction
• Quality of instruction may be
diminished
• Need to posses high-quality
broadband connection and their
own personal computer
Profits
IT Development Costs
•
•
Maintenance of IT
Infrastructure
High quality
multimedia
products
Planet
Higher Carbon
Emissions from:
•
Increased usage of
IT infrastructure
resulting in higher
electricity
consumption
Food and Utilities Providers
• Less sales
Staff
• Retrenchment
6

7. Evaluation of Recommendation 2:
Purchasing Carbon Credits
People (Stakeholders)
Benefits:
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
Profits
•
Heavy investment
in IT development
for online classes
not required
Planet
•
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

8. Evaluation of Recommendation 2:
Purchasing Carbon Credits
People (Stakeholders)
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
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
Profits
•
Costly to
purchase carbon
credits given
NTU’s carbon
footprint
•
May resort to
increasing tuition
fees, reducing
attractiveness
•
Planet
•
NTU still produces
the same carbon
emissions
•
Merely an offset of
carbon burden than
a genuine reduction
of carbon footprint
Funds used to
purchase credits
would deprive
funding in other
important areas
like research and
education
8

9. Recommendation 3:
Generating Own Source of Electricity
NTU
ENERGY
CENTRE
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

10. Evaluation of Recommendation 3:
Generating Own Source of Electricity
People (Stakeholders)
Benefits:
University
• Achieve aim of being a selfsustaining campus
• Increase reputation of its energy
research institute (ERI@N)
Profits
•
Potentially
cheaper than
buying carbon
credits
•
Higher profits in
the long-run as
variable costs
decrease
•
Lower Carbon
Emissions from:
•
Use of renewable
energy to generate
electricity
If highly
successful, could
re-sell excess
energy for an
additional
revenue stream
Students
• Minimal disruption to existing
system compared to e-Learning
Government
• Provides an exemplary example
of Singapore’s technical prowess
in energy research
Planet
10

11. Evaluation of Recommendation 3:
Generating Own Source of Electricity
People (Stakeholders)
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
Profits
• High initial capital
costs (equipment
and land)
• Funding used for
this programme
may deprive
funding from other
programmes
including energy
research
Planet
•
Switch to renewable
energy may lead to
complacency
whereby internal
stakeholders do not
see the need to save
electricity
Government
• May have to allocate precious
land area to NTU in order to
house such generators
11

12. Overall Evaluation on Recommendations
Direct
Transportation
Online Classes
Carbon Credit
Generating
energy source
Purchased Electricity
Transportation
outside NTU
70%of CO2 saved
70% of CO2 saved
(classroom), but increase
of 30% for providing eclasses
35% of CO2 saved
from students
commuting to class
and back
Offset the CO2 depending on how much is bought.
No direct impact
60% of CO2 saved
No direct impact
12

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.
13

14. Conclusion
However, main issue lies in Scope 3 costs
Largely out of our control
Air travel by foreign students takes up half our carbon footprint
Not easily mitigated
Other ‘smaller recommendations’ that could greatly
reduce carbon footprint
Utilising fuel-cell instead of diesel for our shuttle buses
Using energy-efficient LED lights instead of fluorescent bulbs
14

15. Conclusion
Reducing carbon footprint
emissions is a long-drawn
process.
With commitment and
effort, Carbon-neutrality is
ACHIEVABLE!
15

16. Appendix A:
NTU Carbon Footprint Breakdown
Year
2013
Energy
Consumptio
n
MMBtu
Scope 1 Campus Security Vehicles
119.6
Scope 2 Purchased Electricity
967,009.7
Scope 3 Faculty / Staff Transport
72,168.7
Student Travel (Campus)
31,280.5
Staff Air Travel
1,345.4
Foreign Student Air Travel
53,633.4
Student Travel (to/from
143,954.8
Home)
Paper
Scope 2 T&D Losses
95,638.3
Totals
Scope 1
119.6
Scope 2
967,009.7
Scope 3
398,021.1
All Scopes
1,365,150.4
All Offsets
*Using Campus Carbon Calculator
Back
CO2
CH4
N2O
eCO2
kg
kg
kg
Metric
Tonnes
8.8
263.4
10,498.2
10,268.9
8,536.8
1.8
78,808,613.0
5,307,329.5
2,313,402.1
262,402.4
2.6
10,460,122.2 103.7
10,110,655.2 1,136.3
0.6
3.0
119.2
435.8
7,794,258.4
8,536.8
1.8
78,808,613.0
36,248,169.9 1242.6
115,065,319.7 1224.7
0.6
558.0
560
1,030.1
8.8
78.8
22060.6
22148.2
-
Net Emissions:22148.2

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)
17

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 work
Their 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
18

19. Appendix A Assumptions
Back
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
miles
For 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
19

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
20

21. Executive Summary
This 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.