An Example of Climate Education, Project-Based Learning
Example of PV system on a school. This example is the Wilberforce Public School in Sydney, Australia, installed by Kerfoot: https://www.kerfoot.com.au/
I distinguish between project-based learning (PBL) and project-based assessment. I have regularly used project-based assessment in my classes, often trying to make them as authentically real-world as possible. For me, project-based assessments come at the end of a unit of learning. The students have already acquired the knowledge and understanding and developed the skills expected of them in the unit (going forward I’ll refer to the knowledge, understandings and skills of a unit as KUDs; the D stands for “Dos” and refers to skills). The project is then a form of authentic assessment where they have to apply their learning to address a real-world issue or problem. They complete a project and create a product that demonstrates their learning. Because the project is a form of summative assessment, students are expected to complete the project relatively independently.
I take project-based learning (PBL) to be different and, because of this difference, I find that PBL is often difficult to do well. When done poorly, I think PBL can have a negative impact on student learning. PBL is a process by which students learn the KUDs while in the process of implementing the project and working towards some final product. PBL is done poorly when the teacher designs and rolls out the project, but then essential steps back and expects the students to implement the project and learn the KUDs on their own. Some feel this is the epitome of progressive, personalized, discovery-based learning. I find it a dereliction of duty for the teacher. I also find it inconsistent with best practices in assessment when teachers use the project-based learning process also as a summative assessment. However, if the process is sequenced, chunked, guided, and modeled by the teacher, PBL can be a powerful form of inquiry learning (but should not also be used as summative assessment).
As I was going through some old files recently, I came upon this PBL-style project that I did with a small group of economics students back in the spring semester of 2020. Of course, readers will remembers that the spring of 2020 was also the start of the Covid pandemic, when schools around the world closed and transitioned to online. While I started aspects of this project with students prior to the school closing, much of our work together on this project took place in an online context.
There were about ten students in the class (admittedly, there were a few who checked out when we transitioned to online). I set up the general structure of the research in advance, including the topic, the research questions, and the hypotheses. We then divided up data gathering tasks, while, together, we also learned the key economic concepts relevant to the project (market failure, tragedy of the commons, negative externalities, carbon offsets, carbon pricing, etc.). Once we had the necessary data and had learned the concepts, students worked in pairs, with guidance from me, to conduct their own analysis and draw their own conclusions.
In the end, myself and one student, who was particularly interested in the project, put together the final report that represented the class’ research, analysis and conclusions. I’ve included that report below. Note that it wasn’t until a year later that I got around to cleaning up the report and submitting it to our school administration for strategic planning consideration.
Just as one final note, the economic situation in Ethiopia since my submission of this report to the school administration has changed considerably. I think it has only made solar power look more financially favorable for the school. The Ethiopian government has dramatically reduced subsidies on both fuel and electricity, so that the costs of both have risen substantially since 2021. Meanwhile, electric power outages continue to be a regular occurrence.
In just two weeks, I’m hosting, together with The Green Protector, a climate education teacher workshop here in Kigali. I thought it was a happy coincidence that I found this project and report in my old files recently and was reminded of it.
Reducing Carbon Emissions at ICS
An Economic Assessment of Solar Power for the ICS Campus and / or a Carbon Offset Program for School-Related Plane Travel
A Report By:
Nathan Haines
Teacher, Economics of Climate Change, 2nd semester 2020.
In collaboration with the students of Economics of Climate Change, most notably, XXX
April 29, 2021
Introduction: The Problem of Climate Change
Carbon is a naturally occurring element and the building block of all organic compounds, which are the basis for all living things on Earth (“Carbon”). Carbon is continually recycled and reused on Earth in the process known as the carbon cycle, which is a key feature of Earth that makes it capable of sustaining life. While carbon has developed a negative connotation in discussions about climate change, the problem is not with carbon itself. Without carbon and the carbon cycle, life on Earth would not exist. The problem for climate change is more specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), though it’s important to note that CO2 in itself is also not the problem (“Carbon dioxide”). CO2 is a natural part of the carbon cycle, a key molecule in the Earth’s atmosphere, and is vital to photosynthesis in plants.
To better understand the problem of climate change, it’s helpful to differentiate between “biogenic carbon” and “fossil carbon.” Biogenic carbon refers to the organic compounds and carbon molecules that exist naturally within the Earth’s carbon cycle, and remain in balance through that cycle (“Fossil vs biogenic”). Fossil carbon, on the other hand, is the carbon from ancient organic materials that has been stored for thousands of years in fossilized forms. The most notorious of these fossil carbon sources are oil, natural gas and coal, which we often call “fossil fuels.” When humans extract these fossil fuels and burn them, the chemical reaction breaks the hydrocarbon bonds of the fossil fuels, which interact with oxygen in the atmosphere, releasing, among other molecules, CO2. This additional CO2, released into the Earth’s atmosphere from carbon that has been stored in fossils for thousands of years, is the leading contributor to climate change. This additional CO2 remains in the Earth’s atmosphere and contributes to the “greenhouse effect,” whereby the Earth’s atmosphere releases less of the Earth’s infrared radiation over time, leading to a warming planet (“Greenhouse gases and the climate”). This global warming then alters the Earth’s climate; these climatic changes have the potential to dramatically alter life on Earth, including making large portions of the planet less habitable, or even uninhabitable, to humans, not to mention other species.
Because CO2 contributes to this greenhouse effect on our planet, it is considered a greenhouse gas (GHG). It is not the only GHG; methane, for example, is another potent GHG, which is released into the atmosphere in large quantities from human agricultural practices, including from livestock -- especially cattle -- raised for human meat consumption (“Methane”). It is also worth pointing out that cement production is another major contributor to CO2 GHG emissions (Rossi). Limestone, a primary material used in the production of cement, is a carbonate sedimentary rock, meaning that it’s composed in part of organic material and formed over time through sedimentation of those carbon-based materials (Bissell). The chemical process of converting limestone into cement, the binding agent in concrete, releases large quantities of CO2. Despite these other GHGs, the largest cause of GHG emissions, by far, is CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. In the US in 2018, for example, 75% of anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG emissions were from the burning of fossil fuels (“Where greenhouse gases come from”).
Statement of the Problem
During the spring of 2020, the Economics of Climate Change class set out to investigate the issue of GHG emissions of ICS and effective strategies for reducing those emissions. The environmental impact of a particular institution in terms of its GHG emissions is sometimes referred to as its “carbon footprint,” though as was pointed out above, this is a misnomer of sorts; the problem is not carbon itself, but rather greenhouse gas emissions, most notably CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Nonetheless, the term “carbon footprint” is commonly used and understood and therefore this report will use it as well. One’s carbon footprint is typically measured in metric tonnes of CO2 or CO2 equivalency emitted per year. CO2 equivalency is expressed as CO2e, and refers to, for the sake of one common measurement, the greenhouse effect potency of other GHGs as compared to CO2 (Brander). For example, 1 kg of methane is equal to the greenhouse effect of 25 kg of CO2 and thus, in terms of carbon footprint, is measured as 25 kg CO2e.
The Economics of Climate Change class, knowing that the burning of fossil fuels for energy is a primary contributor to CO2 emissions, initially set out to investigate ICS’ carbon footprint in terms of its energy use and energy sources. Through some preliminary background research, the class learned that the electrical power grid in Ethiopia is relatively clean in terms of its carbon footprint given that the majority of electricity is generated through hydroelectric power (“Power Generation”). However, because the Ethiopian electric grid is notoriously unreliable, ICS routinely switches to its backup diesel generator to power the campus when electricity from the grid is unavailable. Given this, the class decided to investigate the carbon footprint of the backup power diesel generator, and the viability of the ICS campus switching to solar power instead.
The class’ specific research question was: “To what extent would replacing the ICS diesel generator with solar power (ie. a photovoltaic power system, or PV system) as a back-up energy source be an economical means for ICS to reduce carbon emissions?”
Hypothesis
While the mechanisms of climate change may reside largely in the fields of the natural sciences, given that the causes are largely anthropogenic, the issue of climate change must also be viewed from the perspective of the social sciences. The Economics of Climate Change class pursued the above research question from the social science perspective of economics. The class drew on what it had learned about the concept of carbon offsets to propose an hypothesis in response to this research question. Carbon offsets, as well as similar concepts such as carbon taxes, and carbon trading (ie. “cap and trade”), are policies to combat GHG emissions often proposed by economists. These are economic policy ideas rooted in economic concepts such as market failure, negative externalities and tragedy of the commons, all of which were concepts the students learned concurrently with doing this research.
Based on this learning, the class put forth the below two-part hypothesis and set out to test it:
ICS can significantly reduce its campus carbon footprint by eliminating the need for its current diesel generator back-up power system and replacing it with a renewable and emission-free PV system.
ICS can pay for this PV system, without increasing tuition rates or the annual capital investment fee, by establishing a carbon offset program for school-related plane travel.
Given the government controlled low prices on fuel and low rates on electricity in Ethiopia, the class was concerned that, from the perspective of pure financial economics, it would be difficult for ICS to justify the investment in a PV system. What the class wanted to test, then, was whether or not a solar power system for ICS could be funded through a carbon offset program. Carbon offsets are a strategy for reducing net CO2e emissions (Selin). The idea is that when one must emit GHGs, one can balance out those emissions by contributing to programs that sequester CO2 (take it out of the atmosphere) or promote GHG emission reductions elsewhere. The goal is to contribute in some way to the sequestering or reducing of an amount of GHG at least equal to the emissions caused. For carbon offsets to have a net benefit on GHG emissions, the offsets must contribute to sequestering or reducing initiatives that would not have happened otherwise. A PV system at ICS seemed like a possible fit in this regard. If the system would not get set up given a purely financial cost-benefit analysis, but it was set up through carbon offset funds, then the system would serve to reduce GHG emissions that would not otherwise have been reduced. It would be the ideal carbon offset initiative.
The class also had an inclination, given the nature of ICS as an international school, that school-related plane travel was another major contributor to the ICS carbon footprint. By linking the carbon offset program to school-related plane travel, ICS could address two major carbon footprint contributors. The class defined “school-related plane travel” as the following: a) all student school trips such as for MUN, ISSEA, GISS, etc. and b) all faculty and administration plane travel for workshops & conferences or recruiting. After calculating the individual CO2e emissions of a school-related flight, ICS could either suggest or require a contribution from the traveler of the appropriate amount to the carbon offset program, and those funds would be used to cover the investment on the PV system.
Research Methodology
The class was able to find many answers through secondary sources, such as through websites of PV system suppliers, environmental organizations committed to the promotion of clean, renewable energy, and published studies regarding solar power technology. At the time of our research, Mr. Haines was enrolled in an online course for his own professional learning through the Midwest Renewable Energy Association (MREA) in the US. MREA offers courses for people looking to get certified in PV systems installation. Resources from the course, “Basic Photovoltaics (PV 101),” informed some of this research. The class also tapped into the specific ICS operational knowledge of ICS Director of Facilities and Maintenance and the ICS Operations Manager. The class furthered received valuable insights from an ICS parent who works in the solar power industry in Kenya. Finally, the class collected primary data through two surveys, both of which measured the willingness of ICS stakeholders to pay additional money on school-related plane travel in order to pay for carbon offsets. One survey went to the ICS parent-community, while the other went to the ICS professional faculty.
Results and Findings
The following findings were based on data from April and May 2020. There are a few important changes since that time that should be noted. Because of these changes, further research will be needed to update calculations and confirm some of the conclusions drawn from these findings. Some of the changes were:
The previous ICS generator malfunctioned in March of 2020 and was replaced over the summer before the start of the 20-21 school-year. The new generator is much larger in size, and may also operate at a different level of efficiency (Zickefoose).
The figures regarding KWh electricity consumption and peak KW electrical demand on the ICS campus were based on data prior to the opening of the new ES building. Presumably, the new ES building has increased those figures, as will future expansions, such as the new third floor above the cafeteria, and the planned teacher residence building and swimming pool.
Costs are all based on the economic situation in Ethiopia as of May 2020. There has been significant inflation since then that likely has impacted prices upon which these costs were based (such as fuel costs and electricity rates). All calculations that involved currency conversions were based on the May 2020 exchange rate of approximately 32 ETB to 1 USD. At the time of writing this report (late April 2021) that exchange rate is approaching 42 ETB to 1 USD.
With the above caveats in mind, below is a summary of findings from the data collected:
From a GHG emissions perspective, 98% of the electricity from the Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) grid is generated from clean sources. EEP generates power from 18 total power plants that produce a combined capacity of 4,200 MW (“Power Generation”). Of these, 14 are hydropower, and the remaining include 3 wind farms and 1 geothermal plant. Of the 4,200 MW, approximately 96 MW are generated from portable diesel generation sites.
Due to its proximity to the equator, Addis Ababa receives an average of 12 hours of daylight per day (ranging from approximately 11.5 hours of daylight in December / January to 12.5 hours of daylight in June / July). That equals a total of 4,383 hours of daylight per year, and, on average, 2,439 of those hours involve sunshine (“Sunshine & Daylight Hours”).
The average fuel consumed by the ICS back-up power generator is 1,250 liters of diesel fuel per month (Woudneh). The typical cost for diesel fuel is 18 birr / litre, so the average fuel cost for the generator is 22,500 birr / month. For every liter of diesel fuel burned, approximately 2.68 kg of CO2 is emitted (“How much carbon”). This means that the carbon footprint of the ICS generator is 39 tonnes of CO2e / year.
Peak electrical demand on the ICS campus is 350 KW (Woudneh). Peak demand is determined by summing the wattage demands of all electrical needs on campus. Rarely, if ever, would actual demand reach this level. The average electricity consumed on the ICS campus from the EEP grid is 75,000 KWh per month (Woudneh). At a rate of 1.40 ETB per KWh, ICS’ average monthly electric bill is 105,000 ETB. If one combines the costs for electricity from EEP with the fuel costs for the back-up generator, average monthly energy costs at ICS are 127,000 ETB.
Because peak demand at ICS requires 350 KW of electricity, and to account for future growth in that demand, ICS should consider a 400 KW photovoltaic (PV) system (Mutunga). Because of the very high cost of batteries for power storage, Mutunga recommends a “grid-tied” PV system, which means that ICS would still be connected (ie, “tied”) to the EEP electrical grid. This means that ICS would use the electricity generated from its PV system during the day when there is sunlight, but would still draw power from the grid at night, on cloudy days, or during times of peak demand when the PV system can’t provide 100% of the needed electricity. The conversion of PV-produced Direct Current (DC) electricity to the Alternating Current (AC) needed for electrical applications causes some energy loss. A PV system only produces about 80% in AC of it’s top DC rating (Mutunga). From a 400 KW PV system, ICS could expect a production capacity of 320 KW, which is 91% of the campus’ peak demand. A 400 KW PV system would require an array of 1,333 300W panels.
Depending on the types of batteries, a battery-connected PV system with sufficient battery storage so that ICS could use only solar power would more than double the cost of the system, perhaps costing as much as $2 million (Ardani et al.). Batteries also degrade quickly so that they must be replaced every 5 - 10 years, depending on the type of battery (Narayan et al). This is a key reason for going with a “grid-tied” PV system, which, according to Mutunga, could be installed at ICS for $1.50 - $2.00 per watt. A 400 KW system would be a total investment of between $600,000 - $800,000.
Based on the above data regarding sunlight hours in Addis, and based on a 400 KW PV system capable of generated 320 KW of AC, one can estimate that the system could generate just over 780,000 KWh of electricity per year, which is 86.67% of ICS’ electricity consumption. Mutunga suggested that, in order to account for some other potential loss in the system such as shading on portions of the panel array during certain times of day, some reduction in efficiency in the system over time, and percentage of campus power needs that come from the generator, it would be appropriate to estimate that the system could provide approximately 80% of ICS’ electricity needs. In other words, a 400 KW PV system could reduce ICS’ reliance on other energy sources by 80%.
By applying this figure of 80% to the ICS use of the diesel back-up generator, ICS could reduce its carbon footprint from CO2 emitted from use of the diesel generator by 31.2 tonnes of CO2e per year. This is a reduction in ICS’ total annual carbon footprint of 8.63%. Considering an average lifespan of a PV grid-tied system, which is 25 years (“How long do solar panels last?”), the system could prevent 780 tonnes of CO2e emissions.
From a financial investment perspective, the payback period on a 400 KW PV grid-tied system for ICS would be 16 - 21 years. This means that the PV system would pay for itself in energy cost savings, even given the current low prices of diesel fuel and EEP grid electricity. If a 400 KW PV system could cover 80% of ICS’ energy needs, ICS would save 80% on its current energy costs, meaning ICS could save 102,000 ETB / month, which would equal 1,224,000 ETB / year (approximately $38,250 USD at the May 2020 32:1 exchange rate).
From the perspective of a carbon offset program, considering the system would cost between $600,000 - $800,000 and prevent 780 tonnes of CO2 emissions over its lifespan, that equals a carbon offset cost of $769 - $1,026 per tonne of CO2e offset.
Calculating for four main sources of GHG emissions, the carbon footprint of ICS is 360.4 tonnes of CO2e / year. This breaks down as follows:
Based on estimates of plane-miles flown, the carbon footprint for school-related plane travel is 187.8 tonnes of CO2e / year. This is based on 195 student plane trips per year and 118 professional staff with professional learning allowances who make work-related plane trips per year. Of course every flight, depending on distance, destination, and aircraft type involves different levels of emissions, but for this calculation an average of 0.47 tonnes of CO2e per trip was used for student travel, and an average of 0.79 tonnes of CO2e for professional staff travel. The ICAO Emissions Calculator was used. Note that this does not include travel for international staff to and from home countries.
Based on data gathered from Teferra on average fuel consumption in all ICS vehicles, the carbon footprint for ICS vehicles is 58 tonnes of CO2e / year (monthly diesel consumption of 1,626 liters; monthly petrol consumption of 212 liters; calculations from “AutoSmart”).
As already noted, the back-up diesel generator contributes 39 tonnes of CO2e / year.
Based on data from Addis Catering, beef consumption in the cafeteria amounts to 35 kg / week. This equals a carbon footprint of 75.6 tonnes of CO2e / year (Ritchie and Roser, Jan 2020).
The Economics of Climate Change class surveyed the parent community regarding their willingness to pay extra on student-related travel to contribute to a carbon-offset program. For the sake of providing example numbers, the survey used a “Social Cost of Carbon” figure of $56 / tonne of CO2e and used the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator to determine per passenger flight CO2e emissions. The class prepared a randomized sample of 25 ICS parents. Unfortunately, only 11 parents responded to the survey, thus the sample size is limited. The results from this parent survey are below in Figures 1 & 2.
The class also surveyed the professional faculty regarding their willingness to pay extra on school-related travel to contribute to a carbon-offset program. The survey was sent to all faculty with a contractual professional learning allowance. Again, the “Social Cost of Carbon” at $56 / tonne of CO2e was used as well as the emissions calculator of the UN's ICAO. There were 51 respondents to this survey. Those results are also below in Figures 3 & 4.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Analysis
Financial Cost- Benefit Analysis of Solar Power for ICS Campus
To the surprise of the Economics of Climate Change class, the benefits of solar power at ICS outweigh the costs on a purely financial basis. Admittedly, the pay-back period of 16 - 21 years is long, meaning that the investment to install such a system would need to be viewed from a long-term perspective. However, once set-up and operating, and even based on the low energy costs that currently exist in Ethiopia, ICS would experience annual energy cost savings of 1,224,000 ETB / year. This means that the solar power system would pay for itself within 16 - 21 years from these annual energy cost savings. Given that the expected lifespan of a PV system is 25 years (and that’s on the low end), this would leave 4 - 9 years of positive returns on investment for ICS. In terms of prices, exchange rates, and the value of money as of May 2020, that would equal a positive return on investment of 4.9 million - 11 million ETB by the end of the PV system lifespan of 25 years ($153,125 - $342,750 USD based on the 32 : 1 exchange rate of May 2020).
It’s important to note that many political and economic observers of Ethiopia anticipate that electricity costs will be forced to increase in the coming years. The current production capacity of EEP cannot keep pace with the expected 14% / year energy demand increase anticipated between now and 2037 (Endale). These predictions assume that Ethiopia will be forced to attract private investment to develop electricity production capacity, particularly as it pursues renewable sources, such as wind and solar. In order to attract the private sector into electricity production, Ethiopia will be forced to pay these private investors per KWh contributed to the grid at rates higher than what it currently charges consumers. This, inevitably, will lead to increases in rates. If one considers higher electricity rates in the future, one can then assume a shorter pay-back period on the PV system investment, as well as higher positive returns on that investment over the life of the system.
Other Costs-Benefits to Consider
There are other non-financial costs that ICS must consider. A 400 KW PV system would require 1,333 solar panels (if considering 300w panels). This will require some architectural planning. The most space-efficient means of placing an array of panels of this size is to use roof space of current buildings, but one must consider shading caused by trees and other buildings during certain portions of the day, which will reduce the production efficiency of the panels. The roof-top of the current cafeteria / gym building would make the most sense for this array, though, by itself, it may not be large enough to house a panel array of this size.
There is an opportunity cost of sorts that one must consider when investing in a PV system, given the speed at which PV technology is improving and decreasing in cost. Investing in a system now means ICS would be committing to the current technology of PV for the next 25 years. This then removes the opportunity to invest ten years from now in much improved PV technology at a lower cost. Of course there are other opportunity costs given that ICS already has an ambitious construction plan for the coming few years. ICS may not have the capacity to consider all of these investments.
There are also additional non-financial benefits. There are promotional benefits to ICS of being seen as leading the way on renewable, clean energy in light of demands for climate action. These demands have even come from students in recent years. There is a pretty compelling argument to say that action on climate change is the issue of our age, and this decade of the 2020s is essential to that action. The targets set at Paris 2015 were to cut global GHG emissions by 50% from 2015 levels by 2030 (“The Paris Agreement”). As of April 2021 (this report is being written just days after Earth Day 2021 when the Biden Administration recommitted the US to these Paris targets; see “A Proclamation on Earth Day”), it is not clear that the trajectory of GHG emissions is yet going in the right direction. Emissions in 2019 were the highest in history, and while 2020 saw a significant drop due to the global pandemic, it’s not clear that there’s been any structural change that will prevent emissions from rocketing back up once the pandemic is over (Richie and Roser, 2017). ICS could position itself as a future-looking, visionary institution by taking decisive action and investing in solar now. All indications are that the effects of climate change, if emissions are not radically checked within this decade, are going to have a disproportionately devastating impact on sub-Saharan Africa (“Climate Change is an Increasing”). “Our best with Africa and the World” really demands that ICS take a leadership role on climate action. A major institution in Addis, such as ICS, investing in solar would set a powerful example for Addis, Ethiopia and the African continent.
But beyond the PR benefits, there is tremendous educational value in ICS investing in solar now. If action on climate change is really the defining movement of this era, doesn’t ICS owe it to its students to be a laboratory of sorts for concrete climate action? What better way to set up such a laboratory than to go solar, and allow students to experience and investigate the benefits of renewable solar power technology first hand?
Solar Power for ICS Campus as a Carbon Offset Program
The Economics of Climate Change class was also surprised to learn that solar power on the ICS campus would not be an efficient use of carbon offset funds. A PV system for ICS is a relatively inefficient means of reducing GHG emissions. ICS would need to invest between $600,000 - $800,000 in order to prevent 780 tonnes of CO2e. This means that ICS would be paying between $769 - $1,026 to prevent each tonne of CO2e. Put another way, $600,000 - $800,000 is a lot for ICS to pay for a mere 8.63% reduction in its carbon footprint.
This is a situation where the opportunity cost is too great. As the survey data shows, there is potential for a carbon offset program at ICS for school-related plane travel. However, to use those offset funds to pay for a PV system would be giving up the potential for those funds to contribute to other forms of CO2 sequestering or GHG reducing that are far more efficient. For example, improved cook stoves are designed for rural areas in sub-Saharan Africa where the only source of cooking fuel is wood or charcoal. These improved cook stoves, which use far less fuel, can reduce GHG emissions from cooking by as much as 50% (“Improved Cook Stoves”). It’s estimated that just one household in Ethiopia using an improved cook stove could prevent 1 tonne of CO2e per year (Edwards). These cook stoves can be built and distributed for as little as $10 - $20 per stove, depending on the model and location. As another example, it’s estimated, depending on the type, that one tree planted in the tropics can sequester 1 tonne of CO2 over the course of 20-25 years (40-50kg of CO2 / year) (“Agroforestry Carbon Sequestration”). Again, depending on the type of tree and location, one tree can be purchased and planted for as little as $5 - $10. The opportunity cost, therefore, looks like this: spend $1000 of carbon offset funds to prevent 1 tonne of CO2e from the ICS PV system, or use the same amount of money to offset as much as 100 tonnes of CO2e through contributing to tree-planting of improved cook stove distribution projects. The opportunity cost is too great; it doesn’t make sense to use carbon offset funds for a PV system at ICS.
Potential for an ICS Carbon Offset Program
Though the research does not justify the use of carbon offset funds to pay for a PV system, the data does indicate an interest and willingness for such a program at ICS. This would be worth further investigating. Admittedly, the sample size of parents surveyed was limited, and thus more data from the parent community would be needed, but this could be a program with potential to provide rich learning opportunities for students, especially if the funds, or a portion of them, were available for student emission-reducing initiatives, or if students played a role in selecting the organizations and projects to which the offset funds were provided.
In the survey data collected, 90.9% of parents and 84.4% of faculty indicated that they’d be definitely willing or probably willing to pay extra on school-related flights to contribute to a carbon offset program using the $56 / tonne of CO2e rate. Though the survey sample size for parents was limited, this indicates significant support for the idea. The survey also polled respondents on how they would like to see the funds used. The large majority of both parents and faculty supported the idea of the funds being used within ICS for school-initiated carbon sequestering or GHG emission reducing projects.
Other Means to Reduce ICS’ Carbon Footprint
Though it was outside of the class’ research question or hypothesis, incidentally the class was reminded of the significant carbon footprint contribution of red meat (particularly beef) consumption. Even after students initiated “Meatless Wednesdays,” beef consumption in the ICS cafeteria is still the 2nd highest contributor to the ICS carbon footprint (75.6 tonnes of CO2e / year). This is greater than emissions from the ICS generator and greater than emissions from ICS vehicles. This is another area the school could further consider for reducing its carbon footprint. To what extent can red meat be replaced with chicken and fish? To what extent can more non-meat options and completely non-meat days be built into the cafeteria menu?
Conclusion
The Economics of Climate Change class set out to answer the question: “To what extent would replacing the ICS diesel generator with a PV system as a back-up energy source be an economical means for ICS to reduce carbon emissions?”
The class has concluded that setting up a grid-tied PV system for the ICS campus would not completely eliminate the need for the back-up generator, though it would reduce ICS’ reliance on it by 80%, which would then reduce it’s annual carbon footprint by 31.2 tonnes of CO2e, which is a carbon footprint reduction of 8.63%. Though this would not be the most impactful method for reducing its carbon footprint, there are other important reasons to consider a PV system for ICS, including for purely financial return reasons. In short, while not the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions, the overall benefits of solar power for ICS outweigh the costs.
The class proposed a two-part hypothesis in response to the research question. The first part of that hypothesis was: “ICS can significantly reduce its campus carbon footprint by eliminating the need for its current diesel generator back-up power system and replacing it with a renewable and emission-free PV system.” As stated above, the research largely disproved this hypothesis. However, the research did point to important reasons ICS should still consider a PV system.
The second part of the hypothesis was: “ICS can pay for this solar power system, without increasing tuition rates or the annual capital investment fee, by establishing a carbon offset program for school-related plane travel.” The research also disproved this hypothesis; the cost of a PV system relative to the emissions it would prevent does not make for an efficient use for carbon offset funds. This is not to say, however, that a carbon offset program should not be considered. In fact, though limited in its scope, the data collected from stakeholders indicated strong interest in a carbon offset program as a means of ICS reducing its carbon footprint.
There are a number of findings in this report that would benefit from further research. First, one could explore the forecasts regarding future electricity costs in Ethiopia. Future higher rates would contribute to greater cost savings to ICS of investing in a PV system, making the investment even more financially worthwhile. Second, further discussions are needed with relevant stakeholders regarding their willingness to contribute funds to a carbon offset program for school-related plane travel. Third, one would need to further investigate effective carbon offset projects and initiatives to which ICS could contribute or develop. Fourth, many of the figures and calculations should be reconsidered in view of ICS’ energy needs after recent and still-pending campus expansion projects. Various price and cost figures should also be recalculated to consider the inflation and ETB devaluation since May 2020. Finally, if ICS was serious about investing in a PV system, it should contract a professional site assessor to provide details on the size and system needs that would be required.
Recommendations
Though the impact on reducing ICS’ carbon footprint is relatively small, the cost-benefit analysis leans strongly to the benefit side. ICS should seriously consider, for financial, pedagogical and promotional reasons, investing in solar power for its campus.
For the purpose of further reducing its carbon footprint, ICS should explore setting up a carbon offset initiative for ICS-related plane travel, as well as investigate further reductions of red-meat consumption in the ICS cafeteria.
