As you now know đ, the #VR #XR immersive training offers many benefits in terms of learning, impact and engagement from learners. However, what is its environmental impact, especially compared to traditional training?Â
We were asked recently about the carbon footprint of the immersive training, with VR masks and the addition of an avatar connected to the AI, and even though CSR and environmental awareness are key criteria at VRAI and we are aware that it is essential to assess the impact of our activities on the climate, in full transparency, Apart from a few arguments concerning the transport and movement of learners and trainers, we are nevertheless quite new to this subject.
For starters, what is the carbon footprint?
Carbon footprint definition: the carbon footprint is a measure of the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by a human activity, expressed in CO2 equivalent.
Importance of reducing the carbon footprint: reducing the carbon footprint is a major challenge in the fight against climate change, which requires collective and individual action.
How is the carbon footprint calculated?Â
Calculation of the carbon footprint of traditional training: to calculate the carbon footprint of your traditional training, you can use online tools such as the ADEME calculator or the Carbon 4 calculator. You âjust needâ fill in the data related to your training (number of participants, travel distance, energy consumption, etc.) to obtain an estimate of its carbon footprint.Â
For VR training, the same tools are used, taking into account the specificities of VR (power consumption of headsets, computers and servers, etc.).
The key factors
Energy consumption:
Energy consumption is a key factor in assessing the carbon footprint of a training. A âtraditionalâ training session typically involves the use of equipment such as desktops, projectors and lighting systems, contributing to significant power consumption. In comparison, a session using a VR headset and AI may require less energy, as it relies primarily on battery-powered devices (but we know that battery manufacturing and recycling is double-edgedâŠ)
Travel costs: With VR training, participants do not always need to physically move to a training location. This can result in significant savings in travel costs, such as airfare, accommodation and meal expenses.
Equipment and material costs: Depending on the context, VR can often be implemented with relatively affordable equipment, such as VR headset and controllers, compared to buying more expensive traditional equipment such as simulators or physical models.
Saving material resources: VR training reduces or eliminates the need for physical materials such as textbooks, printed materials, audiovisual equipment and other training materials. This can result in cost savings in the production, printing and distribution of these media.
According to a study by the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), the production of a virtual reality headset generates about 17 kg of CO2 equivalent, the equivalent of a 100 km car trip. However, this carbon footprint can be offset in a few months of use, thanks to energy savings and travel.
Training time: VR training can often be more effective and faster than traditional training, as it allows learners to progress at their own pace, repeat exercises and scenarios as many times as necessary, and easy access to complementary learning resources. This can result in time savings for trainers and learners.
Flexibility and scalability: Once a VR training platform is in place, it can be easily expanded to accommodate a larger number of learners without requiring significant additional resources. This allows economies of scale to be realized as the number of learners increases.
Transportation: Another factor to consider is the transportation of training session participants. Individual travel by car or public transport can contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of a traditional training session, travel is unavoidable, while in the case of a VR session, participants can connect from anywhere, thus reducing transport-related emissions.
Waste management : Waste management is also an important aspect of the carbon footprint. A traditional training session often generates waste such as paper documents and obsolete electronic equipment, requiring proper disposal. In contrast, a session using a VR headset and AI can reduce waste by opting for digital training materials and extending the life of electronic equipment.
Regarding the use of our avatars that are connected to AI, here is what we can add in the calculation:Â
The energy consumption of the computer equipment needed to operate the avatar and AI (servers, computers, etc.)
Energy consumption of communication networks used to connect avatar and AI (Internet, mobile networks, etc.)
CO2 emissions from the production and transport of computer equipment and communication networks
CO2 emissions related to the production and transport of materials necessary for the manufacture of computer equipment and communication networks
According to available studies, immersive VR training generally has a lower carbon footprint than traditional training, due in particular to the reduction of travel and the dematerialization of educational materials. However, this difference may vary depending on contexts and practices. a PwC study indicates that immersive VR training reduces CO2 emissions related to learners' travel by 98% on average, compared to traditional face-to-face training.
According to a study by ADEME, digital represents about 4% of the worldâs greenhouse gas emissions, the same as the civil aviation sector. However, digital technology can also help reduce CO2 emissions in other sectors, for example by enabling the dematerialization of teaching materials or reducing travel.
The limits of the comparison? It is important to note that comparing the carbon footprint of traditional and immersive VR training is complex, as it depends on many factors (number of participants, travel distance, duration of training, etc.). In addition, the carbon footprint is not the only criterion to consider when evaluating the environmental impact of a training.
Any suggestion/ exchange are welcome!
Concretely? đ
We looked for some concrete examples to reflect on different aspects of the carbon footprint, keeping in mind the important elements to better organize and optimize projects. This is a beginning of reflection that needs to be expanded as discussions, studies and projects we are working on.
The SNCF has developed an immersive VR training to train its train drivers to drive environmentally responsible. Through this training, drivers learn how to optimize their energy consumption and reduce their CO2 emissions, while improving their comfort and safety. This training allowed SNCF to reduce its energy consumption by 10% and its CO2 emissions by 8% on the lines concerned.
The shipping company CMA CGM has implemented immersive VR training to train its crews in container handling. Through this training, crews learn how to optimize the loading and unloading of containers, while reducing the risk of accidents and CO2 emissions related to travel. This training allowed CMA CGM to reduce its CO2 emissions by 4% on the vessels concerned.
The telecommunications company Orange has developed an immersive VR training to train its customer advisors in the management of difficult situations. Through this training, advisors are immersed in realistic situations of conflict with unhappy clients, and must learn to manage their stress, actively listen to clients, and offer solutions tailored to their needs. This training allowed Orange to improve customer satisfaction and reduce the turnover of its customer advisors.