Characterisation framework for energy-saving hotels in South Africa Machete F, Hongoro C, Nhamo G and Mearns KF

Presentation outline Introduction Energy saving characterisation framework Results and discussions Conclusion

Introduction The number of South African hotels has doubled between 1997 and 2004 Literature shows that an increase in hotel numbers is proportional to economic growth and energy demand, respectively This is evident from a study in Greece (Ali et al 2008) The life cycle of a hotel depends entirely on energy availability Hence, studies show that energy costs in hotels are the second highest operational cost after labour Thus, energy is a strategic input resource in the hotel industry

Literature points out that 80% of enterprises closedown within five years of operation due to high operational costs Given the level of energy cost in the operations of hotels, it can be deduced that in hotels, high energy cost are attributable to these failures, in addition to labour costs In addition, South Africa is experiencing severe energy shortages since 2008 This, has resulted in regular power cuts (load-shedding), in attempt to balance energy demand and supply The latter makes it not viable for small hotels to thrive in the country, Small hotels, are forced to close doors, during load-shedding, given that they can’t afford alternative energy source due to financial constraints Regular business closures result in high fixed costs and low sales

Given these challenges, hotels prioritise energy saving and alternative sources Some are also know as energy saving hotels However, the following challenges remain among for these hotels some high cost energy saving investments yield less or no returns energy saving methods yield mixed results In Accra (Ghana), hotels are reluctant to invest in energy saving initiatives, because The reluctance and lack of visible impact of energy saving is attributed to inconsistent energy saving characterisation frameworks Thus, the aim of this study was to develop an energy saving characterises framework for hotels that advances green growth.

Theoretical formulation of energy saving characterisation framework In this paper, energy saving refers to a positive net energy deference (between previous and current input energy use), determined through the formula below: Where Esaving is the deference in energy use (net energy saved in kWh), B is the total energy used before (kWh) and A is the total energy used after (kWh) the implementation of energy saving methods. The framework incorporates two environmental management instruments (environmental management accounting and carbon management accounting)

Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) EMA uses physical (material flow) and monetary information for internal decision making EMA has two pillars (PEMA and MEMA) In PEMA, physical flow, use and saving of energy (kWh) is used to make decisions While MEMA uses the monetary cost, saving and earnings Carbon Management Accounting (CMA) Similarly to EMA, CMA has two pillars (physical and carbon accounting) In CMA, carbon is the currency used for trading like money under EMA. In EMA, carbon is a PEMA parameter, while in CAM it is the MEMA parameter. However, energy demand is a material flow accounting parameter in both EMA and CAM Therefore, CAM can be viewed as a sub-division of PEMA under EMA

Integration of EMA and CAM in energy saving characterisation framework results in three energy saving parameters (indicators): (1) energy demand, (2) cost and (3) carbon footprint The three indicators represent energy consumption related impacts within the three sustainable development pillars (social, economic and environmental) Thus the reduction in input energy use in each indicators reciprocates reduction in related negative impacts This paper adopts a framework with three compulsory indicators to be used to characterise energy saving hotels (see figure 1)

Figure 1: Energy saving characterisation framework

Figure 1, shows that only hotels that reduce their physical energy demand (in kWh), cost (in monetary currency) and carbon footprint (in CO2ekg) qualify to be characterised as energy saving. However, the characterisation of energy saving methods can be based one its ability to reduce one or more input energy parameter(s) Figure 2, presents the field test results of energy audit based on the adopted framework.

Figure 2: Energy saving performance per occupied room

Conclusion It’s evident that using one indicator to characterise energy saving is misleading Hence reduction in energy demand doesn’t translate to reduction in costs and/or carbon footprint, and vice versa Thus previously characterised energy saving hotels experienced mixed return results The three indicator framework builds on and advances green growth (sustainable development) agenda Therefore, energy saving characterisation of hotels through this framework confirms the reduction in input energy demand, cost and carbon footprint, concurrently

Thank you Be blessed