sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC
sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC
sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Gina Roos<br />
Energy Dem<strong>and</strong> in the Commercial Sector<br />
SANEA (1998) report that coal use in this sector declined from 27 PJ in 1980, to 7.4 PJ in 1996,<br />
while electricity consumption increased from 36.5 PJ to 53.5 PJ. Electricity services 86% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
final energy dem<strong>and</strong> in the sector with coal contributing the remainder although gas supplied<br />
about 20 PJ in the hospitality <strong>and</strong> tourism subsector. A survey in 1997 found that more than 50%<br />
<strong>of</strong> the organisations in this sector had implemented energy efficiency measures in order to reduce<br />
<strong>costs</strong>: energy efficient lighting, microwave technology, variable speed forms, energy efficient<br />
building management <strong>and</strong> energy efficient building designs (SANEA, 1998).<br />
Table 1 The Percentage Expenditure for Different Final Energy Dem<strong>and</strong> for a Variety <strong>of</strong><br />
Household Subsectors in 1996.<br />
Final Energy<br />
Dem<strong>and</strong><br />
Household Subsector Expenditure (%)<br />
Farm<br />
Labourer<br />
Rural<br />
Settlement<br />
Emergent<br />
Farmer<br />
Established<br />
Farmer<br />
Urban<br />
Informal<br />
Township<br />
Houses<br />
Electricity 28 56 50 76 32 44 74<br />
Coal 16 10 8 10 19 16 8<br />
Liquid Fuels 20 9 14 4 20 14 6<br />
Gas 34 22 24 10 24 16 8<br />
Suburban<br />
Houses<br />
Biomass & 2 3 4 0 5 10 4<br />
Renewables<br />
Source: SANEA, 1998<br />
Table 2 The Contributions to Final Energy Dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> Different Fuel Sources for Four Different<br />
Commercial Subsectors in 1996.<br />
Final Energy Dem<strong>and</strong><br />
Commercial Subsector Consumption (PJ)<br />
Trade &<br />
Finance<br />
Hospitality &<br />
Tourism<br />
Community &<br />
Training<br />
Health &<br />
Social Care<br />
Coal 21 21 58 55<br />
Liquid Fuels 22 10 8 8<br />
Gas 14 22 6 4<br />
Electricity 40 45 24 30<br />
Biomass & Renewables 8 2 5 2<br />
Source: SANEA, 1998<br />
Mitigation<br />
SANEA (1998) report that a 10- 20% energy saving through improved energy efficiency in<br />
South Africa could lead to an effective increase <strong>of</strong> 1.5 – 3% in gross domestic product (GDP)<br />
within the time frame <strong>of</strong> such savings. This will be achieved by creating awareness <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>benefits</strong> <strong>of</strong>, <strong>and</strong> creating <strong>economic</strong> incentives for, energy efficiency. However, barriers do exist<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> awareness, lack <strong>of</strong> information <strong>and</strong> skills, high <strong>economic</strong> return criteria <strong>and</strong><br />
capital <strong>costs</strong>. This finding will be re-examined in the course <strong>of</strong> the Mitigation component <strong>of</strong> the<br />
South African Country Study.<br />
Two important points arise when examining the impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>mitigation</strong> on the residential sector.<br />
The first is that <strong>mitigation</strong> options undertaken anywhere in the economy will have an impact on<br />
households – an aspect that can only be examined with a macro<strong>economic</strong> model. The results <strong>of</strong><br />
the model are in turn only as good as the level <strong>of</strong> disaggregation, data <strong>and</strong> assumptions on which<br />
255