The Greenhouse Gas Accounting of A Public Organization: The Case of A Public University in Thailand.

Abstract

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) accounting of the organizations is on the public focus in recent years since it reflects the contribution of the organization to the climate change. In this study, the emissions due to the energy related activities of a University in Thailand is assessed and reported as the performance measurement of the organization in term of the GHG emissions. The study covers two categories of emissions, scope 1 and 2, which are related to the energy use. For scope 1 source, the emission is mainly from the direct emissions of the fuel combustion by the University car fleet. On the other hand, scope 2 emissions are caused by the electricity consumption which is considered the indirect emissions. According to the study, the assessment results show that the emission due to the electricity use is significantly higher than that from the transportation. The time frame of study period covers the second semester of the academic year 2016 (January to May 2017) and the functional unit is the number of student, both full-time and part-time, who enrolled in the semester. The Carbon footprint of the University is illustrated as the total amount of GHG emission divided by the number of student and it is equal to 64.02 kgCO2/student.

Full text

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling
Assessing the feasibility of using the heat demand-outdoor
temperature function for a long-term district heat demand forecast
I. Andrića,b,c*, A. Pinaa, P. Ferrãoa, J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc
aIN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research -Instituto Superior Técnico,Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
bVeolia Recherche & Innovation,291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France
cDépartement Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement -IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France
Abstract
District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the
greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat
sales. Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease,
prolonging the investment return period.
The main scope of this paper is to assess the feasibility of using the heat demand –outdoor temperature function for heat demand
forecast. The district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district
renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors.
The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications
(the error in annual demand was lower than 20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation
scenarios, the error value increased up to 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered).
The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the
decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination of weather and
renovation scenarios considered). On the other hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the
coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
Cooling.
Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change
Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 672–676
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Power and Energy
Systems Engineering.
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.091
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.091
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientic committee of the 4th International Conference on Power and Energy
Systems Engineering.
1876-6102
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29
September 2017, Berlin, Germany
The Greenhouse Gas Accounting of A Public Organization: The
Case of A Public University in Thailand.
Karin Kandananond*
Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University, Prathumthani, Thailand 13180
Abstract
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) accounting of the organizations is on the public focus in recent years since it reflects the
contribution of the organization to the climate change. In this study, the emissions due to the energy related activities of a
University in Thailand is assessed and reported as the performance measurement of the organization in term of the GHG
emissions. The study covers two categories of emissions, scope 1 and 2, which are related to the energy use. For scope 1 source,
the emission is mainly from the direct emissions of the fuel combustion by the University car fleet. On the other hand, scope 2
emissions are caused by the electricity consumption which is considered the indirect emissions. According to the study, the
assessment results show that the emission due to the electricity use is significantly higher than that from the transportation. The
time frame of study period covers the second semester of the academic year 2016 (January to May 2017) and the functional unit
is the number of student, both full-time and part-time, who enrolled in the semester. The Carbon footprint of the University is
illustrated as the total amount of GHG emission divided by the number of student and it is equal to 64.02 kgCO2/student.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
Keywords: Carbon footprint; Electricity; Fuel; University.
1. Introduction
The Carbon footprint has come into the focus at the international level in the past 10 years and it is proved to be
an important piece of puzzles assisting to create the awareness among people of how the greenhouse gas (GHG)
affects the climate change. At the beginning, the Carbon footprint focuses only on the GHG released for the whole
life cycle of individual, a product or an event and it leads to the introduction of Carbon footprint label. However,
currently, the footprint is also extended to the activities of the organization because many organizations play have
contributed a significant amount of the GHG emissions. Obviously, there are many cases that the GHG of
organizations is higher than the emission of a whole country. As a result, the issue regarding the disclosure of GHG
emissions among the organizations is extensively discussed since it also reflects the corporate responsibility towards
the environmental protection and climate change as well.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66-81-8077706;.
E-mail address: karin@vru.ac.th.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29
September 2017, Berlin, Germany
The Greenhouse Gas Accounting of A Public Organization: The
Case of A Public University in Thailand.
Karin Kandananond*
Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University, Prathumthani, Thailand 13180
Abstract
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) accounting of the organizations is on the public focus in recent years since it reflects the
contribution of the organization to the climate change. In this study, the emissions due to the energy related activities of a
University in Thailand is assessed and reported as the performance measurement of the organization in term of the GHG
emissions. The study covers two categories of emissions, scope 1 and 2, which are related to the energy use. For scope 1 source,
the emission is mainly from the direct emissions of the fuel combustion by the University car fleet. On the other hand, scope 2
emissions are caused by the electricity consumption which is considered the indirect emissions. According to the study, the
assessment results show that the emission due to the electricity use is significantly higher than that from the transportation. The
time frame of study period covers the second semester of the academic year 2016 (January to May 2017) and the functional unit
is the number of student, both full-time and part-time, who enrolled in the semester. The Carbon footprint of the University is
illustrated as the total amount of GHG emission divided by the number of student and it is equal to 64.02 kgCO2/student.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
Keywords: Carbon footprint; Electricity; Fuel; University.
1. Introduction
The Carbon footprint has come into the focus at the international level in the past 10 years and it is proved to be
an important piece of puzzles assisting to create the awareness among people of how the greenhouse gas (GHG)
affects the climate change. At the beginning, the Carbon footprint focuses only on the GHG released for the whole
life cycle of individual, a product or an event and it leads to the introduction of Carbon footprint label. However,
currently, the footprint is also extended to the activities of the organization because many organizations play have
contributed a significant amount of the GHG emissions. Obviously, there are many cases that the GHG of
organizations is higher than the emission of a whole country. As a result, the issue regarding the disclosure of GHG
emissions among the organizations is extensively discussed since it also reflects the corporate responsibility towards
the environmental protection and climate change as well.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66-81-8077706;.
E-mail address: karin@vru.ac.th.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29
September 2017, Berlin, Germany
The Greenhouse Gas Accounting of A Public Organization: The
Case of A Public University in Thailand.
Karin Kandananond*
Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University, Prathumthani, Thailand 13180
Abstract
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) accounting of the organizations is on the public focus in recent years since it reflects the
contribution of the organization to the climate change. In this study, the emissions due to the energy related activities of a
University in Thailand is assessed and reported as the performance measurement of the organization in term of the GHG
emissions. The study covers two categories of emissions, scope 1 and 2, which are related to the energy use. For scope 1 source,
the emission is mainly from the direct emissions of the fuel combustion by the University car fleet. On the other hand, scope 2
emissions are caused by the electricity consumption which is considered the indirect emissions. According to the study, the
assessment results show that the emission due to the electricity use is significantly higher than that from the transportation. The
time frame of study period covers the second semester of the academic year 2016 (January to May 2017) and the functional unit
is the number of student, both full-time and part-time, who enrolled in the semester. The Carbon footprint of the University is
illustrated as the total amount of GHG emission divided by the number of student and it is equal to 64.02 kgCO2/student.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
Keywords: Carbon footprint; Electricity; Fuel; University.
1. Introduction
The Carbon footprint has come into the focus at the international level in the past 10 years and it is proved to be
an important piece of puzzles assisting to create the awareness among people of how the greenhouse gas (GHG)
affects the climate change. At the beginning, the Carbon footprint focuses only on the GHG released for the whole
life cycle of individual, a product or an event and it leads to the introduction of Carbon footprint label. However,
currently, the footprint is also extended to the activities of the organization because many organizations play have
contributed a significant amount of the GHG emissions. Obviously, there are many cases that the GHG of
organizations is higher than the emission of a whole country. As a result, the issue regarding the disclosure of GHG
emissions among the organizations is extensively discussed since it also reflects the corporate responsibility towards
the environmental protection and climate change as well.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66-81-8077706;.
E-mail address: karin@vru.ac.th.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29
September 2017, Berlin, Germany
The Greenhouse Gas Accounting of A Public Organization: The
Case of A Public University in Thailand.
Karin Kandananond*
Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University, Prathumthani, Thailand 13180
Abstract
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) accounting of the organizations is on the public focus in recent years since it reflects the
contribution of the organization to the climate change. In this study, the emissions due to the energy related activities of a
University in Thailand is assessed and reported as the performance measurement of the organization in term of the GHG
emissions. The study covers two categories of emissions, scope 1 and 2, which are related to the energy use. For scope 1 source,
the emission is mainly from the direct emissions of the fuel combustion by the University car fleet. On the other hand, scope 2
emissions are caused by the electricity consumption which is considered the indirect emissions. According to the study, the
assessment results show that the emission due to the electricity use is significantly higher than that from the transportation. The
time frame of study period covers the second semester of the academic year 2016 (January to May 2017) and the functional unit
is the number of student, both full-time and part-time, who enrolled in the semester. The Carbon footprint of the University is
illustrated as the total amount of GHG emission divided by the number of student and it is equal to 64.02 kgCO2/student.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
Keywords: Carbon footprint; Electricity; Fuel; University.
1. Introduction
The Carbon footprint has come into the focus at the international level in the past 10 years and it is proved to be
an important piece of puzzles assisting to create the awareness among people of how the greenhouse gas (GHG)
affects the climate change. At the beginning, the Carbon footprint focuses only on the GHG released for the whole
life cycle of individual, a product or an event and it leads to the introduction of Carbon footprint label. However,
currently, the footprint is also extended to the activities of the organization because many organizations play have
contributed a significant amount of the GHG emissions. Obviously, there are many cases that the GHG of
organizations is higher than the emission of a whole country. As a result, the issue regarding the disclosure of GHG
emissions among the organizations is extensively discussed since it also reflects the corporate responsibility towards
the environmental protection and climate change as well.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66-81-8077706;.
E-mail address: karin@vru.ac.th.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29
September 2017, Berlin, Germany
The Greenhouse Gas Accounting of A Public Organization: The
Case of A Public University in Thailand.
Karin Kandananond*
Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University, Prathumthani, Thailand 13180
Abstract
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) accounting of the organizations is on the public focus in recent years since it reflects the
contribution of the organization to the climate change. In this study, the emissions due to the energy related activities of a
University in Thailand is assessed and reported as the performance measurement of the organization in term of the GHG
emissions. The study covers two categories of emissions, scope 1 and 2, which are related to the energy use. For scope 1 source,
the emission is mainly from the direct emissions of the fuel combustion by the University car fleet. On the other hand, scope 2
emissions are caused by the electricity consumption which is considered the indirect emissions. According to the study, the
assessment results show that the emission due to the electricity use is significantly higher than that from the transportation. The
time frame of study period covers the second semester of the academic year 2016 (January to May 2017) and the functional unit
is the number of student, both full-time and part-time, who enrolled in the semester. The Carbon footprint of the University is
illustrated as the total amount of GHG emission divided by the number of student and it is equal to 64.02 kgCO2/student.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017.
Keywords: Carbon footprint; Electricity; Fuel; University.
1. Introduction
The Carbon footprint has come into the focus at the international level in the past 10 years and it is proved to be
an important piece of puzzles assisting to create the awareness among people of how the greenhouse gas (GHG)
affects the climate change. At the beginning, the Carbon footprint focuses only on the GHG released for the whole
life cycle of individual, a product or an event and it leads to the introduction of Carbon footprint label. However,
currently, the footprint is also extended to the activities of the organization because many organizations play have
contributed a significant amount of the GHG emissions. Obviously, there are many cases that the GHG of
organizations is higher than the emission of a whole country. As a result, the issue regarding the disclosure of GHG
emissions among the organizations is extensively discussed since it also reflects the corporate responsibility towards
the environmental protection and climate change as well.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66-81-8077706;.
E-mail address: karin@vru.ac.th.

Karin Kandananond / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 672–676 673
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientic committee of the 4th International Conference on Power and Energy
Systems Engineering.
Karin Kandananond et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
2. Literature Review
At the city level, the GHG accounting was studied by Dubinsky and Karunanithi [1] who assessed the GHG
emissions of the San Luis Valley and indicated that the sources of emissions were electricity, liquid fuel/ propane/
natural gas combustion and fertilizer use. Similarly, Hillman and Ramaswami [2] compared the Carbon footprint of
eight cities in the United States based on the energy within city boundaries, cross-boundary demand for
airline/freight transport and energy of four key urban materials, i.e., food, water, energy (fuels), and shelter (cement).
Hu, Lin, Cui and Khanna [3] had measured the total amount of Carbon flows in the global supply chain in term of
Carbon footprint in eight Chinese cities and the study found that the main sources of Carbon are from the production
based and consumption based accounting. For the corporate level, a study by Dragomir [4] pointed out the
disclosure of industrial GHG emissions of top five largest European oil and gas companies, e.g., BP, Total, Shell,
BG Group and Eni. The GHG emissions of the service industry were also assessed in the research work of Xuchao,
Priyadarsini and Eang [5] who studied the sources of emissions including energy consumption of waste water
discharge. The group study is about the hotel industry in Singapore. As an example of deploying Carbon footprint in
the automobile industry, Lee [6] conducted a study on how Hyundai motor company had integrated the Carbon
footprint scheme into supply chain management. Plambeck [7] suggested the effective way for the companies both
at the startup and large scale to reduce GHG emissions through the existing operating and supply chain system.
Hoffman and Busch [8] and Busch [9] introduced the idea of using Carbon footprint as the performance
indicators of the companies and they were classified as four sub-indicators as follows: Carbon intensity representing
a company's Carbon use related to business activities, Carbon dependency illustrating the change in physical Carbon
performance, Carbon exposure indicating the finance and Carbon risk estimating the change in financial
implications of Carbon usage.
3. Background
Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University is a public University established under the Rajabhat Unversity Act, B.E.
2547 (A.D. 2004), and the main campus is located in Prathumthani province, Thailand. The University offers both
undergraduate and graduate degrees to part-time and full-time students and it is operated daily from Monday to
Sunday except the national holidays. The campus map is shown in Fig. 1 and there are forty buildings (listed as
number 1-40) in the campus area.
Fig. 1. Buildings Layout of the University.
The energy consumption involved in educational activities includes the electricity use in buildings and the fuel used
in the University car fleet. The electricity usage (kWh) of all buildings in the campus is listed in Table 1.

674 Karin Kandananond / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 672–676
Karin Kandananond et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Table 1. Electricity Use (listed by Buildings).
Building Monthly Electricity Usage (kWh)
January February March April May
Office of Learning Promotion and Provision Academic Services 12,432 18,084 23,289 12,820 27,237
Language and Computer Center 12,055 20,024 27,380 21,409 22,346
Demonstration School 1 80 240 0 0 0
Demonstration School 2 16,320 17,360 17,680 16,160 1,360
Demonstration School 3 23,212 27,911 33,458 12,250 17,834
Green House 16 25 29 25 32
Plant Genetics Preservation 245 378 543 579 643
Student Affairs Division 640 720 960 960 1,040
Faculty of Science and Technology (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 17,120 9,360 11,520 10,560 10,800
Faculty of Science and Technology (Home economics lecture
rooms/laboratory)
2,160 1,350 2,430 2,130 5,370
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 8,000 10,560 13,440 11,680 13,600
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Student government office) 3,120 4,800 5,600 5,240 5,240
Faculty of Industrial Technology 21,959 23,402 32,877 25,941 32,363
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Office and lecture rooms) 2,320 2,320 3,280 2,800 3,520
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Laboratories) 17,600 17,120 98,080 15,280 16,800
Faculty of Education 1 5,160 8,280 11,040 7,080 8,160
Faculty of Education 2 2,560 5,280 7,440 5,440 6,480
Faculty of Management Science 1 11,800 15,800 19,300 17,500 19,500
Faculty of Management Science 2 6,500 8,900 10,300 9,000 10,300
Faculty of Management Science 3 1,360 3,440 3,200 3,200 4,160
The University car fleet is composed of nine full-size commuter vans, two 4-wheel pickup trucks, one 6-wheel light
truck and two 45-seat coaches. The total number of fleet is fourteen. Five vans, out of nine, were assigned to be
operated by each faculty separately. The total traveling distance of the whole fleet (from January to May 2017) is
concluded in Table 2.
Table 2. Total Traveling Distance.
Vehicle Distance (km) Vehicle Distance (km)
Van#1 962 Van#8 1,850
Van#2 2,104 Van#9 2,002
Van#3 678 Pickup truck#1 882
Van#4 1,364 Pickup truck#2 1,042
Van#5 1,560 Light truck 170
Van#6 2,114 Coach#1 4,502
Van#7 1,714 Coach#2 3,498
According to the registrar office, the total number of students enrolled in the second semester (January to May 2017)
of the 2016 academic year is 10,365 as itemized in Table 3.
Table 3. Number of Students at Each Academic Level.
Level Number Level Number
Undergraduate (full-time) 7,823 Master 274
Undergraduate (part-time) 1,944 Doctoral 173
Extension 151 Total 10,365
4. Carbon Footprint Computation
The study framework in this research is limited to only the second semester of the 2016 academic year which is
ranged from January to May 2017. Moreover, the scope of GHG calculation in this study focuses only on two
categories of emissions, i.e., scope 1 and 2. For scope 1, it is the direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned
or controlled by the organization. At the University, the scope 1 emission is the mobile combustion which is the
combustion of fossil fuels used in the operation of vehicles. On the other hand, scope 2 emissions are the energy
indirect GHG which is the emissions due to the consumption of electricity. However, GHG emissions due to the
scope 3 source is neglected from the study since it is another indirect GHG emission source.
As a result, the GHG emissions sources used in this period are the electricity and the fossil fuel. The electricity is
100% supplied by the Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA) and the electrical loads are the air conditioning and
lighting system. On the other hand, the fossil fuel is for the transportation. As a result, the calculation of Carbon
Karin Kandananond et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Table 1. Electricity Use (listed by Buildings).
Building Monthly Electricity Usage (kWh)
January February March April May
Office of Learning Promotion and Provision Academic Services 12,432 18,084 23,289 12,820 27,237
Language and Computer Center 12,055 20,024 27,380 21,409 22,346
Demonstration School 1 80 240 0 0 0
Demonstration School 2 16,320 17,360 17,680 16,160 1,360
Demonstration School 3 23,212 27,911 33,458 12,250 17,834
Green House 16 25 29 25 32
Plant Genetics Preservation 245 378 543 579 643
Student Affairs Division 640 720 960 960 1,040
Faculty of Science and Technology (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 17,120 9,360 11,520 10,560 10,800
Faculty of Science and Technology (Home economics lecture
rooms/laboratory)
2,160 1,350 2,430 2,130 5,370
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 8,000 10,560 13,440 11,680 13,600
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Student government office) 3,120 4,800 5,600 5,240 5,240
Faculty of Industrial Technology 21,959 23,402 32,877 25,941 32,363
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Office and lecture rooms) 2,320 2,320 3,280 2,800 3,520
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Laboratories) 17,600 17,120 98,080 15,280 16,800
Faculty of Education 1 5,160 8,280 11,040 7,080 8,160
Faculty of Education 2 2,560 5,280 7,440 5,440 6,480
Faculty of Management Science 1 11,800 15,800 19,300 17,500 19,500
Faculty of Management Science 2 6,500 8,900 10,300 9,000 10,300
Faculty of Management Science 3 1,360 3,440 3,200 3,200 4,160
The University car fleet is composed of nine full-size commuter vans, two 4-wheel pickup trucks, one 6-wheel light
truck and two 45-seat coaches. The total number of fleet is fourteen. Five vans, out of nine, were assigned to be
operated by each faculty separately. The total traveling distance of the whole fleet (from January to May 2017) is
concluded in Table 2.
Table 2. Total Traveling Distance.
Vehicle Distance (km) Vehicle Distance (km)
Van#1 962 Van#8 1,850
Van#2 2,104 Van#9 2,002
Van#3 678 Pickup truck#1 882
Van#4 1,364 Pickup truck#2 1,042
Van#5 1,560 Light truck 170
Van#6 2,114 Coach#1 4,502
Van#7 1,714 Coach#2 3,498
According to the registrar office, the total number of students enrolled in the second semester (January to May 2017)
of the 2016 academic year is 10,365 as itemized in Table 3.
Table 3. Number of Students at Each Academic Level.
Level Number Level Number
Undergraduate (full-time) 7,823 Master 274
Undergraduate (part-time) 1,944 Doctoral 173
Extension 151 Total 10,365
4. Carbon Footprint Computation
The study framework in this research is limited to only the second semester of the 2016 academic year which is
ranged from January to May 2017. Moreover, the scope of GHG calculation in this study focuses only on two
categories of emissions, i.e., scope 1 and 2. For scope 1, it is the direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned
or controlled by the organization. At the University, the scope 1 emission is the mobile combustion which is the
combustion of fossil fuels used in the operation of vehicles. On the other hand, scope 2 emissions are the energy
indirect GHG which is the emissions due to the consumption of electricity. However, GHG emissions due to the
scope 3 source is neglected from the study since it is another indirect GHG emission source.
As a result, the GHG emissions sources used in this period are the electricity and the fossil fuel. The electricity is
100% supplied by the Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA) and the electrical loads are the air conditioning and
lighting system. On the other hand, the fossil fuel is for the transportation. As a result, the calculation of Carbon
Karin Kandananond et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Table 1. Electricity Use (listed by Buildings).
Building Monthly Electricity Usage (kWh)
January February March April May
Office of Learning Promotion and Provision Academic Services 12,432 18,084 23,289 12,820 27,237
Language and Computer Center 12,055 20,024 27,380 21,409 22,346
Demonstration School 1 80 240 0 0 0
Demonstration School 2 16,320 17,360 17,680 16,160 1,360
Demonstration School 3 23,212 27,911 33,458 12,250 17,834
Green House 16 25 29 25 32
Plant Genetics Preservation 245 378 543 579 643
Student Affairs Division 640 720 960 960 1,040
Faculty of Science and Technology (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 17,120 9,360 11,520 10,560 10,800
Faculty of Science and Technology (Home economics lecture
rooms/laboratory)
2,160 1,350 2,430 2,130 5,370
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 8,000 10,560 13,440 11,680 13,600
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Student government office) 3,120 4,800 5,600 5,240 5,240
Faculty of Industrial Technology 21,959 23,402 32,877 25,941 32,363
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Office and lecture rooms) 2,320 2,320 3,280 2,800 3,520
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Laboratories) 17,600 17,120 98,080 15,280 16,800
Faculty of Education 1 5,160 8,280 11,040 7,080 8,160
Faculty of Education 2 2,560 5,280 7,440 5,440 6,480
Faculty of Management Science 1 11,800 15,800 19,300 17,500 19,500
Faculty of Management Science 2 6,500 8,900 10,300 9,000 10,300
Faculty of Management Science 3 1,360 3,440 3,200 3,200 4,160
The University car fleet is composed of nine full-size commuter vans, two 4-wheel pickup trucks, one 6-wheel light
truck and two 45-seat coaches. The total number of fleet is fourteen. Five vans, out of nine, were assigned to be
operated by each faculty separately. The total traveling distance of the whole fleet (from January to May 2017) is
concluded in Table 2.
Table 2. Total Traveling Distance.
Vehicle Distance (km) Vehicle Distance (km)
Van#1 962 Van#8 1,850
Van#2 2,104 Van#9 2,002
Van#3 678 Pickup truck#1 882
Van#4 1,364 Pickup truck#2 1,042
Van#5 1,560 Light truck 170
Van#6 2,114 Coach#1 4,502
Van#7 1,714 Coach#2 3,498
According to the registrar office, the total number of students enrolled in the second semester (January to May 2017)
of the 2016 academic year is 10,365 as itemized in Table 3.
Table 3. Number of Students at Each Academic Level.
Level Number Level Number
Undergraduate (full-time) 7,823 Master 274
Undergraduate (part-time) 1,944 Doctoral 173
Extension 151 Total 10,365
4. Carbon Footprint Computation
The study framework in this research is limited to only the second semester of the 2016 academic year which is
ranged from January to May 2017. Moreover, the scope of GHG calculation in this study focuses only on two
categories of emissions, i.e., scope 1 and 2. For scope 1, it is the direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned
or controlled by the organization. At the University, the scope 1 emission is the mobile combustion which is the
combustion of fossil fuels used in the operation of vehicles. On the other hand, scope 2 emissions are the energy
indirect GHG which is the emissions due to the consumption of electricity. However, GHG emissions due to the
scope 3 source is neglected from the study since it is another indirect GHG emission source.
As a result, the GHG emissions sources used in this period are the electricity and the fossil fuel. The electricity is
100% supplied by the Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA) and the electrical loads are the air conditioning and
lighting system. On the other hand, the fossil fuel is for the transportation. As a result, the calculation of Carbon
Karin Kandananond et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Table 1. Electricity Use (listed by Buildings).
Building Monthly Electricity Usage (kWh)
January February March April May
Office of Learning Promotion and Provision Academic Services 12,432 18,084 23,289 12,820 27,237
Language and Computer Center 12,055 20,024 27,380 21,409 22,346
Demonstration School 1 80 240 0 0 0
Demonstration School 2 16,320 17,360 17,680 16,160 1,360
Demonstration School 3 23,212 27,911 33,458 12,250 17,834
Green House 16 25 29 25 32
Plant Genetics Preservation 245 378 543 579 643
Student Affairs Division 640 720 960 960 1,040
Faculty of Science and Technology (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 17,120 9,360 11,520 10,560 10,800
Faculty of Science and Technology (Home economics lecture
rooms/laboratory)
2,160 1,350 2,430 2,130 5,370
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 8,000 10,560 13,440 11,680 13,600
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Student government office) 3,120 4,800 5,600 5,240 5,240
Faculty of Industrial Technology 21,959 23,402 32,877 25,941 32,363
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Office and lecture rooms) 2,320 2,320 3,280 2,800 3,520
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Laboratories) 17,600 17,120 98,080 15,280 16,800
Faculty of Education 1 5,160 8,280 11,040 7,080 8,160
Faculty of Education 2 2,560 5,280 7,440 5,440 6,480
Faculty of Management Science 1 11,800 15,800 19,300 17,500 19,500
Faculty of Management Science 2 6,500 8,900 10,300 9,000 10,300
Faculty of Management Science 3 1,360 3,440 3,200 3,200 4,160
The University car fleet is composed of nine full-size commuter vans, two 4-wheel pickup trucks, one 6-wheel light
truck and two 45-seat coaches. The total number of fleet is fourteen. Five vans, out of nine, were assigned to be
operated by each faculty separately. The total traveling distance of the whole fleet (from January to May 2017) is
concluded in Table 2.
Table 2. Total Traveling Distance.
Vehicle Distance (km) Vehicle Distance (km)
Van#1 962 Van#8 1,850
Van#2 2,104 Van#9 2,002
Van#3 678 Pickup truck#1 882
Van#4 1,364 Pickup truck#2 1,042
Van#5 1,560 Light truck 170
Van#6 2,114 Coach#1 4,502
Van#7 1,714 Coach#2 3,498
According to the registrar office, the total number of students enrolled in the second semester (January to May 2017)
of the 2016 academic year is 10,365 as itemized in Table 3.
Table 3. Number of Students at Each Academic Level.
Level Number Level Number
Undergraduate (full-time) 7,823 Master 274
Undergraduate (part-time) 1,944 Doctoral 173
Extension 151 Total 10,365
4. Carbon Footprint Computation
The study framework in this research is limited to only the second semester of the 2016 academic year which is
ranged from January to May 2017. Moreover, the scope of GHG calculation in this study focuses only on two
categories of emissions, i.e., scope 1 and 2. For scope 1, it is the direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned
or controlled by the organization. At the University, the scope 1 emission is the mobile combustion which is the
combustion of fossil fuels used in the operation of vehicles. On the other hand, scope 2 emissions are the energy
indirect GHG which is the emissions due to the consumption of electricity. However, GHG emissions due to the
scope 3 source is neglected from the study since it is another indirect GHG emission source.
As a result, the GHG emissions sources used in this period are the electricity and the fossil fuel. The electricity is
100% supplied by the Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA) and the electrical loads are the air conditioning and
lighting system. On the other hand, the fossil fuel is for the transportation. As a result, the calculation of Carbon
Karin Kandananond et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
footprint caused by the activities of this University is divided into two sources. The GHG emission due to the
electricity used at the University campus is shown in Table 4. The emission factor (EF) for generating electricity is
0.609 kgCO2/kWh.
Table 4. GHG Emission from the Electricity Use from January to May 2017.
Building kWh kgCO2
Office of Learning Promotion and Provision Academic Services 93,862 57,190
Language and Computer Center 103,214 62,888
Demonstration School 1 320 195
Demonstration School 2 68,880 41,969
Demonstration School 3 114,665 69,865
Green House 127 77
Plant Genetics Preservation 2,388 1,455
Student Affairs Division 4,320 2,632
Faculty of Science and Technology (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 59,360 36,168
Faculty of Science and Technology (Home economics lecture rooms/laboratory) 13,440 8,189
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 57,280 34,901
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Student government office) 24,000 14,623
Faculty of Industrial Technology 136,542 83,195
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Office and lecture rooms) 14,240 8,676
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Laboratories) 164,880 100,461
Faculty of Education 1 39,720 24,201
Faculty of Education 2 27,200 16,573
Faculty of Management Science 1 83,900 51,120
Faculty of Management Science 2 45,000 27,419
Faculty of Management Science 3 15,360 9,359
Total 1,068,698 651,158
According to Table 4, the highest usage of electricity is at the faculty of agriculture technology followed by the
faculty of industrial technology. The total amount of electricity used from January to May 2017 is 1,068,698 kWh
which is equivalent to the GHG emission of 651,158 kgCO2. The calculation on Carbon footprint from the fossil
fuels used for transportation is shown in Table 5. The total emission according to the transportation from January to
May 2017 is 12,445 kgCO2. Since Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University is committed to educate student at the
undergraduate and graduate levels, the functional unit of this government agency is student. The total number of
students enrolled between January to May (functional unit) is 10,365. Therefore, the Carbon footprint of the
University is the total amount of GHG emission divided by the total number of student at the same period, i.e.,
Carbon footprint = (GHG emission from electricity use + GHG emission from the transportation)/number of student
= (651,158+12,445)/10,365 = 64.02 kgCO2/student.

Karin Kandananond / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 672–676 675
Karin Kandananond et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
footprint caused by the activities of this University is divided into two sources. The GHG emission due to the
electricity used at the University campus is shown in Table 4. The emission factor (EF) for generating electricity is
0.609 kgCO2/kWh.
Table 4. GHG Emission from the Electricity Use from January to May 2017.
Building kWh kgCO2
Office of Learning Promotion and Provision Academic Services 93,862 57,190
Language and Computer Center 103,214 62,888
Demonstration School 1 320 195
Demonstration School 2 68,880 41,969
Demonstration School 3 114,665 69,865
Green House 127 77
Plant Genetics Preservation 2,388 1,455
Student Affairs Division 4,320 2,632
Faculty of Science and Technology (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 59,360 36,168
Faculty of Science and Technology (Home economics lecture rooms/laboratory) 13,440 8,189
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Office and lecture hall/rooms) 57,280 34,901
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science (Student government office) 24,000 14,623
Faculty of Industrial Technology 136,542 83,195
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Office and lecture rooms) 14,240 8,676
Faculty of Agriculture Technology (Laboratories) 164,880 100,461
Faculty of Education 1 39,720 24,201
Faculty of Education 2 27,200 16,573
Faculty of Management Science 1 83,900 51,120
Faculty of Management Science 2 45,000 27,419
Faculty of Management Science 3 15,360 9,359
Total 1,068,698 651,158
According to Table 4, the highest usage of electricity is at the faculty of agriculture technology followed by the
faculty of industrial technology. The total amount of electricity used from January to May 2017 is 1,068,698 kWh
which is equivalent to the GHG emission of 651,158 kgCO2. The calculation on Carbon footprint from the fossil
fuels used for transportation is shown in Table 5. The total emission according to the transportation from January to
May 2017 is 12,445 kgCO2. Since Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University is committed to educate student at the
undergraduate and graduate levels, the functional unit of this government agency is student. The total number of
students enrolled between January to May (functional unit) is 10,365. Therefore, the Carbon footprint of the
University is the total amount of GHG emission divided by the total number of student at the same period, i.e.,
Carbon footprint = (GHG emission from electricity use + GHG emission from the transportation)/number of student
= (651,158+12,445)/10,365 = 64.02 kgCO2/student.

676 Karin Kandananond / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 672–676
Karin Kandananond et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Table 5. GHG Emission from the Transportation.
Vehicle Type Distance (km) Load (t) EF(kgCO2/tkm) kgCO2
Van#1 75% loading, normal terrain 962 1.5 0.239 345
Van#2 75% loading, normal terrain 2,104 1.5 0.239 754
Van#3 75% loading, normal terrain 678 1.5 0.239 243
Van#4 75% loading, normal terrain 1,364 1.5 0.239 489
Van#5 75% loading, normal terrain 1,560 1.5 0.239 559
Van#6 75% loading, normal terrain 2,114 1.5 0.239 758
Van#7 75% loading, normal terrain 1,714 1.5 0.239 614
Van#8 75% loading, normal terrain 1,850 1.5 0.239 663
Van#9 75% loading, normal terrain 2,002 1.5 0.239 718
Pickup truck#1 75% loading, normal terrain 882 4 0.1829 645
Pickup truck#2 75% loading, normal terrain 1,042 4 0.1829 762
Light truck 75% loading, normal terrain 170 8.5 0.0838 121
Coach#1 100% loading, normal terrain 4,502 16 0.0451 3,249
Coach#2 100% loading, normal terrain 3,498 16 0.0451 2,524
Total 12,445
5. Discussions
The GHG accounting of Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University is represented as the amount of emission per student.
This number depicts the amount of emission the University contributes for educating a student. However, in this
study, the researcher only focuses on the emissions related to the energy in the form of fuel and electricity
consumption, i.e., scope 1 and 2 category of emission. Therefore, other aspects of emissions due to the indirect
emissions, e.g., employee commuting, waste management, purchased goods and service, might be included in the
further study to get the complete picture of the GHG emission produced by the organization.
References
[1] Dubinsky J, Karunanithi AT. Greenhouse Gas Accounting of Rural Agrarian Regions: The Case of San Luis Valley. ACS Sustainable Chem
Eng 2017; 5(1):261-268.
[2] Hillman T, Ramaswami A. Greenhouse Gas Emission Footprints and Energy Use Benchmarks for Eight U.S. Cities. Environ Sci Technol
2010; 44(6):1902–1910.
[3] Yuanchao H, Lin J, Cui S, Khanna NZ. Measuring Urban Carbon Footprint from Carbon Flows in the Global Supply Chain. Environ Sci
Technol 2016; 50(12): 6154–6163.
[4] Dragomir, VD. The Disclosure of Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Critical Assessment of Corporate Sustainability Reports. J Clean
Prod 2012; 29-30: 222-237.
[5] Xuchao W, Priyadarsini R, Eang LS. Benchmarking Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Singapore’s Hotel industry. Energy Pol
2010; 38(8): 4520-4527.
[6] Lee, KH. Integrating Carbon Footprint into Supply Chain Management: the Case of Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) in the Automobile
Industry. J Clean Prod 2011; 19(11): 1216-1223.
[7] Plambeck, EL. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Operations and Supply Chain Management. Energ Econ 2012; 34(1): S64-S74.
[8] Hoffmann VH, Busch T. Corporate Carbon Performance Indicators: Carbon Intensity, Dependency, Exposure, and Risk. J Ind Ecol 2008;
12(4): 505-520.
[9] Busch T. Corporate Carbon Performance Indicators Revisited. J Ind Ecol 2010; 14(3): 374-377.