part 3: methodology report reducing the environmental … ep priority products part3... · part 3:...
Post on 12-Mar-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Part 3: Methodology Report
Reducing the environmental and
cost impacts of electrical products
The methodology used in the research project for the Product Sustainability Forum to identify, quantify and understand the environmental impacts of electrical products sold on the UK market. Followed by appendices.
Project code: RNF200-010 Research date: July – October 2011 Date: November 2012
The PSF is a collaboration of 80+ organisations made up of grocery and home improvement retailers and suppliers, academics, NGOs and UK Government representatives. It’s a platform for these organisations to measure, reduce and communicate the environmental performance of the grocery and home improvement products bought in the UK. Further information about the Forum can be found at www.wrap.org.uk/psf. Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]
Written by: Will Schreiber, Richard Sheane, Leigh Holloway
Analysis by: Kevin Lewis, Aida Cierco, Dr. Andrew Bodey, Xana Villa Garcia, Sam Matthews
Edited by: Justin French-Brooks and Anthea Carter
Front cover photography: [Add description or title of image.]
While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in
connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is
accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or
suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk.
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 3
Contents
1.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Market analysis and product coverage ..................................................................................... 6
1.2 GHG emissions and energy use ............................................................................................... 7
1.2.1 Approach 1 – process-based hotspots analysis ........................................................... 8
1.2.2 Approach 2 – EEIO-based analysis ............................................................................ 9
1.3 Materials and waste ............................................................................................................. 11
1.4 Water ................................................................................................................................. 13
1.5 Market data ........................................................................................................................ 14
1.5.1 Retail sales ........................................................................................................... 15
1.5.2 Estimation methods .............................................................................................. 15
1.6 Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................... 16
Appendix 1 Category GHG emissions ................................................................................................... 30
Appendix 2 Category energy consumption .......................................................................................... 36
Appendix 3 Category material aggregation ......................................................................................... 40
Appendix 4 Quantified reduction opportunities ................................................................................... 45
Appendix 5 Category material profiles ................................................................................................. 51
Appendix 6 Material summary table ..................................................................................................... 63
Appendix 7 Market data ........................................................................................................................ 71
Appendix 8 Category resources ............................................................................................................ 76
List of Tables Table 1 Approaches to assessing UK-level environmental hotspots ................................................................... 7
Table 2 Material risk assessment matrix ....................................................................................................... 13
Table 3 Water intensity risk matrix (left) and water scarcity risk matrix (right) ................................................. 14
Table 4 Sensitivity analysis methodology ...................................................................................................... 16
Table 5 Qualitative sensitivity analysis of EPs assessed in this research ........................................................... 19
Table 6 Total lifecycle GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year .............................................. 30
Table 7 Category lifecycle emissions broken down by B2B and B2C sales ........................................................ 32
Table 8 Total embodied (+waste) GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year ............................. 34
Table 9 EEIO vs. ‘bottom-up’ (BFF) analysis – areas of disagreement ............................................................. 35
Table 10 Total lifecycle energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year .................................... 36
Table 11 Comparison of boundaries and scope of EST and WRAP studies........................................................ 37
Table 12 Comparison of energy requirements of EST and WRAP studies ......................................................... 37
Table 13 Total embodied (+ waste) energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year .................. 38
Table 14 Total weight of EPs placed on the market in one year ...................................................................... 40
Table 15 Comparison of Environment Agency and WRAP Study material weight estimates by WEEE category .... 41
List of Figures Figure 1 Lifecycle stages and environmental impact indicators for EPs .............................................................. 6
Figure 2 EP category scaling methodology with an example television category scaling process .......................... 8
Figure 3 Comparison between accounting methodologies for GHG emissions and energy use............................ 10
Figure 4 Material concentration calculation process ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 5 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s assessment on areas of physical and economic water scarcity . 14
Figure 6 Full lifecycle GHG footprint uncertainty for top 10 high-confidence products ....................................... 16
Figure 7 Embodied GHG footprint uncertainty for top 10 high-confidence products .......................................... 17
Figure 8 Total lifecycle GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year . Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 9 Total embodied (+waste) GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year.... Error! Bookmark
not defined.
Figure 10 Total lifecycle energy consumption for one year of product sales (TJ) .............................................. 36
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 4
Figure 11 Annual energy contribution of new EPs to UK electricity demands .................................................... 38
Figure 12 Total embodied (+ waste) energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year (TJ) –
excludes use phase .................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 13 Total weight of EPs placed on the market in one year ..................................................................... 40
Figure 14 Comparison of embodied materials and those consumed during product lifetimes ............................. 42
Figure 15 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (>1,000 tonnes total material)...... 43
Figure 16 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (100-1,000 tonnes total material) . 43
Figure 17 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (<100 tonnes total material) ........ 44
Glossary
B2B business-to-business
B2C business-to-consumer
CCFL cold-cathode fluorescent lamp
CE consumer electronics
CFL compact fluorescent lamp
CRT cathode ray tube
DECC Department for Energy and Climate Change
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
EEIO environmentally extended input / output
EP electrical product
ErP energy-related products
EST Energy Saving Trust
EuP energy-using products
FIT feed-in tariff
GHG greenhouse gas
GWh gigawatt hour
HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning
ICT information and communications technology
IJ inkjet (printer)
IO input / output
ktCO2e thousand tonnes carbon dioxide-equivalent
LCA lifecycle assessment
LCD liquid crystal display
LED light emitting diode
MtCO2e million tonnes carbon dioxide-equivalent
MTP Defra Market Transformation Programme
OLED organic light emitting diode
PC personal computer
PCB printed circuit board
PCR product category rules
PDP plasma display panel
PGM platinum group metals
PRODCOM Products of the European Community
PV photovoltaic
PVR personal video recorder
RoHS restriction of hazardous substances
STB set-top box
TFT thin film transistor
TJ terajoule
WEEE waste electrical and electronic equipment
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 5
Acknowledgements
Stakeholders contributed from a range of industry sectors, including manufacturers, facility managers and e-
waste handlers. The following organisations supported the project by providing their knowledge, guidance and
data to improve the analysis and recommendations presented in this document:
B&Q
Computer Aid
Inman
Interserve
ISE
Morphy Richards
MITIE
Panasonic
Reliance FM
Panasonic
Sainsbury’s
Skanska
Sony
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 6
1.0 Methodology
This research assessed the environmental impacts of a selection of electrical products (EPs) using five widely
used metrics:
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
energy use;
material use;
waste production; and
water use.
For each of the five environmental impact metrics, direct and indirect aspects were included where the data
allowed. Impacts from both upstream (e.g. raw material extraction) and downstream (e.g. use phase) activities
were included wherever possible. Full supply-chain coverage was found to be strongest for GHG emissions, due
to methodology maturity and global research output, and much less available for other impact areas.
The environmental hotspots of EPs were then assessed, where hotspots are defined as the most significant
impacts across the lifecycle of a product or product group, according to each of the five environmental impact
indicators. This is shown in Figure 1 below.
Raw
materials Manufacturing Distribution Use End of Life Unit
Greenhouse gases
emitted
kgCO2e
Energy used
MJ
Materials used
Kg
Waste produced
Kg
Water used
Litre
Figure 1 Lifecycle stages and environmental impact indicators for EPs
Secondary data sources provided the data for this project. These sources ranged from:
best case, full coverage: a set of lifecycle studies from the EU Eco-design Directive,1 which covered most
product categories and all environmental indicators; to
partial coverage: one-off, individual product studies which only report on one environmental indicator, e.g.
kettle energy use (WRAP LCA Summary sheets), or only report on one environmental indicator over the whole
lifecycle, with no breakdown into stages, e.g. batteries (Buchert et al., 2010).
The variability in cross-metric studies, in particular the scaling of materials for products not assessed through the
LCA process, resulted in multiple research methodologies being applied. The main drawback with the adopted
approach is that there are a limited number of sufficient quality data sets available to allow for a full multi-metric
assessment for all impact categories. The comparability, and completeness, across environmental metrics is
therefore inconsistent. This was overcome by using different aggregation methods for each impact and taking a
normalisation approach to scaling impacts.
1.1 Market analysis and product coverage
Product impacts have been calculated for all EPs where market data is available to support the analysis. For the
majority there is no universal source of market data covering all EPs placed on the UK market. The absence of
data means that it cannot currently be determined what the total EP footprint is from a ‘bottom-up’ calculation.
Similarly, a ‘top-down’ calculation is not possible since imported emissions through international product
manufacturing are not accounted for in national GHG inventories. Instead, the research has focused on the data
that is available, and this has been principally through market reports (e.g. Mintel, AMA Research). Where these
1 EC 2011
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 7
data were not available, discrete studies were included if available (e.g. Defra’s Market Transformation
Programme (MTP), and previous WRAP research reports). Despite these gaps, all of the primary EPs identified as
significant through past DECC research have been included.2
Box 1 Toys and sports equipment
Toys (excluding video game consoles) and sporting equipment have not been assessed due to data limitations
and categorisation challenges inherent in the industry. Many products classified in this manner often contain small
electrical parts (e.g. lights, motors or electronics), and current retail reporting does not provide sufficient detail to
enable a proper categorisation of these products in the EP categorisation.
It is possible that these products may present a sizeable material impact in the UK economy due to the number of
units being placed on the market and their characteristic fast moving build quality. While their total contribution
to the UK’s EP footprint may not be significant, due to the size and composition of the other products included in
the sector, it is recommended that this area be further investigated through a discrete research project. For
example, in 2006 the number of ‘youth electronics’ sold in the UK was 5 million units,3 which is more than three
times the number of household desktop PCs sold in 2009.
1.2 GHG emissions and energy use
Grouping EPs according to their dominant technological characteristics enabled the rapid classification and scaling
of individual product impacts to an entire category of like-profile products. The methodology accounts for the
unique attributes of individual product characteristics while enabling the scaling needed to provide an economy-
wide impact of the selected products.
A two-tiered methodology was applied to calculate the total UK hotspots of EPs purchased in the UK: a process-
based approach and an environmentally extended input / output (EEIO) approach. Table 1 provides an overview
of the two methodologies and their use in the project, while Box 2 provides additional explanation.
Approach Data requirements Pros Cons
1. Process-
based analysis
combining
product
volume and
footprint data
Product-level UK sales
volumes are combined
with category-level
environmental impact
data to create total UK
footprint e.g. kgCO2e
per laptop and total
number of laptops. Much
in the same way as an
organisation might
undertake an analysis of
its supply chain.
This approach allows for
individual lifecycle stages to be
scaled to category-level
analysis for UK hotspots.
Individual phases, such as
product weight and use
scenarios, can be adjusted to
account for unique product
characteristic scaling.
There are a number of
disadvantages of this approach.
These include: insufficient product
lifecycle data to cover all categories;
inconsistent accounting
methodologies between different
sources; insufficient sales volume
data for some retail sectors; mixed
functional units can hamper efforts
to scale to national consumption;
using this bottom-up approach
there is also significant potential to
double-count emissions.
2. Use of EEIO
values
combining
sector footprint
data with sales
value data
This approach requires
that all products are
categorised into a sector
category to have their
base cost, excluding VAT
and margins, applied to
national GHG inventory
data sets.
This rapid approach allows for
general EEIO categories to
indicate the general GHG
impacts associated with the
supply of goods and services.
EEIO is only appropriate for initial
GHG impact assessment. While it
provides the scale of emissions in a
sector, it does not allow a number
of things such as: lifecycle
breakdown; multi-metric impacts;
accounting for product distinctions
(e.g. weight/size). It is solely based
on the economic value of products
and does not provide adequate
coverage for product categorisation.
Table 1 Approaches to assessing UK-level environmental hotspots
2 Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) 3 Toy Retailers Association (2006)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 8
Box 2 An explanation of footprint accounting methodologies
A two-tiered approach using distinct methodologies enables a ‘check and balance’ verification of the hotspots
work being applied. Each approach offers its unique advantages and has been used in the project to check the
accuracy of the category scaling methodology utilised in the analysis.
Process-based approach4: A process-based approach itemises materials, energy resources, emissions and
wastes for a given step in producing a product. It is based on actual physical inputs and outputs of a process.
Input-output approach5: EEIO analysis uses country-level GHG inventories and market information to allocate
domestic emissions to market sectors. They estimate energy or emissions that result from production from direct
and upstream supply chain activities.
Footprint practitioners will often apply a hybrid approach to footprints when accounting for products or services
where no primary data are available beyond financial data (e.g. supply-chain inputs).
The combination of these two methodologies allows for the calculation of detailed hotspot analyses at the
lifecycle level, while checking the output results against ‘reasonable estimates’ provided through EEIO values.
1.2.1 Approach 1 – process-based hotspots analysis In this approach, existing LCA studies were gathered for each EP category. The number of adequate LCAs that
provide detailed assessment of EPs is limited. The category approach to EPs provides an opportunity to overcome
these gaps and identify the primary hotspots by converting the available studies into scalable components. Figure
2 below provides an overview of how individual LCAs were normalised, applied and scaled to the UK market,
using televisions as an example.
Figure 2 EP category scaling methodology with an example television category scaling process
Prior to LCA data collection, a literature review was done to assess the availability of category studies and to learn
from their approaches (see Appendix 8). This review indicated that products grouped within the same category
often had similar impact profiles across lifecycle stages and would be appropriate for scaling to other products
within the same category. Where this was not appropriate, due to significant process or impact variables, a new
category was created.
4 http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCAapproaches.html 5 http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/ghg-protocol-product-standard-draft-november-20101.pdf
Product LCA
• Multi-metric lifecycle stage impacts
Normalised Impacts
• Impacts standardised to per kg of product
Category Application
• Unique product weight multiplied by normalised impact
• Unique use scenario
Market Analysis
• Total products placed on the market
Television
• Full product LCA for 32inch LCD sold in Europe.
Conversion to per kg impact
• 3,291 MJ per television / 23.16kg
Category 1 Profile
• Average product weight (10.7 kg) x television impacts per kg
• 313 kWh/year x 10 years of life per unit
Total Televisions and Monitors Sold
• 9,943,000 units x Category 1 profile
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 9
The main drawback with this approach, as noted in the table above, is that there is a limited number of sufficient
quality data sets available to allow for a full multi-metric assessment for all impact categories. The comparability,
and completeness, across metrics is therefore inconsistent. However, in assessing hotspots through this process,
specific category, and by extension product, reduction opportunities within categories can be identified.
EP volume data was sourced from market reports, industry, and government publications, programmes and
statistics – principally Mintel and PRODCOM databases and the Defra Market Transformation Programme. A
summary of this data is presented in Appendix 7.
Choosing lifecycle data
As the project required the input of many researchers across many different product categories, a framework for
choosing data was drawn up and circulated early on. Given that data gaps were anticipated and coverage needed
over a wide variety of sectors, a hierarchy was developed whereby sources could be assessed and chosen if they
met the following characteristics:
1. Transparent – clear document boundaries, key assumptions -
o Only data in tables or text has been used (i.e. estimates are not used from charts).
2. Representative of UK consumption e.g. average asset life and use patterns of television use.
3. Recent - less than 5 years old.
4. Detailed – splits results by brand owner lifecycle stages -
o Materials – Cradle to final manufacturer incoming gate;
o Production – the formation of final product e.g. computer;
o Distribution – final manufacturer gate to retail (point of sale);
o Use – consumer activity; and
o Disposal – final disposal of waste product.
5. Complete – cradle-to-grave, but if not available then research gap will be highlighted.
6. Credible – externally reviewed or verified.
7. Standards consistent – adheres to PAS2050 or ISO14040.
8. Reports more than one metric – to enable improved inter-metric consistency.
9. Uses one of the following specific impact assessment methods (no normalising & weighting, i.e.
environmental impact potentials) -
o GHGs – kgCO2e, IPCC 2007 GWP100;
o Energy – MJ, total Cumulative Energy Demand;
o Waste – kg land filling waste (total) (EDIP 1997 or 2003);
o Water – m3; or
o Material use – kg resources, (EDIP 1997 or 2003) ‘resource consumption’.
1.2.2 Approach 2 – EEIO-based analysis Sufficient product-level market information was available to allow for an EEIO-based hotspots analysis. This
approach was used as a way of validating the selected process-based impact results with high level GHG analysis.
Although this method only validates the GHG impact metric of the analysis, all process-based calculations have
followed the same methodology.
Economic input output (IO) tables map the economic flows between sectors in an economy. When these tables
are combined with environmental data for each industry sector, an EEIO analysis is possible. The results express
the environmental load per unit of financial output of a sector (at producer prices), e.g. kgCO2e/£ of digital
cameras. As a ‘top-down’ approach, EEIO allows a complete allocation of all activities to all products, and has the
advantage of being complete with regard to inclusion of all relevant activities related to a product (i.e. when you
use input-output data it is not necessary to make cut-offs to exclude part of the product system).
The disadvantage of EEIO for LCA is that processes are relatively aggregated, i.e. at the level of product groups
rather than individual products. EEIO also cannot deal with very specific questions, since it relies on a grouping of
activities in a limited number of industries. Furthermore, the necessary environmental statistics are not always
available, which means that for some environmental exchanges, adequate information may be missing or old.
A diagram showing the relationship between the two accounting methodologies is presented in Figure 3 below,
while Box 2 expands upon them further.
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 10
Figure 3 Comparison between accounting methodologies for GHG emissions and energy use
Box 2 GHG and energy calculation processes
Process-based Approach (Production impacts)
multiply “Production impacts per mass” by “Mass of products”
Production impacts per mass: Using LCAs and other resources identified during the first phase of the project, determine the production impact footprint, excluding use-phase, per product mass for each EP category as defined in the categorisation. Identified impacts are materials, energy, GHG, water, and waste.
Mass of products: Using PRODCOM data, a proxy of monetary value per kilogram of EPs purchased is created to determine the total mass, by category, of EPs that are manufactured or retailed in the UK. Where data gaps exist for certain categories, product weight sampling will be carried out and used as a proxy for the category.
Input / Output Approach (Production impacts)
multiply “Production impacts per value” by “Value of products”
Production impacts per value: Map each EP category as defined in the categorisation to each of the five EP categories found in the input / output tables published by Defra/DECC to determine the GHG footprint per product value.
Value of products: Determine the total value, by category, of EPs that are manufactured or retailed in the UK using available PRODCOM and retail sales data.
Use Impacts
multiply “Use impacts per unit” by “Units of products”
Use impacts per unit: Using Product Category Rules (PCRs), which provide specific guidance on how product impacts should be assessed, and other resources identified during the first phase of the project, determine the use-phase impact footprint per product unit for each EP category as defined in the categorisation. Identified impacts are materials, energy, GHG, water, and waste.
Units of products: Determine the total units, by category, of EPs that are manufactured or retailed in the UK using available MINTEL and AMA research reports and/or MTP projections.
Aggregated Impacts
add “Production impacts” and “Use impacts”
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 11
Product impacts = (Production impacts by weight of product ≈ Production impacts by value of product) +
Use Impacts
Market impacts = Product impacts x market volume
EP Category impacts = Market impact + Other product market impacts
Impact scaling takes place for each metric split by lifecycle stage, if possible.
Scaling lifecycle impacts through this process assumes that the impacts associated with a product will increase or
decrease through a linear relationship to the weight of the original product (i.e. a 25% heavier product type in
the same category will also have 25% greater impacts). Although this may be an incorrect assumption that may
result in an over or underestimated footprint, the product categorisation and ‘average impact’ approach employed
largely mitigates the potential errors while providing a suitable estimate for identifying category hotspots.
This model and approach is sufficiently supported by industry and stakeholders to allow for the analysis to be
considered suitably reflective of UK EP hotspots for GHG and energy requirements throughout product category
lifecycles.6 A high-level sensitivity and sense check analysis of the key findings is available below. As a result of
these checks, the authors are confident the hotspots analysis is a reasonable estimate of the impacts of products
across categories, but it is not a footprint from which a baseline can be established.
The process described in this section was uniformly applied to all EP group categories due to the processes,
materials and energy requirements being largely technology-based in accordance with the product group
categorisation.
1.3 Materials and waste Unlike the GHG and energy hotspot LCA profile, material hotspots are not necessarily those areas where
consumption is greatest but rather where material impacts and risk are most significant. To get to this level of
detail it was necessary to go beyond standard LCA material inventories, which are inconsistent and are at a
higher material level, and look towards a comparable material concentration list for each EP category (see
Appendix 5). Impacts associated with materials were calculated by scaling representative product category
composition from WEEE collections to the market and EP categories presented in the report.
Estimates of the total embodied material content of EPs purchased within the UK market were developed by
combining two types of data:
average material content of different WEEE categories disposed of in 2005;7 and
assumptions on total product units sold in the UK and typical unit weights.
Likely changes in industry material use have been highlighted in this study. Of particular note is the declining use
of wood and glass in WEEE Category 4a Consumer Electronics (e.g. TVs, audio equipment); and the displacement
of CFCs with other substances e.g. HFCs. However, the key findings and results discussed within this research
were deemed to be sufficiently robust to enable high-level decision-making and produce a category review.
6 A comparison of calculated embodied GHG emissions using this process-based approach and that from an environmental economic input-output analysis is available Appendix 1.
7 Average material content extrapolated from United Nations University (2008).
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 12
Total product material presence (i.e. not broken down by individual materials) was calculated by determining
average product weights for each category. These values were derived from the preparatory studies for the EU
Eco-Design Directive, Defra, FCRN and product sampling.
Figure 4 describes the process used to calculate the material concentrations within each EP category, while Box 4
below explains the material impact calculation process.
Figure 4 Material concentration calculation process
Box 3 Material impact calculation process
WEEE Category Conversion: Divide ‘material’ by ‘category average product weight’
Material: name of material identified in WEEE category. Category average product weight: category average product weight composing the material
quantities (g) stated in WEEE report.
Material weight scaled to product: Multiply ‘category average material weight’ by ‘product weight’
Category average material weight: average material presence (g) per kilogram of WEEE
category. Product weight: average weight of product based on the market analysis.
Material weight scaled to annual volumes: Multiply ‘product material weight’ by ‘annual sales’
Product material weight: weight of material presence in product. Annual sales: number of units sold in the UK market.
Add ‘annual materials’ for each EP group
Annual materials: total materials placed on the market across EP groups.
Material risk assessment
A literature review and secondary analysis of the environmental and supply risks of key materials was
undertaken, drawing on a significant bodies of work recently published on this topic (e.g. European Commission
(2010), AEAT (2010), British Geological Survey (2011), GHGm (2008), Oakdene Hollins (2011)). Information was
extracted from these sources to produce the raw materials summary table (Appendix 6). Raw materials were
assessed for three types of risk: supply, water and carbon. An index was established for each of these risks, each
index ranging from 0 to 10. Although carbon is included in this table, it is indicative only of ‘risk’ in terms of
environmental impact and does not necessarily result in a supply-chain risk. (See Table 2 below).
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 13
Material Risk ranking Carbon ranking Water ranking
Name of
material
Supply risk indices from British Geological
Survey8 and European Commission9 were
normalised and averaged to make our
supply risk index.
Ecoinvent material values for
kg CO2e/kg. Distribution of
exponential EP factor values.
Scarcity to intensity
ratio.
Table 2 Material risk assessment matrix
1.4 Water Very little is currently understood about the total water impacts of EPs. This gap is partly due to the immaturity of
footprinting methodologies, uncertainty around how water footprints will benefit users and broader data
availability issues related to supply-chain transparency and data sharing. Unlike materials, energy and GHG,
which are consumed and emitted in a global pool, water is largely a local resource issue. The primary concern
with a water footprint is whether or not the water that is consumed by a process comes from a source that can
sustain its extraction.
Given the uncertainties, lack of comparability and broader aims of identifying the hotspots for EPs, research was
carried out into specific material impacts that were identified as significant to EPs through the material
assessment. The mining sector, in particular, consumes high volumes of water, which might be subject to water
regulations due to water scarcity.10 Governments are increasingly targeting the mining sector for further action
due to the potentially high polluting process associated with processing ore. Research into water impacts
therefore was aimed at studying the main EP materials impact on world water resources based on their likely
origin of primary production.
The seventeen materials assessed for water risk are:
EP materials, such as metals, remain a new area of water assessment. While agricultural processes are
increasingly becoming the target of water assessments, this same focus has not yet been extended to other
sectors. After completing a literature review11 it was determined that the best available data for understanding
material water intensity rates are presented in the EcoInvent v2.2 database.12
Water intensity was then linked to material production locations to determine whether or not there was a water
risk in utilising the material. Both economic scarcity, the cost of accessing water, and physical water scarcity, the
actual presence of the resource, were considered using the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s
comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture study.
Although the UN study is related to economic water scarcity for farmers, rather than material extraction and
processing, it is treated as being indicative of general water stress within a region. A balanced approach was
taken between economic and water scarcity when determining whether a material risk was present.
8 British Geological Survey (2011) 9 European Commission (2010) 10 For example, the Australian National Water Commission (2011) recently completed an assessment on how to address water requirements from the mining industry through revisions to the planning process. 11 For example, W. J. Rankin, 2011. Minerals, Metals and Sustainability: Meeting Future Material Needs. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. discusses the water consumption and material production requirements for just five of the metals of interest. The outcomes of this study are consistent with other data sources used in the analysis. 12 For further information see http://www.ecoinvent.ch/
Aluminium Gold Palladium (Platinum) Steel
Antimony Indium Plastics Tin
Cobalt Iron Rare Earths
Copper Magnesium Silicon
Gallium Nickel Silver
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 14
Figure 5 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s assessment on areas of physical and economic water scarcity
Water intensity and scarcity data points were then combined to categorise whether or not a material presented a
water supply-risk using the following metrics, as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3 Water intensity risk matrix (left) and water scarcity risk matrix (right)
1.5 Market data
There is no single source of market data covering EPs within the UK. The closest data source to having total
product placement each year is the Environment Agency’s waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
register. However, UK regulations only require top-level category volume and weight data for each category; this
level of reporting is insufficient for market analysis as it groups products together based on 13 broad categories
of product type rather than product environmental attributes, value or end-of-life material recovery potential.
Other data sources provide a range of assessment metrics for analysis. Many of these sources are not related to
one another and have differing methodologies, authors and product-level information. For instance, while retail
reports may be available for ‘small kitchen appliances’, the detailed breakdown of products within this category
may not be reported at the same level. Specialist market data sources have been used to conduct the market
analysis. These discrete sector studies focus on particular market segments and are useful for understanding
broad retail-based sales for a range of EPs.
Data has been gathered for ‘finished products’ only. Manufacture, trade and retail sales of electronic components
(e.g. wiring devices, loaded electronic boards, electronic components, photosensitive semiconductor devices) and
stand-alone electric motors, generators and transformers are excluded.
Water consumed
Rank l/kg
5 >300,000
4 1,000-300,000
3 100-1,000
2 10-100
1 0-10
Water Scarcity Rank
Physical water scarcity 4
Approaching physical water scarcity 3
Economic water scarcity 2
Little or no water scarcity 1
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 15
1.5.1 Retail sales Selected product UK retail sales are reported by market intelligence companies (e.g. MINTEL, AMA). Additional
retail values have been taken from discrete sources, such as the MTP, for a number of categories to account for
UK EP sales.
Market reports are preferred over MTP data due to MTP sales volumes being primarily estimates, i.e. they do not
refer to actual market data. Where research reports have not contained the requisite market information, sales
volumes from MTP reports, industry partners and category market studies have been used. A complete list of
sources is available in Appendix 8.
Data quality is reduced where volume and value data points are extracted from different sources and/or data
years. Volume/values from different years should not be compared without applying a suitable adjustment factor
to account for variable market trends and inflation. None of the figures presented have been adjusted.
Although market reports do not consistently provide the value/weight of products placed on the market, these
numbers have been estimated using current market information. There will be discrepancies between the source
average product weights/values and the combined market figures from a different data year sourced from
research reports. For example, the home audio/hi-fi volume estimate is based on 2006 value estimates and 2011
research on average retail sales values per item. This issue also applies to volume estimates for PC peripherals,
domestic electric heating, non-domestic heating accessories, ventilation and electronic security & access control.
1.5.2 Estimation methods Weights
Product category weights were scaled from average weights per category item (for retail sales) or product item
(PRODCOM) using volume sales data. Retail sales category definitions and PRODCOM product definitions guided
the initial process.
Weight estimation calculation, where multiple product sizes are present in category (e.g.
televisions)
Average weight = ∑ [(Category 1 product weight x proportion placed on market), (Category 2…)]
Volumes
Most volume data points were extracted from research reports, but where a gap existed:
1. the product category was split into its constituent product items and retail sales values calculated for each
based on market segmentation by value (provided by AMA research report);
2. identified representative products for each item and gathered a sufficient sample size;
3. calculated an average value per item (£);
4. applied the formula: volume = total item retail sales value/average value per item; and
5. arrived at a volume estimate.
Volume estimation calculation
Volume = Retail value
Estimated retail value per item
Values
Where volume information was not available, product definition and constituent item volumes were sourced from
MTP reports. This was followed by the collection of value information per item and finally, the combination of
average values per item and retail sales data to estimate total market value.
Value estimation calculation
Value = ∑ [(Product 1 average value per item x retail sales), (Product 2…)]
Total number of products
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 16
1.6 Sensitivity analysis
A high-level sensitivity analysis indicates that the methodology and processes described in this section are
sufficient in providing a hotspots footprint for the UK consumption of EPs.
The sensitivity analysis assessed GHG footprint uncertainty for each of the top 10 products identified as UK
embodied footprint hotspots for which the authors have high confidence in the results. Given the limited number
of footprint studies for these products and the high variability of consumer use, the focus of the analysis was
concentrated on the key areas likely to cause uncertainty. Table 4 below sets out the sensitivity analysis
methodology.
Uncertainty Factor Assessment Method Process
Footprint variability Quantitative Embodied Footprint (cradle-to-consumer + end-of-life)
Lowest and highest product footprint studies per
product.
Consumer Use
Lowest and highest annual energy consumption of
products within the grouping.
Qualitative Description of key technologies and variables that may
result in a higher or lower footprint of products within
the product group.
Product group variability Qualitative Description of the overall comparability of products
being represented in a product grouping.
Mapping to EP
classification
Qualitative Description of the suitability of the product group and
the footprint being applied to its EP category.
Table 4 Sensitivity analysis methodology
Figure 6 below shows the uncertainty of the footprints associated with the top 10 high-confidence product groups
across their full lifecycle. Although there is potentially significant variability in some product groups (e.g.
commercial lighting), the overall ranking and scale of the footprints remains relatively the same as the hotspots
analysis. The exception to this is non-domestic centrifugal fans, which have a high level of uncertainty.
Figure 6 Full lifecycle GHG footprint uncertainty for top 10 high-confidence products
Figure 7 below shows the uncertainty of the embodied footprints (cradle-to-consumer and end-of-life) associated
with the top 10 high-confidence product groups. Like the full lifecycle assessment, the overall conclusions drawn
in the report are consistent with the revised assessment based on the scaled lowest and highest footprint studies
available for each of the product groups. However, a general limitation of this analysis is the limited data
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
An
nu
al
Fo
otp
rin
t (M
tCO
2e
)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 17
available for some product groups. In terms of the embodied footprints, this is most significant for vacuum
cleaners.
Figure 7 Embodied GHG footprint uncertainty for top 10 high-confidence products
Key notes on quantitative uncertainty:
1. The low value presented for televisions was taken from an environmental data sheet of a TFT LCD
monitor. These data are not considered robust, and the value is substantially lower than peer reviewed
studies (e.g. EuP preparatory assessments, WRAP). It is likely that the embodied television footprint has
been underestimated using the scaling model in this study as a result of the substantial reduction in
product weight of screen technologies over the past five years impacting the footprint per kg model
applied. It is likely that the average television screen has an embodied footprint between 150-400
kgCO2e. The model used in this analysis resulted in a per-screen footprint of approximately 80kgCO2e.
2. Variability is unknown for some product groups due to limited footprint study availability. The product
groups affected by this are refrigerated display cabinets and vacuum cleaners.
3. Only one footprint study was available for assessing uncertainty of the following products: domestic
lighting – fluorescent; laptops; and fridges. These footprints do not have error bars present for this
reason.
4. Washing machines appear to have a higher footprint than that estimated using the EP category model.
This variance is present because footprints of washing machines and tumble dryers were combined to
calculate the EP category model footprint per kg.
The qualitative analysis provided below in Table 5 describes the key areas of uncertainty for each of the product
groups assessed in this study. Uncertainty is discussed for the following areas:
Group comparability
All product groups are provided from market reports and therefore do not necessarily make distinctions
between technologies, brands or use characteristics. This column reviews how comparable products are within the product category.
Footprint representativeness
The emissions profile applied to each product category to calculate its footprint is based on a representative,
or average, product within the category. This column reviews the impact of this grouping on the final results.
Additional columns in the table provide context and relevant assumptions applied in the analysis:
Category – EP category.
Product – Product group name.
Footprint Group Map – Source of footprint profile applied to the EP category.
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000A
nn
ual
Fo
otp
rin
t (k
tCO
2e)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 18
Annual Energy Consumption – Estimated annual energy consumption used to calculate UK use-phase
emissions.
Asset Life – Estimated number of years the product is in use.
Source – Data sources used to provide annual energy consumption and asset life.
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 19
Table 5 Qualitative sensitivity analysis of EPs assessed in this research
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group
Map Footprint Representativeness Annual
Energy Consumpti
on (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
1 Televisions
Televisions Heterogeneous. TV sets present a low variability in terms of functionality; however they come in different sizes and technologies, such as LCD and PDP; this can significantly impact on their energy consumption and efficiency.
Blend of LCD, PDP and CRT screens and sizes
Good estimate. The data used cover some of the most common technologies used (CRT, LCD, Plasma screen) and are expected to be a good match for the group.
313.3 10 EuP Preparatory Studies "Televisions" (Lot 5) Final Report, August 2007
Non-domestic monitors
Heterogeneous. As for domestic televisions.
313.3 10 EuP Preparatory Studies "Televisions" (Lot 5) Final Report, August 2007
2 Laptops Laptop Heterogeneous. Laptops present a low variability in terms of components, which include a display, a keyboard, a processing board, hard drive, CD/DVD drive, external power supply, rechargeable battery, cooling fan. However they can
differ significantly in terms of power consumption, battery capacity, speed, etc. The impact from the use phase is likely to present a high variability.
Laptop Good estimate. This category covers only one type of product and is mapped against a laptop.
60.7 5.6 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 3 - Personal computers (desktops and laptops) and computer monitors, Final report, August 2007
Non-domestic laptops
Heterogeneous. As for domestic laptops.
60.7 5.6 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 3 - Personal computers (desktops and laptops) and computer monitors, Final report,
August 2007
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 20
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
3 Other Display-based Electronics
Mobile phones Heterogeneous. Various technologies, from basic phones to smartphones with various components such as cameras, screens or touchscreen of
various sizes and resolutions, speakers, high storage capacity, etc. This impacts significantly the power consumption of the phone.
Smartphone and tablet (iPhone4, iPod Touch, MacBook, iPad, Nokia X7)
Overestimated. The group is mapped against a blend of smartphones and tablets; these devices are the most complex of the category, and are
likely to have the most significant impacts. They accurately represent sophisticated MP3 players, which have similar characteristics to smartphones. The impact of the other products, such as basic mobile phones, basic MP3 players and PDAs, is overestimated.
6.5 2 WRAP, Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA
PDAs Relatively homogeneous. PDAs typically include similar equipment: a touch screen, a memory card, a connectivity device. They are considered largely obsolete and replaced by smartphones.
1.9 2 Estimate
4 Complex Processing Electronics
Desktop PCs Heterogeneous. Desktop PCs can include a broad range of specifications. The power consumption is variable, depending on the characteristics of the PC.
Simple set-top box, Combined simple set-top box / PVR, desktop home
Good estimate. This category includes stationary and mobile devices, permanently plugged into mains sockets or running on batteries; the use phase appears to be dominant. The category is mapped against a simple and a complex set-top box,
and a domestic desktop PC. They are considered to be in the middle range of the category. A desktop PC is likely to have a higher impact than smaller devices or
140.9 6.6 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 3 - Personal computers (desktops and laptops) and computer monitors, Final report, August 2007
DVD/VHS
systems
Homogeneous. These products
generally have a single function. Some can read various formats (DVD, CD, MP3…). VHS systems might have a different impact but can be considered obsolete.
13.1 1 Estimate
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 21
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
Digital cameras
Heterogeneous. Wide range of sizes and technologies (from compacts to bridge cameras with interchangeable lenses), various sensors and lenses can
be used. They also vary in terms of screen sizes, connectivity devices, flash, etc.
devices used sporadically, such as digital cameras, portable audio players or game consoles. Non-domestic equipment is likely to have significant impacts
considering their permanent use during office hours.
0.3 3 WRAP, Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA
Portable audio players
Homogeneous. Includes simple MP3 players without display, or obsolete Walkmans, Discmans, etc.
2.1 2 Estimate
Set top boxes Homogeneous. They typically include a receptors and connectors to a TV. They can
have recording capabilities.
54.8 5 European Commission EuP Final Report
Non-domestic desktops
Heterogeneous. As for domestic PCs, they can have a wide range of specifications, but also include PCs with very high processing capabilities for professional use; therefore the energy consumption can vary even more.
140.9 6.6 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 3 - Personal computers (desktops and laptops) and computer monitors, Final report, August 2007
Game consoles Heterogeneous. From small and simple devices with batteries and screens, to boxes connected to a monitor with high-processing capabilities (motion detection, etc.) and multiple functions (DVD players, Internet access).
41.2 5.5 Building on the Eco-design Directive, EuP Group Analysis (I), ENTR Lot 3 Sound and Imaging Equipment, Final Task 1-7 Report, Intertek, September 2010
Non-domestic printers
Heterogeneous. Various sizes and functionalities; from basic printers to multi-function devices
with scanning, fax, network connection).
188.8 5 EuP Preparatory Studies "Imaging Equipment" (Lot 4) Final Report on Task 5
"Definition of Base Cases", November 2007
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 22
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
5 Large Simple Processing Electronics
PC peripherals Heterogeneous. Various functionalities and sizes (mouse, keyboard, speakers, scanner, printer, external hard discs, etc.). Monitors excluded.
Blend of 2 printers (colour printer, IJ printer multi-function)
Good estimate / overestimated. This category covers a wide range of products; however they are all typically composed of: 1) rigid plastic casing;
2) key pad or button interface that allows the user to complete a function; and 3) a simple circuit board. They are mapped against a blend of two printers. One of them is a multi-function device, which is likely to have a higher impact (in particular, higher energy consumption); therefore it is likely to have the highest impact in the category.
40.0 3 Energy Efficiency Trends of IT Appliances in Households (EU 27), Monitoring of Energy Efficiency in EU 27, Norway and Croatia
(ODYSEE-MURE), Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe, September 2009
Electronic Security & Access Control
Heterogeneous. Various functionalities, such as closed-circuit cameras, sensors, keypads to enter codes, etc. Usually functioning permanently, it can be connected to a centralised system.
54.8 5 Estimate
Home audio/Hi-Fi
Heterogeneous. Can include various devices such as radio, CD and tape player, Internet connection; also includes a several speakers of various power.
54.8 5 Estimate
6 Other Simple Processing Electronics
Non-domestic heating accessories
Heterogeneous. Includes various devices from thermostats to other wireless control equipment.
Mapped against the previous category. Blend of two printers (colour
printer, IJ printer multi-function)
Low representativeness. This category is mapped against a blend of printers, which are not included in the category.
Therefore the reliability is low.
59.3 12 Estimate
Audio separates
Homogeneous. This mostly applies to speakers, but may also include some powered components.
219.0 5 www.retra.co.uk
Telephone equipment
Heterogeneous: from basic phones to sophisticated phones and answering machines with screens, internal memory, and wireless system.
26.3 5 http://standby.lbl.gov/summary-table.html
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 23
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
7 External Power Supplies
ePSUs Homogeneous. Most external power supply units are composed of the same technology and function in the same way. However, in use
consumption may vary depending on energy saving technologies used (e.g. stand by losses).
AC/DC adaptor Good estimate. 8.9 1 Certified Environmental Product Declaration AC/DC Adapter, UMEC
8 Multi-function Mains power Pumps & Motors
No sales data available
No sales data available. Not mapped. - - - -
9 Large High power Pumps & Motors
Vacuum cleaners
Heterogeneous. Various power consumptions and formats (handheld vs. professional devices), which impacts significantly on the footprint.
Lawn strimmer Underestimated. This heterogeneous category is mapped against a lawn strimmer, which is a high-powered device which can be corded or with a battery. Other products included in this category have higher power ratings, such as powerful vacuum cleaners (up to 2,200W),
microwave ovens (up to 1,500W).
124.0 7.4 Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II), Lot 17 Vacuum Cleaners, Final Report, AEA Energy & Environment, February 2009
Non-domestic axial
Heterogeneous. 1,600 15 Estimate
Non-domestic centrifugal
Heterogeneous. Includes everything from building systems to extractor vents.
11,460 15 Estimate
Non-domestic tangential
Heterogeneous. 783 15 Estimate
Non-domestic roof extractor
Homogeneous - same functionality.
3,024 15 Estimate
Garden power Heterogeneous - Various functionalities and powers; all sizes. Lawn mower, shredders, edgers, trimmers, pressure
washer etc.
3.9 10 WRAP, Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 24
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
10 Other High power Pumps & Motors
Food preparation equipment
Heterogeneous. Various functions. From simple blenders to sophisticated kitchen robots.
Vacuum cleaner and food blender
Good estimate / overestimated. This category is mapped against a vacuum cleaner and a blender. A vacuum cleaner is an energy intensive device, and is likely to
represent the most energy intensive device of the category, as opposed to small electrical kitchen gadgets and small fans.
0.9 10 WRAP, Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA
Electrical kitchen gadgets
Heterogeneous. Various functions, but usually of small size.
90.0 3 Estimate
Domestic type extractor (axial & centrifugal)
Homogeneous - same functionality.
21.9 8 Estimate
Desk Type Fan Homogeneous. May vary in size, but technology and manufacturing processes are largely the same.
1.8 5 Estimate
DIY EuPs Heterogeneous. Various functionalities and power ratings
will result in various energy and material profiles. However, the overall consumer use scenarios for these products are considered to be largely the same (i.e. limited annual use).
0.3 10 http://www.donrowe.com/inverters/usage_chart.html
11 Battery power Pumps & Motors
No sales data available
No sales data available. Considered to be part of DIY EuPs.
Drill and electric toothbrush
Good estimate. The category is mapped against a blend of two devices, a drill and an electric toothbrush; it can be assumed that they fairly represent this category.
- - -
12 Spatial Cooling
Fridges Homogeneous - differs in size and slight differences in terms of energy consumption, as the standard for new devices is now high.
Fridges, fridge-freezer and freezers (average of: refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, upright freezer, chest freezer)
Underestimated. This category is mapped against a blend between fridges and freezers, which are likely to represent the biggest number of items in this category. Air conditioning and display refrigerated display cabinets
require a significantly higher input of energy than fridges (average
160.7 14 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 13 - Domestic Refrigerators & Freezers, Final report
Fridge-freezers Homogeneous - differs in size and slight differences in terms of energy consumption, as the
standard for new devices is now high.
15 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 13 - Domestic
Refrigerators & Freezers, Final report
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 25
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
Freezers Homogeneous - differs in size and slight differences in terms of energy consumption, as the standard for new devices is now high.
annual energy consumption estimated at 1,800kWh/year for air conditioning, and above 9,000kWh/year for refrigerated retail displays, instead of 150-
350kWh/year for fridges).
287.8 14.5 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 13 - Domestic Refrigerators & Freezers, Final report
Air conditioning
Heterogeneous - various types: window and through-wall, evaporative coolers, portable units. Various energy consumptions.
1875.0 17.5 http://www.carbonrally.com/challenges/22-air-conditioner-costs
Refrigerated display cabinets
Heterogeneous. Without or with doors, which can significantly change the energy consumptions.
9342.5 8.5 Energy use in food refrigeration, Calculations, assumptions and data sources, Mark Swain, FRPERC, University of Bristol
13 Spatial Heating
Electric cookers
Heterogeneous. While the structure is standard (hobs, steel body, insulated cavity with glazed door, vent or flue), various technologies can be used (inefficient electric coil, induction). Energy consumption can vary significantly.
Electric hob and fan heater
Overestimated. This category is mapped against a blend between an electric hob and a fan heater, which are the smallest devices of the category. Electric cookers include an oven in addition to a hob, and fan heaters are typically mobile devices used on a temporary basis, as opposed
to bigger heaters fixed on a wall.
138.3 19 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 22 - Domestic and commercial ovens (electric, gas, microwave), including when incorporated in cookers, Task 5: Definition of Base-Case, June 2011
Domestic electric heating
Heterogeneous. Fan, convector or storage heater, portable or fixed, various technologies (electric, oil-based, convector). Highly variable in terms of power and sizes.
59.3 12 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 20 - Local room heating products, Task 5: Definition of Base-Case, September 2011
14 Dishwashers
Dishwashers Homogeneous. Similar functionalities. Domestic dishwashers follow standardised sizes to fit into kitchen cabinets. Slight differences in terms of
capacities and efficiencies, various water consumptions.
Dishwashers (9p dishwasher and 12p dishwashers)
Good estimate. This category includes only one type of devices and is homogeneous. Data used relate to two dishwashers of various
capacities, which fairly represent the range of products available.
292.2 11 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 14 - Domestic washing machines & dishwashers, Task 3 - 5
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 26
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
15 Other Multi-function Appliances
Washing machines
Homogeneous. Similar functionalities. Top or front loading, various capacities and efficiencies. Industrial ones can be much larger.
Air vented tumble dryer, washing machine
Good estimate. This category includes two types of devices and is quite homogeneous. One device from each type of product is used for
mapping, which can be considered representative.
183.3 10 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 14 - Domestic washing machines & dishwashers, Task 3 - 5
Tumble dryers Heterogeneous. Various technologies lead to various energy efficiencies (heat pumps dehumidifying the air, etc.).
311.6 13 Ecobilan and PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008. Ecodesign of Laundry Dryers: Preparatory studies for Ecodesign requirements of Energy using-Products (EuP) – Lot 16. European Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General for Energy and Transport
16 High Power Appliances
Kettles Homogeneous. Electric kettles are normally made of plastic or steel and powered by mains electricity.
A blend of 5 coffee machines (drip filter coffee machine, pad filter coffee machine, hard cap espresso machine, semi-automatic espresso machine, fully automatic
espresso machine)
Fair estimate. This category is mapped against a blend of 5 coffee machines, from simple filter machines to fully automatic espresso machines. This mapping appropriately represents hot beverage makers; they probably overestimate the impact of kettles, simple toasters,
health grills and irons which are less complex devices.
90.0 3 WRAP, Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA
Hot beverage makers
Heterogeneous. From filter coffeemakers (drip brew) and percolators to more sophisticated devices with capsules or professional devices.
128.0 2 http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/small_appl.html
Toasters Heterogeneous. Includes small pop-up toasters, toaster ovens and conveyor toasters used in the catering industry; this leads to various energy consumptions.
18.0 2 http://www.reuk.co.uk/Energy-Efficient-Ecolectric-Toaster-Review.htm
Health grills Homogeneous. Various sizes, but similar technology.
33.0 1 Estimate
Irons Homogeneous. 52.0 1 http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/small_appl.html
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 27
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
Electric water heaters
Homogeneous. Various capacities and powers; though most of the boilers available have a similar efficiency. Some can combine technologies such
as solar and electricity.
557.1 12.5 http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/small_appl.html
17 Medium Power Appliances
Personal electrical appliances
Heterogeneous. But usually of small size. Various energy consumptions (hair dryer as opposed to shavers).
Hair dryer Overestimated. This category is mapped against a hair dryer, which is likely to require the highest quantity of electricity, as opposed to electric shavers and other small devices.
39.9 2.5 Estimate
18 Microwaves
Microwaves Homogeneous. Microwaves show very similar characteristics in terms of physical size and
basic functionality. Differences are mainly aesthetics, advanced functionality and features, capacity and power rating. The products range from basic model with dials rather than electronic controls to advanced combination ovens.
Microwave oven, domestic microwave oven
Good estimate. This category only includes one type of product, microwaves,
which are relatively homogeneous in terms of impact. A blend of two microwaves has been used for mapping and it is considered to fairly represent the category.
86.4 8 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 22 - Domestic and
commercial ovens (electric, gas, microwave), including when incorporated in cookers, Task 5: Definition of Base-Case, June 2011
19 High Intensity
Discharge Lighting
Not expressly reported in
sales data
- - - - - -
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 28
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
- Commercial lighting
Heterogeneous. Various technologies: halogen, fluorescent and LED technologies. Varies in sizes and powers.
Blend of five types of lighting: General lighting services, three halogen lamps (mains voltage and
low voltage, high and low wattage) and a compact fluorescent lamp with integrated ballast
Overestimated. The footprint is based on the average of many different lighting technologies with various in-use consumption requirements. Although the overall
consumer use pattern will change, the energy rating of different bulbs in the same category are significant.
116.5 8.7 Estimate
20 Halogen Lighting
Domestic lighting- Halogen
Homogeneous. Varies in sizes and powers.
Blend of five types of lighting: General lighting services, three halogen lamps (mains voltage and low voltage, high and low wattage) and a compact fluorescent lamp with integrated ballast
Fair estimate. Most of the light bulbs included in the lighting footprint profile are halogen bulbs.
56.6 4.2 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 19 - Domestic lighting, October 2009
21 Fluorescent Lighting
Domestic lighting- Fluorescent
Homogeneous. Varies in sizes and powers.
Blend of five types of lighting: General lighting services,
three halogen lamps (mains voltage and low voltage, high and low wattage) and a compact fluorescent lamp with integrated ballast
Overestimated. Fluorescent light bulbs are included as one of the products
used for mapping. The other four products have variable material make up that may have higher or lower impacts.
10.9 7.5 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 19 - Domestic
lighting, October 2009
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 29
Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map
Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
Asset Life (years)
Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)
22 LED Lighting
Domestic lighting- LED
Homogeneous. Varies in sizes and powers.
Blend of five types of lighting: General lighting services, three halogen lamps (mains voltage and
low voltage, high and low wattage) and a compact fluorescent lamp with integrated ballast
Underestimated. Lighting from LED lights is typically made of high impact materials (e.g. aluminium) in larger quantities compared to
other lighting technologies.
2.4 30 Estimate
23 Solar PV Domestic solar PV
Homogeneous. Off-the-shelf solar PV should be quite similar in terms of technologies.
Solar panel Good estimate. This category only includes one type of device, solar PV, which is considered relatively homogeneous.
0.0 20 http://www.solarenergyexperts.co.uk/qa-long-do-pv-solar-panels-last
24 Household Wind Turbine
Domestic wind Homogeneous. Off the shelf domestic wind should be quite similar in terms of technologies.
Wind turbine Good estimate. This category only includes one type of device, a wind turbine, which is considered relatively homogeneous.
0.0 20 Estimate
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 30
Appendix 1 Category GHG emissions
Table 6 Total lifecycle GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 31
Figure 8 Total lifecycle GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year. Labels describe the Product Group number and name, then the total lifecycle GHG emissions in MtCO2e
Commercial lighting , 67
20 Halogen Lighting, 9
1 Televisions, 30
12 Spatial Cooling, 20
9 Large High power Pumps & Motors, 24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Lighting Electronics Heating and Cooling Pumps & Motors Renewable Energy
MtC
O2e
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 32
Category emissions broken down by consumer and commercial contributions (where possible).
Category Consumer Commercial
Televisions/Monitors Unquantified
Laptops 47% 53%
Other display-based
electronics
Unquantified
Complex processing
electronics
Unquantified
Large simple
processing electronics
Unquantified
Other simple
processing electronics
Unquantified
External power
supplies
Unquantified
Multi-function mains
powered pumps and
motors
No sales data available
Large high power
pumps and motors
Unquantified
Other high power
pumps and motors
Unquantified
Battery power pumps
and motors
No sales data available
Spatial cooling Unquantified Spatial heating Unquantified Dishwashers Unquantified Other multi-function
appliances
Unquantified
High power
appliances
Unquantified
Medium power
appliances
Unquantified
Microwaves Unquantified Lighting 17% 83%
Solar PV Unquantified
Wind turbines Unquantified
Table 7 Category lifecycle emissions broken down by B2B and B2C sales
Most product categories cannot be broken down by business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C)
sales due to data limitations within the category structure (e.g. separately reported monitors and jointly reported
televisions in Category 1).
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 33
Figure 9 Total embodied (+waste) GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year. Labels describe the Product Group number and name, then the total embodied and waste GHG emissions in ktCO2e
Commercial lighting , 680
21 Fluorescent Lighting, 520
1 Televisions, 891
2 Laptops, 1046
4 Complex processing Electronics, 1939
5 Large Simple processing Electronics, 1017
12 Spatial Cooling, 1506
13 Spatial Heating, 1251
9 Large High power Pumps & Motors, 883
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Electronics Heating and Cooling Lighting Pumps & Motors Renewable Energy
ktC
O2e
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 34
Table 8 Total embodied (+waste) GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year
Comparison of process-based and EEIO results
EP Group Which reports greater
GHG impact?
Notes
Electronics EEIO Limited availability of cost data and EEIO categories.
Large simple processing electronics aligned the
closest between methodologies (5%) difference and
other simple processing electronics presented the
category with the greatest difference (97%)
Pumps & Motors Process-based A close relationship between the EEIO and Process-
based assessment was shown, however limited value
and product categorisation resulted in some
differences.
Heating & Cooling Process based Multi-function appliances align very well between
analyses (5%).
Lighting N/A EEIO categorisation not recommended.
Renewable Energy EEIO Financial information has been estimated. Household
wind turbines align closest between methodologies
(39%).
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 35
Table 9 EEIO vs. ‘bottom-up’ (BFF) analysis – areas of disagreement
Overall, the authors prefer the use of ‘bottom-up’ estimates for hotspotting – rather than the input-output based
analyses – for the following reasons:
it provides better visibility of lifecycle stages;
it is potentially more sensitive to changes in supply chains & mitigation activities;
it is potentially more product/supply chain specific;
it can be based on more up to date data – of which more is becoming available; and
it is more intuitive to understand.
The two methodologies are largely in agreement with one another regarding the two impact assessment
categories. Although this will vary on a category-by-category basis due to EEIO category limitations, the overall
results are consistent.
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 36
Appendix 2 Category energy consumption
Figure 10 Total lifecycle energy consumption for one year of product sales (TJ)
Table 10 Total lifecycle energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year
Commercial lighting , 413
1 Televisions, 190 12 Spatial Cooling, 134
9 Large High power Pumps & Motors, 156
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Lighting Electronics Heating and Cooling Pumps & Motors Renewable Energy
Ene
rgy
(th
ou
san
d T
J)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 37
Comparison with Energy Saving Trust
The Elephant in the Living Room report from the Energy Saving Trust (EST) stated that 2009 electricity
consumption of all domestic EPs in the home was 85.1 TWh. This number is broken down by the Department of
Energy and Climate Change (DECC) estimates for product category consumption in separate household groups.
The WRAP research has taken a different methodological approach to assessing domestic energy requirements
and, crucially, has only accounted for one year of product sales. Separating out total consumption, regardless of
whether or not products are new or old, is useful for top level targeting, but this research is focused on new
products entering the market and how these will ‘lock in’ households to future energy consumption throughout
the product lifespans. A comparison of the two methodologies is presented below in Table 11.
EST Study WRAP Study
Purpose Annual measurement Total lifecycle estimate
Scope Households All EPs
Time Period 2009 Average year (2006-2010)
Products UK economy New sales in one year only
Categories ? (e.g. vacuum cleaners, garden power)
Table 11 Comparison of boundaries and scope of EST and WRAP studies
Table 12 provides a comparison of the EST study and the WRAP study by product group for household annual
energy requirements. A useful interpretation of the WRAP numbers as against the EST study is to consider the
WRAP consumption number as an indicator of product turnover (e.g. 22% of lighting products are purchased
each year).
EST 2009 (TWh) WRAP (TWh) WRAP %
Lighting 15.8 4.5 22%
Refrigeration 14.5 1.0 6%
Cooking 13.3 1.6 11%
Washing 14.2 1.0 6%
Consumer
electronics 20.8 4.7 18%
Home computing 6.5 0.9 12%
Other domestic - 2.2 -
Total (TWh) 85.1 13.7 14%
Table 12 Comparison of energy requirements of EST and WRAP studies
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 38
Figure 11 Annual energy contribution of new EPs to UK electricity demands
Table 13 Total embodied (+ waste) energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year
Existing Product
Electricity Demands
84%
New Product Energy
Consumption 16%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 39
Figure 12 Total embodied (+ waste) energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year (TJ) – excludes use phase
1 Televisions/Monitors, 16
2 Laptops, 16
4 Complex processing Electronics, 31
5 Large Simple processing Electronics,
19
12 Spatial Cooling, 24
13 Spatial Heating, 18
9 Large High power Pumps & Motors, 15 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Electronics Heating and Cooling Lighting Pumps & Motors Renewable Energy
Ene
rgy
(TJ)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 40
Appendix 3 Category material aggregation
Figure 13 Total weight of EPs placed on the market in one year
Table 14 Total weight of EPs placed on the market in one year
1 Televisions, 129
4 Complex processing Electronics, 153
5 Large Simple processing Electronics,
145
9 Large High power Pumps & Motors, 92
12 Spatial Cooling, 266
15 Other Multi-function Appliances , 200
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Electronics Pumps & Motors Heating & Cooling Lighting Renewable Energy
Ton
ne
s (t
ho
usa
nd
s)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 41
Comparison with Environment Agency WEEE numbers
The Environment Agency publishes quarterly ‘EEE placed on the market’ reports detailing the volumes and
weights associated with product sales. This reporting system is mandatory and it is the producer’s responsibility
to ensure that data submitted is accurate and categorised correctly. WEEE reports are a useful indication of total
market presence, but do not provide a product-level breakdown in order to allow for specific targeting or fitting of
technologies into the EP category.
Retail market reports were used in this research in order to provide the level of granularity needed to produce
category average impact assessments. These numbers are less robust than actual company reports, in terms of
both volumes and weights, and have been averaged to estimate category impacts. Additionally, whilst the WEEE
reports represent a single quarter, or year, of sales, the market reports used within this research vary between
years in order to use the latest product-level data available. As such, the retail numbers reported by the
Environment Agency and this study are not directly comparable.
Despite these issues, the overall picture of the total weight of EPs placed on the market in a single year is largely
similar. Table 15 provides a category-level comparison of estimated weight impacts for each WEEE category.
WEEE Category Category Name EA (tonnes) WRAP (tonnes)
Category 1 Large Household Appliances 495,189 410,166
Category 2 Small Household Appliances 148,906 132,681
Category 3 IT and Telecomms Equipment 204,645 323,798
Category 4 Consumer Equipment 76,137 39,442
Category 5 Lighting Equipment 67,855 29,296
Category 6 Electrical and Electronic Tools 79,793 16,879
Category 7 Toys Leisure and Sports 62,137 Category 8 Medical Devices 14,869 Category 9 Monitoring and Control Instruments 22,764 85,527
Category 10 Automatic Dispensers 8,048 Category 11 Display Equipment 134,193 106,990
Category 12 Cooling Appliances Containing Refrigerants 203,855 261,841
Category 13 Gas Discharge Lamps 16,186 Excluded Renewable Energy
9,453
Total 1,534,576 1,416,074
Table 15 Comparison of Environment Agency and WRAP Study material weight estimates by WEEE category
In-use material consumption
The products below depend on material inputs during their use phase in order to function. Of the four products
assessed that fit into this category, washing machines consume the most materials during their lifetime. The
washing machines purchased in 2009 will use approximately 1.75 million tonnes of materials, such as detergent,
during their lifetimes which make up approximately 91% of the total material impacts associated with their
purchase - 1.9 million tonnes, including machine weight.
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 42
Figure 14 Comparison of embodied materials and those consumed during product lifetimes
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 43
Material concentration from sold EPs
Figure 15 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (>1,000 tonnes total material)
Figure 16 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (100-1,000 tonnes total material)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Steel (all) Plastics (all) Fe Other/inerts Cu Glass (all) Al (general) Ceramics Wood Oil CFC11
Ton
ne
s o
f m
ate
rial
(>
1,0
00
to
nn
es)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
CFC12 Sn Fluorescentpowder
Zn Epoxy Ni Cyclopentane Silicon Pb Br
Ton
ne
s o
f m
ate
rial
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 44
Figure 17 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (<100 tonnes total material)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80To
nn
es
of
mat
eri
al
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 45
Appendix 4 Quantified reduction opportunities
Quantified reduction opportunities are presented for the following products based on a single year of product sales (i.e. not representative of existing stock):
fridges/fridge-freezers/freezers;
electric cookers;
microwaves;
multi-function appliances (washing machines and dishwashers); and
vacuum cleaners.
The final section of this appendix discusses durability impacts and demonstrates how building better products may reduce GHG emissions and total material consumption.
Product Measure Implementation Cost
(000 GBP)
Energy
(GWh)
Carbon
(ktCO2e)
Materials
(kt)
Water
(000 m3)
Washing Machines/Dishwashers Materials optimisation in motors -8,638 0 0 -10 0
Vacuum Cleaners Develop lightweight models 0 0 0 -11 0
Washing Machines Larger loads 658 5 28* 0* 6,067
Electric Cookers Improved insulation (door glazing) 2,604 40 24* +3,918 0
Microwaves Paint the inner cavity 8,184 18 10* 0* 0
Electric Cookers Increase amount of insulation 10,418 106 63* +603 0
Electric Cookers Improved insulation (application of reflective coating) 13,022 53 31* 0* 0
Microwaves Inverter power supply 13,640 25 15 0 0
Washing Machines/Dishwashers Materials optimisation in castings / drums 14,396 0 0 -10 0
Microwaves General engineering to increase energy efficiency 19,097 63 38 0 0
Washing Machines/Dishwashers Full Electronic Control 86,379 0* 0* 0 10,103
Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Use of high efficiency heat exchangers 88,617 446 265 0 0
Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Improvements to control systems 95,707 297 177 0 0
Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Increased insulation in casings and doors 97,479 1,472 874 0 0
Electric Cookers Improved Controls 130,225 53 31* 452 0
Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Use of high efficiency compressors 265,852 2,855 1,695 0 0
Washing Machines/Dishwashers Increased Motor Efficiency 367,111 327 194 0 0
Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Increase Vacuum insulated panels 638,044 2,290 1,360 0 0
*In-use savings only. Additional material impact not quantified.
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 46
Fridges/Fridge-freezers/Freezers
No Opportunity Cost
Implications
(per unit)
Energy
Savings
(per unit)
GHG
Savings
(per unit)
Material
Savings
(per unit)
Water
Savings
(per unit)
Source
1 Use high
efficiency heat
exchangers
£22 8 kWh per
year
4 kgCO2e
per year
- - EuP Study
2 Use of high
efficiency
compressors
£65 48 kWh
per year
28 kgCO2e
per year
- - EuP Study
3 Improvements
to control
systems
£23 5 kWh per
year
3 kgCO2e
per year
- - EuP Study
4 Increase
vacuum
insulated panels
£156 39 kWh
per year
23 kgCO2e
per year
- - EuP Study
5 Increase
insulation in
casings and
doors
£24 25 kWh
per year
15 kgCO2e
per year
- - EuP Study
All reduction scenarios based on EuP Lot 13 Study on Domestic Refrigerators & Freezers. Available:
http://www.ecocold-domestic.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=125&Itemid=40
Better insulation and the use of ‘vacuum panels’ could reduce the thickness of the fridge walls. This
would give a larger interior capacity as well as reducing the material use by a small amount in the
casings.
General Notes
Adaptive-defrost systems use sophisticated electronic controls that integrate analysis of several parameters (including the number of door openings, the compressor operation time
and the room temperature) to optimise timing of the defrost cycle’s initiation. Some adaptive-defrost systems also aim to schedule defrosting to occur at night, when average room
temperatures are lower, and thereby reduce the recovery energy needed to return the compartment to its design temperature. In addition, some adaptive-defrost systems use fuzzy
logic to train the control system to initiate defrosting in an optimised way according to an appliance’s particular usage and environmental patterns.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Use of highefficiency heat
exchangers
Use of highefficiency
compressors
Improvementsto control
systems
IncreaseVacuum
insulatedpanels
Increasedinsulation in
casings anddoors
Energ
y S
avin
gs (G
Wh)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Lifetime Energy Saving Potential
Cost Implications Energy Savings
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Use of highefficiency heat
exchangers
Use of highefficiency
compressors
Improvementsto control
systems
IncreaseVacuum
insulatedpanels
Increasedinsulation in
casings anddoors
GH
G S
avin
gs (k
tCO
2e)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Lifetime GHG Saving Potential
Cost Implications GHG Savings
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 47
Electric Cookers
No Opportunity Cost
Implications
(per unit)
Energy
Savings
(per unit)
GHG
Savings
(per unit)
Material
Savings
(per unit)
Water
Savings
(per unit)
Source
1 Improved
insulation (door
glazing)
£2 1 kWh per
year
1 kgCO2e
per year
+2.6 kg - EuP Study
2 Increase
amount of
insulation
£7 4 kWh per
year
2 kgCO2e
per year
+0.4 kg EuP Study
3 Improved
insulation
(application of
reflective
coating)
£9 2 kWh per
year
1 kgCO2e
per year
- - EuP Study
4 Improved
controls
£86 2 kWh per
year
1 kgCO2e
per year
+0.3 kg - EuP Study
All reduction scenarios based on EuP Lot 22 Study on Domestic and Commercial Ovens. Available:
http://www.ecocooking.org/lot22/open_docs/BIO_EuP_Lot22_Task7_20110310.pdf
General Notes
Most of the changes in the materials used in heating devices are based on the increase of energy
efficiency. Therefore in most cases the addition of extra materials seems appropriate (such as triple
glazing or increased insulation).
This increase in materials needs to be balanced with the energy saving and life expectancy of the
product. For example, increasing materials use might increase product life and reduced energy
consumption per cycle. Therefore over a given number of cycles per year and the total number of
years’ life the embodied materials per use could decrease.
020406080100120
0
50
100
150
Improvedinsulation (door
glazing)
Increaseamount of
insulation
Improvedinsulation
(application ofreflective
coating)
ImprovedControls
Energ
y S
avin
gs (G
Wh)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Lifetime Energy Saving Potential
Cost Implications Energy Savings
0
20
40
60
80
0
50
100
150
Improvedinsulation
(door glazing)
Increaseamount of
insulation
Improvedinsulation
(application ofreflective
coating)
ImprovedControls
GH
G S
avin
gs(k
tCO
2e)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Lifetime GHG Saving Potential
Cost Implications GHG Savings
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
0
50
100
150
Improvedinsulation
(door glazing)
Increaseamount of
insulation
Improvedinsulation
(application ofreflective
coating)
ImprovedControls
Additio
nal M
ate
rials
(tonnes)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Additional Material Impacts
Cost Implications Material Impact
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 48
Washing Machines / Dishwashers
No Opportunity Cost
Implications
(per unit)
Energy
Savings
(per unit)
GHG
Savings
(per unit)
Material
Savings
(per unit)
Water
Savings
(per unit)
Source
1 Increased
motor efficiency
£110 98 kWh
per year
58 kgCO2e
per year
- - EuP Study
2 Materials
optimisation in
motors
-£3 - 3 kg - EuP Study
3 Material
optimisation in
castings/drums
£4 - 3 kg EuP Study
4 Full electronic
control
£26 - - 12,740
litres
EuP Study
5 Larger loads* £0.3 2 kWh +0.3 kg 7,644
litres
EuP Study
*Washing machines only
All reduction scenarios based on EuP Lot 14 Study on Domestic Washing Machines and Dishwashers. Available:
http://www.ecowet-domestic.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=27&Itemid=40
General Notes
Numerous studies have been undertaken on
energy and water use but few on materials
use. EuP study identifies an opportunity to
reduce materials consumption in motors so it
would be fair to extend this to other
mechanical and cosmetic parts of the machine.
The issue of increased durability needs to be
considered with these products in the same
way that it is with cookers. Indeed it is
probably more relevant to this type of product.
0
100
200
300
400
0
100
200
300
400
Increased Motor Efficiency Larger loads
Energ
y S
avin
gs (G
Wh)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Life cycle Energy Savings Potential
Cost Implications Energy Savings
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
100
200
300
400
Increased MotorEfficiency
Larger loads
GH
G S
avin
gs(k
tCO
2e)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Life cycle GHG Savings Potential
Cost Implications GHG Savings
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
Full ElectronicControl
Larger loads
Wate
r Savin
gs
(millio
n m
3) C
ost
(£m
illio
n)
Lifetime Water Saving Potential
Cost Implications Water Savings
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 49
Microwaves
No Opportunity Cost
Implications
(per unit)
Energy
Savings
(per unit)
GHG
Savings
(per unit)
Material
Savings
(per unit)
Water
Savings
(per unit)
Source
1 Paint the inner
cavity
£3 1 kWh per
year
0.4 kgCO2e
per year
- - EuP Study
2 Inverter power
supply
£4 1 kWh per
year
1 kgCO2e
per year
EuP Study
3 General
engineering to
increase
efficiency
£6 3 kWh per
year
1 kgCO2e
per year
- - EuP Study
All reduction scenarios based on EuP Lot 22 Study on Domestic and Commercial Ovens. Available:
http://www.ecocooking.org/lot22/open_docs/BIO_EuP_Lot22_Task7_20110310.pdf
General Notes
Lifecycle costs of microwaves are already minimal. EuP study concluded that the only way to reduce it
significantly is though consumer education on use.
An abridged assessment of the lifecycle carbon footprint of a microwave undertake by eco3 showed
that a normal power supply contributes about 18% of total carbon embodied in a microwave- this
equates to approx. 6.9kg. An inverter supply will probably weigh less but by how much is not known.
There may be some opportunity for the reduction in materials used (as with most other products) and
the use of recycled materials. This would reduce lifecycle impacts somewhat and should not adversely
affect performance or cost.
0
20
40
60
80
0
5
10
15
20
25
Paint the innercavity
Inverter powersupply
Generalengineering toincrease energy
efficiency
Energ
y S
avin
gs (G
Wh)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Lifetime Energy Saving Potential
Cost Implications Energy Savings
-
10
20
30
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
Paint the innercavity
Inverter powersupply
Generalengineering toincrease energy
efficiency
GH
G S
avin
gs(k
tCO
2e)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Lifetime GHG Saving Potential
Cost Implications GHG Savings
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 50
Vacuum Cleaners
No Opportunity Cost
Implications
(per unit)
Energy
Savings
(per unit)
GHG
Savings
(per unit)
Material
Savings
(per unit)
Water
Savings
(per unit)
Source
1 Develop light
weight models
£0 - - 1.9 kg - EuP Study
All reduction scenarios based EuP Preparatory Studies (Vacuum Cleaners). Available:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/ecodesign/eup_lot17_final_report_issue_1.pdf
Durability assumptions
The following estimates have been applied to calculate product durability improvement savings based on 2009 UK market reports:
Product Average product
lifespan (years)
Low end product market
presence assumption
Low end product lifespan
assumption (years)13
Fridges/fridge-
freezers/freezers
15 30% 5.5
Electric cookers 19 20% 9
Microwaves 8 20% 5.5
Washing machines 10 15% 4
Dishwashers 11 20% 6
Vacuum cleaners 7 30% 5.5
Televisions 10 20% 4
13 All lifespan assessments are the median range from the UK radio, electrical and television retailer’s association (Retra) Code of Practice estimates except for washing machines, which is based on industry knowledge and expert judgement from a variety of sources. For further information see: http://www.retra.co.uk/code.asp?p=13
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Vacuum Cleaners: Develop lightweight models
Additio
nal M
ate
rials (to
nnes)
Cost
(£m
illio
n)
Material Savings Potential
Cost Implications Material Impact
0
100
200
300
Mate
rial Im
pact
s (k
t)
Product Durability Impacts
Product replacement due to product failure Annual sales of products
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 51
Appendix 5 Category material profiles
WEEE category profiles were provided in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive Review.
EP Category WEEE Category
1 Televisions/Monitors Category 4 Combined
2 Laptops Category 3C
3 Other Display-based Electronics Category 3A
Category 3C
4 Complex processing Electronics
Category 3A
Category 3C
Category 4A
6 Other Simple processing Electronics Category 3A
Category 4A
7 External Power Supplies Category 3A
9 Large High power Pumps & Motors Category 2
Category 6
10 Other High power Pumps & Motors
Category 1A
Category 2
Category 6
12 Spatial Cooling Category 1B
13 Spatial Heating Category 1A
Category 2
14 Dishwashers Category 1A
15 Other Multi-function Appliances Category 1A
16 High power Appliances Category 2
17 Medium power Appliances Category 2
18 Microwaves Category 1C
19 High Intensity Discharge Lighting Category 5B
20 Halogen Lighting Category 5B
21 Fluorescent Lighting Category 5B
22 LED Lighting Category 5B
23 Solar PV Solar PV
A representative material profile was not possible for Category 24 – Household wind turbines.
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 52
Category 1A
WEEE Category
Large household appliances
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive
Review.
Materials per kg (g) %
Ag 0.00 0.0%
Al 0.02 1.7%
Au 0.00 0.0%
Ceramics 0.00 0.1%
Cr 0.00 0.0%
Cu 0.03 3.2%
Fe 0.00 0.0%
Glass (white) 0.01 0.7%
Ni 0.00 0.0%
Oil 0.00 0.0%
Other/inerts 0.22 22.0%
Pb 0.00 0.0%
PCB 0.00 0.0%
Pd 0.00 0.0%
Plastics general 0.16 15.7%
PUR 0.00 0.3%
PVC 0.00 0.4%
Sb 0.00 0.0%
Sn 0.00 0.0%
Stainless steel 0.02 1.7%
Steel low alloyed 0.54 54.2%
Zn 0.00 0.0%
Total 1kg 100%
Al
2% Cu
3%
Glass
(white) 1%
Other/in
erts
22%
Plastics
general
16% Stainless
steel
2%
Steel low
alloyed
54%
Large Household Appliances
(kg)›1%
Ceramics 9%
Cr
0% Fe
1% Pb
0%
Pd
0%
PUR
38% PVC
44%
Sn
6%
Zn
2%
Large Household Appliances
(kg)‹1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 53
Category 1B
WEEE Category
Large household appliances (cooling and freezing)
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive
Review.
Materials per kg (g) % Ag 0.00 0.00% Al (general) 0.03 3.26% As 0.00 0.00% Au 0.00 0.00% Be 0.00 0.00% Bi 0.00 0.00% Br 0.00 0.00% Cd 0.00 0.00% Ceramics 0.00 0.00% Cl 0.00 0.00% Co 0.00 0.00% Cr 0.00 0.00% Cu 0.02 2.49% Epoxy 0.00 0.00% Fe 0.20 20.39% Glass (white) 0.01 0.74% Hg 0.00 0.00% Glass 0.00 0.00% Liquid 0.00 0.00%
Mn 0.00 0.00% Ni 0.00 0.00% Oil 0.01 0.53% Other/inerts 0.01 1.09% other (plastics) 0.00 0.00% Pb 0.00 0.00% PCB 0.00 0.00% Pd 0.00 0.00% Plastics general 0.08 8.47% PS (HI) 0.07 6.91% PUR 0.10 9.75% PVC 0.00 0.06% Sb 0.00 0.00% Sn 0.00 0.00% Stainless steel 0.03 2.60%
Steel low alloyed 0.43 42.66% Wood 0.00 0.00% Zn 0.00 0.00% Cyclopentane 0.00 0.12% Isobutaan 0.00 0.03% CFC11 0.01 0.64% CFC12 0.00 0.25% Total 1kg 100%
Al
(general)
3% Cu
2%
Fe
20%
Glass
(white)
1% Oil
1%
Other/ine
rts
1% Plastics
general
8% PS (HI)
7%
PUR 10%
Stainless
steel
3%
Steel low
alloyed
43%
CFC11
1%
Cooling and freezing (kg)›1%
PVC
13%
Cyclopentane
26%
Isobutaan
6%
CFC12
54%
Cooling and Freezing (kg) ‹1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 54
Category 1C
WEEE Category
Small household (metal dominated)
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive
Review.
Materials per kg(g) %
Ag 0.00 0.00%
Al (general) 0.02 2.27%
As 0.00 0.00%
Au 0.00 0.00%
Be 0.00 0.00%
Bi 0.00 0.00%
Br 0.00 0.00%
Cd 0.00 0.00%
Ceramics 0.00 0.00%
Cl 0.00 0.00%
Co 0.00 0.00%
Cr 0.00 0.00%
Cu 0.09 9.42%
Epoxy 0.00 0.08%
Fe 0.00 0.11%
Glass (white) 0.00 0.21%
Hg 0.00 0.00%
Glass 0.00 0.00%
Liquid Crystals 0.00 0.00%
Mn 0.00 0.00%
Ni 0.00 0.01%
Oil 0.00 0.09%
Other/inerts 0.01 1.24%
other (plastics) 0.00 0.01%
Pb 0.00 0.00%
PCB 0.00 0.00%
Pd 0.00 0.00%
Plastics general 0.14 13.77%
PS (HI) 0.00 0.01%
PUR 0.00 0.02%
PVC 0.00 0.20%
Sb 0.00 0.00%
Sn 0.00 0.00%
Stainless steel 0.02 2.23%
Steel low alloyed 0.69 68.85%
Wood 0.01 1.45%
Zn 0.00 0.01%
Total 1kg 100%
Al
(general)
2%
Cu
9%
Other/in
erts
1%
Plastics
general
14%
Stainless
steel
2%
Steel low
alloyed
69%
Wood
1%
Small household (per kg)›1%
Epoxy
11%
Fe 14%
Glass (white)
28%
Ni
1%
Oil
12%
other
(plastics)
1%
Pb
1%
PS (HI) 1%
PUR
3%
PVC
26%
Zn
1%
Small household (per kg)‹1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 55
Category 2
WEEE Category
Small household (plastic dominated)
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive
Review.
Materials per kg(g) %
Ag 0.00 0.00%
Al (general) 0.02 1.84%
As 0.00 0.00%
Au 0.00 0.00%
Be 0.00 0.00%
Bi 0.00 0.00%
Br 0.00 0.00%
Cd 0.00 0.00%
Ceramics 0.00 0.03%
Cl 0.00 0.00%
Co 0.00 0.00%
Cr 0.00 0.00%
Cu 0.13 12.73%
Epoxy 0.00 0.03%
Fe 0.09 9.18%
Glass (white) 0.00 0.00%
Hg 0.00 0.00%
Glass 0.00 0.00%
Liquid Crystals 0.00 0.00%
Mn 0.00 0.00%
Ni 0.00 0.01%
Oil 0.00 0.10%
Other/inerts 0.00 0.32%
other (plastics) 0.00 0.02%
Pb 0.00 0.00%
PCB 0.00 0.00%
Pd 0.00 0.00%
Plastics general 0.57 56.76%
PS (HI) 0.00 0.00%
PUR 0.00 0.00%
PVC 0.00 0.14%
Sb 0.00 0.00%
Sn 0.00 0.02%
Stainless steel 0.02 1.83%
Steel low alloyed 0.17 16.78%
Wood 0.00 0.17%
Zn 0.00 0.01%
Total 1kg 100%
Al
(general
) 2%
Cu
13%
Fe
9%
Plastics
general
57%
Stainless
steel
2%
Steel
low
alloyed 17%
Small household (per kg) ›1%
Ceramics 3%
Co 1%
Epoxy 4%
Ni 1%
Oil 12%
Other/inerts
37%
other
(plastics) 2%
PVC 16%
Sn 3%
Wood 19%
Zn 1%
Small household (per kg)‹1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 56
Category 3A
WEEE Category
Small household ICT (metal dominated)
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive
Review. Materials per kg(g) %
Ag 0.00 0.01%
Al (general) 0.01 1.39%
As 0.00 0.00%
Au 0.00 0.00%
Be 0.00 0.00%
Bi 0.00 0.00%
Br 0.00 0.04%
Cd 0.00 0.01%
Ceramics 0.00 0.48%
Cl 0.00 0.00%
Co 0.00 0.01%
Cr 0.00 0.02%
Cu 0.04 3.80%
Epoxy 0.00 0.00%
Fe 0.02 1.92%
Glass (white) 0.00 0.00%
Hg 0.00 0.00%
Glass 0.00 0.10%
Liquid Crystals 0.00 0.01%
Mn 0.00 0.00%
Ni 0.00 0.08%
Oil 0.00 0.00%
Other/inerts 0.02 1.91%
other (plastics) 0.00 0.02%
Pb 0.00 0.03%
PCB 0.00 0.00%
Pd 0.00 0.00%
Plastics general 0.30 29.60%
PS (HI) 0.00 0.00%
PUR 0.00 0.00%
PVC 0.00 0.21%
Sb 0.00 0.00%
Sn 0.00 0.09%
Stainless steel 0.01 1.23%
Steel low alloyed 0.59 58.97%
Wood 0.00 0.00%
Zn 0.00 0.10%
Total 1kg 100%
Al (general)
1%
Cu
4%
Fe
2%
Other/inerts 2%
Plastics
general
30%
Stainless
steel
1%
Steel low
alloyed
59%
Small household (kg)›1%
Ag 1%
As 0%
Au 0% Be
0% Bi 0%
Br 3%
Cd 0%
Ceramics 41%
Cl 0% Co
1%
Cr 1%
Epoxy 0%
Glass (white) 0%
Hg 0%
Glass 8%
Liquid Crystals 0%
Mn 0%
Ni 6%
Oil 0%
other (plastics) 2%
Pb 2%
PCB 0%
Pd 0%
PS (HI) 0%
PUR 0%
PVC 17%
Sb 0%
Sn 8%
Wood 0%
Zn 8%
Small household (kg) ‹1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 57
Category 3C
WEEE Category
LCD-containing ICT
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive
Review.
Material per kg (g) %
ABS 0.071 7% Ag 0.000 0% Al (general) 0.046 5% Au 0.000 0% Bi 0.000 0% Br 0.000 0% Ceramics 0.035 4% Cl 0.000 0% Co 0.000 0% Cr 0.000 0% Cu 0.061 6% Epoxy 0.000 0% Fe 0.000 0% Glass (white) 0.000 0% Hg 0.000 0% Glass (LCD) 0.049 5% Ni 0.001 0% Other/inerts 0.000 0% Pb 0.000 0% Pd 0.000 0% PE (HD) 0.059 6% PET 0.012 1% Plastics general 0.275 28% PVC 0.018 2% Sb 0.000 0% Sn 0.000 0% Steel low alloyed 0.371 37% Wood 0.000 0% Zn 0.000 0%
Total 1kg 100%
ABS 7%
Al (general) 5%
Ceramics 4%
Cu 6%
Glass (LCD) 5%
PE (HD) 6%
PET 1%
Plastics general 28%
PVC 2%
Steel low alloyed 37%
Laptops (per kg) >1%
Ag 5%
Au 2%
Bi 0%
Br 0%
Cl 0%
Co 0%
Cr 1%
Epoxy 0%
Fe 20%
Glass (white) 0%
Hg 0% Ni
34% Other/inerts
0%
Pb 22%
Pd 0%
Sb 1%
Sn 5%
Wood 0%
Zn 10%
Laptops (per kg) <1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 58
Category 4A
WEEE Category
Small household (plastic dominated) consumer electronics
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive
Review.
Materials per kg(g) %
Ag 0.00 0.00%
Al (general) 0.05 4.60%
As 0.00 0.00%
Au 0.00 0.00%
Be 0.00 0.00%
Bi 0.00 0.00%
Br 0.00 0.01%
Cd 0.00 0.00%
Ceramics 0.01 0.61%
Cl 0.00 0.03%
Co 0.00 0.00%
Cr 0.00 0.00%
Cu 0.10 10.41%
Epoxy 0.00 0.42%
Fe 0.04 3.84%
Glass (white) 0.00 0.00%
Hg 0.00 0.00%
Glass 0.00 0.00%
Liquid Crystals 0.00 0.00%
Mn 0.00 0.00%
Ni 0.00 0.02%
Oil 0.00 0.00%
Other/inerts 0.02 1.95%
other (plastics) 0.00 0.01%
Pb 0.00 0.05%
PCB 0.00 0.00%
Pd 0.00 0.00%
Plastics general 0.25 24.72%
PS (HI) 0.00 0.03%
PUR 0.00 0.00%
PVC 0.00 0.02%
Sb 0.00 0.01%
Sn 0.00 0.04%
Stainless steel 0.04 4.16%
Steel low alloyed 0.40 39.91%
Wood 0.09 9.06%
Zn 0.00 0.08%
Total 1kg 100%
Al (general)
5% Ceramics
1%
Cu
10%
Fe
4%
Other/iner
ts
2%
Plastics
general
25%
Stainless
steel
4%
Steel low
alloyed
40%
Wood
9%
Small household (kg)›1%
As 0%
Au 0%
Be 0%
Bi 0%
Br 1%
Cd 0% Cl
3%
Co 0%
Cr 0%
Epoxy 58%
Glass (white)
0%
Hg 0%
Glass 0%
Liquid Crystals
0%
Mn 0%
Ni 3%
other (plastics)
2%
Pb 7%
PS (HI) 4%
PVC 3%
Sb 1%
Sn 6% Zn
11%
Small household (kg)‹1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 59
Category 4 Combined
WEEE Category
CRT and LCD containing consumer electronics
Notes This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive Review. Materials are blended based on 2008 market proportion of CRT and LCD presence
CRT – 1% LCD – 99%
Material per kg (g) %
ABS 0.146 15%
Ag 0.000 0%
Al (general) 0.062 6%
Au 0.000 0%
Bi 0.000 0%
Br 0.000 0%
Ceramics 0.011 1%
Cl 0.000 0%
Co 0.000 0%
Cr 0.000 0%
CRT-glass cone 0.002 0%
CRT-glass screen 0.004 0%
Cu 0.029 3%
Epoxy 0.000 0%
Fe 0.145 14%
Glass (white) 0.220 22%
Hg 0.000 0%
Glass (LCD) 0.000 0%
Ni 0.000 0%
Other/inerts 0.008 1%
Pb 0.000 0%
Pd 0.000 0%
PE (HD) 0.000 0%
PET 0.000 0%
Plastics general 0.156 16%
PVC 0.009 1%
Sb 0.000 0%
Sn 0.001 0%
Steel low alloyed 0.205 21%
Wood 0.000 0%
Zn 0.001 0%
Total 1kg 100%
ABS 15% Al
(general) 6% Ceramics
1%
Cu 3%
Fe
14%
Glass (white) 22%
Other/inert
s 1%
Plastics general 16%
PVC 1%
Steel low alloyed 21%
Televisions (per kg) >1%
Ag 1%
Au 0%
Bi
0%
Br 0% Cl
0%
Co 0%
Cr 1%
Epoxy
8%
Hg 0%
Glass (LCD) 0%
Ni 4%
Pb 16%
Pd 0%
PE (HD) 0% PET
0% Sb 1%
Sn 24%
Wood 13%
Zn 30%
Televisions (per kg) <1% excl. CRT
glass
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 60
Category 5B
WEEE Category
Lighting, bulbs
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive
Review.
Materials per kg(g) %
Ag 0.00 0.00%
Al (general) 0.06 5.65%
Au 0.00 0.00%
Br 0.00 0.00%
Ceramics 0.00 0.38%
Cl 0.00 0.00%
Cr 0.00 0.00%
Cu 0.02 1.92%
Epoxy 0.00 0.13%
Fe 0.00 0.10%
Fluorescent powder 0.02 1.65%
Glass (white low quality) 0.07 6.84%
Hg 0.00 0.00%
Glass (white high quality) 0.79 79.20%
Ni 0.00 0.00%
Pb 0.00 0.06%
Pd 0.00 0.00%
Plastics general 0.02 2.10%
Sb 0.00 0.00%
Sn 0.00 0.08%
Stainless steel 0.00 0.31%
Steel low alloyed 0.02 1.56%
Zn 0.00 0.01%
Total 1 100%
Al (general)
6% Cu
2%
Fluorescent powder
2% Glass
(white low quality)
7%
Glass (white high
quality) 79%
Plastics general
2%
Steel low alloyed
2%
Lighting (kg)›1%
Ceramics
35%
Epoxy 12% Fe
9% Pb
6%
Sn 7%
Stainless
steel
29%
Zn
1%
Lighting (kg)‹1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 61
Category 6
WEEE Category
Small household (plastic dominated) tools
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive
Review. Materials per kg(g) %
Ag 0.00 0.00%
Al (general) 0.02 1.78%
As 0.00 0.00%
Au 0.00 0.00%
Be 0.00 0.00%
Bi 0.00 0.00%
Br 0.00 0.00%
Cd 0.00 0.14%
Ceramics 0.00 0.04%
Cl 0.00 0.00%
Co 0.00 0.02%
Cr 0.00 0.00%
Cu 0.18 17.51%
Epoxy 0.00 0.06%
Fe 0.15 14.87%
Glass (white) 0.00 0.00%
Hg 0.00 0.00%
Glass 0.00 0.00%
Liquid Crystals 0.00 0.00%
Mn 0.00 0.00%
Ni 0.00 0.22%
Oil 0.00 0.00%
Other/inerts 0.01 1.37%
other (plastics) 0.00 0.14%
Pb 0.00 0.00%
PCB 0.00 0.00%
Pd 0.00 0.00%
Plastics general 0.37 36.78%
PS (HI) 0.00 0.00%
PUR 0.00 0.00%
PVC 0.00 0.34%
Sb 0.00 0.00%
Sn 0.00 0.03%
Stainless steel 0.00 0.43%
Steel low alloyed 0.26 26.24%
Wood 0.00 0.00%
Zn 0.00 0.03%
Total 1 100%
Al (general)
2%
Cu 18%
Fe 15%
Other/inerts
1%
Plastics general 37%
Steel low alloyed 26%
Small household (kg)›1%
Cd 10%
Ceramics 3% Co
1% Epoxy 4%
Ni 15%
other (plastics)
10%
PVC 23%
Sn 2%
Stainless steel 30%
Zn 2%
Small household (kg)‹1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 62
Solar PV
WEEE Category
Solar Panels are not included in WEEE.
Notes
This product profile is based on material breakdowns from confidential footprinting studies of UK PV
manufacturing.
Materials per kg(g) %
Aluminium 0.00 0.09%
Annodised Aluminium 0.22 22.19%
Copper 0.01 1.33%
Copper (in solder) 0.00 0.00%
Diodes 0.00 0.03%
Epoxy Resin 0.00 0.20%
EVA Resin 0.00 0.31%
Glass 0.70 69.62%
Glue 0.00 0.03%
Iron 0.00 0.10%
Nickel 0.00 0.10%
Organic Chemicals 0.00 0.06%
PET Film 0.00 0.14% Plastic (unknown type) 0.00 0.01%
Polyester 0.00 0.00%
Polypropylene 0.00 0.12%
Rubber 0.02 2.21%
Silicon 0.03 3.39%
Silicone Rubber 0.00 0.00%
Silver (in solder) 0.00 0.00%
Talcum Powder 0.00 0.03%
Tin (in solder) 0.00 0.04%
Total 1 100%
Annodised Aluminium
22%
Copper 1%
Glass 70%
Rubber 2%
Silicon 3%
Solar panel (per kg)›1%
Aluminium 7%
Diodes 2%
Epoxy Resin 16%
EVA
Resin 25%
Glue 2%
Iron 8%
Nickel 8%
Organic Chemicals
5%
PET Film 11%
Plastic (unknown
type) 0%
Polyester 0%
Polypropylene
10%
Silicone Rubber
0%
Silver (in
solder) 0%
Talcum Powder
2%
Tin (in solder)
3%
Solar panel (per kg) ‹1%
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 63
Appendix 6 Material summary table
Raw material Supply
risk
(1-10)
Water
risk
(1-10)
Carbon
risk
(1-10)
Major ore
producers14
Ef15 Use in EPs RR16 Notes
Aluminium 2.0 6 5 Australia 35%
Brazil 12%
China 12%
Guinea 8%
Jamaica 8%
India 7%
1%17 Aluminium is widely used in electronics as a
structural material for frames, as casing for
rigidity and protection of internal components,
in heat exchangers to take advantage of the
metal’s conductive properties.
35% Aluminium has low actual
recoverability for EPs due to the
nature of the products that
aluminium is contained in (high
volume, low value, consumer ‘throw
away’ items such as mobile phones,
kettles, electrical kitchen gadgets)
Antimony 6.9 7 5 China 91.2%
Bolivia 2.4%
Russia 1.6%
S Africa 1.6%
Tajikistan 1.1%
50%18 The main use is as a flame retardant for plastics
and other products . Highly pure antimony
(99.999%) is used in semiconductors in the
computer industry. But this only represents
0.01% of total use (European Commission,
2010). Electroconductive pigments of tin oxide
doped with antimony have been introduced in
recent years for incorporation in the plastic
coatings that protect delicate computer and
other electronic components from electrostatic
arcing (Butterman, 2004). Antimony is also used
in solders by the electronics industry in the
manufacture of circuit boards. (Butterman,
2004). Antimony-Tin-Oxide might be
increasingly used in LCD-displays, OLEDs or
photovoltaic cells (European Commission, 2010).
11% No effective substitute for its major
application (flame retardant). Low
recycling due to dissipative nature
of flame retardants.
14 Unless otherwise stated source is Annex of European Commission (2010) Critical raw materials for the EU – 2009 data
15 Ef = Global percentage of material used in electrical products – various sources
16 Recycling rate (RR) - Unless otherwise stated this is recycled content from old scrap as defined in annex of European Commission (2010)
17 GHGm (2008) 18 Estimate by Best Foot Forward based on Environment Agency report which quoted electronics and electrical goods as a major user of antimony oxide: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/EPOW-recovering-critical-raw-materials-T5v2.pdf (Pg 83)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 64
Raw material Supply
risk
(1-10)
Water
risk
(1-10)
Carbon
risk
(1-10)
Major ore
producers14
Ef15 Use in EPs RR16 Notes
Beryllium 6.8 - - USA 85.1%
China 14.2%
Mozambique
0.7%
Others >0.5%
40% Beryllium is used in semiconductors, wires and
cables. (European Commission, 2010), (GHGm)
19% Beryllium is rare in the earth's crust.
Due to its high cost and toxicity,
beryllium is only used when its
properties are crucial; it is therefore
hard to substitute. As much as 40%
of beryllium is used in electronics.
(European Commission, 2010)
Cobalt 3.9 5 4 DRC 40.8%
Canada 11.3%
Zambia 9.1%
Russia 8.2%
Australia 8.0%
China 7.9%
Cuba 4.2%
Morocco 2.2%
New Caledonia
2.1%
Brazil 1.6%
Others 4.5%
27%19 27% of cobalt is used in batteries, primarily in
high-performance rechargeable models.
(European Commission, 2010)
16%
19 Cobalt end-use in rechargeable batteries (mobile phones, notebooks, power tools and small household appliances)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 65
Raw material Supply
risk
(1-10)
Water
risk
(1-10)
Carbon
risk
(1-10)
Major ore
producers14
Ef15 Use in EPs RR16 Notes
Copper 2.5 6 2 Chile 34.5%
USA 8.5%
Peru 8.2%
China 6.2%
2%20 Copper is the best electrical conductor after
silver and is widely used in the production of
energy-efficient power circuits. Electron tubes
used in televisions and computer monitors,
audio and video amplification and in microwave
ovens depend on copper for their internal
components. Copper is extensively used in
computers where cables, connectors and circuit
boards all rely on copper. Copper is increasingly
being used in computer chips in place of
aluminium, resulting in faster operating speeds.
Copper wire is extensively used in
telecommunications and is essential for high
speed communication between computers
(European Commission, 2010).
20%
The International Copper Study
Group recycling estimates that
“waste electrical and electronic
equipment” could provide
approximately 19% of copper scrap
availability; however, this is largely
unrealised, as for example in 1999
the Group estimate that “office and
ICT” waste accounted for
approximately 1% of product end-
of-life copper recovery.(ICSG, 2004)
Gallium 4.8 5 9 Germany: 26%21
Canada: 23%
China: 17%
Ukraine: 12%
Other: 22%
86%22 Gallium is used primarily for integrated circuits.
Other uses include solar panels and LED
lighting. (European Commission, 2010)
0% Gallium production is in the order of
just 100 tonnes per year. Gallium is
not yet recycled from old scrap. The
carbon footprint of gallium is
relatively high compared with most
other metals, with 200kg CO2e
required for the production of 1kg
of gallium. (European Commission,
2010), (Ecoinvent)
Germanium 6.0 - - China: 71.6%
Russia: 3.6%
USA: 3.3%
15%22 Germanium is used in semiconductors to make
solar panels, circuits and LEDs. (European
Commission, 2010)
30%
20 GHGm (2008)
21 Environment Agency( 2011)
22 U.S. Geological Survey (2011.
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 66
Raw material Supply
risk
(1-10)
Water
risk
(1-10)
Carbon
risk
(1-10)
Major ore
producers14
Ef15 Use in EPs RR16 Notes
Gold 5.5 9 10 China 13%23
United States
9%
Australia 9%
Russia 8%
S Africa 8%
Peru 7%
Indonesia 5%
Canada 4%
9%24 Gold plating of connectors, switches, and other
components account for the main use of gold in
the electronic industry. It is also used in
bonding wires, finishing, sputters and solders.
The development of industrial catalysts based
on gold and the evolving field of
nanotechnology may lead to a rise in industrial
demand for gold in the future (GHGm, 2008).
According to the World Gold Council, this rise
has been a result of increasing sales of flat
panel displays and MP3 players, which employ
significant amounts of semiconductors (GHGm,
2008).
27%25
About 85% of all the gold mined
since historical times is believed to
be present in current
“aboveground” stocks, with the
remaining 15% believed to have
been lost or dissipated in industrial
processes, or unaccounted for. The
carbon footprint of gold is very high
at 13 tonnes CO2e per kg material.
(Ecoinvent)
Indium 5.3 8 8 China: 58.1%
Japan: 10.6%
Canada: 8.8%
Korea: 8.8%
Belgium: 5.3%
76% 74% of indium is used for flat display panels.
Other EuP uses include solder and LEDs.
(European Commission, 2010)
0.3%
Iron & steel 2.1 Iron: 6
Steel: 7
Iron: 2
Steel: 3
China 20.1%
Australia 19.4%
Brazil 17.8%
India 12.5%
Russia 5.7%
4%26 Iron (often in the form of steel) is found in
housings, frames, lids, covers, screws and
hinges. It makes a considerable contribution to
WEEE categories covering large household
appliances, IT and consumer electronics.
22%
Lithium 3.5 7 5 Chile 41.7%
Australia 24.8%
China 13.0%
Argentina
12.4%
Portugal 2.8%
Canada 2.7%
Zimbabwe 2.0%
Brazil 0.6%
20.2%27 20% of lithium is used for batteries, especially
for rechargeable high-performance batteries in
portable electronic devices. (European
Commission, 2010)
0% Future risk: lithium use in electric
vehicle batteries.
23 All data from British Geological Survey (2011) – 2009 data 24 2007 data
25 Estimated recycled supply to total annual production (2007). Source: GHGm (2008)
26 Electrical equipment and domestic appliances
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 67
Raw material Supply
risk
(1-10)
Water
risk
(1-10)
Carbon
risk
(1-10)
Major ore
producers14
Ef15 Use in EPs RR16 Notes
Magnesium 5.4 7 7 China 56.1%
Turkey 12.0%
Russia 7.0%
Slovakia 5.4%
Austria 4.0%
Australia 2.6%
2%28 Magnesium alloys are used for housings,
frames, lids, covers, screws and hinges in
devices such as laptops, cameras, mobile
phones and portable audio players. (GHGm,
2008)29
14%
Nickel 2.3 4 4 Russia 17.6%
Canada 16.5%
Australia 12.7%
Indonesia
12.3%
Philippines 5.3%
12.5%30 Nickel is used to make batteries (3% of total
nickel supply). Some 70% of global supply is
used in stainless steel – which is used in
electrical goods e.g. home appliances such as
dishwashers, clothes washing machines,
domestic cooking appliances, refrigerators and
freezers, and other small electronics goods.
32% The Nickel Institute suggests that
there is ‘room for improvement’ in
recycling of tin from electronic
products (GHGm, 2008). Nickel is
mainly recycled within the stainless
steel loop, thereby preserving the
value-added properties of nickel.
Nickel is difficult to substitute for in
the production of alloys.
Niobium 6.8 - - Brazil 92.4%
Canada 7.0%
Others 0.6%
<10%31 Niobium is used in capacitors for devices such
as mobile phones, laptops and digital cameras.
(European Commission, 2010)
11%
Plastics (from
crude oil)
- 5 3 Crude oil
producers:
Saudi Arabia
12%32
Russia 11%
United States
11%
China 5%
Iran 5%
Canada 4%
0.2%33 Plastics represent a significant proportion of
WEEE products by weight, however there are a
very wide range of plastics currently used within
EPs e.g. alkyd resins, amino resins, epoxy
resins, ethylene vinyl acetate, polyamide,
polyesters, polyethylene, polypropylene,
polystyrene, polytetrafluoroethene, etc.
25%34
27 Lithium use in rechargeable batteries and electronics 28 Best Foot Forward estimate based on assumption that approximately 50% of magnesium is used in production of aluminium & steel (http://www.intlmag.org/faq.html). 29 International Magnesium Association (2008) 30 Nickel Institute (2011) 31 U.S. Geological Survey (2006) 32 CIA (2010) 33 Based on assumption that 4% of global oil production is used for plastics and 5.6% of plastics are used in electronic and electrical goods in Europe (Plastics Europe, 2010)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 68
Raw material Supply
risk
(1-10)
Water
risk
(1-10)
Carbon
risk
(1-10)
Major ore
producers14
Ef15 Use in EPs RR16 Notes
Platinum Group
Metals
7.9 6
(platinum)
10
(platinum)
Russia 41.0%
S Africa 40.5%
USA 6.4%
11%35 ‘Platinum Group Metals (PGMs) are used in a
variety of applications, such as computer hard
discs (Platinum and Ruthenium), multilayer
ceramic capacitors (Palladium) or hybridized
integrated circuits’ ... ‘Use in electronics has
decreased due to price increases and material
substitution’. (GHGm, 2008)
35% ‘For PGMs in electronic applications,
recovery rates are probably only in
the range of 10%. The EU WEEE
directive currently provides here
only little support since under the
mass based recycling targets no
incentives exist to secure optimum
access to PGM containing
components and their most
appropriate recovery, and other
than for autocatalysts the economic
motivation for PGM recycling is
much lower’ (GHGm, 2008) The
carbon footprint of gold is very high
at 15 tonnes CO2e per kg material.
(Ecoinvent)
Rare earth
elements
8.9 6 2 China 97%
India 2.2%
Brazil 0.5%
Malaysia 0.3%
21%36 The 17 rare earth elements are used variously in
batteries (portable tools, hybrid cars), high
performance magnets (wind power,
electromobility) and capacitors. (European
Commission, 2010)
1% China dominates the production of
rare earth elements, and
increasingly restricts supply to other
countries. These other countries
possess 64% of global reserves, but
have been reluctant to exploit these
because of localised environmental
impacts. New mines are being built
or planned in several countries. For
most applications, substitutes for
rare earth elements are available,
but with loss of performance.
(European Commission, 2010; USGS
2010)
34 http://www.bpf.co.uk/sustainability/plastics_recycling.aspx. Plastic waste from industrial scrap is generally referred to as 'reprocessed' to distinguish from 'recycled' material which is derived from genuine post-use products.
35 GHGm (2008) – Annex. Some 15% of palladium – a major metal in this group – is used in global electronics industry (GHGm, 2008). 36 Estimate based on totals of: ceramic capacitors, polishing and batteries. Source: GHGm (2008) – Annex.
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 69
Raw material Supply
risk
(1-10)
Water
risk
(1-10)
Carbon
risk
(1-10)
Major ore
producers14
Ef15 Use in EPs RR16 Notes
Silicon - 7 7 China 67%
Russia 9%
Norway 5%
Brazil 3%
United States
2% 37
Silicon wafers are used in transistors,
semiconductors, electronics and solar cells (for
solar PV applications). In terms of final EPs,
silicon is present in desktop PCs, laptops and
televisions (liquid crystal displays)
-38 Silicon is a risk in terms of global
consumption (REKTN 2008)
Silver 3.3 7 8 Peru 17.3%
Mexico 15.2%
China 13.1%
Australia 9.1%
Chile 6.6%
Russia 6.1%
USA 5.8%
Poland 5.6%
23%39 Silver has the highest electrical conductivity of
all metals and is therefore important to many
electronic devices. These include circuit boards,
solar panels, batteries and plasma displays.
(European Commission, 2010). Silver
membrane switches, which require only a light
touch, are used in buttons on televisions,
telephones, microwave ovens, children’s toys
and computer keyboards. Silver-based inks
produce so-called RFID tags (radio frequency
identification) antennas. Due to environmental
and safety concerns, silver-oxide batteries are
beginning to replace lithium-ion batteries in
mobile phones and laptop computers. Silver is
also used in solder and brazing (Silver Institute).
16% Recycling from EuPs could be much
higher if more waste were collected
for recycling and better recycling
technologies were used. Copper is a
reasonable substitute for silver in
electronics. (European Commission,
2010; USGS 2010)
Tantalum 4.1 8 9 Australia 48.3%
Brazil 15.5%
Canada 3.4%
DRC 8.6%
Rwanda 8.6%
Others 15.5%
60%40 60% of tantalum is used for capacitors for
devices including mobile phones, laptops and
digital cameras.
4% ‘Recycling from capacitors, the main
user of tantalum, is difficult and
insufficiently developed.’ (European
Commission, 2010)
37 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011
38 USGS report ‘insignificant’ recycling rates: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/mcs-2010-simet.pdf 39 US Geological Survey, (2005). 2003 data – likely to be higher now as increasing trend. No more recent data found.
40 US Geological Survey, (2008)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 70
Raw material Supply
risk
(1-10)
Water
risk
(1-10)
Carbon
risk
(1-10)
Major ore
producers14
Ef15 Use in EPs RR16 Notes
Tellurium 1.2 4 4 Canada 59%
Peru 26%
Japan 16%
37%41 26% of tellurium is used in solar panels.
(European Commission, 2010)
<10
%
Recent growth in production of
Cadmium Telluride solar panels
(thin-film) has significantly
increased tellurium demand. There
is debate over whether global
supply at present levels can meet
this rising demand for use in solar
PV technologies (Zweibel, K. 2010).
Annual global tellurium production is
estimated at 160 - 260 tonnes, with
demand potentially reaching 800
tonnes by 201342
Tin 6.0 8 5 China 41%
Indonesia 30%
50%43 Tin is used in solder and printed circuit boards.
It comprises less than 1% of most electronic
products. (GHGm, 2008)
30-
40%
Most tin recycling is from solder in
electronic products; however, de-
tinning of tinplate steel cans is
important too (GHGm, 2008).
Tungsten 6.1 - - China 77.8%
Russia 5.4%
Canada 4.1%
Austria 2.0%
Bolivia 2.0%
Portugal 1.5%
Others 7.3%
<10%44 Tungsten is used for wires, electrodes and
contacts in lighting, electronic, electrical
and heating applications. (European
Commission, 2010)
37%
41 European Commission, 2010. The sum of tellurium’s use in photovoltaics and ‘electronics and other’ products. 42 Wesoff , E. (2011) 43 Historical trends in tin usage, ITRI, 2009: http://www.itri.co.uk/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_id=49603&cf_id=24 44 Tungsten used in “Fabricated products” estimated at 17% (European Commission 2010)
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 71
Appendix 7 Market data
Retail sales category name
Definition Volume (000s)
Data year Volume source Unit Weight
(kg) Source
Air conditioning Close Control, Ducted Split (or split-packaged), Indoor Mini Split, Moveable Roof Top and Window units. Domestic, commercial and industrial.
237 2010 MTP 19 FRN
Audio separates Headphones, speakers, amplifiers 660 2,009 GFK 3.20 Estimate
Commercial lighting All commercial lighting (office, industrial and commercial including CFL, LED, High Pressure Mercury, High pressure Sodium, Low Pressure Sodium, Metal Halide, T12, T8_Tri Phosphor B1, T8_Tri Phosphor A, T8_Halo Phosphor B1, T8_Halo Phosphor B2, T5, Tungsten Halogen, Compact Metal Halide).
110,691 2010 MTP 0.12 Various
Desk Type Desk type fans. 214 Estimate Estimate 3 Amazon
Desktop PCs Domestic and SOHO (small office/home office) complete desktops (i.e. monitor, tower, keyboard and mouse) and bundled packages (separate towers plus scanners, printers and other peripherals). Excluded: ‘PC peripherals’ sold separately, such as monitors, scanners, speakers, printers etc.
1,917 2009 GFK 16 FRN
Digital cameras Digital still cameras and video cameras. 6,058 2009 GFK 0.24 Nikon
Dishwashers Full-size, slimline or tabletop models. 793 2009 GFK 47 FRN
DIY EuPs Power tools excluding accessories. 4,493 2009 GFK 1 Bosch
Domestic electric heating
Installed electric heating (storage heaters, fixed panel heaters, electric radiators and electric towel warmers), Portables (convector heaters, portable panel heaters
and fan heaters) and electric Fuel Effect Fires. 1,164 Estimate Estimate 8 Various
Domestic lighting- Fluorescent
Linear fluorescent and CFL. 97,134 2010 MTP 0.11 Amazon
Domestic lighting- Halogen
Halogen lightbulbs purchased for domestic use. 61,602 2010 MTP 0.09 Amazon
Domestic lighting- LED
LED lightbulbs purchased for domestic use. 65 2010 MTP 0.07 Amazon
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 72
Retail sales category name
Definition Volume (000s)
Data year Volume source Unit Weight
(kg) Source
Domestic solar PV Domestic solar PV commissioned in the UK 1/7/2010 - 30/6/2011.
33 2010 OFGEM
8,452,941 (total weight)
Various
Domestic type extractor (axial & centrifugal)
Domestic type extractor (axial & centrifugal). 2,225 Estimate Estimate 1 Amazon
Domestic wind Domestic wind power (0-50kW) commissioned in the UK 1/7/201 0- 30/6/2011.
2.81 2010 BWEA
1,075,201 (total weight)
Estimate
Dry-cell batteries Primary and secondary/rechargeable types, sold for household and specific specialist consumer applications such as watches or cameras. Excluded: any batteries,
disposable or otherwise, supplied as original equipment. 584,000 2009 Mintel 0.02 Mintel
DVD/VHS systems DVD players, DVD recorders (excludes Blu-ray recorders), Combination DVD/VCRs, Portable DVD players, Blu-ray players (basic Blu-ray players, Blu-ray recorders, home theatre systems and PS3 games console).
4,305 2009 GFK 2 Amazon
Electric cookers Electric cookers, either freestanding or built-in (including dual fuel).
1,507 2009 GFK 56 FRN
Electric water heaters Electric storage (kitchen heater or small shower) water heaters, Electric instantaneous water heaters and electric boiling water appliances (electronic) and Electric showers (instantaneous hydraulic). Excludes: combination units for space and water heating.
1,447 2010 MTP 4 Various
Electrical kitchen gadgets
Coffee grinders, electric carving knives, meat mincers and electric can openers (amongst others).
1,158 2009 Mintel 2 FRN
Electronic Security & Access Control
CCTV cameras, intruder alarms and access control systems (e.g. card readers)
15,137 Estimate Estimate 6 Various
ePSUs 1) Small (mobile) ePSUs –rated power 0-8W generally used for charging mobile products or low power
consuming 24/7 devices; 2) Mid-small ePSUs –rated power 8-36W generally used by larger PC peripherals or smaller audio devices; 3) Mid ePSUs –rated power 36-50W for standalone devices. Contains higher power versions of some of the products in the mid-small category e.g. home theatre audio systems and; 4) Big ePSUs –rated power 50-250W for high power devices such as battery operated power tools.
53,237 2010 MTP 1 Estimate
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 73
Retail sales category name
Definition Volume (000s)
Data year Volume source Unit Weight
(kg) Source
Food preparation equipment
Food processors, hand-held blenders, liquidisers, fixed stand food mixers, hand-held food mixers and mini-blenders/choppers.
2,977 2009 Mintel 2 FRN
Freezers Frost-free and non-frost-free models (including large US-style appliances incorporating features such as ice and water dispensers) both freestanding and those designed to fit under existing units in a built-in kitchen.
699 2009 GFK 45 FRN
Fridge-freezers Upright or chest, either frost-free or non-frost-free. 1,325 2009 GFK 51 FRN
Fridges Larder-style (including large US-style). Also standard, i.e. with icebox.
2,078 2009 GFK 38 FRN
Game consoles No definition provided. 4,554 2010 MTP 2 Various
Garden power Electric lawnmowers, strimmers, hedge trimmers, cutters, blower vacs and chainsaws.
1,971 2009 GFK 6 Amazon
Health grills Table-top/health grills including raclettes, barbecue-style grills, crêpe makers, etc.
1,645 2009 Mintel 2 FRN
Home Audio/Hi-Fi Home audio systems (non-portable). 1,982 2009 GFK 8.20 Estimate
Hot beverage makers Filter coffee machines, espresso/cappuccino makers, combination filter/espresso/cappuccino machines, coffee percolators and electric tea makers.
1,190 2009 Mintel 2 FRN
Irons Domestic handheld steam irons, steam generators, dry irons and travel irons. Corded and cordless units.
4,310 2006 Mintel 2 FRN
Kettles Cordless or corded models, jug/coffee pot and traditional style and travel kettles.
8,617 2009 Mintel 2 FRN
Laptop Portables (conventional laptop), Ultra-portables (sub 2kg units) and tablets. Extract from Mintel report: "Although there is a significant blurring of product boundaries as to what constitutes a tablet PC and a top-end PDA, Mintel defines tablet PCs as coming from a laptop PC heritage as well as having either a built-in keyboard or a stylus or both".
6,284 2009 GFK 3 FRN
Microwaves Compact/solo microwave-only models (oven capacity <27 cubic litres), microwave plus grill (compact or full size), combination ovens combining microwave with grill power or microwave with convection heat (compact and full size).
3,157 2009 GFK 19 FRN
Mobile phones Mobile phone handsets (including contract). 26,612 2009 GFK 0.12 Amazon
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 74
Retail sales category name
Definition Volume (000s)
Data year Volume source Unit Weight
(kg) Source
Non-domestic axial Non-domestic axial. 229 Estimate Estimate 14 Amazon
Non-domestic centrifugal
Non-domestic centrifugal. 153 Estimate Estimate 14 Amazon
Non-domestic desktops
Non-domestic desktop. 2,907 2010 MTP 10 Amazon
Non-domestic heating accessories
Controllers, programmers and programmable thermostats.
784 Estimate Estimate 0.34 Amazon
Non-domestic laptops Non-domestic laptops. 6,522 2010 MTP 4 Amazon
Non-domestic
monitors
Commercial monitors. 5,499 2010 MTP 3.92 Estimate
Non-domestic printers Commercial printers and photocopiers. 3,320 2010 MTP 10.61 Estimate
Non-Domestic Roof Extractor Fans
Non-domestic roof extractor fans. 11 Estimate Estimate 45 Amazon
Non-Domestic Tangential Fans
Non-domestic tangential fans. 125 Estimate Estimate 1 Amazon
PC peripherals Domestic and SOHO (small office/home office): Keyboards, mice, monitors, scanners, printers (single-function and multi-function but excluding dedicated photo printers), joysticks and gamepads (and other gaming accessories such steering wheels etc.), wireless routers, external hard-drives, speakers, microphones, headsets and webcams. Excludes: peripherals that are bundled with a new PC, all software.
6,174 2009 GFK 7 FRN
PDA Compatible with home or laptop computers, allowing the user to transfer data and use the PDA for the usual computing functions and programs. May also be referred to as a ‘palmtop’, ‘handheld computer’ or ‘pocket PC’.
1,027 2006 Mintel 0.18 Dell
Personal electrical appliances
Hairdryers and travel hairdryers – fixed or hand-held, hairstyling tongs/brushes, hair crimpers and straighteners and heated rollers. Products may be mains-powered, powered by battery or gas, or rechargeable. Note: ‘retail trade’ does not include items sold to or sold by hair salons.
9,500 2007 Mintel 1 FRN
Portable audio players MP3 players (like iPod), personal CD players, personal minidisc players.
18,292 2009 GFK 2 Amazon & Mintel
Refrigerated display cabinets
Commercial refrigeration units. 112 2,008 Centre for Reuse and
Remanufacturing 750
Centre for Reuse and Remanufacturing
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 75
Retail sales category name
Definition Volume (000s)
Data year Volume source Unit Weight
(kg) Source
Set-top boxes Simple STBs (basic, PVR) and complex STBs (satellite basic, satellite PVR, cable basic, cable PVR). 3,422 2009 GFK 3 Amazon & MTP
Telephone equipment Phone Device- telephone, answering machine. 6,322 2009 GFK 1.25 Estimate
Televisions Colour TV sets including TVs that include a combined video/DVD. Excluded: Monochrome sets, miniature receivers, projection televisions, Freeview set-top boxes, digital TV storage devices, home cinema systems and non-commercial monitors (e.g. CCTV
monitors).
9,943 2009 GFK 11 FRN & Mintel
Toasters All types. 4,208 2009 Mintel 2 FRN
Tumble dryers Separate tumble dryers (gas or electric), vented or condenser machines; and standalone spin dryers (electric only).
896 2009 GFK 39 FRN
Vacuum cleaners Upright, cylinder, multifunction (includes two-in-one and three-in-one products that vacuum/wash carpets and clean/wash hard floors and dry hard floors), handheld (mains and rechargeable) and other (mains and rechargeable): an umbrella category for sticks,
cordless vacs, electric carpet sweepers and robotic models. Excluded: Products designed for the industrial or commercial markets and battery-only handheld cleaners.
5,767 2009 GFK 13 FRN
Washing machines Including washer-dryers. 2,539 2009 GFK 65 FRN
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 76
Appendix 8 Category resources
Category Reference Publication Date
Confidentiality
1. Televisions/Monitors
AEAT, 2008. Revising the Ecolabel Criteria for Televisions – Final Report 2008 Public
CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORP., 2006. Environmental Product Declaration N154 series, CCFL Backlight. Available at: http://gryphon.environdec.com/data/files/6/7625/ENG_TFT_LCD_EPD.pdf [Accessed august
2011]
2006 Public
Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Televisions 2008 Public
Feng, C. and Qian, X., 2009. The energy consumption and environmental impacts of a color TV set in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 1-104
2009 Public
Fraunhofer IZM, 2007. Consumer electronics: televisions. Preparatory Study EuP Lot 5 2007 Public
Hischier, R. & Baudin, I., 2010. LCA study of a plasma television device. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2010) 15:428–438
2010 Public
Socolof, M.L, Overly, J.G. and Geibig, J.R., 2005. Environmental life-cycle impacts of CRT and LCD desktop computer displays. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 p. 1281-1294
2005 Public
Sony, 2010. LCA 32inch LCA Television (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Environment/activities/reduction/products/index.html#module6)
2010 Public
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
WRAP, 2010. Bills of Materials - Electrical goods 2010 Public
2. Laptops
AEAT, 2009. 2nd Discussion Report: EU Ecolabel for Personal Computers – Laptops 2009 Public
Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Laptop Personal Computers 2008 Public
European Commission, 2004. Product Fact Sheet: The European eco-label for portable computers 2004 Public
IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation, 2005. Personal Computers (desktops and laptops) and computer monitors, Preparatory Study EuP Lot 3
2005 Public
Shiau, C.-S., Tseng, I.H., Heutchy, A.W. and Michalek, J., 2007. "Design optimization of a laptop computer using aggregated and mixed logit demand models with consumer survey data", Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
2007 Private
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
WRAP, 2010. Bills of Materials - Electrical goods 2010 Public
3. Other Display based electronics
Apple, 2010. iPhone 4 Environmental Report. Available at: http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPhone_4_Product_Environmental_Report.pdf. [Accessed August 2011]
2010 Public
Apple, 2010. ipod touch Environmental Report. Available at: http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPodtouch_Product_Environmental_Report_2010.pdf. [Accessed August 2011]
2010 Public
Canning, 2006. Rethinking market connections: mobile phone recovery, reuse and recycling in the UK. The 2006 Public
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 77
Category Reference Publication
Date
Confidentiality
Business School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
EPA, 2004. The Lifecycle of a Cell Phone 2004 Public
3. Other Display based electronics
McLaren and Piukkula, 2004. Case Study Snapshot (NOKIA 7600). The WEEE Man 2004 Public
Moberg,A., Johansson, M., Finnvenden, G. and Jonsoon, A., 2007. Screening environmental life cycle assessment of printed, web based and tablet e-paper newspaper. KTH Centre for Sustainable Communications Stockholm, Sweden 2007
2007 Public
NOKIA,2006.Integrated Product Policy Pilot on Mobile Phones Stage IV Final Report: New Environmental Initiatives & Experiences from the pilot
2006 Public
Scharnhorst, W., 2006. Life cycle assessment of second generation (2G) and third generation (3G) mobile
phone networks. Environment International 2006 Public
Scharnhorst,W., 2006. Life Cycle Assessment in the Telecommunication Industry: A Review. Int J LCA 2006 Public
Singhal, P., 2005. Integrated Product Policy Pilot Project – Stage I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Issues of Mobile Phones. NOKIA, Espoo, Finland
2005 Public
Tan, K.C.N., 2005. Life Cycle Assessment of a Mobile Phone Dissertation at University of Southern Queensland 2005 Public
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
Apple, 2011. Ipad Environmental Report. Available at: http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPad_2_Environmental_Report.pdf [Accessed September 2011]
2011 Public
Apple, 2011. MacBook Environmental Report. Available at: http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/MacBook-Pro-15-inch-Environmental-Report-Feb2011.pdf .
[Accessed September 2011].
2011 Public
Nokia, 2011. Nokia product declaration X7-00.1. Available at: http://nds1.nokia.com/eco_declaration/files/eco_declaration_phones/X7-00.1_Eco_profile.pdf [Accessed 15th September]
2011 Public
WRAP, 2010. Bills of Materials - Electrical goods 2010 Public
4. Complex processing electronics
Yang, B. Luo, Y. Zhou, M., 2000. A fuzzy logic-based lifecycle comparison of digital and filmcameras. Electronics and the Environment, 2000. ISEE 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Symposium on On page(s): 304-309
2000 Public
Best Foot Forward, 2006. An Ecological Footprint and Carbon Audit of CD player BB-01- DAB Intempo Digital 2006 Private
Best Foot Forward, 2006. The Carbon footprint of Computing 2006 Private
Best Foot Forward, 2009. A Carbon Footprint Analysis of the GLA IT Infrastructure and selected Projects 2009 Private
Complex set-top boxes for digital television (Simple STBs) Preparatory Study EuP Final Report Lot 18 Public
Duan, Eugster, Hischier, 2008. Life Cycle Assessment Study of a Chinese Desktop Computer. Science of the Total Environment. Vol 405
2008 Public
Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Set top boxes 2008 Public
University of Southern Queensland, 2005. Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, Life Cycle Assessment of a Personal Computer
2005 Public
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation, 2005. Personal Computers (desktops and laptops) and 2006 Public
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 78
Category Reference Publication
Date
Confidentiality
computer monitors, Preparatory Study EuP Lot 4
4. Complex processing electronics
Fujitsu, 2010. White Paper Life Cycle Assessment and Product Carbon Footprint - Fujitsu ESPRIMO E9900 Desktop PC (Accessed September 2011) 2010 Public
MVV Consulting GmbH, 2007. Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs: Simple Digital TV Converters (Simple Set Top Boxes)Report to European Commission (Accessed September 2011) 2007 Public
WRAP, 2010. Bills of Materials - Electrical goods 2010 Public
5. Simple processing electronics
IZM and PE Europe, 2007. Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II): Lot 4 “Imaging Equipment”. Report to European Commission (Accessed September 2011)
2007 Public
Kyocera Mita, unknown. Implementation of LCA. Available at: http://www.kyoceramita.com/environment/product/lca.html [Accessed September 2011]
Unknown Public
6. External Power Supplies
ABB Oy, Machines. Environmental Product Declaration AC generator type AMG 0900, 5125 kVA power Unknown Public
UMEC, 2008. Environmental Product Declaration AC DC Adapter 2008 Public
8. Single function pumps and motors
AEA Energy and Environment, 2009. Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II): Lot 17 Vacuum Cleaners Final Report. Report to European Commission (Accessed September 2011)
2009 Public
ETA.a.s., 2005. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD): Floor Vacuum Cleaner ETA 1450 Promixo (LCA and Bill of Materials)
2005 Public
European Commission, 2004. Product Fact Sheet: The European eco-label for vacuum cleaners 2004 Public
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
Young Joon, A. and Kyeong Won, L., 2006. Application of Axiomatic Design and TRIZ in Ecodesign. The examples of Eco-design: Vacuum Cleaners
2006 Public
Design Decisions Wiki - Blender (Bill of Materials and LCA) (http://ddl.me.cmu.edu/ddwiki/index.php/Blender#LCA)
Public
WRAP 2010, Bills of Materials - Electrical goods. 2010 Public
9. Battery powered pumps and motors
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
Electric Toothbrush (Bill of Materials) (http://www.personal.psu.edu/fme5002/projecthome.htm) 2007 Public
Climatop, 2010. CO2 Balance: Batteries ( A translation from original German text) 2010 Public
Hawkins,T, Majeau-Bettez, G., Gaussen, O. And Strømman, AH., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of NiMH and Li Ion Battery Electric Vehicles
2010 Public
McDowall, J. and Siret, C. Energy - saving batteries - Green or greenwash? 2009 Public
Öko-Institut e.V., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for HEV Application. 2010 Public
WRAP 2010, Bills of Materials - Electrical goods 2010 Public
10. Spatial cooling
ARAP, 2002. Household Refrigerators - A Working Example, The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Available at: http://www.arap.org/print/docs/household.html. Date accessed: June 17, 2004
2002 Public
ENEA, 2007. Domestic Refrigerators and freezers, Preparatory Study EuP Lot 13 2007 Public
Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Refrigeration Products 2008 Public
European Commission, 2004. Product Fact Sheet: The European eco-label for refrigerators 2004 Public
Horie, Y.A. Life Cycle Optimization of Household Refrigerator-Freezer Replacement. Center for Sustainable Systems, Univ. of Michigan Report No. CSS04-
2004 Public
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 79
Category Reference Publication
Date
Confidentiality
Kim, H.C., Keoleian, G. and Horie, Y., 2005. Optimal Refrigerator replacement Policy for Life Cycle Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Cost. Energy Policy In Press
2005 Public
10. Spatial cooling
Rüdenauer, I.and Gensch, C. O. 2007. Environmental and economic evaluation of the accelerated replacement of domestic appliances - Case study refrigerators and freezers. Öko-Institut e.V.
2007 Public
Steiner, R., 2005. TIMELY REPLACEMENT OF WHITE GOODS – INVESTIGATION OF MODERN APPLIANCES IN A LCA (ESU-services) Available at: http://www.esu-services.ch/download/Steiner-2005-TimelyReplacement.pdf
2005 Public
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
Electrolux, 2000. Certified Environmental Product Declaration for ER 8199B. [Online EPD] Available at: http://www.leonardo-energy.org/webfm_send/612. [Accessed 16th May 2011]
2000 Public
ISIS, 2007. Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs: Lot 13 Domestic Refrigerators
and Freezers. Report to European Commission (Accessed September 2011) 2007 Public
Öko-Institut e.V.., 2007. Environmental and economic evaluation of the accelerated replacement of domestic appliances. (Accessed September 2011)
2007 Public
11. Spatial heating
Bevilacqua, M., Caresana, F., Comodi, G., and Venella, P., 2010. Life cycle assessment of a domestic cooker hood
2010 Public
Dettling, J. and Margni, M., 2009. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Hand Drying Systems: The XLERATOR Hand Dryer, Conventional Hand Dryers and Paper Towel Systems
2009 Public
Hansen, M.S., 2003. Life Cycle Assessment of two Electrolux electric cookers: ELK8200AL and EKV5600, Institut for Produktion og Ledelse, Technical University of Denmark
2003 Public
Baxi S.p.A. 2009. EPD BAXI WALL HUNG CONDENSING BOILER LUNA 4 2009 Public
Otto, R., Ruminy, A. and Mrotzek, H., 2006. Energy Consumption; Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Household Appliances, BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, Appliance Magazine Engineering
2006 Public
Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III). Lot 23 Domestic and commercial hobs and grills included when incorporated into cookers
2011 Public
12. Multi-function appliances
Bole, 2006. Life-Cycle Optimization of Residential Clothes Washer Replacement. Centre for Sustainable Systems. University of Michigan
2006 Public
Ecobilan and PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008. Ecodesign of Laundry Dryers: Preparatory studies for Ecodesign requirements of Energy using-Products (EuP) – Lot 16. European Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General for Energy and Transport
2008 Public
ENEA, 2007. Domestic dishwashers and washing machines, Preparatory Study EuP Lot 14 2007 Public
Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Washing Machines 2008 Public
EU Eco-label for washing machines Public
European Commission, 2004. Product Fact Sheet: The European eco-label for washing machines 2004 Public
European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries, Eco Design Package, Consumer Product Dishwasher Casing
Unknown Public
Hinells. M. Parallels between energy efficiency in domestic appliances and environmental lifecycle analysis of products. Manchester Metropolitan University
1993 Public
Oko Institute, 2004. Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Washing machines – Life Cycle Assessment and determination of optimal life span
2004 Public
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 80
Category Reference Publication
Date
Confidentiality
Oko Institute, 2005. Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Washing machines Refinement of Task 4: Further use versus substitution of washing machines in stock
2005 Public
12. Multi-function appliances
Otto, R., Ruminy, A. and Mrotzek, H., 2006. Energy Consumption; Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Household Appliances, BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, Appliance Magazine Engineering 2006 Public
Roy. R, 1997. 'Design for Environment' in practice - development of the Hoover 'New Wave' washing machine model. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design Issue 1
1997 Public
Rudenauer, I. , 2005. Replacing old home appliances with new ones – The findings of Öko-Institut studies. Ppt presentation
2005 Public
Rüdenauer, I. and Gensch, C.O., 2005. Environmental and economic evaluation of the accelerated
replacement of domestic appliances 2005 Public
Steiner, R., 2005. TIMELY REPLACEMENT OF WHITE GOODS – INVESTIGATION OF MODERN APPLIANCES IN A LCA (ESU-services). Available at: http://www.esu-services.ch/download/Steiner-2005-TimelyReplacement.pdf
2005 Public
WRAP, 2009. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Study of Replacement and Refurbishment options for domestic washing machines. ERM
2009 Public
ISIS, 2007. Work on Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs:. Lot 14 Domestic Washing Machines and Dishwashers. (Accessed September 2011)
2007 Public
13. Other appliances
Market Transformation Programme, 2008. BNCK06: Trends in kettle type and usage and possible impact on energy consumption
2008 Public
Sweatman, A. and Gertsakis, J. Eco-kettle: Keeping the kettle boiling. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Design
and Contextual Studies 2001 Public
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Work on Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III). Lot 25 Non-Tertiary coffee Machines. (Accessed October 2011)
2011 Public
WRAP, 2010. Bills of Materials - Electrical goods 2010 Public
14. Microwaves Bio Intelligence, Cobham, 2009. Domestic and commercial ovens (electric, gas and microwave) Preparatory Study Lot 22 - NO DOCUMENTS FINISHED YET
2009 Public
Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Microwaves and Ovens 2008 Public
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Work on Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III). Lot 22
Domestic and commercial ovens, including when incorporated in cookers. (Accessed September 2011) 2011 Public
WRAP, 2010. Bills of Materials - Electrical goods 2010 Public
15. Lighting Couillard, S. Bage, G. and Trudel, J.S. 2009. Comparative LCA of artificial vs natural Christmas tree 2009 Public
NTNU, 2009. Environmental Declaration ISO 14025, Memo, Calypso, Movero and Vision. Available at: http://www.epd-norge.no/getfile.php/PDF/EPD/Energi/NEPD%20129E%20asy%20lamper.pdf. [Accessed August 2011]
2009 Public
AEA Technology Environment, 1999. Revising the ecolabel criteria for lamps. 1999 Public
Electrolux, 2000. Certified Environmental Product Declaration for ER 8199B. [Online EPD] Available at: http://www.leonardo-energy.org/webfm_send/612. [Accessed August 2011]
2000 Public
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 81
Category Reference Publication
Date
Confidentiality
Gydesen, A. and Maimann, D. Lifecycle Analyses of Integral Compact Fluorescent Lamps versus Incandescent Lamps
Unknown but 90s Public
15. Lighting
OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH and Siemens Corporate Technology, 2009. Life Cycle Assessment of Illuminants A Comparison of Light Bulbs, Compact Fluorescent Lamps and LED Lamps
2009 Public
Vito, 2009. Work on Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs: Final report Lot 19: Domestic lighting. (Accessed September 2011)
2009 Public
16. Solar PV
Alsema, E.A. and Wild-Scholten, M.J. 2004. Environmental life cycle assessment of advanced silicon solar cell technologies. Presented at the 19th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 7-11 June 2004, Paris
2004 Public
Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse, 2008. The Potential for Remanufacturing of Photovoltaic Solar Cells 2008 Public
Fthenakis, V, Chul Kim, H, and Alsema, E., 2008. Emissions from photovoltaic life cycles. Environ. Sci.
Technolo. 42, p. 2168-2174 2008 Public
Jungbluth, N. 2005. Life cycle assessment of Crystalline Photovoltaics in the Swiss ecoinvent Database 2005 Private
Jungbluth, N., Stucki, M., Frischknecht, R., 2009. Ecoinvent - Part XII Photovoltaics 2009 Private
Raugei, M., Bargigli, S. and Ulgiati, S. Energy and life cycle assessment of thin film CdTe photovoltaic modules 2004 Public
Sherwani, A.F., Usmani, J.A. and Varun, C. 2010. Life cycle assessment of solar PV based electricity generation systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 p. 540-544
2010 Public
Stopatto, A. 2008. Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic electricity generation. Energy 33, p. 224-232 2008 Public
17. Household wind turbine
Allen, S.R., Hammond, G.P., McManus, M.C., . Energy Analysis and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a Micro-Wind Turbine.
2008 Public
Bennett, S.j., 2007. Review of existing life cycle assessment studies of microgeneration technologies. Report for EST
2007 Public
Fleck, B. and Huot, M., 2009. Comparative life-cycle assessment of a small wind turbine for residential off-grid use. Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 2688–2696.
2009 Public
Rankine, R.K., Chick, J.P., Harrison, G.P., 2006. Energy and carbon audit of a rooftop wind turbine. Proceedings of the IMechE, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 2006 220:643 2006 Public
Tremeac, B. and Meunier, F., 2009. Life cycle analysis of 4.4MW and 250MW wind turbines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Vol. 13, pp. 2104-2110
2009 Public
General sources
Best Foot Forward, 2006. Youthful energy 2006 Private
Best Foot Forward, 2007. Investigating the Opportunity for Resonant yet Robust Communication of the Environmental Impacts of Products
2007 Private
Billett. E. Eco-design: Practical Tools for Designers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Design and Contextual Studies
Public
BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GMBH, 2009. Environmental and Corporate Responsibility 2009 Public
Buchert, M., Schüler, D., Jenseit, W. , 2009. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for HEV Application
2009 Public
California Energy Commission, 2005. Optimization of product life cycles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California
2005 Public
Cullen, J. M. and Allwood, J. M., 2009. The Role of Washing Machines in Life Cycle Assessment Studies: The Dangers of Using LCA for Prioritization. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 13, Number 1, February 2009 ,
2009 Public
Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 82
Category Reference Publication
Date
Confidentiality
pp. 27-37
General sources Geraghty, K. Goosey, M. and Shayler, M., 2006. Life Cycle Analysis Considerations for New and Emerging Recycling Technologies
2006 Public
Graedel, 1997. Designing the Ideal Green Product: LCA/SCLA in Reverse. Life Cycle Thinking. Int. J. LCA 2 (1) 25-31
1997 Public
Hur, T., Lee, J., Ryu, J., and Kwon, E., 2005. Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product system; Journal of Environmental Management; Volume 75, Issue 3, Pages 229-237
2005 Public
M. F. Ashby. Materials and the Environment: Eco-Informed Material Choice. Page 153 (LCA and Bill of
Materials) 2009 Public
Neto, J.Q.F., 2008. Eco-efficient Supply Chains for Electrical and Electronic Products. Erasmus Research Institute of Management - ERIM
2008 Public
Nolan ITU, 2004. Electrical and Electronic Products Infrastructure Facilitation. Centre for Design at RMIT and Product Ecology Pty Ltd
2004 Public
Pil-Ju Park, a, , Kiyotaka Taharaa and Atsushi Inaba; Product quality-based eco-efficiency applied to digital cameras Journal of Environmental Management Vol 83 Issue 2 2007 Public
Sun,M., 2004. Integrated Environmental Assessment of Industrial Products. The University of New South Wales
2004 Public
Tak Hur, Jiyong Lee, Jiyeon Ryu and Eunsun Kwon (2005): Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product system; Journal of Environmental Management; Volume 75, Issue 3, Pages 229-237
2005 Public
WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public
www.wrap.org.uk/psf
top related