european commission (dg ener) - eup network · [c. contact bio intelligence service shailendra...

Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal – Benoît Tinetti

+ 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 [email protected]

[email protected]

European Commission (DG ENER)

Preparatory Studies for

Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III)

[Contract N° TREN/D3/91-2007-Lot 22-SI2.521661]

Lot 22

Domestic and commercial ovens (electric,

gas, microwave), including when

incorporated in cookers

Task 7: Improvement potential

Final Version - August 2011

In association with

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens

Task 7 report August 2011

Project Team

BIO Intelligence Service

Mr. Shailendra Mudgal

Mr. Benoît Tinetti

Mr. Eric Hoa

Mr. Guillaume Audard

ERA Technology Ltd.

Dr. Chris Robertson

Dr. Paul Goodman

Dr. Stephen Pitman

Disclaimer:

The project team does not accept any liability for any direct or indirect damage resulting

from the use of this report or its content.

This report contains the results of research by the authors and is not to be perceived as

the opinion of the European Commission.

Task 7 report

August 2011

European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs

Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens

3

Contents 7. Task 7 – Improvement potential ................................................................... 5

7.1. Identification of design options ........................................................................................5

7.1.1. Base-case 1: Domestic electric oven .................................................................................................. 6

7.1.2. Base-case 2: Domestic gas oven ....................................................................................................... 10

7.1.3. Base-case 3: Domestic microwave oven ........................................................................................... 13

7.1.4. Base-case 4: Commercial electric combi-steamer ............................................................................ 16

7.1.5. Base-case 5: Commercial gas combi-steamer .................................................................................. 19

7.1.6. Base-case 6: Commercial in-store convection oven ......................................................................... 22

7.1.7. Base-case 7: Commercial electric deck oven .................................................................................... 26

7.1.8. Base-case 8: Commercial gas deck oven .......................................................................................... 28

7.1.9. Base-case 9: Commercial electric rack oven ..................................................................................... 30

7.1.10. Base-case 10: Commercial gas rack oven ......................................................................................... 32

7.2. Impact analysis ...............................................................................................................36

7.2.1. Base-case 1: Domestic electric oven ................................................................................................ 36










7.3. Cost analysis ...................................................................................................................75











7.4. Analysis BAT and LLCC ....................................................................................................86









7.4.7. Base-case 7: Commercial electric deck oven ................................................................................... 90


7.4.9. Base-case 9: Commercial electric rack oven .................................................................................... 91


7.5. Long-term targets (BNAT) ............................................................................................... 94

7.6. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 95

Task 7 report

August 2011



5

7. TASK 7 – IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL

The purpose of this task is to identify design options, their monetary consequences in

terms of Life Cycle Cost for the consumer, their environmental costs and benefits and

pinpointing the solution with Least Life Cycle Costs (LLCC) and the Best Available

Technology (BAT).

The assessment of monetary Life Cycle Cost is relevant to indicate whether design

solutions might negatively or positively impact the total EU consumer’s expenditure

over the total product life (purchase, running costs, etc.). The distance between the

LLCC and the BAT indicates – in a case a LLCC solution is set as a minimum target – the

remaining space for product-differentiation (competition). The BAT indicates the

medium-term target that would probably more subject to promotion measures than

restrictive action. The BNAT (subtask 7.5. ) indicates the long-term possibilities and

helps to define the exact scope and definition of possible measures.

7.1. IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN OPTIONS

This section presents the different improvement options applicable to each Base-case.

The design option(s) should:

not have a significant variation in the functionality and in the performance

parameters compared to the Base-cases and in the product-specific inputs;

have a significant potential for ecodesign improvement without significantly

deteriorating other impact parameters; and

not entail excessive costs, and Impacts on the manufacturer

The Base-cases described in Task 5 are representative of an average product currently

in stock. However, stakeholders provided information on the improvement compared

to an average product currently sold. While it is assumed that there is no significant

difference for most Base-cases, this is not the case for the domestic electric ovens, for

which there was a significant improvement in energy efficiency during the last ten

years, mostly due to the existing EU energy label.

Moreover, the energy savings per technology cannot always be directly added when

combining various improvement options. Some options can have an overlap with each

other, and therefore the effect of implementing two of them or more would not result

in the same savings as a simple addition of their respective savings. The improvement

potential of a particular improvement option or a combination of improvement options

is evaluated using the MEEuP EcoReport tool.



The cost effectiveness of an improvement option can be expressed in terms payback

time in years, defined as a ratio between:

(Cost increase with reference to the Base Case) and (annual energy consumption

difference in kWh*energy tariff)

Besides, the impact on the life cycle cost of the Base-case of each individual design

option can be calculated. On this basis, the combination of design options with the

least life cycle cost can be identified.

In Task 8, the scenarios will be investigated as a basis for defining future Ecodesign

requirements, taking into account, among other parameters, life cycle costs and

technical constrains.

7.1.1. BASE-CASE 1: DOMESTIC ELECTRIC OVEN

Description of the average product sold in 2010

The average domestic electric oven sold in 2010 was assumed to be similar to the Base-

case presented in Task 5, except for the energy consumption. Its consumption per cycle

in on-mode was indeed reduced to 0.84 kWh (equivalent to a B class product with the

current label), and its standby power was assumed to be 2W. As a reminder, the base-

case consumes 1.1 kWh per cycle and needs 5W in standby.

Improvement options

The potential improvement options for domestic electric ovens are presented in Table

7-1. As domestic electric ovens are covered by the Standby Regulation (1275/2008/EC),

options aim to reduce the energy consumption of the equipment in on-mode

exclusively.

The energy savings in percentage, the increase of product price and the payback time

are given compared to the average product sold in 2010.

Task 7 report

August 2011



7

Table 7-1: Identified energy saving potential for domestic electric ovens

Description

Electricity per cycle

(kWh)

Standby power

(W)

Annual Electricity

consumption (kWh)

Comparison to Option 0

Increase in

product price (€)

Energy savings in on-mode

(%)

Payback time

(years)

Base-case 1 1.10 5 164.31

Average product currently sold 0.8400 2 109.72

Option0 Standby regulation 0.840 1 101.06

Option1 Door glazing 0.827 1 99.67 2 1.5% 17.41

Option2 Introduction of reflecting layer

0.823 1 99.21 10 2.0% 32.64

Option3 Better insulation 0.806 1 97.36 8 4.0% 13.05

Option4 Electronic temperature control

0.823 1 99.21 100 2.0% 326.37

Option5* Cooking sensors 0.819 1 98.75 100 2.5% 261.10

Scenario A 1+3 0.794 1 95.98 10 5.5% 14.24

Scenario B 1+2+3 0.777 1 94.13 20 7.5% 19.15

Scenario C 1+2+3+4 0.760 1 92.28 120 9.5% 83.83

Scenario D* 1+2+3+4+5* 0.739 1 89.97 140 12.0% 77.24

(*) relates to options/scenarios which are user-dependent, therefore the related

energy savings cannot be directly considered within test standards and MEPS.

7.1.1.1. BC1 – OPTION 0: STANDBY REGULATION

Environmental impacts: After January 2013, the upper limit for standby power

with display will be 1W. All other options and scenarios will be supposed to

implement this option.

Costs: This option is estimated to have no influence on the cost of the

appliance.

Modification to the BOM: None

Constraints: none identified.

7.1.1.2. BC1 - OPTION 1: DOOR GLAZING

Environmental impacts: the door is the main source of heat loss in an oven.

Adding an additional glass sheet improves the insulation and thus saves



energy. It was assumed that adding a third glass sheet on the door would result

in 1.5% of energy savings in on-mode compared to an average product sold in

2010.

Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by

2€ per product.

Modification to the BOM:

- 54-Glass for lamps: + 2000.00 g

- 24-St sheet galv.: + 600.00 g


7.1.1.3. BC1 - OPTION 2: INTRODUCTION OF A REFLECTING LAYER

Environmental impacts: a reflecting layer reduces transmission of infra-red

radiations through the glass and so reduces losses from the oven cavity. Adding

such layer would reduce the energy consumption in on-mode by 2%.

Costs: 10€ are expected to be added to the product price to implement this

option.


7.1.1.4. BC1 - OPTION 3: BETTER INSULATION

Environmental impacts: it is possible to improve the insulation, by increasing

the density of the insulation layer, or using better insulation materials. The

gains in on-mode energy consumption due to a better insulation are estimated

to 4%.

Costs: 8€ increase in the product price


- Insulation material1: +400g

Constraints: adding thicker insulation would also reduce heat losses, but would

result in an increase of the oven size or a decrease of the internal cavity.

External dimension of an oven are often fixed, especially for built-in ovens.

7.1.1.5. BC1 - OPTION 4: ELECTRONIC TEMPERATURE CONTROL

Environmental impacts: electronic temperature control would allow having a

better control of the heat inside the oven cavity. It is estimated that it would

allow reducing the energy consumption in on-mode by 2%.



- 98-Controller board: +300g

1 Due to the lack of an equivalent material in the EcoReport tool, environmental impacts due to the

insulation material have been neglected.

Task 7 report

August 2011



9

Constraints: none identified

7.1.1.6. BC1 - OPTION 5*: COOKING SENSORS

Environmental impacts: cooking sensors let the oven knows the temperature

inside the food itself. That way, the temperature inside the oven can be

adapted and less energy is wasted. 2.5% of the energy will be assumed to be

saved with this improvement option. However, this is not a technical

improvement as it has an effect on the time the oven is running. Therefore, the

savings are more difficult to quantify, as it depends both on the meal prepared

and the user behaviour if there were no sensor.



- 98-Controller board: +300g

Constraints: This option brings about some energy savings only in real

conditions, depending on the user behaviour. It cannot be measure in standard

conditions.

7.1.1.7. BC1 - SCENARIO A: OPTIONS 1 AND 3

Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1 and 4

which results in an estimated 5.5% of savings in the on-mode energy

consumption. The savings of each option were considered to be simply added,

without overlap effects.




- 24-St sheet galv.: + 600.00 g

- Insulation material: + 400.00 g


7.1.1.8. BC1 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3

Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 2, 3 and 4

which results in an estimated 8% of savings in the on-mode energy






- 24-St sheet galv.: + 600.00 g





7.1.1.9. BC1 - SCENARIO C: OPTIONS 1, 2, 3 AND 4

Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 2, 3, 4

and 5 which results in an estimated 10% of savings in the on-mode energy






- 24-St sheet galv.: + 600.00 g

- 98-Controller board: + 300.00 g



7.1.1.10. BC1 - SCENARIO D*: OPTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6

Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 2, 3, 4, 5

and 6 which results in an estimated 12.5% of savings in the on-mode energy



Costs: options 5 and 6 were considered to require many identical components

that could be mutualised. Therefore, the total price of Scenario E was reduced

to 142€.



- 24-St sheet galv.: + 600.00 g

- 98-Controller board: + 500.00 g



7.1.2. BASE-CASE 2: DOMESTIC GAS OVEN

The potential improvement options for domestic gas ovens are presented in Table 7-2.

Due to no energy label for gas ovens, less specific research and development have

been undertaken by manufacturers to improve their energy efficiency. Therefore, it is

assumed that implementing comparable options will have a bigger effect for the gas

oven than for the electric oven. Given the significant difference between Base-case 1

and the average electric oven currently sold, some options were considered as already

implemented for Base-case 1, while they are considered as relevant for Base-case 2.

Base-case 2 is considered to have no electronic components and thus no electricity

consumption in standby. No improvement options involving electronics was

considered, as it would add an additional feature.

Task 7 report

August 2011



11

Table 7-2: Identified energy saving potential for domestic gas ovens

Description

Energy consumption

per cycle (kWh)

Annual gas consumption

(kWh)

Comparison to Base-case

Energy savings

(%)

Increase in product price (€)

Payback time

(years)

Base-case 2 1.67 184.19 0.0% 0

Option1 Better thermal insulation

1.44 158.40 14.0%2 15 3.95

Option2 Reduced thermal mass

1.56 171.29 7.0% 8 4.21

Option3 Third glass sheet on the door

3

1.65 181.42 1.5% 2 4.91

Option4 Pre-heating

ventilation air with

heat exchanger

1.54 169.45 8.0% 120 55.26

Scenario A 1+2 1.34 147.35 20.0% 28 5.16

Scenario B 1+2+3 1.31 144.59 21.5% 30 5.14

Scenario C 1+2+3+4 1.18 129.85 29.5% 150 18.73

7.1.2.1. BC2 - OPTION 1: IMPROVEMENT IN THERMAL INSULATION

Environmental impacts: it is assumed that it is possible to save 14% of energy

in on-mode by used a thicker / denser layer of insulation, and a more efficiency

material.


15€ per product.


- Insulation material4: + 400.00 g

Constraints: adding thicker insulation would also reduce heat losses, but would

result in an increase of the oven size or a decrease of the internal cavity.

External dimension of an oven are often fixed, especially for built-in ovens.

2 Compared to BC1, the saving potential of better thermal insulation is higher as gas ovens do not have

energy labels that have served as incentive to improve that technical aspect. 3 Safety standards limit touch temperature but this is achieved by cooling the outer layer of glass with a

stream of cold air passed between the outer and the next inner sheets, so extra sheets of glass will reduce energy consumption. 4 Insulation materials are not available in EcoReport. Therefore, this modification to the BOM was not

modelled.



7.1.2.2. BC2 - OPTION 2: REDUCTION OF THERMAL MASS

Environmental impacts: by reducing the thermal mass, less energy is needed to

heat-up the oven (7% energy savings on a cycle were estimated). The weight of

the appliance is also reduced, lowering its environmental impacts

consequently.


8€ per product.


- 22-St tube/profile: - 3000.00 g


7.1.2.3. OPTION 3: THIRD GLASS SHEET ON THE DOOR

Environmental impacts: Adding an additional glass sheet improves the

insulation and thus saves energy. It was assumed that adding a third glass

sheet on the door would result in 1.5% of energy savings


2€ per product.



- 24-St sheet galv.: + 500.00 g


7.1.2.4. BC2 - OPTION 4: PRE-HEATING OF COMBUSTION AIR

Environmental impacts: pre-heating combustion air by recovering heat from

exhaust gases is estimated to save 8% energy during a cooking cycle.



- 22-St tube/profile: + 1500.00 g

- 27-Al diecast: + 500.00 g

Constraints: this would reduce the volume of the oven cavity or increase the

volume of the oven. It was modelled to increase the volume by 0.002 m3.


Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1 (better

thermal insulation) and 2 (reduced thermal mass) which results in an estimated

20% of savings in the on-mode energy consumption. Adding more insulation

material increases the thermal mass, therefore it was assumed that the

combination of options 1 and 2 would result in 20% savings, while the sum of

their respective savings is 21%.

Task 7 report

August 2011



13







Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1 (better

thermal insulation), 2 (reduced thermal mass) and 3 (optimised vent flow)

which results in an estimated 24% of savings in the on-mode energy

consumption.

Costs: 30 € increase in the product price





7.1.2.7. BC2 - SCENARIO C: OPTIONS 1, 2, 3 AND 4


and 4 (pre-heating of ventilation air) which results in an estimated 32% of

savings in the on-mode energy consumption.





- 27-Al diecast: + 500.00 g

Constraints: it was modelled to increase the volume by 0.002 m3.

7.1.3. BASE-CASE 3: DOMESTIC MICROWAVE OVEN

The potential improvement options for domestic microwave ovens are presented in

Table 7-3. As for gas ovens, microwave ovens currently sold were considered to be

comparable to the Base-case, therefore no distinction between them was made. As

domestic microwave ovens are covered by the Standby Regulation (1275/2008/EC), the

energy consumption in standby was considered to be 1W for all options. This models

that the options should be implemented after 2013. The energy savings in percentage,

the increase of product price and the payback time are given compared to the Base-

Case.



Table 7-3: Identified energy saving potential for domestic microwave ovens

Description

Consumption per cycle

(kWh)

Standby power

(W)

Annual Electricity

consumption

(kWh)

Comparison to Option 0

Energy savings

(%)

Increase in product price(€)

Payback time

(years)

Base-case 3 0.056 2.20 86.36

Option0 Standby Regulation 0.056 1 75.91

Option1 Painted cavity 0.05544 1 75.24 1.0% 2 19.2

Option2 Inverter power supply

0.05516 1 74.90 1.5% 5 31.8

Option3 Good engineering work 0.05404 1 73.56 3.5% 7 19.1

Option 4 Cavity light 0.05488 1 74.56 2.0% 4 19.0

Option 5* Cooking sensors 0.0532 1 72.55 5.0% 100 191.0

Scenario A 1+2+3 0.05264 1 71.88 6.0% 14 22.3

Scenario B 1+2+3+4 0.05152 1 70.53 8.0% 18 21.5

Scenario C* 1+2+3+4+5 0.04872 1 67.17 13.0% 118 86.7



7.1.3.1. BC3 - OPTION 0: STANDBY REGULATION

Environmental impacts: After January 2013, the upper limit for standby power

with display will be 1W. All other options and scenarios will be supposed to

implement this option.

Costs: This option is estimated to have no influence on the cost of the

appliance.



7.1.3.2. BC3 - OPTION 1: PAINTED CAVITY

Environmental impacts: It is assumed that it can save 1% energy in on-mode.


Modification to the BOM: the changes in terms of material weight are minors

and are not modelled.


Task 7 report

August 2011



15

7.1.3.3. BC3 - OPTION 2: INVERTER POWER SUPPLY

Environmental impacts: this option is used in products with higher specification

and higher cost levels. It is assumed that it can save 1.5% energy in on-mode.





7.1.3.4. BC3 - OPTION 3: GOOD ENGINEERING WORK

Environmental impacts: Energy efficiency is currently not a priority for

microwave ovens manufacturers. Some models are however more efficient

than others. It is not due to a specific technology, but to a good engineering

work. It is assumed to these improvements can be responsible for up to 3.5%

of energy savings.





7.1.3.5. BC3 - OPTION 4: CAVITY LIGHT

Environmental impacts: it is estimated that changing from filament lamps to

LEDs would reduce the energy consumption in on-mode of 2%.

Costs: implementing this options brings about a 4€ increase of the product

price.


Constraints: LEDs cannot be used in combination microwave oven, whose

cavity is too hot in convection mode.

7.1.3.6. BC3 - OPTION 5*: COOKING SENSORS

Environmental impacts: cooking sensors, determining the appropriate cooking

time and power, and detecting the end of the cooking process using a moisture

sensor, can allow energy savings. This is not a technical improvement, but it

has an effect on the user behaviour. Therefore, quantifying energy savings due

to this option is difficult, as it depends on how the user would have use the

appliance if it had no sensors. Using a microwave oven, it is not unusual to

overheat food or beverage, therefore, the gain were considered higher than

for BC1 and BC2.

Costs: 100€




o 98-Controller board: + 200.00 g

Constraints: Savings due to this option cannot be measured by the test

standard.

7.1.3.7. BC3 - SCENARIO A: OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3

Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 0

(Standby regulation), 1 (Painted cavity), 2 (inverter power supply) and 3 (good

engineering work) which results in an estimated 6% of savings in the on-mode

energy consumption. The savings of each option were considered to be simply

added, without overlap effects.


Modification to the BOM: none


7.1.3.8. BC3 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 1, 2, 3 AND 4


and 4 (cavity light) which results in an estimated 8% of savings in the on-mode




Modification to the BOM: none


7.1.3.9. BC3 - SCENARIO C*: OPTIONS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5

Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1, 2 and 3

(cooking sensors) which results in an estimated 9% of savings in the on-mode






Constraints: Savings due to cooking sensors cannot be measured by the test

standard.

7.1.4. BASE-CASE 4: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC COMBI-STEAMER

The improvement options for a commercial electric combi-steamer are presented in

Table 7-4.

Task 7 report

August 2011



17

Table 7-4: Identified improvement options for commercial electric combi-steamers

Description

Annual Electricity

consumption (kWh)


Energy savings

(%)


Payback time

(years)

Base-case 4 9,266 0.0% 0

Option1 Third glass sheet5 9,174 1.0% 15 1.04

Option2 Fourth glass sheet5

9,155 1.2% 35 2.03

Option3 Better insulation 9,127 1.5% 60 2.78

Scenario A 1+3 9,035 2.5% 75 2.08

Scenario B 2+3 9,016 2.7% 95 2.44

7.1.4.1. BC4 - OPTION 1: THIRD GLASS SHEET ON THE DOOR

Environmental impacts: it is assumed that it is possible to save 1% of energy on

a baking cycle by adding a third glass sheet on the door.


15€ per product.


o 54-Glass for lamps: + 2,000 g

o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +300 g


7.1.4.2. BC4 - OPTION 2: THIRD AND FOURTH GLASS SHEET ON THE DOOR

Environmental impacts: it is assumed that it is possible to save 1.2% of energy

on a baking cycle by adding a third glass sheet on the door.


35€ per product.





5 Safety standards limit touch temperature but this is achieved by cooling the outer layer of glass with a

stream of cold air passed between the outer and the next inner sheets so extra sheets of glass will reduce energy consumption.




Environmental impacts: Improving the insulation to have an optimum ratio

between thermal mass and reduced heat loss would reduce the energy

consumption by 1.5%.


60€ per product. This could correspond to the upper price range for insulating

materials (such as high-tech cellular glass).


o Glass wool: +1,000 g (not taken into account in environmental impact

analysis)


7.1.4.4. BC4 - SCENARIO A: OPTIONS 1 + 3

Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1 (third

glass sheet on the door) and 3 (improved insulation) which results in an

estimated 2.5% of savings in energy consumption. The savings of each option

were considered to be simply added, without overlap effects.


75€ per product.





analysis)


7.1.4.5. BC4 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 2 + 3


and fourth glass sheet on the door) and 3 (improved insulation) which results

in an estimated 2.7% of savings in energy consumption. The savings of each

option were considered to be simply added, without overlap effects.


95€ per product.





analysis)


Task 7 report

August 2011



19

7.1.5. BASE-CASE 5: COMMERCIAL GAS COMBI-STEAMER

Table 7-5 presents the improvement options for a commercial gas combi-steamer.

They are similar to the ones for the electric version, but the equipment specific to gas

can also be improved.

Table 7-5: Identified improvement options for a commercial gas combi-steamer

Description Annual gas

consumption (kWh)


Energy savings

(%)


Payback time

(years)

Base-case 5

11,887 0.00% 0

Option1 Third glass sheet6 11,768 1.00% 15 2.4

Option2 Fourth glass sheet6 11,744 1.20% 35 4.6

Option3 Improved insulation 11,709 1.50% 60 6.3

Option4 Improved steam condensing system 11,768 1.00% 80 12.6

Option5 Improved burner design 11,709 1.50% 70 7.4

Scenario A 1+3 11,590 2.50% 75 4.7

Scenario B 2+3 11,566 2.70% 95 5.6

Scenario C 2+3+4 11,447 3.70% 175 7.5

Scenario D 2+3+4+5 11,269 5.20% 245 7.4

7.1.5.1. BC5 - OPTION 1: THIRD GLASS SHEET ON THE DOOR


a baking cycle by adding a third glass sheet on the door.


15€ per product.





7.1.5.2. BC5 - OPTION 2: THIRD AND FOURTH GLASS SHEET ON THE DOOR

Environmental impacts: it is assumed that it is possible to save 1.2% of energy

on a baking cycle by adding a third glass sheet on the door.

6 Safety standards limit touch temperature but this is achieved by cooling the outer layer of glass with a

stream of cold air passed between the outer and the next inner sheets so extra sheets of glass will reduce energy consumption.




35€ per product.






Environmental impacts: Improving the insulation to have an optimum ratio

between thermal mass and reduced heat loss would reduce the energy



60€ per product. This could correspond to the upper price range for insulating

materials (such as high-tech cellular glass).



analysis)


7.1.5.4. BC5 - OPTION 4: IMPROVED STEAM CONDENSING SYSTEM

Environmental impacts: By condensing steam generated during gas

combustion, some heat can be saved. An improved system can save 1% energy.


80€ per product.

Modification to the BOM: negligible


7.1.5.5. BC5 - OPTION 4: IMPROVED BURNER DESIGN

Environmental impacts: burner design has a bug influence on the efficiency.

1.5% of energy savings can be achieved.


70€ per product.

Modification to the BOM: negligible




glass sheet on the door) and 3 (improved insulation) which results in an

Task 7 report

August 2011



21




75€ per product.





analysis)


7.1.5.7. BC5 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 2 + 3


and fourth glass sheet on the door) and 3 (improved insulation) which results

in an estimated 2.7% of savings in energy consumption. The savings of each

option were considered to be simply added, without overlap effects.


95€ per product.





analysis)


7.1.5.8. BC5 - SCENARIO C: OPTIONS 2 + 3 + 4


and fourth glass sheet on the door), 3 (improved insulation) and 4 (improved

steam condensing system) which results in an estimated 3.7% of savings in




95€ per product.





analysis)




7.1.5.9. BC5 - SCENARIO D: OPTIONS 2 + 3 + 4 + 5


and fourth glass sheet on the door), 3 (improved insulation), 4 (improved

steam condensing system) and 5 (improved burner design) which results in an




95€ per product.





analysis)


7.1.6. BASE-CASE 6: COMMERCIAL IN-STORE CONVECTION OVEN

The improvement options for commercial in-store convection ovens are presented in

Table 7-4. The baking cycle of in-store convection ovens being short, it was considered

that the increase in thermal mass due to additional insulation would have lengthen the

heating up time, which would have result an increase in energy consumption.

Task 7 report

August 2011



23

Table 7-6: Identified energy saving potential for commercial in-store convection

ovens

Description

Annual

Electricity

consumption

(kWh)


Energy savings

(%)


Payback time

(years)

Base-case 6 12,500 0.0% 0

Option1 Improved door seals design 12,375 1.0% 20 1.0

Option2 Improved vent design 12,438 0.5% 100 10.3

Option3 Door glazing - Infrared reflecting layer

12,375 1.0% 240 12.4

Option4 Software control 12,250 2.0% 50 1.8

Option5 Temperature controls 12,438 0.5% 100 10.3

Option6 Cooking sensors 12,438 0.5% 300 30.9

Scenario A 1+2 12,313 1.5% 120 4.1

Scenario B 1+2+3 12,188 2.5% 360 7.4

Scenario C 1+4 12,125 3.0% 70 1.2

Scenario D 1+4+5 12,063 3.5% 170 2.5

Scenario E 1+2+3+4+5+6 11,813 5.5% 810 7.6

7.1.6.1. BC6 - OPTION 1: IMPROVED DOOR SEALS DESIGN


a baking cycle if door seals design is improved. Thermal bridges can be reduced

with better seals.


20€ per product.

Modification to the BOM: Negligible


7.1.6.2. BC6 - OPTION 2: IMPROVED VENT DESIGN

Environmental impacts: Improving the vent design results in a better air

circulation. Less heat is lost and efficiency can be increased by 0.5% compared

to an average product.


100€ per product.





7.1.6.3. BC6 - OPTION 3: DOOR GLAZING - INFRARED-REFLECTING LAYER

Environmental impacts: a reflecting layer reduces transmission of infra-red

radiations through the glass and so reduces losses from the oven cavity. Adding

such layer would reduce the energy consumption in on-mode by 1%.


240€ per product.



7.1.6.4. BC6 - OPTION 4: SOFTWARE CONTROL

Environmental impacts: With software control, the oven has a number of

programs adjusting the power and baking time to fit several types of bread and

pastries.


50€ per product.




7.1.6.5. BC6 - OPTION 5: TEMPERATURE CONTROLS

Environmental impacts: temperature control would allow having a better

control of the heat inside the oven cavity. It is estimated that it would allow

reducing the energy consumption in on-mode by 0.5%.


100€ per product.




7.1.6.6. BC6 - OPTION 6: COOKING SENSORS

Environmental impacts: Cooking sensors measure the temperature inside of

the bread or pastry, permitting to know when it is baked. It is estimated that

0.5% of the energy used during a cycle can be saved by implementing this

option.


300€ per product.

Task 7 report

August 2011



25





Environmental impacts: Scenario A is an oven with improved designs for door

seals and vents. It is estimated that 1.5% of the energy used during a cycle can

be saved by implementing this scenario.


120€ per product.



7.1.6.8. BC6 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 1 + 2 + 3

Environmental impacts: Scenario B is an oven with improved designs for door

seals and vents, as well as an infrared-reflecting layer in door glazing. It is

estimated that 2.5% of the energy used during a cycle can be saved by

implementing this scenario.


360€ per product.



7.1.6.9. BC6 - SCENARIO C: OPTIONS 1 + 4

Environmental impacts: Scenario C would save 3% energy by improving the

door seals design and including a software control.


70€ per product.




7.1.6.10. BC6 - SCENARIO D: OPTIONS 1 + 4 + 5

Environmental impacts: Scenario C would save 3% energy by improving the

door seals design and including a software control.


170€ per product.






7.1.6.11. BC6 - SCENARIO E: OPTIONS 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6

Environmental impacts: Scenario E implements all the options considered. It

would save 5.5% energy.


810€ per product.




7.1.7. BASE-CASE 7: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC DECK OVEN

The improvement options for commercial electric deck ovens are presented in Table

7-7.

Table 7-7: Identified energy saving potential for commercial electric deck oven

Description

Annual Electricity

consumption (kWh)


Energy savings

(%)


Payback time

(years)

Base-case 7 47,174 0.0% 0


Option2 Doors improvement 45,523 3.5% 700 2.73

Option3* Software control 46,703 1.0% 1,400 19.10

Scenario A Options 1 +2 43,165 8.5% 875 1.40

Scenario B* Options 1 + 2 + 3* 42,693 9.5% 2,275 3.27

7.1.7.1. BC7 - OPTION 1: IMPROVED INSULATION

Environmental impacts: It is possible to achieve 5% of energy savings by

improving the insulation of deck ovens.


175€ per product7.


o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)


7 Contrary to BC4 and BC5 where high-tech materials were considered, more common and cheaper

insulating materials are envisaged in this Base-case as a large amount is required.

Task 7 report

August 2011



27

7.1.7.2. BC7 - OPTION 2: DOOR IMPROVEMENT

Environmental impacts: The doors of deck ovens are sources of thermal

bridges. Improving their design would decrease the energy consumption by

3.5%.


700€ per product.



o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: + 4,000 g


7.1.7.3. BC7 - OPTION 3*: SOFTWARE CONTROL

Environmental impacts: Software control permits to adjust the power and the

duration of baking. It is estimated to save 1% energy.


1,400€ per product.


o 98-Controller board: + 1,800.00 g



Environmental impacts: Scenario A combines improved insulation and door

design. These improvements are entirely compatible and thus the resulting

energy savings are 8.5%


875€ per product.






7.1.7.5. BC7 - SCENARIO B*: OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3

Environmental impacts: Scenario B adds a software control to the options

implemented in Scenario A. There is no interaction between the options, so it

is estimated to save 9.5% energy.











7.1.8. BASE-CASE 8: COMMERCIAL GAS DECK OVEN

Table 7-8 presents the improvement options for a commercial gas deck oven. They are

similar to the ones for the electric deck oven. Improving the heat exchanges in the

hearth is though specific to gas deck ovens.

Reusing exhaust gases heat outside of the baking process, for example for producing

Domestic Hot Water, or for building heating, has not been considered as improvement

option as this implies an enlargement of the system considered.

Table 7-8: Identified energy saving potential for commercial gas deck oven

Description Annual gas

consumption (kWh)


Energy savings

(%)


Payback time

(years)

Base-case 8 61,402 0.0% 0

Option1 Improved heat exchanges in hearth

58,946 4.0% 1225 3.21


Option3 Door improvement 59,253 3.5% 700 2.10

Option4* Software control 60,788 1.0% 1400 14.67

Scenario A Options 1+2 55,875 9.0% 1400 1.63

Scenario B Options 1+2+3 53,726 12.5% 2100 1.76

Scenario C* Options 1+2+3+4* 53,112 13.5% 3500 2.72

7.1.8.1. BC8 - OPTION 1: IMPROVED HEAT EXCHANGES IN HEARTH

Environmental impacts: The best gas deck ovens are designed to have

maximum heat exchange in the hearth. 4% of energy savings is allocated to this

improvement.




o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 50 kg


Task 7 report

August 2011



29


Environmental impacts: It is possible to achieve 5% of energy savings by

improving the insulation of deck ovens.








bridges. Improving their design would decrease the energy consumption by

3.5%.


700€ per product.







duration of baking. It is estimated to save 1% energy.







Environmental impacts: Scenario A combines improved heat exchanges and

improved insulation. These improvements are entirely compatible and thus the

resulting energy savings are 9%












Environmental impacts: Scenario B includes redesigned doors to the options

implemented in Scenario A. There is no interaction between these options, so

it is estimated to save 12.5% energy.








7.1.8.7. BC8 - SCENARIO C*: OPTIONS 1, 2, 3 AND 4*

Environmental impacts: Scenario C* includes software control in addition to

the options implemented in Scenario B. There is no interaction between these

options, so it is estimated to save 13.5% energy.









7.1.9. BASE-CASE 9: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC RACK OVEN

The improvement options for commercial electric rack ovens are presented in Table

7-9. Due to lack of clear information, few improvement options have been identified.

Parameters for a Best Available product on the market have been described, with

precision of the modifications made. This product supposed to include all the options

described, and certainly some additional engineering work such as reducing thermal

bridges.

Task 7 report

August 2011



31

Table 7-9: Identified energy saving potential for commercial electric rack oven

Description

Annual Electricity

consumption (kWh)


Energy savings

(%)


Payback time

(years)

Base-case 9 71,100


Option2 Door improvement 70,745 0.50% 700 12.7

Option3 Heat exchanger 69,678 2.00% 1,200 5.4

Option4* Software control 70,389 1.00% 500 4.5

BA product Best available product on the market

54,392 23.50% 10,000 3.97




Environmental impacts: 1.0% energy savings was assumed to be possible by

improving the insulation of rack ovens.







Environmental impacts: Improving the door design would decrease the energy



700€ per product.



o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 2,000 g






7.1.9.3. BC9 – OPTION 3: HEAT EXCHANGER

Environmental impacts: Implementing a heat exchanger for steam/dampener

flues can save 2.0% of energy consumption. It is currently an optional

equipment.








duration of baking. It is estimated that 1% energy savings can be achieved by

improving the software control of an average oven.


500€ per product.




7.1.9.5. BC9 – BA PRODUCT

Environmental impacts: Best performing products were supposed to consume

19.5 kWh per hour in on-mode, which would represent 23.5% savings

compared to an average product.

Costs: BA product costs 10,000 € more than an average oven.

Modification to the BOM: The BA product was supposed to include at least the

improvement options described above. The modifications due to all these

options have been included, but no additional guesses were made.




Constraints: no data

7.1.10. BASE-CASE 10: COMMERCIAL GAS RACK OVEN

Table 7-12 presents the improvement options for a commercial gas rack oven. As for

electric rack ovens, little information was provided by manufacturers. Parameters for a

best performing gas rack ovens were provided without any explanation of the

Task 7 report

August 2011



33

modifications made compared to an average oven. This product supposed to include all

the options described, and certainly some additional engineering work such as

reducing thermal bridges.

Reusing exhaust gases heat outside of the baking process (option 3bis), for example for

producing Domestic Hot Water, or for building heating, has not been considered as

improvement option as this implies an enlargement of the system considered.

Table 7-10: Identified energy saving potential for commercial gas rack oven

Improvement option

Natural gas Electricity Comparison to Base-

case

kWh/ year

Savings (%)

kWh/ year

Savings (%)

+ € Payback

time (years)

Base-case 10 78,345 5,910

Option 1 Improved insulation 75,211 4.0% 5,910 0.0% 175 € 1.0

Option 2 Improved door 76,778 2.0% 5,910 0.0% 700 € 8.4

Option 3 Implement heat exchanger for steam/dampener flues

76,778 2.0% 5,910 0.0% 900 € 26.8

Option 3 bis Implementing heat exchanger for smoke gases

68,944 12.0% 5,910 0.0% 8,435 € 24.0

Option4* Software control 77,562 1.0% 5,910 0.0% 500 € 12.0

BA product Best available product on the market

57,919 26.1% 5,319 10.0% 10,000 € 8.5




Environmental impacts: it is estimated that 4% gas savings can be achieved by

improving the insulation on an average rack oven.








bridges. Improving their design would decrease the gas consumption by 2%.


700€ per product.

10

Contrary to BC4 and BC5 where high-tech materials were considered, more common and cheaper insulating materials are envisaged in this Base-case as a large amount is required.







7.1.10.3. BC10 – OPTION 3: IMPLEMENTING HEAT EXCHANGER FOR

STEAM/DAMPENER FLUES

Environmental impacts: Implementing a heat exchanger for steam/dampener

flues can save 2.0% of energy consumption. It is currently an optional

equipment.


900€ per product. Maintenance costs are also increased by 50€.



Constraints: Increase of the maintenance cost by 50€.



duration of baking. It is estimated that 1% energy savings c(both gas and

electricity) an be achieved by improving the software control of an average

oven.


500€ per product.




7.1.10.5. BC10 – BA PRODUCT

Environmental impacts: Best performing products were supposed consume

20.7 kWh of natural gas and 1.8 kWh of electricity per hour in on-mode, which

would represent respectively 26.1% and 10% savings compared to an average

product.

Costs: BA product costs 10,000 € more than an average oven.

Task 7 report

August 2011



35

Modification to the BOM: The BA product was supposed to include at least the

improvement options described above. The modifications due to all these

options have been included, but no additional guesses were made.




Constraints: no data



7.2. IMPACT ANALYSIS


The environmental impacts of the improvement options for Base-case 1 are presented

in Table 7-11. For all improvement options, there is a significant reduction in almost all

environmental impacts compared to the Base-case. The addition of electronics in some

options brings about an increase for a few indicators, such as hazardous waste, PAHs,

heavy metals to water or eutrophication.

Figure 7-3 shows that the option having the lowest total energy consumption is

Scenario D* (combination of options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5*), with 20.2 GJ (42% savings

compared to the Base-case, and 15% savings compared to the average product

currently sold).

The weight of non-hazardous waste produced by the improvement options for Base-

case 1 is presented in Figure 7-4. Option 3 brings about a significant reduction in

electricity consumption (for the Base-case, electricity consumption is responsible for 38

kg of non-hazardous waste on 76 kg produced on the complete life cycle) without

much more waste due to additional components.

For the indicator GWP, as shown in Figure 7-5, Scenario D*has the lowest emission,

due to its lower electricity consumption: 783 kg CO2 eq. due to electricity consumption

for Scenario D*, compared to 1,430 kg CO2 eq. for the Base-case, which has the biggest

impact.

Scenario B turns out to be the one minimizing the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

emissions (see Figure 7-6). It is the scenario with the lowest energy consumption

during the use phase which has no additional electronics. Electronics are indeed a

major source of VOC emissions, and options requiring electronic components have

bigger emissions. However, electricity production also emits VOCs, which is why the

Base-case is still the option with the highest VOC emissions.

Finally, concerning emissions to water, improvement options for which additional

electronic components are needed have a higher impact than the Base-case. As shown

in Figure 7-7, heavy metals emissions to water are 20% higher for Scenario D*

(Combination of options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5*) than for the Base-case, due to the fact that

this option has the lowest ratio between additional electronics weight and energy

savings.

Task 7 report

August 2011



37

Table 7-11: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 1

(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)

life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case AverageSold Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD*

OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE

GJ 34.5 23.6 21.9 21.7 21.5 21.2 21.8 21.7 21.0 20.6 20.5 20.2

% 0% -32% -37% -37% -38% -39% -37% -37% -39% -40% -41% -42%

primary GJ 33.2 22.3 20.5 20.3 20.2 19.8 20.3 20.3 19.6 19.2 19.0 18.7

MWh 3.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8

% 0% -33% -38% -39% -39% -40% -39% -39% -41% -42% -43% -44%

kL 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7

% 0% -30% -35% -35% -36% -36% -29% -29% -36% -37% -31% -28%

kL 87.6 58.6 54.0 53.3 53.0 52.1 53.0 52.8 51.4 50.4 49.4 48.2

% 0% -33% -38% -39% -40% -41% -39% -40% -41% -43% -44% -45%

kg 76.7 64.1 62.1 62.9 61.7 61.4 62.2 62.1 62.2 61.8 61.9 61.7

% 0% -16% -19% -18% -20% -20% -19% -19% -19% -19% -19% -20%

kg 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.9

% 0% -29% -34% -34% -35% -35% -12% -12% -36% -37% -15% 0%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9

% 0% -31% -35% -36% -37% -37% -36% -36% -38% -39% -39% -40%

kg SO2 eq. 8.9 6.1 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4

% 0% -31% -36% -37% -37% -38% -36% -36% -39% -40% -40% -40%

kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% 0% -18% -20% -20% -21% -21% -13% -13% -21% -22% -14% -9%

µg i-Teq 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

% 0% -10% -12% -10% -12% -12% -12% -12% -10% -11% -11% -11%

g Ni eq. 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

% 0% -21% -24% -24% -25% -26% -22% -23% -26% -26% -24% -24%

g Ni eq. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

% 0% -20% -23% -24% -24% -25% -7% -7% -25% -26% -9% 1%

kg 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

% 0% -4% -5% -4% -5% -4% -4% -4% -4% -4% -4% -3%Particulate Matter (PM, dust)

Greenhouse Gases in GWP100

Acidification, emissions

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP)

Heavy Metals to air

PAHs

Total Energy (GER)

of which, electricity

Water (process)

Water (cooling)

Waste, non-haz./ landfill

Waste, hazardous/ incinerated



-50.0%

-40.0%

-30.0%

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

AverageSold Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD*

Figure 7-1: Comparison of Base-case 1’s environmental impacts with its options

Task 7 report

August 2011



39

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD*

Figure 7-2: Comparison of Base-case 1’s options with the average product sold



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Base-case AverageSold Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD*

Tota

l En

erg

y (G

ER)

-G

J

Figure 7-3: Comparison of improvement options for BC1 according to the indicator Total Energy (GER)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Was

te, n

on

-haz

./ l

and

fill

-kg

Figure 7-4: Comparison of improvement options for BC1 according to the indicator Waste, non-hazardous


Task 7 report

August 2011



41

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8


Gre

en

ho

use

Gas

es

in G

WP

10

0

-t C

O2

eq

.

Figure 7-5: Comparison of improvement options for BC1 according to the indicator GWP (global warming potential)


0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025


Vo

lati

le O

rgan

ic C

om

po

un

ds

(VO

C) -

kg

Figure 7-6: Comparison of improvement options for BC1 according to the indicator Volatile Organic Compounds




0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


He

avy

Me

tals

to

wat

er

-g

Hg/

20

Figure 7-7: Comparison of improvement options for BC1 according to the indicator Heavy metals to water


Task 7 report

August 2011



43


This section presents the results of the life cycle assessment of the improvement

options for Base-case 2. Table 7-12 presents the environmental impacts by

improvement option for Base-case 2.



Figure 7-8 presents the environmental impacts of the options for Base-case 2, relatively

to the Base-case’s ones. These impacts can be regrouped into four categories :

Category A: Total Energy, GWP, Acidification, VOC

Category B: Electricity, non-hazardous waste, POP, Heavy metals to air, PM,

Heavy metals to water and Eutrophication

Category C: Water, hazardous waste

Category D: PAHs

life-cycle indicators

per unitunit Base-case 2 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC


GJ 15.8 13.9 14.8 15.6 14.8 13.1 12.9 11.9

% 0% -12% -6% -1% -6% -17% -18% -25%

primary GJ 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

MWh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% 0% 0% -4% 4% 2% -4% 0% 3%

kL 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 4% 4%

kL 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%

kg 60.8 60.8 58.3 61.2 62.4 58.3 58.7 60.4

% 0% 0% -4% 1% 3% -4% -3% -1%

kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 0.91 0.81 0.85 0.90 0.85 0.76 0.75 0.69

% 0% -11% -6% -1% -6% -17% -18% -24%

kg SO2 eq. 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.82 0.82 0.77 0.77 0.77

% 0% -4% -3% 0% 0% -7% -6% -7%

kg 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.025 0.025 0.023 0.023 0.022

% 0% -5% -4% 0% -2% -9% -10% -12%

µg i-Teq 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.82

% 0% 0% -5% 1% 4% -5% -4% 1%

g Ni eq. 0.384 0.384 0.375 0.386 0.389 0.375 0.377 0.383

% 0% 0% -2% 1% 1% -2% -2% 0%

g Ni eq. 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15

% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7%

kg 1.85 1.85 1.84 1.85 1.86 1.84 1.84 1.86

% 0.0% 0.0% -0.5% 0.2% 0.7% -0.5% -0.3% 0.5%

EMISSIONS (WATER)

g Hg/20 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.15

% 0% 0% -3% 1% 4% -3% -3% 1%

kg PO4 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.004

% 0% 0% -4% 1% 2% -4% -3% -1%

Total Energy (GER)


Water (process)

Water (cooling)

Waste, non-haz./

landfill

Waste, hazardous/

incinerated

Greenhouse Gases in

GWP100

Acidification,

emissions

Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC)

Persistent Organic

Pollutants (POP)

Heavy Metals

PAHs

Particulate Matter

(PM, dust)

Heavy Metals

Eutrophication




-30,0%

-25,0%

-20,0%

-15,0%

-10,0%

-5,0%

0,0%

5,0%

10,0% Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC

Task 7 report

August 2011



45

Figure 7-9 shows that Scenario C (combination of options 1, 2 and 3) has the lowest

primary energy consumption during its life cycle. This is also the case for all indicators

from category A.

Concerning category B, Figure 7-10 shows that Option 4 (pre-heating of combustion

air) has the highest heavy metals emissions to water, (due to the additional

Aluminium), while Option 2 (reduction of thermal mass) have the lowest.

Figure 7-11 shows that the water consumption is almost the same for every option.

The additional aluminium in Option 4 (pre-heating of ventilation air) and Scenario C

(combination of options 1, 2, 3 and 4) requires 9 litres more than the other options

during the manufacturing phase.

PAHs emissions have a unique behaviour: Option 4 is the option with the biggest

impact for this indicator, while Scenario A, which reduces gas consumption without

increasing emissions during the production phase (see Figure 7-12).

Figure 7-9: Comparison of improvement options for BC2 according to the indicator

Total Energy (GER) (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

Base-case 2

Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC

Wat

er

(pro

cess

) -

kL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Base-case 2 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC

Tota

l En

erg

y (G

ER)

- G

J




Heavy metals emissions to water (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)


Water consumption (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)


PAHs (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

Base-case 2


He

avy

Me

tals

to

wat

er

- g

Hg/

20

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

Base-case 2


Wat

er

(pro

cess

) -

kL

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12

0,14

0,16

Base-case 2


PA

Hs

- g

Ni e

q.

Task 7 report

August 2011



47


The results of the life cycle assessment of the improvement options for Base-case 3 are

presented in Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable..The variations in environmental

impacts relative to Base-case 3 when implementing the improvement options are

presented in Figure 7-13. For all environemental impacts, the main improvement is due

to the reduction in standby power (Option 0). Impacts can be regrouped in 3

categories:

Category A: Total Energy, Electricity, GWP, Acidification

Category B: Water, hazardous waste, VOC, PAHs, heavy metal emissions to

water, Eutrophication

Category C: non-hazardous waste, POP, heavy metals emissions to air, PM

The indicator GWP, presented in Figure 7-14, is a good example of category A: most of

this impact being due to electricity production, the Base-case has the biggest impact

while Scenario C* (Painted cavity + Inverter power supply + good engineering work +

Cavity light + cooking sensors) has the lowest.

As shown on Figure 7-15, the addition of electronic components in Option 5* (cooking

sensors) brings about more VOC emissions to the air, and more heavy metals emissions

to water. Therefore, Scenario B minimizes these impacts, while Option 5* has the

biggest impact. The same comment can be made for other indicators from Category B.

Concerning non-hazardous waste (see Figure 7-16), the Base-case has the biggest

impact and Scenario B the lowest. The additional electronic needed for Option 5* and

Scenario C is responsible for an increase in this impact compared to options which do

not require electronic components.





life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 3 Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC*


GJ 8.86 7.98 7.92 7.89 7.78 7.86 7.9 7.6 7.5 7.4

% 0.0% -9.9% -10.5% -10.9% -12.1% -11.2% -11% -14% -15% -16%

primary GJ 7.62 6.74 6.69 6.66 6.55 6.63 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.1

MWh 0.73 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.63 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

% 0.0% -11.5% -12.3% -12.6% -14.1% -13.0% -14% -16% -17% -20%

kL 0.805 0.747 0.743 0.741 0.734 0.739 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8

% 0.0% -7.3% -7.7% -8.0% -8.9% -8.2% 4% -10% -11% 0%

kL 19.64 17.30 17.15 17.07 16.77 17.00 16.6 16.4 16.1 15.4

% 0.0% -11.9% -12.7% -13.1% -14.6% -13.5% -16% -17% -18% -22%

kg 65.43 64.41 64.35 64.31 64.18 64.28 64.5 64.0 63.9 63.9

% 0.0% -1.6% -1.7% -1.7% -1.9% -1.8% -1% -2% -2% -2%

kg 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6

% 0.0% -3.9% -4.2% -4.3% -4.8% -4.4% 20% -5% -6% 18%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 0.419 0.381 0.378 0.377 0.372 0.376 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

% 0.0% -9.1% -9.7% -10.0% -11.2% -10.3% -10% -13% -14% -14%

kg SO2 eq. 2.791 2.565 2.551 2.543 2.514 2.536 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.5

% 0.0% -8.1% -8.6% -8.9% -9.9% -9.1% -8% -11% -12% -12%

kg 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% 0.0% -3.5% -3.7% -3.8% -4.2% -3.9% 9% -5% -5% 7%

µg i-Teq 0.306 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.299 0.299 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

% 0.0% -1.9% -2.0% -2.1% -2.3% -2.1% -2% -3% -3% -3%

g Ni eq. 0.442 0.427 0.426 0.426 0.424 0.425 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

% 0.0% -3.4% -3.6% -3.7% -4.2% -3.8% -1% -5% -5% -3%

g Ni eq. 0.110 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

% 0.0% -1.6% -1.7% -1.7% -1.9% -1.8% 9% -2% -2% 8%

kg 0.671 0.666 0.666 0.666 0.665 0.665 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

% 0.0% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.9% -0.8% 0% -1% -1% 0%

EMISSIONS (WATER)

g Hg/20 0.251 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.244 0.245 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3

% 0.0% -2.3% -2.4% -2.5% -2.8% -2.5% 24% -3% -3% 23%

kg PO4 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% -1% -1% 14%

Particulate Matter (PM, dust)

Heavy Metals to water

Eutrophication





Heavy Metals to air

PAHs

Total Energy (GER)


Water (process)

Water (cooling)



Task 7 report

August 2011



49


-25.0%

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC*




GWP (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

Vo

lati

le O

rgan

ic C

om

po

un

ds

(VO

C) -

kg


Volatile Organic Compounds (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Wat

er

(pro

cess

) -

kL


Waste, non-hazardous (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)

Task 7 report

August 2011



51


Table 7-14 presents the life cycle assessment results of the improvement options for

Base-case 4.



On Figure 7-17, it is clear that every option brings about a reduction in 13 out of 14

indicators, with the same hierarchy (from the lower impact to the bigger impact:

Scenario B, Scenario A, Option 3, Option 2, Option 1, Base-case). As an example, the

global warming potential is presented in Figure 7-18.

Only Eutrophication is higher, due to stainless steel production, but as shown on Figure

7-19, the absolute values are very close (around 303 g PO4).

life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 4 Option1 Option2 Option3 ScenarioA ScenarioB


GJ 989.4 979.7 977.8 974.8 965.1 963.2

% change with BC 0.0% -1.0% -1.2% -1.5% -2.5% -2.6%

primary GJ 976.4 966.7 964.8 961.8 952.1 950.2

MWh 93.0 92.1 91.9 91.6 90.7 90.5

% change with BC 0.0% -1.0% -1.2% -1.5% -2.5% -2.7%

kL 261.0 260.4 260.3 260.1 259.5 259.4

% change with BC 0.0% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% -0.6%

kL 2598 2572 2567 2559 2533 2528

% change with BC 0.0% -1.0% -1.2% -1.5% -2.5% -2.7%

kg 1307 1296 1294 1290 1279 1277

% change with BC 0.0% -0.8% -1.0% -1.3% -2.1% -2.3%

kg 32.2 32.0 32.0 31.9 31.7 31.6

% change with BC 0.0% -0.7% -0.8% -1.0% -1.7% -1.9%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 43.8 43.3 43.3 43.1 42.7 42.6

% change with BC 0.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.5% -2.4% -2.6%

kg SO2 eq. 259.1 256.6 256.1 255.3 252.8 252.3

% change with BC 0.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.5% -2.4% -2.6%

kg 0.478 0.474 0.474 0.472 0.469 0.468

% change with BC 0.0% -0.8% -0.9% -1.1% -1.9% -2.0%

µg i-Teq 7.47 7.41 7.40 7.37 7.31 7.30

% change with BC 0.0% -0.8% -0.9% -1.3% -2.1% -2.2%

g Ni eq. 33.1 33.0 33.0 32.9 32.8 32.8

% change with BC 0.0% -0.4% -0.3% -0.8% -1.1% -1.1%

g Ni eq. 3.03 3.01 3.01 3.00 2.98 2.98

% change with BC 0.0% -0.6% -0.8% -0.9% -1.6% -1.7%

kg 25.06 25.01 25.00 24.98 24.93 24.92

% change with BC 0.0% -0.2% -0.2% -0.3% -0.5% -0.5%

EMISSIONS (WATER)

g Hg/20 16.01 15.97 15.99 15.92 15.88 15.89

% change with BC 0.0% -0.2% -0.1% -0.6% -0.8% -0.7%

kg PO4 0.303 0.304 0.304 0.303 0.303 0.304

% change with BC 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% -0.1% 0.0% 0.2%

Total Energy (GER)


Water (process)

Water (cooling)







Heavy Metals to air

PAHs



Eutrophication




-3,0%

-2,5%

-2,0%

-1,5%

-1,0%

-0,5%

0,0%

0,5%

1,0%

Option1 Option2 Option3 ScenarioA ScenarioB

Task 7 report

August 2011



53




Eutrophication (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)


The environmental impacts of Base-case 5’s improvement options are presented in

Table 7-15. Figure 7-20 shows the changes compared to the Base-case.

Three categories of impacts can be distinguished:

Impacts mainly influenced by the changes in gas consumption: Total energy,

greenhouse gases emissions, acidification, volatile organic compound

emissions, PAHs emissions. For these impacts, Scenario D, implementing all the

options considered, has the lowest impact, and the Base-case has the highest.

Impacts mainly influenced by the changes in the BOM: Electricity and water

consumption, hazardous and non hazardous waste production, persistent

organic compound emissions, heavy metals emissions to air and to water and

Eutrophication. These impacts are higher for the options than for the Base-

case.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Base-case 4 Option1 Option2 Option3 ScenarioA ScenarioB

Gre

en

ho

use

Gas

es

in G

WP

10

0

- t

CO

2 e

q.

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35


Eutr

op

hic

atio

n -

kg

PO

4



Particulate Matter emissions, for which the gains due to reduced gas

consumption and to additional stainless steel cancel each other out.

Task 7 report

August 2011



55



life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 5 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD


GJ 611.0 606.5 605.7 604.2 606.5 604.2 599.7 598.8 594.3 587.5

% change with BC 0.0% -0.7% -0.9% -1.1% -0.7% -1.1% -1.9% -2.0% -2.7% -3.9%

primary GJ 141.3 141.4 141.4 141.3 141.3 141.3 141.4 141.4 141.4 141.4

MWh 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5

% change with BC 0.00% 0.02% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05%

kL 206.7 206.7 206.7 206.7 206.7 206.7 206.7 206.7 206.7 206.7

% change with BC 0.00% 0.02% 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%

kL 370.8 370.8 370.8 370.8 370.8 370.8 370.8 370.8 370.8 370.8

% change with BC 0.000% 0.001% 0.002% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.001% 0.002% 0.002% 0.002%

kg 357.9 358.2 358.6 357.9 357.9 357.9 358.2 358.6 358.6 358.6

% change with BC 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

kg 12.982 12.983 12.983 12.982 12.982 12.982 12.983 12.983 12.983 12.983

% change with BC 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 32.62 32.37 32.33 32.24 32.37 32.24 32.00 31.95 31.70 31.32

% change with BC 0.0% -0.8% -0.9% -1.2% -0.8% -1.2% -1.9% -2.1% -2.8% -4.0%

kg SO2 eq. 52.34 52.30 52.31 52.23 52.27 52.23 52.19 52.20 52.12 52.01

% change with BC 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6%

kg 0.498 0.494 0.494 0.493 0.494 0.493 0.489 0.489 0.485 0.480

% change with BC 0.0% -0.7% -0.8% -1.0% -0.7% -1.0% -1.7% -1.8% -2.4% -3.4%

µg i-Teq 2.204 2.206 2.209 2.204 2.204 2.204 2.206 2.209 2.209 2.209

% change with BC 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

g Ni eq. 21.37 21.41 21.46 21.37 21.37 21.37 21.41 21.46 21.46 21.46

% change with BC 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

g Ni eq. 1.4344 1.4343 1.4343 1.4342 1.4343 1.4342 1.4341 1.4341 1.4340 1.4338

% change with BC 0.00% -0.01% -0.01% -0.01% -0.01% -0.01% -0.02% -0.02% -0.03% -0.04%

kg 20.745 20.748 20.752 20.743 20.743 20.743 20.746 20.750 20.748 20.746

% change with BC 0.00% 0.01% 0.03% -0.01% -0.01% -0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01%

EMISSIONS (WATER)

g Hg/20 12.12 12.15 12.17 12.12 12.12 12.12 12.15 12.17 12.17 12.17

% change with BC 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

kg PO4 0.318 0.318 0.319 0.318 0.318 0.318 0.318 0.319 0.319 0.319

% change with BC 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

Total Energy (GER)


Water (process)

Water (cooling)







Heavy Metals to air

PAHs



Eutrophication




-4,5%

-4,0%

-3,5%

-3,0%

-2,5%

-2,0%

-1,5%

-1,0%

-0,5%

0,0%

0,5%

1,0%

Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD

Task 7 report

August 2011



57

Figure 7-21: Comparison of improvement options for BC5 according to the indicator GWP


Figure 7-22: Comparison of improvement options for BC5 according to the indicator Particulate matter


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Base-case 5 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD

Gre

en

ho

use

Gas

es

in G

WP

10

0

- t

CO

2 e

q.

0

5

10

15

20

25


Par

ticu

late

Mat

ter

(PM

, du

st)

- kg



Figure 7-23: Comparison of improvement options for BC4 according to the indicator Heavy metals emissions to water


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


He

avy

Me

tals

to

wat

er

- g

Hg/

20

Task 7 report

August 2011



59


The results of the life cycle assessment of the improvement options for Base-case 6 are

presented in Table 7-16. Modifications relative to the Base-case are presented in

Figure 7-24. For all options except Option 5 (temperature controls) and Option 6

(cooking sensors), there is a reduction in 13 out of 14 impacts. For these options, the

reduction brought about in hazardous waste production, PAHs emissions, heavy metals

emissions to water and eutrophication due to electricity savings does not make up for

the impacts due to the additional electronic components required.

The only noticeable modification is on the Eutrophication indicator (see Figure 7-25),

for which all options requiring additional electronic components have a higher value.

However, in absolute value, it is close to the impact of the Base-case, with around 46 g

PO4 equivalent emitted per product (mainly during the use phase).





life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 6 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 Option6 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD ScenarioE


GJ 1063 1052 1058 1052 1042 1058 1058 1047 1037 1032 1026 1006

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% -1% -2% 0% 0% -1% -2% -3% -3% -5%

primary GJ 1051 1041 1046 1041 1030 1046 1046 1035 1025 1020 1015 994

MWh 100.1 99.1 99.6 99.1 98.1 99.6 99.6 98.6 97.6 97.1 96.6 94.6

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% -1% -2% 0% 0% -1% -2% -3% -3% -5%

kL 70.8 70.1 70.5 70.1 69.6 70.6 70.6 69.8 69.1 68.9 68.6 67.2

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% -1% -2% 0% 0% -1% -2% -3% -3% -5%

kL 2800 2772 2786 2772 2744 2786 2786 2758 2730 2716 2702 2646

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% -1% -2% 0% 0% -1% -2% -3% -3% -5%

kg 1286 1274 1280 1274 1262 1280 1280 1268 1256 1250 1244 1220

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% -1% -2% 0% 0% -1% -2% -3% -3% -5%

kg 24.8 24.5 24.7 24.5 24.5 24.9 24.9 24.4 24.2 24.3 24.2 23.8

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% -1% -1% 0% 0% -1% -2% -2% -2% -4%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 46.8 46.3 46.6 46.3 45.9 46.6 46.6 46.1 45.7 45.4 45.2 44.3

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% -1% -2% 0% 0% -1% -2% -3% -3% -5%

kg SO2 eq. 272 269 271 269 267 271 271 268 265 264 263 257

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% -1% -2% 0% 0% -1% -2% -3% -3% -5%

kg 0.577 0.573 0.575 0.573 0.571 0.577 0.577 0.571 0.567 0.567 0.565 0.558

% change with BC 0.0% -0.7% -0.3% -0.7% -1.0% 0.0% 0.0% -1.0% -1.7% -1.7% -1.9% -3.3%

µg i-Teq 7.85 7.78 7.81 7.78 7.71 7.81 7.81 7.74 7.68 7.64 7.61 7.47

% change with BC 0.0% -0.9% -0.4% -0.9% -1.7% -0.4% -0.4% -1.3% -2.2% -2.6% -3.0% -4.8%

g Ni eq. 20.8 20.6 20.7 20.6 20.5 20.7 20.7 20.5 20.4 20.3 20.2 19.8

% change with BC 0.0% -0.9% -0.4% -0.9% -1.6% -0.3% -0.3% -1.3% -2.2% -2.5% -2.9% -4.6%

g Ni eq. 4.226 4.205 4.215 4.205 4.203 4.234 4.234 4.195 4.174 4.182 4.178 4.139

% change with BC 0.0% -0.5% -0.2% -0.5% -0.5% 0.2% 0.2% -0.7% -1.2% -1.0% -1.1% -2.0%

kg 43.1 43.0 43.1 43.0 43.0 43.1 43.1 43.0 42.9 42.9 42.9 42.8

% change with BC 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.3% -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.4% -0.7%

EMISSIONS (WATER)

g Hg/20 7.400 7.333 7.366 7.333 7.366 7.467 7.467 7.299 7.231 7.298 7.298 7.179

% change with BC 0.0% -0.9% -0.5% -0.9% -0.5% 0.9% 0.9% -1.4% -2.3% -1.4% -1.4% -3.0%

kg PO4 0.0462 0.0459 0.0461 0.0459 0.0470 0.0475 0.0475 0.0457 0.0454 0.0467 0.0470 0.0466

% change with BC 0.0% -0.7% -0.3% -0.7% 1.7% 2.7% 2.7% -1.0% -1.7% 1.0% 1.7% 0.8%

Total Energy (GER)


Water (process)

Water (cooling)







Heavy Metals to air

PAHs



Eutrophication

Task 7 report

August 2011



61


-6,0%

-5,0%

-4,0%

-3,0%

-2,0%

-1,0%

0,0%

1,0%

2,0%

3,0%

4,0%

Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 Option6 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD ScenarioE



Figure 7-25: Comparison of improvement options for BC6 according to the indicator Eutrophication


0

0,005

0,01

0,015

0,02

0,025

0,03

0,035

0,04

0,045

0,05

Base-case 6 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 Option6 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD ScenarioE

Eutr

op

hic

atio

n -

kg

PO

4

Task 7 report

August 2011



63


The environmental impacts of each option for Base-case 7 were calculated using the

EcoReport tool. Table 7-17 presents these results, and changes relative to the Base-

case are presented in Figure 7-26.



For all impacts except heavy metals emissions to water and eutrophication, the Base-

case is the most impacting, while Scenario B (improved insulation, door improvement

and software control) minimizes these impacts.

life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 7 Option1 Option2 Option3* ScenarioA ScenarioB*


GJ 7510.3 7138.9 7250.7 7437.5 6879.3 6806.4

% change with BC 0% -5% -3% -1% -8% -9%

primary GJ 7444.3 7072.8 7184.4 7371.0 6812.9 6739.7

MWh 709.0 673.6 684.2 702.0 648.9 641.9

% change with BC 0% -5% -3% -1% -8% -9%

kL 689.4 664.6 672.4 685.4 647.7 643.7

% change with BC 0% -4% -2% -1% -6% -7%

kL 19823.3 18832.7 19129.9 19625.4 18139.2 17941.3

% change with BC 0% -5% -3% -1% -8% -9%

kg 10265.9 9835.6 9969.0 10182.9 9538.7 9455.6

% change with BC 0% -4% -3% -1% -7% -8%

kg 186.2 177.7 180.2 185.7 171.7 171.1

% change with BC 0% -5% -3% 0% -8% -8%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 330.4 314.2 319.1 327.3 302.9 299.7

% change with BC 0% -5% -3% -1% -8% -9%

kg SO2 eq. 1947.2 1851.5 1880.5 1928.8 1784.8 1766.5

% change with BC 0% -5% -3% -1% -8% -9%

kg 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.1

% change with BC 0% -4% -3% 0% -7% -8%

µg i-Teq 68.5 66.1 66.8 68.0 64.4 63.9

% change with BC 0% -4% -2% -1% -6% -7%

g Ni eq. 185.1 178.7 181.2 183.9 174.9 173.7

% change with BC 0% -3% -2% -1% -6% -6%

g Ni eq. 16.6 15.9 16.1 16.6 15.3 15.3

% change with BC 0% -4% -3% 0% -7% -8%

kg 116.7 114.6 115.3 116.3 113.3 112.9

% change with BC 0% -2% -1% 0% -3% -3%

EMISSIONS (WATER)

g Hg/20 79.9 77.5 78.6 80.0 76.2 76.3

% change with BC 0% -3% -2% 0% -5% -4%

kg PO4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% 1% -1% 0%

Total Energy (GER)


Water (process)

Water (cooling)







Heavy Metals to air

PAHs



Eutrophication




-10,0%

-8,0%

-6,0%

-4,0%

-2,0%

0,0%

2,0%

Option1 Option2 Option3* ScenarioA ScenarioB*

Task 7 report

August 2011



65

Electronic components required for software control (in Option 3 and Scenario B),

increases heavy metals emissions to water, making Option 3 the worst for this

category. Scenario A being the option without electronics which has the minimum

energy consumption, it has the lowest emission.

For Eutrophication (see Figure 7-27), stainless steel and electronic components are the

main sources of emissions, together with electricity production during the use phase.

Option 1 reduces the energy consumption without additional stainless steel or

electronic components, and thus has the lowest emissions (4 g PO4 less than the Base-

case).





in Table 7-18. The modifications compared to the Base-case are presented in Figure

7-28.

Three categories of impacts can be identified:

Impacts for which the reduction brought about by the gas savings is higher

than the increase due to the additional stainless steel: Total Energy,

Greenhouse Gases emissions, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). For these

three impacts, the Base-case has the highest impact while Scenario B

(improving the heat exchanges in the hearth, the insulation and the door

design), which has the lowest gas consumption, has the lowest impact.

Impacts for which the gas consumption reduction compensate the impacts of

the additional stainless steel, whose value is stable: Acidification, PAHs

emissions, Particulate matter emissions.

Impacts which more influenced by the modifications during the material phase

than during the use phase: electricity, water, hazardous and non-hazardous

waste production, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) emissions, Heavy metals

emissions to air and to water, and Eutrophication. The 50 kg of stainless steel

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

Base-case 7 Option1 Option2 Option3* ScenarioA ScenarioB*

Eutr

op

hic

atio

n -

kg

PO

4



required to improve the heat exchanges in the hearth significantly increases

these impacts compared to the Base-case.



life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 8 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC*


GJ 3856.4 3719.0 3679.8 3733.2 3822.5 3542.5 3419.3 3385.4

% change with BC 0% -4% -5% -3% -1% -8% -11% -12%

primary GJ 251.9 252.9 251.9 252.0 252.9 252.9 253.1 254.1

MWh 24.0 24.1 24.0 24.0 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.2

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

kL 213.9 217.8 213.9 214.3 214.9 217.8 218.1 219.1

% change with BC 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2%

kL 639.7 640.3 639.7 639.7 639.9 640.3 640.4 640.6

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

kg 2127.7 2182.9 2128.1 2132.3 2130.8 2183.4 2188.0 2191.0

% change with BC 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3%

kg 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 19.3 18.1 18.1 19.3

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 212.6 205.2 202.9 205.8 210.8 195.4 188.6 186.8

% change with BC 0% -4% -5% -3% -1% -8% -11% -12%

kg SO2 eq. 154.7 155.5 151.9 153.0 154.9 152.6 150.9 151.1

% change with BC 0% 0% -2% -1% 0% -1% -2% -2%

kg 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.0

% change with BC 0% -3% -4% -3% 0% -7% -9% -10%

µg i-Teq 25.8 26.3 25.8 25.9 25.8 26.3 26.4 26.4

% change with BC 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2%

g Ni eq. 70.8 78.6 70.8 71.4 70.9 78.6 79.2 79.3

% change with BC 0% 11% 0% 1% 0% 11% 12% 12%

g Ni eq. 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 4%

kg 90.2 90.6 90.1 90.2 90.2 90.6 90.6 90.6

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

EMISSIONS (WATER)

g Hg/20 38.0 42.3 38.0 38.3 38.6 42.3 42.7 43.3

% change with BC 0% 11% 0% 1% 2% 11% 12% 14%

kg PO4 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2

% change with BC 0% 11% 0% 1% 1% 11% 12% 13%



Eutrophication





Heavy Metals to air

PAHs

Total Energy (GER)


Water (process)

Water (cooling)



Task 7 report

August 2011



67


-15,0%

-10,0%

-5,0%

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC*






Acidification (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)


Heavy metals emissions to water (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Gre

en

ho

use

Gas

es

in G

WP

10

0

- t

CO

2 e

q.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Aci

dif

icat

ion

, em

issi

on

s -

kg

SO2

eq

.

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

He

avy

Me

tals

to

wat

er

- g

Hg/

20

Task 7 report

August 2011



69



in Table 7-19 below.



Figure 7-32 presents the relative modifications in the environmental impacts of Base-

case 9’s improvement options.

life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 9 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product


GJ 7542 7468 7505 7395 7468 5790

% 0% -1% 0% -2% -1% -23%

primary GJ 7478 7403 7440 7329 7403 5724

MWh 712 705 709 698 705 545

% 0% -1% 0% -2% -1% -23%

kL 667 662 665 659 662 553

% 0% -1% 0% -1% -1% -17%

kL 19915 19716 19816 19518 19716 15237

% 0% -1% 0% -2% -1% -23%

kg 9654 9567 9612 9514 9568 7655

% 0% -1% 0% -1% -1% -21%

kg 181 180 180 178 180 141

% 0% -1% 0% -2% -1% -22%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 332 329 330 326 329 256

% 0% -1% 0% -2% -1% -23%

kg SO2 eq. 1957 1937 1947 1920 1937 1507

% 0% -1% 0% -2% -1% -23%

kg 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4 2.8

% 0% -1% 0% -1% -1% -19%

µg i-Teq 58.7 58.2 58.5 58.0 58.2 47.5

% 0.0% -0.8% -0.4% -1.2% -0.8% -19.1%

g Ni eq. 201.2 199.9 200.6 203.3 199.9 175.8

% 0.0% -0.6% -0.3% 1.0% -0.6% -12.7%

g Ni eq. 20.4 20.3 20.4 20.1 20.3 17.0

% 0% -1% 0% -1% -1% -17%

kg 159 158 159 158 158 149

% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -6%

EMISSIONS (WATER)

g Hg/20 87.5 87.0 87.3 89.2 87.1 78.9

% 0% -1% 0% 2% 0% -10%

kg PO4 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.35 1.29 1.31

% 0.0% -0.2% -0.1% 5.1% -0.1% 1.4%



Eutrophication





Heavy Metals to air

PAHs

Total Energy (GER)


Water (process)

Water (cooling)





-25.0%

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product


Task 7 report

August 2011



71

As most of the rack oven’s environmental impacts occur during the use phase, reducing

the energy consumption leads to reduced impacts. Consequently, the BA product has

significantly lower impacts than the other options, except for Eutrophication, where

the additional electronic components bring about an increase. However, given that no

information is available the actual modifications to the BOM of the BA product, these

results should be considered with caution.


Table 7-20 presents the environmental impacts of Base-case 10 and its improvement

options. Modifications relatively to the Base-case are presented in Figure 7-33.

As shown on Figure 7-34, greenhouse gases emissions are significantly reduced by the

BA product (199 t CO2 eq. for the Base-case, 154 t CO2 eq. for the BA product). This

reduction mainly comes from the reduction in gas and electricity consumption during

the use phase. The same trend is visible for Total Energy consumption, Acidification

and VOC emissions.

The additional stainless steel required for options 3 and 4 (heat exchangers) and for

the BA product increases heavy metal emissions to air and water, as well as

Eutrophication (see Figure 7-35).





life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 10 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product


GJ 3684.6 3564.5 3624.7 3625.3 3648.5 2840.6

% change with BC 0% -3% -2% -2% -1% -23%

primary GJ 632.9 632.9 633.0 633.1 626.8 571.2

final MWh 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3 59.7 54.4

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% -1% -10%

kL 210.9 210.9 211.0 211.6 210.6 207.8

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -1%

kL 1662.2 1662.2 1662.2 1662.3 1645.6 1496.8

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% -1% -10%

kg 1738.1 1738.1 1740.4 1749.1 1731.2 1679.7

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% -3%

kg 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 22.2

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -6%

EMISSIONS (AIR)

t CO2 eq. 198.1 191.4 194.8 194.8 196.2 152.2

% change with BC 0% -3% -2% -2% -1% -23%

kg SO2 eq. 241.2 239.3 240.4 240.9 239.2 213.5

% change with BC 0% -1% 0% 0% -1% -12%

kg 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2

% change with BC 0% -3% -2% -2% -1% -21%

µg i-Teq 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.2 14.1 13.8

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% -2%

g Ni eq. 80.4 80.4 80.7 82.0 80.3 81.2

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1%

g Ni eq. 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -4%

kg 60.3 60.2 60.3 60.4 60.2 59.8

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -1%

EMISSIONS (WATER)

g Hg/20 43.5 43.5 43.7 44.4 43.6 44.2

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2%

kg PO4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

% change with BC 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3%



Eutrophication





Heavy Metals to air

PAHs

Total Energy (GER)


Water (process)

Water (cooling)



Task 7 report

August 2011



73


-25,0%

-20,0%

-15,0%

-10,0%

-5,0%

0,0%

5,0%




Figure 7-34: Comparison of improvement options for BC10

according to the indicator GWP (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)



0

50

100

150

200

250

Base-case 10 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product

Gre

en

ho

use

Gas

es

in G

WP

10

0 -

t C

O2

eq

.

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2


Eutr

op

hic

atio

n -

kg

PO

4

Task 7 report

August 2011



75

7.3. COST ANALYSIS


Figure 7-36 presents the share of purchase price and electricity cost in the whole life

cycle cost of the improvement options for Base-case 1. Detailed figures are also

presented in Table 7-21.

Table 7-21: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 1

Description

Purchase

price (€)

Electricity

costs (€)

Life cycle cost

(€)

Base-case 500.00 357.78 857.78

Average product currently sold 500.00 238.93 738.93

Option0 Standby regulation 500.00 220.07 720.07

Option1 Door glazing 502.00 217.05 719.05

Option2 Introduction of

reflecting layer 510.00 216.04 726.04

Option3 Better insulation 508.00 212.02 720.02

Option4 Electronic temperature

control 600.00 216.04 816.04

Option5* Cooking sensors 600.00 215.04 815.04

Scenario A 1+3 510.00 209.00 719.00

Scenario B 1+2+3 520.00 204.98 724.98

Scenario C 1+2+3+4 620.00 200.95 820.95

Scenario D* 1+2+3+4+5* 640.00 195.92 835.92



58% 68% 69% 70% 70% 71%74% 74%

71% 72%

76% 77%

42%

32% 31% 30% 30% 29%

26% 26%

29% 28%

24% 23%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000


Co

st (€

)

Purchase price Electricity costs

Figure 7-36: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC1

Task 7 report

August 2011



77


The life cycle cost of the improvement options for Base-case 2 are presented in Table

7-22. Figure 7-37 presents the share of each type of costs.


Description

Purchase price

(€)

Gas costs

(€)

Life cycle cost

(€)

Base-case 2 335.00 142.17 477.17

Option1 Better thermal

insulation 350.00 122.27 472.27

Option2 Reduced thermal

mass 343.00 132.22 475.22

Option3 Optimised vent flow 337.00 140.04 477.04

Option4

Pre-heating

ventilation air with

heat exchanger 455.00 130.80 585.80

Scenario A 1+2 363.00 113.74 476.74

Scenario B 1+2+3 365.00 111.61 476.61

Scenario C 1+2+3+4 485.00 100.23 585.23

Scenario A (Combination of options 1 and 2) is the product with the least life cycle cost,

saving 5.43€ compared to the Base-case. Pre-heating ventilation air is not viable (for

the time being).


70% 74% 72% 71%

78% 76% 76%

83%

30% 26% 28% 29%

22%

24% 24%

17%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Base-case 2


Co

st (

€)

Purchase price Gas costs




The results of the life cycle cost analysis of the improvement options for Base-Case 3

are shown in Table 7-23 and Figure 7-38.


Description

Purchase

price (€)

Electricity

costs (€)

Life cycle cost

(€)

Base-case 3 117 96 213

Option0 Standby Regulation 117 85 202

Option1 Painted cavity 119 84 203

Option2 Inverter power supply 122 84 206

Option3 Good engineering

work 124 82 206

Option4 Cavity light 121 83 204

Option5* Cooking sensors 217 81 298

Scenario A 1+2+3 131 80 211

Scenario B 1+2+3+4 135 79 214

Scenario C* 1+2+3+4+5 235 75 310

55% 58% 59% 59% 60% 59%

73%

62% 63%

76%

45% 42% 41% 41% 40% 41%

27%

38% 37%

24%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Co

st (€

)

Purchase price Electricity costs


Implementing options will increase the share of the purchase price in the life cycle cost.

Scenario C* is the one with the lowest share of electricity (24%).

Task 7 report

August 2011



79


The life cycle cost of Base-case 4 and its improvement options is presented in Table

7-24.


Description

Purchase

price (€)

Installation

cost (€)

Electricity

costs (€)

Water

cost

(€)

Maintenance

and repair

costs (€)

Life

cycle

cost (€)

Base-case 4 11,900 200 11,680 401 568 24,748

Option1 Third glass sheet 11,915 200 11,563 401 568 24,646

Option2 Fourth glass sheet 11,935 200 11,540 401 568 24,643

Option3 Better insulation 11,960 200 11,504 401 568 24,633

Scenario A 1+3 11,975 200 11,388 401 568 24,531

Scenario B 2+3 11,995 200 11,364 401 568 24,528

The implementation of all options is profitable at the end of the oven’s life, the savings

in electricity costs being higher than the increase in the purchase price.

Figure 7-39 presents the distribution between the various costs. The changes are

relatively small between all options.


48% 48% 48% 49% 49% 49%

47% 47% 47% 47% 46% 46%

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000


Co

st (

€)

Purchase price Installation costs Electricity costs Water Maintenance and repair costs




Table 7-25 presents the life cycle cost of Base-case 5 and its improvement options.


Description

Purchase

price (€)

Installation

cost (€)

Gas

costs

(€)

Electricity

costs (€)

Water

costs

(€)

Maintenance

and repair

costs (€)

Life cycle

cost (€)

Base-case 6 13,200 300 5,130 1,652 401 730 21,412

Option1 3rd glass sheet 13,215 300 5,078 1,652 401 730 21,376

Option2 4th glass sheet 13,235 300 5,068 1,652 401 730 21,386

Option3 Improved

insulation 13,260 300 5,053 1,652 401 730 21,395

Option4

Improved steam

condensing

system

13,280 300 5,078 1,652 401 730 21,441

Option5 Improved

burner design 13,270 300 5,053 1,652 401 730 21,405

Scenario A 1+3 13,275 300 5,001 1,652 401 730 21,359

Scenario B 2+3 13,295 300 4,991 1,652 401 730 21,369

Scenario C 2+3+4 13,375 300 4,940 1,652 401 730 21,397

Scenario D 2+3+4+5 13,445 300 4,863 1,652 401 730 21,390

Option 4 and Option 5 (improving burner and condensing system) are not economically

profitable. The share of each cost is presented in Figure 7-40.


62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 63% 63%

24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 23% 23% 23% 23%

8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

Co

st (

€)

Purchase price Installation costs Gas costs Electricity costs Water Maintenance and repair costs

Task 7 report

August 2011



81


The life cycle cost of an average in-store convection oven is presented in Table 7-26.


Description

Purchase

price (€)

Installation

cost (€)

Electricity

costs (€)

Maintenance

and repair

costs (€)

Life cycle

cost (€)

Base-case 6 10,000 400 13,078 4,208 27,686

Option1 Improved door seals

design 10,020 400 12,948 4,208 27,576

Option2 Improved vent design 10,100 400 13,013 4,208 27,721

Option3 Door glazing - Infrared

reflecting layer 10,240 400 12,948 4,208 27,796

Option4 Software control 10,070 400 12,817 4,208 27,475

Option5 Temperature controls 10,100 400 13,013 4,208 27,721

Option6 Cooking sensors 10,300 400 13,013 4,208 27,921

Scenario A 1+2 10,120 400 12,882 4,208 27,610

Scenario B 1+2+3 10,360 400 12,751 4,208 27,719

Scenario C 1+4 10,070 400 12,686 4,208 27,364

Scenario D 1+4+5 10,170 400 12,621 4,208 27,399

Scenario E 1+2+3+4+5+6 10,810 400 12,359 4,208 27,777

Only the implementation of Option 1 (improved door seals design) and Option 4

(Software control) are economically profitable. For the other options, the life cycle cost

is higher than the Base-case’s one.

The cost distribution for Base-case 6 and its options is presented in Figure 7-41.





The life cycle cost for Base-case 7’s improvement options is presented in Table 7-27.


Description

Purchase

price (€)

Electricity

costs (€)

Water

cost (€)

Maintenance

and repair

costs (€)

Life cycle

cost (€)

Base-case 7 35,000 81,508 329 4,447 121,284

Option1 Improved insulation 35,175 77,432 329 4,447 117,384

Option2 Door improvement 35,700 78,655 329 4,447 119,131

Option3 Software control 36,400 80,693 329 4,447 121,869

Scenario A Options 1+2 35,875 74,580 329 4,447 115,231

Scenario B Options 1+2+3 37,275 73,765 329 4,447 115,816

The implementation of Option 1 and Option 2 is profitable (respectively 3,900€ and

2,153 € savings), however, this is not the case with Option 3 (585€ increase in the life

cycle cost).

36.1% 36.3% 36.4% 36.8% 36.6% 36.4% 36.9% 36.7% 37.4% 36.8% 37.1% 38.9%

47.2% 47.0% 46.9% 46.6% 46.6% 46.9% 46.6% 46.7% 46.0% 46.4% 46.1% 44.5%

15.2% 15.3% 15.2% 15.1% 15.3% 15.2% 15.1% 15.2% 15.2% 15.4% 15.4% 15.1%

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

Co

st (

€)

Purchase price Installation / acquisition costs Electricity costs Maintenance and repair costs

Task 7 report

August 2011



83


A shown in Figure 7-42, the share of energy is stable around two third of the life cycle

cost.


The life cycle cost of the improvement options for Base-case 8 is presented in Table

7-28.


Description

Purchase

price (€)

Gas

costs

(€)

Electricity

costs (€)

Water

costs

(€)

Maintenance

and repair

costs (€)

Life

cycle

cost (€)

Base-case 8 35,000 36,327 2,588 329 5,930 80,173

Option1 Exchanges in heath 36,225 34,874 2,588 329 5,930 79,945

Option2 Improved insulation 35,175 34,511 2,588 329 5,930 78,532

Option3 Door improvement 35,700 35,056 2,588 329 5,930 79,602

Option4* Software control 36,400 35,964 2,588 329 5,930 81,210

Scenario A Options 1+2 36,400 33,058 2,588 329 5,930 78,304

Scenario B Options 1+2+3 37,100 31,786 2,588 329 5,930 77,732

Scenario C* Options 1+2+3+4* 38,500 31,423 2,588 329 5,930 78,769

The life cycle cost distribution is presented in Figure 7-43.

29% 30% 30% 30% 31% 32%

67% 66% 66% 66% 65% 64%

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

140 000


Co

st (

€)

Purchase price Electricity costs Water Maintenance and repair costs







Description

Purchase

price (€)

Installation

cost (€)

Electricity

costs (€) Water (€)

Maintenance

and repair

costs (€)

Life cycle

cost (€)

Base-case 9 15,000 1,800 89,617 289 2,960 109,666

Option1 Improved

insulation 15,175 1,800 88,721 289 2,960 108,945

Option2 Door

improvement 15,700 1,800 89,169 289 2,960 109,918

Option3 Heat exchanger 16,200 1,800 87,824 289 2,960 109,074

Option4* Software control 15,500 1,800 88,721 289 2,960 109,270

BA product

Best available

product on the

market

25,000 1,800 68,557 289 2,960 98,606

44% 45% 45% 45% 45% 46% 48% 49%

45% 44% 44% 44% 44% 42% 41% 40%

7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8%

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

Co

st (

€)

Purchase price Fuel (gas, oil, wood) Electricity costs

Water Maintenance and repair costs

Task 7 report

August 2011



85





Description

Purchase

price (€)

Installation

cost (€)

Gas costs

(€)

Electricity

costs (€) Water (€)

Maintenance

and repair

costs (€)

Life cycle

cost (€)

Base-case 15,000 2,000 33,814 7,449 289 4,441 62,993

Option1

Improved

insulation 15,175 2,000 32,461 7,449 289 4,441 61,815

Option2

Improved

door 15,700 2,000 33,137 7,449 289 4,441 63,016

Option3

Implement

heat

exchanger for

steam/dampe

ner flues 15,900 2,000 33,137 7,449 289 4,481 63,257

Option4*

Software

control 15,500 2,000 33,475 7,375 289 4,441 63,080

BA product

Best available

product on

the market 25,000 2,000 24,998 6,704 289 4,441 63,432

14% 14% 14% 15% 14%25%2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

2%

82% 81% 81% 81% 81% 70%

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000


Co

st (€

)

Purchase price Installation / acquisition costs (if any)

Electricity costs Water

Maintenance and repair costs




7.4. ANALYSIS BAT AND LLCC

The design option(s) identified in the technical, environmental and economic analysis in

subtask 7.1 will be ranked to identify the Best Available Technology (BAT) and the LLCC.

Drawing of a LCC-curve (Y-axis= LCC, X-axis=options) allows identification of these LLCC

and BAT points11.

The performance will be compared using the weighted Base-case and applying to this

the improvement options. The comparison is made in terms of primary energy

consumption, non-hazardous wastes, GWP, VOC, Heavy metals to water and LCC.

LLC is the sum of the Base-case price, plus cost of improvements, added to the costs of

energy, and the costs of installation and maintenance (if any) as described in Task 5.


Figure 7-46 permits to identify the LLCC and BAT products. The LLCC product is Scenario

A (Door glazing and better insulation), with a life cycle cost of 719.00€, which

represents a 138.78€ savings compared to the Base-case, 19.92€ compared to an

average product currently sold, but only 1.07€ compared to an oven compliant with the

11

This is usually the last point of the curve showing the product design with the lowest environmental impact, irrespective of the price.

24% 25% 25% 25% 25%39%

3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

3%

54% 53% 53% 52% 53%39%

12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 11%

7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000


Co

st (€

)

Purchase price Installation cost

Fuel (gas, oil, wood) Electricity costs

Water Maintenance and repair costs

Task 7 report

August 2011



87

standby regulation. It saves 39% energy over the life cycle compared to the Base-case,

and 11% compared to the average product sold.

The BAT product is more clearly identifiable. It is obtained by implementing all options,

and would result in 14.3 primary GJ savings relatively to the Base-case or 3.4 primary GJ

savings compared to the average product sold. However, it costs 117€ more than the

LLCC (but 22€ less than the Base-case).

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)

Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost

Figure 7-46: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC1


Figure 7-47 presents the primary energy consumed by the improvement options, and

the life cycle cost, allowing the identification of the LLCC and BAT products.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

Base-case 2 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC

Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)

Total Energy (GER) LLCC BAT Life-cycle cost



The LLCC product is Option 1, which is a gas oven with an improved thermal insulation.

It saves 2€ and 12% energy compared to the Base-case.

The BAT product is obtained in Scenario C by the additional optimisation of vent flows

and by pre-heating the combustion air. The consumption per cycle would be reduced

to 1.18 kWh (-25%), but the life cycle cost would increase by 23% relatively to the Base-

case (+108€).


The identification of the BAT and LLCC products is provided on Figure 7-48.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)



Considering life cycle cost, Option 0 (Base-case with reduced standby power) is the

cheapest product. The extra cost needed to implement the options is not possible to

offset over the lifetime of the product. Implementing all options (Scenario C*) would

reduce the energy consumption by 16%, but the cost would increase by 45% relatively

to the Base-case.

Task 7 report

August 2011



89


Looking at

Figure 7-49, it appears that the BAT and the LLCC are achieved with the same options:

adding two additional glass sheets on the door and improving the insulation.

Implementing these options would result in a 2.6% energy savings at the end of the life

time of the combi-steamer, and would save 220€.



To identify the LLCC and BAT scenarios for Base-case 5, the total energy consumption is

displayed together with the life cycle cost on Figure 7-50.

24 400

24 450

24 500

24 550

24 600

24 650

24 700

24 750

24 800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)


24 400

24 450

24 500

24 550

24 600

24 650

24 700

24 750

24 800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)





Scenario A (third glass sheet on the door and improved insulation) is the option with

the least life cycle cost, saving 63€ and 1.9% energy compared to the Base-case.

The BAT scenario is Scenario D (two additional glass sheets on the door, improved

insulation and burner design as well as vapour condensing system. It saves 3.9% energy

and 22€ compared to the Base-case.


As shown on Figure 7-51, the least life cycle cost scenario (LLCC) is Scenario C

(improved door seals design and software control). The life cycle cost is reduced by

322€ (1.2% of the life cycle cost). Scenario C saves 2.9% energy compared to the Base-

case (1,032 GJ compared to 1,063 GJ).

The overall energy consumption of Scenario E, implementing all the options, is 1,006

GJ, which represents 5% savings compared to the Base-case. However, its life cycle cost

is 0.3% higher (27,777€ compared to 26,786€).

21 300

21 320

21 340

21 360

21 380

21 400

21 420

21 440

21 460

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Base-case 5

Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD

Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)


Task 7 report

August 2011



91



Figure 7-52 allows the identification of the Least Life Cycle Cost scenario (LLCC

scenario) and of the Best Available Technology scenario (BAT scenario) for Base-case 7.


Scenario A, improving the insulation and the door design, is the LLCC scenario with

1.3% reduction compared to the Base-case: their life cycle costs are 119,385€ and

120,995€ respectively for Scenario A and the Base-case. With 7,287 GJ consumed over

its life cycle, it saves 3.0% energy.

The BAT scenario is Scenario B, which includes a software control on top of Scenario A.

It saves 3.9% energy (7,214 GJ), and costs 985€ less than the Base-case, but 585€ more

than the LLCC.

27 000

27 100

27 200

27 300

27 400

27 500

27 600

27 700

27 800

27 900

28 000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)


110 000

112 000

114 000

116 000

118 000

120 000

122 000

124 000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)





The graph allowing the identification of the LLCC and BAT scenarios for Base-case 8 is

presented in Figure 7-53.


Scenario A (improvement in heat exchanges and insulation) is the LLCC with 0.7% cost

savings compared to the Base-case (respectively 79,247€ and 79,845€).It consumes

3,664 GJ during its life cycle, which is 4.9% lower than the Base-case.

Scenario B is BAT, with a consumption of 3,612 GJ, which is 6.3% lower compared to

the Base-case (3,855 GJ). Scenario B is 443€ cheaper than the Base-case, but 155€

more expensive than the LLCC.




75 000

76 000

77 000

78 000

79 000

80 000

81 000

82 000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)


Task 7 report

August 2011



93


The BA product is clearly the option with the lowest life cycle energy consumption, with

5,790 GJ of primary energy consumption (23.2% energy savings compared to the Base-

case). This much savings makes it also the cheaper product, with 98,606€, despite

being two third more expensive to buy that the Base-case.





92 000

94 000

96 000

98 000

100 000

102 000

104 000

106 000

108 000

110 000

112 000

0,0

1000,0

2000,0

3000,0

4000,0

5000,0

6000,0

7000,0

8000,0

Base-case 9


Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)


61 000

61 500

62 000

62 500

63 000

63 500

64 000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Base-case 10


Life

Cyc

le C

ost

(€

)

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y (G

J)




The BA product is clearly the option with the lowest life cycle energy consumption, with

2,861 GJ of primary energy consumption (22.7% energy savings compared to the Base-

case). However, the LLCC product is Option 1 (improved insulation), saving 1,177 € and

3% primary energy over the lifetime.

Task 7 report

August 2011



95

7.5. LONG-TERM TARGETS (BNAT)

Not all possible improvement options were considered in the preceding sections. Some

are still prohibitively expensive or not yet widely available. Such options can be

described as BNAT and considered as long-term targets.

Domestic electric and gas ovens are considered to be mature products. No major

improvement regarding energy efficiency is expected, even as a long-term target. Some

improvement may be possible for domestic gas ovens; gas is used as energy source in

many industrial processes, and work has been done to improve their energy efficiency.

However, it is currently uncertain whether it is technically and economically possible to

implement such solutions. Concerning microwave ovens, improvement potential is also

thought to be low.

A possible increase in energy efficiency is possible by a technology switch: introduction

of combi-steamers on the domestic market could indeed result in lower energy

consumption. However, this would also result a change in user habits. Cooking times

are not the same using a combi-steamer or a regular oven. As well, food taste and

texture may be different. Some improvement might also be achievable by combining

different cooking technologies. Microwaves used together with convection or steam

are also thought to be possible improvement, while keeping the same result.

Concerning commercial appliances, energy efficiency is already a concern for many

years as they consume a significant amount of energy. Many manufacturers agree on

the fact that their efficiency can be increase by only a few percent. It is likely that more

improvement is possible with gas appliances, where it could be possible to adapt some

solutions used for industrial processes. In any case, it is very difficult to quantify the

savings that could be achieved.

Previous tasks showed that user behaviour has a significant influence on energy

consumption of ovens. Therefore, features helping the user to use their oven in a

better way are likely to be introduced in future models, as they would also ease the use

itself. Moreover, at market level, Task 2 identified that environmental awareness is

increasing; consumers also have economic motivation to reduce energy consumption.

These trends drive changes in use patterns and consumer choice over time.



7.6. CONCLUSIONS

Task 7 makes the environmental and economic comparison of the improvement

options introduced in Task 6 and quantified thanks to a questionnaire, with the base-

case assessment done in Task 5.

The energy label already in place for domestic electric ovens brought about a

significant reduction of the environmental impact of the average product currently sold

compared to the Base-case. Further improvements are difficult to achieve without an

increase in the life cycle cost. Some improvement options even allow saving less energy

in the use phase than what they require during the other life cycle phases.

A larger improvement potential is predicted for gas ovens, as they do not have

benefited from as much attention by manufacturers as electric ovens. Many solutions

implemented in electric ovens can also be implemented in gas ovens. Moreover, some

improvements specific to gas technology can be adapted to the domestic sector from

what is already used in the commercial sector, but these would increase the life cycle

cost.

The life cycle cost of microwave ovens is already minimal. Implementing improvement

options would raise the consumer price. Significant energy savings can only be

achieved by influencing how the microwave oven is used by the consumer.

For all commercial appliances except rack ovens, the savings of the BAT product

compared with the Base-case are lower than for domestic appliances. Energy savings

that can be achieved by replacing an average oven with a LLCC product range from

1.9% for a gas combi-steamer to 4.9% for a gas deck oven. Concerning rack ovens, the

improvement potential seems to be much higher, but this information is based on the

description of a best available product by a manufacturer, who did not detail the

improvement options which have been implemented to achieve this efficiency.

The results of this analysis are highly dependent on the inputs and a sensitivity analysis

in Task 8 will complement the current results to highlight the influence of the most

important parameters of the study on the environmental and economic outcomes.

european commission (dg ener) - eup network · [c. contact bio intelligence service shailendra...

Documents