Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal – Benoît Tinetti
+ 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 [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
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
7.2.2. Base-case 2: Domestic gas oven ....................................................................................................... 43
7.2.3. Base-case 3: Domestic microwave oven ........................................................................................... 47
7.2.4. Base-case 4: Commercial electric combi-steamer ............................................................................ 51
7.2.5. Base-case 5: Commercial gas combi-steamer .................................................................................. 53
7.2.6. Base-case 6: Commercial in-store convection oven ......................................................................... 59
7.2.7. Base-case 7: Commercial electric deck oven .................................................................................... 63
7.2.8. Base-case 8: Commercial gas deck oven .......................................................................................... 65
7.2.9. Base-case 9: Commercial electric rack oven ..................................................................................... 69
7.2.10. Base-case 10: Commercial gas rack oven ......................................................................................... 71
7.3. Cost analysis ...................................................................................................................75
7.3.1. Base-case 1: Domestic electric oven ................................................................................................ 75
7.3.2. Base-case 2: Domestic gas oven ....................................................................................................... 77
7.3.3. Base-case 3: Domestic microwave oven ........................................................................................... 78
7.3.4. Base-case 4: Commercial electric combi-steamer ............................................................................ 79
7.3.5. Base-case 5: Commercial gas combi-steamer .................................................................................. 80
7.3.6. Base-case 6: Commercial in-store convection oven ......................................................................... 81
7.3.7. Base-case 7: Commercial electric deck oven .................................................................................... 82
7.3.8. Base-case 8: Commercial gas deck oven .......................................................................................... 83
7.3.9. Base-case 9: Commercial electric rack oven ..................................................................................... 84
7.3.10. Base-case 10: Commercial gas rack oven ......................................................................................... 85
7.4. Analysis BAT and LLCC ....................................................................................................86
7.4.1. Base-case 1: Domestic electric oven ................................................................................................ 86
7.4.2. Base-case 2: Domestic gas oven ....................................................................................................... 87
7.4.3. Base-case 3: Domestic microwave oven ........................................................................................... 88
7.4.4. Base-case 4: Commercial electric combi-steamer ............................................................................ 88
7.4.5. Base-case 5: Commercial gas combi-steamer .................................................................................. 89
4 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
7.4.6. Base-case 6: Commercial in-store convection oven ......................................................................... 90
7.4.7. Base-case 7: Commercial electric deck oven ................................................................................... 90
7.4.8. Base-case 8: Commercial gas deck oven .......................................................................................... 91
7.4.9. Base-case 9: Commercial electric rack oven .................................................................................... 91
7.4.10. Base-case 10: Commercial gas rack oven ......................................................................................... 92
7.5. Long-term targets (BNAT) ............................................................................................... 94
7.6. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 95
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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.
6 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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
8 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Constraints: none identified.
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
Modification to the BOM:
- 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%.
Costs: 100€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM:
- 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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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.
Costs: 100€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM:
- 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.
Costs: 10€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM:
- 54-Glass for lamps: + 2000.00 g
- 24-St sheet galv.: + 600.00 g
- Insulation material: + 400.00 g
Constraints: none identified
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
consumption. The savings of each option were considered to be simply added,
without overlap effects.
Costs: 22€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM:
- 54-Glass for lamps: + 2000.00 g
- 24-St sheet galv.: + 600.00 g
- Insulation material: + 400.00 g
Constraints: none identified
10 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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
consumption. The savings of each option were considered to be simply added,
without overlap effects.
Costs: 122€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM:
- 54-Glass for lamps: + 2000.00 g
- 24-St sheet galv.: + 600.00 g
- 98-Controller board: + 300.00 g
- Insulation material: + 400.00 g
Constraints: none identified
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
consumption. The savings of each option were considered to be simply added,
without overlap effects.
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€.
Modification to the BOM:
- 54-Glass for lamps: + 2000.00 g
- 24-St sheet galv.: + 600.00 g
- 98-Controller board: + 500.00 g
- Insulation material: + 400.00 g
Constraints: none identified
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
15€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
- 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.
12 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
8€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
- 22-St tube/profile: - 3000.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
2€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
- 54-Glass for lamps: + 1000.00 g
- 24-St sheet galv.: + 500.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: 150€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM:
- 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.
7.1.2.5. BC2 - SCENARIO A: OPTIONS 1 AND 2
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
13
Costs: 28€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM:
- Insulation material: + 400.00 g
- 22-St tube/profile: - 3000.00 g
Constraints: none identified
7.1.2.6. BC2 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3
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
Modification to the BOM:
- Insulation material: + 400.00 g
- 22-St tube/profile: - 3000.00 g
Constraints: none identified
7.1.2.7. BC2 - SCENARIO C: OPTIONS 1, 2, 3 AND 4
Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1, 2, 3
and 4 (pre-heating of ventilation air) which results in an estimated 32% of
savings in the on-mode energy consumption.
Costs: 120€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM:
- Insulation material: + 400.00 g
- 22-St tube/profile: - 1500.00 g
- 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.
14 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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
(*) relates to options/scenarios which are user-dependent, therefore the related
energy savings cannot be directly considered within test standards and MEPS.
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.
Modification to the BOM: None
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.3.2. BC3 - OPTION 1: PAINTED CAVITY
Environmental impacts: It is assumed that it can save 1% energy in on-mode.
Costs: 2€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM: the changes in terms of material weight are minors
and are not modelled.
Constraints: none identified.
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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.
Costs: 5€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM: the changes in terms of material weight are minors
and are not modelled.
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: 7€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM: the changes in terms of material weight are minors
and are not modelled.
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Modification to the BOM: None
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€
16 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Modification to the BOM:
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.
Costs: 14€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM: none
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.3.8. BC3 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 1, 2, 3 AND 4
Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1, 2, 3
and 4 (cavity light) which results in an estimated 8% of savings in the on-mode
energy consumption. The savings of each option were considered to be simply
added, without overlap effects.
Costs: 18€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM: none
Constraints: none identified.
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
energy consumption. The savings of each option were considered to be simply
added, without overlap effects.
Costs: 118€ increase in the product price
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 200.00 g
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
17
Table 7-4: Identified improvement options for commercial electric combi-steamers
Description
Annual Electricity
consumption (kWh)
Comparison to Base-case
Energy savings
(%)
Increase in product price (€)
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
15€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 2,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +300 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
35€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 4,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +600 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
18 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
7.1.4.3. BC4 - OPTION 3: BETTER INSULATION
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%.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
60€ per product. This could correspond to the upper price range for insulating
materials (such as high-tech cellular glass).
Modification to the BOM:
o Glass wool: +1,000 g (not taken into account in environmental impact
analysis)
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
75€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 2,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +300 g
o Glass wool: +1,000 g (not taken into account in environmental impact
analysis)
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.4.5. BC4 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 2 + 3
Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1 (third
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
95€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 4,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +600 g
o Glass wool: +1,000 g (not taken into account in environmental impact
analysis)
Constraints: none identified.
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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)
Comparison to Base-case
Energy savings
(%)
Increase in product price (€)
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
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
15€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 2,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +300 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
20 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
35€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 4,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +600 g
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.5.3. BC5 - OPTION 3: BETTER INSULATION
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%.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
60€ per product. This could correspond to the upper price range for insulating
materials (such as high-tech cellular glass).
Modification to the BOM:
o Glass wool: +1,000 g (not taken into account in environmental impact
analysis)
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
80€ per product.
Modification to the BOM: negligible
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
70€ per product.
Modification to the BOM: negligible
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.5.6. BC5 - 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
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
21
estimated 2.5% of savings in energy consumption. The savings of each option
were considered to be simply added, without overlap effects.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
75€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 2,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +300 g
o Glass wool: +1,000 g (not taken into account in environmental impact
analysis)
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.5.7. BC5 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 2 + 3
Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1 (third
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
95€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 4,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +600 g
o Glass wool: +1,000 g (not taken into account in environmental impact
analysis)
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.5.8. BC5 - SCENARIO C: OPTIONS 2 + 3 + 4
Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1 (third
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
energy consumption. The savings of each option were considered to be simply
added, without overlap effects.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
95€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 4,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +600 g
o Glass wool: +1,000 g (not taken into account in environmental impact
analysis)
Constraints: none identified.
22 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
7.1.5.9. BC5 - SCENARIO D: OPTIONS 2 + 3 + 4 + 5
Environmental impacts: this option combines the benefits of options 1 (third
and fourth glass sheet on the door), 3 (improved insulation), 4 (improved
steam condensing system) and 5 (improved burner design) which results in an
estimated 5.2% of savings in energy consumption. The savings of each option
were considered to be simply added, without overlap effects.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
95€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 4,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: +600 g
o Glass wool: +1,000 g (not taken into account in environmental impact
analysis)
Constraints: none identified.
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
23
Table 7-6: Identified energy saving potential for commercial in-store convection
ovens
Description
Annual
Electricity
consumption
(kWh)
Comparison to Base-case
Energy savings
(%)
Increase in product price (€)
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
Environmental impacts: it is assumed that it is possible to save 1% of energy on
a baking cycle if door seals design is improved. Thermal bridges can be reduced
with better seals.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
20€ per product.
Modification to the BOM: Negligible
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
100€ per product.
Modification to the BOM: Negligible
Constraints: none identified.
24 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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%.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
240€ per product.
Modification to the BOM: Negligible
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
50€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 300.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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%.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
100€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 300.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
300€ per product.
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
25
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 300.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.6.7. BC6 - SCENARIO A: OPTIONS 1 + 2
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
120€ per product.
Modification to the BOM: Negligible
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
360€ per product.
Modification to the BOM: Negligible
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
70€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 300.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
170€ per product.
26 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 400.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
810€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 450.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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)
Comparison to Base-case
Energy savings
(%)
Increase in product price (€)
Payback time
(years)
Base-case 7 47,174 0.0% 0
Option1 Improved insulation 44,816 5.0% 175 0.48
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
175€ per product7.
Modification to the BOM:
o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)
Constraints: none identified.
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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%.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
700€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 8,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: + 4,000 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
1,400€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 1,800.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.7.4. BC7 - SCENARIO A: OPTIONS 1 AND 2
Environmental impacts: Scenario A combines improved insulation and door
design. These improvements are entirely compatible and thus the resulting
energy savings are 8.5%
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
875€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 8,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: + 4,000 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
2,275€ per product.
28 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Modification to the BOM:
o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 8,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: + 4,000 g
o 98-Controller board: + 1,800.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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)
Comparison to Base-case
Energy savings
(%)
Increase in product price (€)
Payback time
(years)
Base-case 8 61,402 0.0% 0
Option1 Improved heat exchanges in hearth
58,946 4.0% 1225 3.21
Option2 Improved insulation 58,332 5.0% 175 0.37
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
1,225€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 50 kg
Constraints: none identified.
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
29
7.1.8.2. BC8 - OPTION 2: IMPROVED INSULATION
Environmental impacts: It is possible to achieve 5% of energy savings by
improving the insulation of deck ovens.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
175€ per product8.
Modification to the BOM:
o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.8.3. BC8 - OPTION 3: 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%.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
700€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 8,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: + 4,000 g
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.8.4. BC8 - OPTION 4*: SOFTWARE CONTROL
Environmental impacts: Software control permits to adjust the power and the
duration of baking. It is estimated to save 1% energy.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
1,400€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 1,800.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.8.5. BC8 - SCENARIO A: OPTIONS 1 AND 2
Environmental impacts: Scenario A combines improved heat exchanges and
improved insulation. These improvements are entirely compatible and thus the
resulting energy savings are 9%
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
1,400€ per product.
8 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.
30 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Modification to the BOM:
o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 50 kg
o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.8.6. BC8 - SCENARIO B: OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
2,100€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 8,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: + 54,000 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
3,500€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 8,000 g
o 25 – Stainless 18/8 coil: + 54,000 g
o 98-Controller board: + 1,800.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
31
Table 7-9: Identified energy saving potential for commercial electric rack oven
Description
Annual Electricity
consumption (kWh)
Comparison to Base-case
Energy savings
(%)
Increase in product price (€)
Payback time
(years)
Base-case 9 71,100
Option1 Improved insulation 70,389 1.00% 175 1.6
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
(*) relates to options/scenarios which are user-dependent, therefore the related
energy savings cannot be directly considered within test standards and MEPS.
7.1.9.1. BC9 - OPTION 1: IMPROVED INSULATION
Environmental impacts: 1.0% energy savings was assumed to be possible by
improving the insulation of rack ovens.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
175€ per product9.
Modification to the BOM:
o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.9.2. BC9 - OPTION 2: DOOR IMPROVEMENT
Environmental impacts: Improving the door design would decrease the energy
consumption by 0.5%.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
700€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 3,000 g
o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 2,000 g
Constraints: none identified.
9 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.
32 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
1,200€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 10 kg
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.9.4. BC9 - OPTION 4*: SOFTWARE CONTROL
Environmental impacts: Software control permits to adjust the power and the
duration of baking. It is estimated that 1% energy savings can be achieved by
improving the software control of an average oven.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
500€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 200.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 3,000 g
o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 12,000 g
o 98-Controller board: + 200.00 g
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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
(*) relates to options/scenarios which are user-dependent, therefore the related
energy savings cannot be directly considered within test standards and MEPS.
7.1.10.1. BC10 - OPTION 1: IMPROVED INSULATION
Environmental impacts: it is estimated that 4% gas savings can be achieved by
improving the insulation on an average rack oven.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
175€ per product10.
Modification to the BOM:
o Rock wool: +50 kg (was neglected in EcoReport)
Constraints: none identified.
7.1.10.2. BC10 - OPTION 2: DOOR IMPROVEMENT
Environmental impacts: The doors of deck ovens are sources of thermal
bridges. Improving their design would decrease the gas consumption by 2%.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
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.
34 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Modification to the BOM:
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 3,000 g
o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 2,000 g
Constraints: none identified.
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
900€ per product. Maintenance costs are also increased by 50€.
Modification to the BOM:
o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 10 kg
Constraints: Increase of the maintenance cost by 50€.
7.1.10.4. BC10 - OPTION 4*: SOFTWARE CONTROL
Environmental impacts: Software control permits to adjust the power and the
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.
Costs: the implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by
500€ per product.
Modification to the BOM:
o 98-Controller board: + 200.00 g
Constraints: none identified.
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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.
o 54-Glass for lamps: + 3,000 g
o 25-Stainless 18/8 coil: + 52,000 g
o 98-Controller board: + 200.00 g
Constraints: no data
36 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
7.2. IMPACT ANALYSIS
7.2.1. BASE-CASE 1: DOMESTIC ELECTRIC OVEN
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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
38 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
-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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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
40 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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)
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Base-case AverageSold Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD*
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
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
41
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Base-case AverageSold Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD*
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)
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
Base-case AverageSold Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD*
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
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
42 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Base-case AverageSold Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD*
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
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
43
7.2.2. BASE-CASE 2: DOMESTIC GAS OVEN
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.
Table 7-12: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 2
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
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
OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE
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)
of which, electricity
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
44 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-8: Comparison of Base-case 2’s environmental impacts with its options
-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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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
46 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-10: Comparison of improvement options for BC2 according to the indicator
Heavy metals emissions to water (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Figure 7-11: Comparison of improvement options for BC2 according to the indicator
Water consumption (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Figure 7-12: Comparison of improvement options for BC2 according to the indicator
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
Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC
He
avy
Me
tals
to
wat
er
- g
Hg/
20
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
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
Base-case 2
Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC
PA
Hs
- g
Ni e
q.
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
47
7.2.3. BASE-CASE 3: DOMESTIC MICROWAVE OVEN
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.
48 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Table 7-13: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 3
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 3 Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC*
OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE
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
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
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
49
Figure 7-13: Comparison of Base-case 3’s environmental impacts with its options
-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*
50 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-14: Comparison of improvement options for BC3 according to the indicator
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
Figure 7-15: Comparison of improvement options for BC3 according to the indicator
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
Figure 7-16: Comparison of improvement options for BC3 according to the indicator
Waste, non-hazardous (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
51
7.2.4. BASE-CASE 4: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC COMBI-STEAMER
Table 7-14 presents the life cycle assessment results of the improvement options for
Base-case 4.
Table 7-14: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 4
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
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
OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE
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)
of which, electricity
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 to air
PAHs
Particulate Matter (PM, dust)
Heavy Metals to water
Eutrophication
52 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-17: Comparison of Base-case 4’s environmental impacts with its options
-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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
53
Figure 7-18: Comparison of improvement options for BC4 according to the indicator
GWP (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Figure 7-19: Comparison of improvement options for BC4 according to the indicator
Eutrophication (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
7.2.5. BASE-CASE 5: COMMERCIAL GAS COMBI-STEAMER
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
Base-case 4 Option1 Option2 Option3 ScenarioA ScenarioB
Eutr
op
hic
atio
n -
kg
PO
4
54 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
55
Table 7-15: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 5
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 5 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD
OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE
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)
of which, electricity
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 to air
PAHs
Particulate Matter (PM, dust)
Heavy Metals to water
Eutrophication
56 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-20: Comparison of Base-case 5’s environmental impacts with its options
-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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
57
Figure 7-21: Comparison of improvement options for BC5 according to the indicator GWP
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Figure 7-22: Comparison of improvement options for BC5 according to the indicator Particulate matter
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
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
Base-case 5 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD
Par
ticu
late
Mat
ter
(PM
, du
st)
- kg
58 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-23: Comparison of improvement options for BC4 according to the indicator Heavy metals emissions to water
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Base-case 5 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD
He
avy
Me
tals
to
wat
er
- g
Hg/
20
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
59
7.2.6. BASE-CASE 6: COMMERCIAL IN-STORE CONVECTION OVEN
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).
60 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Table 7-16: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 6
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 6 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5 Option6 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD ScenarioE
OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE
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)
of which, electricity
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 to air
PAHs
Particulate Matter (PM, dust)
Heavy Metals to water
Eutrophication
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
61
Figure 7-24: Comparison of Base-case 6’s environmental impacts with its options
-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
62 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-25: Comparison of improvement options for BC6 according to the indicator Eutrophication
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
63
7.2.7. BASE-CASE 7: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC DECK OVEN
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.
Table 7-17: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 7
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
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*
OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE
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)
of which, electricity
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 to air
PAHs
Particulate Matter (PM, dust)
Heavy Metals to water
Eutrophication
64 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-26: Comparison of Base-case 7’s environmental impacts with its options
-10,0%
-8,0%
-6,0%
-4,0%
-2,0%
0,0%
2,0%
Option1 Option2 Option3* ScenarioA ScenarioB*
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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).
Figure 7-27: Comparison of improvement options for BC7 according to the indicator
Eutrophication (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
7.2.8. BASE-CASE 8: COMMERCIAL GAS DECK OVEN
The environmental impacts of the improvement options for Base-case 8 are presented
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
66 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
required to improve the heat exchanges in the hearth significantly increases
these impacts compared to the Base-case.
Table 7-18: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 8
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 8 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC*
OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE
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%
Particulate Matter (PM, dust)
Heavy Metals to water
Eutrophication
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
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
67
Figure 7-28: Comparison of Base-case 8’s environmental impacts with its options
-15,0%
-10,0%
-5,0%
0,0%
5,0%
10,0%
15,0%
20,0%
Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC*
68 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-29: Comparison of improvement options for BC8 according to the indicator
GWP (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Figure 7-30: Comparison of improvement options for BC8 according to the indicator
Acidification (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Figure 7-31: Comparison of improvement options for BC8 according to the indicator
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
69
7.2.9. BASE-CASE 9: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC RACK OVEN
The environmental impacts of the improvement options for Base-case 9 are presented
in Table 7-19 below.
Table 7-19: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 9
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
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
OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE
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%
Particulate Matter (PM, dust)
Heavy Metals to water
Eutrophication
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
70 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
-25.0%
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product
Figure 7-32: Comparison of Base-case 9’s environmental impacts with its options
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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.
7.2.10. BASE-CASE 10: COMMERCIAL GAS RACK OVEN
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).
72 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Table 7-20: Environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-case 10
(green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case 10 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product
OTHER RESSOURCES AND WASTE
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%
Particulate Matter (PM, dust)
Heavy Metals to water
Eutrophication
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
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
73
Figure 7-33: Comparison of Base-case 10’s environmental impacts with its options
-25,0%
-20,0%
-15,0%
-10,0%
-5,0%
0,0%
5,0%
Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product
74 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-34: Comparison of improvement options for BC10
according to the indicator GWP (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact)
Figure 7-35: Comparison of improvement options for BC10 according to the indicator
Eutrophication (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
Base-case 10 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product
Eutr
op
hic
atio
n -
kg
PO
4
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
75
7.3. COST ANALYSIS
7.3.1. BASE-CASE 1: DOMESTIC ELECTRIC OVEN
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
76 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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
Base-case AverageSold Option0 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 Option5* ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC ScenarioD*
Co
st (€
)
Purchase price Electricity costs
Figure 7-36: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC1
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
77
7.3.2. BASE-CASE 2: DOMESTIC GAS OVEN
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.
Table 7-22: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 2
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).
Figure 7-37: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC2
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
Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB ScenarioC
Co
st (
€)
Purchase price Gas costs
78 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
7.3.3. BASE-CASE 3: DOMESTIC MICROWAVE OVEN
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.
Table 7-23: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 3
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
Figure 7-38: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC3
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
79
7.3.4. BASE-CASE 4: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC COMBI-STEAMER
The life cycle cost of Base-case 4 and its improvement options is presented in Table
7-24.
Table 7-24: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 4
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.
Figure 7-39: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC4
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
Base-case 4 Option1 Option2 Option3 ScenarioA ScenarioB
Co
st (
€)
Purchase price Installation costs Electricity costs Water Maintenance and repair costs
80 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
7.3.5. BASE-CASE 5: COMMERCIAL GAS COMBI-STEAMER
Table 7-25 presents the life cycle cost of Base-case 5 and its improvement options.
Table 7-25: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 5
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.
Figure 7-40: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC5
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
81
7.3.6. BASE-CASE 6: COMMERCIAL IN-STORE CONVECTION OVEN
The life cycle cost of an average in-store convection oven is presented in Table 7-26.
Table 7-26: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 6
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.
82 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-41: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC6
7.3.7. BASE-CASE 7: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC DECK OVEN
The life cycle cost for Base-case 7’s improvement options is presented in Table 7-27.
Table 7-27: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 7
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
83
Figure 7-42: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC7
A shown in Figure 7-42, the share of energy is stable around two third of the life cycle
cost.
7.3.8. BASE-CASE 8: COMMERCIAL GAS DECK OVEN
The life cycle cost of the improvement options for Base-case 8 is presented in Table
7-28.
Table 7-28: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 8
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
Base-case 7 Option1 Option2 Option3* ScenarioA ScenarioB*
Co
st (
€)
Purchase price Electricity costs Water Maintenance and repair costs
84 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-43: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC8
7.3.9. BASE-CASE 9: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC RACK OVEN
The life cycle cost for Base-case 9’s improvement options is presented in Table 7-29.
Table 7-29: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 9
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
85
Figure 7-44: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC9
7.3.10. BASE-CASE 10: COMMERCIAL GAS RACK OVEN
The life cycle cost for Base-case 10’s improvement options is presented in Table 7-30.
Table 7-30: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 10
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
Base-case 9 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product
Co
st (€
)
Purchase price Installation / acquisition costs (if any)
Electricity costs Water
Maintenance and repair costs
86 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-45: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC10
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.
7.4.1. BASE-CASE 1: DOMESTIC ELECTRIC OVEN
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
Base-case 10 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product
Co
st (€
)
Purchase price Installation cost
Fuel (gas, oil, wood) Electricity costs
Water Maintenance and repair costs
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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
7.4.2. BASE-CASE 2: DOMESTIC GAS OVEN
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.
Figure 7-47: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC2
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
88 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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€).
7.4.3. BASE-CASE 3: DOMESTIC MICROWAVE OVEN
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)
Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost
Figure 7-48: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC3
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
89
7.4.4. BASE-CASE 4: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC COMBI-STEAMER
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€.
Figure 7-49: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC4
7.4.5. BASE-CASE 5: COMMERCIAL GAS COMBI-STEAMER
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
Base-case 4 Option1 Option2 Option3 ScenarioA ScenarioB
Life
Cyc
le C
ost
(€
)
Pri
mar
y En
erg
y (G
J)
Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost
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
Base-case 4 Option1 Option2 Option3 ScenarioA ScenarioB
Life
Cyc
le C
ost
(€
)
Pri
mar
y En
erg
y (G
J)
Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost
90 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
Figure 7-50: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC5
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.
7.4.6. BASE-CASE 6: COMMERCIAL IN-STORE CONVECTION OVEN
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)
Total Energy (GER) LLCC BAT Life-cycle cost
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
91
Figure 7-51: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC6
7.4.7. BASE-CASE 7: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC DECK OVEN
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.
Figure 7-52: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC7
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)
Total Energy (GER) LLCC BAT Life-cycle cost
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
Base-case 7 Option1 Option2 Option3* ScenarioA ScenarioB*
Life
Cyc
le C
ost
(€
)
Pri
mar
y En
erg
y (G
J)
Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost
92 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
7.4.8. BASE-CASE 8: COMMERCIAL GAS DECK OVEN
The graph allowing the identification of the LLCC and BAT scenarios for Base-case 8 is
presented in Figure 7-53.
Figure 7-53: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC8
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.
7.4.9. BASE-CASE 9: COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC RACK OVEN
The graph allowing the identification of the LLCC and BAT scenarios for Base-case 9 is
presented in Figure 7-54.
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)
Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost
Task 7 report
August 2011
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
93
Figure 7-54: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC9
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.
7.4.10. BASE-CASE 10: COMMERCIAL GAS RACK OVEN
The graph allowing the identification of the LLCC and BAT scenarios for Base-case 10 is
presented in Figure 7-55.
Figure 7-55: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC10
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
Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product
Life
Cyc
le C
ost
(€
)
Pri
mar
y En
erg
y (G
J)
Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost
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
Option1 Option2 Option3 Option4* BA product
Life
Cyc
le C
ost
(€
)
Pri
mar
y En
erg
y (G
J)
Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost
94 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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
European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs
Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
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.
96 European Commission (DG ENER) Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Lot 22: Domestic and commercial ovens
Task 7 report August 2011
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.