999996 Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III) [Contract N TREN/D3/91-2007-Lot 25-SI2.521716] Lot 25 Non-Tertiary Coffee Machines Task 1: Definition Final version In association with Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal Benoît Tinetti + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 shailendra.mudgal@biois.com benoit.tinetti@biois.com
Project Team BIO Intelligence Service Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Mr. Benoît Tinetti Mr. Lorcan Lyons Ms. Perrine Lavelle Arts et Métiers Paristech / ARTS Mr. Alain Cornier Ms. Charlotte Sannier 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. 2 Task 1
Contents Introduction... 4 The Ecodesign Directive... 4 1. Task 1 Definition... 6 1.1. Product category and performance assessment... 7 1.1.1. Definitions...7 1.1.2. Scope of the study...14 1.2. Test Standards... 25 1.2.1. Standards at European Community level...25 1.2.2. Standards at Member State level...26 1.2.3. Third-country standards...28 1.2.4. Standards at international level...35 1.2.5. Comparison of the Test Standards...38 1.2.6. Test Standards on Safety...39 1.3. Existing legislation... 42 1.3.1. Legislation and agreements at European Community level...42 1.3.2. Legislation and agreements at Member State level...46 1.3.3. Third Country Legislation and Initiatives...50 1.4. Conclusions Task 1... 55 Annex 1: FEA/CECED - Measurement method for the determination of the energy consumption of espresso machines - Measurement form...56 Annex 2: Euro-Topten - Measuring method and calculation formula for the electricity consumption of coffee machines for household use; Measurement Report Form (xls)...59 Task 1 3
INTRODUCTION The Ecodesign Directive This study on non-tertiary coffee machines (the Lot 25 study ) is the preparatory study being carried out by BIO Intelligence Service for the European Commission in the context of the Directive 2009/125/EC on the Ecodesign of Energy-related Products. The Directive does not directly introduce binding requirements for specific products but defines conditions and criteria for setting, through subsequent implementing measures, requirements regarding environmentally relevant product characteristics. According to the Directive, implementing measures can be proposed for product categories which meet the following criteria: Significant volume of products placed on the EU market (indicatively, more than 200 000 units per year) Significant environmental impact (indicatively, more than 1 000 PJ/year) Significant potential for improvement (indicatively, more than 20%) The implementing measures are to be based on an environmental assessment taking into account product characteristics and functionality. Technologies available on the market should be taken as a reference. The first step in considering whether and which Ecodesign requirements should be set for a particular product group is a preparatory study recommending ways to improve the environmental performance of the product. The preparatory study provides the necessary information to prepare for the next phases in the policy process (carried out by the Commission), in particular the impact assessment, the consultation forum and possible draft implementing measures laying down Ecodesign requirements. As in all Ecodesign preparatory studies, a common and coherent methodology (MEEuP) 1 is used for analysing the environmental impact and improvement potential of the products, and Ecodesign options are analysed from a life-cycle cost perspective. This methodology consists of eight main tasks which will be conducted in an iterative manner: Task 1: Definition Task 2: Economic and market analysis Task 3: Consumer behaviour and local infrastructure Task 4: Technical analysis of existing products 1 VHK (2005) Methodology for Eco-design of Energy-using Products (MEEuP), Final Report, European Commission (DG ENTR). Available at: ec.europa.eu/enterprise/eco_design/finalreport1.pdf 4 Task 1
Task 5: Base cases Task 6: Technical analysis of BAT Task 7: Improvement potential Task 8: Final analysis: scenario, policy, impact and sensitivity analyses Task 1 5
1. TASK 1 DEFINITION The objective of this task is to discuss definition and scope issues related to the Ecodesign preparatory study for non-tertiary coffee machines: ENER Lot 25. 2 It consists of the categorisation of products, product definitions, identification of key parameters for the selection of products on which to perform more detailed analysis during subsequent steps of the study, and scope definition. Existing harmonised test standards and sector-specific procedures for product testing will also be identified and discussed, including the test protocols for: Primary and secondary functional performance parameters (functional unit) Energy use during product life Safety (electricity, electromagnetic compatibility, stability of the product, etc.) Other product-specific test procedures. Finally, this task will identify and analyse existing legislation, voluntary agreements, and labelling initiatives at EU level, in Member States (MS) and in countries outside the EU. 2 Preparatory studies are being managed both by DG ENER (formerly DG TREN) and DG ENTR. In order to differentiate between the different lots, the prefix ENER is used here. 6 Task 1
1.1. PRODUCT CATEGORY AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT The main objective of this subtask is to set a solid foundation by defining the product scope for non-tertiary coffee machines, and to develop an understanding of these products from functional, technical, environmental and economic points of view. This subtask will also structure appropriate product groups while providing a first screening on the basis of their sales and stock volumes, environmental impacts and improvement potential. 1.1.1. DEFINITIONS General The first step for elaborating relevant product definitions is to review existing product categories that are commonly used to classify non-tertiary coffee machines. Possible definitions are derived from market statistics (e.g. PRODCOM 3 ), technical standards (e.g. IEC), labelling schemes (e.g. Blue Angel) and legislation and are compiled for a comparative analysis that will serve as a reference. The second step is the identification of additional criteria (technical, functional, design, market-based, etc.), which allows the scope of this preparatory study to be defined in a precise manner and complements the elaboration of the product definitions for the purpose of this study. The preliminary analysis 4 of the technical and functional parameters and expected environmental impacts of typical products provides the input for determining the functional unit. Finally, an assessment of the product-system interactions from a broader perspective will identify if key parameters linked to the system can influence the environmental impacts and improvement potential linked to the products. Criteria for defining the scope The coffee machine industry manufactures equipment and components for various coffee-making processes and complementary functionalities. The following parameters are considered before establishing product definitions: Application area: non-tertiary Energy source Coffee conditioning Brewing technology Drinking containers 3 PRODCOM Classification: List of PRODucts of the European COMmunity 4 A more detailed technical analysis of the products included in the scope of ENER Lot 25 will be performed in Task 4. Task 1 7
Cup-warming plates Modes of use Auxiliary functionalities and options Automation of the process (for espresso machines only) EU trade classifications (such as PRODCOM categories) Classifications employed by standards organisations (such as EN or ISO standards) Existing legislation, labels and voluntary agreements Each individual parameter may not provide enough information on the appliances to develop a relevant classification. Consequently, paying attention to all relevant parameters will be of key importance for later tasks, in particular for defining the base cases in Task 5. Application area: non-tertiary Non-tertiary is understood as excluding commercial use. Accordingly, this study will focus on coffee machines used in households and coffee machines intended for domestic use that are used in offices. Some high quality and advanced espresso machines can be used for both household and tertiary purposes. These are not considered as machines strictly for non-tertiary use but could still fall within the scope of the study. Energy source Coffee machines can be divided into two types depending upon the heat source: with an independent heat source, or without any independent heat source. Coffee machines within the scope of later tasks of this study should have an energy source (electricity) and not depend on energy supplied to another appliance (i.e. stove top percolator). Coffee conditioning Although all coffee machines work by bringing water and ground coffee into contact, coffee can be inserted into the coffee machine with different degrees of conditioning. With the recent increased uptake of espresso machines, coffee conditioning has become more important and more diverse. The simplest form is to use the coffee beans directly, but that requires a grinding function, either in the coffee machine or via an accessory. Ground coffee remains the most popular form of coffee conditioning. Depending on the machine, ground coffee can be poured directly into the coffee machine filter, or inserted in specific containers individual capsules of aluminium and/or plastic, or coffee pads. 8 Task 1
Table 1-1: Coffee conditioning, examples Coffee beans (Crown Coffee & Vending) Ground coffee (New Internationalist Shop) Pads (Arabicaffe) Capsules (Nespresso) Brewing technology Brewing technology is the way hot water passes through the ground coffee and acquires its flavour and colour. Water can be put in contact with ground coffee in different ways: Hot water can be percolated onto the ground coffee, and gravity makes the water pass through the coffee into the container below: this is the case for filter machines, also called drip coffee makers; Hot water or steam can be injected under pressure onto the ground coffee, and both pressure and gravity drive the beverage into the cup below: this is the case for example for drip filter and pad filter coffee machines (at low/middle pressure: approximately 3 bars) and espresso machines (at higher pressure: around 15 bars); Steam can be injected into the ground coffee from below, and gravity makes the beverage fall down into the receptacle: this is the case for percolators, vacuum brewers and moka pots (typically, it is very hot water injected by steam); Various combinations of these technologies also exist. Drinking containers The beverage produced in the coffee machine is poured into a container, which can be of different kinds, according to the type of coffee machine and brewing technology: A coffee pot, mainly for drip filter coffee machines; One or two cup(s), mainly for espresso machines; A combination of cup(s) and coffee pot(s) for drip coffee machines, espresso machines or coffee machines combining both technologies; An insulated thermo jug (a thermal container, also called a carafe), mainly for drip filter coffee machines; Task 1 9
No container: in this case, the drink remains in the machine itself, applies mainly to mokas or percolators. Cup-warming plate Drip filter coffee machines are often used to prepare coffee that is not drunk immediately. They usually have a warming plate under the coffee pot to keep the brewed coffee hot. Espresso machines may also be equipped with warming plates for heating empty cups, which can be heated electrically and then may be switched on/off manually or by menu. Modes of use It is important to take into account the modes of use of the machine when dealing with energy consumption, given that coffee machines are most often plugged in 24/7, and used only twice or three times a day for 20 to 100 minutes at a time. To tackle this, coffee machines present a range of different modes of use, such as ready mode, standby, on, off, etc. This section aims to describe the full range of possible coffee machine power modes. Conclusions can then be drawn as to which of the power modes will be considered in further calculations, and which might be left out for various reasons. The definitions of the operating modes according to the Ecodesign Regulation on standby and off mode for electric power consumption 5 are: Off mode means that the equipment is connected to the main power source but is not functioning. The following shall also be considered as off mode: o Conditions providing only an indication of off-mode condition; o Conditions providing only functionalities intended to ensure electromagnetic compatibility pursuant to Directive 2004/108/EC. Standby Mode means that the equipment is connected to the main power source, depends on energy input from the main power source and provides only the following functions which may remain turned on for an indefinite period of time: o o Reactivation function, and/or Information or status display. Information or status display is a continuous function providing information or indicating the status of the equipment on display, including clocks. Reactivation function is a function that facilitates the activation of other modes, such as the on mode, activated by a remote switch, including remote control, internal sensor or timer to a condition providing additional functions, including the main function. 5 Commission Regulation No 1275/2008, published in the OJEU on 18/12/2008. 10 Task 1
As such, in considering the above presented definitions and those defined in other similar standards or test methods (e.g. RAL-UZ 136 from Germany or Measurement method for Swiss Energy label by FEA/CECED) described in this document, the modes applicable to coffee machines relevant to this study include: Ready mode: In this mode, coffee can be produced immediately by pushing a button (the process should begin in less than approximately three seconds). Coffee machines are still in ready mode when keeping coffee hot. Note that power input in ready mode is not constant; it can rise above 1 000 W when heating, then sink back to a low value between heating periods. If the cupwarming plate of a machine can be switched on or off in the programme menu, this results in two different ready mode values. New machines with flow-type heaters have no defined ready mode; the ready state may look like a standby mode. Standby mode 6 : When a coffee machine is not used, it is generally in standby mode or switched off. In standby mode, water heating is inactive. The coffee machine is still supplied with electricity, and a time-controlled function can be implemented. Some coffee machines can have two different standby values, e.g. before and after the auto-power down. Off mode 7 : Off mode is defined as the lowest power input when the mains switch of the machine is switched off. Some coffee machines still use energy in this mode. With a soft-off switch, the machine is switched off electronically and usually maintains a minimal power input for supplying the electronic circuit. A hard-off switch disconnects the machine from the mains, so that power input is zero. Auxiliary functionalities and options Auto-power down (into standby mode) and auto-power off (into off mode): The autopower down function consists in automatically ending the heating of a machine after a certain period of inactivity. In some models, different delays can be pre-programmed or set by the user using a menu; in others, there is no power management system or there is only one fixed setting. This should not be confused with an energy-saving function (see below), which reduces temperature only. Energy-saving function ( eco-mode ): some models of coffee machine have this function, which consists in lowering the temperature of the heating elements after a 6 According to the Standby Regulation (1275/2008), standby mode means a condition where the equipment is connected to the mains power source, depends on energy input from the mains power source to work as intended and provides only the following functions, which may persist for an indefinite time: - reactivation function, or reactivation function and only an indication of enabled reactivation function, and/or - information or status display. 7 According to the Standby Regulation (1275/2008), off mode means a condition in which the equipment is connected to the mains power source and is not providing any function. Task 1 11
given delay of inactivity. The energy consumption of the machine is then lower than in ready mode and allows a quick preparation of coffee, if needed, as the heating elements are not cold as in the standby mode or off mode. The distinction between energy-saving mode and standby mode is that energy saving mode is a mid-way point between ready mode and standby, where heating functions are provided but at an optimised temperature to compromise between quick service upon re-initialisation and energy savings due to lower temperatures maintained over extended periods. Activating: This means waking the machine from standby mode. The machine will be ready after heating up and possibly rinsing. Machines without ready mode are waked while preparing a cup of coffee. Rinse function: Many coffee machines automatically dispense a small amount of water after heating up, in order to clean and warm the dispensing components. In some machines, this function can be switched on or off in the programme menu. In some cases, the rinse function has to be confirmed by pushing a button in response to a prompt on the display. Coffee machines may have several other optional functions like: grinder milk heater, milk frother or froth attachment (for cappuccino making) programmer or timer HMI (human-machine interface (tactile)), LCD screen touch lift (to lift the cups) aroma selector (for aromatised coffee, for example with nut taste) This first review of definition criteria already provides an insight into the main characteristics and differences that exist between the products covered by Lot 25 and will help refine the product definitions relevant for this study. However, further investigation will be necessary about the performance of the appliance not only in terms of electricity consumption but also in terms of e.g. the amount of water that will be necessary to make a given volume of coffee. This is done as part of the technical analysis in Task 4. Automation of the process (for espresso machines only) Espresso machines aim to produce a single or several cup(s) of coffee. The steps to coffee-making (grinding the coffee if relevant, heating the water, brewing the coffee, pouring the coffee) may be more or less automatic, ranging from a completely manual process (press) to a completely automatic process (fully automatic espresso machine). In semi-automatic processes, ground coffee has to be inserted manually into a receptacle, which is then fixed to the machine, under the supply of hot water and above the empty cup. 12 Task 1
EU trade classifications (such as PRODCOM categories) PRODCOM Classification The PRODCOM code 27.51.24.30 groups all the different types of non-tertiary electric coffee machines: no differentiation is made regarding the brewing technology or anything else. Table 1-2: PRODCOM classification of domestic electric coffee machines PRODCOM Code Description 27.51 Other electro-thermic appliances 27.51.24.10 Vacuum cleaners, including dry cleaners and wet vacuum cleaners (excluding with self-contained electric motor) 27.51.24.30 Domestic electric coffee or tea makers (including percolators) 27.51.24.50 27.51.24.90 Domestic electric toasters (including toaster ovens for toasting bread, potatoes or other small items) Electro-thermic appliances, for domestic use (excluding hairdressing appliances and hand dryers, space-heating and soil-heating apparatus, water heaters, immersion heaters, smoothing irons, microwave ovens, ovens, cookers, cooking plates, boiling rings, grillers, roasters, coffee makers, tea makers and toasters) Classifications employed by standard organisations (AHAM standards) The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) released the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AHAM CM-1-2007 - Method for Measuring Performance of Household Coffee Makers, which is further defined in Section 1.2.3. This document aims to establish a standardised procedure for measuring specified product characteristics of household electric coffee machines. It is detailed later in this report, in Section 1.2.3. The AHAM CM-1-2005 standard, released two years earlier, used the following classification: Household Automatic Percolator Household Automatic Coffee Urn Household Automatic Drip Coffee Maker Household Espresso Maker A coffee urn is a large size percolator. Typically, this appliance is capable of making from 30 to 100 cups of coffee, depending on the size of the urn. Thus, one may consider they are only dedicated to a tertiary purpose: weddings, banquets, conferences, etc. Task 1 13
Figure 1-1: Coffee urn (Hamilton Beach) 1.1.2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY As shown above, a large variety of different products can be defined as coffee machines. It is necessary to determine the precise scope of the study in terms of products to be analysed further or to be excluded. It is important to note that the scope, based on the analysis presented in the above sections, can be further refined when market and use data are investigated in Tasks 2 and 3, respectively. Further sub-categorisation may also be introduced based on the technical considerations that will be looked at in Task 4. After the preliminary research and analysis of subtask 1.1.1, the following product types were identified: Drip/filter coffee machines o o o o Independent heat source, normally internal electrical resistance Warming function or no warming function Insulated or non-insulated pots, single serving or several cups Coffee may be in any form: beans, grounds Pad filter coffee machines (low-pressure portioned, also includes some models that use hard capsules, such as Tassimo) Espresso machines (high pressure) o o o o Steam/non-pump espresso machine with independent heat source, or pump espresso machine (with piston lever) with independent electricity source for heating or other auxiliary purposes Warming function or no warming function Automatic, semi-automatic or manual with independent electricity source Coffee may be in any form: beans, grounds, pads, capsules 14 Task 1
Electric percolator, electric moka pot, electric vacuum coffee machine o o o Electrical heating plate incorporated No container, the coffee is prepared inside the machine Coffee may be in any form, but ground coffee is the most common for this machine type Traditional coffee machines o o o o Traditional percolator Traditional moka pot Traditional vacuum pot Neapolitan flip coffee pot In this study, coffee machines are defined as machines that heat water with built-in electric heating devices, and pass it through coffee so as to produce a hot drink. This coffee drink can be dispensed in various containers, such as cups, pots or in the machine itself. The coffee machines entering into the scope of this study are detailed further below. Drip filter coffee machines Drip coffee machines, which are also called filter coffee machines, can be divided into three categories, according to the coffee conditioning they require: Traditional filter coffee machines, using ground coffee This type of coffee machine uses a range of drinking containers: o pots (usually for 10 to 18 servings), 1 cup (single serving), 2 cups; o standard or insulated thermal containers. Coffee pot 1 cup 2 cups Noninsulated container From Black & Decker From Black & Decker From Princess Task 1 15
Coffee pot 1 cup 2 cups Insulated thermal container From Cuisinar From Black & Decker from Toastess International Figure 1-2: Traditional filter coffee machine, using ground coffee Combo filter coffee machines: one can use either ground coffee or pad filter. Figure 1-3: Combo filter coffee machine from Cuisinart This type of coffee machine is dedicated to preparing one cup of coffee, from water and a pad of ground coffee. Pad filter coffee machines Figure 1-4: Pad filter coffee machine from Senseo This type of coffee machine is dedicated to preparing one or two cup(s) of coffee, from water and a pad filter of ground coffee. They are typically pressurised by a pump to approximately 3 bars (less than espresso machines but more than drip filter machines, which have no infusion pressure). This type of machine can also be called portioned low pressure coffee machine, since the category also includes some models that use hard capsules, such as Tassimo. 16 Task 1
Espresso coffee machines Espresso machines exist with a variety of extraction methods, coffee conditionings and levels of automation. Considering the end-user, some of the household machines discussed here can also be used for tertiary purposes (e.g. in cafés, bars or restaurants), given the very high quality drinks produced. Two types of espresso coffee machines belong to the scope of this study, according to the extraction method (steam, pump automatic), while the third type, manual pump, is out of the scope of the study. Steam/non-pump espresso machines Non-pump machines use pressure from steam, which is generated by boiling water in a sealed chamber, to extract pigments and flavours from ground coffee. Pressure can reach 15 bars, with water heated to above 200 C. Figure 1-5: Steam/non-pump espresso machine from Krups Automatic espresso machines This category of coffee machine exists in various types, depending on the coffee conditioning required, and the level of automation of the device: o Pump espresso machine, semi-automatic These electric pump extraction machines automate the pump extraction process. The rest of the process is manual, such as the adding of pre-ground beans and of water, the stopping and starting of the pump (at the push of a button) and the cleaning of the portafilter. o Pump espresso machine, automatic These electric pump extraction machines also automate the pump extraction process. The user does not control the extraction, since it is controlled automatically and has been pre-set by the user. The rest of the process, including adding the pre-ground beans, adding the water and cleaning the portafilter, is manual. o Pump espresso machine, fully automatic These electric pump extraction machines automate the entire coffee-making process, from bean-grinding, to filter-tamping and espresso-brewing, so as to empty the used grounds into the waste unit, ready for the next cup. Three main subclasses of fully automatic espresso machines exist: Task 1 17
Single boiler, dual use machines This espresso machine has one boiler and two or more thermostats inside. One thermostat works to control the temperature of the water that is used to brew the coffee. The other thermostat is set at a higher temperature and is used for producing steam when steaming milk. A switch or button can be used to change thermostats. However, these machines cannot brew and steam simultaneously. Single boiler, heat exchanger machines This type of espresso machine has a big boiler that keeps the water at high temperature and pressure is provided for making steam. A coiled tube acts as a heat exchanger, drawing water from the reservoir and through the tube where it reaches ideal brewing temperatures. These espresso machines can simultaneously brew and steam. Dual boiler machines These espresso machines, the most expensive, have two independent boilers, or sometimes both a boiler and a thermo block. One boiler keeps the water at a brewing temperature while the other keeps the water at a steaming temperature. These espresso machines can simultaneously steam and brew. o Hard cap espresso machines Whereas other espresso machines work with coffee beans or ground coffee, these automatic espresso machines employ capsules that they are sealed and made from aluminium and/or plastics. This type of machine can also be called portioned high pressure espresso machine. Note that this category does not include Tassimo, since although it uses hard capsules it is a low pressure model. Semi-automatic espresso machine from Briel Fully automatic espresso machine from Saeco Capsule espresso machine from Nespresso - Delonghi Figure 1-6: Examples of automatic espresso machines 18 Task 1
Combined coffee machines Figure 1-7: Combined coffee machine from Briel These machines are composed of an espresso machine and a traditional filter coffee machine. They combine the two technologies. The two methods of use can be simultaneous or independent. There are two independent standby modes. Appliances outside the scope of the Lot 25 study Products that are out of the scope of this study include the following types. Traditional coffee machines o Traditional manual coffee machines Manual coffee machines do not use energy directly, though they can influence the energy consumption of the hob depending on its characteristics, e.g. material type and thickness. Most often one puts them on a hob. Although they don t have an independent source of energy, their energy consumption can be modified by their technical characteristics, like metal conductivity or breadth of the supporting metal plate. This is the case for traditional percolators, moka machines, vacuum coffee machines, as well as Neapolitan flip coffee pots, or Napoletanas. o Traditional Percolator A traditional percolator has no independent heating source and has to be placed upon a stove. o Traditional moka pot A traditional moka pot is used on a stove; the heat from the burner boils the water and sends it up through the ground coffee and into the receptacle. Task 1 19
o Figure 1-8: Traditional Moka pot (Aeternum) Vacuum coffee machine o Figure 1-9: Traditional vacuum coffee machine from Bodum The Neapolitan flip coffee pot Figure 1-10: Neapolitan flip coffee pot (Napoletana Classica) Electric versions of traditional manual coffee machines o Electric percolator A non-pressure driven percolator is usually placed on a stove, as it does not have its own source of heat. It consists of a pot with a small chamber at the bottom which is placed close to the heat source. A vertical tube leads from this chamber to the top of the percolator, which contains the ground coffee. Just below the upper end of this tube is a perforated chamber. It uses the pressure of the boiling water to force the water to a chamber above the grounds, but relies on gravity to pass the water down through the grounds, where it then repeats the process until shut off by an internal timer. An electric percolator has an independent heating stove. 20 Task 1
o Electric moka pot An electric moka pot has an independent heating stove, integrated into the base of the pot. o Electric vacuum coffee machine Similar to the electric version of the moka pot, the electric vacuum coffee machine is heated through an internal resistance below the machine instead of being heated on a stovetop. o The Neapolitan flip coffee pot The Neapolitan flip coffee pot is a drip brew coffee pot for the stovetop, which places it outside the scope of the study. The Neapolitan flip coffee pot consists of a bottom section filled with water, a filter section in the middle filled with ground coffee, and an upside-down pot placed on the top. When the water boils, the entire three-part pot is flipped over to let the water filter through the coffee grounds. Once the water has dripped through the grounds, the water-boiling and filter sections are removed, and the coffee is served from the remaining pot. Electric percolator (Dualit) Electric moka pot (Delonghi) Electric vacuum coffee machine (Bodum) Figure 1-11: Electric percolator, moka pot and vacuum coffee machine Task 1 21
Kettles Figure 1-12: Kettle (Tefal) This type of machine is dedicated to preparing one cup of coffee. It produces hot water (automatic pump). The cup has to be filled with instant coffee powder. The rest of the process is manual, including the adding of instant coffee and water, the stopping and starting of the pump (at the push of a button) and the cleaning. Tertiary coffee machines The following devices are meant for tertiary use and would thus appear to be out of the scope: Coffee urns or large-capacity filter coffee machines Figure 1-13: Large capacity drip coffee machine (Wilber Curtis) 22 Task 1
Filter coffee machines with one or several integrated warmer(s) Figure 1-14: Coffee machines with warmer(s) (Bunn) Commercial espresso machines Figure 1-15: Commercial espresso machines (Wega, Excelsior) Small vending machines Figure 1-16: Small vending machine (Wittenborg) Task 1 23
Manual coffee machines, without any independent heat source Coffee machines without any independent heat source shall be considered out of the scope of the study as they do not use energy directly. It should be specified that many of the manual coffee machines have an electric version, with an integrated heater (e.g. electric percolator, with an integrated stove), and these electric versions are under the scope of the study. Coffee machines employing hot water heated externally to be poured over the coffee, such as the French press and the Aeropress. Coffee machines without any independent heat source can potentially be considered out of the scope as they do not directly use energy. Press: It requires the user to apply a reasonable amount of pressure to force water through the grounds, which is a manual pump method of extraction. French press Figure 1-17: Presses (Creative Cookware, Aerobie) Pump espresso machine, manual (with piston lever): The functioning is the same as for presses, with manual pressure forcing water through the ground coffee. Further, manual pressure is not applied directly, but with a lever, which makes it easier to obtain the same pressure level. Figure 1-18: Manual pump espresso machine (Gaggia 11400 Achille Lever-Operated Espresso Machine) 24 Task 1
Functional unit for non-tertiary coffee machines The main function of a coffee machine is the preparation of a coffee-based beverage. The functional unit is thus related to the preparation of a certain number of coffees of a defined volume (a standard size for a cup of coffee is 80 g or 80 ml; under the current standard EN 60661 (not the draft version being elaborated), a large cup is 125 ml and an espresso is 35 ml) under a particular use scenario (time span within which the coffee is prepared, time the coffee is kept warm, etc.). The use scenario can be differentiated according to the type of coffee machine, for example by including: Keeping warm function (e.g. to maintain a cup of coffee at a serving temperature for a certain duration) in the case of drip filter machines; this is equivalent to the ready mode for espresso machines Standby function (e.g. maintaining standby functionality for one hour) In this study, the functional unit is defined by a daily use pattern described in a draft CENELEC standard. Note that under the new standard, coffee sizes will be changed to 40 g for an espresso and 120 g for a large coffee. Therefore, two main functional units can be defined depending on the type of coffee machine (see section 3.1.1.2 in Task 3 for more details): For drip filter coffee machines: Brewing 1700mL of coffee per day, split into two equal coffee periods, and including a keeping warn duration For pressure coffee machines: Brewing 720mL of coffee per day, split into 3 equal coffee periods 1.2. TEST STANDARDS 1.2.1. STANDARDS AT EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEVEL This subtask analyses the important test standards for non-tertiary coffee machines. Product standards establish requirements relating to the design, manufacturing, construction, performance (energy efficiency and emissions of pollutants), and safety use instructions and marking, and also provide test methods. It is important to note that at present there are no European countries that regulate the energy efficiency of coffee machines and that there are no standards at the European level (CEN) related to the performance (energy efficiency) of coffee machines. Therefore, currently most European standards that concern ENER Lot 25 products address measurement standards and safety issues of electrical household appliances. These standards fall under EU directives such as the Low Voltage Directive (LVD). Many EN standards on ENER Lot 25 products also correspond to international standards. Overall, productspecific European standards are rather limited in relation to non-tertiary coffee machines. At this stage, European standards have been identified for coffee machines for domestic use with an independent heat source. Task 1 25
CEN There is one European test standard applicable to non-tertiary coffee machines and refers specifically to domestic coffee machines. EN 13248:2002 - Coffee makers for domestic use with an independent heat source - Definitions, requirements and test methods Prepared by: Technical Committee CEN/TC 194, Ustensils in contact with food. Date of implementation: Approved 23 October 2002, published December 2002 Description: This standard focuses only on traditional moka pot appliances with independent heating systems. Energy consumption is not considered. This standard deals with the following topics: normative references, terms and definitions, requirements, tests, marking and labelling, instructions for use and maintenance. It defines safety requirements, requirements for design, manufacture and operation and corresponding tests, data for marking and instructions for use and maintenance of coffee machines. This standard is applicable to coffee machines for domestic use with an independent heating system employed for the production of mellow coffee infusion under steam pressure, whose pressure is over 50 kpa (0.5 bar) and under 250 kpa (2.5 bar) with a utilisation volume of less than 2 litres. 1.2.2. STANDARDS AT MEMBER STATE LEVEL Non-harmonised standards of EU Member States applicable to coffee machines are listed below by the Member State which produced the standard. Germany RAL-UZ 136 Espresso machines Prepared by: RAL Deutsches Institut für Gütesicherung und Kennzeichnung e.v., the German Federal Ministry for Environment, The German Federal Environmental Agency Date of implementation: May 2009 Description: This standard is for determining whether an appliance meets the criteria set forth for the German Blue Angel Eco-label (described in further detail in Section 1.3.2. ). The types of machines covered by these criteria are automatic single-serve coffee machines, fully automatic coffee machines, pad coffee machines and portafilter coffee machines with high pump pressure that can brew Italian-style coffee. The measuring method and calculation formula for the power consumption of coffee machines for household use is from Euro-Topten / S.A.F.E, described in section 1.3.3. The main power consumption criteria for this standard are as follows: 8 8 Basic Criteria for Award of the Environmental Label High-Pressure Espresso/Coffee Machines RAL-UZ 136, Edition May 2009 RAL ggmbh, Germany 26 Task 1
- The equipment should have an auto-off function ( automatic switch-off function, powersaving mode or similar), by use of which the ready-to-use heating is automatically switched to standby or Off mode after an adjustable period of time. - The factory-set delay time of the automatic switch-off function should not exceed 1 hour for fully automatic coffee machines and portafilter machines and 30 minutes for pad coffee machines. - After automatic switch-off the power consumption in standby (or sleep) 9 mode should not exceed 1.0 W. - The appliance must have a user-accessible mains switch. Power consumption in Off mode should not exceed 0.3 W. - Energy consumption in ready-to-use mode until automatic switch off ( Ready-to-use ; designation E ber according to the Euro-Topten measuring method 10 ) should not exceed 35Wh for fully automatic machines and portafilter machines and 30Wh for pad coffee machines. DIN 10764 10768 - Analysis of coffee and coffee products Prepared by: Deutsches Institut für Normung e.v.(din) Date of implementation: March 2007 Description: The standards include testing methods and analysis for coffee-related products but do not appear to be directly related to coffee machines and energy use. The code and descriptions of each standard are given below for reference, but no further information has been collected: o o o o DIN 10764 - Analysis of coffee and coffee products - Determination of loss in mass of soluble coffee - / Method using vacuum oven (routine method) / Method for soluble coffee and soluble coffee products by heating under atmospheric pressure (routine method) / Testing of coffee and coffee products; determination of dry matter content of soluble coffee, sea sand method DIN 10765 - Analysis of coffee and coffee products; determination of particle size of ground roasted coffee, air-jet sieving method DIN 10766 - Analysis of coffee and coffee products; determination of water content of green coffee, dioxane distillation, Karl Fischer titration DIN 10767 - Analysis of coffee and coffee products; determination of chlorogenic acids content; HPLC method Task 1 9 Commission Regulation No 1275/2008, published in the OJEU on 18/12/2008 10 Euro-Topten and S.A.F.E. (2009) Measuring Method and Calculation Formula for the Electricity Consumption of Coffee Machines for Household Use. Available at: www.topten.info/index.php?page=coffee_machine_ak&fromid=217 27
o DIN 10768 - Analysis of coffee and coffee products; determination of insoluble matter content of instant coffee These standards are related to the ISO suite of standards regarding coffee described in the international standards section 1.2.4. Germany DIN 10531 Prepared by: Deutsches Institut für Normung e.v.(din) Date of implementation: not implemented yet Description: This standard specifies hygienic requirements for household appliances in order to ensure hygienic handling during manufacturing and preparation of foodstuffs. This is a recent and advanced standard on coffee machines, with no direct effect on energy consumption but cleaning procedures could also cause some change in total energy consumption. 1.2.3. THIRD-COUNTRY STANDARDS The previous section provides an overview of the standards relevant to Lot 25 products in countries outside Europe. National energy performance testing standards exist in non-eu countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Russia, and the United States. Many of these countries produce specific interpretations of IEC and ISO standards. Countries which have standards relevant to the Lot 25 study are described below. Country or State Table 1-3: Countries outside the EU with standards relevant to Lot 25 Title of standardisation body or committee Standard USA ANSI / AHAM CM-1-2007 Switzerland Euro-Topten and S.A.F.E. Euro-Topten Russia Gosudarstvennyy Standart State Standards GOST 20888-81 Switzerland FEA and CECED FEA/CECED standard United States ANSI 11 / AHAM 12 CM-1-2007 - Method for Measuring Performance of Household Coffee Makers Prepared by: ANSI and AHAM 13 11 American National Standards Institute 12 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 13 AHAM maintains its status as an ANSI accredited Standards Developer Organization and submits many of its standards to the ANSI for approval as American National Standards. Each standard that gains ANSI recognition bears the ANSI/AHAM designation in the title of the standard. 28 Task 1
Date of implementation: 2007 Description: This standard is a revision of a standard published in 2005, designed to establish a uniform, repeatable procedure for measuring specified product characteristics of household electric coffee machines. The 2007 version of this document was not obtained for this study but the 2005 standard provides a means to compare and evaluate different brands and models of household electric coffee machines regarding characteristics significant to product use. The main testing conditions and measurement parameters include: o Testing conditions: - Standard electrical supply (North American standard 120V 60Hz as described in the standard) - Room temperature 23 C ±5 C - Electrical measurements accurate to ±1% o Performance tests parameters: - Coffee machine operated with amount and grade of coffee equal to the maximum manufacturers recommended amount - Input water temperature at 15 C ±3 C - 150ml for standard cup size, 60ml for standard espresso cup - Coffee filters as per manufacturers recommendations - Allow brewing cycle to continue for manufacturer s recommended time o Measurements: - Beverage temperature recommended to be between 77 C and 96 C - Accuracy of output cup markings - Output water temperature - Temperature of coffee grounds during brewing - Pouring spout performance - Frothing of espresso machines (if applicable) - Brew strength - Sediment - Brew time o Safety: - Recommended that products adhere to the safety requirements of UL 1087 (see section 0) Task 1 29
This 2005 version of the measurement standard does not require the measurement of energy use and hence does not make any recommendations or performance requirements in terms of energy efficiency. Many of the measurements are required to be taken at multiple times throughout the brewing process. This measurement standard gives a rough guide for recommended values of some of the results such as typical brewing temperatures. Switzerland Fournisseurs d'appareils électrodomestiques (FEA) with Conseil européen de la construction électrodomestique (CECED) - Measurement method for the determination of the energy consumption of Espresso machines Prepared by: FEA / CECED Date of implementation: 2009 Description: The development of a new étiquette énergie in Switzerland necessitated the development of a standardised and acceptable measurement method for espresso machines. This programme is supervised by the Swiss Federal Energy Agency. The label and measurement method are voluntary but legally enforced. The measurement method can be used for all manual and automatic espresso and multi-purpose hot beverage machines characterised by high pressure and a cup-by-cup system. Hence, it does not cover the entire scope of this study. In addition, the method does not consider the quality and taste of the product as a key parameter, but measures the temperature of the beverage. Energy consumption is estimated considering a typical day by day usage of the machine in four main EU countries. Four modes of operation are defined and tested to determine the overall, yearly energy consumption of the coffee machines. Performance per function is weighted based on the relative energy consumption of the function. A summary of the calculation parameters used to estimate each coffee machine s energy consumption is shown in Figure 1-19, which shows the main summary of the calculation tool and the benchmark values for each parameter as of 11 May 2009. 30 Task 1
Weight based on use frequency Benchmark for function [Wh] Calculated std consumption [Wh] Function available? (yes=1; no=0) Benchmark result based on calibration Measured result for function Calculated real consumption [Wh] Relative performance per item Criteria assessment tool energy label Espresso machines Version: 11 May 2009 Declaration for energy use of Coffee Machines Machine brand: Type number: Results reflect energy consumption in Wh over 24 hr use. Date: Prepared by: Signature: Ref Task Procedure 4.1 Heating up from "off" One time heating up 1 20 20 20 0 0% 4.2 Brewing coffee Sum of 1xsingle and 1x doubles of 40g and same for 120g. 1 55,8 55,8 55,8 0 0% 4.3 Steaming Avrg of 3 measurements 1 15 15 1 15 0 0% 4.4 Ready to use time 60 min measurement 5 15 75 75 0 0% 4.5 Standby time According to IEC 62301 11 2 22 22 0 0% Calibration inputs: 4.6 Heating up after One time heating up 2 16 32 32 0 0% standby Tcoffee = 76 C 4.7 "off" mode time According to IEC 62301 8 1 8 8 0 0% Avrg Cup= 80 g Corrections Twater,brewing 23 C (Automatic) rinsing Measured as part of heating up 1 3 3 1 3 0 DeltaTsteam 40 K Grinding Minor impact, no measurement 1 2 2 1 2 0 Total consumption 233 0 0% Tolerances shall not exceed limits as given in the implementing directive 2005/32/EC on standby energy Tolerances shall not exceed 10% in case not covered by this directive. Tolerances include testlab inaccuracy and production tolerances Figure 1-19: Main calculation summary of FEA / CECED measurement method for Swiss Federal Energy Agency s voluntary energy label This standard defines serving sizes, heating up periods, stand-by time and off time for espresso machines and makes the comparison based on these assumptions. They are based on real-life practices by users and factory settings of espresso machines. This method defines a procedure to classify coffee machines according to their energy consumption and efficiency, and also consider the quality of the product as a key parameter. The method includes a negative factor that impacts the final value of the energy performance if the product quality is different from the calibration inputs (initial water temperature, ambient temperature, etc). The method also includes a guideline on how to standardise the measurement conditions. This includes a measurement of ready to use mode which is fixed over one hour and requires manual reactivation if the machine automatically switches to standby (after more than 10 minutes). If the machine switches to standby before 10 minutes it is argued that no ready-mode exists and standby is taken as ready and reheating energy must be included in the subsequent brewing measurements. This can be considered an over-simplification of a key energy saving potential area for these machines. There is no definition in this method of an energy saving mode. The FEA/CECED method penalises coffee machines that have a switch-off delay time between 10 and 60 minutes (factory setting). Some coffee machines execute a rinsing process before powering down, which causes extra electricity consumption. To avoid this consumption being measured in the frame of the 60 minutes ready mode of the FEA/CECED method, manufacturers have lengthened the power-down delay to Task 1 31
two hours. This will of course raise the typical energy consumption not really the intention of an energy label measuring method. The appliance has to be reactivated (when powering down between 10 and 59 minutes) immediately, so as to artificially maintain the ready-mode for 60 minutes, although the appliance would not do so in reality. As there are a number of espresso machine models with power-down delays in that range (and more may come onto the market), these would be penalised without any physical or practical reason. The FEA/CECED method and the voluntary Swiss energy label were developed in parallel to the already existing (since 2005) and successfully applied Euro-Topten Measuring Method (described in the next section). The FEA/CECED method was not adopted by the Blue Angel (for RAL-UZ 136), which favoured the Euro-Topten measuring method instead. Measuring Method and Calculation Formula for the Electricity Consumption of Coffee Machines for Household Use - Euro-Topten Prepared by: Euro-Topten and S.A.F.E. Date of implementation: 2005, latest update May 2009 Description: Euro-Topten and S.A.F.E. developed the measuring method 17 in 2005 subsequent to the report Standby consumption of household appliances by Jürg Nipkow and Eric Bush (2003), a study on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office of Energy SFOE. The Euro-Topten measuring method was developed and first applied in Switzerland. It was presented at EEDAL 2006 and EEDAL 2009 (Energy label for coffee machines. Jürg Nipkow and Eric Bush (Swiss Agency for Efficient Energy Use S.A.F.E.), EEDAL- Conference, London 2006; Strategies to Enhance Energy Efficiency of Coffee Machines. Eric Bush, Jürg Nipkow, Barbara Josephy, Susanne Heutling and Rainer Griesshammer (Topten International Group TIG, Swiss Agency for Efficient Energy Use S.A.F.E., German Federal Environment Agency, Oeko-Institute). EEDAL-Conference, Berlin 2009). The Euro-Topten measuring method was discussed publicly with stakeholders and has been adopted by The Blue Angel (see section 1.2.2. and 1.3.2). The measuring method is applied by Topten in various European countries (e.g. www.topten.ch, www.topprodukte.at, etc.) and at European level (www.topten.info) for the best products of Europe and is supported by environmental organisations (e.g. WWF, ECOS). The Euro-Topten measuring method is applicable for: Bean-to-cup coffee and espresso machines (all automation grades and with piston lever) Pad and capsule coffee and espresso machines (not regarding pump pressure) Coffee machines without regular ready mode (e.g. with flow-type heater) 32 Task 1
The Euro-Topten measuring method covers the following operating modes: On or ready (water is kept at temperature for an immediate cup of coffee), including eco-modes if activated in the factory settings Standby (water is not kept at temperature) Energy saving modes that are not activated in the factory settings, but can be activated, can be included in an additional measurement. If a machine has accessory heating elements that can be switched off (e.g. cup warmer, steamer), additional programmable modes can be measured next to the factory setting. The electrical consumption can be measured for coffee machines both with and without auto-power-down function. The aim of the Euro-Topten measuring method is to identify the total energy consumption (TEC) for the typical use of the machine during one year (standard use). This includes keeping the coffee machine warm for a certain time (ready mode consumption) as well as the standby mode. The production of coffee is generally not measured, but is accounted for with a standard value, as it requires relatively little energy and the difference from one machine to another is minimal. Standard Values for Use to calculate the yearly energy consumption (Figure 1-20) are based on: 2 coffee periods per day, 365 days per year, i.e. 730 coffee periods. A coffee period comprises: heating up from cold, after 30 minutes switching off and on, the same after another 30 minutes, then waiting for auto-powerdown. 2 190 cups per year using 20 kwh/year for standard coffee production. Machines without ready-mode need to be measured producing coffee, i.e. 3 cups (to be normalised on an average of 3*80g), instead of the standard 20 kwh. Task 1 33
Figure 1-20: Standard values for use and calculation of energy consumption for one year by Euro-Topten 14 The Euro-Topten measuring method includes the following topics: Scope Measuring Instruments Definitions Notes on the measuring instructions Tolerances and control methods Measuring Instructions Measurement Report Form Standard use and Calculation of Power Consumption Appendix with Chart, Glossary of Formulas, References, Detail Measurement Report Form 14 Euro-Topten and S.A.F.E. (2009) Measuring Method and Calculation Formula for the Electricity Consumption of Coffee Machines for Household Use. Available at: www.topten.eu/uploads/images/upload/measuring%20method%20coffeemachines-090509.pdf. 34 Task 1
Russia GOST 20888-81 Standard, 2001 Methods for measuring the performance of electric household coffee makers Prepared by: Federal Agency on Technical Regulating and Metrology, GOST (Gosudarstvennyy Standart State standards) Date of implementation: June 1981, Amended in December 1984, December 1986, July 1988, re-issued on January 2001 Description: This standard sets the limit on electricity consumption per unit of brewed coffee by a coffee making machine. It separates coffee machines into four categories, which are defined by how they draw water through the infusion process to produce the coffee. The four categories are: o o o o Compression Filtration Percolating Vacuum This document restricts electricity consumption (kwh), water consumption (kg), and maximum time (minutes) to produce a specified volume of coffee (L) and is therefore applicable as MEPS. Examples of the MEPS are included in section 1.3.3. It incorporates the requirements of IEC 60335-2-15 and is therefore also applicable as a safety standard included in Section 0 1.2.4. STANDARDS AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL International standards exist for all major appliances, typically originating from industry standards, government agencies, or professional societies, and are eventually adopted by a national or international standardisation body. International Electro-Technical Commission (IEC) IEC 60661 - Methods for measuring the performance of electric household coffee makers Prepared by: IEC Sub Committee (SC) 59G: Small kitchen appliances, of IEC Technical Committee (TC) 59: Performance of household electrical appliances. Date of implementation: Feb 21 2006 Description: The IEC 60661 standard entitled Methods for measuring the performance of electric household coffee makers (publication date: 2006-02-21) applies to electric coffee makers for household use, but not commercial or industrial use. It does not define methods for the measurement of energy efficiency, but defines the main performance characteristics which are of interest to the user and describes the standard methods for measuring these characteristics. Task 1 35
IEC 62301 - Household electrical appliances - Measurement of standby power Prepared by: IEC Technical Committee (TC) 59: Performance of household electrical appliances. Date of implementation: June 2005 Description: This international standard specifies methods of measurement of electrical power consumption in standby mode. It is applicable to powered electrical household appliances and to the powered parts of appliances that use other fuels such as gas or oil. This standard does not specify safety requirements. It does not specify minimum performance requirements nor does it set maximum limits on power or energy consumption. International Standardisation Organisation Prepared by: ISO Technical Committee TC 34 / SC 15 Date of implementation: June 2005 Description: The International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) has 23 standards currently published directly related to coffee and coffee products under the TC 34, SC 15. This sub-committee is dedicated to coffee and coffee related products. The topics covered by the TC 34/SC 15 include: Terminology Nomenclature Sampling and sample preparation Methods of test and analysis Product specifications Packaging Storage Transportation While the standards published by the sub-committee are related to the coffee industry, many are relevant for farming, international trade and coffee bean quality standards. As such, they are not directly relevant to energy use of coffee machines and hence have not been described here in detail. A list of these standards for reference has been included in Table 1-4. Table 1-4: ISO Standards concerning coffee Standard ISO 1446:2001 ISO 3509:2005 ISO 3726:1983 ISO 4052:1983 Title Green coffee - Determination of water content - Basic reference method Coffee and coffee products - Vocabulary Instant coffee - Determination of loss in mass at 70 Cunder reduced pressure Coffee - Determination of caffeine content 36 Task 1
Standard ISO 4072:1982 ISO 4149:2005 ISO 4150:1991 ISO 6666:1983 ISO 6667:1985 ISO 6668:2008 ISO 6669:1995 ISO 6670:2002 Title Green coffee in bags - Sampling Green coffee - Olfactory and visual examination and determination of foreign matter and defects Green coffee - Size analysis -- Manual sieving Coffee triers Green coffee - Determination of proportion of insect-damaged beans Green coffee - Preparation of samples for use in sensory analysis Green and roasted coffee - Determination of free-flow bulk density of whole beans Instant coffee - Sampling method for bulk units with liners ISO 6673:2003 Green coffee - Determination of loss in mass at 105 C ISO 8455:1986 ISO 8460:1987 ISO 9116:2004 ISO 10095:1992 ISO 10470:2004 ISO 11292:1995 ISO 11294:1994 ISO 11817:1994 ISO 20481:2008 ISO 20938:2008 Green coffee in bags - Guidance on storage and transport Instant coffee - Determination of free-flow and compacted bulk densities Green coffee - Guidelines on methods of specification Coffee - Determination of caffeine content - Method using highperformance liquid chromatography Green coffee - Defect reference chart Instant coffee - Determination of free and total carbohydrate contents - Method using high-performance anion-exchange chromatography Roasted ground coffee - Determination of moisture content - Method by determination of loss in mass at 103 C Roasted ground coffee - Determination of moisture content - Karl Fischer method Coffee and coffee products - Determination of the caffeine content using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) - Reference method Instant coffee - Determination of moisture content - Karl Fischer method Task 1 37
1.2.5. COMPARISON OF THE TEST STANDARDS Reference EN 13248:2002 EN 60661:2005 (IEC 60661) ANSI/AHAM CM- 1-2007 CECED / FEA Summary of main test standards relevant for coffee machines Euro-Topten / S.A.F.E (2005, latest update May 2009) Table 1-5: Main test standards relevant for coffee machines Title "Cookware - Coffee makers for domestic use with an independent heat source - Definitions, requirements and test methods" Contents: Scope, Normative references, Terms and definitions, Requirements, Tests, Marking and labelling, Instructions for use and maintenance Methods for measuring the performance of electric household coffee makers Defines the main performance characteristics which are of interest to the user and describes the standard methods for measuring these characteristics. Method for Measuring Performance of Household Coffee Makers Establishes a uniform, repeatable procedure for measuring specified product characteristics of household electric coffee makers. Measurement method for the determination of the energy consumption of Espresso machines Applicable to all manual and automatic espresso and multipurpose hot beverage machines characterised by the fact that they are based on high pressure (> 5 bar maximum working pressure) espresso technology and on a cup by cup system. Measuring Method and Calculation Formula for the Electricity Consumption of Coffee Machines for Household Use. Describes a measuring method for most types of household coffee machine and a calculation scheme for the yearly energy consumption. Adopted by The Blue Angel and approved for several years for the evaluation of appliances presented e.g. on www.topten.ch and www.topten.info. It is important to note that there is a current discussion within CENELEC TC59X/WG15 comprising representatives of industry and consumers organisations (e.g. Topten). Indeed, as presented above, two main voluntary methods are currently used: FEA/CECED and Euro-Topten/S.A.F.E. After several discussions between these organisations, it was agreed that both methods have benefits and drawbacks, and that it would be useful to have only one revised approach, validated by CENELEC. It is expected that a draft standard will be available by mid-2011. Regarding drip filter coffee machines, Topten is drafting a method to calculate the annual electricity consumption of this type of appliance and should then be used by CENELEC. These developments should allow the revision of the standard EN 60661, which would include one part on pressure machines and one part on filter coffee machines. 38 Task 1
1.2.6. TEST STANDARDS ON SAFETY Standards on safety are indirectly linked to the study as they could introduce some requirements that affect the design of the product. The main standards, referenced under the Directive 2006/95/EC on low voltage, are presented below: EN 60335-1 Household and similar electrical appliances Safety Part 1: General requirements Prepared by: CENELEC Technical Committee CPL/61, Safety of household and similar electrical appliances Date of implementation: Originally approved 2 July 2002, several amendments, current version published November 2008 Description: It is a safety standard for domestic appliance to show conformity with the Low Voltage Directive. Scope is appliances intended for household use and appliances used by laymen in shops, light industry, etc. EN/IEC 60335-2-15:2008 - Safety of household and similar electrical appliances Part 2-15 - Particular requirements for appliances for heating liquids Prepared by: IEC technical committee 61: Safety of household and similar electrical appliances Date of implementation: Originally approved 2002, several amendments, current version published September 2008 Description: This standard deals with the safety of electrical appliances for household and similar purposes, the rated voltage of which is not more than 250 V for singlephase appliances and 480 V for other appliances. This standard is applicable to other common kitchen appliances used for heating water, such as coffee machines. As far as is practicable, this standard deals with the common hazards presented by appliances that are encountered by all persons in and around the home. However, in general, it does not take into account persons whose physical, sensory or mental capabilities, or lack of experience and knowledge prevent them from using the appliance safely without supervision or instruction, or children playing with the appliance. EN/IEC 60335-2-14:2008 - Safety of household and similar electrical appliances Part 2-14 - Particular requirements for kitchen machines Prepared by: IEC technical committee 61: Safety of household and similar electrical appliances Date of implementation: Originally approved 2002, several amendments, current version published September 2008 Task 1 39
Description: This standard deals with the same measurement of parameters as described above. However it relates to the safety of electric kitchen machines, the rated voltage of which is not more than 250 V, for household and similar purposes. This standard is applicable to, among other common kitchen appliances, coffee mills. Coffee machines including a separate functionality of coffee grinding would be submitted to the standard. EN/IEC 60730-1:2007 - Automatic electrical controls for household and similar use Part 1:General requirements Prepared by: IEC technical committee 72: Automatic controls for household use Date of implementation: Originally approved 2000, several amendments, current version published 2008 Description: This standard applies to automatic electrical controls for household or similar use (i.e. offices), including controls for, among other types of appliances, coffee machines. The equipment may use among other forms of energy, electricity. This standard applies to the inherent safety of the appliance. It is specifically concerned with operating values, operating times, and operating sequences which are associated with equipment safety, and to the testing of automatic electrical control devices used. This standard is applicable to domestic heating appliances and appliances which fall under the scope of IEC 60335, including coffee machines. Third country safety standards Safety standards related to coffee machines used in third countries are presented below: USA - UL 1082 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Standard for Safety Household Electric Coffee Makers and Brewing-Type Appliances Prepared by: Underwriters Laboratories Date of implementation: NA Description: The scope of this safety standard covers portable electric coffee machines, percolators, coffee urns, and other brewing-type appliances rated 120 V or less, for use in ordinary locations in accordance with the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70 (USA). In addition to coffee machines, this standard covers tea pots, kettles, pots, soup warmers, and other similar appliances in which liquid is heated to greater than 115 F (46 C), and are lifted and tilted to dispense the liquid in normal service. This standard does not set requirements to cover coffee-making-type appliances with capacities of more than 250 ounces (7.4 l), appliances intended for outdoor use, or appliances that are covered in individual requirements that are separate from this Standard. 40 Task 1
This standard sets requirements for products and test procedures for products, materials, components, assemblies, tools and equipment, chiefly dealing with product safety. Consideration is given to typical risks encountered or likely to be encountered during normal use of the product in the intended environment. Canada - CAN/CSA-E335-1/2E-94 (R2004) Safety of Household and Similar Electrical Appliances - Part 1: General Requirements Prepared by: Canadian Standards Association Date of implementation: Original: 1994, reaffirmed: 2004 Description: This standard applies to electric heating appliances and electric motoroperated or magnetically-driven appliances for household and similar purposes. This standard applies to the safety of such equipment designed to be installed and used in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), Part I. This standard sets safety requirements which apply to electric heating appliances and electric motor-operated or magnetically-driven appliances for household and similar purposes. It is largely based on the safety standard IEC 60335 with Canadian deviations. Canada - CAN/CSA C22.2 NO. 64-M91 (R2008) - Household Cooking and Liquid-Heating Appliances Prepared by: Canadian Standards Association Date of implementation: Original: Sep 1, 1991, reaffirmed: 2008 Description: This standard applies to cord-connected and permanently connected cooking and liquid-heating appliances rated for use on nominal single-phase system voltages of 240 V and less, designed to be used in household and similar applications in accordance with the Rules of the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I. The standard applies to kitchen-type cooking and liquid heating appliances such as, among other appliances, domestic coffee machines. It covers definitions, construction requirements, marking, and tests of a general nature that are applicable to appliances which fall under the scope. Russia - GOST 20888-81 Standard, Methods for measuring the performance of electric household coffee makers Prepared by: Federal Agency on Technical Regulating and Metrology, GOST (Gosudarstvennyy Standart State standards) Date of implementation: June 1981, Amended in December 1984, December 1986, July 1988, re-issued on January 2001 Description: This standard is described previously in the test standards section for countries outside the EU, however also incorporates IEC 60335 and is therefore also applicable as a safety standard. Task 1 41
1.3. EXISTING LEGISLATION The aim of this subtask is to give an overview of existing legislation and voluntary programmes for coffee machines included in Lot 25. Further, this subtask includes a comparative analysis of such legislation in the context of possible future Ecodesign implementing measures. 1.3.1. LEGISLATION AND AGREEMENTS AT EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEVEL There is no specific legislation for coffee machines in Europe. However, as electrical products, coffee machines are under scope of many European Directives, mostly in environmental and safety categories. The most relevant legislation is presented in Table 1-6. Table 1-6: Relevant European legislation identified Scope Legislation Environmental legislation Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive 2002/96/EC (category 2. Small household appliances) Entire product Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances in electric and electronic equipment Directive 2002/95/EC (category 2. Small household appliances) REACH Regulation No 1907/2006 Energy legislation Standby and off-mode power consumption Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 of 17 December 2008 Legislation related to safety General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC Entire product Low Voltage Equipment Directive 73/23/EEC Materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs Directive 89/109/EEC Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive 89/336/EEC At first glance, it seems that the EU has not developed a specific voluntary programme. There is currently no European Directive specific to coffee machines, and thus there is no legislation on energy efficiency or consumption of coffee machines. To tackle this lack of legislation, the most relevant obligatory environmental policy measures at the European level are the Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE Directive) and the Directive on the Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive). Among the generic European Directives that apply to electrical and electronic equipment, the low voltage 42 Task 1
and electromagnetic compatibility Directives, as well as the Regulation on standby and off mode power consumption, are the most relevant to coffee machines. WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC 15 Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) The Directive applies to electrical and electronic equipment categories which are dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields, and aims to test the equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of these currents and fields. Equipments relevant for this Directive should be designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1 000 Volt for alternating current and 1 500 Volt for direct current. Hence, electric coffee machines fall within the scope of this regulation, in Category 2 namely small household appliances. The Directive was effective on 13 August 2005, and requires from this time on the separate collection of electrical and electronic waste. Directive 2008/34/EC, amending Directive 2002/96/EC, does not add relevant changes for non-tertiary coffee machines. RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC 16 Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) The Directive applies to the same electrical and electronic equipment categories which are covered by WEEE Directive, with the exception of medical devices and monitoring and control instruments. Although coffee machines are not explicitly mentioned in the indicative list of product categories, they can be considered as falling into category 2 (Small household appliances). Therefore they must be designed respecting the prescriptions of the RoHS Directive. The Directive requires the substitution of various heavy metals (lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium) and brominated flame retardants (polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)) in new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market from 1 st July 2006 on. Amendments 2005/618/EC, 2005/717/EC, 2005/747/EC, 2006/122/EC, 2008/385/EC, 2009/428/EC, 2009/443/EC, bring new exemptions for applications of lead, cadmium and mercury. 15 Official Journal L 37, 13/02/2003, p. 24-39 16 Official Journal L 37, 13/02/2003, p. 19-23 Task 1 43
REACH Regulation 1907/2006/EC Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). REACH is a new European Community Regulation on chemicals and their safe use (EC 1907/2006). It deals with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances. The new law entered into force on 1 June 2007. The aim of REACH is to improve the protection of human health and the environment through a better and earlier identification of the intrinsic properties of chemical substances. At the same time, innovative capability and competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry should be enhanced. The benefits of the REACH system will come gradually, as more and more substances are phased into REACH. The REACH Regulation gives greater responsibility to industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the substances. Manufacturers and importers will be required to gather information on the properties of their chemical substances, which will allow their safe handling, and to register the information in a central database run by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki. The Agency will act as the central point in the REACH system: it will manage the databases necessary to operate the system, co-ordinate the in-depth evaluation of suspicious chemicals and run a public database in which consumers and professionals can find hazard information. The Regulation also calls for the progressive substitution of the most dangerous chemicals when suitable alternatives have been identified. REACH provisions is being phased in over 11 years. Companies can find explanations of REACH on the ECHA website, in particular in the guidance documents, and can contact national helpdesks. Standby and off mode power consumption Regulation 1275/2008 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 of 17 December 2008 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to Ecodesign requirements for standby and off mode electric power consumption of electrical and electronic household and office equipment Directive 2005/32/EC sets Ecodesign requirements by the Commission for energy-using products representing significant volumes of sales and trade, having a significant environmental impact and presenting significant potential for improvement in terms of environmental impact without entailing excessive costs. This Regulation is based on a previous preparatory study in the context of the Ecodesign Directive, and establishes Ecodesign requirements related to electric power consumption in no-load condition and average active efficiency of external power supplies. It sets a few specifications for the maximum Power Output for different 44 Task 1
power output categories, as well as specifications the measurements, as shown in Table 1-7. Table 1-7: Ecodesign requirements for standby and off mode electricity consumption Standby mode January 2010 January 2013 Reactivation function 1.00 W 0.50 W Reactivation function and status display 2.00 W 1.00 W Off mode 1.00 W 0.50 W Low Voltage Directive (LVD) 2006/95/EC Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to Electrical Equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits. The Directive applies to all electrical equipment designed for use with a voltage rating 17 50-1 000 V AC and 75-1 500 V DC. It requires products to have protection against hazards that could arise from within the product itself or from external influences. All risks arising from the use of electrical equipment, including mechanical, chemical, and all other risks. Noise and vibration, and ergonomic aspects, which could cause hazards, are also within the scope of the Directive. Materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs Directive 89/109/EEC Directive 89/109/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs This Directive shall apply to materials and articles which, in their finished state, are intended to be brought into contact with foodstuffs or which are brought into contact with foodstuffs and are intended for that purpose. Covering or coating substances, such as the substances covering cheese rinds, prepared meat products or fruits, which form part of foodstuffs and may be consumed together with those foodstuffs, shall not be subject to this Directive. Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive 2004/108/EC Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC The Directive lays down requirements in order to ensure that an apparatus is compatible with its electromagnetic environment (covering frequency band 0 to 17 Voltage ratings refer to the voltage of the electrical input or output, not to voltages that may appear inside the equipment. Task 1 45
400 GHz), i.e. that it functions as intended without disturbing other equipment, and without being disturbed by other equipment. Equipment must be designed to minimise any potential electromagnetic interference with other equipment and also must itself be immune to specific levels of interference. 1.3.2. LEGISLATION AND AGREEMENTS AT MEMBER STATE LEVEL France - NF Environnement The NF Environnement mark is a voluntary certification mark issued by AFNOR Certification by the Central Laboratory of Electrical Industry (LCIE) in France. The NF Environnement logo was created in 1991 and is the official French ecological certification logo. It is awarded to products that have a reduced effect on the environment while offering an equivalent performance. To be issued the NF Environnement mark, the product must comply with ecological and quality criteria. These criteria determined by manufacturers, consumers, environmental protection groups, distributor associations and public authorities. Figure 1-21: The NF Environnement Eco-Label 18 There are two certification categories relevant to the Lot 25 study, NF 397 Electric Filter Coffee Machines for Domestic Use and NF 265 Coffee Filters and are described below: NF 397 Electric Filter Coffee Machines for Domestic Use The French ecolabel NF Environnement NF397 is applicable to electric filter coffee machines. Certified characteristics comprise energy consumption in standby mode, off mode, as well as for coffee preparation, with threshold levels for each mode. NF397 also requires a hard on/off switch. These energy consumption requirements are evaluated according to test standards described within the document. There are 16 criteria categories required in this product category, the main energy consumption criteria are: - Auto-off and energy efficiency the machine must have a means to turn itself off after 15 minutes of completion of coffee preparation. Energy efficiency must be greater than 60%; 18 Référentiel de certification Cafetières électriques à filtre pour usage domestique AFAQ AFNOR Certification, www.marque-nf.com, France 46 Task 1
- Off mode the machine must have the means to interrupt the power supply and consume 0 watts of power. Stand-by mode must not consumer more than 2 watts. Other example criteria include: - Replacement parts the replacement parts of the coffee machine are to be guaranteed available for 5 years after the purchase of the product - Water level indicator the coffee machine must indicate the level of water which is available to make coffee (in cups and litres) - Scaling the device must have a scaling warning system accounting for the hardness of water used - Guarantee the product must have a 2 year guarantee NF 265 Coffee Filters The French ecolabel NF Environnement NF 265 is applicable to paper coffee filters. While not directly applicable to coffee machines, coffee filters are part of the life cycle of coffee machines and hence this label has been included for reference. The labelling scheme is similar to that as described for NF 397. There are 8 main criteria for coffee filters, the main example criteria are: - Use of recycled fibre in the package -The fibrous mass of the package must consist of at least 80% recycled fibre. - Limited mass packaging - for packaging in boxes of 40 filters, mass packaging <24 grams, for packaging in boxes of 80 or more filters, mass packaging <36 grams. - Types of fibres used for filters - The fibres used should be natural and unbleached. - Consumer information - The product packaging must describe the possibility of composting the filter after use or the opportunity Germany - Blue Angel 8 The Blue Angel is one of the most well-known eco-labels worldwide. It was established in 1978 and sets standards for eco-friendly products and services. The awarding of the ecolabels is done by an independent jury in line with defined criteria. The Blue Angel is awarded to companies also as a reward for their commitment to environmental protection. The awards are divided into four protection areas, Health, Climate, Water and Resources. The Espresso Machines /Coffee machines with high pressure category for the Blue Angel label falls under the Climate protection area and the RAL-UZ 136 criteria (Testing method described in section 1.2.2. and 1.2.3. for these products defines how a product can be awarded the label. Task 1 47
Figure 1-22: German Blue Angel Logo for Climate 8 The types of machines covered by the Blue Angel are espresso/coffee machines using a pump pressure of at least 8 bars (brew an Italian-style coffee) for private household use: Fully automatic coffee machines, Single-serve coffee machines for pads (automatic pad coffee machines), Portafilter espresso/coffee machines. Overall, the goal for establishing the label is to encourage applicable coffee machines to: Feature a low power consumption Be durable goods Avoid the use of environmentally damaging substances The criteria for the label are divided into four sections: Power consumption the product should have an auto-off function with factory default of less than 1 hour for automatic coffee machines (consuming less than 35 Wh) and 30 minutes for pad types (consuming less than 30 Wh), 19 stand-by power consumption shall not exceed 1.0 W, off mode power consumption shall not exceed 0.3 W; Longevity all repair and service parts shall be produced for 10 years after the purchase of the product; Material requirements no carcinogenic, reprotoxic, mutagenic, persistent, bio-accumulative, or toxic materials shall be used in the construction of the product. Parts in contact with water or milk shall be in accordance with the German Food code, and shall avoid the release or leeching of toxic materials (maximum 2 mg Pb / litre H 2 0 and 50 mg Ni / litre H 2 0 brewed); Consumer information A comprehensible and detailed Operating Instructions and Product Information Manual in a printed form shall be enclosed with the product complying with DIN EN 62079; 19 These Wh values refer to ready-to-use mode during the coffee period, including the energy for heating up. Note that the length of the coffee period varies according to the factory settings of the auto-power down. 48 Task 1
Coffee filters There are also criteria for coffee filters within the Blue Angel, in RAL UZ 65 Unbleached Filter Papers for Use with Hot or Boiling Water. They are that wood fibres come from sustainably managed forests, that no bleaching agents are used and that in-house purification equipment must meet high standards. 20 The testing standards for this label are described in section 1.2.2. (Germany: RAL-UZ 136) and 1.2.3. (Euro-Topten Measuring Method). Finland, Norway and Sweden - Nordic Swan scheme 21 The Nordic environmental label is an independent label which guarantees a certain environmental standard. Only products that satisfy strict environmental requirements on the basis of objective assessments will be allowed to display the environmental label. The label is intended to provide consumers with guidance in choosing products least hazardous to the environment, to stimulate manufacturers to develop products and processes that are better for the environment, and to use market forces as a complement to environmental legislation. The green swan symbol now has high consumer recognition and respect, covering over 60 product groups. The label is usually valid for three years, after which the criteria is revised and the company must reapply. Criteria for Swan labelling of paper products encompass a wide range of requirements, most of which relate to pulp and paper production. The Basic Module (Swan labelling of paper products Basic Module) contains requirements regarding forest management, emissions, energy and waste in pulp and paper manufacturing. The Chemical Module (Swan labelling of paper products Chemical Module) covers requirements of chemicals used in the production of pulp and paper. Coffee filters fall under these criteria and hence these requirements are applicable to Lot 25 and the life cycle of coffee machines. Requirements imposed are based on a life-cycle assessment of the product and concern production, use and waste. In the case of coffee filters this is achieved by using certified raw materials, by limiting the use of environmentally harmful chemicals, by producing low emissions to air and water and by reducing energy consumption. The requirements for a Nordic Swan label include requirements for: Recycling systems Environmental and quality assurance Production techniques Filter properties Packaging, including labelling and packaging recycling 20 Source: www.blauer-engel.de/en/products_brands/vergabegrundlage.php?id=124. 21 The Nordic Ecolabel: www.svanen.nu/eng. Task 1 49
Chemical use limitations National and European wide food regulation compliance Production waste While the Nordic Swan Label is not directly concerned with non-tertiary coffee machines, the use of the filters is normally part of the life cycle of coffee machines and is therefore pertinent to the Lot 25 study. It has been included here for reference purposes. 1.3.3. THIRD COUNTRY LEGISLATION AND INITIATIVES Australia s Standby Power Strategy 2002-2012 Australia implemented a National Standby Strategy, which aims to meet a power of 1 Watt in 2012 for numerous appliances, including espresso coffee machines 22. The National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee found out that off mode was consuming 1.8W on average in 2003, and 0.4W in 2004, and advised the Ministerial Council of Energy to target off mode of 1W by 2007, and 0.5W with 1 hour power down by 2012. This would result in the decreasing curve of cumulative annual greenhouse emissions for espresso machines below (Figure 1-23). Figure 1-23: BAU vs. Policy target cumulative annual greenhouse emissions for espresso machines 23 22 Standby product profile Espresso coffee machines, Australia s standby power strategy 2002 2012, www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/sb200408-espresso.pdf (download 31-08-2009) 23 Taken from Standby product profile Espresso coffee machines, Australia s standby power strategy 2002 2012, www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/sb200408-espresso.pdf (download 31-08-2009) 50 Task 1
Switzerland L EtiquetteEnergie (voluntary energy label) The new voluntary EtiquetteEnergie (energy label) for non-tertiary espresso machines has been designed for consumers to spot energy efficient machines in stores easier. The voluntary energy Label for coffee machines can show at a glance if a machine is among the models saving electricity (efficiency class A: green arrow) or not (efficiency class G: red arrow). The current annual consumption of the machine is also shown on the label. The voluntary energy label for coffee was developed under the guidance of the Swiss Association of Manufacturers and suppliers of electrical appliances (FEA) and in close collaboration with the Swiss manufacturer of coffee machines and the European Council of Equipment Manufacturers (CECED). It was created for use in Switzerland voluntarily since September 2009, and is foreseen to become mandatory in the future. Figure 1-24: L EtiquetteEnergie Switzerland S.A.F.E. and Euro-Topten 2003, S.A.F.E. (Swiss Agency for Efficient Energy Use) suggested the introduction of an energy label for coffee machines in the framework of the report Standby consumption of household appliances by Jürg Nipkow and Eric Bush (S.A.F.E.) on behalf of the SFOE Swiss Federal Office of Energy. A very first draft of an energy label was presented at EEDAL 2006 (Energy label for coffee machines. Jürg Nipkow and Eric Bush (Swiss Agency for Efficient Energy Use S.A.F.E.), EEDAL-Conference, London 2006). The labelling scheme has been optimised (see Figure 1-25) and is supported by Euro-Topten (www.topten.info). Task 1 51
Figure 1-25 indicates annual electricity consumption of coffee machines computed through a Topten measuring campaign (August 2008) and suggests a labelling scheme related to this annual consumption. 24 Figure 1-25: Suggestion for a labelling scheme based on annual electricity consumption of coffee machines The Euro-Topten measuring method and testing criteria are described in this document in section 1.2.3. Korea - The e-standby Program The e-standby Program has been implemented since April 1, 1999 for the purpose of enhancing the spread of energy-saving products that enable reduced electric power consumption during standby mode. This is a voluntary labelling scheme supported by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE) and the Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO). Microwave ovens are one of the 18 product groups covered by this programme. The e-standby Program is managed according to the long-term road map, Standby Korea 2010, which details the three stages of the 1W initiative, that is designed to reduce standby power usage to below 1W by 2010. The first stage was the Voluntary 1W Policy, implemented from 2005 to 2007, under which manufacturers were encouraged to adopt the standard under their own volition. The second stage is the Preparation for Transition to a Mandatory 1W Policy from 2008 to 2009, during which manufacturers will be prepared to adopt the standard as compulsory. From 2010, the Mandatory 1W Policy - the ultimate goal of the road map - will be implemented as the final stage. The program encourages the adoption of energy saving modes while the appliances are idle and the minimisation of standby power. An Energy Boy label is attached to those products that meet the standards for standby power. It is the core programme to reduce standby power below 1W by 2010. 24 Coffee machines: recommendations for policy design, August 7th 2008, Jürg Nipkow and Eric Bush, Topten International Group TIG, Paris, www.topten.info 52 Task 1
Currently, it is a voluntary program. However, from 2010 onwards, when the amendment of the Rational Energy Utilization Act is completed, the amended Act will include provisions that make standby power reporting mandatory as well as the mandatory indication of warning labels on appliances that fall below the standby power standards. Figure 1-26: Korean Energy-Saving Label Energy Boy Korea - Eco-Label 25 The Korean Eco-labelling programme is a voluntary certification programme which helps consumers to choose eco-products that reduce consumption of energy and resources and minimise the generation of pollution throughout the production process. Established in 1992, the programme has over 136 product categories defined and several more under development. Figure 1-27: Korean Eco-Label logo 25 The programme is applicable to electric kettles and electric coffee machines generally used for house, with rated voltage 2.0kW or less. The main criteria for electric coffee machines include: The energy efficiency of the appliance will be at least 72% according to the following equation: 25 Electric Kettles and Electric Coffee Makers EL408 Korea Eco-Products Institute www.koeco.or.kr Task 1 53
Where T 2 = 82 C ±2 C, the coffee extraction temperature and T 1 = initial water temperature A maximum of 45Wh of energy consumption for heating 1.0 l of water for 60 minutes. Lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium shall not be used in the product except for circuit boards. For circuit boards, limits are provided for the aforementioned heavy metals. Chlorinated plastics such as PVCs shall be avoided Recyclability of plastics shall meet specific criteria Quality assurance shall be compliant with Korean Safety and Control Act for Electric Appliances Information for consumers shall be provided Russia - GOST 20888-81 Standard The Russian standard GOST 20888-81: 2001 Methods for measuring the performance of electric household coffee makers was previously described as a test standard and safety standard. As this document includes MEPS, it is also relevant under the legislative standard section. Limits on electricity consumption per unit of cooked coffee by a coffee making machine as required by GOST 20888-81, are presented below in Table 1-8. Table 1-8: Limits on electricity consumption per unit of cooked coffee as per the GOST 20888-81 standard Type of coffee machine Specific volume of cooked coffee, litres Specific electricity consumption, Wh/litre Specific mass, kg-h/ litres-yr., no more than Time of coffee cooking, min, no more than Compression 0.2 0.5 200 150 0.160 0.090 Percolating 0.8 1.0 1.2 120-100 0.037 9.6 Filtration 0.5 0.8 160 0.09 Vacuum 0.2 0.5 0.8 150 120 110 0.040 0.045 0.050 11 54 Task 1
1.4. CONCLUSIONS TASK 1 The scope is defined in Subtask 1.1 in order to determine which appliances are covered by Lot 25. The preliminary scope boundary for the Lot 25 study is restricted to nontertiary coffee machines, i.e. not involving commercial use. The scope of products investigated in this study will be further refined on the basis of Tasks 2 and 3 and will be finalised in consultation with the Commission and the stakeholders. Most test standards related to coffee machines deal with safety and methods for measuring energy performance. The EN test standard 60661 for electric household coffee machines is currently being revised by CENELEC TC59X/WG15. This updated standard will contain two sections: one on pressure machines and one on filter coffee machines. All further task reports of this study will refer to this standard. Various pieces of legislation exist throughout the world but a direct comparison between these legislations is difficult as the scope and test standards are different. Task 1 55
ANNEX 1: FEA/CECED - MEASUREMENT METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ESPRESSO MACHINES - MEASUREMENT FORM Measuring form for espresso machines energy label Machine brand Type Name of test engineer Date of testing Rated voltage V T ambient C T machine C Twater in reservoir C Input voltage V Default settings of switches: Shut off time time s Enter n.a. in case no power management system available Cup heater on/off... Measurement equipment used: Measurement 4.1 Energy used Rinsing? (yes/no) heat up from cold Wh - include first 60 seconds after ready to use! Measurement 4.2 brewing Coffee type used Grinding function? (yes/no) Energy used first 40 g brew Wh - Include first 60 seconds after ready to use*) Temp in cup C Weight total g Weight of cup g Weight of coffee 0 g *) in case the system after 60 s has not yet recuperated and is still heating up in its first heating cycle since the brewing, add the energy used in the heating cycle in progress. This also holds for the other brew cycles. Coffee type used Energy used first 120g brew Wh - Include first 60 seconds after ready to use Temp in cup C Weight total g Weight of cup g Weight of coffee 0 g.wait 60 minutes to let the system return to steady state ready to use temperatures In case the shut off time of the PMS is shorter than 10 minutes, let it cool down for 60 minutes and in that case include in the next brew cycles the re-heating energy in the brew cycle measurements. Measurement 4.2 continued Energy used double 40 g brew Wh - Include first 60 seconds after ready to use Temp in cup C Weight total g Weight of cup g Weight of coffee 0 0 g Sum: 0 g In case the shut off time of the PMS is shorter than 10 minutes, let it cool down again for 60 minutes 56 Task 1
Measurement 4.2 continued Energy used dble 120 g brew Wh - Include first 60 seconds after ready to use Temp in cup C Weight total g Weight of cup g Weight of coffee 0 0 g Sum: 0 g Summary brew function 4.2 Single 40 Single120 Double40 Double120 Average Temperature of servings 0 0 0 C Weight of servings 0 0 0 0 0 g Energy used 0 0 0 0 0 Wh Measurement 4.3 Steaming function First time Weight of water (target=100g) g T water in beaker C Weight after steaming g T water after steaming C Energy used Wh Presteaming time used s.brew a coffee in between Measurement 4.3 Steaming function Second time Weight of water (target=100g) g T water in beaker C Weight after steaming g T water after steaming C Energy used Wh Presteaming time used s.brew a coffee in between Measurement 4.3 Steaming function Third time Weight of water (target=100g) g T water in beaker C Weight after steaming g T water after steaming C Energy used Wh Presteaming time used s Summary steam function Msrmt 1 Msrmt 2 Msrmt 3 Average Weight of water (target=100g) 0 0 0 0 T water in beaker 0 0 0 0 Weight after steaming 0 0 0 0 Delta T steam T water after steaming 0 0 0 0 0 Energy used 0 0 0 0 Measurement 4.4 Ready to use energy Energy use 60 minutes 5 Wh In case shut off time < 10 minutes, use standby value. Measurement 4.5 Standby energy Energy use 60 minutes 1 Wh Power management system? 1 1=Yes/0=No If "No" than standby energy is: 0 Wh Explanation:A power management system switches the machine automatically to standby or off mode..wait 120 minutes to let the system cool down sufficiently Task 1 57
Measurement 4.6 Heating up from standby Energy use Wh Skip in case no power management system exists. In case "standby" equals "off" start from "off" include first 60 seconds after ready to use! Measurement 4.7 Off energy use Energy use 60 minutes Wh Take standby value in case no "off" mode exists All measurements done in compliance with CECED measuring procedure version 7.2 dated 20090511: Measurement method for the determination of the energy consumption of Espresso machines Signature test engineer: 58 Task 1
ANNEX 2: EURO-TOPTEN - MEASURING METHOD AND CALCULATION FORMULA FOR THE ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION OF COFFEE MACHINES FOR HOUSEHOLD USE; MEASUREMENT REPORT FORM (XLS) General measurement Report, Coffee machine: All W, Wh and C readings shall be recorded with 1 decimal place. For machines without regular ready mode fill in item 1-4 as far as meaningful. Item 2b - e shall be replaced by 5b - d. Place 1b Date Name of person measuring the machine Measuring instrument used (make, model) Make, model, code, category of machine (pad/capsule, fully automatic, with piston), poss. year of manufacture Power according to nameplate (possibly under the machine or in a maintenance compartment) W, poss. kw 1 Ambient temperature halfway up the machine with a clearance to the machine of 0.5m (permissible values 22-24 C) C a, c Temperature of the water in the tank C 1d 1e 1f 1g (permissible values 22-24 C) Pump pressure according to producer s manual: Is piston installed (for hand-operated machines)? (y/n) Auto power down, auto-off, energy-saving mode: Informations as per instruction manual - programmable values from / to (h or min) - Interim values (h or min) - Can it be deactivated? (y/n) - Factory setting as per instruction manual - Factory settings effective when the programme is first started - Can the machine be switched to standby manually? (y/n), if yes, how? (short description) - Is standby mode displayed? (y/n); if yes, how? (e.g. display, illuminated button) How can the machine be activated? (short description) How can you tell that the machine is ready? (short description) Brewing temperature, information as per instruction manual: - programmable? (y/n), - Settings (e.g. low, medium, high) - Factory setting (to be used!) - Factory settings effective when the programme is first started Rinse function, information as per instruction manual: - Does the machine rinse automatically? (y/n) - Does the rinse function have to be confirmed manually? (y/n) - If yes: How? (short description) - Can the rinse function be switched off? (y/n) - Factory setting (to be used!) - Factory settings effective when the programme is first started Cup warming plate Does the machine have a cup warming plate? (y/n) If yes: Information as per instruction manual: - Is the warming programmable? (y/n) Please note: if it can be switched off, further measurements at other setting may be necessary. - Factory setting as per instruction manual (on/off) is to be used for this test - Factory setting effective when the programme is first consulted bar Task 1 59
Detailed measurement Report, Coffee machine: All W, Wh and C readings shall be recorded with 1 decimal place. Date: 2a 2b 2c Switch to standby: - Ambient temperature C - Time hh:mm:ss - Energy reading (set to zero if possible) Wh Activate after at least 6 hrs: - Ambient temperature C - Time (when same day) hh:mm:ss - Time (when overnight, next day) - Energy reading Wh Ready (poss. after confirming automatic rinse): - Time hh:mm:ss - Energy reading Wh 2d 2e After 30 min: energy reading (set to standby afterwards, reactivate after 5 sec.) Wh After 60 min: energy reading (set to standby afterwards, reactivate after 5 sec.) Wh Immediately after auto-off: - Time hh:mm:ss - Energy reading Wh - Ambient temperature C 4 Does the machine have a hard-off (switch)? (y/n) (Power input has to be zero!) Does it have a (soft-off) on/off switch? (y/n) Power input in soft-off: - Energy reading when switching off Wh - Energy reading after 1h Wh Results Duration of coffee period 00:00:00 hh:mm:ss Energy consumption in Ready mode (coffee period) 0,00 Wh Duration of standby mode (per year) 8760 h Standby power consumption #DIV/0! W Standby energy consumption (per year) #DIV/0! kwh Energy consumption for coffee preparations, standard 20 kwh Total energy consumption (per year) #DIV/0! kwh E tot = (730 * E ready + t stb * P stb )/ 1000 + 20 in kwh 60 Task 1
Measurement Report (flow-type), Coffee machine: All W, Wh and C readings shall be recorded with 1 decimal place. Date: 5 5a 5b Machines without ready mode (note pos. 1 in "General") Switch to standby: - Ambient temperature C - Time hh:mm:ss - Energy reading (set to zero if possible) Wh Activate / start coffee production, after at least 6 hrs (resp. at least 2 hrs if machine was not heated up), values before activating: - Ambient temperature C - Time (when same day) hh:mm:ss - Time (when overnight, next day) - Energy reading Wh 5c 5d When coffee production is completed (incl. rinsing if relevant; no more noise, no power consumption): - Time hh:mm:ss - Energy reading Wh - Amount of coffee in cup (net weight) g 30 minutes after first activating prepare another portion. Values before activating: - Ambient temperature C - Time hh:mm:ss - Energy reading Wh When coffee production is completed (incl. rinsing if relevant; no more noise, no power consumption): - Time hh:mm:ss - Energy reading Wh - Amount of coffee in cup (net weight) g 60 minutes after first activating prepare a third portion. Values when production is completed and the machine passed into the lowest standby state: - Time hh:mm:ss - Energy reading Wh - Amount of coffee in cup (net weight) g 6 Does the machine have a hard-off (switch)? (y/n) (Power input has to be zero!) Does it have a (soft-off) on/off switch? (y/n) Power input in soft-off: - Energy reading when switching off Wh - Energy reading after 1h Wh Results Duration of coffee period 00:00:00 hh:mm:ss Duration of standby mode (per year) 8760 h Standby power consumption #DIV/0! W Standby energy consumption (per year) #DIV/0! kwh Energy consumption coffee period incl. 3 preparations, measured value 0,00 Wh Energy consumption for coffee period (3 cups), standardised by amount of coffee #DIV/0! Wh Total energy consumption (per year) #DIV/0! kwh E coff-p = 15 + (E coff-p-3c 15)*(240 / M 3C ) E tot = (730 * E coff-p + t stb * P stb )/ 1000 in kwh Task 1 61
Detailed measurement Report, Coffee machine: All W, Wh and C readings shall be recorded with 1 decimal place. Date: 2a Switch to standby: - Ambient temperature 22,2 C - Time 08:00:00 hh:mm:ss - Energy reading (set to zero if possible) 0 Wh 2b Activate after at least 6 hrs: - Ambient temperature 23,0 C - Time (when same day) 15:00:00 hh:mm:ss - Time (when overnight, next day) - Energy reading 11,3 Wh 2c Ready (poss. after confirming automatic rinse): - Time 15:01:30 hh:mm:ss 2d 2e - Energy reading 27,6 Wh After 30 min: energy reading (set to standby afterwards, reactivate after 5 sec.) 38,7 Wh After 60 min: energy reading (set to standby afterwards, reactivate after 5 sec.) 47,9 Wh Immediately after auto-off: - Time 16:31:30 hh:mm:ss - Energy reading 55,2 Wh - Ambient temperature 22,9 C 4 Does the machine have a hard-off (switch)? (y/n) n (Power input has to be zero!) Does it have a (soft-off) on/off switch? (y/n) j Power input in soft-off: - Energy reading when switching off 55,2 Wh - Energy reading after 1h 55,2 Wh Results Duration of coffee period 01:31:30 hh:mm:ss Energy consumption in Ready mode (coffee period) 43,90 Wh Duration of standby mode (per year) 7647 h Standby power consumption 1,61 W Standby energy consumption (per year) 12,34 kwh Energy consumption for coffee preparations, standard 20 kwh Total energy consumption (per year) 64,39 kwh E tot = (730 * E ready + t stb * P stb )/ 1000 + 20 in kwh 62 Task 1
Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III) [Contract N TREN/D3/91-2007-Lot 25-SI2.521716] Lot 25 Non-Tertiary Coffee Machines Task 2: Economic and market analysis Final version In association with Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal Benoît Tinetti + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 shailendra.mudgal@biois.com benoit.tinetti@biois.com
Project Team BIO Intelligence Service Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Mr. Benoît Tinetti Mr. Lorcan Lyons Ms. Perrine Lavelle Arts et Métiers Paristech / ARTS Mr. Alain Cornier Ms. Charlotte Sannier 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. 2 Task 2
Contents 2. Task 2 Economic and market analysis... 4 2.1. Generic economic data... 4 2.2. Market and stock data... 7 2.2.1. Sales...7 2.2.2. Stock data...17 2.3. Market trends... 18 2.4. Consumer expenditure base data... 22 2.4.1. Purchase costs...22 2.4.2. Running costs...24 2.4.3. Repair and maintenance costs...32 2.4.4. Interest and inflation rates...33 2.4.5. Summary of consumer expenditure...34 2.5. Conclusions... 35 Task 2 3
2. TASK 2 ECONOMIC AND MARKET ANALYSIS The purpose of this task is to assess trade and sales volumes for the defined product group within the EU-27. A clear picture of the product stock available on the EU market will be provided, together with growth and replacement rate forecasts. It will also provide insights into the latest market trends so as to indicate the role of any possible ecodesign measures in the context of the market structures and ongoing trends in product design. Finally, a practical data set of prices and rates needed for Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) calculations (in Tasks 5 and 7) will also be provided. 2.1. GENERIC ECONOMIC DATA The aim of this subtask is to place the identified product groups (in Task 1) within overall EU industry and trade policy. PRODCOM statistics have the advantage of being an official EU source that is also used and referenced in other EU policy documents regarding trade and economic policy. PRODCOM data are based on products whose definitions are standardised across the European community and thus allow comparison. However, as mentioned in section 1.1 under product definition, the PRODCOM category code 29.71.24.30 Domestic electric coffee or tea makers (including percolators) groups all the different types of non-tertiary electric coffee machines. As this code also contains tea makers, PRODCOM data will need to be supplemented by other sources of economic data. More importantly, PRODCOM data is not always reliable and so other sources of data will be necessary. This has been seen in several other preparatory studies, for example in Lot 24 on commercial washing machines and dishwashers. Table 2-1 is an extract of PRODCOM data for domestic electric coffee or tea makers (including percolators), both in quantities and value. For some Member States the export quantity is higher than the production quantity, which is zero for several of them (e.g. Denmark, UK). The estimation of apparent consumption as Production + Imports - Exports cannot be considered reliable due to various discrepancies between production and trade datasets. 1 This should be taken into account when reading the tables below; in particular, negative values should be discounted. 1 See the Eurostat PRODCOM user s guide, available at: epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/!portal.wwpob_page.show?_docname=3 0168.PDF 4 Task 2
Table 2-1: Production, trade and consumption of electric coffee and tea makers in 2007, in units (Source: Eurostat) DECLARANT INDICATORS Production - Quantity Imports - Quantity Exports - Quantity Notes: - Yellow: Data for this item is confidential and has been suppressed. - EU-25 total is the EU-27 total minus Bulgaria and Romania. Apparent Consumption - Quantity (Prod + Imp - Exp) Austria 1 241 577 207 472 1 034 105 Belgium 2 649 514 1 522 142 1 127 372 Cyprus 0 25 017 1 25 016 Czech Republic 517 300 904 338-387 038 Denmark 0 840 939 409 856 431 083 Estonia 0 124 080 23 116 100 964 Finland 0 679 046 11 688 667 358 France 450 100 8 610 616 1 334 358 7 726 358 Germany 2 447 979 10 124 664 4 224 427 8 348 216 Greece 0 642 742 14 684 628 058 Hungary 132 192 424 475 149 167 407 500 Ireland 169 275 9 755 159 520 Italy 1 557 805 3 146 773 2 777 173 1 927 405 Latvia 0 165 680 12 562 153 118 Lituania 0 105 659 21 788 83 871 Luxemburg 0 104 948 11 763 93 185 Malta 0 23 537 1 23 536 Netherlands 3 295 423 1 667 690 1 627 733 Poland 318 566 345 762 4 401 444-3 737 116 Portugal 879 001 576 585 1 249 320 206 266 Slovakia 0 189 515 10 860 178 655 Slovenia 58 746 634 934-576 188 Spain 116 773 2 567 183 528 297 2 155 659 Sweden 0 1 827 654 707 697 1 119 957 United Kingdom 0 1 990 574 216 474 1 774 100 EU25TOTALS 7 364 594 22 454 608 2 475 557 27 343 645 Bulgaria 0 389 090 3 058 386 032 Romania 0 537 474 1 021 214-483 740 EU27TOTALS 7 364 594 22 732 962 2 199 948 27 897 608 Task 2 5
Table 2-2: Production, trade and consumption of electric coffee and tea makers in 2007, in Euros (Source: Eurostat) DECLARANT INDICATORS Production - Value Imports - Value Exports - Value Apparent Consumption - Value (Prod + Imp - Exp) Austria 83 518 780 24 861 230 58 657 550 Belgium 55 833 000 22 760 380 33 072 620 Cyprus 0 809 570 20 809 550 Czech Republic 14 573 510 14 456 220 117 290 Denmark 0 32 297 610 14 181 570 18 116 040 Estonia 0 4 649 920 960 040 3 689 880 Finland 0 18 039 470 969 520 17 069 950 France 10 673 000 224 602 220 77 607 640 157 667 580 Germany 48 270 186 429 952 450 209 669 030 268 553 606 Greece 0 11 168 140 543 170 10 624 970 Hungary 2 508 796 13 226 410 8 939 200 6 796 006 Ireland 5 508 430 297 430 5 211 000 Italy 161 995 000 91 275 630 343 516 980-90 246 350 Latvia 0 2 895 830 973 280 1 922 550 Lituania 0 3 597 270 1 019 620 2 577 650 Luxemburg 0 6 722 600 1 071 180 5 651 420 Malta 0 254 860 2 000 252 860 Netherlands 98 214 410 52 482 130 45 732 280 Poland 22 771 140 116 903 610-94 132 470 Portugal 37 150 848 26 033 130 37 930 320 25 253 658 Slovakia 0 5 350 370 374 440 4 975 930 Slovenia 1 566 170 9 057 460-7 491 290 Spain 15 781 593 75 433 680 22 319 900 68 895 373 Sweden 0 42 269 260 25 229 900 17 039 360 United Kingdom 52 554 110 5 190 850 47 363 260 EU25TOTALS 564 314 730 190 902 160 373 412 570 Bulgaria 0 6 769 430 53 390 6 716 040 Romania 6 643 410 42 641 320-35 997 910 EU27TOTALS 369 328 860 563 559 550 182 463 230 750 425 180 In order to provide EU market data on production, exports, imports and sales, publicly available statistics and commercial market analysis reports were consulted. In particular, relevant information was provided by national industrial associations and European federations, particularly CECED (the European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers) and its national members such as GIFAM (France), ZVEI (Germany) and VLEHAN (the Netherlands). However, ANIE (Italy), ANFEL (Spain) and EHA (Sweden) were unable to provide relevant information regarding coffee machines. The information is presented in the following section. The level of aggregation of the data varies according to the source. 6 Task 2
2.2. MARKET AND STOCK DATA 2.2.1. SALES The global small electric household appliances market is projected to reach about 575.6 million units by 2010, growing at a compounded annual rate of 2.54%. Coffee Makers are the second-largest segment in the small appliances category after Electric Irons. The Asia-Pacific market is likely to register impressive growth rates during the projection period and by 2010 the small electric household appliances market in the Asia-Pacific region is projected to reach about 174 million units. 2 According to GFK, around 18.5 million coffee machines were sold in Europe in 2007. 3 National sales National markets are extremely different from each other. Overviews of the French, Dutch and German markets are presented later in this section in order to provide a better understanding of the sector. There are countries such as Italy and Switzerland with very large market shares of espresso machines (i.e. semi-automatic and fully automatic espresso machines) over 80%. On the other hand there are countries that still have very low (lower than 20%) market shares of espresso machines, such as Germany, France or the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, portioned filter coffee machines are quite popular and have a market share of about 45%, while traditional filter coffee machines account for more than 50% of the stock of household coffee machines in Germany, France and Spain (Figure 2-1). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Traditional filter Portioned filter Espresso Figure 2-1: Market shares of selected EU countries by unit sales 4 2 Electric Household Appliances - A Global Strategic Business Report, www.electronics.ca/presscenter/articles/835/1/global-market-for-major-electric-household-appliancesto-cross-498-million-units-by-2010/page1.html 3 GFK data purchased by BIO. 4 Source: Private stakeholder communication. Task 2 7
Netherlands The Netherlands VLEHAN (Vereniging Leveranciers Van Huishoudelijke Apparaten) provided relevant information regarding the number and value of the coffee machines sold between 2002 and 2008 (Figure 2-2). The figure shows that while the number of coffee machines sold in the Netherlands went up and down between 2002 and 2008, the value of the coffee machines sold increased gradually year after year, from 98 million euros in 2002 to 145 million euros in 2008. 2000000 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Number of units Value (1000 ) Figure 2-2: Sales of coffee machines in the Netherlands 5 In the Netherlands, according to the market figures provided by the VLEHAN, the number of espresso machines sold has increased each year since 2003, and gone from 5% to 18% of the number of coffee machines sold (Figure 2-3), while it went from 17% to 46% of the value of the coffee machines sold over the same period (Figure 2-4). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Espresso (Units) Dripfilter machines (Units) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Figure 2-3: Market share in the Netherlands by unit sales 5 5 Source : VLEHAN 8 Task 2
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Espresso (Value) Dripfilter machines (Value) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Figure 2-4: Market share in the Netherlands by sales value 5 France There is a significant trend towards portioned and automatic espresso machines (capsules and pads) in France as highlighted in Table 2-3. Table 2-3: Sales growth rates in France in 2008 vs. 2007 6 Units Value Drip filter coffee machines -2.8% -4.5% Portioned and automatic espresso machines +3.2% -1.8% *Cumulative sales during 8 months in 2008 vs. 8 months in 2007 Despite the dip in 2008, the value of the market has been growing in recent years, with pad coffee machines increasing their market share: 6 Source: GIFAM. Task 2 9
Figure 2-5: Coffee machine sales volume in France, 2002-2007 7 The following chart illustrates the development of the French market over time, showing sales of drip filter coffee machines and espresso coffee machines from 1999 to 2007. Figure 2-6: Sales of coffee machines in France, 1999-2007 8 Figure 2-7 presents the ownership ratios for drip filter coffee machines and espresso coffee machines in French households over time. It shows the slight decrease in 7 Source: GFK. 8 Source: GIFAM. 10 Task 2
ownership of drip filter coffee machines in households, while the ownership of espresso coffee machines increases slowly. Figure 2-7: Ownership of filter coffee machines and espresso coffee machines in France, 2001-2007 9 A study performed by TNS-SOFRES indicated that the amount of households owning a pad espresso machine almost doubled between 2004 and 2006 (see figure below). In its study, TNS described drip filter coffee machines as products with steady demand, while espresso coffee machines were described as products with potential for shortterm growth. 9 Source: GIFAM. Task 2 11
Figure 2-8: Evolution of the shares of the French stock of coffee machines The Groupement Interprofessionnel des Fabricants d'appareils Ménagers (GIFAM) provided figures on sales of espresso and drip filter coffee machines in France by distribution channel: in 2008, the very large general supermarkets (hypermarchés) accounted for more than 55% of sales of drip filter coffee machines, while espresso coffee machines were mostly sold in specialised hypermarchés (more than 40% of sales). 60 50 40 30 20 10 Espresso (in M ) Filter (in M ) 0 Figure 2-9: Weight of the distribution channels in France, 2008 (million euros) 10 Furthermore, a survey performed by TNS-SOFRES in 2006 indicated that 11% of coffee machines were bought on the Internet. Coffee machines appear popular gifts, as they 10 Source: GfK Retail and Technology GmbH via GIFAM. 12 Task 2
were offered as such by 42% of the 29% people who offer small electrical appliances as gifts. 11 Germany The ZVEI (Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Eletronikindustrie) provided relevant information regarding the sale of coffee machines as small electric appliances in Germany between 2006 and 2008. In its report, annual sales of drip filter coffee machines appeared to have maintained a level close to 250 million euros between 2006 and 2008, while the turnover generated by sales of espresso machines went from 385 million to 472 million euros over the same period (Figure 2-10). The equipment rate of German households regarding coffee machines was estimated at a constant value of 95% between 2000 and 2008, which was 38 million coffee machines for the year 2008. 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 Dripfilter machines (Value in M ) Espresso (Value in M ) 150 100 50 0 2006 2007 2008 Figure 2-10: Sales of coffee machines in Germany (million euros) 12 Sales by product type The following table shows the total of 18 European countries sales figures according to GFK data cited by Topten. Note that the GfK categories do not correspond exactly to those used elsewhere in this study. 11 TNS SOFRES, Béatrice Guilbert, Sandrine Ghesquiers, 16 Septembre 2008, L équipement des français en petit électroménager, conference GIFAM. 12 Source: VREI, Zahlenspiegel des deutschen Elektro-Hausgerätemarktes - 09.06.2009 Task 2 13
Table 2-4: Total sales figures of coffee machines of 18 European countries 13 Sales (1 000s) 2006 2007 Increase Filter 10 076 10 072 0.0% Pad-Filter 3 546 3 410-3.8% Espresso portioned 1 647 2 356 43.1% Espresso fully automatic 824 870 5.5% Espresso piston hand-operated 1 358 1 246-8.2% Combi Espresso-Filter 312 284-8.9% All Coffee machines 17 763 18 238 2.7% All Espresso- and Pad-machines 7 375 7 882 6.9% Drip filter coffee machines still have the highest market share (55%). There is a strong trend towards fully automatic coffee machine and an extremely strong trend towards hard cap espresso coffee machines. Pad-filter coffee machines, espresso piston handoperated machines and combi espresso filter machines are losing market share. Fully automatic coffee machines and espresso portioned machines (the most relevant ones from an energy perspective) have a market share of 43% and an important growth of 6.9%. Using the product categorisation defined in Task 1 and for 23 countries, the sales of the domestic coffee machine market are presented in the following figure. 13 Nipkow, J. et al. (2010) Coffee machines: recommendations for policy design, Topten International Group TIG, Paris, www.topten.info. Countries included are Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, France, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. Note that Switzerland is not an EU Member State but is included in the original dataset. 14 Task 2
Pad filter coffee machines 19% Drip filter coffee machines 57% Hard cap espresso coffee machines 12% Espresso trad. steam / pump / semiautomatic espresso coffee machines 7% Fully automatic coffee machines 5% Figure 2-11: Domestic coffee machine sales in Europe by machine type 14 This corresponds to the following total sales estimates for each product category in 23 European countries: Table 2-5: Sales by product type (units) 15 Unit sales, 2007 Drip filter coffee machine 10 088 075 Pad filter coffee machine 3 438 419 Hard cap espresso coffee machine 2 141 383 Semi-automatic espresso coffee machine 1 242 076 Fully automatic coffee machine 815 048 Combis, others* 800 436 Total 18 525 437 *Not taken into account in subsequent calculations. It is interesting to have a look at the markets in value terms as well. Based on typical prices, a different picture emerges. Espresso machines (hard cap, semi-automatic and fully automatic) strongly dominate the market in terms of value. 14 GfK Retail and Technology GmbH, hot beverage market study, 2007 15 GfK Retail and Technology GmbH, hot beverage market study, 2007. Includes Austria, Baltic countries, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia. Task 2 15
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Drip filter Pad filter Hard cap Semi-auto Fully auto Figure 2-12: Total sales value in 18 European countries by product category, 2007 (million euros) 16 Figure 2-12 shows the market trend towards portioned espresso machines. Figure 2-13: Total percentage sales value increase in 18 European countries by product category, 2006-2007 17 16 GFK data purchased by BIO. See also Table 2-9. 17 Nipkow, J. et al. (2010) Coffee machines: recommendations for policy design, Topten International Group TIG, Paris, www.topten.info. 16 Task 2
2.2.2. STOCK DATA Before assessing the stock of coffee machines, lifetimes of various types of coffee machine were estimated and have been confirmed by CECED and other stakeholders. Table 2-6 presents these estimates. Table 2-6: Estimated average lifetime of products Lifetime Drip filter coffee machine 6 Pad filter coffee machine 7 Hard cap espresso coffee machine 7 Semi-automatic espresso coffee machine 7 Fully automatic espresso coffee machine 10 In the absence of authoritative empirical data, the stock of each product type can be estimated for a given year by understanding the sales in the preceding years and the lifetimes of the products. Based on discussions with stakeholders and simple extrapolation, a stock model can be developed to estimate the current stock of non-tertiary coffee machine products in use in Europe today. The stock is determined by summing the sales of the number of preceding years corresponding with the estimated lifetime of the product. The same approach was followed in some other preparatory studies. The sales during the period 2004-2010, estimated on the basis of 2007 sales data and assumed growth rates, are shown in Figure 2-13. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Drip filter Pad filter Hard caps Semi-automatic Fully automatic Figure 2-14: Estimated sales of non-tertiary coffee machines, 2004-2010 (millions) Task 2 17
Based on this information, the stock of non-tertiary coffee machines on the EU-27 market has been estimated as shown in the table below. Table 2-7: Estimated stock of non-tertiary coffee machines, 2010 Stock (units) Drip filter coffee machine 58 820 091 Pad filter coffee machine 22 698 517 Hard cap espresso coffee machine 12 547 263 Semi-automatic espresso coffee machine 9 012 548 Fully automatic coffee machine 7 621 483 This information will be used to estimate the environmental impacts and subsequently, the improvement potential of any regulation on an EU-27 wide basis. 2.3. MARKET TRENDS The aim of this subtask is to identify different market structures and provide insight into historic and ongoing market trends both in sales/stock and product design. This information will be useful while identifying potential base cases (Task 5), and for evaluating their improvement potential (Task 7). It is important to understand such trends so as to identify the products which are going to be obsolete or of more importance in the near future. Technological innovations Technological innovation in this field consists of improvements in materials, size reduction and introduction of microprocessor-based controls to reduce energy use. The first step is the analysis of general trends in product design and product features. As mentioned before, this analysis is absolutely critical because it will indicate the midterm development and therefore the state-of-the-art in 2012 when Ecodesign requirements may take effect. The second step is to analyse the market trends, taking into account: The current level of maturity of the market: relevant for the short- to mid-term market dynamics and likely growth rates of certain technologies; Historical developments: show that technology replacement cycles are getting shorter/longer; Rate of market adaptation with new technologies; Promising technologies that just fail to achieve a breakthrough in the market (for various reasons): mean a direct extrapolation of market developments always has to be read with caution. 18 Task 2
Market players and production The market trends have been estimated based on information provided by stakeholders: The overall non-tertiary coffee machine industry is expected to grow throughout the years applicable to the study (1-2% per year); Sales of drip filter coffee machines are expected to slowly decline as other products continuously replace their market share (especially capsule machines but also pad filter and fully automatic); Capsule machines are expected to have strong growth (12% per year) in the coming 3-5 years and are expected to continue to grow at a moderate pace in the longer term (8% per year after 2015); Semi-automatic espresso machines are expected to decline in sales over the coming years (-5% per year) before stabilising from 2015; Sales of fully-automatic machines are expected to grow in coming years, though less dramatically than capsule machines (5% per year between 2010 and 2015, 2% per year thereafter). Figure 2-15 summarises the above trends and sales estimates for the non-tertiary coffee machine market from 2010-2025. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 Drip filter Pad filter Hard caps Semi-automatic Fully automatic Figure 2-15: Sales estimates for the product types in Lot 25, 2010-2025 (millions) The corresponding stock throughout this period is given in Figure 2-16, taking into account the lifetimes listed in Table 2-6. Task 2 19
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 Drip filter Pad filter Hard caps Semi-automatic Fully automatic Figure 2-16: Stock estimate by product type, 2010-2025 (millions) Table 2-8 provides numerical reference points for the sales and stock estimates for key years for Lot 25 products. 20 Task 2
Drip filter coffee machine Table 2-8: Sales and stock estimates for key years for Lot 25 products (millions) Sales 2010 2012 2015 2020 2025 2010 2012 2015 2020 2025 9.24 9.26 8.63 6.48 3.14 58.82 57.12 54.50 45.71 29.42 Pad filter coffee machine 3.53 3.75 4.09 4.75 5.50 22.70 24.72 26.37 30.45 35.30 Hard cap espresso machine Semi-automatic espresso machine Fully automatic espresso machine 3.01 3.77 5.11 7.51 11.04 12.55 18.60 26.91 42.24 62.06 1.16 1.04 0.90 0.90 0.90 9.01 8.29 7.32 6.31 6.27 0.82 0.90 1.04 1.14 1.26 7.62 8.01 8.78 10.21 11.57 Stock Task 2 21
2.4. CONSUMER EXPENDITURE BASE DATA The total lifetime costs of a coffee machine can be divided into three categories: Purchase costs the cost incurred by consumers to purchase the coffee machine; Running costs the costs incurred by consumers to operate the coffee machines throughout a typical lifetime of a coffee machine. They may include electricity costs and costs of consumables (coffee beans, water, filters, etc.); Repair and maintenance costs the costs incurred by consumers during the use phase of the coffee machine. These can include decalcification or fixing broken parts. It is expected that the following categories of costs are either not applicable or negligible for coffee machines: Installation costs it has been found that non-tertiary coffee machines require no modifications to the location in which they operate; Disposal costs consumers do not dispose of these appliances in any special manner, and typically there are no extra costs incurred at the time of disposal Therefore these costs have not been investigated further in the study. 2.4.1. PURCHASE COSTS In the context of this study, average appliance consumer prices are of interest as they are required as an input for Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) calculations that will be performed in Task 5. Table 2-9 gives average prices of European coffee machines according to the categorisation given in Task 1, as reported by GfK. Table 2-9: Average prices for coffee machines according to Task 1 categories, 2007 14 Average price (euros) Drip filter coffee machine 35 Pad filter coffee machine 81 Hard cap espresso coffee machine 156 Semi-automatic espresso coffee machine 103 Fully automatic coffee machine 595 Prices within an appliance category can vary widely. Parameters that are the most critical for fixing the price are the type of material used, the technical features and the design of the appliance. Computerised functions including timers or digital displays can greatly increase the cost of any coffee machine. Aesthetics appears to be an important parameter in particular in the case of upper end machines, because these products are 22 Task 2
often considered not simply as a heat source but as a kind of interior decoration as well. A market study performed in 2008 for the French market showed that the median price of a coffee machine increased by 24% between June 2005 and June 2008. While the average price was 29.98 euros in June 2005, it increased to 40.48 euros in June 2008, and 25% of the coffee machines sold were more expensive than 84.49 euros (Figure 2-17). This equates to approximately an 8% increase per year for the average coffee machine purchased between 2004 and 2008. It should be noted that this does not mean the price of coffee machines necessarily increased, but the purchasing habits of consumers are shifting towards more expensive machines. Figure 2-17: Prices of electric coffee machines in France 18 In particular, this study stressed the price increase which occurred between June 2007 and June 2008 for pad filter coffee machines and fully automatic coffee machines. During this period, the price index of pad filter coffee machines moved from an index of 100 to 243, while generating a turnover gain close to 22m euros, and the price index of fully automatic coffee machines went from 100 in June 2007 to 766 in June 2008, while generating a turnover gain of more than 100 000 euros 18. Coffee machine prices are generally highest for espresso (high pressure) coffee machines, which propose the most automatic technologies, as well as innovative designs and functions. For example, the prices of coffee machines designed by Nespresso range from 119 euros to 499 euros according to the type of model (Figure 2-18). 18 GfK Retail and Technology Conférence PEM GIFAM, Benoit LEHUT-Julie KUNLIN, 16 September 2008, Petit Electroménager; Objectif : Création de Valeur. Task 2 23
600 500 400 300 200 400 350 300 250 Min Price Min Price (in ) Max Price (in ) 100 200 150 100 Min Price 0 50 0 0 Essenza 1 Le Cube 2 Citiz 3 Concept 4 Latissima 5 6 Figure 2-18: Market prices of Nespresso coffee machines in France (euros) 19 2.4.2. RUNNING COSTS Running costs, understood as costs generated by the use of the appliance, can be split into: Energy costs (electricity) Consumable costs (water, paper filters, beans, decalcifying/cleaning agents, etc.) Maintenance costs could also be considered in this category; the different methods of decalcification will be investigated in Task 3. Repair costs may be non-negligible for fully automatic coffee machines but as very little data exists on this, it is proposed to assume repair and maintenance costs of 20% of the purchase price for this type of coffee machine. Energy costs (electricity) Electricity costs must be taken into account for coffee machines as they are the means by which potentially large economic incentives to reduce electricity consumption can be quantified. The average electricity consumption of a European household in 2007 was 4 000 kwh/household which means the rates of the category [2 500-5 000 kwh] should be used. 20 19 See www.nespresso.com/#/fr/fr/machines_cafe/selecteur_machines. 20 Enerdata Energy Efficiency/CO 2 Indicators available at: www.worldenergy.org/documents/ueur27.pdf. 24 Task 2
Electricity prices excluding VAT as reported by Eurostat for the last two years by semester are presented in Table 2-10. Table 2-10: Electricity prices for domestic consumers (euros/kwh) 21 2007 S2 2008 S1 2008 S2 2009 S1 Austria 17.4 17.79 17.72 19.09 Belgium 16.83 19.72 20.81 19.16 Bulgaria 7.21 7.11 8.23 8.23 Czech Republic 10.63 12.74 12.99 13.23 Denmark 24.01 26.35 27.85 26.98 Germany 21.05 21.48 21.95 22.82 Estonia 7.86 8.14 8.5 9.22 Ireland 19.18 17.69 20.33 20.3 Greece 9.84 10.47 10.99 11.54 Spain 14 13.66 15.57 15.77 France 12.22 12.53 12.32 12.73 Italy - 20.79 21.95 20.93 Cyprus 15.73 17.8 20.4 15.58 Latvia 7.29 8.42 10.03 10.52 Lithuania 8.7 8.6 8.65 9.51 Luxembourg 16.45 16.45 16.09 18.82 Hungary 12.96 15.48 15.53 14.83 Malta 21.38 18.9 14.62 15.35 Netherlands 17.2 17.3 17.8 19 Poland 13.8 12.59 12.95 11.31 Portugal 15.62 14.82 15.25 15.08 Romania 11.41 10.61 11.03 9.76 Slovenia 11.16 11.47 11.56 13.65 Slovakia 13.77 13.65 15.27 15.4 Finland 11.49 12.23 12.73 12.96 Sweden 16.13 16.98 17.46 16.02 UK 14.81 14.58 16.03 14.66 EU-27 15.65 16.01 16.73 16.58 For this study, the effective domestic electricity price will be 0.166 euros/kwh. Consumables (water, coffee filters, pads, etc.) The costs of consumables will be discussed in this section. Coffee beans There is a wide variety in the price of coffee beans for domestic users (Base-Case 5) throughout Europe. A typical price in France is 15 euros/kg and in the UK 22 around 13.50 euros/kg. 21 Data retrieved from Eurostat website: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Household consumers refer to consumer band Dc (annual consumption between 2 500 and 5 000 kwh). 22 Carte Noire Whole Beans, Tesco. Task 2 25
Ground coffee There is also a wide variety in the price of ground coffee for domestic users throughout Europe. Example prices for France, UK and Germany are given for some ground coffee brands in Table 2-11, Table 2-12 and Table 2-13. Table 2-11: Example coffee prices found in French supermarkets Example image (not representative of actual product) Price per kg in euros 13.20 6.48 4.00 12.36 27.60 Table 2-12: Example coffee prices found in UK supermarkets Example image (not representative of actual product) Price per kg in euros 12.06 24.13 10.65 26 Task 2
Table 2-13: Average German coffee prices over a ten year period 23 Year Price per kg 1996 7.16 1997 7.94 1998 8.04 1999 7.12 2000 6.86 2001 6.54 2002 6.12 2003 6.00 2004 5.82 2005 7.22 2006 7.58 2007-2008 7.68 An average price of coffee for European consumers is therefore estimated at 12 euros/kg (average of the national averages for samples found), with an estimated range which will be analysed in the sensitivity analysis between approximately 5 euros/kg and 19 euros/kg (however the sample contained prices as low as 4 euros and as high as 27 euros/kg). As there is a large variation in both the cost of coffee and the amount of coffee used to produce one cup of coffee, there is an extremely wide variation found in the cost of coffee used to produce a single serving of coffee. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that average 80 ml cup of coffee is produced and it requires 7g (for espresso coffee machines). For drip filter coffee machines, the average quantity of coffee to produce a litre of coffee is 50g. Water The cost of water to consumers is often obscure and difficult to evaluate as it is often based on a variable rate which corresponds to consumption. Figure 2-19 shows the estimated water prices for major city centres and estimates for national averages for countries in Europe from a study completed by the OECD in 2003. City data is for 1998 and national data is for 1996. 23 Der Deutsche Kaffeeverband (The German Coffee Association) Facts and Figures (2009) www.kaffeeverband.de/english/396.htm Task 2 27
Figure 2-19: Water prices in Europe 24 A more recent indication of water prices in France is shown in Figure 2-20 where a breakdown in the cost of water to consumers is given over 15 years. 24 OECD 2003 Water Indicators 28 Task 2
Rate in Euros 3,50 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Potable Water Supply Tariff of Water Agency Year Sewage Charge Taxes Figure 2-20: Water cost break down in the Rhône region of France for 15 years A final water tariff to the consumer can be observed at 2.90 euros/m 3 with an average increase of 0.064 euros/m 3 per year, suggesting a current water tariff in this region of France of 3.08 euros/m 3. The preparatory study for Lot 14 (domestic dishwashers and washing machines) proposed a water rate of 3.70 euros/m 3 for domestic water use in 2008 across Europe. Furthermore, BIPE analysed the water rate for eight major European cities in 2006. The relevant information is presented in Table 2-14. Table 2-14: Water consumption and effective rate for eight European cities 25 City Annual water consumption per capita (m 3 ) Average persons per household Average water bill per household (euros) Effective water rate (euros/m 3 ) Amsterdam 57 2.3 506 3.86 Athens 61 2.7 171 1.04 Berlin 43 1.8 360 4.65 London 54 2.4 312 2.41 Madrid 61 2.9 207 1.17 Paris 52 1.9 229 2.32 Rome 104 2.6 229 0.85 Stockholm 77 2 302.5 1.96 25 Consumption, persons per household and average water bill per household taken from: BIPE, Analysis of Drinking Water and Wastewater Services in Eight European Capitals : the Sustainable Development Perspective, 2006 Task 2 29
Based on the population of the above cities, the weighted average water rate for the eight cities cited by BIPE is 2.38 euros/m 3. Based on the above presented sources, a water rate extrapolated from the weighted average of the eight largest cities in Europe to the year 2010 based on the evolution of water price experienced in France over 15 years gives a water price of 2.64 /m 3 for the EU-27. This figure will be used in the estimation of LCCs of coffee machines in Task 5 of this study. Coffee filters Based on a sample of French and Italian consumer markets, a price per coffee filter is estimated for the Lot 25 study to be 3 euro cents per filter. Example products are shown below in Table 2-15. Table 2-15: Examples of coffee filter costs found in France and Italy Example image (not representative of actual product) Cost in euros 2.8 cents per filter 2.5 cents per filter Coffee pad filters Coffee pad filters work under numerous different standards, either open standards similar to the ESE product, or proprietary pads. They offer a large variety of coffee choices, including personalised coffee types. Prices can vary a great deal but generally tend to be lower for open standard styles while proprietary pad systems market themselves as higher quality and thus higher price. Many pad systems also provide tea, hot chocolate and cappuccino options. ESE (Easy Serve Espresso) is not a brand but an open standard for producing pre-packaged pads that work in most "normal" espresso machines. Because it is an open standard, there are many espresso choices available, but it does not provide tea, coffee or hot chocolate options. Note that the ESE pads may go stale quickly once a package is opened, which is not an issue for the proprietary pad systems. 30 Task 2
Figure 2-21: ESE pad open standard espresso pad Proprietary soft pads exist on the market with a significant market share owned by just a few brands. These proprietary soft pad systems, though marketed to be used specifically with one type of pad system, have been known to accept soft pads from other brands and therefore are somewhat interchangeable. Figure 2-22: Senseo soft coffee pad 26 Based on a sample of French and UK consumer markets, example products are shown below in Table 2-16. Table 2-16: Examples of soft pad prices found in France and the UK Example image (not representative of actual product) Cost in euros 0.13 per pad 0.14 per pad 0.13 per pad 0.18 per pad As a summary, soft pad systems tend to have only fabric filter material used to encapsulate their coffee products and exist in open standards and proprietary brands. For the purposes of this study: A soft pad costs 0.15 euros per pad Coffee hard capsules 26 Techlicious - buyer s guide to Single-Serve Coffee and Espresso Makers http://www.techlicious.com/buyers-guide/single-serve-coffee-and-espresso-makers/ (accessed Oct 12 2009) Task 2 31
In contrast to soft pad systems, hard cap systems only exist in proprietary form (at least until recently) and machines are typically less accepting of other brands. They have a diverse range of physical packaging methods, from hard plastic to aluminium casing. Based on a sample of French and UK consumer markets, example products are shown below in Table 2-17. Table 2-17: Examples of hard pad prices found in France and UK Example image (not representative of actual product) Cost in euros 0.30 per cap (Tassimo disc) 0.28 per cap (Tassimo disc) 0.21 per cap (Tassimo disc) 0.26 per cap (Tassimo disc) 0.27 per cap (Nespresso capsule) 0.33 per cap (Nespresso capsule) In summary, hard cap systems tend to work only for the specific hard cap system for which they were designed. There are many varieties available on the market, which come in various shapes, sizes and materials. For the purposes of this study: A hard cap costs 0.30 2.4.3. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Repair is worthwhile only if the costs are low in relation to the purchase price (around one third of the purchase price for simple machines). Repairs are worth it but only if they can be carried out in a short period of time (one or two hours), otherwise the repair costs in relation to the purchase price of the unit are too high. For drip filter coffee machines, for which the average product price is only about 35 euros (see section 2.4.1), the consumer might prefer to purchase a new appliance rather than change the default components. This statement is even more valid when the coffee machine is no longer under warranty. 32 Task 2
Decalcification costs are assumed to be negligible for Base-Case 1 as it only requires vinegar and water. For the other Base-Cases, decalcification is assumed to cost 4 euros once every four months. Repair costs of 20% of the product price are considered for Base-Case 5 (fully automatic espresso machine) due to its complexity compared to other product types. 2.4.4. INTEREST AND INFLATION RATES Table 2-18 shows the national inflation and interest rates for the EU-27 for 2007 as published by Eurostat and the European Central Bank (ECB). Table 2-18: Interest and inflation rates for EU-27, 2007 Member State Inflation rate (%) 27 Interest rate (%) 28 Austria 2.9 4.29 Belgium 2.8 4.33 Bulgaria 10.9 4.54 Cyprus 3.4 4.48 Czech Republic 5.1 4.28 Denmark 2.3 4.29 Estonia 9.3 5.69 Finland 2.5 4.29 France 2.5 4.30 Germany 2.7 4.22 Greece 3.7 4.50 Hungary 7.2 6.74 Ireland 3.1 4.31 Italy 2.7 4.49 Latvia 13.8 5.28 Lithuania 8.6 4.55 Luxembourg 3.5 4.56 Malta 2.3 4.72 Poland 3.6 5.48 Portugal 2.6 4.42 Romania 6.7 7.15 Slovakia 2.6 4.49 Slovenia 5.3 4.52 Spain 3.7 4.31 Sweden 2.4 4.17 Netherlands 1.7 4.29 UK n.a. 5.06 EU-27 average 3.0 4.58 27 12 month average rates, May 2008-2007 / May 2007-2006. Source: Eurostat, europa.eu/rapid/pressreleasesaction.do?reference=stat/08/85&format=html&aged=0&language=en& guilanguage=en 28 European Central Bank long-term interest rates; 10-year government bond yields, secondary market. Annual average (%), 2007, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ity_offpub/ks-30-08-410/en/ks-30-08-410- EN.PDF Task 2 33
The above rates have changed significantly since 2007. For reasons of simplification, the European Commission has provided a general interest rate assumption for this project of 4.0%. Stakeholders are welcome to comment on this. 2.4.5. SUMMARY OF CONSUMER EXPENDITURE Table 2-19 summarises the consumer expenditure data presented in the previous sections. This data will be useful in later tasks (Task 5) for estimating life-cycle properties of these products. Table 2-19: User expenditure base data Category Cost items Units Reference value for Lot 25 Purchase Purchase price /machine 35-595 Use Electricity rate /kwh 0.166 Use Water rates /m 3 2.64 Use Coffee beans /kg 14.25 Use Ground coffee /kg 12 Use Coffee filter /filter 0.03 Use Coffee pad filter /pad 0.15 Use Coffee hard caps /cap 0.30 Use Interest-inflation rate % 4.0 34 Task 2
2.5. CONCLUSIONS Task 2 presents the economic and market analysis related to non-tertiary coffee machines as part of the Lot 25 Ecodesign preparatory study. The data presented will form the basis for selecting the most representative products on the European market and for formulating the base cases in Task 5. Product prices and lifetimes are also key inputs for the EcoReport life cycle cost analysis in Tasks 5 and 7. The accuracy and completeness of the figures could probably be improved but as they stand they are robust estimates for the purposes of this study. Sales data are comprehensive and demonstrate that units in all categories are sold in numbers far above the criterion of 200,0000 units per year set out in the Ecodesign Directive. More than 18 million coffee machines are sold in the European Union every year, of which 10 million drip filter coffee machines and 8 million pad filter and espresso coffee machines. In general, the volume of sales in western EU Member States is higher than in eastern ones. Drip filter coffee machines still account for the largest number of appliances sold but the espresso portioned category (hard cap espresso machines) is growing by far the fastest, at around 40% per year. The market share of hard cap espresso machines is thus increasing extremely rapidly, while those of all other categories are relatively stable or in slight decline. Sales of drip filter coffee machines are expected to decrease over the coming years, while sales of hard cap espresso coffee machines are expected to continue their rise. National markets vary strongly. Countries such as Italy, Switzerland or Portugal have a market share of espresso machines of more than 70%. On the other hand, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands have espresso machine market shares of less than 20%. In Belgium and the Netherlands pad filter coffee machines are quite popular with a market share of about 40%. Coffee machine prices also vary widely. The most critical parameters are the type of material used, the technical features and the design. Computerised functions including timers or digital displays can greatly increase the cost of any coffee machine. Aesthetics appear to be an important parameter in the case of upper end machines. In general, prices are highest for espresso coffee machines which propose the most automatic technologies, as well as innovative designs and functions. Electricity costs must be taken into account for coffee machines as they are the means by which potentially large economic incentives to reduce electricity consumption can be quantified. The other main consumables are water and the coffee itself. Task 2 35
Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III) [Contract N TREN/D3/91-2007-Lot 25-SI2.521716] Lot 25 Non-Tertiary Coffee Machines Task 3: Consumer behaviour and local infrastructure Final version In association with Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal Benoît Tinetti + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 shailendra.mudgal@biois.com benoit.tinetti@biois.com
Project Team BIO Intelligence Service Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Mr. Benoît Tinetti Mr. Lorcan Lyons Ms. Perrine Lavelle Arts et Métiers Paristech / ARTS Mr. Alain Cornier Ms. Charlotte Sannier Ms. Aude Jean-Jean 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. 2 Task 3
Contents 3. Task 3 Consumer behaviour and local infrastructure... 4 3.1. Real-life energy efficiency... 4 3.1.1. Use patterns...5 3.1.2. Power management enabling and other user settings...13 3.1.3. Consumables used...13 3.1.4. Best practices in sustainable product use...14 3.2. End-of-life behaviour... 14 3.2.1. Economic product lifetime...14 3.2.2. Repair and maintenance practices...15 3.2.3. Recycling, reuse and disposal...15 3.3. Local infrastructure... 17 3.4. Possible barriers to ecodesign... 17 3.4.1. Buying decision Barriers to increased ownership of more efficient appliances...18 3.4.2. Barriers to ecodesign - technological barriers...18 3.4.3. Lack of available information...18 3.4.4. Consumer behaviour and awareness...19 3.5. Conclusions... 20 Task 3 3
3. TASK 3 CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR AND LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE Consumer behaviour is a key parameter affecting the energy consumption of nontertiary coffee machines: most importantly through the manner in which the coffee machine is used over its lifetime (e.g. time spent in on/off/standby modes) and to a lesser extent through the selection of the appliance for purchase and at end-of-life. To some extent, product design can also influence consumer behaviour and consequently the environmental impacts and the energy consumption of the product. Consumer behaviour and product use conditions have a direct influence on product performance as real-life use conditions might be different to the intended or standard use conditions. Differences may arise for cultural or infrastructural reasons (from one Member State to another) for example, or because of different ambient temperature conditions. Even within the same country, different individuals may use the same appliance in a variety of manners. Such differences might represent barriers to the implementation of Ecodesign requirements and therefore it is important to identify them in order to assess the real environmental and economic impacts of the product. The objective of this task is to explore these aspects for products within the scope of Lot 25 and more specifically to investigate the influence of consumer behaviour on the energy and environmental performance of non-tertiary coffee machines, and to provide examples of sustainable product use. The first section focuses on the real-life energy efficiency of non-tertiary coffee machines. Consumer behaviour is an important input for assessing the environmental impacts and life-cycle cost of a product and relevant parameters (e.g. frequency and use characteristics) are quantified as inputs to Tasks 5 and 7. The effect of providing product information to end users will also be considered as well as whether it could be useful to consider product labelling or provision of information in other forms (e.g. ecological footprint). Social, cultural and infrastructural barriers to the provision of such information will also be investigated. 3.1. REAL-LIFE ENERGY EFFICIENCY The aim of this subtask is to understand how the real-life energy efficiency of nontertiary coffee machines differs from that under laboratory conditions and to quantify user-defined parameters. Two sources of information have been sought to determine this difference: firstly, reported values of the share in the overall energy bill accounted for by non-tertiary coffee machines (country-level data) and secondly, reported behavioural data from tests and surveys conducted in households (user-level data). 4 Task 3
3.1.1. USE PATTERNS Like all consumer electronics products, coffee machines energy use depends on both the power requirements in different operation modes (ready mode, standby mode, and off mode, as discussed in Task 1) and on the use pattern (average time in each of these modes), which can vary considerably depending on the user s habits. As seen in Task 1, test standards exist to measure the power requirements of coffee machines and some of these standards also provide a method to determine the electricity consumption of coffee machines in standard conditions which may differ from real life. 1 This sub-section defines a typical coffee machine use pattern. This typical use pattern should represent as closely as possible the real-life situation in order to provide an accurate picture of the real energy consumption. 3.1.1.1 COUNTRY-LEVEL DATA Electricity consumption Coffee machines use a significant amount of electricity. Their total consumption in a typical household is around 4%, depending on the device and user behaviour. 2 Threequarters of their electricity consumption is due to the keeping warm function and the stand-by mode. The stock of non-tertiary coffee machines in the EU was estimated at about 100 million units in 2006, consuming 17 TWh per year and imposing electricity costs of about 2 500 million euros. 3 Few data are available at Member State level. Coffee consumption Individual countries display differences in household consumption patterns due to changes in habits or preferences for certain equipment. For example, according to a study by Öko-Institut, 4 Germans drank 146 l of coffee per person in 2008 (5.3 cups of 75 ml per day, 3.2 cups of 125 ml). This value remained constant compared to 2006 when the consumption was about 3.1 cups of 125 ml. Figure 3-1 compares coffee consumption (in cups of 125 ml) per day per person in 2006 in various countries and regions. As expected, huge differences exist between Member States. 1 These standards are under revision in order to be closer to the reality. 2 Bush, E., Josephy, B. and J. Nipkow (2007) Hintergrundinformationen: Stromsparpotenzial von Kaffeemaschinen, Bush Energie and Arena, Felsberg and Zürich. 3 Nipkow, J., Bush, E., Josephy, B., Heutling, S., Griesshammer, R. (2009) Strategies to enhance energy efficiency of coffee machines, Topten, S.A.F.E., Federal Environment Agency, Öko-Institut. 4 Stratmann, B. and R. Griesshammer (2009) PROSA Espressomachinen, Kriterien für das Umweltzeichen für klimarelevante Produkte und Dienstleistungen, Öko-Institut. Task 3 5
Figure 3-1: Coffee consumption, 2006 (cups per person per day) Notes: - 1 cup = 125 ml - Scandinavia = Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden - Eastern Europe = Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic - Southern Europe = Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain - Producing countries = Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Philippines, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela 3.1.1.2 USER-LEVEL DATA Domestic use Synovate (UK) conducted a study for CECED from January to March 2009 in four EU Member States (France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands) to better understand how consumers use espresso coffee machines in practice. 5 Note that the categories of machine are different to those defined in this study. The rate of ownership of electric espresso machines is significantly higher in Italy. Ownership of other types of electric coffee machine is significantly lower in Italy compared to France, Germany and the Netherlands (see Figure 3-2). 5 Synovate (UK) Ltd., Electric Espresso Machine Usage: Input to establish energy usage ratings, March 2009. 6 Task 3
Figure 3-2: Types of electrical coffee machines used at home in four EU Member States 6 The rate of ownership of specific types of electric espresso machine differs significantly across the different markets: Cup-by-cup espresso machines with ready-made coffee-doses are most used in France (42%) and Italy (39%). They are least widely owned in Germany (16%). Manual cup-by-cup espresso machines are most owned in Italy (44%). Fully automatic cup-by-cup espresso machines are most widely owned in Germany (44%), and least present in France (7%). The share of fully automatic espresso machines in Germany reported by Synovate may be too high. According to another source, 7 ownership of these machines in Germany is around 11%. There are also different ownership rates of other types of electric coffee machines: Coffee machines with a jug-type coffee container are more used in Germany (59%) and France (53%). They are least owned in Italy (30%). Low pressure cup-by-cup coffee machines with ready-made coffee doses are most widely owned in the Netherlands (45%). They are least owned in Italy (11%). A minority of electric coffee machine users also owned and used a non-electric coffee machine at home. Usage is highest in Italy (13%). 6 Source: Synovate. 7 See www2.dialego.de/uploads/media/080117_dd_kaffeemaschinen_01.pdf. Task 3 7
Across the sample, an average of 1.6 types of electric espresso or coffee machines is used per household. This average is higher in the Netherlands (1.7) and Germany (1.7) than in Italy (1.4). Table 3-1: Number of type of electric coffee machine used (average per household) 5 FR DE IT NL Electric espresso / other coffee machine used (among all electric coffee machine owners) Electric espresso / other coffee machine used (among espresso machine owners only) Electric espresso machine used (among espresso machine owners only) 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 Users of electric espresso machines in the Netherlands, Germany and France are even more likely to use more than one type of electric coffee machine (owning an average of 1.8, 1.8 and 1.6 types of electric coffee machine respectively). Users of electric espresso machines in Italy are less likely to own more than one type of electric coffee machine (average of 1.3 appliances). Most do not own more than one type of electric espresso machine. Espresso machine owners in Italy are slightly more likely to own more than one type of electric espresso machine (average of 1.2 types of electric espresso machine, compared with an average of 1.1 for the other markets). Regarding switching behaviour, almost all owners of coffee machines claim to switch them off at some point (or the machine switches off automatically). Most switch them off after each usage. 8 8 These switching-off percentages need to be considered with care since people may declare desirable behaviour rather than the reality, and new appliances may themselves influence behaviour. For example, with automatic switching-off, manual switching-off may be abandoned. Therefore, usage pattern estimates would ideally not be based solely on survey results. 8 Task 3
Any electric espresso machine Auto cup-by-up Manual cup-bycup Ready-made doses Any other coffee machine Low pressure cupby-cup Jug type Figure 3-3: Switching behaviour at home in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands 9 Automatic cup-by-cup espresso machines are more likely to switch themselves off after each usage. Those who own one (as opposed to more than one) coffee machine at home are significantly more likely to switch it off after each usage. Table 3-2: Switching behaviour at home in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands 9 Switches off automatically 19% 38% 10% 12% 17% 14% 19% In the evening 8% 11% 5% 8% 2% 3% 1% After 'coffee times' 12% 18% 8% 11% 5% 6% 4% After each use 55% 27% 73% 60% 70% 72% 69% Never 6% 5% 4% 8% 5% 5% 6% Don't know 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% S.A.F.E. (Swiss Agency for Efficient Energy Use) conducted a study (survey and measurements) in 2003 for S.F.O.E. (Swiss Federal Office of Energy) concerning coffee machine energy consumption. 10 Measurements show that most coffee machines 9 Synovate (UK) Ltd. (2009) Electric Espresso Machine Usage: Input to establish energy usage ratings. 10 Nipkow, J. and E. Bush (2003) Standby consumption of household appliances, Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Berne. Available at: www.electricity-research.ch. Task 3 9
consume the greatest amount of electricity for heating purposes (maintaining water temperature) in ready mode. In ready mode, the machine is ready to produce coffee at the push of a button (i.e. within less than three seconds). 11 If a coffee machine is not switched off at night, then the electricity requirement for heating would be as much as six times higher than the level required for making coffee. The findings with respect to mean consumption levels obtained from the representative survey were as follows: 100 kwh/y for coffee machines in households (between economical and normal ) and 260 kwh/y for coffee machines in offices (between normal and negligent ). These values have to be considered with caution as they are based on estimates from 2002 and on specific user behaviour. Furthermore, the standby power consumption is 2 W and does not consider the Standby Regulation (1275/2008) adopted under the Ecodesign Directive and which limited in 2010 this power at 1W (2W in case of the presence of a status display). Conclusions on domestic user patterns: According to information provided by the Synovate study and by CECED, the use patterns for pressure coffee machines (excluding the manual models) should be: 11 hours per day in stand-by mode 8 hours per day in off mode 5 hours of coffee period per day 720 ml of coffee per day split into three coffee periods The description of the coffee period is provided in Figure 3-4. Heat up from cold Brew 40 gr Reactivate Brew ifnecessary 120 gr Reactivate Brew ifnecessary 2x40 gr Measure energy used Measure total energy used RTU RTU and/or standby depending on PMS 1 minute 30 minutes 40 min. 100 minutes measuring period Figure 3-4: Description of a coffee period for a cup-by-cup coffee machine These parameters are in discussion within CENELEC TC59X/WG15 comprising representatives of industry and consumer organisations (e.g. Topten). Indeed, as presented in Task 1 (section 1.2.3), two main voluntary methods are currently used: FEA/CECED and Euro-Topten/S.A.F.E. After several discussions between these organisations, it was agreed that both methods have benefits and drawbacks, and that it would be useful to have only one revised approach, validated by CENELEC. A draft standard is to be discussed by the CENELEC Working Group in May 2011. 11 Note that power input in this mode is not constant; when heating it can rise above 1 000 W, then sink to low values again between the heating intervals. 10 Task 3
Regarding drip filter coffee machines, Topten has drafted a method to calculate the annual electricity consumption of this type of appliance. The draft is being used as the basis for a draft being developed by the Working Group. For drip filter coffee machines with a jug container, it has to be noted that usually more coffee than required is produced. Some stakeholders mentioned that 10% waste seems to be a reasonable assumption. The preliminary definition of a coffee period for this type of coffee machine is presented in Figure 3-5. Start (switch on) Brewing ends: denote time, energy E brew meas, temperature, weight of output. Drain 50%. 30 min after brewing ends: note temperature 100 min from start: denote energy E 100 Brewing 30 min Figure 3-5: Description of a coffee period for a drip filter coffee machine These developments should allow the revision of the standard EN 60661 which would include one part on pressure coffee machines and one part on filter coffee machines. Office use 100 minutes measuring period A large number of household coffee machines are used in offices and the use pattern in offices is very different from household use (see Figure 3-6). Overall, 30% of people who use an electric coffee machine at home have access to an electric coffee machine at work. 9 Figure 3-6: Types of electrical coffee machines used at work in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands 9 Task 3 11
Any electric espresso machine Auto cup-by-cup Manual cup-bycup Ready-made doses Any other coffee machine Low pressure cupby-cup Jug type Behaviour in relation to switching off workplace coffee machines is significantly different from switching behaviour at home. The coffee machine is usually switched off after working, and sometimes even never. 6 Figure 3-7: Switching behaviour at work in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands 9 Automatic cup-by-cup espresso machines and espresso machines with ready-made doses are more likely than other types to be left on constantly (but most are still switched off at some stage). Table 3-3: Switching behaviour at work in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands Switches off automatically 21% 31% 20% 12% 15% 26% 10% After working hours 39% 32% 38% 47% 17% 18% 16% After 'coffee times' 4% 3% 7% 4% 15% 7% 19% After each use 11% 5% 23% 13% 45% 39% 47% Conclusions on office use patterns: Never 20% 21% 8% 22% 5% 8% 4% Don't know 5% 8% 3% 2% 3% 2% 4% Little detailed information exists on the office use of coffee machines, making it difficult to define assumptions like those made for domestic usage. However, Euro- 12 Task 3
Topten/S.A.F.E assumed in their instruction Measuring Method and Calculation Formula for the Electricity Consumption of Coffee Machines for Household Use published in 2009, that coffee machines without an auto-power down function are in ready mode for 12 hours per day. 3.1.2. POWER MANAGEMENT ENABLING AND OTHER USER SETTINGS Auto-power down function Most coffee machines consume more electricity for heating than for any other purpose. This consumption can be reduced through the use of efficient electronic controls such as auto-power down. An auto-off function normally reduces electricity consumption by at least half and it lengthens the lifetime of the coffee machine. The auto-off function is often configured by the manufacturer; the consumer should verify if the switch-off time is not too long. Insulation of boilers/application of flow-type heaters Better insulation of boilers and thermo-blocks or the implementation of flow-through water heaters are other options to strongly enhances the energy efficiency of coffee machines. Presentation of this improvement option will be provided in Task 6 and energy savings will be quantified in Task 7. Cleaning of the coffee machine A coffee machine that is not maintained will produce inferior results. Cleaning programmes certainly do some of the work, but this requires the user s intervention. For example, the central unit of the coffee machine must be regularly cleaned. However, the removal and reinstallation of this unit is not easy on all devices. This is particularly the case for fully automatic espresso machines. Moreover, decalcification is a technique that has to be repeated regularly depending on the frequency of use and the hardness of the water. This is an important procedure to ensure the quality of the coffee as well as the good operation of the machine. 3.1.3. CONSUMABLES USED Based on a selection of coffee machine manuals and stakeholder comments, the quantities of consumables advised by manufacturers are provided in Table 3-4. Most manuals exclude vinegar as a decalcifier, especially for espresso machines. The recommendation for pad or capsule machines tends to be a decalcifier based on citric or lactic acid. Vinegar is allowed only for drip filter coffee machines. Task 3 13
Table 3-4: Dosage of consumables recommended by manufacturers Coffee Water Detergent for decalcification Drip filter coffee machine Espresso coffee machine Pads/caps machine 50g coffee per litre water (1 cup = 80 ml) 7g per cup 1 pad/cap (7g) per cup 35 ml per cup (adjustable) 250 ml white vinegar or 250 ml water + decalcifier 500 ml water + decalcifier 80 ml per cup 450 ml water + 40g decalcifier 3.1.4. BEST PRACTICES IN SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT USE With relatively simple measures as auto-power down, better insulation of boilers and thermoblocks, and low or 0W standby consumption, the energy efficiency of coffee machines can be strongly enhanced. The best practices are to clean the coffee machine regularly and to switch off the machine once the coffee is made. In order to have the Blue Angel label, 12 the factory-set delay time of the automatic switch-off function shall not exceed 45 minutes for fully automatic and semi-automatic coffee machines and 30 minutes for pad filter machines. From an environmental perspective, Öko-Institut recommends that the delay should be as short as possible. However, this might conflict with consumers functionality expectations. Their recommendation for drip filter machines is for machines with a thermos jug and without a heating plate. 3.2. END-OF-LIFE BEHAVIOUR The information available regarding the end-of-life phase of non-tertiary coffee machines is very limited. Impacts associated with the energy consumption of the machines during their lifetimes are thought to be more important than those at endof-life. End-of-life behaviour varies widely from one country to another. 3.2.1. ECONOMIC PRODUCT LIFETIME The economic lifetime of a product is defined as the operating life of the product. In other words, it is the number of years of use of the product by one or several customers. It is important to estimate an average coffee machine lifetime in this study as a required parameter in the calculation of environmental impacts using the MEEuP 12 Basic Criteria for Award of the Environmental Label - RAL-UZ 136. 14 Task 3
methodology. In this context, what counts is the economic lifetime, i.e. the time in service (in practice). The lifetime of coffee machines depends on the type of machine and on the use pattern (household or office). However, average lifetimes were defined and already presented in Task 2 (see Table 2-6). Table 3-5: Economic product life for Lot 25 products Lifetime (year) Drip filter coffee 6 Pad filter coffee 7 Hard capsule espresso 7 Semi-automatic espresso 7 Fully automatic espresso 10 3.2.2. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES Repair practices depend on the type and purchase price of coffee machines (see section 2.4.3). Basically, the more functions a machine has the more it needs repairs in several areas. Most defects concern sealing, tubes, brewing unit, dirt, calcification, blockage and electronic faults. 3.2.3. RECYCLING, REUSE AND DISPOSAL Coffee machine end-of-life In the EU, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) 13 imposes the responsibility for the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment on the manufacturers of such equipment. All non-tertiary coffee machines considered in this study are included in the scope of this Directive (category 2: Small household appliances). It also encourages the ecodesign of such products to take into account and facilitate dismantling and recovery. For example, Nespresso 14 is starting a pilot project that is looking at establishing a dedicated machine-recycling programme, which will allow materials from old machines to be reused to produce new machines and increase the recyclability rate above minimum WEEE requirements. The required rate of recovery for small household appliances is 70% by weight. It is probable that the recast of the WEEE directive, currently under discussion, will increase this target by 5% - probably from 2012 but possibly later if the deliberations drag on. 13 European Community Directive 2002/96/EC. 14 Ecolaboration, Fact Sheet : Designing greener machines, www.ecolaboration.com. Task 3 15
To find information on WEEE recovery figures in different EU Member States is difficult. The end-of life for a coffee machine is very uncertain and seems to vary between MS. All producers of coffee machines are obliged by the WEEE directive to take responsibility for the collection and treatment of their product for a fee. The precise regime varies from country to country but in general it results in the reporting of the number and weight of appliances recovered, which allows assessment of whether the recovery targets have been achieved. In practice, the customer might give his coffee machine to the municipal recycling authority or take it back to the reseller, or might simply throw it in the common waste bin. The waste generated by coffee machine disposal is mainly plastic, followed by ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Lot 25 products are also covered by the Restriction of Hazardous Substances directive (RoHS) 15. Consumables end-of-life Filters (and pad filters) go to the common waste bin or to compost (coffee grounds are a good fertilizer). Packaging of coffee powder and beans for drip filter and fully automatic machines also go to the common waste bin. Considering the espresso aluminium capsules, Nespresso is piloting collection and recycling schemes in various countries that separate coffee grounds from the aluminium capsule (the AluCycle Initiative was launched in 2008). 16 Since every country has different existing legislation for recycling, they try to develop capsule retrieval systems everywhere (so far, they are in place in Switzerland, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and Portugal). They aim to triple their used capsule recycling capacity to 75% by 2013 (already at 60% today in Switzerland). The coffee ground is used as a natural fertilizer or as a fuel source for domestic heating. The aluminium is recycled (which requires very little energy comparing to aluminium production) and reused. Since the beginning of 2010, Casino and L Or Maison du Café have proposed caps compatible with Nespresso coffee machines in France. Casino caps are made of biodegradable materials, including corn, whereas l Or proposes caps made of plastic. Capsules in Germany can be disposed of in the so called Gelber Sack / Duales System Deutschland. There is no special Nespresso retrieval system for the time being (as e.g. in Switzerland). However, recycling of the capsules is possible if the consumer throws them into the Gelber Sack and not into the common domestic waste. Coffee grounds need not to be removed; they do not disturb the recycling process. The consumer behaviour in this case is not exactly known. There exist no valid data for the disposal behaviour. 15 European Community Directive 2002/95/EC 16 See www.nespresso.com/#/fr/en. 16 Task 3
Other types of capsule exist made of various materials. Their waste and impact on the environment is not marginal. According to Öko-Institut, capsule machines using capsules consisting of plastic and aluminium have the highest global warming potential. The production and end-of life of the capsules has a relevant environmental impact. Öko-Institut s research into capsules shows that the production of the capsules as well as their disposal cause significant greenhouse gas emissions that impair the overall result of the capsule machines (the capsules contribution to overall emissions is 20% for the production and 8 to 13% for disposal). Assumptions made concerning disposal are optimistic with respect to the recycling of the capsules; worse scenarios may pertain in real life. It has to be noted that the preparatory study does not aim to assess the environmental impacts occurring over the life cycle of consumables, including coffee, filter, caps or decalcifier. However, policy recommendations that will be made by the consultants in Task 8 may include some requirements of these consumables. 3.3. LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE The main effect that local infrastructure can have on consumer behaviour is related to water hardness which may have an impact on the descaling frequency of the coffee machine. Water hardness can vary widely, from 8.4-14 dh in France for example, to 14.9-24 fh in Germany. Where water is very hard, the consumer has to descale his/her coffee machine more often, implying higher energy consumption. 3.4. POSSIBLE BARRIERS TO ECODESIGN This subtask aims at presenting the user/consumer s essential role concerning the environmental impacts of non-tertiary coffee machines. One important factor is barriers that hinder users/consumers from behaving in a more environmentally sound way. The issue is related not only to how many and what kind of products are being purchased but also how these products are being used and for how long. Several barriers have been identified in areas such as increased ownership of cooking appliances, ecodesign (technological) barriers, and consumer behaviour and awareness. Together they account for greater environmental impacts related to the design, purchasing, use and disposal of non-tertiary coffee machines. Task 3 17
3.4.1. BUYING DECISION BARRIERS TO INCREASED OWNERSHIP OF MORE EFFICIENT APPLIANCES After development, it takes some time for new energy efficient appliances to penetrate the market. It depends on how often customers buy new coffee machines, this in turn depending on the lifetime of the appliance, on repair and on the second-hand market. Consumers normally purchase an appliance and use it until it breaks before buying a new one. This implies that new coffee machine models with innovative ecodesign features only enter the households when an old appliance is replaced. The following barriers to fostering the purchase of energy efficient non-tertiary coffee machines have been identified: High costs of better technology: many consumers may opt for a cheaper model (if given a choice) and are very rarely aware of the energy consumed by coffee machines during their lifetime. Inertia: some consumers are likely to change their coffee machine when their old model breaks down. Lack of knowledge: e.g. relevant information is not available in stores, people do not know how to use power management features. Convenience: e.g. use of power management or shutting off devices seems too time-consuming for users. Fashion: Drip filter coffee machines are less popular than espresso coffee machines. 3.4.2. BARRIERS TO ECODESIGN - TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS Technology/performance and price are probably the most important criteria when buying a coffee machine. Another possible barrier for the implementation of ecodesign is the stock of secondhand purchased appliances in households. These are often older coffee machines with worse performances in comparison with new appliances on the market. 3.4.3. LACK OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION The manual has to be clear for the user of the coffee machine and it has to include environmental information such as the energy consumption, and how to reduce it when the machine is not producing coffee. 18 Task 3
If the different modes of use are not explained in the manual, the user could be lost. He should have information on the difference of consumption between on mode and other modes (stand-by, off modes, etc.). A French consumer NGO called 60 millions de consommateurs published a report in December 2008 17 on espresso coffee machines including the electricity consumption in off mode. For some machines, it was necessary to unplug them after use not to consume electricity; even switched off, they were consuming energy. 3.4.4. CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR AND AWARENESS Some of the technological options that might achieve significant energy savings may have an impact on consumer usability. It is arguably already the case with the autopower down function for example: it is still sometimes configured for two hours or more and the consumer does not take the time, or does not know how, to reduce it when it is possible. However, factory settings of the auto-power-down delay have been shortened over the past few years and for many models the factory setting is now between 10 minutes and 1 hour and for some models 1 minute or even below. For complex machines with many functions, it may be difficult to learn how to use the coffee machine well and the coffee could be less appetising. Moreover, the controls may be difficult to use and the manual too complicated. 17 60 millions de consommateurs, n 433, December 2008 Task 3 19
3.5. CONCLUSIONS The section findings are mostly related to the effect on energy consumption in nontertiary coffee machines by the users habits and the differences among EU users. This is particularly true regarding the switching behaviour. Indeed, according to a survey carried out by Synovate in four MS, coffee machines are not always switched off after each use. This consumption contributes significantly to the overall energy consumption of the appliance. Such practices are more frequent in offices where machines are turned off after working hours, or even not turned off. In light of those observations, it is thus important to reduce the electricity consumption in ready-to-use mode and to incorporate a strong auto-power down function. This task also allowed use patterns to be defined for domestic usage, which are required when conducting the economic and environmental impact assessment in Task 5. These patterns are based on current discussions within CENELEC between industry and consumer NGOs (represented by Euro-Topten/S.A.F.E.), and thus could be modified afterwards. They are presented in Table 3-6. Today, the choice of coffee machine is mainly focused on the price and on the performance/functionalities of the product, even though awareness about energy consumption is starting to emerge. Explicit specifications of energy consumption, e.g. through an energy label as is the case in Switzerland (albeit a voluntary one), could be a first step towards better penetration of more efficient coffee machines on the market. Table 3-6: Summary of user behaviour data Type of machine Number of coffee periods per day Quantity of coffee produced per coffee period (ml) Duration of a coffee period (minutes) Time in Ready-to- Use per day (hours) 18 Time in off mode per day (hours) Drip filter 2 850 19 100 12.7 All others 3 240 100 11 8 18 For Base-Case calculations, it will be assumed that there is no auto-power down, and so time in standby is considered as time in RTU. 19 The filter machines coffee period is based on brewing 900 ml of water (testing is done without coffee). In practice this results in around 800-850 ml of coffee. 20 Task 3
Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III) [Contract N TREN/D3/91-2007-Lot 25-SI2.521716] Lot 25 Non-Tertiary Coffee Machines Task 4: Technical analysis of existing products Final version In association with Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal Benoît Tinetti + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 shailendra.mudgal@biois.com benoit.tinetti@biois.com
Project Team BIO Intelligence Service Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Mr. Benoît Tinetti Mr. Lorcan Lyons Ms. Perrine Lavelle Arts et Métiers Paristech / ARTS Mr. Alain Cornier Ms. Charlotte Sannier Ms. Aude Jean-Jean 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. 2 Task 4
Contents 4. Task 4 Technical analysis of existing products... 4 4.1. Products description... 4 4.1.1. Main components...4 4.1.2. Operational Principle...5 4.2. Production phase... 6 4.2.1. Typical BoM of a drip filter coffee machine...6 4.2.2. Typical BoM of a pad filter coffee machine...9 4.2.3. Typical BoM of a hard cap espresso machine...11 4.2.4. Typical BoM of a semi-automatic espresso machine...14 4.2.5. Typical BoM of a fully automatic espresso machine...19 4.3. Distribution phase... 22 4.4. Use phase... 23 4.4.1. Energy consumption...23 4.4.2. General use phase...25 4.4.3. Decalcification...25 4.5. End-of-Life phase... 26 4.6. Recommendations on mandates... 26 4.7. Conclusions... 27 Task 4 3
4. TASK 4 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PRODUCTS This task is a general technical analysis of current products on the EU market and provides general inputs for the definition of the Base-Cases (Task 5) as well as the identification of part of the improvement potential (Task 7), i.e. the part that relates to better-performing products that are already on the market. Bills of materials and resource consumption during all life-cycle stages are presented for several product types. It should be underlined that the product cases have been chosen in order to represent the largest share of the market. Due to non-disclosure agreements with the data suppliers, it is not possible to give detailed information about each data set used. 4.1. PRODUCTS DESCRIPTION 4.1.1. MAIN COMPONENTS The typical functional components constituting a non-tertiary coffee machine are detailed below for each coffee machine type addressed in this study. Note that combination machines are also in the scope and contain components of more than one of the machine types below. Drip filter coffee machine: Housing Plate unit Electric network Water network Pad filter coffee machine: Housing Percolation system Electric network and resistance Pump system 4 Task 4
Hard cap espresso coffee machine: Housing Percolator capsule system Electric network and resistance system Pump system Semi-automatic espresso coffee machine: Housing Percolation system Pump system Control system Resistance system Steam system Filter holder system Fully automatic coffee machine: Housing Brewing module, including grinder Control system Pump system Steam system All these components influence the raw material requirements and thus contribute to the environmental impacts caused by the production phase. 4.1.2. OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLE 1 Drip filter coffee machine: A flow-type heating system heats water from a storage tank. The boiling water is driven by steam power and flows through a tube to reach a 1 Based on Nipkow, J., Josephy, B., Bush, E. and A. Pilone (forthcoming) For a tasty but efficient coffee, Paper for the 2011 Summer Study of the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 6-11 June 2011, Belambra Presqu île de Giens. Task 4 5
paper filter filled with ground coffee set on top of a jug. Drops of hot water fall on the ground coffee and slowly percolate down to the jug. Pad filter coffee machine: Water is pumped at low pressure (<8 bars, often as low as 2.5 bars) through the heating unit (traditional boiler, thermoblock or flow-through heater). At a temperature of around 90 C, a set amount of water is forced through a pad, from where the brewing process sends coffee to a cup placed below the spout. Hard cap espresso machine: Water is pumped, usually at high pressure (>8 bars) though for some types at low pressure, through a heating unit (traditional boiler, thermoblock or flow-through heater). At a temperature of around 90 C, a set amount of water is injected into the capsule, from where the brewing process sends coffee to a cup placed below the spout. Semi-automatic espresso machine: A piston lever (portafilter) containing coffee grounds in a metal filter is manually placed in a support. A set amount of water is pumped at high pressure (>8 bars, usually 15 bars) through the heating unit (traditional boiler or thermoblock or flow-through heater). At a temperature of about 90 C, water is pressed through the piston, from where the brewing process sends coffee to a cup placed below the spout. Fully automatic espresso machine: Similar to a semi-automatic machine but containing an electrically-driven brewing unit and a grinder. A set amount of coffee is ground from beans. The ground coffee is placed in the brewing unit and after brewing ejected. Water is pumped at high pressure (usually 15 bars) through the heating unit (traditional boiler, thermoblock or flow-through heater) and through the brewing unit at around 90 C to a cup. 4.2. PRODUCTION PHASE The material composition of coffee machines is presented in the following Bills of Materials (BoMs) obtained by disassembling the machines. 4.2.1. TYPICAL BOM OF A DRIP FILTER COFFEE MACHINE The typical BoM of a drip filter coffee machine is presented in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. Table 4-1: BoM of a drip filter coffee machine Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 1 HOUSING 2 Coffee pot 287,7 2-TecPlastics 18-E-glass fibre 3 Coffee pot handle 42,2 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 4 Screws coffee pot handle 1,0 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 5 Tank coffee pot 18,4 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 6 Task 4
6 Metallic circle of coffee pot 9,0 4-Non-ferro 26-Al sheet/extrusion 7 Hinged filter carrier 146,2 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 8 Hinged filter carrier coating 107,8 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 9 Hinged filter 75,8 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 10 Stop drop 1,2 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 11 Stop drop spring 0,6 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 12 Stop drop seal 0,1 13 Water tank cover 35,8 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 14 Nonslip rubber tip (x4) 1,8 15 Base 135,5 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 16 Base screws (x8) 4,8 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 17 Bottom and high part retaining screws 2,6 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 18 Bottom part housing 196,2 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 19 High part housing 529,2 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 20 High part housing coating 323,4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 21 Other 106,2 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 22 Seal between Hot plate and housing 40,9 1-BlkPlastics 23 24 ELECTRIC CIRCUIT 25 Line cord 30,9 1-BlkPlastics 8-PVC 26 30,9 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 27 Line cord lip retaining 1,2 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 28 Lip retaining screws (x2) 1,3 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 29 Hot plate 74,8 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 30 Hot plate screws (x2) 1,5 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 31 Integrated circuit 34,4 6-Electronics 47-IC's avg., 1% Si 32 Button and LCD screen integrated circuit 17,9 6-Electronics 47-IC's avg., 1% Si 33 Button wires 4,1 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 34 LCD screen 5,6 6-Electronics 42-LCD per m2 scrn 35 Buttons (x7) 1,3 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 36 Button springs (x7) 0,2 37 Button support 10,5 2-TecPlastics 12-PC 38 Button integrated circuit screws 0,8 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 39 Button support coating 6,0 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 40 Retaining bar resistance on hot plate 19,0 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 41 Bar screws (x2) 2,1 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 42 Resistance 143,2 4-Non-ferro 27-Al diecast 43 Wire 8,0 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 44 THERMOSTAT 4 45 Fuse 0,7 46 Thermostat ring 4,3 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 47 Thermostat screws (x2) 2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil Task 4 7
48 Fuse and wire sheath 3,5 49 50 WATER WAY 51 Resistance pipe 18,4 52 Tip 6,6 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 53 Pipe ring (x4) 8,3 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 54 Resistance to filter pipe 7,7 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 55 Table 4-2: BoM of a drip filter coffee machine in % Items Weight (g) % PP 1 303.5 51.80 PC 10.5 0.42 PPS 40.9 1.63 PVC 30.85 1.23 Glass fibbre 287.7 11.43 Non-ferrous 9 0.36 Ferrous 107.5 4.27 Stainless steel 453.3 18.01 Cu 30.85 1.23 Al 143.2 5.69 Rubber 20.5 0.81 Electronic 75.1 2.98 Miscellaneous 3.5 0.14 With this BoM, the manufacturing phase values in the EcoReport tool are calculated automatically as shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-3: Manufacturing phase of a drip filter coffee machine MANUFACTURING Weight Percentage Description in g Adjust OEM Plastics Manufacturing (fixed) 1386 Foundries Fe/Cu/Zn (fixed) 0 Foundries Al/Mg (fixed) 143 Sheetmetal Manufacturing (fixed) 569 PWB Manufacturing (fixed) 9 Other materials (Manufacturing already included) 120 Sheetmetal Scrap (Please adjust percentage only) 28 5% Only the sheet metal scrap value is adjustable. 5% will be considered for all basecases. 8 Task 4
4.2.2. TYPICAL BOM OF A PAD FILTER COFFEE MACHINE The typical BoM of a pad filter coffee machine is presented in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5. Table 4-4: BoM of a pad filter coffee machine Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 1 Motor bloc 2 pipe 6,0 1-BlkPlastics 3 motor 38,0 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 4 80,0 7-Misc. 5 miscellanous 12,0 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 6 7 Water heater 8 shell 62,0 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 9 top 134,0 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 10 elec. Protection 4,0 2-TecPlastics 12-PC 11 pipe 8,0 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 12 elec. Component 4,0 6-Electronics 13 14 Head 15 water dispensing 10,0 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 16 spring 4,0 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 17 joint 12,0 2-TecPlastics 18 filter holder 88,0 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 19 top 142,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 20 8,0 1-BlkPlastics 21 pipe 6,0 2-TecPlastics 22 opening 128,0 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 23 pod holder 4,0 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 24 2,0 1-BlkPlastics 25 32,0 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 26 funnel 10,0 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 27 cooffe dispensing 32,0 1-BlkPlastics 28 34,0 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 29 8,0 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 30 31 Drip tray 32 drip tray 22,0 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 33 grid 60,0 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 34 35 base 36 pipe 10,0 2-TecPlastics 37 plastic part 1 150,0 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP Task 4 9
38 plastic part 2 110,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 39 2 knobs "1 cup" "2 cups" 4,0 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 40 power switch 2,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 41 Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 42 Elec 43 2 ribbon cable 6,0 6-Electronics 44 sonde 0 45 electric cables 24 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 46 electronic card 1 0 6-Electronics 51-PWB 6 lay 2 kg/m2 47 electronic card 2 2 6-Electronics 51-PWB 6 lay 2 kg/m2 48 electronic card 3 26 6-Electronics 49-PWB 1/2 lay 3.75kg/m2 49 aluminium part 30 4-Non-ferro 26-Al sheet/extrusion 50 51 Screwing 52 screw 6 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 53 plastic clips 2 1-BlkPlastics 54 55 56 Miscellanous 57 Water tank 188 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 58 back part housing 80 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 59 elec. Protection 6 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 60 housing 142 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 61 power cord 100 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 62 water inflow 4 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 63 Table 4-5: BoM of a pad filter coffee machine Item Weight (g) % ABS 254 13.87 Steel 154 8.41 Aluminium 30 1.64 Cable 130 7.10 Electronic 28 1.53 Stainless steel 166 9.07 PA - GF30 170 9.28 PA - GF50 64 3.50 PA6 - GF40 62 3.39 PC 4 0.22 Plastics misc. 26 1.42 10 Task 4
Item Weight (g) % POM 42 2.29 PP 621 33.92 Motor 80 4,37 4.2.3. TYPICAL BOM OF A HARD CAP ESPRESSO MACHINE The BoM of a hard cap espresso machine is presented in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7. Table 4-6: BoM of a hard cap espresso machine Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 1 HOUSING 2 Removable water tank 200,0 1-BlkPlastics 9-SAN 3 Water tank stop drop 0,6 1-BlkPlastics 4 Stop drop spring 0,5 3-Ferro 5 Stop drop seal 0,2 6 Drip grid 45,8 3-Ferro 7 Drip tray and capsule container 127,1 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 8 Capsule container 29,2 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 9 Side housing (x2) 126,9 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 10 Base 137,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 11 Base screws (x8) 4,5 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 12 Bottom housing percolator 101,5 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 13 Bottom housing percolator screws 2,2 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 14 Main housing 298,5 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 15 16 PERCOLATOR AND CAPSULE SYSTEM 17 Lever 193,0 4-Non-ferro 32-ZnAl4 cast 18 Lever screws (x2) 5,0 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 19 Spout 26,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 20 Spout ring 8,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 21 Capsule system housing 125,1 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 22 Capsule system housing screws (x4) 2,9 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 23 Rotation lever rod 46,7 3-Ferro 24 Stop rotation lever rod 1,8 3-Ferro 25 Retaining ring lever (x3) 2,3 3-Ferro 26 Clamping capsule system ferrous 62,0 3-Ferro 27 Rotation-Translation piece 17,1 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 28 Capsule holder piece 32,4 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 29 Tip 0,7 1-BlkPlastics 30 Seal 1,8 31 Task 4 11
32 ELECTRIC CIRCUIT 33 Line cord 63,6 1-BlkPlastics 8-PVC 34 63,6 4-Non-ferro 28-Cu winding wire 35 Line cord screws (x2) 1,4 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 36 Line cord lip retaining 0,3 1-BlkPlastics 37 Integrated circuit 31,8 6-Electronics 47-IC's avg., 1% Si 38 Heat sink 36,0 4-Non-ferro 27-Al diecast 39 Integrated circuit box 37,4 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 40 Integrated circuit box screws 1,5 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 41 Button On/Off connector 3,3 4-Non-ferro Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 42 Button On/Off spring (x2) 0,3 3-Ferro 43 Button On/Off 6,5 1-BlkPlastics 44 Button On/Off support 7 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 45 Button On/Off support screws 0,7 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 46 Wire 27,2 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 47 Wire lip 11,7 1-BlkPlastics 48 Wire strap 6,5 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 49 Ground screw 1,6 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 50 Coffee button (x2) 4,6 51 Coffee button integrated circuit (x2) 2,8 6-Electronics 47-IC's avg., 1% Si 52 Wire connector 1,8 6-Electronics 53 Pump fuse 0,7 6-Electronics 54 Resistance fuse (x2) 1,8 6-Electronics 55 Fuse shealth resistance (x2) 2,2 1-BlkPlastics 56 Fuse resistance screws (x2) 3,2 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 57 Water transducer resistance 4,1 6-Electronics 58 Fuse resistance ring (x2) 1,4 3-Ferro 59 Coffee button diode (x2) 0,1 6-Electronics 60 61 RESISTANCE SYSTEM 62 Plate holder resistance 39,3 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 63 Isolate between plate and resistance 3,7 64 Plate screws (x4) 5,1 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 65 Ring 1,4 66 Pipe 16,1 1-BlkPlastics 67 Pipe tip 2,3 4-Non-ferro 68 Pipe tip seal 0,1 69 Pipe retaining ring 0,5 3-Ferro 70 Elbow pipe 3 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 71 Wire protection 2,2 72 Resistance 458,7 4-Non-ferro 32-ZnAl4 cast 73 12 Task 4
74 PUMP SYSTEM 75 Water tank tip 4,7 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 76 Water tank tip seal 0,7 77 Water tank tip retaining ring 0,3 3-Ferro 78 Water tank tip grid 0,2 3-Ferro 79 Up counter 17,1 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 80 Up counter blade 1,7 1-BlkPlastics 81 Up counter connector 2,1 6-Electronics 82 Pipe 13,2 1-BlkPlastics 83 Pipe retaining ring 0,6 3-Ferro 84 Pipe elbow 5,4 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 85 Rubber holder pump 23,8 86 Rubber holder pump strap 2,4 1-BlkPlastics 87 Pump ring 123,1 3-Ferro 88 Pump ring screws (x2) 3 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 89 Pump 226 90 Pump Shaft 22 1-BlkPlastics 91 Pump shaft ring (x2) 47 3-Ferro 92 Pump shaft ring 1,1 1-BlkPlastics 93 Pump shaft seal 1,3 94 Pump spring 4,6 3-Ferro 95 Pump tip 20,7 3-Ferro 96 97 Table 4-7: BoM of a hard cap espresso machine Items Weight (g) % Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) 829.7 27.89 Rubber 16 0.54 Polyamide 131.3 4.41 Polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) 159.3 5.36 Polypropylene 29.2 0.98 PVC 63.55 2.14 Styrene acrylonitrile (SAN) 200 6.72 Nitrile rubber (NBR) 23.8 0.80 Plastic 66.3 2.23 Cu 63.55 2.14 Al 36 1.21 Task 4 13
Items Weight (g) % ZnAl 651.7 21.91 Steel, galvanised 32.1 1.08 Ferrous 367.7 12.36 Non-ferrous 5.6 0.19 Electronic 72.4 2.43 Miscellaneous 226.2 7.60 4.2.4. TYPICAL BOM OF A SEMI-AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE The typical BoM of a semi-automatic espresso machine is presented in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9. Table 4-8: BoM of a semi-automatic espresso machine Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 1 HOUSING 2 Removable water tank 201,2 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 3 Water tank handle 10,1 1-BlkPlastics 4 Water tank stop drop 0,6 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 5 Stop drop spring 0,6 6 Stop drop seal 0,2 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 7 Water compartment lip 142,8 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 8 Measuring spoon 25,9 4-Non-ferro 27-Al diecast 9 Drip tray grid 83,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 10 Drip tray grid coating 117,0 4-Non-ferro 27-Al diecast 11 Level indicator 4,1 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 12 Drip tray 131,3 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 13 14 Drip tray screws (x2) 1,0 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 15 Water tank support 326,9 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 16 Cup tray 113,4 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 17 Cup tray handles (x2) 38,8 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 18 Handles screws 2,0 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 19 Water tank holder screws (x4) 2,5 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 20 Isolator plate 7,8 21 Base 117,5 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 22 Base screws (x6) 3,8 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 23 Nonslip rubber tip (x4) 4,4 24 Back part housing 182,6 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 25 Back part housing screws (x6) 2,9 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 26 Bottom pat housing 409,9 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 27 Bottom part housing coating 67,3 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 14 Task 4
28 Inside support 365,4 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 29 Inside support screws (x9) 6,6 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 30 Low part housing 296,3 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 31 Control panel 106,7 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 32 Control panel screws (x2) 1,9 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 33 Drip tray coating 48,0 4-Non-ferro 27-Al diecast 34 35 FILTER HOLDER SYSTEM 36 Filter holder main part 125,0 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 37 Spout 14,3 2-TecPlastics 12-PC 38 Spout coating 6,2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 39 Grounds ejection button 2,1 1-BlkPlastics 40 Grounds ejection spring 0,9 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 41 Fixed ring 29,5 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 42 Fixed ring seal 0,3 43 Screws ring (x3) 1,2 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 44 Moving part filter holder 18 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 45 Outflow moving part seal 0,2 46 Moving part seal 2,3 47 Filter plate 2 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 48 Filter plate screw 0,4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 49 Handle 50,1 1-BlkPlastics 50 Handle weight 86,3 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 51 Handle weight screw 0,6 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 52 Gradual coffee tamping system 9,4 1-BlkPlastics 53 Gradual coffee tamping system spring 1,6 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 54 Rack tamping system tip 2,2 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 55 Rack tamping system tip screw 0,4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 56 Gradual coffee tamping system screw 0,4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 57 58 STEAM NOZZLE SYSTEM 59 Steam production wheel 13,7 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 60 Steam nozzle tip 1,2 1-BlkPlastics 61 Steam nozzle tip seal 0,1 62 steam nozzle ball joint 9,6 1-BlkPlastics 63 Ball joint seal 0,1 64 Steam nozzle main body 29,6 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 65 Ball joint ring 4,1 1-BlkPlastics 66 Ball joint ring seal 0,3 67 Ball joint ring screws (x3) 2,1 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 68 Wheel support 7,4 1-BlkPlastics 69 Limit stop wheel support screw 0,2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil Task 4 15
70 Wheel support seal 0,3 71 Pipe support 11,6 1-BlkPlastics 72 Pipe support screw 1,2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 73 Pipe 21,4 74 Pipe ring 4,1 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 75 Sensor 1,7 6-Electronics 76 Sensor screws (x2) 0,4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 77 Wires 10,5 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 78 Steam nozzle accessory main body 9,2 1-BlkPlastics 79 Steam nozzle accessory coating 4,1 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 80 Steam nozzle accessory stem 1,9 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 81 Steam nozzle accessory tip 1,5 1-BlkPlastics 82 Steam nozzle accessory auto-cappuccino main body 14,3 1-BlkPlastics 83 Steam nozzle accessory auto-cappuccino coating 5,6 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 84 Accessory auto-cappuccino tip 2 1-BlkPlastics 85 Accessory auto-cappuccino pipe 6,9 86 87 88 Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 89 ELECTRIC CIRCUIT 90 Integrated circuit 52 6-Electronics 47-IC's avg., 1% Si 91 Integrated circuit screws (x4) 2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 92 Integrated circuit support 22,5 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 93 Integrated circuit support screws (x4) 1,9 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 94 Line cord 60,15 1-BlkPlastics 8-PVC 95 60,15 4-Non-ferro 28-Cu winding wire 96 Line cord lip retaining 0,6 1-BlkPlastics 97 Line cord lip retaining screws (x2) 1,4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 98 Wires 27,7 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 99 Slit fitting 6 6-Electronics 100 Wire tip sheath 1 1-BlkPlastics 101 Fuses (x2) 1,8 6-Electronics 102 Fuse ring 1,5 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 103 Fuse ring screws 0,4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 104 Fuse sheath 1,9 105 Ground screw 1,7 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 106 Solenoid valve water way 84,1 4-Non-ferro 31-CuZn38 cast 107 Solenoid valve electric circuit 52,7 6-Electronics 108 Solenoid valve (x4) 2,6 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 109 Solenoid valve support 16,6 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 110 Solenoid valve support screws 0,8 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 16 Task 4
111 Solenoid valve wire 6,2 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 112 Solenoid valve wire tip sheath 1,1 113 114 RESISTANCE SYSTEM 115 Resistance 495,2 4-Non-ferro 32-ZnAl4 cast 116 thermocouple probe 8 6-Electronics 117 thermocouple probe ring retaining 1 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 118 Thermocouple probe ring retaining screws 0 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 119 Resistance screws (x3) 5 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 120 Isolator plate 6 121 Resistance wire 11 6-Electronics 122 Resistance wire tip sheath 1 123 124 PUMP SYSTEM 125 Meter 15 126 Meter seal 0 127 Meter wire 4 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 128 Meter screws 1 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 129 Pump 378 130 Pump sensor and wire 9 131 Pump wire tip sheath 2 132 Pump support 9 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 133 Pump support screws (x4) 2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 134 Pump rubber (x2) 34 135 Pump pipe out 17 Task 4 Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 136 Meter pipe (x2) 14 137 Meter pipe spring (x2) 2 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 138 Pump pipe ring 2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 139 pump tip out 6 140 Water tank tip out 6 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 141 Tank tip seal 3 142 Tank tip screws (x2) 1 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 143 Tank tip drilled plate 1 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 144 145 CONTROL SYSTEM 146 Support 18 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 147 Support screws 2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 148 integrated circuit 15 6-Electronics 47-IC's avg., 1% Si 149 Integrated circuit screws (x5) 2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 150 Button (x4) 9 151 Wire 12 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 152 17
153 STEAM SYSTEM 154 Pipe 20 155 Pipe ring 2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 156 Tank 92 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 157 Tank screws 4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 158 159 PERCOLATOR SYSTEM 160 Feed channel pipe 14 161 Percolator pipe ring 1 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 162 percolator housing screw 2 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 163 Rack 196 4-Non-ferro 27-Al diecast 164 percolator housing 34 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 165 Percolator inside 51 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 166 Percolator housing, percolator inside, rack screws (x8) 9 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 167 Filter plate 5 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 168 Filter plate percolator screw 0 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 169 Filter plate support 14 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 170 Filter plate support seal 4 171 Filter plate support spring 1 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 172 Spring tip 0 173 support plate screws (x3) 4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 174 Table 4-9: BoM of a semi-automatic espresso machine Items Weight (g) % Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) 1 700 32.12 Acrylonitrile styrene (AS) 201 3.80 Rubber 143 2.70 Nylon 6-6 (PA66) 117 2.20 Polycarbonate (PC) 14 0.27 Polyoxymethylene (POM) 15 0.28 Polypropylene 165 3.11 PVC 60 1.14 Plastic 141 2.66 Cu 60 1.14 Stainless steel 245 4.64 Brass 84 1.59 Ferrous 851 16.07 Non-ferrous 387 7.31 Electronic 596 11.25 Miscellaneous 515 9.73 18 Task 4
4.2.5. TYPICAL BOM OF A FULLY AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE The typical BoM of a fully automatic espresso machine is presented in Table 4-10 and in Table 4-11. Table 4-10: BoM of a fully automatic espresso machine Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight (g) Category Material or Process nr Description of component 1 WATER TANK 2 front part 107,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 3 tank 219,0 1-BlkPlastics 9-SAN 4 filter 2,0 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 5 plastic parts 3,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 6 spring 0,0 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 7 joint 0,0 2-TecPlastics 8 9 Drip tray 10 grid 197,0 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 11 "full" indicator 2,0 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 12 drip tray 212,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 13 14 Coffee lid 15 lid 63,0 1-BlkPlastics 5-PS 16 coffee bean hopper lid 149,0 1-BlkPlastics 5-PS 17 joint 23,0 2-TecPlastics 18 19 Top 20 pre-ground bypass doser 5,0 1-BlkPlastics 5-PS 21 screw 2,0 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 22 screw protection 2,0 4-Non-ferro 31-CuZn38 cast 23 plastic disc 7,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 24 lid screw (x3) 3,0 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 25 grinder adjustment knob 3,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 26 transparent lid 146,0 1-BlkPlastics 5-PS 27 28 29 Brew group 30 plastic part 579,0 1-BlkPlastics 31 screw 9,0 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 32 spring 2,0 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 33 joint 1,0 2-TecPlastics 34 coffee filter 3,0 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 35 36 Screws 55,0 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile Task 4 19
37 38 Steam wand 39 protection 14,0 4-Non-ferro 40 joint 12,0 2-TecPlastics 41 Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 42 Housing 43 right door 175,0 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 44 feet (x4) 7 2-TecPlastics 45 right door hinge 83 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 46 back part housing 236 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 47 top part housing 334 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 48 left door 200 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 49 front part housing 500 3-Ferro 21-St sheet galv. 50 top 470 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 51 bottom 351 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 52 53 Miscellanous 54 dreg drawer 242 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 55 hot water wand 14 56 power cord 150 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire 57 plastic wheels (x2) 62 1-BlkPlastics 58 black pipe 4 2-TecPlastics 59 transparent pipe 5 1-BlkPlastics 60 power switch 8 6-Electronics 45-slots / ext. ports 61 outlet 9 6-Electronics 45-slots / ext. ports 62 rubber (x2) 27 2-TecPlastics 63 knob (x2) 14 1-BlkPlastics 64 motor KFC545S-16205 38/09 157 7-Misc. 65 66 Brewing bloc 67 spring 3 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 68 joint 10 2-TecPlastics 69 electronic card (1*2 cm) 6-Electronics 51-PWB 6 lay 2 kg/m2 70 plastic parts 13 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 71 motor bloc 387 7-Misc. 72 wheel 14 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 73 brewing screw 20 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 74 screw 12 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 75 plastic bloc 170 1-BlkPlastics 76 77 front part 78 various parts (control panel) 92 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 20 Task 4
79 steam dial 70 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 80 dispensing head 156 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 81 screw 2 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 82 buttons 13 2-TecPlastics Pos MATERIALS Extraction & Production Weight Category Material or Process nr Description of component in g 89 Steam distribution 90 wand 28 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 91 wheel 6 1-BlkPlastics 92 various part 36 1-BlkPlastics 93 protection 36 2-TecPlastics 11-PA 6 94 screw 3 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 95 Klixon (x2) 8 7-Misc. 96 bloc KANETA 4509 230V/1300W 387 7-Misc. 97 pipe clips 6 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 98 pipes 31 2-TecPlastics 99 100 Water distribution 101 pipes 41 2-TecPlastics 102 component 932-952 1-B 21 1-BlkPlastics 103 plastic part 26 1-BlkPlastics 104 various parts 70 3-Ferro 22-St tube/profile 105 spring 4 3-Ferro 25-Stainless 18/8 coil 106 ULKA model E 364 7-Misc. 107 108 109 Interior plastic housing 110 part 1 533 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 111 part 2 423 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 112 part 3 36 1-BlkPlastics 10-ABS 113 part 4 (electronic protection) 63 1-BlkPlastics 4-PP 114 115 Electronic 116 card 1 (5*10 cm) 18 6-Electronics 49-PWB 1/2 lay 3.75kg/m2 117 card 2 (2,5*7 cm) 6 6-Electronics 49-PWB 1/2 lay 3.75kg/m2 118 card 3 (2*3,5 cm) 3 6-Electronics 50-PWB 6 lay 4.5 kg/m2 119 card 4 (14*14 cm) 229 6-Electronics 50-PWB 6 lay 4.5 kg/m2 120 ribbon cable (43 cm) 13 6-Electronics 121 various part 7 1-BlkPlastics 122 wires (+ connectors) 104 4-Non-ferro 29-Cu wire Task 4 21
Table 4-11: BoM of a fully automatic espresso machine Items Weight (g) % ABS 2 170 26.04 Steel 975 11.70 Rubber 80 0.96 Electronic 256 3.07 Stainless steel 114 1.37 Non ferrous 16 0.19 PA66 36 0.43 PBT 93 1.12 PEI 17 0.20 Plastic misc. 545 6.54 POM 670 8.04 PP 1 426 17.11 PPE+PS 63 0.76 SAN 219 2.63 SEBS 149 1.79 Silicone 20 0.24 Misc. (cables+motors) 1 483 17.80 4.3. DISTRIBUTION PHASE The coffee machine is placed in a box, most of the time in cardboard. An example of such a box is provided in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: Photo of empty packaging The average volumes of packaging have been assumed as follows for the Base-Cases of this study based on measurements of some models. Table 4-12: Volumes of packaging Type of coffee machine Volume of packaged product (m 3 ) Drip filter coffee machine 0.035 22 Task 4
Pad filter coffee machine 0.032 Hard cap espresso machine 0.023 Semi-automatic espresso machine 0.030 Fully automatic espresso machine 0.06 4.4. USE PHASE 4.4.1. ENERGY CONSUMPTION The power and electricity consumptions of the five Base-Cases are detailed in the table below. The data come from information provided by stakeholders, including manufacturers, and are based on the draft measurement standards being developed by CENELEC TC59X/WG15 with the help of manufacturers and Euro-Topten/S.A.F.E. (see Task 3, section 3.1.1.2 for details on the use patterns and the definition of the coffee period). Furthermore, the following assumptions are made for the Base-Cases (as a reminder, they are typical European products currently in stock (not sales)): No auto-power down functionality Power consumption in standby higher than for the maximum consumption for products sold since January 2010 following the entry into force of the Standby Regulation (1275/2008) Power consumption in off mode is assumed to be 0W Task 4 23
Table 4-13: Electricity consumption of the Base-Cases Electricity consumption during coffee period (Wh) Yearly electricity consumption due to coffee periods (kwh) Ready-to-use mode (W) Yearly electricity consumption due to Ready mode (kwh) Total yearly consumption (kwh) Lifetime (years) Lifetime electricity consumption (kwh) Drip filter coffee machine 232 169 0.5 2.4 172 6 1 030 Pad filter coffee machine 93 102 15 60 162 7 1 134 Hard cap espresso machine Semi-automatic espresso machine Fully automatic espresso machine 73 80 10 40 120 7 843 83 91 26 104 195 7 1 367 62 68 11 45 113 10 1 133 24 Task 4
4.4.2. GENERAL USE PHASE Details on the general use phase are provided in this section, for each base-case coffee machine. Table 4-14 : Consumables used per coffee period Water (ml coffee) Coffee (g) Drip filter coffee machine 850 50 Pad filter coffee machine 240 2 4 pad filters Hard cap espresso machine 240 2 4 hard caps Semi-automatic espresso machine Fully automatic espresso machine 240 2 28=4*7 240 2 28=4*7 4.4.3. DECALCIFICATION Regular decalcification of the appliance is a guarantee for its long life. The amount of scale depends on the hardness of the water but also on the level of use (see Table 4-15). Average number of coffees per week Table 4-15: Frequency of decalcification Soft water (<19 th) Hard water (<19-30 th) Very hard water (<30 th) Less than 7 Once a year Every 8 months Every 6 months From 7 to 20 Every 4 months Every 3 months Every 2 months Over 20 Every 4 months Every 2 months Every month In this study, it will be assumed that the cup-by-cup coffee machines are decalcified every three months using a decalcifier and water. For drip filter coffee machines, water and vinegar can be used for this operation and will be considered for the base case. 2 Four coffee cups are prepared during a coffee period: three cups of 40 ml and one cup of 120 ml. Task 4 25
4.5. END-OF-LIFE PHASE The default end-of-life values are listed in Table 4-16. These values are assumed to correspond broadly with the most likely real end-of-life phase of coffee machines, although no specific data were provided by manufacturers. A majority of recycled plastics go to thermal recycling as do almost all parts of the casing. In general, casing is easy to be removed. A high percentage of metal casing parts separated for steel recycling can be assumed. These assumptions will be used for all Base Cases. Table 4-16: End-of-life scenario of a coffee machine Pos DISPOSAL & RECYCLING unit Subtotals nr Description Substances released during Product Life and Landfill 227 Refrigerant in the product 0 g 1-none 228 Percentage of fugitive & dumped refrigerant 0% 229 Mercury (Hg) in the product 0 g Hg 230 Percentage of fugitive & dumped mercury 0% Disposal: Environmental Costs perkg final product 231 Landfill (fraction products not recovered) in g en % 126 5% 88-fixed 232 Incineration (plastics & PWB not re-used/recycled) 1506 g 91-fixed 233 Plastics: Re-use & Recycling ("cost"-side) 167 g 92-fixed Re-use, Recycling Benefit in g % of plastics fraction 234 Plastics: Re-use, Closed Loop Recycling 17 1% 4 235 Plastics: Materials Recycling 151 9% 4 236 Plastics: Thermal Recycling 1506 90% 72 237 Electronics: PWB Easy to Disassemble? 0 YES 98 238 Metals & TV Glass & Misc. (95% Recycling) 800 fixed 4.6. RECOMMENDATIONS ON MANDATES As described in Task 1, the international standard related to the energy consumption of domestic coffee machines, EN 60661, does not reflect the market reality and this explains why stakeholders (namely FEA/CECED and Topten/S.A.F.E) have developed their own measurement methods. The current development within the CENELEC TC 59X/WG15 might solve this issue as it is working on a new version of the standard for both pressure machines and filter coffee machines. A draft version is expected to be elaborated soon. This would allow possible Ecodesign requirements (e.g. energy label, Minimum Energy Performance Standard (MEPS)) to be based on this standard. 26 Task 4
4.7. CONCLUSIONS This task presented a general technical analysis of the existing products on the EU market. It gave a description of the different materials used in various types of coffee machines as well as information on other life cycle stages. Regarding the use phase, average electricity consumption has been defined based on both measurements and assumptions in line with the draft standards proposed within CENELEC for cup-by-cup coffee machines and drip filter coffee machines. Further, the use of consumables (water, filter, drip filter, cap, coffee, and decalcifier) has been specified. The information gathered in this report will serve as input for defining base-cases in Task 5 and allowing the environmental and economic assessment of them. Task 4 27
999996 Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III) [Contract N TREN/D3/91-2007-Lot 25-SI2.521716] Lot 25 Non-Tertiary Coffee Machines Task 5: Definition of Base-Cases Final version In association with Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal Benoît Tinetti + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 shailendra.mudgal@biois.com benoit.tinetti@biois.com
Project Team BIO Intelligence Service Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Mr. Benoît Tinetti Mr. Lorcan Lyons Ms. Perrine Lavelle Arts et Métiers Paristech / ARTS Mr. Alain Cornier Ms. Charlotte Sannier Ms. Aude Jean-Jean 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. 2 Task 5
Contents 5. Task 5 Definition of Base-Cases... 4 5.1. Product-specific inputs... 4 5.1.1. Base-Case 1: Drip filter coffee machine...5 5.1.2. Base-Case 2: Pad filter coffee machine...6 5.1.3. Base-Case 3: Hard cap espresso machine...6 5.1.4. Base-Case 4: Semi-automatic espresso machine...7 5.1.5. Base-Case 5: Fully automatic espresso machine...7 5.2. Base-Case environmental impact assessment... 8 5.2.1. Base-Case 1: Drip filter coffee machine...8 5.2.2. Base-Case 2: Pad filter coffee machine...11 5.2.3. Base-Case 3: Hard cap espresso machine...15 5.2.4. Base-Case 4: Semi-automatic espresso machine...18 5.2.5. Base-Case 5: Fully-automatic espresso machine...21 5.2.6. Summary...24 5.3. Base-Case life cycle costs... 25 5.4. EU totals... 27 5.4.1. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts...27 5.4.2. Life Cycle Costs...32 5.5. Conclusions... 33 Task 5 3
5. TASK 5 DEFINITION OF BASE-CASES This task is comprised of an assessment of typical EU product(s), the so-called Base- Case(s) defined as a conscious abstraction of reality. The description of Base-Case(s) is the synthesis of the results of Tasks 1 to 4. Most of the environmental and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis is built on these Base-Cases throughout the rest of the study and it serves as the point-of-reference for Tasks 6-8. However, it has to be noted that any ecodesign requirements proposed by the consultants in Task 8 and those which will be adopted by the EU are not necessarily limited to the product types covered by the Base-Cases. Therefore, it could be possible later in the study to propose requirements on combo coffee machines even if a Base-Case is not defined for this specific category. As already mentioned in previous tasks, the focus of this Ecodesign preparatory study is not on consumables but on coffee machines. Therefore, environmental impacts including those related to the end-of-life stage of coffee, filters, pad filters, hard caps or decalcifiers are not considered and not assessed with the EcoReport tool. 5.1. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC INPUTS The MEEuP methodology indicates the analysis of one or two Base-Cases. However, in order to cover the broad range of technical specifications and functionalities of coffee machines properly, this study defined five Base-Cases as summarised in Table 5-1. The main reasons and assumptions for selecting these as the most representative Base- Cases are: A different Base-Case for major product categories sold on the market is the main driving factor for selection. The Base-Cases selected must best represent the most common categories of non-tertiary coffee maker in as few cases as possible. Technical differences can justify the distinction of a new Base-Case, such as significant differences in the energy use, materials used, and process for making coffee. The expected improvement potential of the product s environmental impact is another consideration that must be used to distinguish a Base-Case. For this reason, moka pots and other products not directly consuming energy themselves do not have a Base-Case, because they are not expected to have a higher potential improvement. Other functionalities such as automatic on/off options will be modelled through Base-Cases as they are important, however they will not justify the distinction of Base-Cases. 4 Task 5
Following the previous analysis, the Base-Cases for Lot 25 are specified in Table 5-1. Table 5-1: Choice of Base-Cases Base-Case / Product Case BoM Technical data Energy consumption Market data (sales & stock for 2010) (1) Drip filter coffee machine (2) Pad filter coffee machine (3) Hard cap espresso machine (4) Semi-automatic espresso machine (mix between automatic and manual) (5) Fully automatic espresso machine Typical BoM of Drip filter coffee machine (4.2.1) Typical BoM of Pad filter coffee machine (4.2.2) Typical BoM of Hard cap espresso machine (4.2.3) Typical BoM of Semiautomatic espresso machine (4.2.4) Typical BoM of Fully automatic espresso machine (4.2.5) Table 4-13 Table 2-8 Table 4-13 Table 2-8 Table 4-13 Table 2-8 Table 4-13 Table 2-8 Table 4-13 Table 2-8 5.1.1. BASE-CASE 1: DRIP FILTER COFFEE MACHINE Base-Case 1 represents traditional filter coffee makers, using ground coffee. In terms of BoM it relates to the drip filter coffee machine described in Task 4. The detailed BoM for this coffee machine is presented in section 4.2.1 and Table 5-2 shows the aggregated BoM for this Base-Case according to various material categories. Table 5-2: Base-Case 1 BoM summary Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION USE END-OF-LIFE* TOTAL DISTRIBUTION Resources Use and Emissions Material Manuf. Total Disposal Recycl. Total Materials unit 1 Bulk Plastics g 1375 1238 138 1375 0 2 TecPlastics g 300 270 30 300 0 3 Ferro g 579 29 550 579 0 4 Non-ferro g 195 10 185 195 0 5 Coating g 0 0 0 0 0 6 Electronics g 67 62 4 67 0 7 Misc. g 0 0 0 0 0 Total weight g 2516 1609 907 2516 0 Energy data are derived from the analysis presented in Task 4. Task 5 5
5.1.2. BASE-CASE 2: PAD FILTER COFFEE MACHINE Base-Case 2 corresponds to a Pad filter coffee machine. This type of coffee machine is dedicated to preparing one or two cup(s) of coffee from water and a pod of ground coffee. In terms of BoM it relates to the Pad filter coffee machine described in Task 4. The detailed BoM for this coffee machine is presented in section 4.2.2 and Table 5-3 shows the aggregated BoM for this Base-Case according to various material categories. Table 5-3: Base-Case 2 BoM summary Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION USE END-OF-LIFE* TOTAL DISTRIBUTION Resources Use and Emissions Material Manuf. Total Disposal Recycl. Total Materials unit 1 Bulk Plastics g 922 830 92 922 0 2 TecPlastics g 328 295 33 328 0 3 Ferro g 320 16 304 320 0 4 Non-ferro g 154 8 146 154 0 5 Coating g 0 0 0 0 0 6 Electronics g 38 19 19 38 0 7 Misc. g 80 4 76 80 0 Total weight g 1842 1172 670 1842 0 Energy data are derived from the analysis presented in Task 4. 5.1.3. BASE-CASE 3: HARD CAP ESPRESSO MACHINE Base-Case 3 represents a hard cap espresso coffee machine. This type of coffee machine is dedicated to preparing one or two cup(s) of coffee from water and a cap of ground coffee. In terms of BoM it relates to the hard cap espresso coffee machine described in Task 4. The detailed BoM for this coffee machine is presented in 4.2.3 and Table 5-4 shows the aggregated BoM for this Base-Case according to various material categories. Table 5-4: Base-Case 3 BoM summary Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION USE END-OF-LIFE* TOTAL DISTRIBUTION Resources Use and Emissions Material Manuf. Total Disposal Recycl. Total Materials unit 1 Bulk Plastics g 1213 1091 121 1213 0 2 TecPlastics g 310 279 31 310 0 3 Ferro g 390 19 370 390 0 4 Non-ferro g 784 39 745 784 0 5 Coating g 0 0 0 0 0 6 Electronics g 45 40 5 45 0 7 Misc. g 226 11 215 226 0 Total weight g 2968 1481 1487 2968 0 Energy data are derived from the statistical analyses presented in Task 4. 6 Task 5
5.1.4. BASE-CASE 4: SEMI-AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE Base-Case 4 represents a typical semi-automatic espresso machine. These electric pump extraction machines automate the pump extraction process. The rest of the process is manual, such as the adding of pre-ground beans and the water. In terms of BoM, it relates to the semi-automatic espresso coffee machine described in Task 4. The detailed BoM for this coffee machine is presented in section 4.2.4 and Table 5-5 shows the aggregated BoM for this Base-Case according to various material categories. Table 5-5: Base-Case 4 BoM summary Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION USE END-OF-LIFE* TOTAL DISTRIBUTION Resources Use and Emissions Material Manuf. Total Disposal Recycl. Total Materials unit 1 Bulk Plastics g 2260 2034 226 2260 0 2 TecPlastics g 255 229 25 255 0 3 Ferro g 1103 55 1048 1103 0 4 Non-ferro g 1088 54 1033 1088 0 5 Coating g 0 0 0 0 0 6 Electronics g 160 113 47 160 0 7 Misc. g 0 0 0 0 0 Total weight g 4866 2486 2380 4866 0 Energy data are derived from the statistical analysis presented in Task 4. 5.1.5. BASE-CASE 5: FULLY AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE Base-Case 5 represents a fully-automatic coffee machine. This type of coffee machine is dedicated to preparing one or two cup(s) of coffee from water and coffee beans or ground coffee. In terms of BoM, it relates to the fully-automatic espresso machine described in Task 4. The detailed BoM for this coffee machine is presented in section 4.2.5 and Table 5-6 shows the aggregated BoM for this Base-Case according to various material categories. Table 5-6: Base-Case 5 BoM summary Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION USE END-OF-LIFE* TOTAL DISTRIBUTION Resources Use and Emissions Material Manuf. Total Disposal Recycl. Total Materials unit 1 Bulk Plastics g 5265 4739 527 5265 0 2 TecPlastics g 205 185 21 205 0 3 Ferro g 989 49 940 989 0 4 Non-ferro g 270 14 257 270 0 5 Coating g 0 0 0 0 0 6 Electronics g 286 143 143 286 0 7 Misc. g 1317 66 1251 1317 0 Total weight g 8332 5195 3137 8332 0 Energy data are derived from the statistical analysis presented in Task 4. Task 5 7
5.2. BASE-CASE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT The aim of this subtask is to assess the environmental impacts of each Base-case following the MEEuP (EcoReport Unit Indicators) for each life cycle stage: Raw Materials Use and Manufacturing (Production phase); Distribution; Use; End-of-Life. The Base-case environmental impact assessment will lead to an identification of basic technological design parameters being of outstanding environmental relevancy 1. These parameters will be listed as they will serve as an important input to the identification of ecodesign improvement options. The assessment results are tracked back to the main contributing components, materials and features of the non-tertiary coffee machines. The environmental impact assessments are carried out with the use of the EcoReport tool provided by the Commission. This tool includes a database which cannot be modified by the consultants. Therefore, any comparison with other assessments done with other tools has to be made with caution. Further, the definition of each environmental indicator is available in the MEEuP report (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainablebusiness/ecodesign/methodology/files/finalreport1_en.pdf). Finally, the objective of this task is not to compare several Base-Cases, which cannot be done directly as their lifetimes are different. 5.2.1. BASE-CASE 1: DRIP FILTER COFFEE MACHINE 5.2.1.1 PER LIFE CYCLE PHASE The total environmental impacts over the life cycle for Base-Case 1 according to EcoReport calculations are listed in Table 5-7, and the contribution of each life cycle stage is presented in Figure 5-1. These figures are based on preparation of 1 700 ml of coffee per day (as in the draft CENELEC method) for 6 years. Table 5-7: Base-Case 1 - Lifetime impact 8 Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION DIST Resources Use and Mater Ma RIBU Total Emissions ial nuf. TION Other Resources & Waste USE END-OF-LIFE TOTAL Total Energy (GER) MJ 236 79 316 99 10673 111 78 33 11120 Disp osal debet Recy cl. credit Total 1 As far as the MEEuP EcoReport allows the identification of such indicators. 8 Task 5
of which, electricity (in MJ 9 primary MJ) 69 47 116 0 10671 0 1-1 10786 1 Water (process) ltr 0 90 1 90 0 4435 0 1-1 4525 1 Water (cooling) ltr 1 154 22 176 0 28454 0 4-4 28627 1 Waste, non-haz./ landfill g 2 1884 250 2134 74 12392 155 4 151 14751 1 Waste, hazardous/ g 3 incinerated 42 0 42 1 246 1512 1 1511 1801 Emissions (Air) 1 Greenhouse Gases in kg CO2 4 GWP100 eq. 12 4 17 7 466 8 5 3 493 1 Ozone Depletion, mg R-11 negligible 5 emissions eq. 1 Acidification, emissions g SO2 eq. 6 103 19 122 21 2749 17 7 9 2901 1 Volatile Organic g 7 Compounds (VOC) 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 5 1 Persistent Organic ng i-teq 8 Pollutants (POP) 12 0 12 0 70 1 0 1 84 1 Heavy Metals mg Ni eq. 9 80 1 81 4 184 30 0 30 298 PAHs mg Ni eq. 6 0 6 4 30 0 0 0 40 2 Particulate Matter (PM, g 0 dust) 10 3 13 119 59 144 0 144 335 Emissions (Water) 2 Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 1 60 0 60 0 69 9 0 9 138 2 Eutrophication g PO4 2 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 Persistent Organic negligible ng i-teq 3 Pollutants (POP) Total Energy (GER) of which, electricity (in primary MJ) Water (process) 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 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Material Manufacturing Distribution Use End-of-life Figure 5-1: Base-Case 1 Life cycle impact Task 5 9
The use phase is clearly dominating the total environmental impacts for the following categories: Total energy (96%), of which electricity (99%) Water process (98%), including the water consumption for producing electricity and for making the coffee cups Waste, non hazardous / landfill (84%) Greenhouse gases in GWP100 (95%) Acidification, emissions (95%) Volatile Organic Compounds (81%) Persistent Organic Pollutants (84%) Heavy Metals to air (62%) and to water (50%) Manufacturing is not a large share (less than 2%) of the total environmental impact in any of the categories. Distribution does not dominate any of the categories but contributes to the total impact for the categories 2 : Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) (16%) PAHs (10%) Particulate Matter (PM, dust) (36%) Materials acquisition dominates in the case of: Eutrophication (81%) and contributes significantly in the case of: Heavy metals to water (43%) Waste, non-hazardous/landfill (13%) Persistent Organic Pollutants (14%) Heavy metals to air (27%) PAHs (15%) End-of-life impacts dominate two categories: 2 The high contribution of the distribution phase can be explained by the assumption related to transport in trucks from the retailer s central warehouse to the shop. The EcoReport tool does not allow specifying means of transport ant distances between the production place of the coffee machine and retailer s central warehouse; only the volume of the product is taken into consideration to assess environmental impacts of the transport. Nevertheless, according to the MEEuP methodology (section 5.3.6, page 96), a mix of means of transport (trucking, rail, sear freight and air freight) with assumptions on distances is used for all Base-cases. This assumption can be considered as disadvantageous for appliances mainly produced in Europe. 10 Task 5
Waste, hazardous/incinerated (84%) Particulate Matter emissions to air (43%) and contribute significantly in the case of: Eutrophication (17%) 5.2.1.2 PER COMPONENT 3 The contributions of the main components to the environmental impacts of the Base- Case 1 (in the production phase) are presented in Figure 5-2. Housing and electric circuit are sharing the environmental impacts due to the quantity of plastics, stainless steel, and the electronic parts. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total energy Total water Total waste GWP AD VOC POP HM PAH PM Metal EUP HOUSING ELECTRIC CIRCUIT WATER WAY Figure 5-2: Base-case 1 Environmental impacts of main components within the production phase 5.2.2. BASE-CASE 2: PAD FILTER COFFEE MACHINE 5.2.2.1 PER LIFE CYCLE PHASE The total environmental impacts over the life cycle for Base-Case 2 according to EcoReport calculations are listed in Table 5-8, and the contribution of each life cycle stage is presented in Figure 5-3. These figures are based on preparation of 720 ml of coffee per day (as in the draft CENELEC method) for 7 years. 3 GWP=Global Warming Potential; AD=Acidification; VOC=Volatil Organic Compound; POP=Persistent Organic Pollutants; HM=Heavy Metals to air; PAH=Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons; PM=Particulate Matters; Metal=Heavy Metals to water; EUP=Eutrophication Task 5 11
Table 5-8: Base-Case 2 - Lifetime Impact Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION DISTRI END-OF-LIFE USE Resources Use and Mater Man Tota BUTIO Disp Recy Emissions ial uf. l N Total osal cl. Other Resources & Waste debet credit TOTAL 8 Total Energy (GER) MJ 158 61 219 95 11914 84 64 20 12249 of which, electricity (in MJ 9 primary MJ) 19 34 53 0 11912 0 3-3 11962 1 Water (process) ltr 0 31 1 32 0 2634 0 2-2 2663 1 Water (cooling) ltr 1 148 17 165 0 31765 0 3-3 31927 1 Waste, non-haz./ landfill g 2 3209 183 3392 73 13845 113 8 105 17414 1 Waste, hazardous/ g 3 incinerated 66 0 66 1 275 1144 3 1141 1484 Emissions (Air) 1 Greenhouse Gases in kg CO2 4 GWP100 eq. 8 3 11 7 520 6 4 2 540 1 Ozone Depletion, mg R-11 negligible 5 emissions eq. 1 g SO2 Acidification, emissions 6 eq. 77 15 93 20 3068 13 7 5 3186 1 Volatile Organic g 7 Compounds (VOC) 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 6 1 Persistent Organic ng i-teq 8 Pollutants (POP) 6 0 6 0 78 1 0 1 85 1 mg Ni Heavy Metals 9 eq. 33 0 34 4 205 23 0 22 265 mg Ni PAHs eq. 6 0 6 4 84 0 0 0 94 2 Particulate Matter (PM, g 0 dust) 6 3 9 111 66 109 0 109 294 Emissions (Water) 2 mg Heavy Metals 1 Hg/20 44 0 44 0 77 7 1 6 127 2 Eutrophication g PO4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-teq negligible Figure 5-3 illustrates the contribution of different life-cycle phases to each of the impact categories for Base-Case 2. 12 Task 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Energy (GER) of which, electricity (in primary MJ) Water (process) 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 Material Manufacturing Distribution Use End-of-life Figure 5-3: Base-Case 2 Life cycle impact Materials acquisition dominates the environmental impacts for the following categories: Eutrophication (100%) and contributes significantly to the categories: Heavy metals emissions to air (13%) and to water (35%) Waste, non-hazardous / landfill (18%) Manufacturing is not significant (less than 2%) in any of the environmental indicators. Distribution accounts for all of the total environmental impacts for the following category: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) (18%) Particulate Matter (PM, dust) (38%) The use phase is clearly dominating in the case of: Total Energy (97%), of which electricity (99.6%) Water process (99%), including the water consumption for producing electricity and for making the coffee cups Greenhouse gases (96%) Acidification emissions (96%) Persistent Organic Pollutants to air (92%) Task 5 13
Waste, non-hazardous / landfill (80%) Volatile Organic Compounds (82%) Heavy metals to air (78%) and to water (61%) PAHs (89%) and contributes significantly to : Particulate Matter emissions to air (22%) End-of-life impacts dominate the category: Waste, hazardous / incinerated (77%) and contribute significantly in the case of: Particulate Matter emissions to air (37%) 5.2.2.2 PER COMPONENT The contributions of the main components to the environmental impacts of the Base- Case 2 (in the production phase) are presented in Figure 5-4. Plastic parts, stainless steel and electronic parts are the main contributors to the environmental impacts. Furthermore, it is important to notice that the power cable (copper wire) has a major impact at end-of-life phase, as a non-hazardous waste. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total energy Total water Total waste GWP AD VOC POP HM PAH PM Metal EUP MOTOR BLOC WATER HEATER HEAD DRIP TRAY ELEC SCREWING MISCELLANOUS Figure 5-4: Base-case 2 Environmental impacts of main components within the production phase 14 Task 5
5.2.3. BASE-CASE 3: HARD CAP ESPRESSO MACHINE 5.2.3.1 PER LIFE CYCLE PHASE The total environmental impacts over the life cycle for Base-Case 3 according to EcoReport calculations are listed in Table 5-9, and the contribution of each life-cycle stage is presented in Figure 5-5. These figures are based on preparation of 720 ml of espresso per day (as in the draft CENELEC method) for 7 years. Table 5-9: Base-Case 3 - Lifetime Impact Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION DIST Materi Man RIBU Resources Use and Emissions Total al uf. TION Other Resources & Waste USE END-OF-LIFE Disp Rec Total osal ycl. cred debet it TOTAL 8 Total Energy (GER) MJ 237 71 308 83 8856 104 70 33 9280 of which, electricity (in MJ 9 primary MJ) 40 42 82 0 8854 0 1-1 8935 1 Water (process) ltr 0 67 1 67 0 2430 0 1-1 2497 1 Water (cooling) ltr 1 257 20 277 0 23610 0 3-3 23884 1 Waste, non-haz./ landfill g 2 3480 223 3703 66 10301 183 4 179 14250 1 Waste, hazardous/ g 3 incinerated 39 0 39 1 204 1376 1 1375 1620 Emissions (Air) 1 Greenhouse Gases in kg CO2 4 GWP100 eq. 12 4 16 6 386 8 5 3 412 1 mg R-11 negligible Ozone Depletion, emissions 5 eq. 1 g SO2 Acidification, emissions 6 eq. 114 17 131 18 2281 16 7 9 2438 1 Volatile Organic Compounds g 7 (VOC) 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 4 1 Persistent Organic Pollutants ng i-teq 8 (POP) 45 0 45 0 58 1 0 1 105 1 mg Ni Heavy Metals 9 eq. 66 1 67 3 153 28 0 28 251 mg Ni PAHs eq. 6 0 6 4 78 0 0 0 88 2 Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g 0 10 3 13 78 49 134 0 134 274 Emissions (Water) 2 Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 1 52 0 52 0 58 9 0 8 118 2 Eutrophication g PO4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 3 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-teq negligible Task 5 15
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Energy (GER) of which, electricity (in primary MJ) Water (process) 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 Material Manufacturing Distribution Use End-of-life Figure 5-5: Base-Case 3 Life cycle impact Materials acquisition is dominating the environmental impacts for the following categories: Eutrophication to water (76.8%) and contributes significantly to the categories: Heavy metals emissions to air (26%) and to water (44%) Waste, non-hazardous / landfill (24%) Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) to air (43%) Manufacturing is not significant (less than 2%) in any of the environmental indicators. Distribution contributes to the category: Particulate Matter (29%) The use phase is clearly dominating in the case of: Total Energy (95%), of which electricity (99%) Water process (97%), including the water consumption for producing electricity and for making the coffee cup Greenhouse gases (94%) Acidification emissions (94%) Waste, non-hazardous / landfill (72%) Persistent Organic Pollutants to air (56%) 16 Task 5
Heavy metals to air (61%) and to water (49%) PAHs (89%) Volatile Organic Compounds (86%) and contributes significantly in the case of: Particulate Matter emissions to air (18%) Waste, hazardous / incinerated (13%) End-of-life impacts dominate the following categories: Waste, hazardous / incinerated (85%) Particulate Matter emissions to air (49%) and contribute significantly in the case of: Eutrophication (18%) 5.2.3.2 PER COMPONENT The contributions of the main components to the environmental impacts of the Base- Case 3 (in the production phase) are presented in Figure 5-6. Housing, percolator system and electric circuit are the main contributors to the environmental impacts due to their plastic and stainless steel components and to electronic parts. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total energy Total water Total waste GWP AD VOC POP HM PAH PM Metal EUP HOUSING PERCOLATOR AND CAPSULE SYSTEM ELECTRIC CIRCUIT RESISTANCE SYSTEM PUMP SYSTEM Figure 5-6: Base-case 3 Environmental impacts of main components within the production phase Task 5 17
5.2.4. BASE-CASE 4: SEMI-AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE 5.2.4.1 PER LIFE CYCLE PHASE The total environmental impacts over the life cycle for Base-Case 4 according to EcoReport calculations are listed in Table 5-10, and the contribution of each life cycle stage is presented in Figure 5-7. These figures are based on preparation of 720 ml of espresso per day (as in the draft CENELEC method) for 7 years. Table 5-10: Base-Case 4 Life-time Impact Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION DIST END-OF-LIFE USE Materi Man RIBU Dispo Recy Resources Use and Emissions Total al uf. TION Total sal cl. Other Resources & Waste debet credit TOTAL 8 Total Energy (GER) MJ 433 136 569 92 14358 175 124 51 15070 of which, electricity (in MJ 9 primary MJ) 87 75 162 0 14354 0 6-6 14510 1 Water (process) ltr 0 116 2 118 0 2798 0 6-6 2910 1 Water (cooling) ltr 1 409 38 447 0 38278 0 6-6 38720 1 Waste, non-haz./ landfill g 2 5982 406 6388 71 16705 325 19 306 23470 1 Waste, hazardous/ g 3 incinerated 295 0 296 1 334 2310 7 2303 2934 Emissions (Air) 1 Greenhouse Gases in kg CO2 4 GWP100 eq. 21 8 29 7 627 13 9 5 667 1 mg R-11 negligible Ozone Depletion, emissions 5 eq. 1 g SO2 Acidification, emissions 6 eq. 187 34 221 19 3698 26 15 12 3950 1 Volatile Organic Compounds g 7 (VOC) 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 7 1 Persistent Organic ng i-teq 8 Pollutants (POP) 70 1 71 0 95 2 0 2 168 1 mg Ni Heavy Metals 9 eq. 70 1 72 4 247 47 1 47 369 mg Ni PAHs eq. 23 0 23 4 29 0 1-1 56 2 Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g 0 18 6 24 102 79 227 0 226 432 Emissions (Water) 2 Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 1 67 0 67 0 93 15 3 12 172 2 Eutrophication g PO4 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 2 3 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-teq negligible 18 Task 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 5-7: Base-Case 4 Life-cycle impact Materials acquisition dominates the environmental impacts for the category: Eutrophication to water (79%) and contributes significantly to the categories: PAHs (42%) Total Energy (GER) of which, electricity (in primary MJ) Water (process) 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 Material Manufacturing Distribution Use End-of-life Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) to air (42%) Heavy metals to air (19%) and to water (39%) Waste, non-hazardous / landfill (25%) Manufacturing is not significant (less than 2%) in any of the environmental indicator. Distribution accounts for all of the total environmental impacts for the following category: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) (11%) Particulate Matter (PM, dust) (24%) The use phase is clearly dominating in the case of: Total Energy (95%), of which electricity (99%) Water process (96%), including the water consumption for producing electricity and for making the coffee cup Greenhouse gases (94%) Waste, non-hazardous / landfill (71%) Task 5 19
Volatile Organic Compounds (89%) Heavy metals to air (67%) and to water (54%) Acidification emissions (94%) Persistant Organic Pollutants to air (56%) PAHs (53%) and contributes significantly in the case of: Particulate Matter (PM, dust) (18%) End-of-life impacts are dominating in the following categories: Waste, hazardous / incinerated (79%) Particulate Matter emissions to air (52%) and contributes significantly in the case of: Heavy metals to air (13%) Eutrophication (19%) 5.2.4.2 PER COMPONENT The contributions of the main components to the environmental impacts of the Base- Case 4 (in the production phase) are presented in Figure 5-8. Housing and electric circuit are again the main contributors to the environmental impacts. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Energy Total Water Total waste GWP AD VOC POP HM PAH PM Metal EUP HOUSING FILTER HOLDER SYSTEM STEAM NOZZLE SYSTEM ELECTRIC CIRCUIT RESISTANCE SYSTEM PUMP SYSTEM CONTROL SYSTEM STEAM SYSTEM PERCOLATOR SYSTEM Figure 5-8: Base-case 4 Environmental impacts of main components in the production phase 20 Task 5
5.2.5. BASE-CASE 5: FULLY-AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE 5.2.5.1 PER LIFE CYCLE PHASE The total environmental impacts over the life cycle for Base-Case 5 according to EcoReport calculations are listed in Table 5-11, and the contribution of each life cycle stage is presented in Figure 5-9. These figures are based on preparation of 720 ml of espresso per day (as in the draft CENELEC method) for 10 years. Table 5-11: Base-Case 5 Life-cycle impacts 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Life Cycle phases --> PRODUCTION DIST Materi Man RIBU Resources Use and Emissions Total al uf. TION Other Resources & Waste USE END-OF-LIFE Disp Rec Total osal ycl. debe cred t it TOTAL Total Energy (GER) MJ 628 273 901 134 11901 373 293 80 13017 of which, electricity (in primary MJ) MJ 82 143 225 0 11894 0 19-19 12101 Water (process) ltr 176 6 181 0 3423 0 16-16 3588 Water (cooling) ltr 655 77 733 0 31720 0 15-15 32438 Waste, non-haz./ landfill g 8006 778 8783 91 13876 512 56 456 23207 Waste, hazardous/ incinerated g 521 1 522 2 279 5066 20 5046 5849 Emissions (Air) Greenhouse Gases in kg CO2 GWP100 eq. 24 16 39 9 519 28 20 8 576 Ozone Depletion, emissions mg R-11 negligible eq. Acidification, emissions g SO2 eq. 260 71 331 27 3066 56 37 19 3442 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) g 0 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 8 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-teq 24 0 24 1 78 4 0 3 106 Heavy Metals PAHs mg Ni eq. 53 1 55 5 205 100 2 98 362 mg Ni eq. 57 1 58 5 25 0 2-2 86 Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g 24 13 37 208 66 483 1 482 793 Emissions (Water) Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 77 0 77 0 77 31 10 22 176 Eutrophication g PO4 4 0 4 0 0 2 0 2 6 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-teq negligible Task 5 21
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Energy (GER) of which, electricity (in primary MJ) Water (process) Waste, non-haz./ landfill Waste, hazardous/ incinerated Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 Acidification, emissions Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) Heavy Metals Figure 5-9: Base-Case 5 Life cycle impact Materials acquisition is dominating the environmental impacts for the following categories: Eutrophication to water (67%) PAHs (67%) PAHs Particulate Matter (PM, dust) Heavy Metals Eutrophication Material Manufacturing Distribution Use End-of-life and contributes significantly to the categories: Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) to air (23%) Heavy metals to water (15%) Waste, non-hazardous / landfill (35%) Manufacturing is not significant (less than 2%) in any of the environmental indicators except for the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) (15%). Distribution accounts for environmental impacts in the following categories: Particulate Matter (PM, dust) (26%) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) (15%) The use phase is clearly dominating in the case of: Total Energy (91%), of which electricity (98%) Water process (95%), including the water consumption for producing electricity and for making the coffee cup Greenhouse gases (90%) 22 Task 5
Waste, non-hazardous / landfill (60%) Volatile Organic Compounds (69%) Heavy metals to air (57%) and to water (44%) Acidification emissions (89%) Persistant Organic Pollutants to air (74%) and contributes significantly in the case of: PAHs (29%) End-of-life impacts are dominating in the following categories: Waste, hazardous / incinerated (86%) Particulate Matter emissions to air (61%) and contributes significantly in the case of: Heavy metals to air (27%) Eutrophication (33%) 5.2.5.2 PER COMPONENT The contributions of the main components to the environmental impacts of the Base- Case 5 (in the production phase) are presented in Figure 5-10. As for the other Base- Cases, housing (plastic) and electronic parts are the main contributors to environmental impacts. Polystyrene (PS) used in the coffee lid is also a high contributor in PAHs. EUP Metal PM PAH HM POP VOC AD GWP Total waste Total Water Total Energy 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% WATER TANK DRIP TRAY COFFEE LID TOP GRINDER STEAM WAND HOUSING MISCELLANOUS BREWING BLOC FRONT PART STEAM DISTRIBUTION WATER DISTRIBUTION INTERIOR PLASTIC HOUSING ELECTRONIC Figure 5-10: Base-case 5 Environmental impacts of main components within the production phase Task 5 23
5.2.6. SUMMARY Table 5-12 presents the results of the environmental assessment for the five Base- Cases, based on the impacts presented for each Base-Case in Table 5-7 to Table 5-11. Even if the aim is not to compare one product type with another, it can be noticed that semi-automatic and fully automatic espresso machines are much heavier than the other Base-Cases and thus consume more materials (including electronics). Therefore, their environmental impacts over their lifetime are more important for most of the indicators, except for Water (process), for which Base-Case 1 is more impacting as this type of coffee machine (drip filter) consumes more water during the coffee periods. As explained above, the use phase is by far the most impacting phase for most of the environmental indicators, and especially for the electricity consumption. Table 5-12: Summary of the results for the five Base-Cases 4 Base-Case 1 Base-Case 2 Base-Case 3 Base-Case 4 Base-Case 5 TOTAL USE TOTAL USE TOTAL USE TOTAL USE TOTAL USE Materials, TOTAL (kg) 2 516 1 842 2 968 4 866 8 332 of which, Disposal (kg) 1 609 1 172 1 481 2 486 5 195 Recycled (kg) 907 670 1487 2380 3137 Total Energy (GER) 11 120 10 673 12 248 11 914 9 279 8 856 15 070 14 358 13 016 11 901 of which, electricity (in primary MJ) 10 786 10 671 11 962 11 912 8 935 8 854 14 510 14 354 12 100 11 894 Water (process) 4 525 4 435 2 664 2 634 2 497 2 430 2 910 2 798 3 589 3 423 Waste, non-haz./landfill 14 751 12 392 17 415 13 845 14 250 10 301 23 470 16 705 23 207 13 876 Waste, hazardous/ incinerated 1 801 246 1 483 275 1 620 204 2 933 334 5 849 279 Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 492 466 540 520 412 386 668 627 576 519 Acidification, emissions 2 900 2 749 3 185 3 068 2 439 2 281 3 950 3 698 3 443 3 066 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 5 4 5 4 4 3 6 5 6 4 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) 84 70 85 78 105 58 168 95 106 78 Heavy Metals to air 298 184 264 205 250 153 369 247 362 205 PAHs 40 30 94 84 88 78 55 29 86 25 Particulate Matter (PM, dust) 335 59 295 66 274 49 431 79 793 66 Heavy Metals to water 138 69 127 77 119 58 172 93 176 77 Eutrophication 3 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 6 0 4 In this table the value 0 is not an absolute zero but it is a rounded value. 24 Task 5
5.3. BASE-CASE LIFE CYCLE COSTS The Life-Cycle Costs (LCC) of the five Base-Cases are presented in Table 5-13. They were calculated with the EcoReport tool using the product price, energy and water consumption and their associated rates, consumption of other consumables (e.g. coffee, filters) and their associated rates, and repair and maintenance costs (decalcification) (see section 2.4.3). Table 5-13: EcoReport outcomes of the LCC calculations of the five Base-Cases Base-Case 1 Base-Case 2 Base-Case 3 Base-Case 4 Base-Case 5 Product price ( ) 35 81 156 103 595 Energy costs ( ) 147 161 120 195 152 Coffee costs ( ) 1 952 3 943 7 887 2 208 2 984 Other costs (water, filter) ( ) Repair and maintenance costs ( ) 124 4 4 4 6 0 72 72 72 194 LCC ( ) 2 257 4 262 8 239 2 582 3 931 The coffee price represents the biggest part of the LCC. The coffee is more expensive for Base-Case 3 because of the caps. From a consumer point of view, an increase in energy efficiency will be more visible for Base-Cases 1 to 4, as the LCC will be reduced in a bigger way (the product price for Base-Case 5 represents 58% of the life cycle cost apart from coffee costs, see Figure 5-12). Other costs for the drip filter coffee machine (Base-Case 1) are high compared to the other Base-Cases as they include the filters besides the water cost (see Figure 5-11). Task 5 25
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Base-Case 1 Base-Case 2 Base-Case 3 Base-Case 4 Base-Case 5 Product price Energy costs Coffee costs Other costs Repair and maintenance costs Figure 5-11: Contribution of various costs to the LCC of the Base-Cases, including coffee costs 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Base-Case 1 Base-Case 2 Base-Case 3 Base-Case 4 Base-Case 5 Product price Energy costs Other costs Repair and maintenance costs Figure 5-12: Contribution of various costs to the LCC of the Base-Cases, excluding coffee costs 26 Task 5
5.4. EU TOTALS This section provides the environmental assessment of the Base-cases at the EU-27 level using stock and market data from Task 2 for the year 2010. 5.4.1. LIFE CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table 5-14 shows the total environmental impacts of all products in operation in EU-27 in 2010, based on the extrapolation of the Base-Cases impacts (assuming that all coffee machines have the same impacts as the Base-Case of their category). These figures come from the EcoReport tool by multiplying the individual environmental impacts of a Base-Case with the stock of this Base-Case in 2010. In addition the total electricity consumption of the stock of coffee machines corresponds to about 17 TWh. Table 5-14: Environmental impacts of the EU-27 stock in 2010 for all Base-cases Environmental Impact Base- Case 1 Base- Case 2 Base- Case 3 Base- Case 4 Base- Case 5 Total Total Energy (GER) (in PJ) 108.76 35.77 15.76 19.31 7.51 187.11 of which electricity (in PJ) 105.67 34.76 14.73 18.66 6.77 180.58 Water process (in million m 3 ) 44.31 7.75 4.18 3.73 2.03 62.00 Waste,non-hazardous/landfill (in kt) 143.28 52.79 28.73 29.35 15.26 269.42 Waste, hazardous/ incinerated (in kt) Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 (in Mt CO 2 eq.) 16.78 5.07 4.59 3.45 4.67 34.55 Emissions to air 4.81 1.58 0.71 0.85 0.33 8.29 Acidification, emissions (in kt SO 2 eq.) 28.35 9.32 4.20 5.05 2.01 48.94 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) (in kt) Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) (in g i-teq.) Heavy Metals emissions to the air (in ton Ni eq.) 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.81 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.07 1.58 2.86 0.81 0.54 0.46 0.24 4.91 PAHs (in ton Ni eq.) 0.39 0.28 0.16 0.07 0.06 0.96 Particulate Matter (PM, dust) (in kt) 3.13 1.00 0.76 0.51 0.63 6.02 Emissions to water Task 5 27
Environmental Impact Heavy Metals emissions to water (in ton Hg/20) Base- Case 1 Base- Case 2 Base- Case 3 Base- Case 4 Base- Case 5 Total 1.32 0.40 0.28 0.21 0.12 2.33 Eutrophication (in kt PO 4 ) 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 A summary of environmental impacts of the Base-Cases as a percentage of total impacts is presented in Figure 5-13. Total Energy (GER) 10% 4% 9% 19% 58% of which electricity 4% 8% 10% 19% 59% 28 Task 5
Water process 3% 7% 6% 13% 71% Waste,non-hazardous/landfill 11% 6% 11% 53% 19% Waste, hazardous/ incinerated 13% 10% 49% 13% 15% Task 5 29
Particulate Matter (PM, dust) 8% 10% 13% 52% 17% Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 10% 4% 9% 19% 58% Acidification, emissions 10% 4% 9% 19% 58% 30 Task 5
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) 13% 4% 15% 52% 16% Heavy Metals emissions to the air 9% 5% 11% 17% 58% Heavy Metals emissions to water 9% 5% 12% 17% 57% Figure 5-13: Base-Cases share of the environmental impacts of the 2010 stock Task 5 31
Drip filter coffee machines contribute to the biggest share in all the indicators calculated by EcoReport as they represented 52.1% of the total stock of electric coffee machines in 2010. 5.4.2. LIFE CYCLE COSTS Regarding the total consumer expenditure in 2010 related to coffee machines, about 89% of the total costs are due to the price of coffee. This percentage is lower for fullyautomatic espresso machine (71%) due to the price of this product. Details on consumer expenditure are provided in Table 5-15. These results come from the EcoReport tool which take into account the various costs per machine and then extrapolate them for the year 2010 by using the sales and stock data. Table 5-15: Total annual consumer expenditure in EU-27, 2010 EU-27 sales (mln units) Basecase 1 Basecase 2 Basecase 3 Basecase 4 Basecase 5 Total 9,24 3,53 3,01 1,16 0,81 17,75 Share of the EU-27 sales 52.1% 19.9% 17.0% 6.5% 4.6% Product Price (mln ) Energy costs (mln ) 323 286 470 119 482 1 680 1 654 547 229 292 104 2 826 Coffee costs (mln ) Other costs (water, filter, ) 21 899 1 384 13 350 14 15 045 8 3 315 6 2 042 4 55 651 1 416 (mln ) Repair and maintenance costs 0 244 137 108 133 622 (mln ) Total (mln ) Share of Total Annual Consumer Expenditure 25 260 14 441 15 889 3 840 2 765 62 195 40.6% 23.2% 25.5% 6.2% 4.4% 32 Task 5
5.5. CONCLUSIONS The environmental impact assessments carried out with the EcoReport tool shows that there are some common observations to all domestic Base-Cases: the use phase is by far the most impacting stage of the life cycle in terms of energy consumption and waste, non-hazardous/landfill. The production phase has a significant contribution to the following impacts: generation of non-hazardous waste, heavy metals emissions to air and water, acidification emissions and eutrophication. Finally, the end-of-life phase is dominating only one category: Waste, hazardous/ incinerated. The analysis of the improvement potential in Task 7 will focus on technologies that reduce the energy consumption, and also on alternative material reducing environmental impacts. Task 6 will examine the improvement options of coffee machines considered as best available technologies, in an attempt to improve upon the Base-Cases. Task 5 33
999996 Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III) [Contract N TREN/D3/91-2007-Lot 25-SI2.521716] Lot 25 Non-Tertiary Coffee Machines Task 6: Technical analysis of BAT and BNAT Final version In association with Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal Benoît Tinetti + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 shailendra.mudgal@biois.com benoit.tinetti@biois.com
Project Team BIO Intelligence Service Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Mr. Benoît Tinetti Mr. Lorcan Lyons Ms. Perrine Lavelle Arts et Métiers Paristech / ARTS Mr. Alain Cornier Ms. Charlotte Sannier 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. 2 Task 6
Contents 6. Task 6 Technical analysis of BAT and BNAT... 4 6.1. Introduction... 4 6.2. Definition of BAT at component level... 5 6.2.1. Description of BAT design options...6 6.2.2. Potential of improvement options...8 6.3. Definition of BAT at product level... 9 6.3.1. Best-performing products according to stakeholders and past and future improvements...9 6.3.2. Best-performing products according to Topten...14 6.3.3. Best-performing products according to the Swiss FEA/CECED energy label...16 6.3.4. BAT outside the EU...17 6.4. Definition of BNAT... 17 6.4.1. BNAT outside the EU...18 6.4.2. Alternative technologies...18 6.5. Conclusions... 20 Task 6 3
6. TASK 6 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF BAT AND BNAT 6.1. INTRODUCTION The objective of this task report is to describe the main design options for improving the efficiency and environmental performance of non-tertiary coffee machines. It provides inputs for the identification of improvement potential in Task 7. This task report entails description and technical analysis of Best Available Technologies (BATs) and Best Not yet Available Technologies (BNATs). BATs are currently available technologies that reduce environmental impacts and can be introduced at product level within 2-3 years. Technologies that lead to further reduction of environmental impacts but are still in development and expected to be introduced in 5-10 years time are BNATs. Best refers to the environmental performance of the product; Available refers to the technical and economic feasibility of implementing the technology and applies whether or not the technology is currently produced or used within the EU as long as it is reasonably accessible; Not yet available means subject to research and development but not yet on a scale that would allow implementation. This report looks at improvement options for both individual components and whole products. Section 6.2 describes several BAT design options at component level. Five design options are selected for further analysis. In order to analyse possible trade-offs in terms of additional environmental impacts in the production, distribution or end-oflife phases, for each design option the differences in material composition between a standard product and a product with integrated design option(s) are presented. Furthermore, a rough estimate of the market share each BAT option already has is provided. State-of-the-art product technology outside the EU is also described. Section 6.3 takes a similar approach but at the level of the product as a whole. Section 6.4 looks at BNATs: further design options that might improve the environmental performance of non-tertiary coffee machines but are currently under development (i.e. at prototype stage) and have not yet been implemented. Alternative technologies and BNATs from outside the EU are included. Information for this task was gathered from a number of different sources. Major European manufacturers and NGOs provided inputs in response to a questionnaire 1. The information on BATs was derived from manufacturer feedback supplemented by market research. Manufacturers were asked to provide estimates of costs and savings potentials. Feedback was received from three manufacturers. 1 Four questionnaires filled by stakeholders (individuals or federations) were received. 4 Task 6
Other research studies were also consulted to provide further insight into the current state of the art in non-tertiary coffee machine technology as well as the BNATs. Stakeholders say they improve their products to comply with legislation, to obtain certification and labels (e.g. the Swiss energy label) and in response to consumer demand. They are divided as to the relative importance of these drivers, with some claiming to be driven mostly by legislation and others by consumer demand. In addition, some say they take a holistic perspective of reducing the overall carbon footprint of coffee along the supply chain. It is important to note that information regarding the saving potential of improvement options should be seen in the following context: The standard measurement method for quantifying the energy consumption of non-tertiary coffee machines is currently being revised by CENELEC, and there are no standards requiring manufacturers to define the measurement procedure for potential savings (see Task 1). Energy savings depend on many different factors such as: ambient air temperature, water temperature, type of machine, user behaviour and, last but not least, the base or reference case to which savings are compared. Little or no systematic independent research is carried out on the potential saving impacts of improvement options. Manufacturers use a variety of terms to describe improvement options and assess their systems in a variety of ways. Figures in sales brochures are used for marketing purposes and might overestimate actual savings. Quantitative data provided by manufacturers with regard to savings potentials are estimations. For the above reasons, estimations and quantitative data provided by different manufacturers diverge considerably. The data presented in this task report are average values. 6.2. DEFINITION OF BAT AT COMPONENT LEVEL The emphasis in this section is on the improvement of individual coffee machine components, as a way to improve the product as a whole. The aim is to describe the best components that are already in use or will be used in future. The importance of energy consumption in the use phase to overall life-cycle impacts has been shown in several studies and is thus a prerequisite for BAT. The energy consumption of non-tertiary coffee machines for coffee-making is mainly for water heating, with small amounts for motor energy for mechanical action, for electronics and heat losses. The amount of energy used for heating depends on the amount of Task 6 5
water, the temperature of the cold water inlet and the temperature to be reached. The energy used for mechanical action depends on the type of coffee machine and its features. During the coffee-making process, the energy used to heat water also flows to other parts of the machine and is lost to the environment. That heat loss depends for example on the insulation, the ambient temperature (to a minor degree) and the temperature of the heated water. The use phase for coffee machines extends beyond coffee-making. Use patterns tend to concentrate energy consumption in the ready-to-use and standby modes, and for drip filter machines in keeping coffee warm. Manufacturers thus focus on these modes in order to reduce energy consumption. In terms of the machines themselves, the key development area cited by stakeholders is to increase the energy efficiency of components, followed by options to reduce endof-life impacts. Improved insulation, optimisation of case design and other design options are less important and depend on the product concerned. Among components, some stakeholders cited electrical components, power supply modules and software as the components with the greatest potential for energy savings. As mentioned above, consumers are said to demand improved products in general. However, they do not demand improvements to any specific product or component. In fact, the main requests are said to be for shorter heating-up times and higher in-cup temperatures. 6.2.1. DESCRIPTION OF BAT DESIGN OPTIONS The options in this section have been selected based in large part on information from manufacturers and consumer organisations. 2 Each option is applicable to all nontertiary coffee machines but may be more suited to a particular type of machine than to others. 6.2.1.1 OPTION 1: AUTO-POWER DOWN (AND SHORT DELAY TIME) Reducing the duration of the ready-to-use mode is the first and very simple efficiency measure to consider. Stakeholders agree that auto-power down has the biggest potential to improve the energy efficiency of a coffee machine. Auto-power off would reduce energy consumption even more but would require a mechanical switch and the additional saving would not be justified if auto-power down is sufficiently low. The function is especially important for non-tertiary coffee machines that are used in office settings since they are seldom if ever switched off manually. Auto-power down will be mandatory from 2013 onwards under the Standby Regulation. 3 However, the length of the delay before entering standby mode is not 2 Nipkow, J. and B. Josephy (2010), Best Available Technologies, general comments, private communication, 2 December 2010, topten.info. 3 European Commission, No 1275/2008. 6 Task 6
specified in the Regulation, nor is it specified if the delay is from the time the machine was switched on or from the time it was last used. According to stakeholders, the length of the delay before auto-power down is currently chosen in order to achieve a good classification in the available energy label (i.e. the Swiss energy label). In order for a non-tertiary coffee machine to be considered a BAT model, the auto-power down delay should be reasonable to also consider consumer s needs. Today, the lag is often around one hour and sometimes longer. Factory settings of new machines placed on the market have been shortened in recent years: for some models, the setting is still two hours or more, for many new models it is between 10 minutes and one hour and for a small number of models it is one minute or even less. Although a short delay might prove frustrating in offices, non-tertiary coffee machines are in any case intended for domestic use and their use in offices may contravene health and safety legislation. Another concern is that auto-power down might automatically initiate the rinsing process, using energy and water needlessly. However, this possibility should not be difficult to avoid. 6.2.1.2 OPTION 2: INSULATION OF HOT PARTS (THERMO-BLOCK, BOILERS, WATER HEATERS OF ANY KIND) After auto-power down, insulation of the heater is the component that manufacturers focus on most. Thermal losses from heaters can be substantially lowered by even a thin amount of insulation on the hot parts. The insulation prevents the cooling effect of air ventilating those parts. Even with flow-through water heaters (see below) a further small efficiency gain from insulation can be expected. For drip filter coffee machines, this option corresponds to the use of an insulated jug. In such machines, a warming plate is normally not used. 6.2.1.3 OPTION 3: FLOW-THROUGH WATER HEATERS The latest water-heating units, called flow-through water heaters or continuous-flow heaters, activate just before coffee production begins and they switch off once it is finished. Thus, auto-power down is much less relevant. With instant heating devices such as these, there is no ready-mode consumption. Today they can be found in many Bosch Tassimo machines. 4 Note that drip filter machines technically also use flowthrough heating but with steam rather than pump pressure. Flow-through heaters are considered by some to be the most efficient water heaters for coffee machines, though others consider that thermoblocks can achieve similar results if combined with autopower down (both technologies are types of heat exchanger). Some stakeholders also express concern that for espresso brewing, the in-cup quality may be affected by flowthrough heaters due to the difficulty of controlling the final temperature of the coffee. Although flow-through heaters and thermoblocks can be considered equivalent in some respects, in the analysis Option 3 refers to a flow-through heater only. 4 See www.tassimo.co.uk/help/machines/900. Note that Tassimo machines are covered by Base-Case 2 because they are low-pressure portioned machines, even though they use hard caps rather than soft pads. Task 6 7
6.2.1.4 OPTION 4: ZERO STANDBY "Zero standby", i.e. a standby mode with very low energy consumption, is now an established product feature in the appliances sector. TV sets, for example, use a standby mode because they are activated by remote control. However, as the use of a coffee machine requires the pressing of a button or another manipulation by the user anyway, there is in principle no need for a standby function and zero standby could be implemented. Note that zero in this case would not be absolute zero since there can still be a negligible amount of leakage as long as the machine is plugged in. Also, a very small amount of energy consumption would be required in machines with a display. Note, however, that for some models there could be some loss of functionality as very low standby could result in longer restart time or preclude an auto-turn on function. 6.2.1.1 OPTION 5: HIGH-EFFICIENCY POWER SUPPLY A high-efficiency power supply was mentioned by some stakeholders as a potential improvement option. However, the technical justification for significant energy savings as a result is not clear. It seems that the potential will be exploited anyway as a result of the Standby Regulation to cover power management systems. Standby includes more efficient power supply because it sets limits for energy consumption in off and standby modes. Therefore, the option has not been analysed further in this study. 6.2.1.2 OPTION 6: REDUCED AMOUNT OF WATER TO BE HEATED FOR HYGIENIC AND QUALITY PURPOSES Most coffee machines heat some water for rinsing purposes when switched on or off, or they discard a small amount of coffee at the beginning of the brewing process because it might be not hot enough or of sufficient quality. The consumption of energy and resources (including chemicals) for decalcification and (automatic) cleaning should be considered and can be reduced in some cases, e.g. by reducing the temperature and volume of water used for these processes. However, for the assessment of the Base- Cases carried out in task 5, except the use of decalcifiers considered for calculating the LCC, considering that such functions have negligible environmental impacts compared to those caused by making coffee. 6.2.2. POTENTIAL OF IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Table 6-1 shows the impact that improvement options could have for various types of machine, according to stakeholders. Estimates of energy savings are provided in this table based on replies received from a questionnaire sent to stakeholders. The detailed assessment of energy savings and effects on other environmental impacts of these improvement options compared to the Base-Cases is carried out in Task 7. The actual values used are listed there. 8 Task 6
Table 6-1: Impact of possible component level improvements (stakeholder inputs) Improvement option Auto-power down (e.g. 60, 30, 5 minutes) Zero standby Applicability All (though 5 minute delay could be considered short for BC 1, BC 4 and BC 5) All Estimated energy reduction compared to BC Increase in final price compared to BC 30-40% (BC 3) < 1 (BC 3) 3 (BC 3) 30 (BC 4, BC 5) Additional insulation All (thermos jug for BC 1), though potential savings small except for BC 1 5%; 30% (BC 3) 5 (BC 3), 10 (BC 5) Improved insulation material No; not expected in 2-3 years 30-100 Flow-through heater BC 2-5 35% (BC 2), 10% (BC 3-5) 50 (BC 3); 20-50 (BC 2-5) The improvement options 1 to 4 described in section 6.2.1 lead to a reduction in energy demand during the use phase. In order to analyse possible trade-offs with environmental impacts in the production, distribution or end-of-life phases, differences in material composition between a basic product and a product with integrated design options were investigated. Additional material consumption for these options is not significant. For example, most modern coffee machines are already equipped with electronics to control water and brewing temperatures etc. Manufacturers did not state any change in material composition. The additional input is mainly technical knowledge and some electronics. 6.3. DEFINITION OF BAT AT PRODUCT LEVEL 6.3.1. BEST-PERFORMING PRODUCTS ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS AND PAST AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS This section considers the product as a whole. Comparisons of past, present and expected future products can give an idea of the evolution of non-tertiary coffee machines and medium-term trends, though some stakeholders claim the market is Task 6 9
developing too rapidly to provide estimates even in the short run. One trend that is clear is that manufacturers have been modifying their products to comply with the Standby Regulation. In Table 6-2, each row corresponds to a product as reported by a stakeholder. In Tables 6-3 and 6-4, the ranges of values reported for each Base-Case are shown. 10 Task 6
Table 6-2: Best-performing products as reported by stakeholders Type Year of market entry Final price including VAT (euros) Power consumption in standby 5 Power consumption in ready-to-use mode Default autopower down delay (minutes) Energy-saving (reduced water temperature) mode delay (minutes) 6 BC 1 7 2007 55 0 W n.a. Immediate n.a. BC 1 2009 50 0 W n.a 120 n.a. BC 2 2010 89 0.4 W 8 15 W 30 n.a. BC 2 9 0 W Immediate BC 3 2009 189 <0.5 W 10 W 30 n.a. BC 3 2008 549 <1 W 10 W 30-720 n.a. BC 5 2010 600-1 000 1-2 W 10 <10 W 5-60 5-60 BC 5 2010 1 099 0.5 W n.a 30-96 5-60 5 Ranges depend in part on whether or not a display is available. 6 This column is for information only; the feature is not considered BAT. 7 Drip filter coffee machine with thermo-jug and automatic switch-off after brewing. 8 Measurement method: Swiss energy label (FEA/CECED). 9 Low-pressure portioned (e.g. Tassimo) 10 Measurement method: IEC 62301. 11 Task 6
Table 6-3: Average products in Europe as reported by stakeholders Type Year Final price including VAT (euros) Power consumption in standby Power consumption in ready-to-use mode Default auto-power down delay (minutes) BC 1 BC 2 BC 3 BC 4 BC 5 2010 35-50 0-2 W 11 n.a. 120 2007 35-50 0-3 W n.a. 120-150 2010 81 0-2 W 11 15-30 W 12 30-60 2007 81 0-3 W 15-30 W 12 30-60 2010 129-156 <0.5-2 W 10 W 12 9-60 2007 156-249 2 - >4 W 10-18 W 12 <180 2010 103 n.a. 18 W 12 n.a. 2007 120 n.a. 18 W 12 n.a. 2010 595 1-2 W 11 <20 W 12 60 2007 500 3 - >4 W 50 W 12 120 11 Measurement method: IEC 62301. 12 Measurement method: Swiss energy label (FEA/CECED). 12 Task 6
Table 6-4: Short-term improvement (2012-2013) as reported by stakeholders Type Final price including VAT (euros) Power consumption in standby Power consumption in ready mode Default auto-power down delay BC 1 40-45 0.5-1 n.a. 5-120 13 BC 2 90 0.5-1 15-30 W 14 30-60 BC 3 165 <0.1-2 W 15 5-10 W 6 BC 4 1-2 W 15 20 W n.a. BC 5 1-2 W 15 <5 W 60 13 Between 5 and 60 minutes depending on the setting, and two hours until the heating plate is automatically switched off. 14 Measurement method: Swiss energy label (FEA/CECED). 15 Measurement method: IEC 62301. Task 6 13
6.3.2. BEST-PERFORMING PRODUCTS ACCORDING TO TOPTEN The Topten website (www.topten.info) presents an overview of the best-performing fully automatic and capsule machine (pad filter and hard cap) products in Europe. 16 Filter coffee machines and commercial appliances with a permanent water supply are not considered. The selection is made only from those suppliers that provide data. The coffee machines displayed on the website meet the following criteria: A) Fully automatic machines Time lag of the auto-power down, factory setting: maximum 1 hour Power consumption in standby (or sleep) mode following the auto-power down: maximum 1 W Electricity consumption in ready mode: maximum 35 Wh B) Capsule machines (hard cap and pad filter) 17 Time lag of the auto-power down, factory setting: maximum 30 minutes Power consumption in standby (or sleep) following the auto-power down: maximum 1 W Electricity consumption for ready mode: maximum 30 Wh Some of these models have a very short auto-power down delay time and zero standby consumption. Products are ranked according to their electricity costs over a period of 10 years. 18 Electricity consumption is measured according to the Euro-Topten Measuring Method and Calculation Formula for the Electricity Consumption of Coffee Machines for Household Use. 19 The two top-ranked products from each category are presented in the tables below. 16 See www.topten.info/english/household/coffee_machines/super_automatics.html and www.topten.info/english/household/coffee_machines/capsule_espresso_machiines.html. 17 Topten says it does not have information on other types of portioned machines such as pad machines meet the criteria so they are not yet included. 18 The electricity tariff used is 0.15/kWh. It is recognised that there can be large differences depending on the country and the electricity utility. 19 See www.topten.info/english/criteria/coffee_machine_ak.html&fromid=. 14 Task 6
Table 6-5: Best available fully automatic coffee machines according to www.topten.info Brand Nivona Rotel Rotel Krups Inefficient Model CafeRomantica 750 AroMatica 755 Adagio 330 EA 8010 No auto-power down Similar models NICR605 / 650 / 730 / 735 / 770 Aromatica 751 / Aromatica 753 Adagio 310 Rowenta / ES6910 - Pump pressure (bars) Electricity cost over 10 years ( ) Energy per year (kwh) Standby mode (W) Switch-off delay (minutes) 15 15 15 15 15 60 62 63 63 294 40 41 42 42 196 0 0 0 0.5 3.6 60 30 30 60 n.a. Countries AT, CZ, NL CH CH AT BE CH DE ES FI FR NL PT - Table 6-6: Best available pad filter and hard caps coffee machines according to www.topten.info Brand Bosch Bosch Bosch Delizio Krups Cremesso Delizio Inefficient Model Tassimo 4011CH Tassimo T20 Tassimo 6515 CH Comfort II Nescafé Dolce Gusto Fontana KP3002 Compact Compact No autopower down Pump pressure (bars) 3.3 3.3 3.3 22 15 22 22 15 Electricity 45 48 48 51 53 53 53 294 Task 6 15
cost over 10 years ( ) Energy per year (kwh) Standby mode (W) Switch-off delay (minutes) 30 32 32 34 35 35 35 196 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.05 0.4 0.25 0.25 3.6 0 3 0 1 5 1 1 n.a. Countries AT CH DE ES FR AT CH DE ES FR AT CH DE ES FR CH CH ES AT CH - 6.3.3. BEST-PERFORMING PRODUCTS ACCORDING TO THE SWISS FEA/CECED ENERGY LABEL In Switzerland, an energy label is already in place as presented in Task 1. It uses an energy consumption measurement method developed by the Swiss FEA with the European association CECED. Table 6-8: Selected A-grade coffee machines bearing the Swiss FEA energy label 20 Fully automatic Hard cap Brand DeLonghi Saeco Nespresso König Nespresso König Model ECAM 23.210.B Intensa Saeco XSmall Plus H13220 CitiZ Capri Automatic Pump pressure (bars) Indicative retail price ( ) Electricity costs over ten years ( ) 15 15 19 19 799 599 269 199 71 87 55 63 Energy per year (kwh) 21 47 58 37 42 20 Source: www.melectronics.ch, accessed December 2010. 21 Calculated using the same electricity tariff used by the TopTen website, i.e. 0.15/kWh. 16 Task 6
Standby mode (W) - - 0.9 0.8 Default switch-off delay (minutes) 120 (range programmable between 15 and 180) 60 30 30 6.3.4. BAT OUTSIDE THE EU Although the Ecodesign Directive applies to the EU common market, state-of-the-art technologies may also found outside the EU. However, it was stated by manufacturers that the most advanced coffee machine technologies and the most efficient nontertiary coffee machines are produced in the EU. Even the United States coffee machine industry seems to be far behind Europe as its coffee machines use more energy than European products. Thus no further improvement options for non-tertiary coffee machines from outside the EU were identified. 6.4. DEFINITION OF BNAT This section focuses on product research in the EU as applied to components such as case design, new materials, heating elements or user modes. In order to gain an overview of future developments and long-term saving potential in the non-tertiary coffee machines sector, manufacturers were asked to name improvement technologies that are expected to be introduced within five to ten years. They were also asked to estimate energy saving potential. Although manufacturers emphasised that the sector is still subject to research and development efforts, it should be noted that for competition reasons, manufacturers are very reluctant to talk about inventions, ideas and strategies that are not yet available on the market. Competition between the manufacturers is fierce and the circle of leading manufacturers is rather small. For this reason the information received from manufacturers may be incomplete. The following information was gathered through a questionnaire: Drip filter coffee machine: long-term improvement option will focus on improving the thermal insulation of the jug; the heating unit can also be better insulated, thereby reducing heat loss during brewing; Hard cap espresso machine: improving the energy efficiency of the appliance will still be the main focus of R&D. It can be expected that the standby power consumption in 5-10 years will be below 0.1 W and that the electricity consumption in ready-to-use (RTU) mode will be below 1 Wh/h. The use of the Task 6 17
auto-power down function would not be necessary anymore due to the low consumption in RTU mode (or due to the use of a flow-through heater). Fully automatic espresso machine: some manufacturers claim that the main focus is on continuous improvement in espresso brewing quality to satisfy customers requests. Energy efficiency may not be the first focus for manufacturers for this type of coffee machine. Other technical breakthroughs expected by manufacturers are: electronics boards that consume less energy; shorter (EU) supply chains; more efficient thermal insulation; greater freedom of intellectual property concerning energy consumption; new machines designed to be compatible with alternative energy sources. One improvement option mentioned by manufacturers that has not yet been applied to hard cap espresso coffee machines is the flow-through water heater. As described above, this is an instant heating device that will switch on only when hot water is required. This will avoid energy consumption in ready mode. This feature is already available in soft pad espresso machines and in France in the Special T hard cap tea machine 22 but not yet in BC 3 machines. 6.4.1. BNAT OUTSIDE THE EU Although the Ecodesign Directive applies to the EU common market, for many products state-of-the-art technologies may also be found outside the EU. However, manufacturers state that the most advanced coffee machine technologies and the most efficient non-tertiary coffee machines are produced in the EU. Even the United States coffee machine industry seems to be far behind Europe as its coffee machines use more energy than European products. Thus no further improvement options for non-tertiary coffee machines from outside the EU were identified. EU manufacturers say they use the same standards and technologies even where requirements are less strict. 6.4.2. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES Humbert et al. (2009) made a comparative LCA of spray dried soluble (instant) coffee, drip filter coffee and hard cap coffee. 23 The authors found that around half of the total life cycle environmental impact of instant coffee occurs pre-consumer (cultivation, treatment, processing, packaging, distribution and advertising) and half during the use phase and disposal. It was found that instant coffee has a lower environmental footprint than capsule coffee, which in turn has a lower environmental 22 See www.nestle.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/allpressreleases/nestle-launches-pioneering-teamachine-system-special-t.htm. 23 Humbert, S., Loerincik, Y., Rossi, V., Margni, M. and O. Jolliet (2009) Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsule espresso) in Journal of Cleaner Production, 17 (2009) 1351 1358, Elsevier. 18 Task 6
footprint than drip filter on a per cup basis. It has to be noted that the assumption was made that one third of the drip filter coffee is wasted and the machine had a standby delay of two hours. However, despite the life cycle benefits of instant coffee, it is not clear whether instant coffee can be presented as a realistic alternative in the context of this study. Most consumers would say that the quality (i.e. the functionality) of instant coffee is inferior to that prepared by an espresso machine or even a drip filter machine. Indeed, the differences between beverages with espresso and coffee tastes are such that they may almost be considered alternative technologies. Other alternatives exist but with significantly different functionalities. For example, a new patented technology has appeared recently on the market, the Handpresso 24. This technology allows preparation of an espresso (pressure up to 16 bars) with a manual pump, using either pads or ground coffee. However, hot water has to be added and therefore such an appliance is not technically an energy-using product. 24 See www.handpresso.com. Task 6 19
6.5. CONCLUSIONS The analysis of BAT in this report identified several options for improving the environmental performance and energy efficiency of non-tertiary coffee machines. These Bats aims at either: Reduce the time in ready-to-use mode, or Reduce the electricity consumption in ready-to-use mode, or Reduce the electricity consumption in standby mode. Sales of these machines are increasingly rapidly so what might be considered BNAT can become BAT very quickly. Improvements tend to be integrated within the typical design cycle of these products. BNAT options therefore tend to relate to changes in product type. The application of these improvement options into the Base-Cases will be assessed in Task 7 on both environmental and economic aspects. Some alternative technologies exist to produce a cup of coffee such as the use of instant coffee with water warmed in a kettle. However, such a process cannot produce an espresso and thus the quality of the coffee is not comparable. 20 Task 6
Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III) [Contract N TREN/D3/91-2007-Lot 25-SI2.521716] Lot 25 Non-tertiary Coffee Machines Task 7: Improvement potential Final version In association with Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal Benoît Tinetti + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 shailendra.mudgal@biois.com benoit.tinetti@biois.com
Project Team BIO Intelligence Service Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Mr. Benoît Tinetti Mr. Lorcan Lyons Ms. Perrine Lavelle Arts et Métiers Paristech / ARTS Mr. Alain Cornier Ms. Charlotte Sannier 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. 2 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Contents 7. Task 7 Improvement potential... 5 7.1. Identification of design options...5 7.1.1. Base-case 1: Drip filter coffee machine... 6 7.1.2. Base-case 2: Pad filter coffee machine... 8 7.1.3. Base-case 3: Hard cap espresso machine... 11 7.1.4. Base-Case 4: Semi-automatic espresso machine... 14 7.1.5. Base-case 5: Fully automatic espresso machine... 18 7.2. Impact analysis...21 7.2.1. Base-case 1: Drip filter coffee machine... 21 7.2.2. Base-Case 2: Pad filter coffee machine... 28 7.2.3. Base-case 3: Hard cap espresso machine... 32 7.2.1. Base-case 4: Semi-automatic espresso machine... 36 7.2.2. Base-case 5: Fully automatic espresso machine... 40 7.3. Cost analysis...44 7.3.1. Base-Case 1: Drip filter coffee machine... 44 7.3.2. Base-case 2: Pad filter coffee machine... 45 7.3.3. Base-case 3: Hard cap espresso machine... 46 7.3.4. Base-case 4: Semi-automatic espresso machine... 47 7.3.5. Base-case 5: Fully automatic espresso machine... 48 7.4. Analysis of BAT and LLCC...50 7.4.1. Base-case 1: Drip filter coffee machine... 50 7.4.2. Base-Case 2: Pad filter coffee machine... 51 7.4.3. Base-case 3: Hard cap espresso machine... 51 7.4.4. Base-case 4: Semi-automatic espresso machine... 52 7.4.5. Base-case 5: Fully automatic espresso machine... 52 7.5. Conclusions...54 Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 3
This page is intentionally left blank. 4 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
7. TASK 7 IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL The purpose of this task is to identify design options, their monetary consequences in terms of life-cycle cost to the consumer, their environmental costs and benefits and the solutions with the Least Life-Cycle Cost (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 expenditure of an EU consumer over the total product life (purchase price, running costs, etc.). The distance between the LLCC and the BAT indicates where an LLCC solution is set as a minimum target the remaining space for product differentiation (competition). The BAT is a medium-term target that would probably more subject to promotional measures than restrictions. 7.1. IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN OPTIONS This section presents the different improvement options applicable to each Base-Case. In the context of the Ecodesign Directive, design option(s) should: not cause significant variation in functionality or performance parameters compared to the Base-Cases, or in the product-specific inputs; have a significant potential for ameliorating one or more environmental impacts without significantly deteriorating other impact parameters; and not entail excessive costs, or burden on the manufacturer. Energy savings that result from different technologies cannot always be directly added when combining various improvement options. Some options overlap each other, and therefore the effect of implementing two or more of them would not be a simple addition of their respective savings. In this study, the improvement potential of a particular improvement option or a combination of improvement options is evaluated using the MEEuP EcoReport tool. The cost-effectiveness of an improvement option can be expressed in terms of payback time in years, defined as a ratio: (Cost increase with reference to the Base-Case) / (annual electricity consumption difference in kwh*electricity tariff) The impact of each individual design option on the life cycle cost (LCC) of the Base-Case can also be calculated. In this way, the combination of design options with the least LCC can be identified. Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 5
In Task 8, scenarios will be investigated as a basis for defining future Ecodesign requirements, taking into account, among other parameters, LCCs and technical constraints. In this Task, inputs come from various stakeholders that have been contacted. 7.1.1. BASE-CASE 1: DRIP FILTER COFFEE MACHINE The potential improvement options for drip filter coffee machines are presented in Table 7-21. Drip filter coffee machines are significantly different to the other product categories and are a mature technology with product features and sales progressing only very slowly in recent years. Therefore, some improvement options identified for the other Base-Cases do not apply to this product category, while others have been analysed slightly differently as described below. Table 7-1: Identified energy saving potential for drip filter coffee machines Description Energy Annual consumption electricity / coffee consumption period (kwh) (kwh) Comparison to Base-Case Energy savings (%) Increase in product price ( ) Base-Case 1 Drip filter 0.232 174.11 - - - Payback time (years) Option 0 1 Standby Regulation 0.232 172.10 1.2 1 0 Option 1a Option 1b Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes 0.198 146.91 15.6 1 0.22 0.164 122.09 29.9 1 0.12 Option 2 Zero standby 0.232 169.36 2.7 1 1.27 Option 4 Thermos jug 0.130 97.27 44.1 40 3.14 Scenario A 1b+2 0.164 119.72 31.2 2 0.17 7.1.1.1. OPTION 0: STANDBY REGULATION Environmental impacts: Power consumption in standby mode is set at 0.5 W as a result of the Standby Regulation and an auto-power down of two hours is assumed, reducing electricity consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: No constraints are envisaged. 1 All subsequent options and scenarios include Option 0. 6 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
7.1.1.2. OPTION 1A: AUTO-POWER DOWN 60 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to power down (going into a standby mode) automatically after 60 minutes, thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.1.3. OPTION 1B: AUTO-POWER DOWN 30 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to power down automatically after 30 minutes, thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.1.4. OPTION 1C: AUTO-POWER DOWN 5 MINUTES Option 1c was excluded because a 5 minute auto-power down delay was considered too short given the user behaviour associated with BC 1. 7.1.1.5. OPTION 2: ZERO STANDBY Environmental impacts: This option assumes that standby mode consumes close to 0 W, i.e. standby mode effectively becomes off mode. Standby mode energy consumption is therefore set to zero. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by an amount equal to that for auto-power down options, i.e. 1. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.1.6. OPTION 3: FLOW-THROUGH HEATER The flow-through heater option was excluded because it was not considered relevant to non-tertiary drip filter machines, which are already flow-through heaters albeit using steam. 7.1.1.7. OPTION 4: ADDITIONAL INSULATION (THERMOS JUG) Environmental impacts: The addition of a thermos jug avoids the electricity normally consumed for the keeping hot function. Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 7
Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 40 per product compared to the Base-Case product that does not have a thermos jug. Modification to the BOM: Assumed equal to +50% by weight of the coffee pot. Constraints: Adding a thermos jug would reduce heat losses but might result in some loss of function for consumers who prefer a transparent jug. 7.1.1.8. SCENARIO A: 1B+2 Environmental impacts: For drip filter coffee machines, this scenario is a combination of 30 minutes auto-power down and zero standby. Energy consumption is significantly reduced as a result. Costs: The increase in product price as a result of this combination is assumed to be 1.50, since both options together should cost less than the sum. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g. Constraints: None are envisaged. 7.1.2. BASE-CASE 2: PAD FILTER COFFEE MACHINE The potential improvement options for pad filter coffee machines are presented in Table 7-2. Base-Case 2 Table 7-2: Identified energy saving potential for pad filter coffee machines Description Pad filter coffee machine Energy Annual consumption electricity per coffee consumption period (kwh) (kwh) Comparison to Base-Case Energy savings (%) Increase in product price ( ) Payback time (years) 0.093 162.06 - - - Option 0 2 Standby Regulation 0.093 114.43 29.4 1 0.12 Option 1a Option 1b Option 1c Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes Auto-power down 5 minutes 0.091 101.20 37.6 1 0.10 0.083 93.26 42.5 1 0.09 0.077 86.64 46.5 1 0.08 Option 2 Zero standby 0.093 101.84 37.2 3 0.30 Option 3 Flow-through heater 0.051 55.51 65.7 50 2.83 Option 4 Additional 0.088 98.75 39.1 5 0.48 2 All subsequent options and scenarios include Option 0. 8 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Description insulation Energy Annual consumption electricity per coffee consumption period (kwh) (kwh) Comparison to Base-Case Energy savings (%) Increase in product price ( ) Payback time (years) Scenario A 1c+2 0.077 84.63 47.8 3 0.19 Scenario B 1c+2+4 0.073 80.40 50.4 8 0.55 7.1.2.1. OPTION 0: STANDBY REGULATION Environmental impacts: It is assumed that the Standby Regulation is fully implemented and so standby consumption is set at 0.5 W and auto-power down is set at two hours, thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g. Constraints: No constraints are envisaged. 7.1.2.2. OPTION 1A: AUTO-POWER DOWN 60 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 60 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g. Constraints: None identified. 7.1.2.3. OPTION 1B: AUTO-POWER DOWN 30 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 30 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g. Constraints: None identified. Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 9
7.1.2.4. OPTION 1C: AUTO-POWER DOWN 5 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 5 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g. Constraints: None identified. 7.1.2.5. OPTION 2: ZERO STANDBY Environmental impacts: This option assumes that standby mode consumes close to 0 W, i.e. standby mode effectively becomes off mode. Standby mode energy consumption is therefore set to zero. This option affects the 11 hours per day in standby but not the coffee period. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by an amount slightly greater than that for auto-power down options, i.e. 3. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g. Constraints: None identified. 7.1.2.6. OPTION 3: FLOW-THROUGH HEATER Environmental impacts: This option implements a flow-through water heater. The effect is that there is no time spent in ready-to-use mode during the coffee period, significantly reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by 50 due to the addition of this technology. Modification to the BOM: No overall change is assumed due to a lack of data from stakeholders. Constraints: None identified. 7.1.2.7. OPTION 4: ADDITIONAL INSULATION Environmental impacts: It is assumed that it is possible to save 5% of energy in on-mode by using a thicker/denser layer of insulation. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 5 per product. Modification to the BOM: Assumed equal to +50% by weight of the material required for the water tank. 10 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Constraints: Adding thicker insulation would reduce heat losses but would result in an increase of the coffee machine size and/or a decrease of the internal volume. 7.1.2.8. SCENARIO A: 1C+2 Environmental impacts: This scenario is a combination of 5 minutes autopower down and zero standby. Energy consumption is significantly reduced as a result. Costs: The increase in product price as a result of this combination is assumed to be 3, i.e. more than either option alone but less than both options combined since the electronics components are assumed to be the same for both. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None are envisaged. 7.1.2.9. SCENARIO B: 1C+2+4 Environmental impacts: This scenario goes beyond Scenario A to add insulation. Energy consumption is further reduced as a result. Costs: The increase in product price as a result of this combination is assumed to be 8, i.e. 5 in addition to Scenario A for the extra insulation. Modification to the BOM: - Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g - Insulation material: Assumed equal to +50% by weight of the material required for the water tank. Constraints: Insulation constraints as for Option 4. 7.1.3. BASE-CASE 3: HARD CAP ESPRESSO MACHINE The potential improvement options for hard cap espresso machines are presented in Table 7-3. Base-Case 3 Table 7-3: Identified energy saving potential for hard cap espresso machines Description Hard cap espresso machine Energy Annual consumption electricity per coffee consumption period (kwh) (kwh) Comparison to Base-Case Energy savings (%) Increase in product price ( ) Payback time (years) 0.073 120.45 - - - Option 0 3 Standby Regulation 0.073 89.24 25.9 1 0.18 3 All subsequent Options and Scenarios include Option 0. Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 11
Option 1a Option 1b Option 1c Description Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes Auto-power down 5 minutes Energy Annual consumption electricity per coffee consumption period (kwh) (kwh) Comparison to Base-Case Energy savings (%) Increase in product price ( ) Payback time (years) 0.072 80.57 33.1 1 0.15 0.067 75.37 37.4 1 0.13 0.063 71.03 41.0 1 0.12 Option 2 Zero standby 0.073 80.30 33.3 1 0.15 Option 3 Flow-through heater 0.051 55.46 54.0 50 4.64 Option 4 Additional insulation 0.070 78.29 35.0 5 0.71 Scenario A 1c+2 0.063 69.03 42.7 1.50 0.18 Scenario B 1c+2+4 0.060 65.58 45.6 6.50 0.71 7.1.3.1. OPTION 0: STANDBY REGULATION Environmental impacts: It is assumed that the Standby Regulation is fully implemented and so standby consumption is set at 0.5 W with a two-hour auto-power down, thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price of the coffee machine is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: No constraints are envisaged. 7.1.3.2. OPTION 1A: AUTO-POWER DOWN 60 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 60 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price of the coffee machine is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.3.3. OPTION 1B: AUTO-POWER DOWN 30 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 30 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. 12 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.3.4. OPTION 1C: AUTO-POWER DOWN 5 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 5 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.3.5. OPTION 2: ZERO STANDBY Environmental impacts: This option assumes that standby mode consumes virtually 0 W, i.e. standby mode effectively becomes off mode. Standby mode energy consumption is therefore set to zero. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.3.6. OPTION 3: FLOW-THROUGH HEATER Environmental impacts: This option implements a flow-through water heater. The effect is that there is no time spent in ready-to-use mode during the coffee period, significantly reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by 50 due to the addition of this technology. Modification to the BOM: No overall change is assumed due to a lack of data from stakeholders. Constraints: None identified. 7.1.3.7. OPTION 4: ADDITIONAL INSULATION Environmental impacts: It is assumed that it is possible to save 5% of energy in on-mode by using a thicker/denser layer of insulation. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 5 per product. Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 13
Modification to the BOM: Assumed equal to +50% by weight of the material required for the water tank. Constraints: Adding thicker insulation would reduce heat losses but would result in an increase of the coffee machine size and/or a decrease of the internal volume. 7.1.3.8. SCENARIO A: 1C+2 Environmental impacts: This scenario is a combination of 5 minutes autopower down and zero watt standby. Energy consumption is significantly reduced as a result. Costs: The increase in product price as a result of this combination is estimated at 1.50, i.e. more than either option alone but less than both options combined since the electronics components are assumed to be the same for both. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None are envisaged. 7.1.3.9. SCENARIO B: 1C+2+4 Environmental impacts: This scenario goes beyond Scenario A to add insulation and a high efficiency power supply. Energy consumption is further reduced as a result. Costs: The increase in product price as a result of this combination is estimated at 6.50, i.e. the same as Scenario A plus 5 for additional insulation. Modification to the BOM: - Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g - Insulation material: Assumed equal to +50% by weight of the material required for the water tank. Constraints: Insulation constraints as for Option 4. 7.1.4. BASE-CASE 4: SEMI-AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE The potential improvement options for semi-automatic espresso machines are presented in Table 7-4. As semi-automatic espresso machines are covered by the Standby Regulation (1275/2008/EC), Option 0 includes this parameter. The energy savings in percentage terms, the increases in product price and the payback times are given compared to the Base-Case. 14 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Base-Case 4 Table 7-4: Identified energy saving potential for semi-automatic espresso machines Description Semi-automatic espresso machine Energy Annual consumption electricity per coffee consumption period (kwh) (kwh) Comparison to Base-Case Energy savings (%) Increase in product price ( ) Payback time (years) 0.083 195.28 - - - Option 0 4 Standby Regulation 0.083 111.51 42.9 1 0.08 Option 1a Option 1b Option 1c Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes Auto-power down 5 minutes 0.079 88.24 54.8 1 0.06 0.066 74.28 62.0 1 0.05 0.055 62.64 67.9 1 0.05 Option 2 Zero standby 0.083 90.89 53.5 1 0.06 Option 3 Option 4 Flow-through heater Additional insulation 0.059 64.79 66.8 50 2.31 0.079 88.35 54.8 10 0.56 Scenario A 1c+2 0.055 60.64 68.9 1.50 0.07 Scenario B 1c+2+4 0.053 57.6 70.5 11.50 0.50 7.1.4.1. OPTION 0: STANDBY REGULATION Environmental impacts: It is assumed that the Standby Regulation is fully implemented and so standby consumption is set at 0.5 W with an auto-power down of two hours, thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price of the coffee machine is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.4.2. OPTION 1A: AUTO-POWER DOWN 60 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 60 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price of the coffee machine is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. 4 All subsequent Options and Scenarios include Option 0. Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 15
Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.4.3. OPTION 1B: AUTO-POWER DOWN 30 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 30 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.4.4. OPTION 1C: AUTO-POWER DOWN 5 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 5 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.4.5. OPTION 2: ZERO STANDBY Environmental impacts: This option assumes that standby mode consumes 0 W, i.e. standby mode effectively becomes off mode. Standby mode energy consumption is therefore set to zero. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by 1, based on stakeholder input. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.4.6. OPTION 3: FLOW-THROUGH HEATER Environmental impacts: This option implements a flow-through water heater. The effect is that there is no time spent in ready-to-use mode during the coffee period, significantly reducing energy consumption. Costs: The final product price is assumed to increase by 50 due to the addition of this technology. Modification to the BOM: No overall change is assumed due to a lack of data from stakeholders. 16 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Constraints: None identified. 7.1.4.7. OPTION 4: ADDITIONAL INSULATION Environmental impacts: It is assumed that it is possible to save 5% of energy in on-mode by using a thicker/denser layer of insulation. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 10 per product. Modification to the BOM: Assumed equal to +50% by weight of the material required for the water tank (1-BlkPlastics, 10-ABS). Constraints: Adding thicker insulation would reduce heat losses but would result in an increase of the coffee machine size and/or a decrease of the internal volume. 7.1.4.8. SCENARIO A: 1C+2 Environmental impacts: This scenario is a combination of 5 minutes autopower down and zero watt standby. Energy consumption is significantly reduced as a result. Costs: The increase in product price as a result of this combination is assumed to be 1.50, i.e. more than either option alone but less than both options combined since the electronics components are assumed to be the same for both. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None are envisaged. 7.1.4.9. SCENARIO B: 1C+2+4 Environmental impacts: This scenario goes beyond Scenario A to add insulation. Energy consumption is further reduced as a result. Costs: increase in product price as a result of this combination is assumed to be 1.50 as for Scenario A, plus 10 for additional insulation. Modification to the BOM: - Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g - Insulation material: Assumed equal to +50% by weight of the material required for the water tank (1-BlkPlastics, 10-ABS). Constraints: Insulation constraints as for Option 4. Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 17
7.1.5. BASE-CASE 5: FULLY AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE The potential improvement options for fully automatic espresso machines are presented in Table 7-5. As fully automatic espresso coffee machines 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 terms, the increase of product price and the payback time are given compared to the Base-Case. Base-Case 5 Table 7-5: Identified energy saving potential for fully automatic espresso machine Description Fully automatic espresso machine Energy Annual consumption electricity per coffee consumption period (kwh) (kwh) Comparison to Base-Case Energy savings (%) Increase in product price ( ) Payback time (years) 0.062 113.26 - - - Option 0 5 Standby Regulation 0.062 77.78 31.3 1 0.15 Option 1a Option 1b Option 1c Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes Auto-power down 5 minutes 0.060 67.93 40.0 1 0.13 0.055 62.01 45.2 1 0.12 0.050 57.09 49.6 1 0.11 Option 2 Zero standby 0.062 67.89 40.1 1 0.13 Option 3 Option 4 Flow-through heater Additional insulation 0.040 43.52 61.6 50 4.32 0.059 66.50 41.3 10 1.29 Scenario A 1c+2 0.050 55.08 51.4 1.50 0.16 Scenario B 1c+2+4 0.048 52.32 53.8 11.50 1.14 7.1.5.1. OPTION 0: STANDBY REGULATION Environmental impacts: It is assumed that the Standby Regulation is fully implemented and so standby consumption is set at 0.5 W and auto-power down is set at two hours, thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product, due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150g Constraints: None identified. 5 All subsequent options and scenarios include Option 0. 18 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
7.1.5.2. OPTION 1A: AUTO-POWER DOWN 60 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 60 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product, due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.5.3. OPTION 1B: AUTO-POWER DOWN 30 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 30 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product, due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.5.4. OPTION 1C: AUTO-POWER DOWN 5 MINUTES Environmental impacts: The machine is set to switch off automatically after 5 minutes of inactivity, reducing the amount of time spent in ready-to-use mode and thereby reducing energy consumption. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product, due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. 7.1.5.5. OPTION 2: ZERO STANDBY Environmental impacts: This option assumes that standby mode consumes 0 W, i.e. standby mode effectively becomes off mode. Standby mode energy consumption is therefore set to zero. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 1 per product, due to the additional electronics required. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None identified. Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 19
7.1.5.6. OPTION 3: FLOW-THROUGH HEATER Environmental impacts: This option implements a flow-through water heater. The effect is that there is no time spent in ready-to-use mode during the coffee period, significantly reducing energy consumption. Costs: The product price is assumed to increase by 50 due to the addition of this technology. Modification to the BOM: No overall change is assumed due to a lack of data from stakeholders. Constraints: None identified. 7.1.5.7. OPTION 4: ADDITIONAL INSULATION Environmental impacts: It is assumed that it is possible to save 5% of energy in on-mode by using a thicker/denser layer of insulation. Costs: The implementation of this option is estimated to increase the price by 10 per product. Modification to the BOM: Assumed equal to +50% by weight of the material required for the water tank (1-BlkPlastics, 10-ABS). Constraints: Adding thicker insulation would reduce heat losses but would result in an increase of the coffee machine size and/or a decrease of the internal volume. 7.1.5.8. SCENARIO A: 1C+2 Environmental impacts: This scenario is a combination of 5 minutes autopower down and zero standby. Energy consumption is significantly reduced as a result. Costs: The increase in product price as a result of this combination is assumed to be 1.50, i.e. more than either option alone but less than both options combined since the electronics components are assumed to be the same for both. Modification to the BOM: Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g Constraints: None are envisaged. 7.1.5.9. SCENARIO B: 1C+2+4 Environmental impacts: This scenario goes beyond Scenario A to add insulation. Energy consumption is further reduced as a result. Costs: The increase in product price as a result of this combination is assumed to be 11.50, i.e. 10 in addition to Scenario A for the extra insulation. Modification to the BOM: 20 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
- Electronics, 98-controller board: +150 g - Insulation material: Assumed equal to +50% by weight of the material required for the water tank (1-BlkPlastics, 10-ABS). Constraints: Insulation constraints as for Option 4. 7.2. IMPACT ANALYSIS 7.2.1. BASE-CASE 1: DRIP FILTER COFFEE MACHINE The environmental impacts of the improvement options for Base-Case 1 are presented in Table 7-6. Option 0 does not show much improvement compared to the Base-Case because low standby power consumption is already assumed. For all other improvement options except Option 2, there is a significant reduction in most environmental impacts compared to the Base-Case. Figure 7-1 shows that the option having the lowest total energy consumption is Option 4, with 6.6 GJ (42% savings compared to the Base-Case). Scenario A also does very well, for machines without a thermos jug. The weight of non-hazardous waste produced by each improvement option for Base- Case 1 is presented in Figure 7-2. Option 4 is again the option with the lowest impact. This is also the case for the indicator GWP, as shown in Figure 7-3 and for emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (Figure 7-4). Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 21
22 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Table 7-6: Environmental impacts by improvement option for BC 1 (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA OTHER RESOURCES AND WASTE Total Energy (GER) GJ 11,4 11,3 9,8 8,1 11,2 6,6 8,1 % change with BC 0% -1% -14% -29% -2% -42% -29% primary GJ 11,1 11,0 9,5 7,8 10,9 6,3 7,7 of which, electricity MWh 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,7 1,0 0,6 0,7 % change with BC 0% -1% -15% -30% -2% -44% -30% Water (process) Water (cooling) Waste, non-haz./ landfill Waste, hazardous/ incinerated kl kl kg kg 4,5 29,4 15,1 1,8 4,5 29,1 15,0 1,8 4,5 24,9 13,4 1,9 4,3 20,7 11,3 1,7 4,6 28,6 15,0 1,9 4,2 16,6 9,6 1,8 4,4 20,3 11,4 1,8 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -1% -1% 0% -1% -15% -11% 3% -5% -30% -25% -4% 1% -3% -1% 5% -7% -44% -37% 1% -3% -31% -25% 1% EMISSIONS (AIR) Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 Acidification, emissions t CO2 eq. kg SO2 eq. 0,5 3,0 0,5 2,9 0,4 2,6 0,4 2,1 0,5 3,0 0,3 1,7 0,4 2,2 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -1% -1% -13% -13% -28% -28% -1% 0% -42% -42% -28% -27% kg 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) % change with BC 0% -1% 6% -24% 17% -34% -6% µg i-teq 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) % change with BC 0% -1% -12% -25% -1% -37% -25% Heavy Metals to air PAHs Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g Ni eq. g Ni eq. kg 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,2 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,2 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,3 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% -1% -1% 0% -6% 14% -2% -19% -16% -5% 2% 21% 1% -27% -23% -4% -16% 6% -4% EMISSIONS (WATER) Heavy Metals to water Eutrophication g Hg/20 kg PO4 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -1% 0% 28% 20% -15% -3% 35% 21% -17% 11% 20% 18% Task 7
Total Energy (GER) - GJ 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 7-1: Comparison of improvement options for BC1 according to the indicator Total Energy (GER) (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 23
Waste, non-haz./ landfill - kg 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 7-2: Comparison of improvement options for BC1 according to the indicator Non-hazardous waste (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 24 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 - t CO2 eq. 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 7-3: Comparison of improvement options for BC 1 according to the indicator GWP (global warming potential) (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 25
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) - kg 0,007 0,006 0,005 0,004 0,003 0,002 0,001 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 7-4: Comparison of improvement options for BC1 according to the indicator Volatile Organic Compounds (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 26 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Heavy Metals to air - g Ni eq. 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 7-5: Comparison of improvement options for BC1 according to the indicator Heavy metals to air (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 27
7.2.2. BASE-CASE 2: PAD FILTER COFFEE MACHINE This section presents the results of the life-cycle assessment of the improvement options for Base-Case 2. Table 7-7 presents the environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-Case 2. For all environmental impacts Option 3, the flowthrough heater, is the most beneficial. 28 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Table 7-7: Environmental impacts by improvement option for BC 2 (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB OTHER RESOURCES AND WASTE Total Energy (GER) GJ 12,2 8,7 7,9 7,3 6,8 7,9 4,4 7,6 6,7 6,4 % change with BC 0% -29% -36% -40% -44% -35% -64% -38% -45% -48% primary GJ 12,0 8,5 7,6 7,0 6,5 7,6 4,1 7,3 6,4 6,1 of which, electricity MWh 1,1 0,8 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,7 0,6 0,6 % change with BC 0% -29% -37% -42% -46% -36% -65% -39% -47% -49% Water (process) Water (cooling) Waste, non-haz./ landfill Waste, hazardous/ incinerated kl kl kg kg 2,7 31,9 17,4 1,5 2,4 22,6 13,4 1,4 2,4 20,0 12,5 1,5 2,4 18,5 11,8 1,5 2,4 17,2 11,3 1,5 2,4 20,1 12,5 1,5 2,1 11,0 8,3 1,3 2,4 19,5 12,0 1,5 2,4 16,8 11,1 1,5 2,3 15,9 10,7 1,5 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% -9% -29% -23% -5% -8% -37% -28% 0% -10% -42% -32% -1% -11% -46% -35% -2% -8% -37% -28% 0% -20% -65% -52% -12% -12% -39% -31% -1% -11% -47% -36% -2% -12% -50% -38% 3% EMISSIONS (AIR) Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 Acidification, emissions t CO2 eq. kg SO2 eq. 0,5 3,2 0,4 2,3 0,4 2,1 0,3 2,0 0,3 1,8 0,4 2,1 0,2 1,2 0,3 2,0 0,3 1,8 0,3 1,7 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -28% -28% -35% -34% -39% -39% -43% -43% -34% -34% -63% -63% -37% -38% -45% -44% -47% -46% kg 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) % change with BC 0% -24% -13% -17% -20% -12% -53% -31% -21% -23% µg i-teq 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) % change with BC 0% -27% -33% -38% -41% -33% -60% -36% -42% -45% Heavy Metals to air PAHs Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g Ni eq. g Ni eq. kg 0,3 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% -23% -7% -7% -25% 0% -7% -29% -1% -8% -32% -2% -9% -24% 0% -7% -51% -16% -15% -30% -10% -6% -33% -2% -9% -34% -3% -7% EMISSIONS (WATER) Heavy Metals to water Eutrophication g Hg/20 kg PO4 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -18% -5% 17% 24% 14% 24% 12% 23% 17% 25% -40% -10% -23% -4% 11% 23% 10% 24% Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 29
Waste, non-haz./ landfill - kg Total Energy (GER) - GJ 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-6: Comparison of improvement options for BC 2 according to the indicator Total Energy (GER) (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-7: Comparison of improvement options for BC 2 according to the indicator Waste, non-hazardous (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 30 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) - kg Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 - t CO2 eq. 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-8: Comparison of improvement options for BC 2 according to the indicator GWP (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 0,006 0,005 0,004 0,003 0,002 0,001 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-9: Comparison of improvement options for BC 2 according to the indicator Volatile Organic Compounds (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 31
Heavy Metals to air - g Ni eq. 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-10: Comparison of improvement options for BC 2 according to the indicator Heavy metals emissions (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 7.2.3. BASE-CASE 3: HARD CAP ESPRESSO MACHINE The results of the life cycle assessment of the improvement options for Base-Case 3 are presented in Table 7-8. As might be expected, Scenario C brings about the greatest energy savings. In some other indicators it is out-performed by Option 3 however, as shown in Figure 7-11, Figure 7-12, Figure 7-13, Figure 7-14 and Figure 7-15. 32 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Table 7-8: Environmental impacts by improvement option for BC 3 (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB OTHER RESOURCES AND WASTE Total Energy (GER) GJ 9,3 7,0 6,5 6,1 5,8 6,4 4,5 6,2 5,6 5,4 % change with BC 0% -25% -30% -34% -38% -31% -51% -33% -39% -42% primary GJ 8,9 6,6 6,1 5,7 5,4 6,1 4,2 5,8 5,2 5,0 of which, electricity MWh 0,9 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,5 % change with BC 0% -26% -32% -36% -40% -32% -53% -35% -41% -44% Water (process) Water (cooling) Waste, non-haz./ landfill Waste, hazardous/ incinerated kl kl kg kg 2,5 23,9 14,2 1,6 2,3 17,8 11,6 1,6 2,4 16,1 11,1 1,7 2,4 15,1 10,7 1,6 2,3 14,2 10,3 1,6 2,4 16,0 11,1 1,7 2,2 11,1 8,7 1,5 2,3 15,6 10,7 1,6 2,3 13,8 10,1 1,6 2,3 13,2 9,9 1,7 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% -6% -26% -19% -3% -5% -33% -22% 2% -6% -37% -25% 1% -7% -40% -28% 1% -5% -33% -22% 2% -13% -53% -39% -7% -8% -35% -25% 1% -7% -42% -29% 1% -8% -45% -31% 6% EMISSIONS (AIR) Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 Acidification, emissions t CO2 eq. kg SO2 eq. 0,4 2,4 0,3 1,8 0,3 1,7 0,3 1,7 0,3 1,6 0,3 1,7 0,2 1,2 0,3 1,6 0,3 1,5 0,2 1,5 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -24% -24% -29% -28% -33% -32% -37% -36% -29% -28% -51% -50% -33% -33% -38% -37% -41% -40% kg 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) % change with BC 0% -21% -3% -6% -9% -3% -43% -28% -11% -13% µg i-teq 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) % change with BC 0% -14% -17% -20% -22% -17% -30% -19% -23% -24% Heavy Metals to air PAHs Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g Ni eq. g Ni eq. kg 0,3 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% -16% -5% -5% -16% 4% -4% -18% 3% -5% -20% 2% -6% -16% 4% -4% -33% -11% -10% -21% -7% -3% -21% 2% -6% -22% 1% -3% EMISSIONS (WATER) Heavy Metals to water Eutrophication g Hg/20 kg PO4 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -13% -2% 27% 20% 25% 20% 23% 19% 27% 20% -26% -5% -17% -1% 22% 19% 21% 21% Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 33
Waste, non-haz./ landfill - kg Total Energy (GER) - GJ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-11: Comparison of improvement options for BC 3 according to the indicator Total Energy (GER) (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-12: Comparison of improvement options for BC 3 according to the indicator Waste, non-hazardous (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 34 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) - kg Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 - t CO2 eq. 0,45 0,4 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-13: Comparison of improvement options for BC3 according to the indicator GWP (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 0,0045 0,004 0,0035 0,003 0,0025 0,002 0,0015 0,001 0,0005 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-14: Comparison of improvement options for BC3 according to the indicator VOCs (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 35
Heavy Metals to air - g Ni eq. 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-15: Improvement options for BC3 according to the indicator Heavy metals to air (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 7.2.1. BASE-CASE 4: SEMI-AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE This section presents the results of the life-cycle assessment of the improvement options for Base-Case 4. Table 7-9 presents the environmental impacts by improvement option for Base-Case 4. Figure 7-16 shows that Scenario B has the lowest primary energy consumption over its life cycle. As shown in the subsequent figures, Scenarios A and B also have the lowest impacts according to the other indicators, except for eutrophication, where Scenario B is in fact the worst of the options considered. 36 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Table 7-9: Environmental impacts by improvement option for BC 4 (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB OTHER RESOURCES AND WASTE Total Energy (GER) GJ 15,1 8,9 7,3 6,3 5,4 7,5 5,5 7,2 5,2 5,1 % change with BC 0% -41% -51% -58% -64% -50% -64% -52% -66% -66% primary GJ 14,5 8,4 6,7 5,7 4,8 6,9 4,9 6,7 4,6 4,5 of which, electricity MWh 1,4 0,8 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,4 % change with BC 0% -42% -54% -61% -67% -52% -66% -54% -68% -69% Water (process) Water (cooling) Waste, non-haz./ landfill Waste, hazardous/ incinerated kl kl kg kg 2,9 38,7 23,5 2,9 2,5 22,3 16,3 2,8 2,5 17,8 14,6 2,9 2,4 15,0 13,4 2,8 2,3 12,7 12,4 2,8 2,5 18,3 14,8 2,9 2,3 13,1 12,3 2,7 2,4 17,8 14,4 2,8 2,3 12,3 12,0 2,7 2,3 11,8 12,0 2,9 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% -14% -42% -30% -5% -15% -54% -38% -3% -18% -61% -43% -4% -20% -67% -47% -4% -15% -53% -37% -3% -22% -66% -47% -8% -18% -54% -39% -3% -23% -68% -49% -8% -20% -70% -49% -1% EMISSIONS (AIR) Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 Acidification, emissions t CO2 eq. kg SO2 eq. 0,7 3,9 0,4 2,4 0,3 2,0 0,3 1,7 0,2 1,5 0,3 2,0 0,2 1,5 0,3 1,9 0,2 1,4 0,2 1,4 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -40% -40% -50% -50% -57% -56% -63% -62% -49% -48% -63% -63% -51% -51% -65% -65% -65% -64% kg 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) % change with BC 0% -34% -29% -35% -39% -28% -53% -43% -55% -41% µg i-teq 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) % change with BC 0% -24% -30% -34% -37% -29% -37% -31% -39% -39% Heavy Metals to air PAHs Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g Ni eq. g Ni eq. kg 0,4 0,1 0,4 0,3 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,4 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% -29% -22% -8% -34% -11% -9% -38% -15% -10% -42% -18% -11% -33% -11% -9% -45% -34% -12% -36% -28% -8% -46% -35% -13% -44% -19% -10% EMISSIONS (WATER) Heavy Metals to water Eutrophication g Hg/20 kg PO4 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -23% -4% 0% 10% -4% 9% -7% 9% 1% 10% -36% -6% -29% -3% -37% -6% -8% 11% Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 37
Waste, non-haz./ landfill - kg Total Energy (GER) - GJ 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-16: Comparison of improvement options for BC 4 according to the indicator Total Energy (GER) (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 25 20 15 10 5 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-17: Comparison of improvement options for BC4 according to the indicator Waste, non-hazardous (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 38 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) - kg Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 - t CO2 eq. 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-18: Comparison of improvement options for BC 4 according to the indicator GWP (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 0,008 0,007 0,006 0,005 0,004 0,003 0,002 0,001 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-19: Comparison of improvement options for BC 4 according to the indicator VOCs (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 39
Heavy Metals to air - g Ni eq. 0,4 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-20: Improvement options for BC 4 according to the indicator Heavy metals to air (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 7.2.2. BASE-CASE 5: FULLY AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE This section presents the results of the life cycle assessment of the improvement options for Base-Case 5. Table 7-10 presents the environmental impacts by improvement option. The results present similar patterns for the different environmental impacts, with Option 3 presenting the lowest values during the fully automatic espresso machine life cycle. Figure 7-21 shows a reduction of 56% compared to the total energy consumption of the Base-Case. 40 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Table 7-10: Environmental impacts by improvement option for BC 5 (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) life-cycle indicators per unit unit Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB OTHER RESOURCES AND WASTE Total Energy (GER) GJ 13,0 9,3 8,4 7,8 7,2 8,4 5,7 8,1 7,0 6,8 % change with BC 0% -29% -36% -40% -44% -36% -56% -38% -46% -48% primary GJ 12,1 8,4 7,4 6,8 6,3 7,4 4,8 7,2 6,1 5,8 of which, electricity MWh 1,2 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,6 % change with BC 0% -31% -39% -44% -48% -39% -61% -41% -50% -52% Water (process) Water (cooling) Waste, non-haz./ landfill Waste, hazardous/ incinerated kl kl kg kg 3,6 32,4 23,2 5,8 3,3 22,5 18,9 5,8 3,3 19,8 18,0 5,8 3,3 18,1 17,2 5,8 3,3 16,7 16,6 5,8 3,3 19,8 17,9 5,8 3,1 12,9 14,7 5,7 3,3 19,4 17,5 5,8 3,3 16,2 16,4 5,8 3,2 15,4 16,1 5,9 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% 0% -7% -31% -19% -1% -7% -39% -23% 0% -8% -44% -26% 0% -9% -48% -28% -1% -7% -39% -23% 0% -14% -60% -37% -3% -9% -40% -24% 0% -9% -50% -29% -1% -10% -52% -31% 1% EMISSIONS (AIR) Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 Acidification, emissions t CO2 eq. kg SO2 eq. 0,6 3,4 0,4 2,5 0,4 2,3 0,3 2,1 0,3 2,0 0,4 2,3 0,3 1,6 0,4 2,2 0,3 1,9 0,3 1,9 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -28% -28% -35% -34% -39% -38% -43% -42% -35% -34% -55% -55% -37% -37% -45% -44% -47% -46% kg 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) % change with BC 0% -18% -11% -14% -16% -11% -36% -24% -17% -19% µg i-teq 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) % change with BC 0% -23% -28% -32% -35% -28% -45% -30% -37% -38% Heavy Metals to air PAHs Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g Ni eq. g Ni eq. kg 0,4 0,1 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,8 0,2 0,1 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,8 % change with BC % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% 0% -18% -9% -3% -19% 0% -3% -22% -2% -3% -25% -3% -4% -19% 0% -3% -35% -17% -5% -23% -11% -2% -26% -3% -4% -27% -4% -3% EMISSIONS (WATER) Heavy Metals to water Eutrophication g Hg/20 kg PO4 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 % change with BC % change with BC 0% 0% -14% -2% 11% 9% 9% 9% 7% 8% 11% 9% -27% -4% -18% -1% 6% 8% 6% 9% Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 41
Waste, non-haz./ landfill - kg Total Energy (GER) - GJ 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-21: Comparison of improvement options for BC 5 according to the indicator Total Energy (GER) (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 25 20 15 10 5 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-22: Comparison of improvement options for BC 5 according to the indicator Waste, non-hazardous (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 42 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) - kg Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 - t CO2 eq. 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-23: Comparison of improvement options for BC5 according to the indicator GWP (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 0,008 0,007 0,006 0,005 0,004 0,003 0,002 0,001 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-24: Comparison of improvement options for BC 5 according to the indicator VOCs (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 43
Heavy Metals to air - g Ni eq. 0,4 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 7-25: Comparison of improvement options for BC 5 according to the indicator Heavy metals emissions (green: minimum impact / red: maximum impact) 7.3. COST ANALYSIS 7.3.1. BASE-CASE 1: DRIP FILTER COFFEE MACHINE Figure 7-26 presents the shares of purchase price and electricity cost in the whole life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC 1 (costs due to other consumables, i.e. water, filters and coffee, are not presented as they are similar for the Base-Case and its improvement options). Detailed figures are also presented in Table 7-11. Table 7-11: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-Case 1 Description Purchase price ( ) Electricity costs ( ) LCC ( ) Base-Case 1 Option 0 Option 1a Option 1b Drip filter coffee machine Standby Regulation Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes 35 152 2 262 35 150 2 260 36 128 2 239 36 106 2 217 Option 2 Zero standby 36 147 2 258 Option 4 Additional insulation 75 85 2 235 Scenario A 1b+2 37 104 2 216 44 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Cost ( ) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 7% 7% 6% 5% 7% 4% 5% 60 40 3% 20 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Purchase price Electricity costs Figure 7-26: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC 1 7.3.2. BASE-CASE 2: PAD FILTER COFFEE MACHINE The LCCs of the improvement options for Base-Case 2 are presented in Table 7-12. Figure 7-27 presents the share of each type of costs. Table 7-12: Life-cycle cost by improvement option for BC 2 Description Purchase price ( ) Electricity costs ( ) LCC ( ) Base-Case 2 Pad filter 81 161 4 262 Option 0 Option 1a Option 1b Option 1c Standby Regulation Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes Auto-power down 5 minutes 81 114 4 215 82 101 4 202 82 93 4 194 82 86 4 188 Option 2 Zero standby 84 101 4 205 Option 3 Option 4 Flow-through heater Additional insulation 131 55 4 206 86 98 4 204 Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 45
Cost ( ) Description Purchase price ( ) Electricity costs ( ) LCC ( ) Scenario A 1c+2 84 84 4 187 Scenario B 1c+2+4 89 80 4 188 Scenario A is the product with the least life-cycle cost, saving 75 compared to the Base-Case, about the same as Scenario B and Option 1c on its own. 300 250 200 150 100 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 50 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 0 Base-case Option1a Option1c Option3 ScenarioA Purchase price Electricity costs Figure 7-27: Life-cycle cost of the improvement options for BC 2 7.3.3. BASE-CASE 3: HARD CAP ESPRESSO MACHINE The results of the life cycle cost analysis of the improvement options for BC 3 are shown in Table 7-13 and Figure 7-28. Table 7-13: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 3 Description Purchase price ( ) Electricity costs ( ) LCC ( ) Base-Case 3 Hard cap espresso 156 120 8 239 Option 0 Option 1a Option 1b Option 1c Standby Regulation Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes Auto-power down 5 minutes 156 89 8 208 157 80 8 200 157 75 8 195 157 71 8 191 Option 2 Zero standby 157 80 8 200 46 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Cost ( ) Description Purchase price ( ) Electricity costs ( ) LCC ( ) Option 3 Option 4 Flow-through heater Additional insulation 206 55 8 224 161 78 8 202 Scenario A 1c+2 158 69 8 189 Scenario B 1c+2+4 163 65 8 191 300 250 200 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 150 100 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 50 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Purchase price Electricity costs Figure 7-28: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC 3 7.3.4. BASE-CASE 4: SEMI-AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE The results of the LCC analysis of the improvement options for BC 4 are shown in Table 7-14 and Figure 7-29. Table 7-14: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-case 4 Description Purchase price ( ) Electricity costs ( ) LCC ( ) Base-Case 4 Option 0 Option 1a Option 1b Semi-automatic espresso machine Standby Regulation Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes 103 195 2 582 103 111 2 499 104 88 2 476 104 74 2 462 Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 47
Cost ( ) Description Purchase price ( ) Electricity costs ( ) LCC ( ) Option 1c Auto-power down 5 minutes 104 62 2 451 Option 2 Zero standby 104 91 2 479 Option 3 Option 4 Flow-through heater Additional insulation 153 65 2 502 113 88 2 485 Scenario A 1c+2 105 60 2 449 Scenario B 1c+2+4 115 57 2 456 Implementing improvement options will increase the share of the purchase price in the life cycle cost. Option 3 has the highest share of electricity (6%). 350 300 250 200 150 8% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 2% 100 50 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 5% 4% 5% 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Purchase price Electricity costs Figure 7-29: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC 4 7.3.5. BASE-CASE 5: FULLY AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE The results of the life cycle cost analysis of the improvement options for BC 5 are shown in Table 7-15 and Figure 7-30. Table 7-15: Life cycle cost by improvement option for Base-Case 5 Description Purchase price ( ) Electricity costs ( ) LCC ( ) Base-Case 5 Option 0 Fully automatic espresso machine Standby Regulation 595 152 3 931 595 105 3 883 48 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Cost ( ) Description Purchase price ( ) Electricity costs ( ) LCC ( ) Option 1a Option 1b Option 1c Auto-power down 60 minutes Auto-power down 30 minutes Auto-power down 5 minutes 596 91 3 871 596 83 3 863 596 77 3 856 Option 2 Zero standby 596 91 3 871 Option 3 Option 4 Flow-through heater Additional insulation 645 59 3 887 605 90 3 878 Scenario A 1c+2 597 74 3 854 Scenario B 1c+2+4 607 70 3 861 Implementing improvement options will increase the share of the purchase price in the life cycle cost. Option 3 has the highest share of electricity (17%). 800 700 600 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 500 400 300 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 17% 16% 15% 16% 200 100 0 Base-case Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Purchase price Electricity costs Figure 7-30: Life cycle cost of the improvement options for BC 5 Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 49
Primary Energy (GJ) Life Cycle Cost ( ) 7.4. ANALYSIS OF BAT AND LLCC In this section, the design options identified in the technical, environmental and economic analysis in section 7.1 are ranked to identify the Best Available Technology (BAT) and the LLCC. Drawing an LCC-curve (Y1-axis= Primary energy consumption, Y2- axis=lcc, X-axis=options) allows identification of these LLCC and BAT points. 6 Performance will be compared by applying the improvement options to the weighted Base-Case. The comparison is made in terms of primary energy consumption, nonhazardous wastes, GWP, VOC, heavy metals to water and LCC. LLC is the sum of the Base-Case price, plus the cost of improvements, energy costs and the costs consumables and of installation and maintenance (if any), as described in the Task 5 report. 7.4.1. BASE-CASE 1: DRIP FILTER COFFEE MACHINE Figure 7-31 allows the identification of the LLCC and BAT products. The LLCC product is Scenario A, with a life-cycle cost of 2 216, which represents a 46 saving compared to the Base-Case. The BAT product is Option 4, the thermos jug, which would result in around 4.8 GJ savings relative to the Base-Case. 12,0 10,0 8,0 2 270 2 260 2 250 2 240 6,0 4,0 2,0 0,0 2 230 2 220 2 210 2 200 2 190 Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost Figure 7-31: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC 1 6 This is usually the last point of the curve showing the product design with the lowest environmental impact, irrespective of the price. 50 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Primary Energy (GJ) Life Cycle Cost ( ) 7.4.2. BASE-CASE 2: PAD FILTER COFFEE MACHINE Figure 7-32 shows the primary energy consumed by the various improvement options and the LCC, allowing the identification of the LLCC and BAT products. The LLCC products are Scenario A, Scenario B and Option 1c, because of their electricity savings. The BAT product, however, is Option 3, which would reduce primary energy consumption by 7.8 GJ. 14,0 12,0 10,0 4 280 4 260 4 240 8,0 6,0 4,0 2,0 0,0 4 220 4 200 4 180 4 160 4 140 Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost Figure 7-32: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC 2 7.4.3. BASE-CASE 3: HARD CAP ESPRESSO MACHINE The identification of the BAT and LLCC products is shown in Figure 7-33. Considering life-cycle cost, Scenario A is the cheapest product to use. Option 3 would reduce primary energy consumption further, but at a higher cost. Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 51
Primary Energy (GJ) Life Cycle Cost ( ) Primary Energy (GJ) Life Cycle Cost ( ) 10,0 8 250 9,0 8 240 8,0 7,0 6,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 8 230 8 220 8 210 8 200 8 190 8 180 1,0 8 170 0,0 8 160 Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost Figure 7-33: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC 3 7.4.4. BASE-CASE 4: SEMI-AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE The identification of the BAT and LLCC products is possible in Figure 7-34. Considering life-cycle cost, Scenario A is the cheapest product to use. However, Scenario B allows slightly higher energy savings over the life cycle of the product. 16,0 14,0 12,0 2 600 2 550 10,0 8,0 6,0 2 500 2 450 4,0 2,0 0,0 2 400 2 350 Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost Figure 7-34: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC 4 7.4.5. BASE-CASE 5: FULLY AUTOMATIC ESPRESSO MACHINE The identification of the BAT and LLCC products is possible in Figure 7-35. Considering life cycle cost, Scenario A is the cheapest product to use. 52 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Primary Energy (GJ) Life Cycle Cost ( ) 14,0 12,0 10,0 3 940 3 920 3 900 8,0 6,0 4,0 2,0 0,0 3 880 3 860 3 840 3 820 3 800 Total Energy (GER) BAT LLCC Life-cycle cost Figure 7-35: Identification of BAT and LLCC products for BC 5 Task 7 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs 53
7.5. CONCLUSIONS There are several improvement options available that can reduce the environmental impacts of non-tertiary coffee machines, and especially those related to electricity consumption, without a significant negative effect on functionality or taste. The improvement potential is 42-66% depending on the Base-Case. These results will be considered in Task 8 when recommending policy options and when defining scenarios to 2025. It should be noticed that several options (or combinations) reduce the life cycle cost of the coffee machine, even if it is in a low share (as consumables costs represent a big share of the LCC). The rankings of the options have to be considered with cautious, as for some Base-Cases the difference in LCC between several options is of a few Euros. This is especially due to the various assumptions used in the study. 54 Preparatory Study for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs Task 7
Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III) [Contract N TREN/D3/91-2007-Lot 25-SI2.521716] Lot 25 Non-Tertiary Coffee Machines Task 8: Scenario, Policy, Impact and Sensitivity Analysis Final version In association with Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal Benoît Tinetti + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 shailendra.mudgal@biois.com benoit.tinetti@biois.com
Project Team BIO Intelligence Service Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Mr. Benoît Tinetti Mr. Lorcan Lyons Ms. Perrine Lavelle Arts et Métiers Paristech / ARTS Mr. Alain Cornier Ms. Charlotte Sannier 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. 2 Task 8
Contents 8. Task 8 Scenario, Policy, Impact and Sensitivity Analysis... 5 8.1. Introduction... 5 8.2. Policy analysis... 5 8.2.1. Proposed exact product definitions and scope for policy measures...6 8.2.2. Generic ecodesign requirements...8 8.2.3. Specific ecodesign requirements...9 8.2.4. Proposed policy actions related to consumables...16 8.2.1. Proposed policy actions related to products outside the scope of Lot 25...17 8.2.2. Other policy options...17 8.3. Scenario analysis... 18 8.3.1. BAU Standby scenario...19 8.3.2. LLCC Scenario...21 8.3.3. BAT scenario...22 8.3.4. Comparison of the scenarios...24 8.4. Impact analysis... 29 8.4.1. Impacts on manufacturers and competition...29 8.4.2. Monetary impacts...29 8.4.3. Impacts on consumers...30 8.4.4. Impacts on innovation and development...30 8.4.1. Social impacts (employment)...30 8.5. Sensitivity analysis... 31 8.5.1. Assumption related to the electricity rates...32 8.5.2. Assumption related to the discount rate...34 8.5.3. Assumption related to the product price...36 8.5.4. Assumption related to the product lifetime...39 8.5.5. Assumption related to the number of cycles per year...43 8.6. Conclusions... 49 Task 8 3
This page is intentionally left blank. 4 Task 8
8. TASK 8 SCENARIO, POLICY, IMPACT AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 8.1. INTRODUCTION This task summarises and totals the outcomes of all previous tasks. It looks at suitable policy means to achieve the potential e.g. implementing Least Life Cycle Cost (LLCC) as a minimum and Best Available Technology (BAT) as a promotional target, using legislative or voluntary agreements, labelling and promotion. It draws up scenarios for the period 2010-2025 quantifying the improvements that can be achieved with respect to a Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario, compares the outcomes with EU environmental targets, and estimates the societal costs and benefits. It makes an estimate of the impact on consumers (purchasing power, societal costs) and industry (employment, profitability, competitiveness, investment, etc.) as described in Annex 2 of the Directive. Finally, in a sensitivity analysis of the main parameters it studies the robustness of the outcome. In addition, an analysis of which significant impacts may have to be measured under possible implementing measures and what measurement methods would need to be developed or adapted is provided. Note that the policy recommendations provided are the opinions of the consultants and do not reflect the views of the European Commission. 8.2. POLICY ANALYSIS Scope: The policy analysis should identify policy option(s) considering the outcomes of all previous tasks. Notably the option(s) should: Be based on the exact definition of the product, according to Task 1 and modified/confirmed by the other tasks; Provide ecodesign requirements, such as minimum (or maximum) requirements; Be complemented, where appropriate, with (dynamic) labelling and benchmark categories linked to possible incentives, relating to public procurement or direct and indirect fiscal instruments; Where appropriate, apply existing standards or propose needs/generic requirements for harmonised standards to be developed; Provide measurement requirements, including test standards and/or methods; Task 8 5
Consider possible self-regulation, such as voluntary agreement or sectoral benchmark initiatives; Provide requirements on installation of the product or on user information. This task also provides a simple tool (e.g. in Excel), allowing estimates of the impacts of different scenarios. 8.2.1. PROPOSED EXACT PRODUCT DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE FOR POLICY MEASURES Best definitions proposed in existing standards or used in some voluntary or mandatory programmes will be included for all product categories within the scope of ENER Lot 25. Drip filter coffee machine: Coffee maker with separate containers for water and for the coffee brewed and with a filter arranged above the coffee container. The heated water passes once through a filter containing ground coffee into a container. (This type of machine corresponds to Base-Case 1 in this study). Low pressure portioned coffee machine: Coffee maker with water heated and forced through ground coffee contained in a capsule or pad by a mechanical pump, for which the pressure is below 9 bars. (This type of machine corresponds to Base-Case 2 in this study). High pressure portioned espresso machine: Coffee maker with water heated and forced through ground coffee contained in a capsule or pad by a mechanical pump, for which the pressure is above 9 bars. (This type of machine corresponds to Base-Case 3 in this study). Semi-automatic espresso machine: Coffee maker with water heated and forced through ground coffee and filter by steam pressure, manual piston drive or mechanical pump. Mechanical pump pressure is 9 bars or more. (This type of machine corresponds to Base-Case 4 in this study). Fully automatic espresso machine: Coffee maker with water heated and forced through ground coffee or coffee beans (with the use of a grinder) and filter by steam pressure, manual piston drive or mechanical pump. Mechanical pump pressure is 9 bar or more. (This type of machine corresponds to Base-Case 5 in this study). Further, it is worth recalling the definitions of various modes according to the Standby Regulation (1275/2008): Ready-to-use mode: this corresponds to active mode in the Standby Regulation, meaning a condition in which the equipment is connected to 6 Task 8
the mains power source and at least one of the main function(s) providing the intended service of the equipment has been activated. Standby mode: means a condition where the equipment is connected to the mains power source, depends on energy input from the mains power source to work as intended and provides only the following functions, which may persist for an indefinite time: reactivation function, or reactivation function and only an indication of enabled reactivation function, and/or information or status display. Off mode: means a condition in which the equipment is connected to the mains power source and is not providing any function; the following shall also be considered as off mode: (a) conditions providing only an indication of off-mode condition; (b) conditions providing only functionalities intended to ensure electromagnetic compatibility pursuant to Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Auto-power down: this is a kind of power management as described in the Standby Regulation, meaning when equipment is not providing the main function, or when other energy-using product(s) are not dependent on its functions, equipment shall, unless inappropriate for the intended use, offer a power management function, or a similar function, that switches equipment after the shortest possible period of time appropriate for the intended use of the equipment, automatically into: standby mode or off mode or another condition which does not exceed the applicable power consumption requirements for off mode and/or standby mode when the equipment is connected to the mains power source. The power management function shall be activated before delivery. In addition, as already mention in the study, any requirements should not alter the functionality of the machine and also the taste of the coffee cup, even if it is subjective. Therefore, rules have been elaborated by Illy to have a perfect espresso as presented in Figure 8-1. Even if these rules are not scientifically based, they can be taken into consideration when setting any Ecodesign Regulation for espresso coffee machines. Task 8 7
Figure 8-1: Criteria for a perfect espresso (according to Illy) 8.2.2. GENERIC ECODESIGN REQUIREMENTS Generic ecodesign requirements for coffee machines would enable the customer to know more about the products on the market, in order to allow easier comparison and also to improve the consumer behaviour during the use phase. As in the case of the recent Regulation for household dishwashers (N 1016/2010), instruction booklets could provide information on: A standard programme (drink preparation and power management system), which would be the most energy- and water-efficient programme for a typical user. This programme could be set as the default programme. Power consumption of the operating modes (standby, ready-to-use, off, etc.) Indicative information on the main characteristics of the different programmes available (energy and water efficiency, temperature, time, etc.) 8 Task 8
Tips to reduce the electricity consumption of the coffee machine, including switching off it after each use, decalcifying practices every 3 to 6 months depending on the frequency of use and the type of water. This information would not be sufficient to achieve large savings on its own. Making (if possible, independent) information about energy consumption available on the internet and in sales brochures could be a next step. 8.2.3. SPECIFIC ECODESIGN REQUIREMENTS According to the technical analysis of the current products (Task 4) and of the Best Available products (Task 6), there is room for improvement. Therefore, various policy tools, presented in the sections below, could be implemented to benefit from this improvement potential. 8.2.3.1 MINIMUM ENERGY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (MEPS) MEPS are a relevant option to push the market towards more efficient appliances and to remove the least efficient appliances. Indicative levels are suggested in this section, based on those developed on a mandatory or voluntary basis in various countries inside or outside the European Union, and on the energy performance of existing products (based on the outcomes of Task 5) and BAT models (based on outcomes of Tasks 6 and 7). For establishing MEPS, a harmonised test standard is required against which different coffee machine could be compared. Because of the current lack of harmonised data on product performance (even if a draft standard is currently elaborated by CENELEC TC59X/WG15), these levels should be considered with caution and discussed again once harmonised tests and measurements have been defined. As EU averages were used to carry out the environmental and economic analysis, the results might not be representative for all situations. Finally, if finalising the test standard takes long time, during which the market and technologies will continue to evolve, and thus the targets suggested here would need a revision. MEPS could be set in 2014. This schedule should give enough time to the Commission to follow the Ecodesign legislative process and to manufacturers to take into account the requirements in their new products. The table below summarises the performance levels that could be suggested as MEPS for non-tertiary coffee machines, in terms of maximum energy consumption per coffee period. The values correspond to the LLCC options identified in Task 7, which are based on average EU parameters. Task 8 9
Table 8-1: MEPS by product category (kwh per coffee period) Base-Case with Standby Regulation in place 1 MEPS (2014) Drip filter coffee machine 0.232 0.164 Low pressure portioned machine 0.093 0.077 High pressure portioned machine 0.073 0.063 Semi-automatic espresso machine 0.083 0.055 Fully automatic espresso machine 0.062 0.050 These MEPS are based on the analysis performed in Task 7 and the identification of the improvement options (or their combinations) leading to the LLCC (Least Life Cycle Cost) options. However, manufacturers are free to use any technology to achieve these MEPS: For drip filter coffee machines: Scenario A (30-minutes auto-power down and zero standby) is the LLCC. For portioned, semi-automatic and fully automatic machines: Scenario A (5- minutes auto-power down and zero standby) is the LLCC. MEPS could also be presented in terms of annual electricity consumption. The table below summarises the performance levels that could be suggested as MEPS for nontertiary coffee machines, in terms of maximum energy consumption per year. Again, the values correspond to the LLCC options in Task 7, which are based on average EU parameters. This time, energy consumption in standby mode and off mode outside the coffee period is also taken into account. For drip filter machines, two coffee periods of 100 minutes are assumed, leaving 12.7 hours in standby and 8 hours in off per day. For pressure machines, three coffee periods of 100 minutes each are assumed, leaving 11 hours in standby and 8 hours in off per day. 1 As presented in Task 7, the electricity consumption during a coffee period for the Base-case is equal to that of the Base-Case+Option 0 (corresponding to the 2013 requirements of the Standby Regulation) as the auto-power down delay is assumed to be set at 2 hours. However, the annual electricity consumptions of the Base-Case and the Base-Case+Option 0 are different. 10 Task 8
Table 8-2: MEPS by product category (kwh per year) Base-Case with Standby Regulation in place Tier 1 (2014) Drip filter coffee machine 172 120 Low pressure portioned machine 114 85 High pressure portioned machine 89 69 Semi-automatic espresso machine 112 61 Fully automatic espresso machine 78 55 However, the MEPS proposed above may be considered with caution and may not be the best policy instrument, at this stage, to promote more efficient non-tertiary coffee machines. Indeed, there are some uncertainties about the electricity consumption values of the Base-Cases and their improvement options as the CENELEC standard used for defining consumption per coffee period is still in a draft stage, and the values were in some cases based on calculations and not on measurements. Furthermore, these MEPS are based on the LLCC option which includes an auto-power delay set at 5 minutes for pressure coffee machines (i.e. Base-Cases 2 to 5), which does not seem appropriate for consumers and for some machines could imply more electricity consumption for rinsing. Finally, almost all energy savings of the LLCC option come from the use of an auto-power down function. Therefore, it is proposed at this stage to recommend maximum auto-power down delays for each type of coffee machine. MEPS may be implemented in a few years once the CENELEC standard has been adopted and measurements have been made on a large quantity of models. 8.2.3.2 MAXIMUM AUTO-POWER DOWN DELAY It would also be relevant to specify auto-power down conditions (putting the machine in standby or off mode) delays. According to the Standby Regulation (1275/2008) an auto-power down function is mandatory from January 2013 onwards when the machine is not providing its main function. However, there is no definition of main function and manufacturers can interpret it in various ways. In this preparatory study, the consultants considered the main function to be making coffee, and thus the ready-to-use function is not the main function. Therefore, under such a definition, the implementation of a power management system is mandatory from January 2013. Also, it is stated in the Regulation that the delay should be as short as possible, which could lead to different interpretations. For drip filter coffee machines, in 2013 or 2014 this delay could be 30 minutes for machines with glass jugs and using a warming plate. For machines with thermos jugs Task 8 11
(for which heating plates should not be used), an auto-power down delay would not be relevant. However, some consumers might feel that a thermos jug deprives them of some functionality, such as the ability to see remaining coffee in a glass jug. In 2017 or 2018, it could be proposed to ban warming plates in order to promote the use of insulated jugs. For portioned coffee machines (using pads or capsules, i.e. Base-Cases 2 and 3), a maximum delay could be set between 15 and 30 minutes (in 2013-2014). For semi-automatic and fully automatic espresso machines (i.e. Base-Cases 4 and 5), maximum auto-power down delay could be set at 30 minutes (in 2013-2014) in order to avoid unintended consequences of increased energy use for rinsing, or loss of functionality. In any case, using the new CENELEC coffee period, short delays could be encouraged via an energy label. For combined machines (i.e. composed of an espresso machine and a traditional filter coffee machine) the delay will be the maximum of the delays proposed for the two technologies including in the combined machine. As this aspect is directly related to consumer habits, it may be useful to communicate this information to consumers, e.g. through a display panel/knob where the consumer could further reduce the power down time, or a beep which could announce that the coffee machine will auto power down if no intervention is made by the user. After a few years of market experience, it should be discussed as to whether the delays could be reduced, taking into account the technological trends and the consumers habits. The consumers could also be given the possibility to adjust their machine to save energy. For example, a hard-off switch could be required and placed in a clear and visible zone of the machine for the user that would disconnect a machine from the mains, so that power input is zero. Whatever approach is adopted by the European Union, an important stake will be the market surveillance. The approach to checking compliance with the performance requirements is based on self-declaration (no independent testing is required). Manufacturers can ask competitors to provide them with a machine to be tested in their own facilities. If the results are not compliant with the product declaration (the test should be repeated a given number of times), actions can be taken. Suppliers could also be required to establish sufficient technical documentation to assess the accuracy of the provided information (e.g. general description of the product, internal or independent test reports). The information required should be measured according to harmonised standards. However, these standards are still to be finalised at the time of writing. Once the harmonised standard has been defined, a detailed market review of the various categories should be done to assess whether the MEPS proposed are still relevant or should be amended. 12 Task 8
8.2.3.3 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LABELLING A mandatory labelling approach could be complimentary to the requirements presented in the previous section. Currently, there is no mandatory energy label for coffee machines. However, an energy label could reduce the energy consumption through market transformation. An energy labelling scheme would complement minimum requirements by providing useful information to consumers to allow them to buy more efficient appliances. It would be appropriate for the non-tertiary coffee machines considered in this study because customers tend not to have a detailed level of information at the time of purchase, while vendors have little incentive to produce high efficiency machines. Apart from heating water, energy consumption is intricately linked with the type of drink being prepared and any other functions such as cleaning. Any labelling scheme should provide clear and transparent information as to how quality is affected as energy consumption changes. A labelling programme needs to be based on harmonised standards and definitions and so these would need to be developed first before it could be put in place. For setting thresholds for energy classes, the calculations will need to be made again using a database with information on energy consumption and operating modes for the relevant product categories. Industry may be able to provide such a database for machines manufactured by them. The classes would then need to be revised every few years as machines become more efficient. It would not be possible to devise one energy label with the same classification scheme for both drip filter and pressure machines since they cannot be compared and since the measurement method will be different. Thus, two classification schemes could be envisaged: one for the drip filter product category and one for pressure machines. However, drip filter machines themselves come in two distinct varieties thermos jug and glass jug with heating plate. It would be difficult for a machine with a heating plate and glass jug to be more energy efficient than one with a thermos jug, irrespective of possible technical improvements. Indeed, as presented in Task 7, the use of a thermos jug allows more than 40% energy savings, which would not be achievable with other improvement option. Moreover, there seems to be little differentiation among drip filter machines with thermos jugs, which would effectively all be A-class. Therefore, the difference in electricity consumption between two classes would be too small to take into account the uncertainty in the measurement and to allow consumers to make a fair and relevant comparison of various models. The same is true of drip filter machines with a glass jug albeit to a much lesser extent since improvement is possible via insulation of the heating unit (underneath), sheltering of the jug from air circulation, temperature control by a separate device etc. For pressure machines (Base-Cases 2 to 5) on the other hand, there is clearly room for improvement and there is also a voluntary Swiss energy label already in existence for espresso machines (see section 1.3.3). Manufacturers consider that only a small Task 8 13
percentage of their espresso machines currently achieve the A class under the Swiss energy label. In addition, some of those that do achieve the A class under the FEA/CECED methodology, would no longer be A-class under the new CENELEC methodology. The main characteristics for setting an energy label for pressure coffee machines are the following: Combined machines 2 : only one label for the pressure part. Annual energy consumption figures to allow the consumer to evaluate the operating cost: one value, in the same unit as on energy bills: kwh Energy class attributed according to an Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) The average number of coffee periods per year is for pressure coffee machines according to the current draft CENELEC methodology. Information on consumables. The following information should be included on the label: 3 1. Supplier s name and name of model. 2. The energy efficiency class of the machine, determined in accordance with future harmonised standards and attributed according to the annual electricity consumption. The indicator letter should be placed at the same level as the relevant arrow. 3. Annual energy consumption (in kwh/y). Table 8-5 shows suggested different thresholds for an energy label for pressure coffee machines. However, it is difficult to assess the extent by which the variation of efficiency classes is a result of the difference between the test methods as the same models were not analysed in the three proposals. Between three and six years after its introduction, machines in the F and G classes could be banned from the market via introduction of MEPS (in two steps), while A+ and A++ classes could be created. Note that this distribution is based on sparse data and should be considered with caution. Indeed, setting such levels requires that a EN standard is in place and that some round robin tests are conducted to be sure that all energy classes will represent a non negligible share of the market. In addition, it would be useful to measure the electricity consumption of several models using the three measurement methods (FEA/CECED, Euro-Topten/S.A.F.E and draft CENELEC standard) and see the effect of such methods on the energy class. 2 As mentioned in the introduction of Task 5, even if a Base-Case has not been defined for combined coffee machines, ecodesign requirements can cover this product type. 3 Note that noise was not considered relevant to include on a label for non-tertiary coffee machines. 14 Task 8
Table 8-3: Suggested energy efficiency thresholds for pressure coffee machines (but using different measurement methods) Energy Efficiency Class Swiss voluntary energy label by FEA/CECED 4 (kwh/y) Proposed energy label by Euro-Topten / S.A.F.E. 5 (kwh/y) New CECED proposal 6 (kwh/y) A >58-72 >50-75 >68-81 B >72-90 >75-90 >81-97 C >90-112 >90-105 >97-117 D >112-140 >105-125 >117-140 E >140-175 >125-150 >140-168 F >175-219 >150-175 >168-202 G >219 - >202 Table 8-4 indicates the energy class of the pressure Base-Cases analysed in this study as well as their LLCC (Least Life Cycle Cost) and BAT (Best Available Technology) options as identified in Task 7, with the new classification proposed by CECED based on the annual electricity consumption. Such classification shows that the Base-Cases, considering the Standby Regulation in place, i.e. Tier 2 (2013) requirements, would already have a good energy class, between A and C. In addition, LLCC and BAT options would all be A-class or above (in case A+ and A++ classes are created later) except for the LLCC option for low pressure portioned machines, which would have a B-class. However, such analysis is based on a limited number of models, and as suggested earlier, would require that several round robin tests are carried out and that a database is created to ensure that the classes are well defined. 4 Based on the FEA/CECED measurement method, and excluding low pressure portioned coffee machines. 5 Based on the Euro-Topten/S.A.F.E measurement method, and excluding semi-automatic coffee machines. 6 Indicative values, based on the draft standard CENELEC. Task 8 15
Table 8-4: Energy class for pressure coffee machines with the new CECED proposal Base-Case with Standby Regulation in place LLCC option BAT option Low pressure portioned machine C B A High pressure portioned machine B A A* Semi-automatic espresso machine C A A* Fully automatic espresso machine A A* A* *: or A+/A++ if these classes are created. 8.2.4. PROPOSED POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO CONSUMABLES The production and end-of-life of coffee consumables such as filters, capsules and decalcifier have significant costs and environmental impacts associated with them. The stock of portioned machines, in particular hard caps machines, is growing very fast by as much as 12% per year. In addition, there is some evidence that in some countries they may be used in small offices, where use patterns are more intense than in households. According to Öko-Institut and others, the production and disposal of capsules causes significant greenhouse-gas emissions that offset somewhat the relatively positive life cycle assessment of the capsule machines themselves. In one study, Öko-Institut found that capsules contributed 20% of overall emissions at the production phase and 8-13% at the disposal phase. Therefore, policy action related to the manufacturing and disposal of consumables such as capsules needs to be considered. The environmental impacts of consumables were not addressed directly in this study as it focuses on the machines themselves and the MEEEuP EcoReport tool does not allow their impacts to be integrated into the analysis. Furthermore, coffee pads and capsules are considered out of the scope of the WEEE Directive as they are consumables and are out of the scope of the Packaging Directive too. Therefore, there is a real need to address the consumables issue. The most appropriate level of governance for policy action may in fact be the national or even local level, where some recycling initiatives and capsule collection point schemes already exist (see section 3.2.3). If some consumables have lower levels of environmental impact and establish themselves in the market, they should also be considered for promotional measures such as the European Ecolabel. In all cases, better information on these initiatives should be provided to consumers. Further, as the number of manufacturers of coffee machines using such capsules is limited for the time being (Nespresso, Tassimo and Dolce Gusto are currently the main 16 Task 8
actors). The Commission could engage a discussion with the manufacturers of coffee machines with capsules and capsule manufacturers to assess the feasibility of setting a voluntary agreement with an extended producer responsibility approach having objectives on the collection and recycling of such capsules, or at least on the development of collection points. 8.2.1. PROPOSED POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO PRODUCTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF LOT 25 As mentioned in Task 1, hot vending machines are out of the scope of this study. However, the launch of a new preparatory study on hot vending machines (for coffee and other hot drinks) might be useful, as their aggregate environmental impacts are thought to be significant. The Danish Energy Saving Trust has published some purchasing guidelines for vending machines on its website. 7 Furthermore, the European Vending machine Association (EVA) has developed a test method (Energy Managing Protocol) for hot vending machines. The method tries to estimate the energy consumption in a situation corresponding to real use. It includes measurement of energy consumption in the heating phase (heating to brew temperature), standby (idle) and vending situation (brewing). 8 8.2.2. OTHER POLICY OPTIONS 8.2.2.1 BENCHMARKING Benchmarks could also be considered, although the role of benchmarking under the Ecodesign Directive is less clear than the other measures described here. Benchmarks are non-binding for manufacturers but would allow the evaluation of the environmental performance achieved by a new product against the best-performing products available on the EU market at a certain time. Benchmarks could be specified by the European Commission in an Ecodesign Regulation based on the information provided in this study and any harmonised standards that are developed. It might be possible to implement a well-chosen and widely disseminated set of benchmark products even more quickly than energy labels. For example, the draft CENELEC standard mentions benchmark values for pressure coffee machines (240 ml coffee period: 71.4 Wh) and filter coffee machines (850 ml coffee period: 125 Wh). 7 See www.savingtrust.dk/public-and-commerce/products/professional-white-goods/coffee-makers-andfood-and-drink-vending-machines. 8 See www.vending-europe.eu/standards/eva-emp.html for more information. Task 8 17
8.2.2.2 PROPOSED POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO BEST NOT YET AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BNAT) As mentioned earlier, information on BNATs was very difficult to obtain from manufacturers and there is a lack of independent research. However, it does not seem appropriate to recommend any specific policy support for R&D in this area as it would be difficult to show the additionality of such funding compared to what companies are already doing in this competitive market. 8.2.2.3 GREEN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT This policy option is not considered relevant to non-tertiary coffee machines as they are mainly intended for domestic use. 8.3. SCENARIO ANALYSIS An Excel tool was created to allow the impacts of different scenarios to be modelled (2010-2020 and 2010-2025). The tool was designed quite simply and relies on the following assumptions: The model is built on a discrete annual basis to match the available data. Annual sales growth rates over the period 2010-2025 are estimated at - 6.9% for BC 1, 3.0% for BC 2, 9.1% for BC 3, -1.7% for BC 4 and 2.9% for BC 5. Base-year data (2007) were taken from the market data presented in Task 2. Primary energy consumption was judged to be the most relevant and representative indicator to be modelled using the tool and also to allow comparing savings with other Ecodesign Lots. The tool calculates the expenditure in euros and primary energy in GJ related to non-tertiary coffee machines, under different policy scenarios. The primary energy results are not limited to the use phase, but take into account the energy required over the whole lifetime (including the manufacturing, distribution and end-of-life phases). Energy consumption is allocated uniformly over the lifetime of the product although in theory this is only true for the use phase. Given the low shares of other life cycle phases in energy consumption (see Task 5), this assumption is considered reasonable in order to carry out the analysis; a more realistic modelling would not make a significant difference to the overall results. Expenditure measures the yearly value of the entire market. It consists of the money spent to buy the product (purchase price), taken into account at the time of purchase, and the operating costs (energy, water, coffee, 18 Task 8
maintenance and repair), which are spread over the lifetime of the machine. In the following subsections, four scenarios are described: Freeze, which assumes that products on the market do not include any new improvement options in future and that even the Standby Regulation is not implemented; BAU Standby, which assumes the full implementation of the Standby Regulation from 2013; Least Life-Cycle Cost (LLCC) scenario, which assumes that the LLCC options for all product categories are implemented from 2014; Best Available Technology (BAT) scenario, which assumes that the BAT options are implemented from 2018 (ideally, that would be the mediumterm target). The BAT and LLCC scenarios are compared to the BAU Standby scenario in order to estimate the overall potential of the improvement options. Most of the description in the sections below refers to 2025 for comparison. The following market data were used as inputs to the modelling tool. Table 8-5 Market inputs of the policy analysis model Category Stock (millions) 2010 2025 Average annual stock change (%) Lifetime (years) BC1 Drip filter coffee machine 58.8 29.4-4.5% 6 BC2 Pad filter coffee machine 22.7 35.3 3.0% 7 BC3 Hard cap espresso machine 12.6 62.1 11.2% 7 BC4 Semi-automatic espresso machine 9.0 6.3-2.4% 7 BC5 Fully automatic espresso machine 7.6 11.6 2.9% 10 8.3.1. BAU STANDBY SCENARIO In the BAU Standby scenario, the Base-Cases remain the only products sold on the market over the outlook period: the only improvement that takes place is the full implementation of the Standby Regulation (Option 0) from 2013, meaning that an auto-power down of two hours is assumed and that the power consumption in standby mode is set at 0.5 W. No other improvement option or any other type of improvement is introduced to the market. In this scenario, it is consequently assumed that there is no incremental process of product improvement. This scenario is used as a baseline in order to compare the results with those of the BAT and LLCC scenarios. Figure 8-2 and Figure 8-3 show the breakdown by Base-Case of energy consumption and expenditure over the period 2010-2025. BC 1 and BC 3 have the highest shares of energy consumption and BC 3 has more than double the expenditure of the BC1, the next highest Base-Case. Task 8 19
BC4 6% BC5 10% BC1 38% BC3 29% BC2 17% Figure 8-2: Total BAU Standby scenario energy consumption by Base-Case, 2010-2025 (PJ) BC4 3% BC5 5% BC1 22% BC3 50% BC2 20% Figure 8-3: Total BAU Standby scenario expenditure by Base-Case, 2010-2025 ( bn) In 2025, non-tertiary coffee machines would require 296 PJ of primary energy (i.e. 28.2 TWh of final electricity consumption), and total consumption over the period 2010-2025 would be 4 295 PJ (i.e. 409.0 TWh of final electricity consumption). Non-tertiary coffee machines will result in emissions of 190 MtCO 2 eq over the scenario period. Regarding expenditure, 113 bn is projected to be spent on non-tertiary coffee machines in 2025, and the market is projected to represent a cumulative 1 352 bn over the period 2010-2025. 20 Task 8
8.3.2. LLCC SCENARIO The LLCC scenario considers that the LLCC improvement option as described in Task 7 is implemented for each Base Case. From 2014, all products sold include these LLCC options and no more Base Cases are sold (the market shift takes place from one year to the next). Table 8-6 summarises the LLCC options for each Base Case identified in Task 7. Base Case BC 1 BC 2-5 Table 8-6: LLCC improvement options by Base Case LLCC improvement option Description Scenario A Scenario A Auto-power down after 30 minutes and zero standby Auto-power down after 5 minutes and zero standby Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5show the breakdown by Base Case of energy consumption and expenditure over the period 2010-2025. BC 1 and BC 3 have the highest energy consumption and BC 3 has more than double the expenditure of BC 1 and BC 2, the next highest Base Cases. BC4 7% BC5 9% BC1 40% BC3 28% BC2 16% Figure 8-4: Total LLCC scenario energy consumption by Base Case, 2010-2025 (PJ) Task 8 21
BC4 3% BC5 5% BC1 21% BC3 50% BC2 21% Figure 8-5: Total LLCC scenario expenditure by Base Case, 2010-2025 ( bn) In 2025, the non-tertiary coffee machines market would require 233 PJ of primary energy, i.e 22.2 TWh of final electricity consumption (-21.3% compared to BAU Standby), and would represent 113 bn (-0.04% compared to BAU Standby). Over 2010-2025, total primary energy consumption would be 3 776 PJ, i.e. 359.6 TWh of final electricity consumption (-12.1% compared to BAU Standby), total CO 2 emissions would account for 167 Mt (-23 Mt compared to BAU Standby), and total expenditure would be 1 354 bn over the period (+0.1% compared to BAU Standby). 8.3.3. BAT SCENARIO The BAT scenario considers that the LLCC improvement option is implemented for each Base-Case from 2014 and the BAT option as described in Task 7 is implemented from 2018 for each Base Case. From 2018, all products sold include these options, which are considered a long-term target. Table 8-7 is a reminder of the BAT options identified in Task 7. Table 8-7: BAT improvement options by Base Case Base Case BAT improvement option Description BC 1 Option 4 Thermos jug BC 2 Option 3 Flow-through heater BC 3 Option 3 Flow-through heater BC 4 Scenario B BC 5 Option 3 Flow-through heater Auto-power down with 5 minutes delay and zero standby and additional insulation Figure 8-6 and Figure 8-7show the breakdown by Base Case of energy consumption and expenditure over the period 2010-2025. BC 1 and BC 3 have the highest energy 22 Task 8
consumption, as in the other scenarios. BC 3 still has the greatest share of expenditure but the gap between it and BC 1 is much smaller. BC4 7% BC5 10% BC1 45% BC3 23% BC2 15% Figure 8-6: Total BAT scenario energy consumption by Base Case, 2010-2025 (PJ) BC4 4% BC5 5% BC1 27% BC3 43% BC2 21% Figure 8-7: Total BAT scenario expenditure by Base Case, 2010-2025 ( bn) In 2025, the non-tertiary coffee machines market would require 199 PJ of primary energy, i.e. 19.0 TWh of final electricity consumption (-32.7% compared to BAU Standby), and would represent 119 bn (+4.7% compared to BAU Standby). Over the period 2010-2025, total primary energy consumption would be 3 583 PJ, i.e. 341.2 TWh of final electricity consumption (-16.6% compared to BAU Standby), total CO 2 emissions would account for 158 Mt (-31 Mt compared to BAU Standby), and total expenditure would be 1 381 bn over the period (+2.1% compared to BAU Standby). Task 8 23
8.3.4. COMPARISON OF THE SCENARIOS This comparison is made in terms of electricity consumption and consumer expenditure. Figure 8-8 to Figure 8-13show projected total primary energy consumption and expenditure between 2010 and 2025 by Base-Case and according to the BAT, LLCC and BAT scenarios previously described. As expected, the BAT scenario enables the largest primary energy savings (both annually and over the period 2010-2025) while the LLCC scenario results in the smallest annual expenditure. However, looking at the overall results in Figure 8-14, the LLCC and BAT scenarios almost overlap, both in terms of energy consumption and expenditure, except for Base-Cases 3 and 4. It can also be seen that the improvement options have an insignificant overall impact on expenditure since higher product prices are offset by lower operating costs. For Base-Case 4, the BAT scenario annual expenditures become higher than the BAU Standby annual expenditure after 2020. Table 8-8 shows that there are large cumulative savings (6.5 TWh) from the Standby Regulation alone for non-tertiary coffee machines. However, there is a much greater savings potential (21-26 TWh) from moving to the LLCC or BAT scenarios. Table 8-8: Savings by scenario, cumulative 2010-2020 BAU Standby compared to Freeze 67.8 6.5 LLCC compared to BAU Standby 219.5 21 BAT compared to BAU Standby 272.2 26 PJ TWh 24 Task 8
PJ bn PJ bn 140 30 120 100 80 60 40 20 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 BAU Standby LLCC BAT BAU Standby LLCC BAT Figure 8-8: Primary energy consumption and expenditure by scenario, Base-Case 1 60 50 40 30 30 25 20 15 20 10 10 5 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 BAU Standby LLCC BAT BAU Standby LLCC BAT Figure 8-9: Primary energy consumption and expenditure by scenario, Base-Case 2 Task 8 25
PJ bn PJ bn 120 70 100 60 80 60 40 20 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 BAU Standby LLCC BAT BAU Standby LLCC BAT Figure 8-10: Primary energy consumption and expenditure by scenario, Base-Case 3 30 30 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 BAU Standby LLCC BAT BAU Standby LLCC BAT Figure 8-11: Primary energy consumption and expenditure by scenario, Base-Case 4 26 Task 8
PJ bn PJ bn 40 35 30 25 30 25 20 20 15 10 5 15 10 5 0 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 2015 2020 2025 BAU Standby LLCC BAT BAU Standby LLCC BAT Figure 8-12: Primary energy consumption and expenditure by scenario, Base-Case 5 350 300 250 200 150 100 120 100 80 60 40 50 20 0 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 2015 2020 2025 BAU Standby LLCC BAT BAU Standby LLCC BAT Figure 8-13: Primary energy consumption and expenditure by scenario, Total Task 8 27
PJ bn 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BC1 BC2 BC3 BC4 BC5 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BC1 BC2 BC3 BC4 BC5 BAU Standby LLCC BAT BAU Standby LLCC BAT Figure 8-14: Primary energy consumption and consumer expenditure by Base-Case over the period 2010-2025 28 Task 8
8.4. IMPACT ANALYSIS 8.4.1. IMPACTS ON MANUFACTURERS AND COMPETITION All the technologies described in this study and considered as improvement options in the scenarios are already available on the market today, if only in a few models. As a result, the possible implementation of MEPS dealing with relevant targets should not have a major negative impact on manufacturers, especially because the non-tertiary coffee machine sector is competitive and has been continuously improving product performance. Regarding the definition of a timeline to implement standards, it should take into account the time necessary to adapt production lines. This redesign time varies depending on the type of change to be achieved: it has been estimated that between 6 and 12 months are needed to replace a single part of the appliance, which is the case for every improvement option presented within the study. Assuming the development of the required standards (see section 2.2.4) is finished by 2012, Tier 1 has thus been set at 2014 for the MEPS and the scenario model. Most manufacturers seem to have similar BAT products, with the implementation of the same improvement options. The manufacturers of most of the non-tertiary coffee machines on the European market are large international companies, but a few smaller manufacturers also exist. If minimum performance standards were set, it is believed that all manufacturers should be able to keep up with the market requirements, using common technology or their own technological developments. However, smaller manufacturers might face some difficulty to react as quickly as the larger ones. Therefore, appropriate and progressive targets should be set, both in terms of performance and timeline. EU manufacturers claim to produce amongst the most efficient coffee machines manufactured worldwide. Therefore, the implementation of minimum performance standards is not expected to hamper the economic development of large EU manufacturers to the benefit of extra-eu competitors. However, impacts on smaller manufacturers deserve further assessment. 8.4.2. MONETARY IMPACTS The scenario analysis partly addresses monetary impacts. The possible implementation of MEPS may require additional capital investment from manufacturers to adapt manufacturing techniques to produce the more efficient products (e.g. changing production lines). However, these investments should not represent a significant burden for manufacturers as they are used to continuously improving the efficiency of their appliances. Investment costs may also be partly offset by slightly higher selling prices of more efficient machines. Besides, economies of scale may enable Task 8 29
manufacturers to have a larger margin and/or drop prices when selling efficient appliances. On the consumer side, purchasing a more efficient coffee machine may represent a larger initial investment but if performance requirements are set based on LCC calculations, the investment becomes beneficial in the long term. Some buyers could even be eager to buy more efficient products provided they are economic in the long run, and policy options could also aim to encourage this long-term vision, which is beneficial both from the environmental and economic points of view. 8.4.3. IMPACTS ON CONSUMERS For the improvement options presented, the functional unit and the service given by the improved product remains the same as the Base-Case (this is a necessary condition to make a relevant comparative LCA): this is a key criterion to assess their implementation in non-tertiary coffee machines. There should be no trade-off in terms of functionality (e.g. reduced coffee quality or loss of important features), as a result of the increased energy efficiency. For example, if MEPS is thermoblock or flow-through heater, it should not affect coffee quality. 8.4.4. IMPACTS ON INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT BNATs and current research axes in the sector were not very thoroughly described in this study because of a lack of data. Such information is obviously very sensitive and manufacturers were not willing to share. In addition, little or no independent research has been carried out. The possible implementation of MEPS can be seen as an opportunity for manufacturers to look for innovative and efficient technological solutions in order to decrease costs. Again, given the competitiveness of the sector, it seems that following the current trend regarding research and development is feasible for the manufacturers and should enable them to meet proposed requirements. 8.4.1. SOCIAL IMPACTS (EMPLOYMENT) Most EU manufacturers have their production plants within the EU. If performance standards were set, they should not have a detrimental impact on the number of jobs or the well-being of the EU manufacturers employees. Indeed, the non-tertiary coffee machine sector has been improving performance continuously so that the companies have experience in carrying out continuous production transitions. In addition, the improvement options presented do not require any specific material that might be difficult to obtain within the EU so that the supply chain would not be unduly affected nor EU industries disadvantaged. 30 Task 8
8.5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Scope: The sensitivity analysis checks the robustness of the overall outcomes. It should cover the main parameters as described in Annex II of the Ecodesign Directive (such as the price of energy, the cost of raw materials or production costs, discount rates, including, where appropriate, external environmental costs, such as avoided greenhouse gas emissions), to check if there are significant changes and if the overall conclusions are reliable and robust. The parameters that would be considered the most relevant for this sensitivity analysis (because of their importance and/or uncertainty) in the case of non-tertiary coffee machines are listed below: Electricity rates; Discount rate; Product price; Product lifetime; Number of cycles per year. Parameters such as electricity rates, discount rates and product purchase prices have a direct influence on the LCC calculations of the Base-Cases and their improvement options (but not on the environmental impacts of the products) while others (time in on-mode per year) will influence both the environmental impacts of the products and the LCC through operating costs. Note that we use average EU prices for all calculations but there are significant differences between Member States. The BAT might be cost-effective in one Member State and not cost-effective in another. The options and scenarios evaluated are listed in Table 8-911. Table 8-9: Description of options and scenarios applied to the Base-Cases Option 0 Option 1a Option 1b Option Option 1c (not for BC 1) Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Standby Regulation Description AutoPowerDown 60 minutes AutoPowerDown 30 minutes AutoPowerDown 5 minutes Zero watt standby Flow-through heater Additional insulation (or thermos jug) Scenario A 0+1c+2 (0+1b+2 for BC 1) Scenario B (not for BC 1) 0+1c+2+4 Task 8 31
LLC ( ) In Task 4, average product prices and data on energy consumption in on mode were determined for the base-cases. Given the uncertainty that remains regarding the definition of average market products, the sensitivity analysis will consider an error margin on the given values. The tested values are therefore presented in Table 8-10, Table 8-11, Table 8-12, Table 8-13 and Table 8-14. 8.5.1. ASSUMPTION RELATED TO THE ELECTRICITY RATES Table 8-10: Variation of electricity rates for each Base-case Base-case Current value (euros) Lower value Upper value Base-case 1 0.1658 0.0823 0.2698 Base-case 2 0.1658 0.0823 0.2698 Base-case 3 0.1658 0.0823 0.2698 Base-case 4 0.1658 0.0823 0.2698 Base-case 5 0.1658 0.0823 0.2698 Figure 8-15to Figure 8-19 show the influence of the variation of the electricity rate on the life-cycle costs of the different base-cases and associated improvement options. Please note, that the scale does not start from 0, in order to show the differences between the options and between the scenarios more clearly. Therefore, a comparison between the Base-Cases should be made using the absolute values and not the position on the figures. Regarding costs, the option 1c and scenario A are the LLCC for Base-Cases 2, 3, 4 and 5, and also for the minimum and maximum values. The option 1b and scenario A are the LLCC for base case 1. 2400 2350 2300 Electricity rate ( ) 2250 2200 2150 2100 2050 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 8-15: Sensitivity to electricity rates for Base-case 1 Life Cycle Cost 32 Task 8
LLC ( ) LLC ( ) LLC ( ) Electricity rate ( ) 4400 4350 4300 4250 4200 4150 4100 4050 4000 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-16: Sensitivity to electricity rates for Base-case 2 Life Cycle Cost 8350 8300 8250 Electricity rate ( ) 8200 8150 8100 8050 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-17: Sensitivity to electricity rates for Base-case 3 Life Cycle Cost 2750 2700 2650 2600 2550 2500 2450 2400 2350 2300 2250 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-18: Sensitivity to electricity rates for Base-case 4 Life Cycle Cost Task 8 33
LLC ( ) 4050 4000 3950 3900 3850 3800 3750 3700 Base Upper Lower Base-case 5 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-19: Sensitivity to electricity rates for Base-case 5 Life Cycle Cost 8.5.2. ASSUMPTION RELATED TO THE DISCOUNT RATE Table 8-11: Variation of discount rates for each Base-case Base-case Current value Lower value Upper value Base-case 1 4% 2% 6% Base-case 2 4% 2% 6% Base-case 3 4% 2% 6% Base-case 4 4% 2% 6% Base-case 5 4% 2% 6% Figure 8-20 to Figure 8-24 show the influence of the discount rate on the life-cycle costs of the different base-cases and associated improvement options. For all situations, despite the expected variations in absolute values, the ranking of the different improvement options remains the same whether the minimum or maximum parameter is used. 34 Task 8
LLC ( ) LLC ( ) LLC ( ) 2500 Discount rate 2400 2300 2200 2100 2000 1900 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 8-20: Sensitivity to discount rates for Base-case 1 Life Cycle Cost 4800 4600 4400 Discount rate 4200 4000 3800 3600 3400 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-21: Sensitivity to discount rates for Base-case 2 Life Cycle Cost 9000 Discount rate 8500 8000 7500 7000 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-22: Sensitivity to discount rates for Base-case 3 Life Cycle Cost Task 8 35
LLC ( ) LLC ( ) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-23: Sensitivity to discount rates for Base-case 4 Life Cycle Cost 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 5 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-24: Sensitivity to discount rates for Base-case 5 Life Cycle Cost 8.5.3. ASSUMPTION RELATED TO THE PRODUCT PRICE Table 8-12: Variation of product price for each Base-Case Base-case Current value (euros) Lower value Upper value Base-case 1 35 28 42 Base-case 2 81 64.8 97.2 Base-case 3 156 124.8 187.2 Base-case 4 103 82.4 123.6 Base-case 5 595 476 714 36 Task 8
LLC ( ) LLC ( ) Figure 8-25 to Figure 8-29 show the influence of the product price on the life-cycle costs of the different base-cases and associated improvement options. For all situations, despite the expected variations in absolute values, the ranking of the different improvement options remains the same whether the minimum or maximum parameter is used. The LLCC is option 1b and scenario A for base case 1, option 2 for base case 2, option 1c and scenario A for base cases 3, 4 and 5. 2280 2270 2260 2250 2240 2230 2220 2210 2200 2190 2180 2170 Product price ( ) Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 8-25: Sensibility to product price for Base-Case 1 Life Cycle Cost 4300 4280 4260 4240 4220 4200 4180 4160 4140 4120 4100 Product price ( ) Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-26: Sensitivity to product price for Base-Case 2 Life Cycle Cost Task 8 37
LLC ( ) LLC ( ) 8280 8260 8240 8220 8200 8180 8160 8140 8120 8100 Product price ( ) Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-27: Sensitivity to product price for Base-Case 3 Life Cycle Cost 2650 2600 2550 2500 2450 2400 2350 2300 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-28: Sensitivity to product price for Base-Case 4 Life Cycle Cost 38 Task 8
LLC ( ) 4100 4000 3900 3800 3700 3600 3500 Base Upper Lower Base-case 5 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-29: Sensitivity to product price for Base-Case 5 Life Cycle Cost 8.5.4. ASSUMPTION RELATED TO THE PRODUCT LIFETIME Base-case Table 8-13: Variation of product lifetime for each Base-Case Current value (in years) Lower value Upper value Base-case 1 6 3 9 Base-case 2 7 3.5 10.5 Base-case 3 7 3.5 10.5 Base-case 4 7 3.5 10.5 Base-case 5 10 5 15 Figure 8-30 to Figure 8-39 show the influence of the product lifetime rate on the total energy consumption and life-cycle costs of the different base-cases and associated improvement options. For all situations regarding the costs, despite the expected variations in absolute values, the ranking of the different improvement options remains the same whether the minimum or maximum parameter is used. Regarding the energy consumption, the LLCC is option 4 for base case 1, scenario A for base case 2, option 3 for base case 3, option 1c and 3, with scenarios A and B for base case 4, and option 3 for base case 5. Task 8 39
LLC ( ) Total Energy (GER) [MJ] LLC ( ) 3500 Product lifetime (year) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 8-30: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-case 1 Life Cycle Cost Product lifetime (year) 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 8-31: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-Case 1 Total Energy 7000 6000 5000 Product lifetime (year) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-32: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-Case 2 Life Cycle Cost 40 Task 8
Total Energy (GER) [MJ] LLC ( ) Total Energy (GER) [MJ] 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Product lifetime (year) Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-33: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-Case 2 Total Energy Product lifetime (year) 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-34: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-Case 3 Life Cycle Cost Product lifetime (year) 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-35: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-Case 3 Total Energy Task 8 41
Total Energy (GER) [MJ] LLC ( ) 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-36: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-Case 4 Life Cycle Cost 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-37: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-Case 4 Total Energy 42 Task 8
Total Energy (GER) [MJ] LLC ( ) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 5 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-38: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-Case 5 Life Cycle Cost 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 5 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-39: Sensitivity to product lifetime for Base-Case 5 Total Energy 8.5.5. ASSUMPTION RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF CYCLES PER YEAR Table 8-14: Variation of number of cycles per year for each Base-Case Base-case Current value Lower value Upper value Base-case 1 730 365 1 095 Base-case 2 1 095 730 1 460 Base-case 3 1 095 730 1 460 Base-case 4 1 095 730 1 460 Base-case 5 1 095 730 1 460 Task 8 43
Total Energy (GER) [MJ] LLC ( ) Figure 8-40 to Figure 8-49 show the influence of the number of cycles per year on the total energy consumption and life cycle cost of the different base-cases and associated improvement options. Regarding the primary energy consumption, for base-case 1, the option 4 is the LLCC. For base-case 2 and 3, scenario A is the LLCC. For base-case 4, option 3 is the LLCC. For base-case 5, options 1c and 3 with scenarios A and B are the LLCC. Regarding costs, for base-cases 1 and 3, the scenario A the LLCC option. For base-case 2, option 2 is the LLCC. For base-cases 4 and 5, both option 1c and scenario A are the LLCC. 2350 2300 2250 On-mode - Number of cycles per year 2200 2150 2100 2050 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 8-40: Sensitivity to the number of cycles per year for Base-Case 1 Life-Cycle Cost On-mode - Number of cycles per year 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA Figure 8-41: Sensitivity to the number of cycles per year for Base-Case 1 Total Energy 44 Task 8
LLC ( ) Total Energy (GER) [MJ] LLC ( ) 4350 On-mode - Number of cycles per year 4300 4250 4200 4150 4100 4050 Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-42: Sensitivity to the number of cycles per year for Base-Case 2 Life-Cycle Cost 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 On-mode - Number of cycles per year Base Upper Lower Base-case 1 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option2 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-43: Sensitivity to the number of per year for Base-Case 2 Total Energy 8280 8260 8240 8220 8200 8180 8160 8140 8120 8100 On-mode - Number of cycles per year Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-44: Sensitivity to the number of cycles per year for Base-Case 3 Life Cycle Cost Task 8 45
LLC ( ) Total Energy (GER) [MJ] 12000 On-mode - Number of cycles per year 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-45: Sensitivity to the number of cycles per year for Base-Case 3 Total Energy 2650 2600 2550 2500 2450 2400 2350 2300 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-46: Sensitivity to the number of cycles per year for Base-Case 4 Life Cycle Cost 46 Task 8
LLC ( ) Total Energy (GER) [MJ] 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 3 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-47: Sensitivity to the number of cycles per year for Base-Case 4 Total Energy 4000 3950 3900 3850 3800 3750 Base Upper Lower Base-case 5 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-48: Sensitivity to the number of cycles per year for Base-Case 5 Life Cycle Cost Task 8 47
Total Energy (GER) [MJ] 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Base Upper Lower Base-case 5 Option0 Option1a Option1b Option1c Option2 Option3 Option4 ScenarioA ScenarioB Figure 8-49: Sensitivity to the number of cycles per year for Base-Case 5 Total Energy 48 Task 8
8.6. CONCLUSIONS This chapter summarises the final outcomes of the preparatory study. It looked at suitable policies and measures to achieve the environmental improvement potential, notably implementing ecodesign requirements, and introduction of a mandatory energy label. Scenarios were projected over the period 2010-2025 to quantify the improvements that can be achieved with respect to a BAU with Standby Regulation scenario. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was made with respect to the main assumptions used in the study. According to the Standby Regulation (1275/2008) an auto-power down function is mandatory from January 2013 onwards when the machine is not providing its main function. However, there is no definition of main function and manufacturers can interpret it in various ways. In this preparatory study, the consultants considered the main function to be making coffee, and thus the ready-to-use function is not the main function. Therefore, under such a definition, the implementation of a power management system is mandatory from January 2013. Also, it is stated in the Regulation that the delay should be as short as possible, which could lead to different interpretations. Two distinct categories of machine are distinguished that merit separate treatment in any policy: drip filter machines and pressure machines. Minimum Energy Performance Standards are proposed based on the results of Task 7 and the identification of the LLCC option for each-base-case. However, due to some uncertainties they should be considered with caution and may even not be relevant if instead maximum values of the auto-power down function are defined. Among filter machines, those with a thermos jug are more energy efficient (as not using a warming plate compared to the glass jug machines), but some consumers may still prefer machines with a glass jug and warming plate. In the short-term (2013 or 2014), it is recommended that filter machines with a warming plate should incorporate an auto-power down function of 30 minutes (maximum value). In the medium-term (2018), drip filter machines with warming plate may be banned by defining MEPS that could not be reached by such appliances. Also for pressure coffee machines, it is important to set maximum time-delay for the auto-power down function because the current Standby Regulation leaves some room for interpretation. It is proposed that a maximum delay of 15 to 30 minutes could be set for portioned machines and 30 minutes for semi-automatic and fully automatic machines (due to their more sophisticated functionality). Consumers could also be given the possibility to adjust their machines to save even more energy, e.g. through a display panel/knob where the consumer could further reduce the auto-power down time, or a hard-off switch that would disconnect a machine from the mains, so that power input is zero. Task 8 49
As an alternative or in complement to ecodesign requirements, an energy label could be implemented. For drip filter coffee machines, an energy label was not recommended, though it remains an option, because the level of differentiation did not seem to warrant it. However, it could be an effective measure for the transforming the market of pressure machines (high and low pressure portioned machines, semiautomatic and fully automatic espresso machines). A voluntary label already exists in Switzerland but it does not apply to low pressure portioned machines. An energy label could be introduced whether through the energy labeling Directive or as a specific ecodesign requirement through the Ecodesign Directive. Progressively, least efficient models could be removed from the market, e.g. classes F and G could be eliminated in five to eight years. The details of the final policy mix and energy label classifications should be informed by a database of market data and energy consumption measurements using the new CENELEC standard, once adopted,, as well as further consultation. In addition to these recommendations, the European Commission could consider a policy intervention to reduce the environmental impacts of the coffee pads, capsules and other consumables used with non-tertiary coffee machines. Scenario analysis shows that the Standby Regulation for non-tertiary coffee machines will save 1.37 TWh in 2020 and 6.45 Wh cumulatively to 2020. However, the potential savings for coffee machines are much greater than that. If in addition, from 2014 only improved products were sold, up to a further 4.77 TWh could be saved in 2020, or a further 25.92 TWh cumulatively. Therefore, there is great potential for reduced environmental impacts, with negligible impacts for European consumers and industry. When varying the input data on 5 parameters: energy rate, discount rate, product purchase price, product lifetime and number of coffee periods per year, the ranking of the Base-Case and the different improvement options / scenarios vary according to the five different Base-Cases. 50 Task 8