Part 3: Methodology Report Reducing the environmental … EP Priority Products Part3... · Part 3: Methodology Report Reducing the environmental and ... PDP plasma display panel

Part 3: Methodology Report

Reducing the environmental and

cost impacts of electrical products

The methodology used in the research project for the Product Sustainability Forum to identify, quantify and understand the environmental impacts of electrical products sold on the UK market. Followed by appendices.

Project code: RNF200-010 Research date: July – October 2011 Date: November 2012

The PSF is a collaboration of 80+ organisations made up of grocery and home improvement retailers and suppliers, academics, NGOs and UK Government representatives. It’s a platform for these organisations to measure, reduce and communicate the environmental performance of the grocery and home improvement products bought in the UK. Further information about the Forum can be found at www.wrap.org.uk/psf. Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]

Written by: Will Schreiber, Richard Sheane, Leigh Holloway

Analysis by: Kevin Lewis, Aida Cierco, Dr. Andrew Bodey, Xana Villa Garcia, Sam Matthews

Edited by: Justin French-Brooks and Anthea Carter

Front cover photography: [Add description or title of image.]

While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in

connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is

accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or

suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/psf

Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 3

Contents

1.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Market analysis and product coverage ..................................................................................... 6

1.2 GHG emissions and energy use ............................................................................................... 7

1.2.1 Approach 1 – process-based hotspots analysis ........................................................... 8

1.2.2 Approach 2 – EEIO-based analysis ............................................................................ 9

1.3 Materials and waste ............................................................................................................. 11

1.4 Water ................................................................................................................................. 13

1.5 Market data ........................................................................................................................ 14

1.5.1 Retail sales ........................................................................................................... 15

1.5.2 Estimation methods .............................................................................................. 15

1.6 Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................... 16

Appendix 1 Category GHG emissions ................................................................................................... 30

Appendix 2 Category energy consumption .......................................................................................... 36

Appendix 3 Category material aggregation ......................................................................................... 40

Appendix 4 Quantified reduction opportunities ................................................................................... 45

Appendix 5 Category material profiles ................................................................................................. 51

Appendix 6 Material summary table ..................................................................................................... 63

Appendix 7 Market data ........................................................................................................................ 71

Appendix 8 Category resources ............................................................................................................ 76

List of Tables Table 1 Approaches to assessing UK-level environmental hotspots ................................................................... 7

Table 2 Material risk assessment matrix ....................................................................................................... 13

Table 3 Water intensity risk matrix (left) and water scarcity risk matrix (right) ................................................. 14

Table 4 Sensitivity analysis methodology ...................................................................................................... 16

Table 5 Qualitative sensitivity analysis of EPs assessed in this research ........................................................... 19

Table 6 Total lifecycle GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year .............................................. 30

Table 7 Category lifecycle emissions broken down by B2B and B2C sales ........................................................ 32

Table 8 Total embodied (+waste) GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year ............................. 34

Table 9 EEIO vs. ‘bottom-up’ (BFF) analysis – areas of disagreement ............................................................. 35

Table 10 Total lifecycle energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year .................................... 36

Table 11 Comparison of boundaries and scope of EST and WRAP studies........................................................ 37

Table 12 Comparison of energy requirements of EST and WRAP studies ......................................................... 37

Table 13 Total embodied (+ waste) energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year .................. 38

Table 14 Total weight of EPs placed on the market in one year ...................................................................... 40

Table 15 Comparison of Environment Agency and WRAP Study material weight estimates by WEEE category .... 41

List of Figures Figure 1 Lifecycle stages and environmental impact indicators for EPs .............................................................. 6

Figure 2 EP category scaling methodology with an example television category scaling process .......................... 8

Figure 3 Comparison between accounting methodologies for GHG emissions and energy use............................ 10

Figure 4 Material concentration calculation process ....................................................................................... 12

Figure 5 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s assessment on areas of physical and economic water scarcity . 14

Figure 6 Full lifecycle GHG footprint uncertainty for top 10 high-confidence products ....................................... 16

Figure 7 Embodied GHG footprint uncertainty for top 10 high-confidence products .......................................... 17

Figure 8 Total lifecycle GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year . Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 9 Total embodied (+waste) GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year.... Error! Bookmark

not defined.

Figure 10 Total lifecycle energy consumption for one year of product sales (TJ) .............................................. 36


Figure 11 Annual energy contribution of new EPs to UK electricity demands .................................................... 38

Figure 12 Total embodied (+ waste) energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year (TJ) –

excludes use phase .................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 13 Total weight of EPs placed on the market in one year ..................................................................... 40

Figure 14 Comparison of embodied materials and those consumed during product lifetimes ............................. 42

Figure 15 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (>1,000 tonnes total material)...... 43

Figure 16 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (100-1,000 tonnes total material) . 43

Figure 17 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (<100 tonnes total material) ........ 44

Glossary

B2B business-to-business

B2C business-to-consumer

CCFL cold-cathode fluorescent lamp

CE consumer electronics

CFL compact fluorescent lamp

CRT cathode ray tube

DECC Department for Energy and Climate Change

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

EEIO environmentally extended input / output

EP electrical product

ErP energy-related products

EST Energy Saving Trust

EuP energy-using products

FIT feed-in tariff

GHG greenhouse gas

GWh gigawatt hour

HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning

ICT information and communications technology

IJ inkjet (printer)

IO input / output

ktCO2e thousand tonnes carbon dioxide-equivalent

LCA lifecycle assessment

LCD liquid crystal display

LED light emitting diode

MtCO2e million tonnes carbon dioxide-equivalent

MTP Defra Market Transformation Programme

OLED organic light emitting diode

PC personal computer

PCB printed circuit board

PCR product category rules

PDP plasma display panel

PGM platinum group metals

PRODCOM Products of the European Community

PV photovoltaic

PVR personal video recorder

RoHS restriction of hazardous substances

STB set-top box

TFT thin film transistor

TJ terajoule

WEEE waste electrical and electronic equipment


Acknowledgements

Stakeholders contributed from a range of industry sectors, including manufacturers, facility managers and e-

waste handlers. The following organisations supported the project by providing their knowledge, guidance and

data to improve the analysis and recommendations presented in this document:

B&Q

Computer Aid

Inman

Interserve

ISE

Morphy Richards

MITIE

Panasonic

Reliance FM

Panasonic

Sainsbury’s

Skanska

Sony


1.0 Methodology

This research assessed the environmental impacts of a selection of electrical products (EPs) using five widely

used metrics:

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;

energy use;

material use;

waste production; and

water use.

For each of the five environmental impact metrics, direct and indirect aspects were included where the data

allowed. Impacts from both upstream (e.g. raw material extraction) and downstream (e.g. use phase) activities

were included wherever possible. Full supply-chain coverage was found to be strongest for GHG emissions, due

to methodology maturity and global research output, and much less available for other impact areas.

The environmental hotspots of EPs were then assessed, where hotspots are defined as the most significant

impacts across the lifecycle of a product or product group, according to each of the five environmental impact

indicators. This is shown in Figure 1 below.

Raw

materials Manufacturing Distribution Use End of Life Unit

Greenhouse gases

emitted

kgCO2e

Energy used

MJ

Materials used

Kg

Waste produced

Kg

Water used

Litre

Figure 1 Lifecycle stages and environmental impact indicators for EPs

Secondary data sources provided the data for this project. These sources ranged from:

best case, full coverage: a set of lifecycle studies from the EU Eco-design Directive,1 which covered most

product categories and all environmental indicators; to

partial coverage: one-off, individual product studies which only report on one environmental indicator, e.g.

kettle energy use (WRAP LCA Summary sheets), or only report on one environmental indicator over the whole

lifecycle, with no breakdown into stages, e.g. batteries (Buchert et al., 2010).

The variability in cross-metric studies, in particular the scaling of materials for products not assessed through the

LCA process, resulted in multiple research methodologies being applied. The main drawback with the adopted

approach is that there are a limited number of sufficient quality data sets available to allow for a full multi-metric

assessment for all impact categories. The comparability, and completeness, across environmental metrics is

therefore inconsistent. This was overcome by using different aggregation methods for each impact and taking a

normalisation approach to scaling impacts.

1.1 Market analysis and product coverage

Product impacts have been calculated for all EPs where market data is available to support the analysis. For the

majority there is no universal source of market data covering all EPs placed on the UK market. The absence of

data means that it cannot currently be determined what the total EP footprint is from a ‘bottom-up’ calculation.

Similarly, a ‘top-down’ calculation is not possible since imported emissions through international product

manufacturing are not accounted for in national GHG inventories. Instead, the research has focused on the data

that is available, and this has been principally through market reports (e.g. Mintel, AMA Research). Where these

1 EC 2011


data were not available, discrete studies were included if available (e.g. Defra’s Market Transformation

Programme (MTP), and previous WRAP research reports). Despite these gaps, all of the primary EPs identified as

significant through past DECC research have been included.2

Box 1 Toys and sports equipment

Toys (excluding video game consoles) and sporting equipment have not been assessed due to data limitations

and categorisation challenges inherent in the industry. Many products classified in this manner often contain small

electrical parts (e.g. lights, motors or electronics), and current retail reporting does not provide sufficient detail to

enable a proper categorisation of these products in the EP categorisation.

It is possible that these products may present a sizeable material impact in the UK economy due to the number of

units being placed on the market and their characteristic fast moving build quality. While their total contribution

to the UK’s EP footprint may not be significant, due to the size and composition of the other products included in

the sector, it is recommended that this area be further investigated through a discrete research project. For

example, in 2006 the number of ‘youth electronics’ sold in the UK was 5 million units,3 which is more than three

times the number of household desktop PCs sold in 2009.

1.2 GHG emissions and energy use

Grouping EPs according to their dominant technological characteristics enabled the rapid classification and scaling

of individual product impacts to an entire category of like-profile products. The methodology accounts for the

unique attributes of individual product characteristics while enabling the scaling needed to provide an economy-

wide impact of the selected products.

A two-tiered methodology was applied to calculate the total UK hotspots of EPs purchased in the UK: a process-

based approach and an environmentally extended input / output (EEIO) approach. Table 1 provides an overview

of the two methodologies and their use in the project, while Box 2 provides additional explanation.

Approach Data requirements Pros Cons

1. Process-

based analysis

combining

product

volume and

footprint data

Product-level UK sales

volumes are combined

with category-level

environmental impact

data to create total UK

footprint e.g. kgCO2e

per laptop and total

number of laptops. Much

in the same way as an

organisation might

undertake an analysis of

its supply chain.

This approach allows for

individual lifecycle stages to be

scaled to category-level

analysis for UK hotspots.

Individual phases, such as

product weight and use

scenarios, can be adjusted to

account for unique product

characteristic scaling.

There are a number of

disadvantages of this approach.

These include: insufficient product

lifecycle data to cover all categories;

inconsistent accounting

methodologies between different

sources; insufficient sales volume

data for some retail sectors; mixed

functional units can hamper efforts

to scale to national consumption;

using this bottom-up approach

there is also significant potential to

double-count emissions.

2. Use of EEIO

values

combining

sector footprint

data with sales

value data

This approach requires

that all products are

categorised into a sector

category to have their

base cost, excluding VAT

and margins, applied to

national GHG inventory

data sets.

This rapid approach allows for

general EEIO categories to

indicate the general GHG

impacts associated with the

supply of goods and services.

EEIO is only appropriate for initial

GHG impact assessment. While it

provides the scale of emissions in a

sector, it does not allow a number

of things such as: lifecycle

breakdown; multi-metric impacts;

accounting for product distinctions

(e.g. weight/size). It is solely based

on the economic value of products

and does not provide adequate

coverage for product categorisation.

Table 1 Approaches to assessing UK-level environmental hotspots

2 Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) 3 Toy Retailers Association (2006)


Box 2 An explanation of footprint accounting methodologies

A two-tiered approach using distinct methodologies enables a ‘check and balance’ verification of the hotspots

work being applied. Each approach offers its unique advantages and has been used in the project to check the

accuracy of the category scaling methodology utilised in the analysis.

Process-based approach4: A process-based approach itemises materials, energy resources, emissions and

wastes for a given step in producing a product. It is based on actual physical inputs and outputs of a process.

Input-output approach5: EEIO analysis uses country-level GHG inventories and market information to allocate

domestic emissions to market sectors. They estimate energy or emissions that result from production from direct

and upstream supply chain activities.

Footprint practitioners will often apply a hybrid approach to footprints when accounting for products or services

where no primary data are available beyond financial data (e.g. supply-chain inputs).

The combination of these two methodologies allows for the calculation of detailed hotspot analyses at the

lifecycle level, while checking the output results against ‘reasonable estimates’ provided through EEIO values.

1.2.1 Approach 1 – process-based hotspots analysis In this approach, existing LCA studies were gathered for each EP category. The number of adequate LCAs that

provide detailed assessment of EPs is limited. The category approach to EPs provides an opportunity to overcome

these gaps and identify the primary hotspots by converting the available studies into scalable components. Figure

2 below provides an overview of how individual LCAs were normalised, applied and scaled to the UK market,

using televisions as an example.

Figure 2 EP category scaling methodology with an example television category scaling process

Prior to LCA data collection, a literature review was done to assess the availability of category studies and to learn

from their approaches (see Appendix 8). This review indicated that products grouped within the same category

often had similar impact profiles across lifecycle stages and would be appropriate for scaling to other products

within the same category. Where this was not appropriate, due to significant process or impact variables, a new

category was created.

4 http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCAapproaches.html 5 http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/ghg-protocol-product-standard-draft-november-20101.pdf

Product LCA

• Multi-metric lifecycle stage impacts

Normalised Impacts

• Impacts standardised to per kg of product

Category Application

• Unique product weight multiplied by normalised impact

• Unique use scenario

Market Analysis

• Total products placed on the market

Television

• Full product LCA for 32inch LCD sold in Europe.

Conversion to per kg impact

• 3,291 MJ per television / 23.16kg

Category 1 Profile

• Average product weight (10.7 kg) x television impacts per kg

• 313 kWh/year x 10 years of life per unit

Total Televisions and Monitors Sold

• 9,943,000 units x Category 1 profile


The main drawback with this approach, as noted in the table above, is that there is a limited number of sufficient

quality data sets available to allow for a full multi-metric assessment for all impact categories. The comparability,

and completeness, across metrics is therefore inconsistent. However, in assessing hotspots through this process,

specific category, and by extension product, reduction opportunities within categories can be identified.

EP volume data was sourced from market reports, industry, and government publications, programmes and

statistics – principally Mintel and PRODCOM databases and the Defra Market Transformation Programme. A

summary of this data is presented in Appendix 7.

Choosing lifecycle data

As the project required the input of many researchers across many different product categories, a framework for

choosing data was drawn up and circulated early on. Given that data gaps were anticipated and coverage needed

over a wide variety of sectors, a hierarchy was developed whereby sources could be assessed and chosen if they

met the following characteristics:

1. Transparent – clear document boundaries, key assumptions -

o Only data in tables or text has been used (i.e. estimates are not used from charts).

2. Representative of UK consumption e.g. average asset life and use patterns of television use.

3. Recent - less than 5 years old.

4. Detailed – splits results by brand owner lifecycle stages -

o Materials – Cradle to final manufacturer incoming gate;

o Production – the formation of final product e.g. computer;

o Distribution – final manufacturer gate to retail (point of sale);

o Use – consumer activity; and

o Disposal – final disposal of waste product.

5. Complete – cradle-to-grave, but if not available then research gap will be highlighted.

6. Credible – externally reviewed or verified.

7. Standards consistent – adheres to PAS2050 or ISO14040.

8. Reports more than one metric – to enable improved inter-metric consistency.

9. Uses one of the following specific impact assessment methods (no normalising & weighting, i.e.

environmental impact potentials) -

o GHGs – kgCO2e, IPCC 2007 GWP100;

o Energy – MJ, total Cumulative Energy Demand;

o Waste – kg land filling waste (total) (EDIP 1997 or 2003);

o Water – m3; or

o Material use – kg resources, (EDIP 1997 or 2003) ‘resource consumption’.

1.2.2 Approach 2 – EEIO-based analysis Sufficient product-level market information was available to allow for an EEIO-based hotspots analysis. This

approach was used as a way of validating the selected process-based impact results with high level GHG analysis.

Although this method only validates the GHG impact metric of the analysis, all process-based calculations have

followed the same methodology.

Economic input output (IO) tables map the economic flows between sectors in an economy. When these tables

are combined with environmental data for each industry sector, an EEIO analysis is possible. The results express

the environmental load per unit of financial output of a sector (at producer prices), e.g. kgCO2e/£ of digital

cameras. As a ‘top-down’ approach, EEIO allows a complete allocation of all activities to all products, and has the

advantage of being complete with regard to inclusion of all relevant activities related to a product (i.e. when you

use input-output data it is not necessary to make cut-offs to exclude part of the product system).

The disadvantage of EEIO for LCA is that processes are relatively aggregated, i.e. at the level of product groups

rather than individual products. EEIO also cannot deal with very specific questions, since it relies on a grouping of

activities in a limited number of industries. Furthermore, the necessary environmental statistics are not always

available, which means that for some environmental exchanges, adequate information may be missing or old.

A diagram showing the relationship between the two accounting methodologies is presented in Figure 3 below,

while Box 2 expands upon them further.


Figure 3 Comparison between accounting methodologies for GHG emissions and energy use

Box 2 GHG and energy calculation processes

Process-based Approach (Production impacts)

multiply “Production impacts per mass” by “Mass of products”

Production impacts per mass: Using LCAs and other resources identified during the first phase of the project, determine the production impact footprint, excluding use-phase, per product mass for each EP category as defined in the categorisation. Identified impacts are materials, energy, GHG, water, and waste.

Mass of products: Using PRODCOM data, a proxy of monetary value per kilogram of EPs purchased is created to determine the total mass, by category, of EPs that are manufactured or retailed in the UK. Where data gaps exist for certain categories, product weight sampling will be carried out and used as a proxy for the category.

Input / Output Approach (Production impacts)

multiply “Production impacts per value” by “Value of products”

Production impacts per value: Map each EP category as defined in the categorisation to each of the five EP categories found in the input / output tables published by Defra/DECC to determine the GHG footprint per product value.

Value of products: Determine the total value, by category, of EPs that are manufactured or retailed in the UK using available PRODCOM and retail sales data.

Use Impacts

multiply “Use impacts per unit” by “Units of products”

Use impacts per unit: Using Product Category Rules (PCRs), which provide specific guidance on how product impacts should be assessed, and other resources identified during the first phase of the project, determine the use-phase impact footprint per product unit for each EP category as defined in the categorisation. Identified impacts are materials, energy, GHG, water, and waste.

Units of products: Determine the total units, by category, of EPs that are manufactured or retailed in the UK using available MINTEL and AMA research reports and/or MTP projections.

Aggregated Impacts

add “Production impacts” and “Use impacts”


Product impacts = (Production impacts by weight of product ≈ Production impacts by value of product) +

Use Impacts

Market impacts = Product impacts x market volume

EP Category impacts = Market impact + Other product market impacts

Impact scaling takes place for each metric split by lifecycle stage, if possible.

Scaling lifecycle impacts through this process assumes that the impacts associated with a product will increase or

decrease through a linear relationship to the weight of the original product (i.e. a 25% heavier product type in

the same category will also have 25% greater impacts). Although this may be an incorrect assumption that may

result in an over or underestimated footprint, the product categorisation and ‘average impact’ approach employed

largely mitigates the potential errors while providing a suitable estimate for identifying category hotspots.

This model and approach is sufficiently supported by industry and stakeholders to allow for the analysis to be

considered suitably reflective of UK EP hotspots for GHG and energy requirements throughout product category

lifecycles.6 A high-level sensitivity and sense check analysis of the key findings is available below. As a result of

these checks, the authors are confident the hotspots analysis is a reasonable estimate of the impacts of products

across categories, but it is not a footprint from which a baseline can be established.

The process described in this section was uniformly applied to all EP group categories due to the processes,

materials and energy requirements being largely technology-based in accordance with the product group

categorisation.

1.3 Materials and waste Unlike the GHG and energy hotspot LCA profile, material hotspots are not necessarily those areas where

consumption is greatest but rather where material impacts and risk are most significant. To get to this level of

detail it was necessary to go beyond standard LCA material inventories, which are inconsistent and are at a

higher material level, and look towards a comparable material concentration list for each EP category (see

Appendix 5). Impacts associated with materials were calculated by scaling representative product category

composition from WEEE collections to the market and EP categories presented in the report.

Estimates of the total embodied material content of EPs purchased within the UK market were developed by

combining two types of data:

average material content of different WEEE categories disposed of in 2005;7 and

assumptions on total product units sold in the UK and typical unit weights.

Likely changes in industry material use have been highlighted in this study. Of particular note is the declining use

of wood and glass in WEEE Category 4a Consumer Electronics (e.g. TVs, audio equipment); and the displacement

of CFCs with other substances e.g. HFCs. However, the key findings and results discussed within this research

were deemed to be sufficiently robust to enable high-level decision-making and produce a category review.

6 A comparison of calculated embodied GHG emissions using this process-based approach and that from an environmental economic input-output analysis is available Appendix 1.

7 Average material content extrapolated from United Nations University (2008).


Total product material presence (i.e. not broken down by individual materials) was calculated by determining

average product weights for each category. These values were derived from the preparatory studies for the EU

Eco-Design Directive, Defra, FCRN and product sampling.

Figure 4 describes the process used to calculate the material concentrations within each EP category, while Box 4

below explains the material impact calculation process.

Figure 4 Material concentration calculation process

Box 3 Material impact calculation process

WEEE Category Conversion: Divide ‘material’ by ‘category average product weight’

Material: name of material identified in WEEE category. Category average product weight: category average product weight composing the material

quantities (g) stated in WEEE report.

Material weight scaled to product: Multiply ‘category average material weight’ by ‘product weight’

Category average material weight: average material presence (g) per kilogram of WEEE

category. Product weight: average weight of product based on the market analysis.

Material weight scaled to annual volumes: Multiply ‘product material weight’ by ‘annual sales’

Product material weight: weight of material presence in product. Annual sales: number of units sold in the UK market.

Add ‘annual materials’ for each EP group

Annual materials: total materials placed on the market across EP groups.

Material risk assessment

A literature review and secondary analysis of the environmental and supply risks of key materials was

undertaken, drawing on a significant bodies of work recently published on this topic (e.g. European Commission

(2010), AEAT (2010), British Geological Survey (2011), GHGm (2008), Oakdene Hollins (2011)). Information was

extracted from these sources to produce the raw materials summary table (Appendix 6). Raw materials were

assessed for three types of risk: supply, water and carbon. An index was established for each of these risks, each

index ranging from 0 to 10. Although carbon is included in this table, it is indicative only of ‘risk’ in terms of

environmental impact and does not necessarily result in a supply-chain risk. (See Table 2 below).


Material Risk ranking Carbon ranking Water ranking

Name of

material

Supply risk indices from British Geological

Survey8 and European Commission9 were

normalised and averaged to make our

supply risk index.

Ecoinvent material values for

kg CO2e/kg. Distribution of

exponential EP factor values.

Scarcity to intensity

ratio.

Table 2 Material risk assessment matrix

1.4 Water Very little is currently understood about the total water impacts of EPs. This gap is partly due to the immaturity of

footprinting methodologies, uncertainty around how water footprints will benefit users and broader data

availability issues related to supply-chain transparency and data sharing. Unlike materials, energy and GHG,

which are consumed and emitted in a global pool, water is largely a local resource issue. The primary concern

with a water footprint is whether or not the water that is consumed by a process comes from a source that can

sustain its extraction.

Given the uncertainties, lack of comparability and broader aims of identifying the hotspots for EPs, research was

carried out into specific material impacts that were identified as significant to EPs through the material

assessment. The mining sector, in particular, consumes high volumes of water, which might be subject to water

regulations due to water scarcity.10 Governments are increasingly targeting the mining sector for further action

due to the potentially high polluting process associated with processing ore. Research into water impacts

therefore was aimed at studying the main EP materials impact on world water resources based on their likely

origin of primary production.

The seventeen materials assessed for water risk are:

EP materials, such as metals, remain a new area of water assessment. While agricultural processes are

increasingly becoming the target of water assessments, this same focus has not yet been extended to other

sectors. After completing a literature review11 it was determined that the best available data for understanding

material water intensity rates are presented in the EcoInvent v2.2 database.12

Water intensity was then linked to material production locations to determine whether or not there was a water

risk in utilising the material. Both economic scarcity, the cost of accessing water, and physical water scarcity, the

actual presence of the resource, were considered using the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s

comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture study.

Although the UN study is related to economic water scarcity for farmers, rather than material extraction and

processing, it is treated as being indicative of general water stress within a region. A balanced approach was

taken between economic and water scarcity when determining whether a material risk was present.

8 British Geological Survey (2011) 9 European Commission (2010) 10 For example, the Australian National Water Commission (2011) recently completed an assessment on how to address water requirements from the mining industry through revisions to the planning process. 11 For example, W. J. Rankin, 2011. Minerals, Metals and Sustainability: Meeting Future Material Needs. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. discusses the water consumption and material production requirements for just five of the metals of interest. The outcomes of this study are consistent with other data sources used in the analysis. 12 For further information see http://www.ecoinvent.ch/

Aluminium Gold Palladium (Platinum) Steel

Antimony Indium Plastics Tin

Cobalt Iron Rare Earths

Copper Magnesium Silicon

Gallium Nickel Silver

http://www.ecoinvent.ch/


Figure 5 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s assessment on areas of physical and economic water scarcity

Water intensity and scarcity data points were then combined to categorise whether or not a material presented a

water supply-risk using the following metrics, as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Water intensity risk matrix (left) and water scarcity risk matrix (right)

1.5 Market data

There is no single source of market data covering EPs within the UK. The closest data source to having total

product placement each year is the Environment Agency’s waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)

register. However, UK regulations only require top-level category volume and weight data for each category; this

level of reporting is insufficient for market analysis as it groups products together based on 13 broad categories

of product type rather than product environmental attributes, value or end-of-life material recovery potential.

Other data sources provide a range of assessment metrics for analysis. Many of these sources are not related to

one another and have differing methodologies, authors and product-level information. For instance, while retail

reports may be available for ‘small kitchen appliances’, the detailed breakdown of products within this category

may not be reported at the same level. Specialist market data sources have been used to conduct the market

analysis. These discrete sector studies focus on particular market segments and are useful for understanding

broad retail-based sales for a range of EPs.

Data has been gathered for ‘finished products’ only. Manufacture, trade and retail sales of electronic components

(e.g. wiring devices, loaded electronic boards, electronic components, photosensitive semiconductor devices) and

stand-alone electric motors, generators and transformers are excluded.

Water consumed

Rank l/kg

5 >300,000

4 1,000-300,000

3 100-1,000

2 10-100

1 0-10

Water Scarcity Rank

Physical water scarcity 4

Approaching physical water scarcity 3

Economic water scarcity 2

Little or no water scarcity 1


1.5.1 Retail sales Selected product UK retail sales are reported by market intelligence companies (e.g. MINTEL, AMA). Additional

retail values have been taken from discrete sources, such as the MTP, for a number of categories to account for

UK EP sales.

Market reports are preferred over MTP data due to MTP sales volumes being primarily estimates, i.e. they do not

refer to actual market data. Where research reports have not contained the requisite market information, sales

volumes from MTP reports, industry partners and category market studies have been used. A complete list of

sources is available in Appendix 8.

Data quality is reduced where volume and value data points are extracted from different sources and/or data

years. Volume/values from different years should not be compared without applying a suitable adjustment factor

to account for variable market trends and inflation. None of the figures presented have been adjusted.

Although market reports do not consistently provide the value/weight of products placed on the market, these

numbers have been estimated using current market information. There will be discrepancies between the source

average product weights/values and the combined market figures from a different data year sourced from

research reports. For example, the home audio/hi-fi volume estimate is based on 2006 value estimates and 2011

research on average retail sales values per item. This issue also applies to volume estimates for PC peripherals,

domestic electric heating, non-domestic heating accessories, ventilation and electronic security & access control.

1.5.2 Estimation methods Weights

Product category weights were scaled from average weights per category item (for retail sales) or product item

(PRODCOM) using volume sales data. Retail sales category definitions and PRODCOM product definitions guided

the initial process.

Weight estimation calculation, where multiple product sizes are present in category (e.g.

televisions)

Average weight = ∑ [(Category 1 product weight x proportion placed on market), (Category 2…)]

Volumes

Most volume data points were extracted from research reports, but where a gap existed:

1. the product category was split into its constituent product items and retail sales values calculated for each

based on market segmentation by value (provided by AMA research report);

2. identified representative products for each item and gathered a sufficient sample size;

3. calculated an average value per item (£);

4. applied the formula: volume = total item retail sales value/average value per item; and

5. arrived at a volume estimate.

Volume estimation calculation

Volume = Retail value

Estimated retail value per item

Values

Where volume information was not available, product definition and constituent item volumes were sourced from

MTP reports. This was followed by the collection of value information per item and finally, the combination of

average values per item and retail sales data to estimate total market value.

Value estimation calculation

Value = ∑ [(Product 1 average value per item x retail sales), (Product 2…)]

Total number of products


1.6 Sensitivity analysis

A high-level sensitivity analysis indicates that the methodology and processes described in this section are

sufficient in providing a hotspots footprint for the UK consumption of EPs.

The sensitivity analysis assessed GHG footprint uncertainty for each of the top 10 products identified as UK

embodied footprint hotspots for which the authors have high confidence in the results. Given the limited number

of footprint studies for these products and the high variability of consumer use, the focus of the analysis was

concentrated on the key areas likely to cause uncertainty. Table 4 below sets out the sensitivity analysis

methodology.

Uncertainty Factor Assessment Method Process

Footprint variability Quantitative Embodied Footprint (cradle-to-consumer + end-of-life)

Lowest and highest product footprint studies per

product.

Consumer Use

Lowest and highest annual energy consumption of

products within the grouping.

Qualitative Description of key technologies and variables that may

result in a higher or lower footprint of products within

the product group.

Product group variability Qualitative Description of the overall comparability of products

being represented in a product grouping.

Mapping to EP

classification

Qualitative Description of the suitability of the product group and

the footprint being applied to its EP category.

Table 4 Sensitivity analysis methodology

Figure 6 below shows the uncertainty of the footprints associated with the top 10 high-confidence product groups

across their full lifecycle. Although there is potentially significant variability in some product groups (e.g.

commercial lighting), the overall ranking and scale of the footprints remains relatively the same as the hotspots

analysis. The exception to this is non-domestic centrifugal fans, which have a high level of uncertainty.

Figure 6 Full lifecycle GHG footprint uncertainty for top 10 high-confidence products

Figure 7 below shows the uncertainty of the embodied footprints (cradle-to-consumer and end-of-life) associated

with the top 10 high-confidence product groups. Like the full lifecycle assessment, the overall conclusions drawn

in the report are consistent with the revised assessment based on the scaled lowest and highest footprint studies

available for each of the product groups. However, a general limitation of this analysis is the limited data

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

An

nu

al

Fo

otp

rin

t (M

tCO

2e

)


available for some product groups. In terms of the embodied footprints, this is most significant for vacuum

cleaners.

Figure 7 Embodied GHG footprint uncertainty for top 10 high-confidence products

Key notes on quantitative uncertainty:

1. The low value presented for televisions was taken from an environmental data sheet of a TFT LCD

monitor. These data are not considered robust, and the value is substantially lower than peer reviewed

studies (e.g. EuP preparatory assessments, WRAP). It is likely that the embodied television footprint has

been underestimated using the scaling model in this study as a result of the substantial reduction in

product weight of screen technologies over the past five years impacting the footprint per kg model

applied. It is likely that the average television screen has an embodied footprint between 150-400

kgCO2e. The model used in this analysis resulted in a per-screen footprint of approximately 80kgCO2e.

2. Variability is unknown for some product groups due to limited footprint study availability. The product

groups affected by this are refrigerated display cabinets and vacuum cleaners.

3. Only one footprint study was available for assessing uncertainty of the following products: domestic

lighting – fluorescent; laptops; and fridges. These footprints do not have error bars present for this

reason.

4. Washing machines appear to have a higher footprint than that estimated using the EP category model.

This variance is present because footprints of washing machines and tumble dryers were combined to

calculate the EP category model footprint per kg.

The qualitative analysis provided below in Table 5 describes the key areas of uncertainty for each of the product

groups assessed in this study. Uncertainty is discussed for the following areas:

Group comparability

All product groups are provided from market reports and therefore do not necessarily make distinctions

between technologies, brands or use characteristics. This column reviews how comparable products are within the product category.

Footprint representativeness

The emissions profile applied to each product category to calculate its footprint is based on a representative,

or average, product within the category. This column reviews the impact of this grouping on the final results.

Additional columns in the table provide context and relevant assumptions applied in the analysis:

Category – EP category.

Product – Product group name.

Footprint Group Map – Source of footprint profile applied to the EP category.

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000A

nn

ual

Fo

otp

rin

t (k

tCO

2e)


Annual Energy Consumption – Estimated annual energy consumption used to calculate UK use-phase

emissions.

Asset Life – Estimated number of years the product is in use.

Source – Data sources used to provide annual energy consumption and asset life.


Table 5 Qualitative sensitivity analysis of EPs assessed in this research

Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group

Map Footprint Representativeness Annual

Energy Consumpti

on (kWh)

Asset Life (years)

Source (Asset Life & Energy Consumption)

1 Televisions

Televisions Heterogeneous. TV sets present a low variability in terms of functionality; however they come in different sizes and technologies, such as LCD and PDP; this can significantly impact on their energy consumption and efficiency.

Blend of LCD, PDP and CRT screens and sizes

Good estimate. The data used cover some of the most common technologies used (CRT, LCD, Plasma screen) and are expected to be a good match for the group.

313.3 10 EuP Preparatory Studies "Televisions" (Lot 5) Final Report, August 2007

Non-domestic monitors

Heterogeneous. As for domestic televisions.

313.3 10 EuP Preparatory Studies "Televisions" (Lot 5) Final Report, August 2007

2 Laptops Laptop Heterogeneous. Laptops present a low variability in terms of components, which include a display, a keyboard, a processing board, hard drive, CD/DVD drive, external power supply, rechargeable battery, cooling fan. However they can

differ significantly in terms of power consumption, battery capacity, speed, etc. The impact from the use phase is likely to present a high variability.

Laptop Good estimate. This category covers only one type of product and is mapped against a laptop.

60.7 5.6 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 3 - Personal computers (desktops and laptops) and computer monitors, Final report, August 2007

Non-domestic laptops

Heterogeneous. As for domestic laptops.

60.7 5.6 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 3 - Personal computers (desktops and laptops) and computer monitors, Final report,

August 2007


Category Product Group Comparability Footprint Group Map

Footprint Representativeness Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)

Asset Life (years)


3 Other Display-based Electronics

Mobile phones Heterogeneous. Various technologies, from basic phones to smartphones with various components such as cameras, screens or touchscreen of

various sizes and resolutions, speakers, high storage capacity, etc. This impacts significantly the power consumption of the phone.

Smartphone and tablet (iPhone4, iPod Touch, MacBook, iPad, Nokia X7)

Overestimated. The group is mapped against a blend of smartphones and tablets; these devices are the most complex of the category, and are

likely to have the most significant impacts. They accurately represent sophisticated MP3 players, which have similar characteristics to smartphones. The impact of the other products, such as basic mobile phones, basic MP3 players and PDAs, is overestimated.

6.5 2 WRAP, Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA

PDAs Relatively homogeneous. PDAs typically include similar equipment: a touch screen, a memory card, a connectivity device. They are considered largely obsolete and replaced by smartphones.

1.9 2 Estimate

4 Complex Processing Electronics

Desktop PCs Heterogeneous. Desktop PCs can include a broad range of specifications. The power consumption is variable, depending on the characteristics of the PC.

Simple set-top box, Combined simple set-top box / PVR, desktop home

Good estimate. This category includes stationary and mobile devices, permanently plugged into mains sockets or running on batteries; the use phase appears to be dominant. The category is mapped against a simple and a complex set-top box,

and a domestic desktop PC. They are considered to be in the middle range of the category. A desktop PC is likely to have a higher impact than smaller devices or


DVD/VHS

systems

Homogeneous. These products

generally have a single function. Some can read various formats (DVD, CD, MP3…). VHS systems might have a different impact but can be considered obsolete.

13.1 1 Estimate




Asset Life (years)


Digital cameras

Heterogeneous. Wide range of sizes and technologies (from compacts to bridge cameras with interchangeable lenses), various sensors and lenses can

be used. They also vary in terms of screen sizes, connectivity devices, flash, etc.

devices used sporadically, such as digital cameras, portable audio players or game consoles. Non-domestic equipment is likely to have significant impacts

considering their permanent use during office hours.


Portable audio players

Homogeneous. Includes simple MP3 players without display, or obsolete Walkmans, Discmans, etc.

2.1 2 Estimate

Set top boxes Homogeneous. They typically include a receptors and connectors to a TV. They can

have recording capabilities.

54.8 5 European Commission EuP Final Report

Non-domestic desktops

Heterogeneous. As for domestic PCs, they can have a wide range of specifications, but also include PCs with very high processing capabilities for professional use; therefore the energy consumption can vary even more.


Game consoles Heterogeneous. From small and simple devices with batteries and screens, to boxes connected to a monitor with high-processing capabilities (motion detection, etc.) and multiple functions (DVD players, Internet access).

41.2 5.5 Building on the Eco-design Directive, EuP Group Analysis (I), ENTR Lot 3 Sound and Imaging Equipment, Final Task 1-7 Report, Intertek, September 2010

Non-domestic printers

Heterogeneous. Various sizes and functionalities; from basic printers to multi-function devices

with scanning, fax, network connection).

188.8 5 EuP Preparatory Studies "Imaging Equipment" (Lot 4) Final Report on Task 5

"Definition of Base Cases", November 2007




Asset Life (years)


5 Large Simple Processing Electronics

PC peripherals Heterogeneous. Various functionalities and sizes (mouse, keyboard, speakers, scanner, printer, external hard discs, etc.). Monitors excluded.

Blend of 2 printers (colour printer, IJ printer multi-function)

Good estimate / overestimated. This category covers a wide range of products; however they are all typically composed of: 1) rigid plastic casing;

2) key pad or button interface that allows the user to complete a function; and 3) a simple circuit board. They are mapped against a blend of two printers. One of them is a multi-function device, which is likely to have a higher impact (in particular, higher energy consumption); therefore it is likely to have the highest impact in the category.

40.0 3 Energy Efficiency Trends of IT Appliances in Households (EU 27), Monitoring of Energy Efficiency in EU 27, Norway and Croatia

(ODYSEE-MURE), Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe, September 2009

Electronic Security & Access Control

Heterogeneous. Various functionalities, such as closed-circuit cameras, sensors, keypads to enter codes, etc. Usually functioning permanently, it can be connected to a centralised system.

54.8 5 Estimate

Home audio/Hi-Fi

Heterogeneous. Can include various devices such as radio, CD and tape player, Internet connection; also includes a several speakers of various power.

54.8 5 Estimate

6 Other Simple Processing Electronics

Non-domestic heating accessories

Heterogeneous. Includes various devices from thermostats to other wireless control equipment.

Mapped against the previous category. Blend of two printers (colour

printer, IJ printer multi-function)

Low representativeness. This category is mapped against a blend of printers, which are not included in the category.

Therefore the reliability is low.

59.3 12 Estimate

Audio separates

Homogeneous. This mostly applies to speakers, but may also include some powered components.

219.0 5 www.retra.co.uk

Telephone equipment

Heterogeneous: from basic phones to sophisticated phones and answering machines with screens, internal memory, and wireless system.

26.3 5 http://standby.lbl.gov/summary-table.html

http://www.retra.co.uk/

http://standby.lbl.gov/summary-table.html

http://standby.lbl.gov/summary-table.html




Asset Life (years)


7 External Power Supplies

ePSUs Homogeneous. Most external power supply units are composed of the same technology and function in the same way. However, in use

consumption may vary depending on energy saving technologies used (e.g. stand by losses).

AC/DC adaptor Good estimate. 8.9 1 Certified Environmental Product Declaration AC/DC Adapter, UMEC

8 Multi-function Mains power Pumps & Motors

No sales data available

No sales data available. Not mapped. - - - -

9 Large High power Pumps & Motors

Vacuum cleaners

Heterogeneous. Various power consumptions and formats (handheld vs. professional devices), which impacts significantly on the footprint.

Lawn strimmer Underestimated. This heterogeneous category is mapped against a lawn strimmer, which is a high-powered device which can be corded or with a battery. Other products included in this category have higher power ratings, such as powerful vacuum cleaners (up to 2,200W),

microwave ovens (up to 1,500W).

124.0 7.4 Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II), Lot 17 Vacuum Cleaners, Final Report, AEA Energy & Environment, February 2009

Non-domestic axial

Heterogeneous. 1,600 15 Estimate

Non-domestic centrifugal

Heterogeneous. Includes everything from building systems to extractor vents.

11,460 15 Estimate

Non-domestic tangential

Heterogeneous. 783 15 Estimate

Non-domestic roof extractor

Homogeneous - same functionality.

3,024 15 Estimate

Garden power Heterogeneous - Various functionalities and powers; all sizes. Lawn mower, shredders, edgers, trimmers, pressure

washer etc.





Asset Life (years)


10 Other High power Pumps & Motors

Food preparation equipment

Heterogeneous. Various functions. From simple blenders to sophisticated kitchen robots.

Vacuum cleaner and food blender

Good estimate / overestimated. This category is mapped against a vacuum cleaner and a blender. A vacuum cleaner is an energy intensive device, and is likely to

represent the most energy intensive device of the category, as opposed to small electrical kitchen gadgets and small fans.


Electrical kitchen gadgets

Heterogeneous. Various functions, but usually of small size.

90.0 3 Estimate

Domestic type extractor (axial & centrifugal)

Homogeneous - same functionality.

21.9 8 Estimate

Desk Type Fan Homogeneous. May vary in size, but technology and manufacturing processes are largely the same.

1.8 5 Estimate

DIY EuPs Heterogeneous. Various functionalities and power ratings

will result in various energy and material profiles. However, the overall consumer use scenarios for these products are considered to be largely the same (i.e. limited annual use).

0.3 10 http://www.donrowe.com/inverters/usage_chart.html

11 Battery power Pumps & Motors


No sales data available. Considered to be part of DIY EuPs.

Drill and electric toothbrush

Good estimate. The category is mapped against a blend of two devices, a drill and an electric toothbrush; it can be assumed that they fairly represent this category.

- - -

12 Spatial Cooling

Fridges Homogeneous - differs in size and slight differences in terms of energy consumption, as the standard for new devices is now high.

Fridges, fridge-freezer and freezers (average of: refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, upright freezer, chest freezer)

Underestimated. This category is mapped against a blend between fridges and freezers, which are likely to represent the biggest number of items in this category. Air conditioning and display refrigerated display cabinets

require a significantly higher input of energy than fridges (average

160.7 14 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 13 - Domestic Refrigerators & Freezers, Final report

Fridge-freezers Homogeneous - differs in size and slight differences in terms of energy consumption, as the

standard for new devices is now high.

15 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 13 - Domestic

Refrigerators & Freezers, Final report

http://www.donrowe.com/inverters/usage_chart.html

http://www.donrowe.com/inverters/usage_chart.html




Asset Life (years)


Freezers Homogeneous - differs in size and slight differences in terms of energy consumption, as the standard for new devices is now high.

annual energy consumption estimated at 1,800kWh/year for air conditioning, and above 9,000kWh/year for refrigerated retail displays, instead of 150-

350kWh/year for fridges).

287.8 14.5 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 13 - Domestic Refrigerators & Freezers, Final report

Air conditioning

Heterogeneous - various types: window and through-wall, evaporative coolers, portable units. Various energy consumptions.

1875.0 17.5 http://www.carbonrally.com/challenges/22-air-conditioner-costs

Refrigerated display cabinets

Heterogeneous. Without or with doors, which can significantly change the energy consumptions.

9342.5 8.5 Energy use in food refrigeration, Calculations, assumptions and data sources, Mark Swain, FRPERC, University of Bristol

13 Spatial Heating

Electric cookers

Heterogeneous. While the structure is standard (hobs, steel body, insulated cavity with glazed door, vent or flue), various technologies can be used (inefficient electric coil, induction). Energy consumption can vary significantly.

Electric hob and fan heater

Overestimated. This category is mapped against a blend between an electric hob and a fan heater, which are the smallest devices of the category. Electric cookers include an oven in addition to a hob, and fan heaters are typically mobile devices used on a temporary basis, as opposed

to bigger heaters fixed on a wall.

138.3 19 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 22 - Domestic and commercial ovens (electric, gas, microwave), including when incorporated in cookers, Task 5: Definition of Base-Case, June 2011

Domestic electric heating

Heterogeneous. Fan, convector or storage heater, portable or fixed, various technologies (electric, oil-based, convector). Highly variable in terms of power and sizes.

59.3 12 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 20 - Local room heating products, Task 5: Definition of Base-Case, September 2011

14 Dishwashers

Dishwashers Homogeneous. Similar functionalities. Domestic dishwashers follow standardised sizes to fit into kitchen cabinets. Slight differences in terms of

capacities and efficiencies, various water consumptions.

Dishwashers (9p dishwasher and 12p dishwashers)

Good estimate. This category includes only one type of devices and is homogeneous. Data used relate to two dishwashers of various

capacities, which fairly represent the range of products available.

292.2 11 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 14 - Domestic washing machines & dishwashers, Task 3 - 5

http://www.carbonrally.com/challenges/22-air-conditioner-costs






Asset Life (years)


15 Other Multi-function Appliances

Washing machines

Homogeneous. Similar functionalities. Top or front loading, various capacities and efficiencies. Industrial ones can be much larger.

Air vented tumble dryer, washing machine

Good estimate. This category includes two types of devices and is quite homogeneous. One device from each type of product is used for

mapping, which can be considered representative.

183.3 10 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 14 - Domestic washing machines & dishwashers, Task 3 - 5

Tumble dryers Heterogeneous. Various technologies lead to various energy efficiencies (heat pumps dehumidifying the air, etc.).

311.6 13 Ecobilan and PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008. Ecodesign of Laundry Dryers: Preparatory studies for Ecodesign requirements of Energy using-Products (EuP) – Lot 16. European Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General for Energy and Transport

16 High Power Appliances

Kettles Homogeneous. Electric kettles are normally made of plastic or steel and powered by mains electricity.

A blend of 5 coffee machines (drip filter coffee machine, pad filter coffee machine, hard cap espresso machine, semi-automatic espresso machine, fully automatic

espresso machine)

Fair estimate. This category is mapped against a blend of 5 coffee machines, from simple filter machines to fully automatic espresso machines. This mapping appropriately represents hot beverage makers; they probably overestimate the impact of kettles, simple toasters,

health grills and irons which are less complex devices.


Hot beverage makers

Heterogeneous. From filter coffeemakers (drip brew) and percolators to more sophisticated devices with capsules or professional devices.

128.0 2 http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/small_appl.html

Toasters Heterogeneous. Includes small pop-up toasters, toaster ovens and conveyor toasters used in the catering industry; this leads to various energy consumptions.

18.0 2 http://www.reuk.co.uk/Energy-Efficient-Ecolectric-Toaster-Review.htm

Health grills Homogeneous. Various sizes, but similar technology.

33.0 1 Estimate

Irons Homogeneous. 52.0 1 http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/small_appl.html

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/small_appl.html



http://www.reuk.co.uk/Energy-Efficient-Ecolectric-Toaster-Review.htm






Asset Life (years)


Electric water heaters

Homogeneous. Various capacities and powers; though most of the boilers available have a similar efficiency. Some can combine technologies such

as solar and electricity.

557.1 12.5 http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/small_appl.html

17 Medium Power Appliances

Personal electrical appliances

Heterogeneous. But usually of small size. Various energy consumptions (hair dryer as opposed to shavers).

Hair dryer Overestimated. This category is mapped against a hair dryer, which is likely to require the highest quantity of electricity, as opposed to electric shavers and other small devices.

39.9 2.5 Estimate

18 Microwaves

Microwaves Homogeneous. Microwaves show very similar characteristics in terms of physical size and

basic functionality. Differences are mainly aesthetics, advanced functionality and features, capacity and power rating. The products range from basic model with dials rather than electronic controls to advanced combination ovens.

Microwave oven, domestic microwave oven

Good estimate. This category only includes one type of product, microwaves,

which are relatively homogeneous in terms of impact. A blend of two microwaves has been used for mapping and it is considered to fairly represent the category.

86.4 8 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 22 - Domestic and

commercial ovens (electric, gas, microwave), including when incorporated in cookers, Task 5: Definition of Base-Case, June 2011

19 High Intensity

Discharge Lighting

Not expressly reported in

sales data

- - - - - -




Asset Life (years)


- Commercial lighting

Heterogeneous. Various technologies: halogen, fluorescent and LED technologies. Varies in sizes and powers.

Blend of five types of lighting: General lighting services, three halogen lamps (mains voltage and

low voltage, high and low wattage) and a compact fluorescent lamp with integrated ballast

Overestimated. The footprint is based on the average of many different lighting technologies with various in-use consumption requirements. Although the overall

consumer use pattern will change, the energy rating of different bulbs in the same category are significant.

116.5 8.7 Estimate

20 Halogen Lighting

Domestic lighting- Halogen

Homogeneous. Varies in sizes and powers.

Blend of five types of lighting: General lighting services, three halogen lamps (mains voltage and low voltage, high and low wattage) and a compact fluorescent lamp with integrated ballast

Fair estimate. Most of the light bulbs included in the lighting footprint profile are halogen bulbs.

56.6 4.2 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 19 - Domestic lighting, October 2009

21 Fluorescent Lighting

Domestic lighting- Fluorescent


Blend of five types of lighting: General lighting services,

three halogen lamps (mains voltage and low voltage, high and low wattage) and a compact fluorescent lamp with integrated ballast

Overestimated. Fluorescent light bulbs are included as one of the products

used for mapping. The other four products have variable material make up that may have higher or lower impacts.

10.9 7.5 Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, Lot 19 - Domestic

lighting, October 2009




Asset Life (years)


22 LED Lighting

Domestic lighting- LED


Blend of five types of lighting: General lighting services, three halogen lamps (mains voltage and

low voltage, high and low wattage) and a compact fluorescent lamp with integrated ballast

Underestimated. Lighting from LED lights is typically made of high impact materials (e.g. aluminium) in larger quantities compared to

other lighting technologies.

2.4 30 Estimate

23 Solar PV Domestic solar PV

Homogeneous. Off-the-shelf solar PV should be quite similar in terms of technologies.

Solar panel Good estimate. This category only includes one type of device, solar PV, which is considered relatively homogeneous.

0.0 20 http://www.solarenergyexperts.co.uk/qa-long-do-pv-solar-panels-last

24 Household Wind Turbine

Domestic wind Homogeneous. Off the shelf domestic wind should be quite similar in terms of technologies.

Wind turbine Good estimate. This category only includes one type of device, a wind turbine, which is considered relatively homogeneous.

0.0 20 Estimate


Appendix 1 Category GHG emissions

Table 6 Total lifecycle GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year


Figure 8 Total lifecycle GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year. Labels describe the Product Group number and name, then the total lifecycle GHG emissions in MtCO2e

Commercial lighting , 67

20 Halogen Lighting, 9

1 Televisions, 30

12 Spatial Cooling, 20

9 Large High power Pumps & Motors, 24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Lighting Electronics Heating and Cooling Pumps & Motors Renewable Energy

MtC

O2e


Category emissions broken down by consumer and commercial contributions (where possible).

Category Consumer Commercial

Televisions/Monitors Unquantified

Laptops 47% 53%

Other display-based

electronics

Unquantified

Complex processing

electronics

Unquantified

Large simple

processing electronics

Unquantified

Other simple

processing electronics

Unquantified

External power

supplies

Unquantified

Multi-function mains

powered pumps and

motors


Large high power

pumps and motors

Unquantified

Other high power

pumps and motors

Unquantified

Battery power pumps

and motors


Spatial cooling Unquantified Spatial heating Unquantified Dishwashers Unquantified Other multi-function

appliances

Unquantified

High power

appliances

Unquantified

Medium power

appliances

Unquantified

Microwaves Unquantified Lighting 17% 83%

Solar PV Unquantified

Wind turbines Unquantified

Table 7 Category lifecycle emissions broken down by B2B and B2C sales

Most product categories cannot be broken down by business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C)

sales due to data limitations within the category structure (e.g. separately reported monitors and jointly reported

televisions in Category 1).


Figure 9 Total embodied (+waste) GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year. Labels describe the Product Group number and name, then the total embodied and waste GHG emissions in ktCO2e


21 Fluorescent Lighting, 520

1 Televisions, 891

2 Laptops, 1046

4 Complex processing Electronics, 1939

5 Large Simple processing Electronics, 1017


13 Spatial Heating, 1251


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Electronics Heating and Cooling Lighting Pumps & Motors Renewable Energy

ktC

O2e


Table 8 Total embodied (+waste) GHG emissions for EPs sold in the UK market in one year

Comparison of process-based and EEIO results

EP Group Which reports greater

GHG impact?

Notes

Electronics EEIO Limited availability of cost data and EEIO categories.

Large simple processing electronics aligned the

closest between methodologies (5%) difference and

other simple processing electronics presented the

category with the greatest difference (97%)

Pumps & Motors Process-based A close relationship between the EEIO and Process-

based assessment was shown, however limited value

and product categorisation resulted in some

differences.

Heating & Cooling Process based Multi-function appliances align very well between

analyses (5%).

Lighting N/A EEIO categorisation not recommended.

Renewable Energy EEIO Financial information has been estimated. Household

wind turbines align closest between methodologies

(39%).


Table 9 EEIO vs. ‘bottom-up’ (BFF) analysis – areas of disagreement

Overall, the authors prefer the use of ‘bottom-up’ estimates for hotspotting – rather than the input-output based

analyses – for the following reasons:

it provides better visibility of lifecycle stages;

it is potentially more sensitive to changes in supply chains & mitigation activities;

it is potentially more product/supply chain specific;

it can be based on more up to date data – of which more is becoming available; and

it is more intuitive to understand.

The two methodologies are largely in agreement with one another regarding the two impact assessment

categories. Although this will vary on a category-by-category basis due to EEIO category limitations, the overall

results are consistent.


Appendix 2 Category energy consumption

Figure 10 Total lifecycle energy consumption for one year of product sales (TJ)

Table 10 Total lifecycle energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year


1 Televisions, 190 12 Spatial Cooling, 134


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Lighting Electronics Heating and Cooling Pumps & Motors Renewable Energy

Ene

rgy

(th

ou

san

d T

J)


Comparison with Energy Saving Trust

The Elephant in the Living Room report from the Energy Saving Trust (EST) stated that 2009 electricity

consumption of all domestic EPs in the home was 85.1 TWh. This number is broken down by the Department of

Energy and Climate Change (DECC) estimates for product category consumption in separate household groups.

The WRAP research has taken a different methodological approach to assessing domestic energy requirements

and, crucially, has only accounted for one year of product sales. Separating out total consumption, regardless of

whether or not products are new or old, is useful for top level targeting, but this research is focused on new

products entering the market and how these will ‘lock in’ households to future energy consumption throughout

the product lifespans. A comparison of the two methodologies is presented below in Table 11.

EST Study WRAP Study

Purpose Annual measurement Total lifecycle estimate

Scope Households All EPs

Time Period 2009 Average year (2006-2010)

Products UK economy New sales in one year only

Categories ? (e.g. vacuum cleaners, garden power)

Table 11 Comparison of boundaries and scope of EST and WRAP studies

Table 12 provides a comparison of the EST study and the WRAP study by product group for household annual

energy requirements. A useful interpretation of the WRAP numbers as against the EST study is to consider the

WRAP consumption number as an indicator of product turnover (e.g. 22% of lighting products are purchased

each year).

EST 2009 (TWh) WRAP (TWh) WRAP %

Lighting 15.8 4.5 22%

Refrigeration 14.5 1.0 6%

Cooking 13.3 1.6 11%

Washing 14.2 1.0 6%

Consumer

electronics 20.8 4.7 18%

Home computing 6.5 0.9 12%

Other domestic - 2.2 -

Total (TWh) 85.1 13.7 14%

Table 12 Comparison of energy requirements of EST and WRAP studies


Figure 11 Annual energy contribution of new EPs to UK electricity demands

Table 13 Total embodied (+ waste) energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year

Existing Product

Electricity Demands

84%

New Product Energy

Consumption 16%


Figure 12 Total embodied (+ waste) energy consumption for EPs sold in the UK market in one year (TJ) – excludes use phase

1 Televisions/Monitors, 16

2 Laptops, 16


5 Large Simple processing Electronics,

19


13 Spatial Heating, 18

9 Large High power Pumps & Motors, 15 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Electronics Heating and Cooling Lighting Pumps & Motors Renewable Energy

Ene

rgy

(TJ)


Appendix 3 Category material aggregation

Figure 13 Total weight of EPs placed on the market in one year

Table 14 Total weight of EPs placed on the market in one year

1 Televisions, 129


5 Large Simple processing Electronics,

145



15 Other Multi-function Appliances , 200

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Electronics Pumps & Motors Heating & Cooling Lighting Renewable Energy

Ton

ne

s (t

ho

usa

nd

s)


Comparison with Environment Agency WEEE numbers

The Environment Agency publishes quarterly ‘EEE placed on the market’ reports detailing the volumes and

weights associated with product sales. This reporting system is mandatory and it is the producer’s responsibility

to ensure that data submitted is accurate and categorised correctly. WEEE reports are a useful indication of total

market presence, but do not provide a product-level breakdown in order to allow for specific targeting or fitting of

technologies into the EP category.

Retail market reports were used in this research in order to provide the level of granularity needed to produce

category average impact assessments. These numbers are less robust than actual company reports, in terms of

both volumes and weights, and have been averaged to estimate category impacts. Additionally, whilst the WEEE

reports represent a single quarter, or year, of sales, the market reports used within this research vary between

years in order to use the latest product-level data available. As such, the retail numbers reported by the

Environment Agency and this study are not directly comparable.

Despite these issues, the overall picture of the total weight of EPs placed on the market in a single year is largely

similar. Table 15 provides a category-level comparison of estimated weight impacts for each WEEE category.

WEEE Category Category Name EA (tonnes) WRAP (tonnes)

Category 1 Large Household Appliances 495,189 410,166

Category 2 Small Household Appliances 148,906 132,681

Category 3 IT and Telecomms Equipment 204,645 323,798

Category 4 Consumer Equipment 76,137 39,442

Category 5 Lighting Equipment 67,855 29,296

Category 6 Electrical and Electronic Tools 79,793 16,879

Category 7 Toys Leisure and Sports 62,137 Category 8 Medical Devices 14,869 Category 9 Monitoring and Control Instruments 22,764 85,527

Category 10 Automatic Dispensers 8,048 Category 11 Display Equipment 134,193 106,990

Category 12 Cooling Appliances Containing Refrigerants 203,855 261,841

Category 13 Gas Discharge Lamps 16,186 Excluded Renewable Energy

9,453

Total 1,534,576 1,416,074

Table 15 Comparison of Environment Agency and WRAP Study material weight estimates by WEEE category

In-use material consumption

The products below depend on material inputs during their use phase in order to function. Of the four products

assessed that fit into this category, washing machines consume the most materials during their lifetime. The

washing machines purchased in 2009 will use approximately 1.75 million tonnes of materials, such as detergent,

during their lifetimes which make up approximately 91% of the total material impacts associated with their

purchase - 1.9 million tonnes, including machine weight.


Figure 14 Comparison of embodied materials and those consumed during product lifetimes


Material concentration from sold EPs

Figure 15 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (>1,000 tonnes total material)

Figure 16 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (100-1,000 tonnes total material)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Steel (all) Plastics (all) Fe Other/inerts Cu Glass (all) Al (general) Ceramics Wood Oil CFC11

Ton

ne

s o

f m

ate

rial

(>

1,0

00

to

nn

es)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

CFC12 Sn Fluorescentpowder

Zn Epoxy Ni Cyclopentane Silicon Pb Br

Ton

ne

s o

f m

ate

rial


Figure 17 Total materials embodied in EPs placed on the market in one year (<100 tonnes total material)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80To

nn

es

of

mat

eri

al


Appendix 4 Quantified reduction opportunities

Quantified reduction opportunities are presented for the following products based on a single year of product sales (i.e. not representative of existing stock):

fridges/fridge-freezers/freezers;

electric cookers;

microwaves;

multi-function appliances (washing machines and dishwashers); and

vacuum cleaners.

The final section of this appendix discusses durability impacts and demonstrates how building better products may reduce GHG emissions and total material consumption.

Product Measure Implementation Cost

(000 GBP)

Energy

(GWh)

Carbon

(ktCO2e)

Materials

(kt)

Water

(000 m3)

Washing Machines/Dishwashers Materials optimisation in motors -8,638 0 0 -10 0

Vacuum Cleaners Develop lightweight models 0 0 0 -11 0

Washing Machines Larger loads 658 5 28* 0* 6,067

Electric Cookers Improved insulation (door glazing) 2,604 40 24* +3,918 0

Microwaves Paint the inner cavity 8,184 18 10* 0* 0

Electric Cookers Increase amount of insulation 10,418 106 63* +603 0

Electric Cookers Improved insulation (application of reflective coating) 13,022 53 31* 0* 0

Microwaves Inverter power supply 13,640 25 15 0 0

Washing Machines/Dishwashers Materials optimisation in castings / drums 14,396 0 0 -10 0

Microwaves General engineering to increase energy efficiency 19,097 63 38 0 0

Washing Machines/Dishwashers Full Electronic Control 86,379 0* 0* 0 10,103

Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Use of high efficiency heat exchangers 88,617 446 265 0 0

Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Improvements to control systems 95,707 297 177 0 0

Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Increased insulation in casings and doors 97,479 1,472 874 0 0

Electric Cookers Improved Controls 130,225 53 31* 452 0

Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Use of high efficiency compressors 265,852 2,855 1,695 0 0

Washing Machines/Dishwashers Increased Motor Efficiency 367,111 327 194 0 0

Refrigerators/Fridge-freezers/Freezers Increase Vacuum insulated panels 638,044 2,290 1,360 0 0

*In-use savings only. Additional material impact not quantified.


Fridges/Fridge-freezers/Freezers

No Opportunity Cost

Implications

(per unit)

Energy

Savings

(per unit)

GHG

Savings

(per unit)

Material

Savings

(per unit)

Water

Savings

(per unit)

Source

1 Use high

efficiency heat

exchangers

£22 8 kWh per

year

4 kgCO2e

per year

- - EuP Study

2 Use of high

efficiency

compressors

£65 48 kWh

per year

28 kgCO2e

per year

- - EuP Study

3 Improvements

to control

systems

£23 5 kWh per

year

3 kgCO2e

per year

- - EuP Study

4 Increase

vacuum

insulated panels

£156 39 kWh

per year

23 kgCO2e

per year

- - EuP Study

5 Increase

insulation in

casings and

doors

£24 25 kWh

per year

15 kgCO2e

per year

- - EuP Study

All reduction scenarios based on EuP Lot 13 Study on Domestic Refrigerators & Freezers. Available:

http://www.ecocold-domestic.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=125&Itemid=40

Better insulation and the use of ‘vacuum panels’ could reduce the thickness of the fridge walls. This

would give a larger interior capacity as well as reducing the material use by a small amount in the

casings.

General Notes

Adaptive-defrost systems use sophisticated electronic controls that integrate analysis of several parameters (including the number of door openings, the compressor operation time

and the room temperature) to optimise timing of the defrost cycle’s initiation. Some adaptive-defrost systems also aim to schedule defrosting to occur at night, when average room

temperatures are lower, and thereby reduce the recovery energy needed to return the compartment to its design temperature. In addition, some adaptive-defrost systems use fuzzy

logic to train the control system to initiate defrosting in an optimised way according to an appliance’s particular usage and environmental patterns.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Use of highefficiency heat

exchangers

Use of highefficiency

compressors

Improvementsto control

systems

IncreaseVacuum

insulatedpanels

Increasedinsulation in

casings anddoors

Energ

y S

avin

gs (G

Wh)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)

Lifetime Energy Saving Potential

Cost Implications Energy Savings

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Use of highefficiency heat

exchangers

Use of highefficiency

compressors

Improvementsto control

systems

IncreaseVacuum

insulatedpanels

Increasedinsulation in

casings anddoors

GH

G S

avin

gs (k

tCO

2e)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)

Lifetime GHG Saving Potential

Cost Implications GHG Savings

http://www.ecocold-domestic.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=125&Itemid=40


Electric Cookers

No Opportunity Cost

Implications

(per unit)

Energy

Savings

(per unit)

GHG

Savings

(per unit)

Material

Savings

(per unit)

Water

Savings

(per unit)

Source

1 Improved

insulation (door

glazing)

£2 1 kWh per

year

1 kgCO2e

per year

+2.6 kg - EuP Study

2 Increase

amount of

insulation

£7 4 kWh per

year

2 kgCO2e

per year

+0.4 kg EuP Study

3 Improved

insulation

(application of

reflective

coating)

£9 2 kWh per

year

1 kgCO2e

per year

- - EuP Study

4 Improved

controls

£86 2 kWh per

year

1 kgCO2e

per year

+0.3 kg - EuP Study

All reduction scenarios based on EuP Lot 22 Study on Domestic and Commercial Ovens. Available:

http://www.ecocooking.org/lot22/open_docs/BIO_EuP_Lot22_Task7_20110310.pdf

General Notes

Most of the changes in the materials used in heating devices are based on the increase of energy

efficiency. Therefore in most cases the addition of extra materials seems appropriate (such as triple

glazing or increased insulation).

This increase in materials needs to be balanced with the energy saving and life expectancy of the

product. For example, increasing materials use might increase product life and reduced energy

consumption per cycle. Therefore over a given number of cycles per year and the total number of

years’ life the embodied materials per use could decrease.

020406080100120

0

50

100

150

Improvedinsulation (door

glazing)

Increaseamount of

insulation

Improvedinsulation

(application ofreflective

coating)

ImprovedControls

Energ

y S

avin

gs (G

Wh)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)



0

20

40

60

80

0

50

100

150

Improvedinsulation

(door glazing)

Increaseamount of

insulation

Improvedinsulation


coating)

ImprovedControls

GH

G S

avin

gs(k

tCO

2e)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)



-

2,000

4,000

6,000

0

50

100

150

Improvedinsulation

(door glazing)

Increaseamount of

insulation

Improvedinsulation


coating)

ImprovedControls

Additio

nal M

ate

rials

(tonnes)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)

Additional Material Impacts

Cost Implications Material Impact



Washing Machines / Dishwashers

No Opportunity Cost

Implications

(per unit)

Energy

Savings

(per unit)

GHG

Savings

(per unit)

Material

Savings

(per unit)

Water

Savings

(per unit)

Source

1 Increased

motor efficiency

£110 98 kWh

per year

58 kgCO2e

per year

- - EuP Study

2 Materials

optimisation in

motors

-£3 - 3 kg - EuP Study

3 Material

optimisation in

castings/drums

£4 - 3 kg EuP Study

4 Full electronic

control

£26 - - 12,740

litres

EuP Study

5 Larger loads* £0.3 2 kWh +0.3 kg 7,644

litres

EuP Study

*Washing machines only

All reduction scenarios based on EuP Lot 14 Study on Domestic Washing Machines and Dishwashers. Available:

http://www.ecowet-domestic.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=27&Itemid=40

General Notes

Numerous studies have been undertaken on

energy and water use but few on materials

use. EuP study identifies an opportunity to

reduce materials consumption in motors so it

would be fair to extend this to other

mechanical and cosmetic parts of the machine.

The issue of increased durability needs to be

considered with these products in the same

way that it is with cookers. Indeed it is

probably more relevant to this type of product.

0

100

200

300

400

0

100

200

300

400

Increased Motor Efficiency Larger loads

Energ

y S

avin

gs (G

Wh)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)

Life cycle Energy Savings Potential


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

100

200

300

400

Increased MotorEfficiency

Larger loads

GH

G S

avin

gs(k

tCO

2e)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)

Life cycle GHG Savings Potential


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

Full ElectronicControl

Larger loads

Wate

r Savin

gs

(millio

n m

3) C

ost

(£m

illio

n)

Lifetime Water Saving Potential

Cost Implications Water Savings

http://www.ecowet-domestic.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=27&Itemid=40


Microwaves

No Opportunity Cost

Implications

(per unit)

Energy

Savings

(per unit)

GHG

Savings

(per unit)

Material

Savings

(per unit)

Water

Savings

(per unit)

Source

1 Paint the inner

cavity

£3 1 kWh per

year

0.4 kgCO2e

per year

- - EuP Study

2 Inverter power

supply

£4 1 kWh per

year

1 kgCO2e

per year

EuP Study

3 General

engineering to

increase

efficiency

£6 3 kWh per

year

1 kgCO2e

per year

- - EuP Study

All reduction scenarios based on EuP Lot 22 Study on Domestic and Commercial Ovens. Available:


General Notes

Lifecycle costs of microwaves are already minimal. EuP study concluded that the only way to reduce it

significantly is though consumer education on use.

An abridged assessment of the lifecycle carbon footprint of a microwave undertake by eco3 showed

that a normal power supply contributes about 18% of total carbon embodied in a microwave- this

equates to approx. 6.9kg. An inverter supply will probably weigh less but by how much is not known.

There may be some opportunity for the reduction in materials used (as with most other products) and

the use of recycled materials. This would reduce lifecycle impacts somewhat and should not adversely

affect performance or cost.

0

20

40

60

80

0

5

10

15

20

25

Paint the innercavity

Inverter powersupply

Generalengineering toincrease energy

efficiency

Energ

y S

avin

gs (G

Wh)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)



-

10

20

30

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

Paint the innercavity

Inverter powersupply

Generalengineering toincrease energy

efficiency

GH

G S

avin

gs(k

tCO

2e)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)





Vacuum Cleaners

No Opportunity Cost

Implications

(per unit)

Energy

Savings

(per unit)

GHG

Savings

(per unit)

Material

Savings

(per unit)

Water

Savings

(per unit)

Source

1 Develop light

weight models

£0 - - 1.9 kg - EuP Study

All reduction scenarios based EuP Preparatory Studies (Vacuum Cleaners). Available:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/ecodesign/eup_lot17_final_report_issue_1.pdf

Durability assumptions

The following estimates have been applied to calculate product durability improvement savings based on 2009 UK market reports:

Product Average product

lifespan (years)

Low end product market

presence assumption

Low end product lifespan

assumption (years)13

Fridges/fridge-

freezers/freezers

15 30% 5.5

Electric cookers 19 20% 9

Microwaves 8 20% 5.5

Washing machines 10 15% 4

Dishwashers 11 20% 6

Vacuum cleaners 7 30% 5.5

Televisions 10 20% 4

13 All lifespan assessments are the median range from the UK radio, electrical and television retailer’s association (Retra) Code of Practice estimates except for washing machines, which is based on industry knowledge and expert judgement from a variety of sources. For further information see: http://www.retra.co.uk/code.asp?p=13

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Vacuum Cleaners: Develop lightweight models

Additio

nal M

ate

rials (to

nnes)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)

Material Savings Potential

Cost Implications Material Impact

0

100

200

300

Mate

rial Im

pact

s (k

t)

Product Durability Impacts

Product replacement due to product failure Annual sales of products

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/ecodesign/eup_lot17_final_report_issue_1.pdf

http://www.retra.co.uk/code.asp?p=13


Appendix 5 Category material profiles

WEEE category profiles were provided in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive Review.

EP Category WEEE Category

1 Televisions/Monitors Category 4 Combined

2 Laptops Category 3C

3 Other Display-based Electronics Category 3A

Category 3C

4 Complex processing Electronics

Category 3A

Category 3C

Category 4A

6 Other Simple processing Electronics Category 3A

Category 4A

7 External Power Supplies Category 3A

9 Large High power Pumps & Motors Category 2

Category 6

10 Other High power Pumps & Motors

Category 1A

Category 2

Category 6

12 Spatial Cooling Category 1B

13 Spatial Heating Category 1A

Category 2

14 Dishwashers Category 1A

15 Other Multi-function Appliances Category 1A

16 High power Appliances Category 2

17 Medium power Appliances Category 2

18 Microwaves Category 1C

19 High Intensity Discharge Lighting Category 5B

20 Halogen Lighting Category 5B

21 Fluorescent Lighting Category 5B

22 LED Lighting Category 5B

23 Solar PV Solar PV

A representative material profile was not possible for Category 24 – Household wind turbines.


Category 1A

WEEE Category

Large household appliances

Notes

This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive

Review.

Materials per kg (g) %

Ag 0.00 0.0%

Al 0.02 1.7%

Au 0.00 0.0%

Ceramics 0.00 0.1%

Cr 0.00 0.0%

Cu 0.03 3.2%

Fe 0.00 0.0%

Glass (white) 0.01 0.7%

Ni 0.00 0.0%

Oil 0.00 0.0%

Other/inerts 0.22 22.0%

Pb 0.00 0.0%

PCB 0.00 0.0%

Pd 0.00 0.0%

Plastics general 0.16 15.7%

PUR 0.00 0.3%

PVC 0.00 0.4%

Sb 0.00 0.0%

Sn 0.00 0.0%

Stainless steel 0.02 1.7%

Steel low alloyed 0.54 54.2%

Zn 0.00 0.0%

Total 1kg 100%

Al

2% Cu

3%

Glass

(white) 1%

Other/in

erts

22%

Plastics

general

16% Stainless

steel

2%

Steel low

alloyed

54%

Large Household Appliances

(kg)›1%

Ceramics 9%

Cr

0% Fe

1% Pb

0%

Pd

0%

PUR

38% PVC

44%

Sn

6%

Zn

2%

Large Household Appliances

(kg)‹1%


Category 1B

WEEE Category

Large household appliances (cooling and freezing)

Notes


Review.

Materials per kg (g) % Ag 0.00 0.00% Al (general) 0.03 3.26% As 0.00 0.00% Au 0.00 0.00% Be 0.00 0.00% Bi 0.00 0.00% Br 0.00 0.00% Cd 0.00 0.00% Ceramics 0.00 0.00% Cl 0.00 0.00% Co 0.00 0.00% Cr 0.00 0.00% Cu 0.02 2.49% Epoxy 0.00 0.00% Fe 0.20 20.39% Glass (white) 0.01 0.74% Hg 0.00 0.00% Glass 0.00 0.00% Liquid 0.00 0.00%

Mn 0.00 0.00% Ni 0.00 0.00% Oil 0.01 0.53% Other/inerts 0.01 1.09% other (plastics) 0.00 0.00% Pb 0.00 0.00% PCB 0.00 0.00% Pd 0.00 0.00% Plastics general 0.08 8.47% PS (HI) 0.07 6.91% PUR 0.10 9.75% PVC 0.00 0.06% Sb 0.00 0.00% Sn 0.00 0.00% Stainless steel 0.03 2.60%

Steel low alloyed 0.43 42.66% Wood 0.00 0.00% Zn 0.00 0.00% Cyclopentane 0.00 0.12% Isobutaan 0.00 0.03% CFC11 0.01 0.64% CFC12 0.00 0.25% Total 1kg 100%

Al

(general)

3% Cu

2%

Fe

20%

Glass

(white)

1% Oil

1%

Other/ine

rts

1% Plastics

general

8% PS (HI)

7%

PUR 10%

Stainless

steel

3%

Steel low

alloyed

43%

CFC11

1%

Cooling and freezing (kg)›1%

PVC

13%

Cyclopentane

26%

Isobutaan

6%

CFC12

54%

Cooling and Freezing (kg) ‹1%


Category 1C

WEEE Category

Small household (metal dominated)

Notes


Review.

Materials per kg(g) %

Ag 0.00 0.00%

Al (general) 0.02 2.27%

As 0.00 0.00%

Au 0.00 0.00%

Be 0.00 0.00%

Bi 0.00 0.00%

Br 0.00 0.00%

Cd 0.00 0.00%

Ceramics 0.00 0.00%

Cl 0.00 0.00%

Co 0.00 0.00%

Cr 0.00 0.00%

Cu 0.09 9.42%

Epoxy 0.00 0.08%

Fe 0.00 0.11%


Hg 0.00 0.00%

Glass 0.00 0.00%

Liquid Crystals 0.00 0.00%

Mn 0.00 0.00%

Ni 0.00 0.01%

Oil 0.00 0.09%


other (plastics) 0.00 0.01%

Pb 0.00 0.00%

PCB 0.00 0.00%

Pd 0.00 0.00%


PS (HI) 0.00 0.01%

PUR 0.00 0.02%

PVC 0.00 0.20%

Sb 0.00 0.00%

Sn 0.00 0.00%



Wood 0.01 1.45%

Zn 0.00 0.01%

Total 1kg 100%

Al

(general)

2%

Cu

9%

Other/in

erts

1%

Plastics

general

14%

Stainless

steel

2%

Steel low

alloyed

69%

Wood

1%

Small household (per kg)›1%

Epoxy

11%

Fe 14%

Glass (white)

28%

Ni

1%

Oil

12%

other

(plastics)

1%

Pb

1%

PS (HI) 1%

PUR

3%

PVC

26%

Zn

1%

Small household (per kg)‹1%


Category 2

WEEE Category

Small household (plastic dominated)

Notes


Review.


Ag 0.00 0.00%

Al (general) 0.02 1.84%

As 0.00 0.00%

Au 0.00 0.00%

Be 0.00 0.00%

Bi 0.00 0.00%

Br 0.00 0.00%

Cd 0.00 0.00%

Ceramics 0.00 0.03%

Cl 0.00 0.00%

Co 0.00 0.00%

Cr 0.00 0.00%

Cu 0.13 12.73%

Epoxy 0.00 0.03%

Fe 0.09 9.18%


Hg 0.00 0.00%

Glass 0.00 0.00%


Mn 0.00 0.00%

Ni 0.00 0.01%

Oil 0.00 0.10%



Pb 0.00 0.00%

PCB 0.00 0.00%

Pd 0.00 0.00%


PS (HI) 0.00 0.00%

PUR 0.00 0.00%

PVC 0.00 0.14%

Sb 0.00 0.00%

Sn 0.00 0.02%



Wood 0.00 0.17%

Zn 0.00 0.01%

Total 1kg 100%

Al

(general

) 2%

Cu

13%

Fe

9%

Plastics

general

57%

Stainless

steel

2%

Steel

low

alloyed 17%

Small household (per kg) ›1%

Ceramics 3%

Co 1%

Epoxy 4%

Ni 1%

Oil 12%

Other/inerts

37%

other

(plastics) 2%

PVC 16%

Sn 3%

Wood 19%

Zn 1%

Small household (per kg)‹1%


Category 3A

WEEE Category

Small household ICT (metal dominated)

Notes


Review. Materials per kg(g) %

Ag 0.00 0.01%

Al (general) 0.01 1.39%

As 0.00 0.00%

Au 0.00 0.00%

Be 0.00 0.00%

Bi 0.00 0.00%

Br 0.00 0.04%

Cd 0.00 0.01%

Ceramics 0.00 0.48%

Cl 0.00 0.00%

Co 0.00 0.01%

Cr 0.00 0.02%

Cu 0.04 3.80%

Epoxy 0.00 0.00%

Fe 0.02 1.92%


Hg 0.00 0.00%

Glass 0.00 0.10%


Mn 0.00 0.00%

Ni 0.00 0.08%

Oil 0.00 0.00%



Pb 0.00 0.03%

PCB 0.00 0.00%

Pd 0.00 0.00%


PS (HI) 0.00 0.00%

PUR 0.00 0.00%

PVC 0.00 0.21%

Sb 0.00 0.00%

Sn 0.00 0.09%



Wood 0.00 0.00%

Zn 0.00 0.10%

Total 1kg 100%

Al (general)

1%

Cu

4%

Fe

2%

Other/inerts 2%

Plastics

general

30%

Stainless

steel

1%

Steel low

alloyed

59%

Small household (kg)›1%

Ag 1%

As 0%

Au 0% Be

0% Bi 0%

Br 3%

Cd 0%

Ceramics 41%

Cl 0% Co

1%

Cr 1%

Epoxy 0%

Glass (white) 0%

Hg 0%

Glass 8%

Liquid Crystals 0%

Mn 0%

Ni 6%

Oil 0%

other (plastics) 2%

Pb 2%

PCB 0%

Pd 0%

PS (HI) 0%

PUR 0%

PVC 17%

Sb 0%

Sn 8%

Wood 0%

Zn 8%

Small household (kg) ‹1%


Category 3C

WEEE Category

LCD-containing ICT

Notes


Review.

Material per kg (g) %

ABS 0.071 7% Ag 0.000 0% Al (general) 0.046 5% Au 0.000 0% Bi 0.000 0% Br 0.000 0% Ceramics 0.035 4% Cl 0.000 0% Co 0.000 0% Cr 0.000 0% Cu 0.061 6% Epoxy 0.000 0% Fe 0.000 0% Glass (white) 0.000 0% Hg 0.000 0% Glass (LCD) 0.049 5% Ni 0.001 0% Other/inerts 0.000 0% Pb 0.000 0% Pd 0.000 0% PE (HD) 0.059 6% PET 0.012 1% Plastics general 0.275 28% PVC 0.018 2% Sb 0.000 0% Sn 0.000 0% Steel low alloyed 0.371 37% Wood 0.000 0% Zn 0.000 0%

Total 1kg 100%

ABS 7%

Al (general) 5%

Ceramics 4%

Cu 6%

Glass (LCD) 5%

PE (HD) 6%

PET 1%

Plastics general 28%

PVC 2%

Steel low alloyed 37%

Laptops (per kg) >1%

Ag 5%

Au 2%

Bi 0%

Br 0%

Cl 0%

Co 0%

Cr 1%

Epoxy 0%

Fe 20%

Glass (white) 0%

Hg 0% Ni

34% Other/inerts

0%

Pb 22%

Pd 0%

Sb 1%

Sn 5%

Wood 0%

Zn 10%

Laptops (per kg) <1%


Category 4A

WEEE Category

Small household (plastic dominated) consumer electronics

Notes


Review.


Ag 0.00 0.00%

Al (general) 0.05 4.60%

As 0.00 0.00%

Au 0.00 0.00%

Be 0.00 0.00%

Bi 0.00 0.00%

Br 0.00 0.01%

Cd 0.00 0.00%

Ceramics 0.01 0.61%

Cl 0.00 0.03%

Co 0.00 0.00%

Cr 0.00 0.00%

Cu 0.10 10.41%

Epoxy 0.00 0.42%

Fe 0.04 3.84%


Hg 0.00 0.00%

Glass 0.00 0.00%


Mn 0.00 0.00%

Ni 0.00 0.02%

Oil 0.00 0.00%



Pb 0.00 0.05%

PCB 0.00 0.00%

Pd 0.00 0.00%


PS (HI) 0.00 0.03%

PUR 0.00 0.00%

PVC 0.00 0.02%

Sb 0.00 0.01%

Sn 0.00 0.04%



Wood 0.09 9.06%

Zn 0.00 0.08%

Total 1kg 100%

Al (general)

5% Ceramics

1%

Cu

10%

Fe

4%

Other/iner

ts

2%

Plastics

general

25%

Stainless

steel

4%

Steel low

alloyed

40%

Wood

9%


As 0%

Au 0%

Be 0%

Bi 0%

Br 1%

Cd 0% Cl

3%

Co 0%

Cr 0%

Epoxy 58%

Glass (white)

0%

Hg 0%

Glass 0%

Liquid Crystals

0%

Mn 0%

Ni 3%

other (plastics)

2%

Pb 7%

PS (HI) 4%

PVC 3%

Sb 1%

Sn 6% Zn

11%

Small household (kg)‹1%


Category 4 Combined

WEEE Category

CRT and LCD containing consumer electronics

Notes This product profile is based on material breakdowns shown in the EU Commission’s 2008 WEEE Directive Review. Materials are blended based on 2008 market proportion of CRT and LCD presence

CRT – 1% LCD – 99%

Material per kg (g) %

ABS 0.146 15%

Ag 0.000 0%

Al (general) 0.062 6%

Au 0.000 0%

Bi 0.000 0%

Br 0.000 0%

Ceramics 0.011 1%

Cl 0.000 0%

Co 0.000 0%

Cr 0.000 0%

CRT-glass cone 0.002 0%

CRT-glass screen 0.004 0%

Cu 0.029 3%

Epoxy 0.000 0%

Fe 0.145 14%

Glass (white) 0.220 22%

Hg 0.000 0%

Glass (LCD) 0.000 0%

Ni 0.000 0%

Other/inerts 0.008 1%

Pb 0.000 0%

Pd 0.000 0%

PE (HD) 0.000 0%

PET 0.000 0%

Plastics general 0.156 16%

PVC 0.009 1%

Sb 0.000 0%

Sn 0.001 0%

Steel low alloyed 0.205 21%

Wood 0.000 0%

Zn 0.001 0%

Total 1kg 100%

ABS 15% Al

(general) 6% Ceramics

1%

Cu 3%

Fe

14%

Glass (white) 22%

Other/inert

s 1%


PVC 1%


Televisions (per kg) >1%

Ag 1%

Au 0%

Bi

0%

Br 0% Cl

0%

Co 0%

Cr 1%

Epoxy

8%

Hg 0%

Glass (LCD) 0%

Ni 4%

Pb 16%

Pd 0%

PE (HD) 0% PET

0% Sb 1%

Sn 24%

Wood 13%

Zn 30%

Televisions (per kg) <1% excl. CRT

glass


Category 5B

WEEE Category

Lighting, bulbs

Notes


Review.


Ag 0.00 0.00%

Al (general) 0.06 5.65%

Au 0.00 0.00%

Br 0.00 0.00%

Ceramics 0.00 0.38%

Cl 0.00 0.00%

Cr 0.00 0.00%

Cu 0.02 1.92%

Epoxy 0.00 0.13%

Fe 0.00 0.10%

Fluorescent powder 0.02 1.65%

Glass (white low quality) 0.07 6.84%

Hg 0.00 0.00%

Glass (white high quality) 0.79 79.20%

Ni 0.00 0.00%

Pb 0.00 0.06%

Pd 0.00 0.00%


Sb 0.00 0.00%

Sn 0.00 0.08%



Zn 0.00 0.01%

Total 1 100%

Al (general)

6% Cu

2%

Fluorescent powder

2% Glass

(white low quality)

7%

Glass (white high

quality) 79%

Plastics general

2%

Steel low alloyed

2%

Lighting (kg)›1%

Ceramics

35%

Epoxy 12% Fe

9% Pb

6%

Sn 7%

Stainless

steel

29%

Zn

1%

Lighting (kg)‹1%


Category 6

WEEE Category

Small household (plastic dominated) tools

Notes


Review. Materials per kg(g) %

Ag 0.00 0.00%

Al (general) 0.02 1.78%

As 0.00 0.00%

Au 0.00 0.00%

Be 0.00 0.00%

Bi 0.00 0.00%

Br 0.00 0.00%

Cd 0.00 0.14%

Ceramics 0.00 0.04%

Cl 0.00 0.00%

Co 0.00 0.02%

Cr 0.00 0.00%

Cu 0.18 17.51%

Epoxy 0.00 0.06%

Fe 0.15 14.87%


Hg 0.00 0.00%

Glass 0.00 0.00%


Mn 0.00 0.00%

Ni 0.00 0.22%

Oil 0.00 0.00%



Pb 0.00 0.00%

PCB 0.00 0.00%

Pd 0.00 0.00%


PS (HI) 0.00 0.00%

PUR 0.00 0.00%

PVC 0.00 0.34%

Sb 0.00 0.00%

Sn 0.00 0.03%



Wood 0.00 0.00%

Zn 0.00 0.03%

Total 1 100%

Al (general)

2%

Cu 18%

Fe 15%

Other/inerts

1%




Cd 10%

Ceramics 3% Co

1% Epoxy 4%

Ni 15%

other (plastics)

10%

PVC 23%

Sn 2%

Stainless steel 30%

Zn 2%

Small household (kg)‹1%


Solar PV

WEEE Category

Solar Panels are not included in WEEE.

Notes

This product profile is based on material breakdowns from confidential footprinting studies of UK PV

manufacturing.


Aluminium 0.00 0.09%

Annodised Aluminium 0.22 22.19%

Copper 0.01 1.33%

Copper (in solder) 0.00 0.00%

Diodes 0.00 0.03%

Epoxy Resin 0.00 0.20%

EVA Resin 0.00 0.31%

Glass 0.70 69.62%

Glue 0.00 0.03%

Iron 0.00 0.10%

Nickel 0.00 0.10%

Organic Chemicals 0.00 0.06%

PET Film 0.00 0.14% Plastic (unknown type) 0.00 0.01%

Polyester 0.00 0.00%

Polypropylene 0.00 0.12%

Rubber 0.02 2.21%

Silicon 0.03 3.39%

Silicone Rubber 0.00 0.00%

Silver (in solder) 0.00 0.00%

Talcum Powder 0.00 0.03%

Tin (in solder) 0.00 0.04%

Total 1 100%

Annodised Aluminium

22%

Copper 1%

Glass 70%

Rubber 2%

Silicon 3%

Solar panel (per kg)›1%

Aluminium 7%

Diodes 2%

Epoxy Resin 16%

EVA

Resin 25%

Glue 2%

Iron 8%

Nickel 8%

Organic Chemicals

5%

PET Film 11%

Plastic (unknown

type) 0%

Polyester 0%

Polypropylene

10%

Silicone Rubber

0%

Silver (in

solder) 0%

Talcum Powder

2%

Tin (in solder)

3%

Solar panel (per kg) ‹1%


Appendix 6 Material summary table

Raw material Supply

risk

(1-10)

Water

risk

(1-10)

Carbon

risk

(1-10)

Major ore

producers14

Ef15 Use in EPs RR16 Notes

Aluminium 2.0 6 5 Australia 35%

Brazil 12%

China 12%

Guinea 8%

Jamaica 8%

India 7%

1%17 Aluminium is widely used in electronics as a

structural material for frames, as casing for

rigidity and protection of internal components,

in heat exchangers to take advantage of the

metal’s conductive properties.

35% Aluminium has low actual

recoverability for EPs due to the

nature of the products that

aluminium is contained in (high

volume, low value, consumer ‘throw

away’ items such as mobile phones,

kettles, electrical kitchen gadgets)

Antimony 6.9 7 5 China 91.2%

Bolivia 2.4%

Russia 1.6%

S Africa 1.6%

Tajikistan 1.1%

50%18 The main use is as a flame retardant for plastics

and other products . Highly pure antimony

(99.999%) is used in semiconductors in the

computer industry. But this only represents

0.01% of total use (European Commission,

2010). Electroconductive pigments of tin oxide

doped with antimony have been introduced in

recent years for incorporation in the plastic

coatings that protect delicate computer and

other electronic components from electrostatic

arcing (Butterman, 2004). Antimony is also used

in solders by the electronics industry in the

manufacture of circuit boards. (Butterman,

2004). Antimony-Tin-Oxide might be

increasingly used in LCD-displays, OLEDs or

photovoltaic cells (European Commission, 2010).

11% No effective substitute for its major

application (flame retardant). Low

recycling due to dissipative nature

of flame retardants.

14 Unless otherwise stated source is Annex of European Commission (2010) Critical raw materials for the EU – 2009 data

15 Ef = Global percentage of material used in electrical products – various sources

16 Recycling rate (RR) - Unless otherwise stated this is recycled content from old scrap as defined in annex of European Commission (2010)

17 GHGm (2008) 18 Estimate by Best Foot Forward based on Environment Agency report which quoted electronics and electrical goods as a major user of antimony oxide: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/EPOW-recovering-critical-raw-materials-T5v2.pdf (Pg 83)

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/EPOW-recovering-critical-raw-materials-T5v2.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/EPOW-recovering-critical-raw-materials-T5v2.pdf


Raw material Supply

risk

(1-10)

Water

risk

(1-10)

Carbon

risk

(1-10)

Major ore

producers14


Beryllium 6.8 - - USA 85.1%

China 14.2%

Mozambique

0.7%

Others >0.5%

40% Beryllium is used in semiconductors, wires and

cables. (European Commission, 2010), (GHGm)

19% Beryllium is rare in the earth's crust.

Due to its high cost and toxicity,

beryllium is only used when its

properties are crucial; it is therefore

hard to substitute. As much as 40%

of beryllium is used in electronics.

(European Commission, 2010)

Cobalt 3.9 5 4 DRC 40.8%

Canada 11.3%

Zambia 9.1%

Russia 8.2%

Australia 8.0%

China 7.9%

Cuba 4.2%

Morocco 2.2%

New Caledonia

2.1%

Brazil 1.6%

Others 4.5%

27%19 27% of cobalt is used in batteries, primarily in

high-performance rechargeable models.


16%

19 Cobalt end-use in rechargeable batteries (mobile phones, notebooks, power tools and small household appliances)


Raw material Supply

risk

(1-10)

Water

risk

(1-10)

Carbon

risk

(1-10)

Major ore

producers14


Copper 2.5 6 2 Chile 34.5%

USA 8.5%

Peru 8.2%

China 6.2%

2%20 Copper is the best electrical conductor after

silver and is widely used in the production of

energy-efficient power circuits. Electron tubes

used in televisions and computer monitors,

audio and video amplification and in microwave

ovens depend on copper for their internal

components. Copper is extensively used in

computers where cables, connectors and circuit

boards all rely on copper. Copper is increasingly

being used in computer chips in place of

aluminium, resulting in faster operating speeds.

Copper wire is extensively used in

telecommunications and is essential for high

speed communication between computers

(European Commission, 2010).

20%

The International Copper Study

Group recycling estimates that

“waste electrical and electronic

equipment” could provide

approximately 19% of copper scrap

availability; however, this is largely

unrealised, as for example in 1999

the Group estimate that “office and

ICT” waste accounted for

approximately 1% of product end-

of-life copper recovery.(ICSG, 2004)

Gallium 4.8 5 9 Germany: 26%21

Canada: 23%

China: 17%

Ukraine: 12%

Other: 22%

86%22 Gallium is used primarily for integrated circuits.

Other uses include solar panels and LED

lighting. (European Commission, 2010)

0% Gallium production is in the order of

just 100 tonnes per year. Gallium is

not yet recycled from old scrap. The

carbon footprint of gallium is

relatively high compared with most

other metals, with 200kg CO2e

required for the production of 1kg

of gallium. (European Commission,

2010), (Ecoinvent)

Germanium 6.0 - - China: 71.6%

Russia: 3.6%

USA: 3.3%

15%22 Germanium is used in semiconductors to make

solar panels, circuits and LEDs. (European

Commission, 2010)

30%

20 GHGm (2008)

21 Environment Agency( 2011)

22 U.S. Geological Survey (2011.


Raw material Supply

risk

(1-10)

Water

risk

(1-10)

Carbon

risk

(1-10)

Major ore

producers14


Gold 5.5 9 10 China 13%23

United States

9%

Australia 9%

Russia 8%

S Africa 8%

Peru 7%

Indonesia 5%

Canada 4%

9%24 Gold plating of connectors, switches, and other

components account for the main use of gold in

the electronic industry. It is also used in

bonding wires, finishing, sputters and solders.

The development of industrial catalysts based

on gold and the evolving field of

nanotechnology may lead to a rise in industrial

demand for gold in the future (GHGm, 2008).

According to the World Gold Council, this rise

has been a result of increasing sales of flat

panel displays and MP3 players, which employ

significant amounts of semiconductors (GHGm,

2008).

27%25

About 85% of all the gold mined

since historical times is believed to

be present in current

“aboveground” stocks, with the

remaining 15% believed to have

been lost or dissipated in industrial

processes, or unaccounted for. The

carbon footprint of gold is very high

at 13 tonnes CO2e per kg material.

(Ecoinvent)

Indium 5.3 8 8 China: 58.1%

Japan: 10.6%

Canada: 8.8%

Korea: 8.8%

Belgium: 5.3%

76% 74% of indium is used for flat display panels.

Other EuP uses include solder and LEDs.


0.3%

Iron & steel 2.1 Iron: 6

Steel: 7

Iron: 2

Steel: 3

China 20.1%

Australia 19.4%

Brazil 17.8%

India 12.5%

Russia 5.7%

4%26 Iron (often in the form of steel) is found in

housings, frames, lids, covers, screws and

hinges. It makes a considerable contribution to

WEEE categories covering large household

appliances, IT and consumer electronics.

22%

Lithium 3.5 7 5 Chile 41.7%

Australia 24.8%

China 13.0%

Argentina

12.4%

Portugal 2.8%

Canada 2.7%

Zimbabwe 2.0%

Brazil 0.6%

20.2%27 20% of lithium is used for batteries, especially

for rechargeable high-performance batteries in

portable electronic devices. (European

Commission, 2010)

0% Future risk: lithium use in electric

vehicle batteries.

23 All data from British Geological Survey (2011) – 2009 data 24 2007 data

25 Estimated recycled supply to total annual production (2007). Source: GHGm (2008)

26 Electrical equipment and domestic appliances


Raw material Supply

risk

(1-10)

Water

risk

(1-10)

Carbon

risk

(1-10)

Major ore

producers14


Magnesium 5.4 7 7 China 56.1%

Turkey 12.0%

Russia 7.0%

Slovakia 5.4%

Austria 4.0%

Australia 2.6%

2%28 Magnesium alloys are used for housings,

frames, lids, covers, screws and hinges in

devices such as laptops, cameras, mobile

phones and portable audio players. (GHGm,

2008)29

14%

Nickel 2.3 4 4 Russia 17.6%

Canada 16.5%

Australia 12.7%

Indonesia

12.3%

Philippines 5.3%

12.5%30 Nickel is used to make batteries (3% of total

nickel supply). Some 70% of global supply is

used in stainless steel – which is used in

electrical goods e.g. home appliances such as

dishwashers, clothes washing machines,

domestic cooking appliances, refrigerators and

freezers, and other small electronics goods.

32% The Nickel Institute suggests that

there is ‘room for improvement’ in

recycling of tin from electronic

products (GHGm, 2008). Nickel is

mainly recycled within the stainless

steel loop, thereby preserving the

value-added properties of nickel.

Nickel is difficult to substitute for in

the production of alloys.

Niobium 6.8 - - Brazil 92.4%

Canada 7.0%

Others 0.6%

<10%31 Niobium is used in capacitors for devices such

as mobile phones, laptops and digital cameras.


11%

Plastics (from

crude oil)

- 5 3 Crude oil

producers:

Saudi Arabia

12%32

Russia 11%

United States

11%

China 5%

Iran 5%

Canada 4%

0.2%33 Plastics represent a significant proportion of

WEEE products by weight, however there are a

very wide range of plastics currently used within

EPs e.g. alkyd resins, amino resins, epoxy

resins, ethylene vinyl acetate, polyamide,

polyesters, polyethylene, polypropylene,

polystyrene, polytetrafluoroethene, etc.

25%34

27 Lithium use in rechargeable batteries and electronics 28 Best Foot Forward estimate based on assumption that approximately 50% of magnesium is used in production of aluminium & steel (http://www.intlmag.org/faq.html). 29 International Magnesium Association (2008) 30 Nickel Institute (2011) 31 U.S. Geological Survey (2006) 32 CIA (2010) 33 Based on assumption that 4% of global oil production is used for plastics and 5.6% of plastics are used in electronic and electrical goods in Europe (Plastics Europe, 2010)

http://www.intlmag.org/faq.html


Raw material Supply

risk

(1-10)

Water

risk

(1-10)

Carbon

risk

(1-10)

Major ore

producers14


Platinum Group

Metals

7.9 6

(platinum)

10

(platinum)

Russia 41.0%

S Africa 40.5%

USA 6.4%

11%35 ‘Platinum Group Metals (PGMs) are used in a

variety of applications, such as computer hard

discs (Platinum and Ruthenium), multilayer

ceramic capacitors (Palladium) or hybridized

integrated circuits’ ... ‘Use in electronics has

decreased due to price increases and material

substitution’. (GHGm, 2008)

35% ‘For PGMs in electronic applications,

recovery rates are probably only in

the range of 10%. The EU WEEE

directive currently provides here

only little support since under the

mass based recycling targets no

incentives exist to secure optimum

access to PGM containing

components and their most

appropriate recovery, and other

than for autocatalysts the economic

motivation for PGM recycling is

much lower’ (GHGm, 2008) The

carbon footprint of gold is very high

at 15 tonnes CO2e per kg material.

(Ecoinvent)

Rare earth

elements

8.9 6 2 China 97%

India 2.2%

Brazil 0.5%

Malaysia 0.3%

21%36 The 17 rare earth elements are used variously in

batteries (portable tools, hybrid cars), high

performance magnets (wind power,

electromobility) and capacitors. (European

Commission, 2010)

1% China dominates the production of

rare earth elements, and

increasingly restricts supply to other

countries. These other countries

possess 64% of global reserves, but

have been reluctant to exploit these

because of localised environmental

impacts. New mines are being built

or planned in several countries. For

most applications, substitutes for

rare earth elements are available,

but with loss of performance.

(European Commission, 2010; USGS

2010)

34 http://www.bpf.co.uk/sustainability/plastics_recycling.aspx. Plastic waste from industrial scrap is generally referred to as 'reprocessed' to distinguish from 'recycled' material which is derived from genuine post-use products.

35 GHGm (2008) – Annex. Some 15% of palladium – a major metal in this group – is used in global electronics industry (GHGm, 2008). 36 Estimate based on totals of: ceramic capacitors, polishing and batteries. Source: GHGm (2008) – Annex.

http://www.bpf.co.uk/sustainability/plastics_recycling.aspx


Raw material Supply

risk

(1-10)

Water

risk

(1-10)

Carbon

risk

(1-10)

Major ore

producers14


Silicon - 7 7 China 67%

Russia 9%

Norway 5%

Brazil 3%

United States

2% 37

Silicon wafers are used in transistors,

semiconductors, electronics and solar cells (for

solar PV applications). In terms of final EPs,

silicon is present in desktop PCs, laptops and

televisions (liquid crystal displays)

-38 Silicon is a risk in terms of global

consumption (REKTN 2008)

Silver 3.3 7 8 Peru 17.3%

Mexico 15.2%

China 13.1%

Australia 9.1%

Chile 6.6%

Russia 6.1%

USA 5.8%

Poland 5.6%

23%39 Silver has the highest electrical conductivity of

all metals and is therefore important to many

electronic devices. These include circuit boards,

solar panels, batteries and plasma displays.

(European Commission, 2010). Silver

membrane switches, which require only a light

touch, are used in buttons on televisions,

telephones, microwave ovens, children’s toys

and computer keyboards. Silver-based inks

produce so-called RFID tags (radio frequency

identification) antennas. Due to environmental

and safety concerns, silver-oxide batteries are

beginning to replace lithium-ion batteries in

mobile phones and laptop computers. Silver is

also used in solder and brazing (Silver Institute).

16% Recycling from EuPs could be much

higher if more waste were collected

for recycling and better recycling

technologies were used. Copper is a

reasonable substitute for silver in

electronics. (European Commission,

2010; USGS 2010)

Tantalum 4.1 8 9 Australia 48.3%

Brazil 15.5%

Canada 3.4%

DRC 8.6%

Rwanda 8.6%

Others 15.5%

60%40 60% of tantalum is used for capacitors for

devices including mobile phones, laptops and

digital cameras.

4% ‘Recycling from capacitors, the main

user of tantalum, is difficult and

insufficiently developed.’ (European

Commission, 2010)

37 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011

38 USGS report ‘insignificant’ recycling rates: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/mcs-2010-simet.pdf 39 US Geological Survey, (2005). 2003 data – likely to be higher now as increasing trend. No more recent data found.

40 US Geological Survey, (2008)

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/mcs-2010-simet.pdf


Raw material Supply

risk

(1-10)

Water

risk

(1-10)

Carbon

risk

(1-10)

Major ore

producers14


Tellurium 1.2 4 4 Canada 59%

Peru 26%

Japan 16%

37%41 26% of tellurium is used in solar panels.


<10

%

Recent growth in production of

Cadmium Telluride solar panels

(thin-film) has significantly

increased tellurium demand. There

is debate over whether global

supply at present levels can meet

this rising demand for use in solar

PV technologies (Zweibel, K. 2010).

Annual global tellurium production is

estimated at 160 - 260 tonnes, with

demand potentially reaching 800

tonnes by 201342

Tin 6.0 8 5 China 41%

Indonesia 30%

50%43 Tin is used in solder and printed circuit boards.

It comprises less than 1% of most electronic

products. (GHGm, 2008)

30-

40%

Most tin recycling is from solder in

electronic products; however, de-

tinning of tinplate steel cans is

important too (GHGm, 2008).

Tungsten 6.1 - - China 77.8%

Russia 5.4%

Canada 4.1%

Austria 2.0%

Bolivia 2.0%

Portugal 1.5%

Others 7.3%

<10%44 Tungsten is used for wires, electrodes and

contacts in lighting, electronic, electrical

and heating applications. (European

Commission, 2010)

37%

41 European Commission, 2010. The sum of tellurium’s use in photovoltaics and ‘electronics and other’ products. 42 Wesoff , E. (2011) 43 Historical trends in tin usage, ITRI, 2009: http://www.itri.co.uk/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_id=49603&cf_id=24 44 Tungsten used in “Fabricated products” estimated at 17% (European Commission 2010)

http://www.itri.co.uk/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_id=49603&cf_id=24


Appendix 7 Market data

Retail sales category name

Definition Volume (000s)

Data year Volume source Unit Weight

(kg) Source

Air conditioning Close Control, Ducted Split (or split-packaged), Indoor Mini Split, Moveable Roof Top and Window units. Domestic, commercial and industrial.

237 2010 MTP 19 FRN

Audio separates Headphones, speakers, amplifiers 660 2,009 GFK 3.20 Estimate

Commercial lighting All commercial lighting (office, industrial and commercial including CFL, LED, High Pressure Mercury, High pressure Sodium, Low Pressure Sodium, Metal Halide, T12, T8_Tri Phosphor B1, T8_Tri Phosphor A, T8_Halo Phosphor B1, T8_Halo Phosphor B2, T5, Tungsten Halogen, Compact Metal Halide).

110,691 2010 MTP 0.12 Various

Desk Type Desk type fans. 214 Estimate Estimate 3 Amazon

Desktop PCs Domestic and SOHO (small office/home office) complete desktops (i.e. monitor, tower, keyboard and mouse) and bundled packages (separate towers plus scanners, printers and other peripherals). Excluded: ‘PC peripherals’ sold separately, such as monitors, scanners, speakers, printers etc.

1,917 2009 GFK 16 FRN

Digital cameras Digital still cameras and video cameras. 6,058 2009 GFK 0.24 Nikon

Dishwashers Full-size, slimline or tabletop models. 793 2009 GFK 47 FRN

DIY EuPs Power tools excluding accessories. 4,493 2009 GFK 1 Bosch

Domestic electric heating

Installed electric heating (storage heaters, fixed panel heaters, electric radiators and electric towel warmers), Portables (convector heaters, portable panel heaters

and fan heaters) and electric Fuel Effect Fires. 1,164 Estimate Estimate 8 Various

Domestic lighting- Fluorescent

Linear fluorescent and CFL. 97,134 2010 MTP 0.11 Amazon

Domestic lighting- Halogen

Halogen lightbulbs purchased for domestic use. 61,602 2010 MTP 0.09 Amazon

Domestic lighting- LED

LED lightbulbs purchased for domestic use. 65 2010 MTP 0.07 Amazon

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/digital-cameras/coolpix/style/coolpix-s3100

http://www.bosch-do-it.co.uk/boptocs2-uk/Product.jsp;jsessionid=A06627567C5EE1E3A2F022A0AE54C694.s038?country=GB&lang=en&division=hw&ccat_id=95236&object_id=26576&ean=3165140583305





(kg) Source

Domestic solar PV Domestic solar PV commissioned in the UK 1/7/2010 - 30/6/2011.

33 2010 OFGEM

8,452,941 (total weight)

Various

Domestic type extractor (axial & centrifugal)

Domestic type extractor (axial & centrifugal). 2,225 Estimate Estimate 1 Amazon

Domestic wind Domestic wind power (0-50kW) commissioned in the UK 1/7/201 0- 30/6/2011.

2.81 2010 BWEA

1,075,201 (total weight)

Estimate

Dry-cell batteries Primary and secondary/rechargeable types, sold for household and specific specialist consumer applications such as watches or cameras. Excluded: any batteries,

disposable or otherwise, supplied as original equipment. 584,000 2009 Mintel 0.02 Mintel

DVD/VHS systems DVD players, DVD recorders (excludes Blu-ray recorders), Combination DVD/VCRs, Portable DVD players, Blu-ray players (basic Blu-ray players, Blu-ray recorders, home theatre systems and PS3 games console).

4,305 2009 GFK 2 Amazon

Electric cookers Electric cookers, either freestanding or built-in (including dual fuel).

1,507 2009 GFK 56 FRN

Electric water heaters Electric storage (kitchen heater or small shower) water heaters, Electric instantaneous water heaters and electric boiling water appliances (electronic) and Electric showers (instantaneous hydraulic). Excludes: combination units for space and water heating.

1,447 2010 MTP 4 Various

Electrical kitchen gadgets

Coffee grinders, electric carving knives, meat mincers and electric can openers (amongst others).

1,158 2009 Mintel 2 FRN

Electronic Security & Access Control

CCTV cameras, intruder alarms and access control systems (e.g. card readers)

15,137 Estimate Estimate 6 Various

ePSUs 1) Small (mobile) ePSUs –rated power 0-8W generally used for charging mobile products or low power

consuming 24/7 devices; 2) Mid-small ePSUs –rated power 8-36W generally used by larger PC peripherals or smaller audio devices; 3) Mid ePSUs –rated power 36-50W for standalone devices. Contains higher power versions of some of the products in the mid-small category e.g. home theatre audio systems and; 4) Big ePSUs –rated power 50-250W for high power devices such as battery operated power tools.

53,237 2010 MTP 1 Estimate





(kg) Source

Food preparation equipment

Food processors, hand-held blenders, liquidisers, fixed stand food mixers, hand-held food mixers and mini-blenders/choppers.

2,977 2009 Mintel 2 FRN

Freezers Frost-free and non-frost-free models (including large US-style appliances incorporating features such as ice and water dispensers) both freestanding and those designed to fit under existing units in a built-in kitchen.

699 2009 GFK 45 FRN

Fridge-freezers Upright or chest, either frost-free or non-frost-free. 1,325 2009 GFK 51 FRN

Fridges Larder-style (including large US-style). Also standard, i.e. with icebox.

2,078 2009 GFK 38 FRN

Game consoles No definition provided. 4,554 2010 MTP 2 Various

Garden power Electric lawnmowers, strimmers, hedge trimmers, cutters, blower vacs and chainsaws.

1,971 2009 GFK 6 Amazon

Health grills Table-top/health grills including raclettes, barbecue-style grills, crêpe makers, etc.

1,645 2009 Mintel 2 FRN

Home Audio/Hi-Fi Home audio systems (non-portable). 1,982 2009 GFK 8.20 Estimate

Hot beverage makers Filter coffee machines, espresso/cappuccino makers, combination filter/espresso/cappuccino machines, coffee percolators and electric tea makers.

1,190 2009 Mintel 2 FRN

Irons Domestic handheld steam irons, steam generators, dry irons and travel irons. Corded and cordless units.

4,310 2006 Mintel 2 FRN

Kettles Cordless or corded models, jug/coffee pot and traditional style and travel kettles.

8,617 2009 Mintel 2 FRN

Laptop Portables (conventional laptop), Ultra-portables (sub 2kg units) and tablets. Extract from Mintel report: "Although there is a significant blurring of product boundaries as to what constitutes a tablet PC and a top-end PDA, Mintel defines tablet PCs as coming from a laptop PC heritage as well as having either a built-in keyboard or a stylus or both".

6,284 2009 GFK 3 FRN

Microwaves Compact/solo microwave-only models (oven capacity <27 cubic litres), microwave plus grill (compact or full size), combination ovens combining microwave with grill power or microwave with convection heat (compact and full size).

3,157 2009 GFK 19 FRN

Mobile phones Mobile phone handsets (including contract). 26,612 2009 GFK 0.12 Amazon





(kg) Source

Non-domestic axial Non-domestic axial. 229 Estimate Estimate 14 Amazon

Non-domestic centrifugal

Non-domestic centrifugal. 153 Estimate Estimate 14 Amazon

Non-domestic desktops

Non-domestic desktop. 2,907 2010 MTP 10 Amazon

Non-domestic heating accessories

Controllers, programmers and programmable thermostats.

784 Estimate Estimate 0.34 Amazon

Non-domestic laptops Non-domestic laptops. 6,522 2010 MTP 4 Amazon

Non-domestic

monitors

Commercial monitors. 5,499 2010 MTP 3.92 Estimate

Non-domestic printers Commercial printers and photocopiers. 3,320 2010 MTP 10.61 Estimate

Non-Domestic Roof Extractor Fans

Non-domestic roof extractor fans. 11 Estimate Estimate 45 Amazon

Non-Domestic Tangential Fans

Non-domestic tangential fans. 125 Estimate Estimate 1 Amazon

PC peripherals Domestic and SOHO (small office/home office): Keyboards, mice, monitors, scanners, printers (single-function and multi-function but excluding dedicated photo printers), joysticks and gamepads (and other gaming accessories such steering wheels etc.), wireless routers, external hard-drives, speakers, microphones, headsets and webcams. Excludes: peripherals that are bundled with a new PC, all software.

6,174 2009 GFK 7 FRN

PDA Compatible with home or laptop computers, allowing the user to transfer data and use the PDA for the usual computing functions and programs. May also be referred to as a ‘palmtop’, ‘handheld computer’ or ‘pocket PC’.

1,027 2006 Mintel 0.18 Dell

Personal electrical appliances

Hairdryers and travel hairdryers – fixed or hand-held, hairstyling tongs/brushes, hair crimpers and straighteners and heated rollers. Products may be mains-powered, powered by battery or gas, or rechargeable. Note: ‘retail trade’ does not include items sold to or sold by hair salons.

9,500 2007 Mintel 1 FRN

Portable audio players MP3 players (like iPod), personal CD players, personal minidisc players.

18,292 2009 GFK 2 Amazon & Mintel

Refrigerated display cabinets

Commercial refrigeration units. 112 2,008 Centre for Reuse and

Remanufacturing 750

Centre for Reuse and Remanufacturing

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/aximx51/en/om/om_en.pdf





(kg) Source

Set-top boxes Simple STBs (basic, PVR) and complex STBs (satellite basic, satellite PVR, cable basic, cable PVR). 3,422 2009 GFK 3 Amazon & MTP

Telephone equipment Phone Device- telephone, answering machine. 6,322 2009 GFK 1.25 Estimate

Televisions Colour TV sets including TVs that include a combined video/DVD. Excluded: Monochrome sets, miniature receivers, projection televisions, Freeview set-top boxes, digital TV storage devices, home cinema systems and non-commercial monitors (e.g. CCTV

monitors).

9,943 2009 GFK 11 FRN & Mintel

Toasters All types. 4,208 2009 Mintel 2 FRN

Tumble dryers Separate tumble dryers (gas or electric), vented or condenser machines; and standalone spin dryers (electric only).

896 2009 GFK 39 FRN

Vacuum cleaners Upright, cylinder, multifunction (includes two-in-one and three-in-one products that vacuum/wash carpets and clean/wash hard floors and dry hard floors), handheld (mains and rechargeable) and other (mains and rechargeable): an umbrella category for sticks,

cordless vacs, electric carpet sweepers and robotic models. Excluded: Products designed for the industrial or commercial markets and battery-only handheld cleaners.

5,767 2009 GFK 13 FRN

Washing machines Including washer-dryers. 2,539 2009 GFK 65 FRN


Appendix 8 Category resources

Category Reference Publication Date

Confidentiality

1. Televisions/Monitors

AEAT, 2008. Revising the Ecolabel Criteria for Televisions – Final Report 2008 Public

CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORP., 2006. Environmental Product Declaration N154 series, CCFL Backlight. Available at: http://gryphon.environdec.com/data/files/6/7625/ENG_TFT_LCD_EPD.pdf [Accessed august

2011]

2006 Public

Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Televisions 2008 Public

Feng, C. and Qian, X., 2009. The energy consumption and environmental impacts of a color TV set in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 1-104

2009 Public

Fraunhofer IZM, 2007. Consumer electronics: televisions. Preparatory Study EuP Lot 5 2007 Public

Hischier, R. & Baudin, I., 2010. LCA study of a plasma television device. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2010) 15:428–438

2010 Public

Socolof, M.L, Overly, J.G. and Geibig, J.R., 2005. Environmental life-cycle impacts of CRT and LCD desktop computer displays. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 p. 1281-1294

2005 Public

Sony, 2010. LCA 32inch LCA Television (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Environment/activities/reduction/products/index.html#module6)

2010 Public

WRAP, 2010. Appendix 5 Product Summary Sheets - Electrical goods LCA 2010 Public

WRAP, 2010. Bills of Materials - Electrical goods 2010 Public

2. Laptops

AEAT, 2009. 2nd Discussion Report: EU Ecolabel for Personal Computers – Laptops 2009 Public

Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Laptop Personal Computers 2008 Public

European Commission, 2004. Product Fact Sheet: The European eco-label for portable computers 2004 Public

IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation, 2005. Personal Computers (desktops and laptops) and computer monitors, Preparatory Study EuP Lot 3

2005 Public

Shiau, C.-S., Tseng, I.H., Heutchy, A.W. and Michalek, J., 2007. "Design optimization of a laptop computer using aggregated and mixed logit demand models with consumer survey data", Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

2007 Private



3. Other Display based electronics

Apple, 2010. iPhone 4 Environmental Report. Available at: http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPhone_4_Product_Environmental_Report.pdf. [Accessed August 2011]

2010 Public

Apple, 2010. ipod touch Environmental Report. Available at: http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPodtouch_Product_Environmental_Report_2010.pdf. [Accessed August 2011]

2010 Public

Canning, 2006. Rethinking market connections: mobile phone recovery, reuse and recycling in the UK. The 2006 Public


Category Reference Publication

Date

Confidentiality

Business School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK

EPA, 2004. The Lifecycle of a Cell Phone 2004 Public

3. Other Display based electronics

McLaren and Piukkula, 2004. Case Study Snapshot (NOKIA 7600). The WEEE Man 2004 Public

Moberg,A., Johansson, M., Finnvenden, G. and Jonsoon, A., 2007. Screening environmental life cycle assessment of printed, web based and tablet e-paper newspaper. KTH Centre for Sustainable Communications Stockholm, Sweden 2007

2007 Public

NOKIA,2006.Integrated Product Policy Pilot on Mobile Phones Stage IV Final Report: New Environmental Initiatives & Experiences from the pilot

2006 Public

Scharnhorst, W., 2006. Life cycle assessment of second generation (2G) and third generation (3G) mobile

phone networks. Environment International 2006 Public

Scharnhorst,W., 2006. Life Cycle Assessment in the Telecommunication Industry: A Review. Int J LCA 2006 Public

Singhal, P., 2005. Integrated Product Policy Pilot Project – Stage I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Issues of Mobile Phones. NOKIA, Espoo, Finland

2005 Public

Tan, K.C.N., 2005. Life Cycle Assessment of a Mobile Phone Dissertation at University of Southern Queensland 2005 Public


Apple, 2011. Ipad Environmental Report. Available at: http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPad_2_Environmental_Report.pdf [Accessed September 2011]

2011 Public

Apple, 2011. MacBook Environmental Report. Available at: http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/MacBook-Pro-15-inch-Environmental-Report-Feb2011.pdf .

[Accessed September 2011].

2011 Public

Nokia, 2011. Nokia product declaration X7-00.1. Available at: http://nds1.nokia.com/eco_declaration/files/eco_declaration_phones/X7-00.1_Eco_profile.pdf [Accessed 15th September]

2011 Public


4. Complex processing electronics

Yang, B. Luo, Y. Zhou, M., 2000. A fuzzy logic-based lifecycle comparison of digital and filmcameras. Electronics and the Environment, 2000. ISEE 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Symposium on On page(s): 304-309

2000 Public

Best Foot Forward, 2006. An Ecological Footprint and Carbon Audit of CD player BB-01- DAB Intempo Digital 2006 Private

Best Foot Forward, 2006. The Carbon footprint of Computing 2006 Private

Best Foot Forward, 2009. A Carbon Footprint Analysis of the GLA IT Infrastructure and selected Projects 2009 Private

Complex set-top boxes for digital television (Simple STBs) Preparatory Study EuP Final Report Lot 18 Public

Duan, Eugster, Hischier, 2008. Life Cycle Assessment Study of a Chinese Desktop Computer. Science of the Total Environment. Vol 405

2008 Public

Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Set top boxes 2008 Public

University of Southern Queensland, 2005. Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, Life Cycle Assessment of a Personal Computer

2005 Public


IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation, 2005. Personal Computers (desktops and laptops) and 2006 Public

http://nds1.nokia.com/eco_declaration/files/eco_declaration_phones/X7-00.1_Eco_profile.pdf





Date

Confidentiality

computer monitors, Preparatory Study EuP Lot 4

4. Complex processing electronics

Fujitsu, 2010. White Paper Life Cycle Assessment and Product Carbon Footprint - Fujitsu ESPRIMO E9900 Desktop PC (Accessed September 2011) 2010 Public

MVV Consulting GmbH, 2007. Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs: Simple Digital TV Converters (Simple Set Top Boxes)Report to European Commission (Accessed September 2011) 2007 Public


5. Simple processing electronics

IZM and PE Europe, 2007. Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II): Lot 4 “Imaging Equipment”. Report to European Commission (Accessed September 2011)

2007 Public

Kyocera Mita, unknown. Implementation of LCA. Available at: http://www.kyoceramita.com/environment/product/lca.html [Accessed September 2011]

Unknown Public

6. External Power Supplies

ABB Oy, Machines. Environmental Product Declaration AC generator type AMG 0900, 5125 kVA power Unknown Public

UMEC, 2008. Environmental Product Declaration AC DC Adapter 2008 Public

8. Single function pumps and motors

AEA Energy and Environment, 2009. Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II): Lot 17 Vacuum Cleaners Final Report. Report to European Commission (Accessed September 2011)

2009 Public

ETA.a.s., 2005. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD): Floor Vacuum Cleaner ETA 1450 Promixo (LCA and Bill of Materials)

2005 Public

European Commission, 2004. Product Fact Sheet: The European eco-label for vacuum cleaners 2004 Public


Young Joon, A. and Kyeong Won, L., 2006. Application of Axiomatic Design and TRIZ in Ecodesign. The examples of Eco-design: Vacuum Cleaners

2006 Public

Design Decisions Wiki - Blender (Bill of Materials and LCA) (http://ddl.me.cmu.edu/ddwiki/index.php/Blender#LCA)

Public

WRAP 2010, Bills of Materials - Electrical goods. 2010 Public

9. Battery powered pumps and motors


Electric Toothbrush (Bill of Materials) (http://www.personal.psu.edu/fme5002/projecthome.htm) 2007 Public

Climatop, 2010. CO2 Balance: Batteries ( A translation from original German text) 2010 Public

Hawkins,T, Majeau-Bettez, G., Gaussen, O. And Strømman, AH., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of NiMH and Li Ion Battery Electric Vehicles

2010 Public

McDowall, J. and Siret, C. Energy - saving batteries - Green or greenwash? 2009 Public

Öko-Institut e.V., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for HEV Application. 2010 Public

WRAP 2010, Bills of Materials - Electrical goods 2010 Public

10. Spatial cooling

ARAP, 2002. Household Refrigerators - A Working Example, The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Available at: http://www.arap.org/print/docs/household.html. Date accessed: June 17, 2004

2002 Public

ENEA, 2007. Domestic Refrigerators and freezers, Preparatory Study EuP Lot 13 2007 Public

Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Refrigeration Products 2008 Public

European Commission, 2004. Product Fact Sheet: The European eco-label for refrigerators 2004 Public

Horie, Y.A. Life Cycle Optimization of Household Refrigerator-Freezer Replacement. Center for Sustainable Systems, Univ. of Michigan Report No. CSS04-

2004 Public

http://www.kyoceramita.com/environment/product/lca.html

http://www.kyoceramita.com/environment/product/lca.html



Date

Confidentiality

Kim, H.C., Keoleian, G. and Horie, Y., 2005. Optimal Refrigerator replacement Policy for Life Cycle Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Cost. Energy Policy In Press

2005 Public

10. Spatial cooling

Rüdenauer, I.and Gensch, C. O. 2007. Environmental and economic evaluation of the accelerated replacement of domestic appliances - Case study refrigerators and freezers. Öko-Institut e.V.

2007 Public

Steiner, R., 2005. TIMELY REPLACEMENT OF WHITE GOODS – INVESTIGATION OF MODERN APPLIANCES IN A LCA (ESU-services) Available at: http://www.esu-services.ch/download/Steiner-2005-TimelyReplacement.pdf

2005 Public


Electrolux, 2000. Certified Environmental Product Declaration for ER 8199B. [Online EPD] Available at: http://www.leonardo-energy.org/webfm_send/612. [Accessed 16th May 2011]

2000 Public

ISIS, 2007. Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs: Lot 13 Domestic Refrigerators

and Freezers. Report to European Commission (Accessed September 2011) 2007 Public

Öko-Institut e.V.., 2007. Environmental and economic evaluation of the accelerated replacement of domestic appliances. (Accessed September 2011)

2007 Public

11. Spatial heating

Bevilacqua, M., Caresana, F., Comodi, G., and Venella, P., 2010. Life cycle assessment of a domestic cooker hood

2010 Public

Dettling, J. and Margni, M., 2009. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Hand Drying Systems: The XLERATOR Hand Dryer, Conventional Hand Dryers and Paper Towel Systems

2009 Public

Hansen, M.S., 2003. Life Cycle Assessment of two Electrolux electric cookers: ELK8200AL and EKV5600, Institut for Produktion og Ledelse, Technical University of Denmark

2003 Public

Baxi S.p.A. 2009. EPD BAXI WALL HUNG CONDENSING BOILER LUNA 4 2009 Public

Otto, R., Ruminy, A. and Mrotzek, H., 2006. Energy Consumption; Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Household Appliances, BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, Appliance Magazine Engineering

2006 Public

Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III). Lot 23 Domestic and commercial hobs and grills included when incorporated into cookers

2011 Public

12. Multi-function appliances

Bole, 2006. Life-Cycle Optimization of Residential Clothes Washer Replacement. Centre for Sustainable Systems. University of Michigan

2006 Public

Ecobilan and PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008. Ecodesign of Laundry Dryers: Preparatory studies for Ecodesign requirements of Energy using-Products (EuP) – Lot 16. European Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General for Energy and Transport

2008 Public

ENEA, 2007. Domestic dishwashers and washing machines, Preparatory Study EuP Lot 14 2007 Public

Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Washing Machines 2008 Public

EU Eco-label for washing machines Public

European Commission, 2004. Product Fact Sheet: The European eco-label for washing machines 2004 Public

European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries, Eco Design Package, Consumer Product Dishwasher Casing

Unknown Public

Hinells. M. Parallels between energy efficiency in domestic appliances and environmental lifecycle analysis of products. Manchester Metropolitan University

1993 Public

Oko Institute, 2004. Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Washing machines – Life Cycle Assessment and determination of optimal life span

2004 Public



Date

Confidentiality

Oko Institute, 2005. Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Washing machines Refinement of Task 4: Further use versus substitution of washing machines in stock

2005 Public

12. Multi-function appliances

Otto, R., Ruminy, A. and Mrotzek, H., 2006. Energy Consumption; Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Household Appliances, BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, Appliance Magazine Engineering 2006 Public

Roy. R, 1997. 'Design for Environment' in practice - development of the Hoover 'New Wave' washing machine model. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design Issue 1

1997 Public

Rudenauer, I. , 2005. Replacing old home appliances with new ones – The findings of Öko-Institut studies. Ppt presentation

2005 Public

Rüdenauer, I. and Gensch, C.O., 2005. Environmental and economic evaluation of the accelerated

replacement of domestic appliances 2005 Public

Steiner, R., 2005. TIMELY REPLACEMENT OF WHITE GOODS – INVESTIGATION OF MODERN APPLIANCES IN A LCA (ESU-services). Available at: http://www.esu-services.ch/download/Steiner-2005-TimelyReplacement.pdf

2005 Public

WRAP, 2009. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Study of Replacement and Refurbishment options for domestic washing machines. ERM

2009 Public

ISIS, 2007. Work on Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs:. Lot 14 Domestic Washing Machines and Dishwashers. (Accessed September 2011)

2007 Public

13. Other appliances

Market Transformation Programme, 2008. BNCK06: Trends in kettle type and usage and possible impact on energy consumption

2008 Public

Sweatman, A. and Gertsakis, J. Eco-kettle: Keeping the kettle boiling. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Design

and Contextual Studies 2001 Public


Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Work on Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III). Lot 25 Non-Tertiary coffee Machines. (Accessed October 2011)

2011 Public


14. Microwaves Bio Intelligence, Cobham, 2009. Domestic and commercial ovens (electric, gas and microwave) Preparatory Study Lot 22 - NO DOCUMENTS FINISHED YET

2009 Public

Energy Saving Trust, 2008. Commercial Buyer's Guide - Microwaves and Ovens 2008 Public


Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Work on Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III). Lot 22

Domestic and commercial ovens, including when incorporated in cookers. (Accessed September 2011) 2011 Public


15. Lighting Couillard, S. Bage, G. and Trudel, J.S. 2009. Comparative LCA of artificial vs natural Christmas tree 2009 Public

NTNU, 2009. Environmental Declaration ISO 14025, Memo, Calypso, Movero and Vision. Available at: http://www.epd-norge.no/getfile.php/PDF/EPD/Energi/NEPD%20129E%20asy%20lamper.pdf. [Accessed August 2011]

2009 Public

AEA Technology Environment, 1999. Revising the ecolabel criteria for lamps. 1999 Public

Electrolux, 2000. Certified Environmental Product Declaration for ER 8199B. [Online EPD] Available at: http://www.leonardo-energy.org/webfm_send/612. [Accessed August 2011]

2000 Public



Date

Confidentiality

Gydesen, A. and Maimann, D. Lifecycle Analyses of Integral Compact Fluorescent Lamps versus Incandescent Lamps

Unknown but 90s Public

15. Lighting

OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH and Siemens Corporate Technology, 2009. Life Cycle Assessment of Illuminants A Comparison of Light Bulbs, Compact Fluorescent Lamps and LED Lamps

2009 Public

Vito, 2009. Work on Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs: Final report Lot 19: Domestic lighting. (Accessed September 2011)

2009 Public

16. Solar PV

Alsema, E.A. and Wild-Scholten, M.J. 2004. Environmental life cycle assessment of advanced silicon solar cell technologies. Presented at the 19th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 7-11 June 2004, Paris

2004 Public

Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse, 2008. The Potential for Remanufacturing of Photovoltaic Solar Cells 2008 Public

Fthenakis, V, Chul Kim, H, and Alsema, E., 2008. Emissions from photovoltaic life cycles. Environ. Sci.

Technolo. 42, p. 2168-2174 2008 Public

Jungbluth, N. 2005. Life cycle assessment of Crystalline Photovoltaics in the Swiss ecoinvent Database 2005 Private

Jungbluth, N., Stucki, M., Frischknecht, R., 2009. Ecoinvent - Part XII Photovoltaics 2009 Private

Raugei, M., Bargigli, S. and Ulgiati, S. Energy and life cycle assessment of thin film CdTe photovoltaic modules 2004 Public

Sherwani, A.F., Usmani, J.A. and Varun, C. 2010. Life cycle assessment of solar PV based electricity generation systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 p. 540-544

2010 Public

Stopatto, A. 2008. Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic electricity generation. Energy 33, p. 224-232 2008 Public

17. Household wind turbine

Allen, S.R., Hammond, G.P., McManus, M.C., . Energy Analysis and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a Micro-Wind Turbine.

2008 Public

Bennett, S.j., 2007. Review of existing life cycle assessment studies of microgeneration technologies. Report for EST

2007 Public

Fleck, B. and Huot, M., 2009. Comparative life-cycle assessment of a small wind turbine for residential off-grid use. Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 2688–2696.

2009 Public

Rankine, R.K., Chick, J.P., Harrison, G.P., 2006. Energy and carbon audit of a rooftop wind turbine. Proceedings of the IMechE, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 2006 220:643 2006 Public

Tremeac, B. and Meunier, F., 2009. Life cycle analysis of 4.4MW and 250MW wind turbines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Vol. 13, pp. 2104-2110

2009 Public

General sources

Best Foot Forward, 2006. Youthful energy 2006 Private

Best Foot Forward, 2007. Investigating the Opportunity for Resonant yet Robust Communication of the Environmental Impacts of Products

2007 Private

Billett. E. Eco-design: Practical Tools for Designers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Design and Contextual Studies

Public

BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GMBH, 2009. Environmental and Corporate Responsibility 2009 Public

Buchert, M., Schüler, D., Jenseit, W. , 2009. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for HEV Application

2009 Public

California Energy Commission, 2005. Optimization of product life cycles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California

2005 Public

Cullen, J. M. and Allwood, J. M., 2009. The Role of Washing Machines in Life Cycle Assessment Studies: The Dangers of Using LCA for Prioritization. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 13, Number 1, February 2009 ,

2009 Public



Date

Confidentiality

pp. 27-37

General sources Geraghty, K. Goosey, M. and Shayler, M., 2006. Life Cycle Analysis Considerations for New and Emerging Recycling Technologies

2006 Public

Graedel, 1997. Designing the Ideal Green Product: LCA/SCLA in Reverse. Life Cycle Thinking. Int. J. LCA 2 (1) 25-31

1997 Public

Hur, T., Lee, J., Ryu, J., and Kwon, E., 2005. Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product system; Journal of Environmental Management; Volume 75, Issue 3, Pages 229-237

2005 Public

M. F. Ashby. Materials and the Environment: Eco-Informed Material Choice. Page 153 (LCA and Bill of

Materials) 2009 Public

Neto, J.Q.F., 2008. Eco-efficient Supply Chains for Electrical and Electronic Products. Erasmus Research Institute of Management - ERIM

2008 Public

Nolan ITU, 2004. Electrical and Electronic Products Infrastructure Facilitation. Centre for Design at RMIT and Product Ecology Pty Ltd

2004 Public

Pil-Ju Park, a, , Kiyotaka Taharaa and Atsushi Inaba; Product quality-based eco-efficiency applied to digital cameras Journal of Environmental Management Vol 83 Issue 2 2007 Public

Sun,M., 2004. Integrated Environmental Assessment of Industrial Products. The University of New South Wales

2004 Public

Tak Hur, Jiyong Lee, Jiyeon Ryu and Eunsun Kwon (2005): Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product system; Journal of Environmental Management; Volume 75, Issue 3, Pages 229-237

2005 Public


www.wrap.org.uk/psf

Documents

Part 3: Methodology Report Reducing the environmental … EP Priority Products Part3... · Part 3: Methodology Report Reducing the environmental and ... PDP plasma display panel